The pitfalls of mapping biomonitoring data
(1) University of Brescia, Italy; (2) University of Siena, Italy
Every mapmaker knows that dealing with maps means dealing with unavoidable errors due to the transposition of a sub-rounded surface into a flat plane. Moreover, every time a phenomenon is represented, a number of subjective choices are required to the mapmaker: colors, details to be represented, scale, style and many others items could seem just aesthetic and non-crucial features, but for the reader they are “the truth” the map is telling and, unconsciously, everyone draws conclusions through these “non-crucial” features. It turns that a single map carries a number of “errors” or “I would have done differently” choices that could result in different messages to the audience. With the spreading of geographic based information and (open source) GIS software, many of us are dealing with maps to represent pollution, deposition, biodiversity and every kind of natural/anthropic phenomena. Based on our experience, the pitfalls in building reliable maps are numerous, ranging from the not-perfect handling of the software to the clarity of the message we want to communicate with our maps. Moreover, studies presenting interpolated maps very rarely account for the associated uncertainty or present a sensitivity analysis to check the robustness of the outcomes. This work is a brief collection of some of the pitfalls we have encountered but also some common mistakes we have made during the years that could have affected the communication of the biomonitoring campaigns, hoping that sharing those could prevent others to do the same.
Keywords:
