Content uploaded by Aaron Adams
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aaron Adams on Aug 10, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Xiang Chen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Xiang Chen on Jul 29, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjom20
Journal of Maps
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjom20
Normalizing the pandemic: exploring the
cartographic issues in state government COVID-19
dashboards
Aaron M. Adams, Xiang Chen, Weidong Li & Chuanrong Zhang
To cite this article: Aaron M. Adams, Xiang Chen, Weidong Li & Chuanrong Zhang (2023)
Normalizing the pandemic: exploring the cartographic issues in state government COVID-19
dashboards, Journal of Maps, 19:1, 1-9, DOI: 10.1080/17445647.2023.2235385
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2023.2235385
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group on behalf of Journal of Maps
Published online: 27 Jul 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 121
View related articles
View Crossmark data
SOCIAL SCIENCE
Normalizing the pandemic: exploring the cartographic issues in state
government COVID-19 dashboards
Aaron M. Adams
a,b
, Xiang Chen
a,c
, Weidong Li
a
and Chuanrong Zhang
a,d
a
Department of Geography, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA;
b
UConn GIS Health Lab at Connecticut Children’s, Hartford, CT, USA;
c
Institute for Collaboration on Health, Intervention, and Policy (InCHIP), University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA;
d
Center of
Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
ABSTRACT
Government agencies have utilized Web Geographic Information Systems (GIS) dashboards to
collect and disseminate spatial information on COVID-19. However, not all maps on these
dashboards adhere to established cartographic principles. This article explores the extent of
the cartographic issues by surveying state governments’official COVID-19 websites in the
United States on February 11, 2021. The results indicate that out of the fifty states, thirty-
one (62.0%) incorrectly used unnormalized data in choropleth maps, sixteen (32.0%) used
normalized data, and three (6.0%) did not employ choropleth maps. Among states using
normalized data correctly, we identified other cartographic problems, including
inappropriate data class divisions and suboptimal enumeration units. As dashboards serve
as authoritative sources for health information, issues in map creation can influence public
perception of the health crisis. These findings underscore the need for map standards to
ensure the accuracy and reliability of health information in the Web GIS era.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 6 November 2022
Revised 28 April 2023
Accepted 26 June 2023
KEYWORDS
COVID-19; choropleth; web
GIS; dashboard; infodemic
1. Introduction
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic
has disrupted nearly every aspect of our society and is
responsible for an unprecedented public health cala-
mity in the United States (Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 2021). Since the disease information
is organized spatially, governments have employed
geospatial information technology to monitor and
respond to the virus spread in close to real-time
(Kamel Boulos & Geraghty, 2020). With Web Geo-
graphic Information Systems (GIS) that automate
map creation and distribution, public users and auth-
orities can quickly develop, share, and update health
information using web maps quickly enough to make
actionable decisions (Richards, 1999;Zhang et al.,
2015;Zhang & Li, 2005). One of the most widely used
tools to host web maps is the dashboard, a hosted web
service that facilitates interactive visualization of spatial
and non-spatial data (Dong et al., 2020;Griffin, 2020).
After the initialization of the COVID-19 dashboard by
Johns Hopkins University (Dong et al., 2020), all fifty
United States state governments created their own
dashboards to enhance pandemic surveillance and
facilitate health communication. Dashboards became
the default method for communicating relevant infor-
mation involving the pandemic with the general public,
and each state made different design decisions
(Geraghty & Artz, 2022).
Although the COVID-19 dashboard is considered
‘the most striking cultural artifact’of the pandemic
(Everts, 2020), considerable issues arise as they do
not always follow cartographic principles (Adams
et al., 2020). In this study, we observed that the domi-
nant map type used in dashboards is the choropleth
map, which is a thematic map type using the intensity
of colors to correspond to data values within spatial
enumeration units (Dent, 1990;Tobler, 1973). Choro-
pleth maps are one of the most popular thematic map
types, and some cartographic principles have been well
established to ensure their proper use, such as data
normalization and map symbology principles (Brewer
& Pickle, 2002;Harrower & Brewer, 2003;Jenks, 1963;
Jenks & Caspall, 1971). However, dashboard develo-
pers, including those employed by an authoritative
agency, may not have the essential training to comply
with these principles (Harrower & Brewer, 2003;Juer-
gens, 2020;Lan et al., 2021;Plewe, 2007).
One prevailing cartographic issue in choropleth-
based dashboards is the failure to use normalized data
for mapping –that is, using a relative value (e.g. infec-
tion rates) rather than an absolute value (e.g. cases of
infection) (Adams et al., 2020;Engel et al., 2022;
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of Journal of Maps
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been
published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
CONTACT Xiang Chen xiang.chen@uconn.edu Department of Geography, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA; UConn GIS Health Lab
at Connecticut Children’s, Hartford, CT 06106, USA
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
JOURNAL OF MAPS
2023, VOL. 19, NO. 1, 2235385
https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2023.2235385
Kronenfelda & Yoo, 2020). Violating this principle may
disguise spatial patterns due to comparing absolute
values in different sizes of enumeration units (Dent,
1990;Krygier & Wood, 2005;Monmonier, 2018;Rezk
& Hendawy, 2023). In the case of the COVID-19 pan-
demic, research has shown that choropleth maps that
show only totals may change people’s perception of
the pandemic (Engel et al., 2022). Therefore, it is rec-
ommended not to use totals in a choropleth map
(Adams et al., 2020). If totals need to be depicted,
other map symbolizations, such as proportional sym-
bols, area cartograms, or dot density, may be used
(Brewer, 2016;Dent, 1990;Zhang, 2020). While it is
possible to find examples in the literature where a chor-
opleth map showing totals is appropriate, that same lit-
erature recommends considering graduated symbols in
these cases (Krygier & Wood, 2005).
Figure 1, created from available data on the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s COVID-
19 website on May 28, 2022, demonstrates why this mat-
ters with two choropleth maps displaying the samecase
data (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
2022). Figure 1(a) shows the total cases of infection by
state, and Figure 1(b) shows infection rates per
100,000 population. As shown in Figure 1(a), Califor-
nia, Florida, New York, and Texas, all have the most
overall cases. There is no coincidence that these four
states also have the largest population in the US, and
Figure 1(a) reflects this pattern (Census Bureau,
2022). Figure 1(b) shows the infection rate per
100,000 people, which better facilitates comparisons
among states with small and large populations. Thus,
using an unnormalized map may mislead the public
or decision-makers about the severity of the pandemic;
for example, North Dakota’s high infection rate is only
unveiled in the normalized map (Figure 1(b)).
While this cartographic bias has been documented
in the literature, it has not been well recognized by
most public health professionals and map readers.
For example, while the CDC has switched to publish-
ing normalized case data, it still uses choropleth maps
to show total cases well into the COVID-19 pandemic
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021,
2022). While other reviews of dashboards have looked
at the issue and others, including visualizations
besides maps and the frequency of updates (Clarkson,
2023;Fareed et al., 2021;Kronenfelda & Yoo, 2020),
they may not contain data for the entire duration of
the pandemic due to the dynamic nature of web maps.
To this end, this paper aims to articulate the carto-
graphic issues in the COVID-19 dashboards published
by all fifty state governments in the United States.
Specifically, on February 11, 2021, we examined
whether state governments employed a choropleth
map or another map form for publishing COVID-19
case data. Then, we identified if these official web
maps followed fundamental cartographic principles,
including data normalization, number of classes, color
schemes, and enumeration unit selection. On April 8,
2023, following the United States Senate vote to end
the pandemic, we returned to each Uniform Resource
Locator (URL) to determine the number of states still
hosted the COVID-19 dashboards. This review can
serve as a partial record of how the state governments
of the United States portrayed spatial data during the
COVID-19 pandemic for future researchers. Even-
tually, we hope efforts can be made to improve the con-
sistency and accuracy of health information delivery.
2. Methods and results
To evaluate the extent of the cartographic issues in
COVID-19 maps, we identified all fifty states’official
websites where case data were published in terms of
a dashboard or other types of web maps (Table 2).
We excluded Puerto Rico, Guam, Washington D.C.,
Figure 1. (a) Total infections by state and (b) infection rates in terms of cases per 100,000 people by state. Case data were derived
from the CDC as of May 28, 2022. Class breaks were created using Jenks natural breaks in ArcMap, and labels are rounded to two
significant digits for simplicity.
2A. M. ADAMS ET AL.
and other parts of the United States not within state
boundaries to limit the study to comparable adminis-
trative units. We then recorded the types of thematic
maps used on the websites, mainly choropleth maps
and proportional symbol maps (i.e. maps using differ-
ent sizes of circles). If a choropleth map was used, we
checked if the cartographers employed normalized
data (e.g. infection rates) or inappropriately used
unnormalized data (e.g. total cases). We recorded
dashboard URLs along with the data collection,
which took place on February 11, 2021.
As Table 1 illustrates, all states employed certain
forms of COVID-19 dashboards to visualize case
data. Forty-seven states (94.0%) used choropleth
maps, while two states (4.0%), Texas and Wyoming,
used proportional symbol maps. The state of Nebraska
had a general reference map but lacked any form of
thematic map related to COVID-19 cases, with its
website indicating that a map was under production.
Colorado was the only state employing both choro-
pleth and proportional symbol maps.
Figure 2 visualizes the findings by state. We found
that thirty-one states (62.0%) used unnormalized data
in their choropleth maps in at least one map on their
dashboard, sixteen states (32.0%) rigorously stuck to
normalized data in their choropleth maps, and three
states (6.0%) did not employ choropleth maps. We
observed that at least eleven states, including Alaska,
Alabama, Arizona, Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan,
Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, West Vir-
ginia, and Wisconsin, employed choropleth maps
showing both normalized and unnormalized cases,
which we recorded as using unnormalized choropleth
maps. We also found that the CDC had both normal-
ized and unnormalized data on its web maps (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). We
acknowledge that as dashboards often have multiple
visualizations, we may have missed a map that was
either normalized or unnormalized. Such an omission
would increase the number of states using both but
not decrease the scale of the normalization issue.
These findings demonstrate that the problem of mis-
using choropleth maps to visualize total COVID-19
cases was widespread.
To investigate further, we separately evaluated the
three categories of normalized choropleth, not choro-
pleth, and unnormalized choropleth. For the sixteen
states that mapped normalized data only, we further
examined their normalization methods. This follow-
up evaluation identified if other cartographic prin-
ciples regarding map symbology in a thematic map
were followed, such as the number of classes, color
schemes, and enumeration units. Table 2 shows the
results: (1) the most popular normalization method
was a ratio of cases in an enumeration unit (n= 14,
87.5%); only two states (12.5%) employed different
normalization methods: California was based on a 7-
day risk level, and South Dakota was based on the
Figure 2. Data normalization status on state COVID-19 dashboards by state.
JOURNAL OF MAPS 3
Table 1. Thematic map types and data normalization status on state COVID-19 dashboards.
State Map type
Using unnormalized
choropleth maps Variable(s)
Number of
classes
Color schemes
(low to high) Enumeration unit
Alabama
a
Choropleth Yes Total cases 7 Blue County
Alaska
a
Choropleth Yes Total cases Continuous Red Borough/Census
Area
Arizona
a
Choropleth Yes Total cases No data Red County
Arkansas Choropleth Yes Total Cases Continuous Blue County
California Choropleth No Risk level (based on 7-day
positivity rate)
4 Yellow to purple County
Colorado Choropleth/
Proportional
symbol
No Cases per 100,000 population Continuous Blue County
Connecticut Choropleth No Cases per 100,000 population 2 Grey to red Town
Delaware Choropleth No 7-day cases per 100,000
population
6 Blue Zip Code
Florida Choropleth Yes Total cases No data Yellow to Blue County
Georgia Choropleth No 14-day cases per 100,000
population
Continuous Yellow to Red County
Hawaii
a
Choropleth Yes 14-day total cases 5 White to orange.
One no-data
class
Zip Code
Idaho Choropleth Yes Total cases No data White to orange County
Illinois Choropleth Yes Total cases No data Blue Zip code
Indiana
a
Choropleth Yes Total cases No data White to orange County
Iowa Choropleth No 14-day cases per 100,000
population / 7-day cases per
100,000 population
5 Blue County
Kansas Choropleth Yes Total cases No data Blue County
Kentucky
a
Choropleth No 7-day cases per 100,000
population
4 Green to red County
Louisiana Choropleth Yes Total cases 4 Blue Census Tract
Maine Choropleth Yes Total cases 4 Pink Zip Code
Maryland Choropleth Yes Total cases 3 Blue County
Massachusetts Choropleth Yes Total cases 5 Blue County
Michigan
a
Choropleth Yes Total cases 5 Blue County
Minnesota Choropleth Yes Total cases 7 Blue County
Mississippi
a
Choropleth Yes 7-day cases per 100,000
population
5 Blue County
Missouri Choropleth No Cases per 100,000/7-day cases
per 100,000 population
Continuous Red to orange Jurisdiction
(Appears to be
county)
Montana Choropleth Yes Total active cases 4 Blue County
Nebraska Reference map N/A N/A N/A N/A County
Nevada Choropleth No Cases per 100,000 population 6 Blue County
New
Hampshire
Choropleth Yes Total cases 6 Red to orange.
One no-data
class
Town
New Jersey Choropleth Yes New daily cases 7 Blue County
New Mexico Choropleth Yes Total cases Continuous Green County
New York Choropleth Yes Total cases 7 Orange County
North
Carolina
a
Choropleth Yes Total cases 5 Blue County and Zip
Code
North Dakota
a
Choropleth Yes Total cases No data Red County
Ohio Choropleth Yes Total cases No data Blue County
Oklahoma Choropleth Yes Total cases/total deaths/total
recovered
Continuous Yellow Red
Green
County
Oregon Choropleth No Cumulative cases divided by
population
5 Blue County
Pennsylvania Choropleth No Cases per 100,000 population 5 Red County
Rhode Island Choropleth No Cases per 100,000 population 6 Yellow to blue Geographic Area or
municipalities
South Carolina Choropleth No Cases per 100,000 population 5 Blue County
South Dakota Choropleth No Community spread (totals) 3 Blue County
Tennessee Choropleth No Positive tests per 100,000
population
Continuous Blue and red County
Texas Proportional
symbol
N/A Total Cases Continuous N/A County
Utah Choropleth No 14-day case rate per 100,000
population
7 Yellow to red County
Vermont Choropleth Yes Total cases in the past 14 days No Data blue County
Virginia Choropleth Yes Total cases 6 blue County
Washington Choropleth Yes Total cases 6 Blue County
West Virginia
a
Choropleth Yes Total cases in past 7 days No data Blue County
Wisconsin
a
Choropleth Yes Total cases 4 Grey County
Wyoming Proportional
symbol
NA Total cases Continuous N/A County
a
Indicates a state where we observed both normalized and unnormalized choropleth maps.
4A. M. ADAMS ET AL.
community spread rates (2) We found that the
majority of states with normalized choropleths on
their dashboards (n= 12, 75.0%) employed discrete
class breaks, while four of these states (25.0%) used a
continuous color scheme. Choosing map symbology
is more flexible than the need for data normalization
but still demands scrutiny from a cartographic per-
spective (Monmonier, 2018). Generally, the literature
suggests using discrete class breaks over continuous
color schemes for making a thematic map, as it is
easier to discern the difference between data values
(Brewer & Pickle, 2002;Dobson, 1973;Krygier &
Wood, 2005). (3) When mapping with discrete class
breaks, a general rule is to have no less than three
and no more than seven classes best to distinguish
classified data values (Harrower & Brewer, 2003).
This rule was followed by ten (91.7%) of the eleven
states mapping only normalized data and discrete
class breaks, with most maps having five classes. (4)
In terms of color hues, seven of the states mapping
only normalized data (43.8%) employed a cold color
hue (e.g. green, blue, and purple), five (31.3%)
employed a warm color hue (e.g. red, orange, yellow),
and four (25.0%) had a mixed use of cold and warm
colors. (5) For enumeration units, twelve (75.0%)
used county, Delaware used ZIP codes, Connecticut
and Rhode Island used local enumeration units such
as town or municipality, and Missouri used ‘Jurisdic-
tions,’which upon inspection appeared to correspond
to the county boundaries.
The choice of enumeration unit is critical. Due to
the modifiable aerial unit problem (MAUP), different
ways of subdividing an area can influence the final
aggregate values (Chen et al., 2022). Counties in
many states are administrative units where policy is
made. In some smaller states, like Connecticut and
Rhode Island, counties are often ignored in favor of
smaller administrative units, such as towns (Chen
et al., 2021). These smaller units allow for finer-scale
analysis. ZIP codes, like towns, are also generally smal-
ler than counties; however, their use in epidemiological
mapping is controversial (Chen et al., 2022). ZIP codes
are often discontinued or modified, do not cover the
entire United States, and their representation as poly-
gons is often not representative of what they cover
(Grubesic & Matisziw, 2006). Therefore, ZIP codes
for the analysis of health data should be avoided, if
possible in favor of census tracts or another more
meaningful enumeration unit, and used cautiously in
consideration of their limits only when unavoidable
(Chen et al., 2022;Grubesic & Matisziw, 2006).
Next, we reviewed the unnormalized maps of the
thirty-one states mapping totals in choropleths to see
if the state dashboards followed other cartographic
principles regarding map symbology. Below are our
findings: (1) the most mapped variable was cumulative
cases per enumeration unit (n= 25, 80.6%), two states
(6.5%) mapped total cases in 7-day windows, and two
states mapped total cases in 14-day windows. New Jer-
sey mapped total daily cases, and Montana mapped
‘total active cases.’(2) We found that the majority of
states with unnormalized choropleths on their dash-
boards (n= 17, 54.0%) employed discrete class breaks.
In comparison, four states (12.9%) used a continuous
color scheme. As previously stated, the general consen-
sus is that a discrete color scheme may be more easily
understood than a continuous one. We have no data
on class breaks for ten (32.3%) of these states due to
missing legends. (3) All seventeen states employing dis-
crete class breaks used between three and seven classes,
with most maps using five class breaks, all aligning with
the categorizing pricinple of using 3–7classes.(4)In
terms of color hues, twenty states (64.5%) employed a
cold color hue (e.g. green, blue, and grey), ten states
(32.2%) employed a warm color hue (e.g. red, orange,
yellow), and one state (3.2%) had a mixed use of cold
and warm colors. (5) As for enumeration units, twenty
(80.6%) used county, three (9.6%) used ZIP codes, New
Hampshire used local enumeration units of town, and
Alaska used the local unit of ‘Borough/Census Area.’
North Carolina had both county and ZIP codes avail-
able as options for users to map the case data; however,
as the county was the default visualization, we counted
as using them. One state, Louisiana, used census
tracts in their published maps. As census tracts are
smaller than counties, used throughout the United
States, and created with consideration of human popu-
lations, this choice is highly in line with recommen-
dations in the literature. Surprisingly, among all 50
states, only Louisiana created maps using census tracts
at this point in the pandemic.
For the three states that did not use choropleth
maps on their dashboards (i.e. Nebraska, Texas, and
Wyoming), all mapped using counties. Texas and
Wyoming employed continuous class breaks for
their proportional symbols, which were blue circles.
Nebraska’s map did not show COVID-19-related
data at the time of the survey.
On April 8, 2023, nine days after the United States
Senate voted to end the COVID-19 emergency
declaration, we reviewed the list of URLs and dash-
boards we used in this study. First, we confirmed
that the CDC and Prevention COVID-19 data tracker
we based Figure 1 on still allowed users to view chor-
opleth maps displaying total cases; however, a normal-
ized option still exists, as previously observed (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). Next, we
found that thirteen (26%) of previously identified
state dashboard URLs no longer led to a publicly
facing dashboard (Table 2). Five enforced a sign-in
procedure for map viewing, while the others were una-
vailable. It is likely that as time progresses, more of
these links will no longer function, contiributing to a
phenomenon known as link rot (Klein et al., 2014).
JOURNAL OF MAPS 5
3. Discussion and conclusion
Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, Web
GIS technologies, particularly dashboards, have pro-
vided unprecedented opportunities for sharing health
information. Choropleth maps are overwhelmingly
favored to visualize COVID-19 case data in these dash-
boards (Mooney & Juhász, 2020). Unfortunately, our
findings reveal that more than half of the states did not
rigorously follow fundamental cartographic principles,
such as data normalization, to create thematic maps.
Even among those states that mapped with appropriate
data, we identified other cartographic issues, such as
less-than-ideal numbers of classes, color schemes, and
inappropriate choice of enumeration units. These
findings raise serious concerns regarding Web
mapping as they serve as an authoritative outlet for
delivering health information. The lack of adherence
Table 2. Availability of the URLs for state COVID-19 dashboards.
State
URL at the time of the survey
(February 11th, 2021)
URL availability on follow-up
(April 8, 2023)
Alabama https://alpublichealth.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/
6d2771faa9da4a2786a509d82c8cf0f7
Yes
Alaska https://alaska-coronavirus-vaccine-outreach-alaska-dhss.hub.arcgis.com/app/
6a5932d709ef4ab1b868188a4c757b4f
No
a
Arizona https://www.azdhs.gov/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/infectious-disease-
epidemiology/covid-19/dashboards/index.php
Yes
Arkansas https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/c2ef4a4fcbe5458fbf2e48a21e4fece9 No
a
California https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/ Yes
Colorado https://covid19.colorado.gov/data Yes
Connecticut https://portal.ct.gov/Coronavirus/COVID-19-Data-Tracker Yes
Delaware https://coronavirus.delaware.gov/ Yes
Florida https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/96dd742462124fa0b38ddedb9b25e429 No
a
Georgia https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report Yes
Hawaii https://health.hawaii.gov/coronavirusdisease2019/what-you-should-know/current-situation-in-
hawaii/#cases
Yes
Idaho https://public.tableau.com/profile/idaho.division.of.public.health#!/vizhome/DPHIdahoCOVID-
19Dashboard/Home
Yes
Illinois https://www.dph.illinois.gov/covid19/covid19-statistics No
Indiana https://www.coronavirus.in.gov/2393.htm Yes
Iowa https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/pages/case-counts No
Kansas https://www.coronavirus.kdheks.gov/160/COVID-19-in-Kansas Yes
Kentucky https://kygeonet.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/
543ac64bc40445918cf8bc34dc40e334
Yes
Louisiana https://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/ Yes
Maine https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/infectious-disease/epi/airborne/coronavirus/data.shtml Yes
Maryland https://coronavirus.maryland.gov/ Yes
Massachusetts https://www.mass.gov/info-details/community-level-covid-19-data-reporting Yes
Michigan https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/ Yes
Minnesota https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/situation.html Yes
Mississippi https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/14,21882,420,873.html No
Missouri https://showmestrong.mo.gov/public-health-county/ Yes
Montana https://montana.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=
7c34f3412536439491adcc2103421d4b
Yes
Nebraska https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ece0db09da4d4ca68252c3967aa1e9dd/page/page_0/ No
a
Nevada https://nvhealthresponse.nv.gov/ Yes
New
Hampshire
https://www.nh.gov/covid19/dashboard/case-summary.htm Yes
New Jersey https://www.nj.gov/health/cd/topics/covid2019_dashboard.shtml Yes
New Mexico https://cvprovider.nmhealth.org/public-dashboard.html Yes
New York https://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYS-COVID19-Tracker/NYSDOHCOVID-19Tracker-Map?%
3Aembed=yes&%3Atoolbar=no&%3Atabs=n
No
North Carolina https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/dashboard Yes
North Dakota https://www.health.nd.gov/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/north-dakota-coronavirus-cases Yes
Ohio https://coronavirus.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/covid-19/dashboards/overview Yes
Oklahoma https://looker-dashboards.ok.gov/embed/dashboards/44 No
Oregon https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/fff9f83827c5461583cd014fdf4587de No
a
Pennsylvania https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/disease/coronavirus/Pages/Cases.aspx Yes
Rhode Island https://ri-department-of-health-covid-19-data-rihealth.hub.arcgis.com/ Yes
South Carolina https://scdhec.gov/covid19/sc-testing-data-projections-covid-19 No
South Dakota https://doh.sd.gov/COVID/Dashboard.aspx Yes
Tennessee https://www.tn.gov/health/cedep/ncov/data/maps.html Yes
Texas https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/
ed483ecd702b4298ab01e8b9cafc8b83
No
Utah https://coronavirus.utah.gov/case-counts/ Yes
Vermont https://www.healthvermont.gov/covid-19/current-activity/vermont-dashboard Yes
Virginia https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/coronavirus/covid-19-in-virginia-cases/ Yes
Washington https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/COVID19/DataDashboard#dashboard Yes
West Virginia https://dhhr.wv.gov/COVID-19/Pages/default.aspx Yes
Wisconsin https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/data.htm Yes
Wyoming https://health.wyo.gov/publichealth/infectious-disease-epidemiology-unit/disease/novel-
coronavirus/covid-19-map-and-statistics/
No
a
Indicates a dashboard URL now points to an ArcGIS Online sign-in page, and thus may still exist there but be unavailable.
6A. M. ADAMS ET AL.
to cartographic principles in map creation could unex-
pectedly mislead public perception of the pandemic’s
impact (Engel et al., 2022;Geyer & Lengerich, 2023). If
these dashboards were used to assist policymakers,
there is a possibility that a biased epidemiological pat-
tern arising from the maps could have a lasting policy
impact. This review helps to showcase the extent of
these problems as part of the infodemic surrounding
COVID-19.
On the other hand, we see positive changes in the
creation of dashboards. For instance, while mapping
totals, the Florida dashboard included a note to the
user that ‘comparison of counties is not possible
because case data are not adjusted by population’
(Florida Department of Public Health, 2021). Simi-
larly, Connecticut initially used unnormalized data
in its dashboard but later switched to normalized
data in its latest version (Adams et al., 2020).
Beyond normalizing data in choropleth maps,
many other methods could be employed to improve
the interpretation of epidemiological data, such as
the cartogram, to show the severity of a health out-
come, where the areal unit is altered proportionally
to the population density affected (Roth et al., 2010;
Tobler, 2004;Zhang, 2020). A complementary
approach when using dynamic web maps is to incor-
porate additional information (such as total cases
and total population) in a pop-up window to present
a more comprehensive view of the health data when
a user clicks on an enumeration unit (Thomas et al.,
2022). Similarly, other visualization methods, such as
dot density maps, hot spot maps based on Getis Ord
Gi* statistic, and relative risk cluster maps created
using Poisson space–time scan statistic, can also be
employed (Dent, 1990;Desjardins et al., 2020;Getis
& Ord, 1992). These visualization and statistical tech-
niques can open new avenues to displaying epidemio-
logical data from multifaceted perspectives without
using a choropleth to display absolute values.
This article focuses on observing choropleth maps
and whether they adhere to established cartographic
conventions on United States State government
official dashboards. Our findings are consistent with
other studies that have identified widespread misuse
of choropleths throughout the pandemic (Adams
et al., 2020;Engel et al., 2022;Everts, 2020;Kronen-
felda & Yoo, 2020). With this article, we hope that
public health agencies may take the necessary steps
to monitor how data are collected (Tao et al., 2020),
comply with map-making principles, and integrate
other important demographic metrics, such as age
and sex, when making maps (Kontis et al., 2020).
Importantly, we suggest that health professionals, pol-
icymakers, and cartographers should be included in
the discussion when constructing these public-facing
web maps (Plewe, 2007;Rushton et al., 2000). These
combined efforts may help improve health
communication in future health crises as we are nor-
malizing life with this pandemic.
Software
All figures were produced using ESRI ArcMap 10.7.1.
Acknowledgments
We thank Adam Gallaher, Ashley Benitez Ou, Dr. Debs
Ghosh, and Rich Mrozinski for supporting data collection
for this research.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This research was supported by pilot grant funding from the
Institute for Collaboration on Health, Intervention, and Pol-
icy (InCHIP) at the University of Connecticut.
Data availability
We collected dashboard data on February 11, 2021,
from the United States State government dashboards.
We revisited this dataset on April 8, 2023, to deter-
mine the number of links that were still active. Bound-
ary files were sourced from the United States Census
Bureau. The COVID-19 case data were obtained
from the CDC at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/
2019-nCoV/index.html.
References
Adams, A., Li, W., Zhang, C., & Chen, X. (2020). The dis-
guised pandemic: The importance of data normalization
in COVID-19 web mapping. Public Health,183, 36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.04.034
Brewer, C. A. (2016). Designing better maps: A guide for GIS
users. Esri Press.
Brewer, C. A., & Pickle, L. (2002). Evaluation of methods for
classifying epidemiological data on choropleth maps in
series. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers,92(4), 662–681. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1467-8306.00310
Census Bureau. (2022). U.S. and world population clock.
Retrieved June 24, 2022 from: https://www.census.gov/
popclock/.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021).
COVID-19 cases, deaths, and trends in the US | CDC
COVID Data Tracker. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Retrieved January 28, 2021 from: https://
covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). United
States COVID-19 cases, deaths, and laboratory testing
(NAATs) by state, territory, and jurisdiction | CDC
COVID data tracker. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Retrieved May 28, 2022 from: https://covid.
cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker.
JOURNAL OF MAPS 7
Chen, X., Ye, X., Widener, M. J., Delmelle, E., Kwan, M.-P.,
Shannon, J., Racine, E. F., Adams, A., Liang, L., & Jia, P.
(2022). A systematic review of the modifiable areal unit
problem (MAUP) in community food environmental
research. Urban Informatics,1(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s44212-022-00021-1
Chen, X., Zhang, A., Wang, H., Gallaher, A., & Zhu, X.
(2021). Compliance and containment in social distan-
cing: Mathematical modeling of COVID-19 across town-
ships. International Journal of Geographical Information
Science, 35(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.
2021.1873999.
Clarkson, M. D. (2023). Web-based COVID-19 dashboards
and trackers in the United States: Survey study. JMIR
Human Factors,10, e43819. https://doi.org/10.2196/
43819
Dent, B. D. (1990). Cartography: Thematic map design. W.C.
Brown.
Desjardins, M. R., Hohl, A., & Delmelle, E. M. (2020). Rapid
surveillance of COVID-19 in the United States using a
prospective space-time scan statistic: Detecting and eval-
uating emerging clusters. Applied Geography,118,
102202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102202
Dobson, M. W. (1973). Choropleth maps without class
intervals? A comment. Geographical Analysis,5(4), 358–
360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1973.tb00498.x
Dong, E., Du, H., & Gardner, L. (2020). An interactive web-
based dashboard to track COVID-19 in real time. The
Lancet Infectious Diseases,20(5), 533–534. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30120-1
Engel, C., Rodden, J., & Tabellini, M. (2022). Policies to
influence perceptions about COVID-19 risk: The case
of maps. Science Advances,8(11), eabm5106. https://doi.
org/10.1126/sciadv.abm5106
Everts, J. (2020). The dashboard pandemic. Dialogues in
Human Geography,10(2), 260–264. https://doi.org/10.
1177/2043820620935355
Fareed, N., Swoboda, C. M., Chen, S., Potter, E., Wu,
D. T. Y., & Sieck, C. J. (2021). U.S. COVID-19 state gov-
ernment public dashboards: An expert review. Applied
Clinical Informatics,12(02), 208–221. https://doi.org/10.
1055/s-0041-1723989
Florida Department of Public Health. (2021). Florida’s
COVID-19 data and surveillance dashboard. Retrieved
January 24, 2021 from: https://experience.arcgis.com/
experience/96dd742462124fa0b38ddedb9b25e429.
Geraghty, E. M., & Artz, M. (2022). Learning from COVID-
19: GIS for pandemics. Esri Press.
Getis, A., & Ord, J. K. (1992). The analysis of spatial associ-
ation by use of distance statistics. Geographical Analysis,
24(3), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.
1992.tb00261.x
Geyer, N. R., & Lengerich, E. J. (2023). Lionvu: A data-dri-
ven geographical web-GIS tool for community health and
decision-making in a catchment area. Geographies,3(2),
286–302. https://doi.org/10.3390/geographies3020015
Griffin, A. L. (2020). Trustworthy maps. Journal of Spatial
Information Science,20(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.
5311/JOSIS.2020.20.654.
Grubesic, T. H., & Matisziw, T. C. (2006). On the use of ZIP
codes and ZIP code tabulation areas (ZCTAs) for the
spatial analysis of epidemiological data. International
Journal of Health Geographics,5(1), 58. https://doi.org/
10.1186/1476-072X-5-58
Harrower, M., & Brewer, C. A. (2003). Colorbrewer.org: An
online tool for selecting colour schemes for maps. The
Cartographic Journal,40(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.
1179/000870403235002042
Jenks, G. F. (1963). Generalization in statistical mapping.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers,53(1),
15–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1963.tb00429.x
Jenks, G. F., & Caspall, F. C. (1971). Error on choroplethic
maps: Definition, measurement, reduction. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers,61(2), 217–
244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1971.tb00779.x
Juergens, C. (2020). Trustworthy COVID-19 mapping: Geo-
spatial data literacy aspects of choropleth maps. KN –
Journal of Cartography and Geographic Information,70
(4), 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42489-020-00057-w
Kamel Boulos, M. N., & Geraghty, E. M. (2020).
Geographical tracking and mapping of coronavirus dis-
ease COVID-19/severe acute respiratory syndrome coro-
navirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) epidemic and associated events
around the world: How 21st century GIS technologies are
supporting the global fight against outbreaks and epi-
demics. International Journal of Health Geographics,19
(1), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-020-00202-8
Klein, M., Van de Sompel, H., Sanderson, R., Shankar, H.,
Balakireva, L., Zhou, K., Tobin, R., & Bar-Ilan, J.
(2014). Scholarly context not found: One in five articles
suffers from reference rot. PLoS ONE,9(12), e115253.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115253
Kontis, V., Bennett, J. E., Rashid, T., Parks, R. M., Pearson-
Stuttard, J., Guillot, M., Asaria, P., Zhou, B., Battaglini,
M., Corsetti, G., McKee, M., Di Cesare, M., Mathers, C.
D., & Ezzati, M. (2020). Magnitude, demographics and
dynamics of the effect of the first wave of the COVID-
19 pandemic on all-cause mortality in 21 industrialized
countries. Nature Medicine,26(12), 1919–1928. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-1112-0
Kronenfelda, B. J., & Yoo, K. (2020). An evaluation of
COVID-19 dashboards from cartographic and epidemio-
logical perspectives. Autocarto 2020 Presentations:
Hazard identification, perception, and management.
https://cartogis.org/docs/autocarto/2020/docs/abstracts/
7g%20An%20Evaluation%20of%20COVID-19%20Dashb
oards%20from%20Cartographic%20and%20Epidemiolo
gical%20Perspectives.pdf.
Krygier, J., & Wood, D. (2005). Making maps: A visual guide
to map design for GIS. Guilford Press.
Lan, Y., Desjardins, M. R., Hohl, A., & Delmelle, E. (2021).
Geovisualization of COVID-19: State of the art and
opportunities. Cartographica: The International Journal
for Geographic Information and Geovisualization,56(1),
2–13. https://doi.org/10.3138/cart-2020-0027
Monmonier, M. S. (2018). How to lie with maps. The
University of Chicago Press.
Mooney, P., & Juhász, L. (2020). Mapping COVID-19: How
web-based maps contribute to the infodemic. Dialogues
in Human Geography,10(2), 265–270. https://doi.org/
10.1177/2043820620934926
Plewe, B. (2007). Web cartography in the United States.
Cartography and Geographic Information Science,34(2),
133–136. https://doi.org/10.1559/152304007781002235
Rezk, A. A., & Hendawy, M. (2023). Informative carto-
graphic communication: A framework to evaluate the
effects of map types on users’interpretation of COVID-
19 geovisualizations. Cartography and Geographic
Information Science,1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15230406.2022.2155249
Richards, T. B. (1999). Information technology. Geographic
information systems and public health: Mapping the
8A. M. ADAMS ET AL.
future. Public Health Reports,114(4), 359–373. https://
doi.org/10.1093/phr/114.4.359
Roth, R. E., Woodruff, A. W., & Johnson, Z. F. (2010).
Value-by-alpha maps: An alternative technique to the
cartogram. The Cartographic Journal,47(2), 130–140.
https://doi.org/10.1179/000870409X12488753453372
Rushton, G., Elms, G., & McMaster, R. (2000).
Considerations for improving geographic information
system research in public health. URISA Journal,12(2),
31–49.
Tao, R., Downs, J., Beckie, T. M., Chen, Y., & McNelley, W.
(2020). Examining spatial accessibility to COVID-19 test-
ing sites in Florida. Annals of GIS,26(4), 319–327. https://
doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2020.1833365
Thomas, C., Valdizon, S., & Artz, M. (Eds.). (2022).
Mapping community health: GIS for health & human
services. Esri Press.
Tobler, W. R. (1973). Choropleth maps without class inter-
vals? Geographical Analysis,5(3), 262–265. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1973.tb01012.x
Tobler,W.R.(2004). Thirty five years of computer cartograms.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers,94(1),
58–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.09401004.x
Zhang, C., & Li, W. (2005). The roles of web feature and web
map services in real-time geospatial data sharing for
time-critical applications. Cartography and Geographic
Information Science,32(4), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.
1559/152304005775194728
Zhang, C., Zhao, T., & Li, W. (2015). Geospatial semantic
web. Springer International Publishing.
Zhang, T. (2020). Integrating geographic information sys-
tem technique with Google Trends data to analyse
COVID-19 severity and public interest. Public Health,
189,3–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.09.005
JOURNAL OF MAPS 9
