this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
373 points (98.4% liked)

Data Is Beautiful

7303 readers
88 users here now

A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zacryon@feddit.org 6 points 13 hours ago

So, if most people are going vegan, there would be much more space for other stuff, yes?

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

I think the graphic would be better if some of the data were nested by size and relationship. IOW Agricultural land would have grazing, food production, feed production, etc. in decreasing size nested over an area. Might give greater sense of how much land is used for ag. Same for forestry; Forestry, parks, commercial logging, etc.

[–] wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works 2 points 19 hours ago

Tobacco is still at least 2,000x too big.

[–] aphonefriend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So nice of the 100 largest land owning families to have the same amount of land as the entire urban or rural housing population of the rest of the country. I assume it's to fatten themselves up for the rest of us just like the cows.

When do we get to eat them again?

Shit I'm hungry now I'll start the smoker

[–] SuperCub@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] vanta@lemm.ee 2 points 13 hours ago

Ban golf and replace all courses with public housing

[–] INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone 11 points 1 day ago

Yeah that land could be used for more christmas trees

[–] cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 day ago
[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 6 points 1 day ago

Man that guy Urban needs so many houses... What does he even do with them all?

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 80 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It seems a little inefficient to put all the airports together

[–] huquad@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

Its really not so bad once you get over the 12 hour drive.

[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 59 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Why do they keep allocating land to wildfires if they're so destructive? /s

[–] troybot@midwest.social 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's the federal wildfire sanctuary established by president William McKinney. While most fire has been domesticated, the remaining feral fire is allowed to burn free in Utah.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ray@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Gotta see one of these with parking.

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It would be a subset of "urban commercial", right? Somewhere in the range of half to three-quarters of it?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Wahots@pawb.social 52 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Golf is way too big, imo. No other sport even makes the list here.

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 24 points 1 day ago

Maybe we can combine it with "wildfires".

[–] RecipeForHate1@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

Get rid of livestock

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Defense is a surprisingly large use of land. How is that? Can anyone explain the most land intensive uses of the Armed Forces? Like tank training areas maybe?

[–] kalpol@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Mikitary bases are pretty big. Air force, army, national guard, naval air stations, naval bases, there is a lot going on there.

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Can't forget that military bases are communities where people live, too. Not just barracks and mess halls for individuals, but there are full neighborhoods and shopping centers for families.*

*My knowledge on this is limited, I just remember visiting a family member on base when I was younger.

[–] kalpol@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

This is correct

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's quite interesting that "rural highways" is one of the categories identified, but not any other sort of improved road. The data source has a base granularity where one square is 250,000 acres (~100,000 hectares), and then additional state data is factored in for increased precision. It supposingly being USDA data, they might primarily care only about those highways used to connect farms to the national markets.

That said, I would be keenly interested in the land used for low-volume, residential streets that support suburban and rural sprawl, in comparison to streets in urban areas. Unlike highways which provides fast connectivity, and unlike dense urban-core streets that produce value by hosting local businesses and serving local residents, suburban streets take up space, intentional break connectivity (ie cul de sacs), and ultimately return very little in value to anyone except to the adjacent homeowners, essentially as extensions of their privately-owned driveways.

It may very well be in USDA's interest to collect data on suburban sprawl, as much of the land taken for such developments was perfectly good, arable land.

[–] littletoolshed@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I love this visualization and for some reason your comment made me also wish we had this data correlated with the water usage for each land use category.

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago

There'd be a square or two which just say "Nestlé" lol

[–] MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Can we put the 100 largest landowning families in Florida, then saw it off from the rest of the country?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TehWorld@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I have certainly heard of Weyerhauser, but had no idea they were that big. They're the only 'individual' owner shown. The land-owning families is odd as I'm sure it overlaps a lot with pasture and private timberland.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago

They have rights to nearly all the timberland in washington, which covers about half the state. They're unbelievably huge, it's ridiculous.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 11 points 1 day ago (8 children)

And people will still say that the meat/dairy industry aren't a plague

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 17 points 1 day ago

"Wildfires" is a surprisingly large area. I wonder what the 2025 area for it is.

[–] Killercat103@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago

Food we eat is sepperate from cow pastures...

Nice!

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I would love to flip the railroad usage and cow pasture usage.

Also, mfs drinking too much corn syrup.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Where's the amounts used strictly for cars?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Remember, not all land is the same. Some is too dry to grow human food. Some too wet. There are also other things that land is either too or not enough.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I bet we could still multiply output by a decent number by replacing meat production with directly edible crops, if there was a need for it

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Most pasture/grazing land simply isn't suitable for crop farming, which is why we use it for pasture. Be it because of water retention or lacking topsoil or whatever, it's often the case that the only feasible way to produce food from an area is livestock farming.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The "livestock feed" section of the graph looks more than twice as big as "Food we eat", and at least some of the pasture land (much larger than both) has got to be viable, even if it mostly isn't.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 0 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Sure, and there's a very important discussion to be had about the influence livestock has on the environment. But that's a separate topic from the usefulness of pasture land for alternate purposes.

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 6 points 1 day ago

It us wild that there is not a need. Distribution is (or was) the issue. Very sad humans refuse to feed others.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›