• survivorseason44@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That makes no sense for Michigan at all. I’d imagine Michigan land use is mostly forest (so much national forest/protected wetlands here), then agriculture, then urban space (Metro Detroit is most of this), then a little pasture. The only way “idle” makes sense to me is if any protected forest/natural land is considered “idle”

    • nzodd@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      But it’s clearly not broken down by state. Surely it would be nonsensical to put all of airports in the country in a giant square in southern Texas, right? That’s not what this map is intending to say.

      • survivorseason44@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know this map isn’t clearly broken down by state, which is (part of) why this map struggles to communicate what it’s trying to say IMO. I think the first map in the linked Bloomberg article (with land use data broken down on a more granular level) does a better job at communicating the same trends

    • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The chart represents overall land use for the country. Where those blocks are isn’t important. It isn’t say Michigan is all idle/fallow land, it’s saying that throughout all of the US the amount of idle/fallow land is roughly the size of Michigan.