The perception of “Up North” that many individuals who live in Wisconsin have is an obscure concept for individuals outside of the state of Wisconsin. For many the idea of up north is simply viewed as the directional component, meaning north, south, east and west are merely a direction. However, individuals who inhabit that state of Wisconsin possess a conceptual idea of “Up North” attaching specific characteristics to the overall meaning. Certain characteristics connected to this perception may include forested land cover, cottages, and also deer hunting. To determine whether or not certain characteristics such as these truly capture the true Wisconsin meaning of “Up North” spatial representations are required. Mapping these variables and defining a boundary dividing north and south by Highway 29, creates a visuals perspective of the connection between the directionality and the characteristics that define “Up North”. Not only will spatial representations help define a connection between distinct variables and “Up North” but will also determine whether or not northern Wisconsin is distinctly different than southern Wisconsin overall. Therefore hypotheses testing becomes necessary to interpret noticeable differences. The null hypothesis stating that there is no difference between northern and southern Wisconsin according to the observed variables, compared to the alternative hypothesis stating that there is a difference between northern and southern Wisconsin according to the observed variables, must be considered.
Methodology:
In order to determine distinct differences between northern and southern Wisconsin and establish a concept of “Up North”, a finite boundary dividing what is northern Wisconsin and southern Wisconsin must be created. Highway 29, running east and west through the state of Wisconsin fairly accurately divides that state into north and south segments. After a distinct boundary has been created, certain variables, many individuals associate with “Up North”, can be mapped in order to identify specific correlations between these characteristics and the actual northern part of Wisconsin. In addition to establishing these correlations, differences between the north and south can also be interpreted.
SCORP data, collected from the DNR, provides a variety of characteristics unique to Wisconsin. Several of these characteristics accurately reflect the Wisconsin perception of “Up North”. Specific data for variables such as amount of forested land cover, number of cottages, and number of deer gun licenses throughout the state can be mapped to display any spatial relationships which differentiate the north from the south. Data for each of the three variables were mapped into separate representations using a graduated color choropleth map. These maps show a division of four classes representing the saturation for each variable at the county level. The county level representation of the data provides the means to identify spatial patterns in terms of the amount of forest acreage, number of cottages, and number of deer gun licenses.
To further identify differences between northern Wisconsin and southern Wisconsin, statistical chi squared testing of the data for each variable can be used in correlation with the mapped representations. Chi squared testing gives a numeric value for each variable comparing the observed distribution of each variable with the expected distribution. Calculating chi squared provides a statistical measure of how the observed variables are distributed throughout the state in respect to the expected distribution, with a significance level of 95 percent. This testing will indicate whether or not the observed variables for forest acreage, number of cottages, and number of deer gun licenses fit the expected distribution or if they are significantly different. Therefore, if there is a difference in the observed data compared to the expected distribution there is a difference between northern and southern Wisconsin in terms of these characteristics.
Results:
Chi squared testing for forest acreage, number of cottages, and deer gun licenses with a significance value of 95 percent produced similar results. The outcome of the chi squared testing for all three variables was less than 0.5. The chi squared for deer gun licenses is 0.445, the number of cottages it is 0.482, and the amount of forest acreage it is 0.445. All three of these values are less than 0.5 or 5 percent, indicating the observed variables fall outside the significance value of 95 percent. Because they fall outside the 95 percent significance value, it is clear that these factors are not reflective of the expected distribution and there is a clear difference between northern and southern Wisconsin in terms of these characteristics. Not only does the chi squared testing of the data for each variable identify a difference between the north and south, but the spatial representation of the mapped variables portrays an identifiable difference as well.
The Map Representing the number of cottages per county strongly reflects a greater number of cottages in the northern part of the state. With the exception of three counties in southern Wisconsin there are less than 2519 cottages in each county, which is significantly less than the northern part of the state. More than 10 counties in Northern Wisconsin have 2519 cottages or more, and in Vilas and Oneida County there are over 10,000 cottages in each. The map reveals that the known difference between the north and south is reflective of a greater number of cottages in the north.
In addition to the number of cottages, the amount of forest acreage in northern Wisconsin compared to southern Wisconsin is also significantly different according to the map. Almost the entire northern part of Wisconsin has over 226,000 acres of forest and three distinct counties have over 781,000 acres each. The vast majority of southern Wisconsin has less than 226,000 acres and there are only a few counties in which have slightly more. Thus, the amount of forest acreage is predominantly in the northern part of the state which establishes a distinct difference between northern and southern Wisconsin in terms of this specific characteristic.
The number of cottages and forest acreage have a distinct concentration in the north, however, the map for the number of deer gun licenses is unclear when trying to interpret where a difference occurs. Chi Square testing for the deer gun license variable indicates there is a difference between the amounts in northern and southern Wisconsin, however the difference is not as apparent when the amount of deer gun licensees are mapped. According to the map there is a similar distribution of the amount of deer gun licenses throughout the entire state of Wisconsin. In fact there are more counties in southern Wisconsin that have over 5000 deer gun licenses than there are in northern Wisconsin. Furthermore there are several counties in southern Wisconsin that have more than 16,500 deer gun licenses, including Dane, Waukesha, and Brown County, where Marathon county is the only county in Northern Wisconsin that has more than 16,500. The map represents a fairly even distribution in the amount of deer gun licenses throughout Wisconsin, and one could even argue there are more deer gun licenses in Southern Wisconsin. Considering the chi squared results, indicating a difference in deer gun licenses between the north and south, with respect to the map the difference may be in fact there are more deer gun licenses in southern Wisconsin.
Conclusion:Based on analysis of the results for the chi squared testing in relation to the maps of the data the Null hypothesis is rejected, stating that there is difference between the observed and expected distribution of each variables and establishing a distinct difference between northern and southern Wisconsin. The chi square test of the data for each variable has indicated a difference in the observed and expected frequency for each variable, while the spatial representation allowed for a clarification on where differences are located. Because the chi squared testing identified that there was a difference in northern and southern Wisconsin, the maps could then be easily used to interpret where in Wisconsin each variable has a greater influence.
The amount of forest acreage, number of cottages, and number of deer gun licenses were used as variables considering their associated perception with what many in Wisconsin refer to as “Up North”. After chi square established an identifiable difference in these factors between northern and southern Wisconsin, the maps displayed whether or not these factors differed in terms of a significantly greater concentration in the north compared to the south. Two out of the three variables displayed a map with distinctly greater concentrations in the north. Forest acreage and number of cottages were the two variables that had significantly greater concentrations in northern Wisconsin compared to southern Wisconsin. The relationship between forests and cottages with the concept of “Up North” appears to be accurate according to the results. However the number of deer gun licenses, another characteristic that can be associated with “Up North”, did not reflect an accurate perception.
Unlike the accurate link the other variables have with the idea of “Up North”, the number of deer gun licenses is a characteristic of “Up North” that did not display its statistical difference based on greater concentrations in the north. Even though chi squared testing specified a known difference, the map for this variable portrays a fairly even distribution of the deer gun licenses with a slightly higher concentration in the south. When considering both the chi square results in relation to the map, it appears that more individuals in the southern part of Wisconsin have deer gun licenses compared to the north. Although there are slightly more deer gun licenses in the southern part of Wisconsin, the hunting characteristic is still an accurate perception of “Up North” when considering the fact that often individuals travel north to hunt. Even with the assumption that many travel from southern Wisconsin to the northern Wisconsin to hunt, the map does not accurately reflect the association of hunting to “Up North”.
No comments:
Post a Comment