Project - Albertine Rift Pipeline Analysis (Part 2)
Overview
In Part 1 of this exercise, we assembled the data, executed the analysis, and prepared raw results for our project comparing the impacts of two proposed pipeline scenarios. Here in Part 2, we focus on presenting the output of that analysis – an often overlooked, but exceedingly important component of project-based geospatial analysis.
We begin by critiquing our initial effort at reporting the results. This can be done individually, but is best done with others who may provide a different perspective on the presentation but will definitely a fresh set of eyes to spot simple fixes that you may have missed. In lecture we will have reviewed a number of considerations and techniques for presenting results effectively. Use these as you see fit, but always keep in mind these fundamental concepts when reporting the results of your geospatial analyses:
- There are always different ways to present the results of your analysis.
- Remind yourself what it is you are trying to communicate, i.e., your message. Remove any material that does not contribute to this message.
- Know your audience, and tailor your message to best suit the depth of knowledge, interest, and needs of that audience.
I’ve also posted ESRIs Map Evaluation Guidelines, in case you find that helpful.
Assignment/Grading
With these points in mind, revise the work you performed in Part 1 and submit a short memo conveying the results of your Albertine Rift pipeline analysis to meet the scenario described below. Submit an electronic version of your memo and your project workspace - cleaned of extraneous/temporary files and zipped into a single .ZIP file – onto Canvas. Before zipping the workspace, please rename your folder to something with your netID in it, e.g. “project1_abc123”.**
Your submission will be graded on the following points (pertaining to both Parts 1 and 2):
-
Workspace organization
-
Ability to prepare the pipeline dataset provided you
-
Ability to locate, download, and prepare the population, wetlands, and planning area datasets
-
Accuracy of your spatial analysis
-
Effectiveness in presenting results clearly and concisely
Realizing that there is no single correct way to achieve many of these points, scoring will have a good degree of leniency, meaning if you do a reasonable job addressing each point you will get a reasonable score. That said, however, I will reserve the highest marks for those with the most impressive submissions.
Scenario/Deliverables
After some clarifying conversations with the African Conservation Organization (who initially asked you to do this analysis), you’re relieved to find that the ACO is not looking for you to recommend which pipeline should be built, but rather to provide them with some materials that will help them present their case on which pipeline to recommend. These include:
-
A table/chart/graph listing the values for the three criteria specified (population, area of wetlands, and length in protected area) for the two proposed pipelines, with a clear indication of which pipeline route has the least impact for each criteria.
-
A map (or set of maps) for each of the three criteria displaying the spatial extent of each impact (e.g. the amount of wetland falling within 2.5 km of pipeline route 1). These maps will likely be used in the ACO’s presentation to the pipeline review board. The board members are familiar with the pipeline routes and the general area where the pipelines go, but have no deep knowledge about population patterns, the extent of wetlands or where protected areas fall in Uganda.
These results should be presented in the format of a brief memo addressed to Grace Nangendo and Geoffrey Mwedde of the Albertine Rift Group of the African Conservation Organization. Include in this memo any relevant information on your data sources, your analysis, or anything else that you feel people drawing any conclusions from your results should be made aware of.