The Student News Site of University of Texas at Arlington (Department of Communication)

Lone Star Sentinel

The Student News Site of University of Texas at Arlington (Department of Communication)

Lone Star Sentinel

The Student News Site of University of Texas at Arlington (Department of Communication)

Lone Star Sentinel

More farmland in a state doesn’t mean more green

Visualization shows the percentage of each state that the U.S. Department of Agriculture recognizes as profitable farmland.
Steven Shaw
Data visualization shows the percentage of each state recognized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as profitable farmland.

Agriculture products are a major export for the United States, but some states reap more from the industry than others.

Visualization shows the percentage of each state that the U.S. Department of Agriculture recognizes as profitable farmland.
Data visualization shows the percentage of each state recognized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as profitable farmland. (Steven Shaw)

Rural, Midwestern  regions have better land for farming than states with more desert, mountains or urban areas. But while more undeveloped or green-filled space might seem to suggest more environmentally friendly land, the country’s carbon emissions tell a different story. (For an interactive version of map above, click here.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People living in farm-friendly states tend to have higher carbon emissions – larger carbon footprints – than people in states with more developed land. While this is due to multiple factors, including less energy-efficient infrastructure, one source of the trend is found in state driving habits.

Data visualization shows the average annual miles driven in each state.
Data visualization reflects the average annual miles driven in states. (Steven Shaw) For an interactive version of the map, click here.

Rural states with more undeveloped land and farms often have less population density and are more sprawled. This leads to fewer transportation options, longer distances between locations and ultimately more driving.

The data below reflects seven states with the lowest population density, excluding Alaska, and the seven states with the highest population density, next to their respective average annual miles.

Data visualization reflects the seven states with the lowest population density (excluding Alaska), and the seven states with the highest population density.
Data visualization reflects the seven states with the lowest population density, excluding Alaska, and the seven states with the highest population density. (Steven Shaw) For a full-size chart, click here.
Data visualization reflects the average annual miles driven in the states with the lowest and highest population densities (excluding Alaska). (Steven Shaw) For a full-size chart, click here.
Leave a Comment
Donate to Lone Star Sentinel

Your donation will support the student journalists of University of Texas at Arlington (Department of Communication). Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment and cover our annual website hosting costs.

More to Discover
Donate to Lone Star Sentinel

Comments (0)

All Lone Star Sentinel Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *