When doing this lab the actual lab was incredibly easy, but accumulating the data and processing it was the difficult part, which seems to be the common trend in GIS.  In doing the maps though i discovered just how different IDW and Splining truly are.  IDW attempts to generalize the entire map, creating a common thread throughout. Splining seems to overestimate values.  The differences in the two styles is very apparent when looking at the northeast corner of the map.  In IDW, where generalizations are made and values tend to lean toward the middle, the precipitation is believed to be between 12 and 16 inches a year, where as the Splining method values the area to be below 4 inches a year becuase it overestimates and leans toward extremes.  The massive difference between the two values shows just how inconsistent the entire method is, and how being able to display multiple methods can help realize what the true values possibly are.
     Another major issue is the bias towards areas with more points, which makes sense.  When there are more values it is easier to make assessments, but it also creates problems, for example the large discrepancy with the northeast corner of the map.  With IDW, because a majority of the values were in the 12-16 range, it valued any area without too many points to be in that general area.  Spline seemed to favor the nearest point in making the decision.  All in all, the major discrepancies make it necessary to both collect as much data as possible and understand the differences between the methods.
IDW- generalizes
Spline- overestimates
areas with few receptors will be over-generalized.  bias towards areas with multiple points.
compare and contrast styles of idw and spline

Fire Probability

 

     This was probably one of the most straightforward and  simple labs we have had this quarter, if everything had gone smoothly.  I was able to get the fuel layer from http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata/download.asp?spatialdist=2&rec=fmod, the elevation layer from  http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/viewer.htm, and the fire zone coverage layer from the the UCLA website for geography 7.  That was the easy the part. What normally would have only taken me a few hours to do the tutorial and then my own analysis ended up taking multiple hours because of all of the problems I encountered.  I first had difficulty converting the elevation map into percent.  I got ridiculously high values that I might have been able to work with but were not in fact correct and may have tripped me up at later points in the project.  To fix this I had to convert the elevation layer from the projection it was in to UTM zone 11 which proved to be the most difficult part of the entire venture. The file may have been to large, but every time I attempted to convert the layer, ArcGIS simply shut down.  This happened multiple times on multiple computer.  I eventually had to reload the file and attempt the entire process over from scratch.  

     Once I was finally able to convert the file and actually start the project, I had difficulty finding the metadata to reclassify the fuel values.  Because the values were not simply given to me as in the tutorial, I also had to more or less guess at what the values should be and hope that the values were correct.  Fortunately i was able to find a separate layer online that had already classified the values, and my own interpretation was fairly similar, giving me confidence that I had adequately valued the fuels.  Once I had the values all accumulated I ran into even more problems in attempting to use the Raster Calculator and determine the ultimate risk of fire.  The first couple of times I attempted to find the values, they did not come out as classified values but were rather discrete, which was not correct and did not give me anything to work with.  After manipulating a few aspects I was finally able to get everything together and finish the lab.  All in all this should not have taken me more than 3 hours to do everything, but because of the multiple obstacles it took more than twice as long as that.

     Ultimately all of the issues probably taught me more about ArcGIS than the actual lab did.  I had to deal with so many issues on my own that I learned two things.  First, how to deal with those specific issues in the future should they arise.  The second, and more important revelation, is that I can in fact figure out some of these problems on my own.  The fact that I do in fact have a bit of a GIS toolbox is reassuring, even if it is still rather basic.  I hope that in the future similar projects will not take quite as long, but if they do at least I can be assured that I will probably learn valuable skills in the process.  

     

Landfill Placement Analysis

                 

     The ability to assess the suitability of certain locations allows for difficult decisions to be looked at from a more concrete point of view as opposed to making guesses on what would most likely be the most desirable site.  By using cut and dry numbers the choice is removed and replaced by an obvious answer.  The maps allows for subjectivity to be removed and an objective decision to be made.

    The weighted values option also makes a huge difference, especially in this case.  Not all variables are equal, and in this case, when the weighted option was developed it made a completely different map.  Certain variables are much more important than others, especially when choosing the location of a hazardous waste site that could negatively effect whatever location was chosen. 

   The weighted options made a huge difference in the development of the map, which is a major improvement.  As we saw with the article, the waste site is incredibly hazardous, causing birth defects and cancer in the surrounding areas.  The safety of those around the area is a large component in choosing such a huge project.  The weighting of options could save people's lives who would have been put in jeopardy if the project had not decided that certain components were more valuable than others.

    Also, the multiple variables going into the project makes this a complex and difficult project.  The raster calculator makes it much simpler and quicker to assess the potential of every single point within the entire county.  When there are such major issues with landfills, as they take up space, lower the value of the area and affect the health of the inhabitants in the area, the ability to include and process so many different aspects makes the project much less scary, as the consequences of choosing incorrectly could be incredibly detrimental.  

    Overall, this program makes the work much easier.  Every variable is accounted for, every possibility is assessed, and the choice becomes much less risky when viewed from every angle.  Ultimately, the ability to choose the safest possible location could save money, resources, and possibly even lives.

Medical Marijuana

 

     By creating this ordinance, a large number of dispensaries are found to be outside of compliance, which will force many of them to close, making this decision a negative one.  Due to time constrictions I was unable to accumulate a large sample of dispensaries, instead getting only a few major ones. While it is difficult to tell from this scale, many do in fact fall within the forbidden buffers upon zooming in.  This means that many of them would have to shut down due to the new law, as they fall within the buffers, seriously restricting those that rely on the them for medicine  Los Angeles is so densely populated and there is so little free space, that it is almost impossible to follow restrictions such as this, as the map clearly shows.  The few available areas within the city that do not fall under this law are difficult to access and much less populated.  .

   It appears from reading the article that the issue is not with the dispensaries themselves, but the ones that do not follow other laws about how they may distribute their products.  If all of the regulations are being followed, marijuana should not fall into the hands of children, who are not legally allowed to purchase from the clubs.  The problem instead appears to be with a few clubs who are not following regulations and allowing the product to either go to those who do not need it for medical usage but only for recreation, and the fact that it is becoming an activity in the clubs late at night as opposed to being used for medicine.

    Stricter restrictions need to be put on the distribution of the product, but the placement of them should not be an issue.  If the 1000 foot ordinance does come to fruition, it will cause many of the clubs to shut down unnecessarily and negatively effect many of their patients.