Lab 2
Improperly referenced spatial data is a common issue when creating GIS maps, especially if the data is sourced from multiple locations. Often times, complications of misaligned and improperly referenced spatial data will occur in the distance, shape, area, scale or direction of the data. There are certain ways to mitigate these problems, one being the careful wording when selecting by attributes. It is critical to input the correct search terms in the query, for example ‘AND’ vs. ‘OR’ will yield very different results, where AND will provide all the matches with the two attributes selected, and OR will generate a more specific answer of one or the other attribute.
It is also key to use the best suited projection for the map you wish to produce. For question 4 of Lab 2, the best suited projection system was the Azimuthal equidistant projection to figure out the distance between Vancouver Halifax. This projection does not distort distances like other projections, therefore was the best to use for the given spatial data. Another way to align spatial data is using the Projection-on-the-fly tool. This practical feature of ArcMap aligns different spatial coordinate systems for display and mapping. This tool does not change the projection of a map, rather it lines up the layer’s features in ArcMap so the map may be more easily interpreted. In comparison, the ArcToolbox Project and Transformation command alters the actual coordinate system of the layer which can significantly impact the graphical analysis. This feature modifies the data to create a new version of the data layer with a different coordinate system, therefore it is not possible to change information of layers as easily.
Furthermore, using remotely sensed Landsat data for geographic analysis can be advantageous when mapping large scale physically altering natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis or a tornado. This technique is extremely useful when gathering information about areas that would not be accessible from the ground, for example a volcanic eruption that would be too hazardous to survey immediately. Landsat data has capabilities to show details of large areas from a bird’s eye view with lots of raster detailing over a 16-day cycle. This type of data is useful because the images can be used to observe changes of land areas over time, which often times cannot be viewed by the naked eye. On a technological level, Landsat data is always available in digital form, meaning ease of access and compatibility with a computer.
Lab 3
The percentage of the City of Vancouver’s total area affected by the potential Tsunami is 15.5%. I found total area of Vancouver danger zone from the attribute table and total area of Vancouver in attribute table and then divided danger area by total area to find what percentage of City of Vancouver is affected by potential Tsunami.
The following is a list of healthcare and educational facilities within the Vancouver danger zone:
Healthcare facilities within danger zone:
- Institute of Indigenous Government (IIG)
- False Creek Residence
- Broadway Pentecostal Lodge
- Coast West Community Home
- Yaletown House Society
- Villa Cathay Care Home
Educational facilities within danger zone:
- St Anthony of Padua
- Ecole Rose Des Vents
- Heritage 3R’s School
- Vancouver Montessori School
- False Creek Elementary
- Emily Carr Institute of Art & Design (ECIAD)
- Henry Hudson Elementary
- St John’s International
- St Francis Xavier
I used the clip tool to input Vancouver_Health and Vancouver_Education clipped with
Vancouver_Danger to create new layers where I could open up the attribute table and find the schools and healthcare facilities located within the City of Vancouver danger zone.
Lab 4
Quantitative Data Classification
By observing the above map, it shows the four different data class methods that can be used to displayed housing cost data in Vancouver. Our lab asked us two scenarios in which different data lass methods would be more beneficial. If I was a journalist, I would use natural breaks to show housing cost in Vancouver as this classification shows the natural intervals of housing costs from the partitioned data. This helps visualize which areas are the least expensive and most expensive in terms of cost classifications that are similar to each other, and shows the contrast between the highest categories of pricing in bright red, versus the lowest interval of prices in yellow. The contrast is a great thing for journalists to utilize to create a stir in media and expose the extreme unaffordability in areas in Vancouver such as the UBC area.
As a real estate agent I would use equal interval for the simplicity of standard divisions of pricing categories, as well as making it visually seem like cost of housing is relatively even throughout Vancouver, with only a few darker red areas. Since the intervals start at a higher price point, most of Vancouver looks like it falls into lower categories, showing an illusion of more affordable housing and less contrast from the UBC area to the rest of Vancouver.
These scenarios exemplify the ethical implications for all the classification methods as it depends on the purpose of the chosen map. A journalist might manipulate their map of choice to exaggerate housing costs in Vancouver for shock effect, and the choice of a real estate agent could be unethical as the equal interval map does not visually show how much the UBC properties deviate from the standard as they are some of the most expensive in Vancouver. Overall, this lab displayed how biases can be a factor in deciding how you want your data to be represented.
Housing affordability
Lab 4 Housing Affordability Map
Affordability is measuring the ratio of median household income to housing costs. This is a better indicator of housing affordability than housing cost alone because it provides a comparison in two different major cities in Canada relative to their average incomes and house pricing. The prices of housing alone is not a suitable indicator as costs vary province to province, but drawing data of people’s median household incomes provides context of the relative affordability for individual city dwellers.
The housing affordability rating categories are:
- Severely Unaffordable (median and multiple value of 5.1 and higher)
- Seriously Unaffordable (median and multiple value of 4.1 to 5.0)
- Moderately Unaffordable (median and multiple value of 3.1 to 4.0)
- Affordable (median and multiple value of 3.0 and under)
These categories were determined by the 11th Annual demographia International Housing Affordability survey and can be trusted because this survey covered 378 metropolitan markets in nine countries and is recommended by the world bank and United Nations for assessing affordability. The wide scope of their research as well as diversity of data and thorough categorizations makes this survey trustworthy to make judgements about housing affordability.
Affordability is not a good indicator of a city’s ‘livability’ as they are two separate categories that base information off of different indicators. Affordability is a lot more quantitative as it relies on income and prices, whereas livability makes more qualitative conclusions based on factors such as employment availability, air quality, access to health care, and education. Vancouver is consistently rated as one of the most livable cities, however this lab reveals that it is severely unaffordable in almost all areas based on people’s median incomes.
Lab 5
Lab 5 Hillshade of project area map
Memo:
Environmental Assessment Map produced for Northland Properties and Aquilini Investment Group of Vancouver
Project Proposal
The client has proposed to build a year-round destination mountain resort on Brohm Ridge, 15 km north of Squamish on Highway 99, 80 km north of Vancouver, and 45 km south of Whistler. This project is expected to generate 900 construction jobs and employment opportunities for 2500 people during the operation. The ski resort is approximated to have a construction duration of 20 years. As per the the BC Environmental Assessment Office’s concerns on lacking environmental impact assessments on vegetation and fish and wildlife habitat, as well as 14-page opposition report by the Resort Municipality of Whistler, the client has asked me to analyze the environmental situation of Brohm Ridge and assess the significance of impact on various resources and environmental factors in the proposed project boundary. Therefore, I have prepared this document to address the criticisms and concerns of the proposal and offer recommendations to Northland Properties and Aquilini Investment Group on which priorities they should proceed with.
Data Procedure
To analyze the data, I had to keep in consideration the main objections towards the proposal to properly address these issues. I gathered data from DataBC to obtain geographic information on the proposed project area. These are the summarized steps taken to analyze the data obtained:
- Acquire Data:
- Gathered data from DataBC about the Ungulate Winter Range as well as Old Growth Management Areas. Then also acquired data on the TRIM (Terrestrial Resource Information Management) including project boundary, terrestrial ecosystem mapping, digital elevation model in BC, parks and protected areas boundary, contours, roads, and rivers. I then used all this data to a geodatabase that represented the data into various layers.
- Parsing Data:
- Adjusted the data to fit the same mapping projections to reduce distorted and so the final results could be clearly marked and read.
- Filtering data:
- Disposed of unwanted data that fell outside of the project region. I clipped my data strictly to the project boundary to focus the attention on environmental factors affecting the specific area.
- Data Mining:
- Sorted through the data I had to find information on the environmental risks and concerns proposed by stakeholders. I used ArcMap to make calculations on areas below 600m where there were concerns on snow availability, and how much of the proposed resort areas encompasses old growth forests, red-listed species, ungulate range areas, road accessibility, and riparian zones.
Results
The results of my research revealed that the unionized area of old growth forest, ungulate habitat, red-listed species and fish habitat constitutes 53.7% of the proposed project area. About 67.9% of that proposed region is protected, and 31.8% falls under the 600m elevation. Arguably, if the proposed recreational activities take place above the 600m elevation, they might not have as significant disturbance to red-listed species habitats and riparian habitats as those mostly fall below the 600m area. However, this leaves less than half of the proposed project area to use for construction.The two greatest concerns are the significant impacts on ungulate winter range and old growth forests which are widespread through the project area. Strategic planning in reducing disturbance of the ungulate winter range and old growth forest areas would need to be implemented in some form of “safe zones” as the state of these areas are fragile to the environment. Strict policy in minimizing human interaction with these safe zones and densifying resort activities in areas that will not disturb the protected habitats is crucial. It will be difficult to carry out the intended project plan without rescaling to a smaller area in order to keep protected the areas free from commercialization and environmental risks. It is unadvised for the company to build the Squamish Ski Hill if they wish to upkeep the scale and extravagance of their proposal. Only 68.2% of the area will be expected to gain a reasonable snow coverage for recreational activities, and this, along with the disturbance to the ungulate winter range and old growth forests are potentially harmful factors to consider in the construction of this 20 year plan. I would recommend seeking out another site that would be better suited to this destination mountain resort.
Thank you for your consideration,
Bethany Wat | Natural Resource Planner for Wat INC.
Personal thoughts:
I do not personally think that the project should be allowed to continue based on the 31.8% that falls beneath the 600m elevation which will cause concerns on suitability of conditions and unpredictability of precipitation. I also think that the project could cause significant impacts on
ungulate winter range and old growth forests which are widespread through the project area. The environmental impacts seem to outweigh the benefits of constructing a resort in the Squamish Garibaldi Mountain, and I have presented these concerns in my memo.