biotect
Designer
.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
*************************************************
So personally I think maps of homicide rates are more reliable indicators, and here South Africa, Columbia, Honduras, Venezuela all stand out as countries that are clearly to be avoided; whereas China, most of central Asia, North Africa, all or India, and of course Europe, are reasonably safe -- see http://www.geocurrents.info/geograp...-and-rape-maps-and-the-the-sweden-rape-puzzle :
Here is an unusual map that breaks things down at a more pan-regional level. It's a bit unfair, in a way, because the comparatively low levels of homicide in Namibia and Botswana get completely wiped out by South Africa's stratospheric homicide rate; or Chile's First-World level of peace gets completely drowned out by the homicide rate of surrounding South American countries:
Still, it creates an interesting picture, in which by far the safest parts of the world are (a) Europe, and (b) East and South-East Asia, connected by an only slightly less safe corridor that runs all the way from Australia to Britain. And interesting pattern, although who knows what to make of it.
Also fascinating are maps that go in the other direction, providing more fine-grained, sub-national, regional pictures of homicide rates:
Clearly, some parts of Brazil are far more violent than others, and for the most part southern South America -- Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay -- are no more violent overall than most of the United States. Whereas northern Mexico is bad, really bad, and South Africa certainly is bad.
Travel Advisory warning maps are also useful source of patterned information, although they tend to go "soft" on South Africa, Colombia, Venezuela, etc. -- see -- see http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/travel-warnings/ :
Overall, the map that feels most right to me is a "Safety Index" map or "Crime Index Map", put together using an unknown methodology -- see http://www.numbeo.com/crime/gmaps_rankings_country.jsp?indexToShow=main&title=2015-mid and http://www.numbeo.com/crime/gmaps_rankings_country.jsp?indexToShow=safety&title=2015-mid :
This map seems to nicely capture the traveller's intuition that India is a safe place to travel, and so too China; Japan is especially safe, as bright green as Norway, Finland, and Germany; Russia is no less safe than France or the United States; Australia, Canada, and Chile are all reasonably safe; Morroco is OK, but northern Africa is "iffy"; Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama are safe, but El Salvador less so, and Honduras is a shooting gallery, just like South Africa; and so on -- see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/worlds-highest-murder-rates_n_5125188.html .
On the downside, this map might be a bit "hard" on South and Central America. Notice how much more generous the travel advisory maps are towards Argentina and Brazil.
*************************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
*************************************************
So personally I think maps of homicide rates are more reliable indicators, and here South Africa, Columbia, Honduras, Venezuela all stand out as countries that are clearly to be avoided; whereas China, most of central Asia, North Africa, all or India, and of course Europe, are reasonably safe -- see http://www.geocurrents.info/geograp...-and-rape-maps-and-the-the-sweden-rape-puzzle :
Here is an unusual map that breaks things down at a more pan-regional level. It's a bit unfair, in a way, because the comparatively low levels of homicide in Namibia and Botswana get completely wiped out by South Africa's stratospheric homicide rate; or Chile's First-World level of peace gets completely drowned out by the homicide rate of surrounding South American countries:
Still, it creates an interesting picture, in which by far the safest parts of the world are (a) Europe, and (b) East and South-East Asia, connected by an only slightly less safe corridor that runs all the way from Australia to Britain. And interesting pattern, although who knows what to make of it.
Also fascinating are maps that go in the other direction, providing more fine-grained, sub-national, regional pictures of homicide rates:
Clearly, some parts of Brazil are far more violent than others, and for the most part southern South America -- Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay -- are no more violent overall than most of the United States. Whereas northern Mexico is bad, really bad, and South Africa certainly is bad.
Travel Advisory warning maps are also useful source of patterned information, although they tend to go "soft" on South Africa, Colombia, Venezuela, etc. -- see -- see http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/travel-warnings/ :
Overall, the map that feels most right to me is a "Safety Index" map or "Crime Index Map", put together using an unknown methodology -- see http://www.numbeo.com/crime/gmaps_rankings_country.jsp?indexToShow=main&title=2015-mid and http://www.numbeo.com/crime/gmaps_rankings_country.jsp?indexToShow=safety&title=2015-mid :
This map seems to nicely capture the traveller's intuition that India is a safe place to travel, and so too China; Japan is especially safe, as bright green as Norway, Finland, and Germany; Russia is no less safe than France or the United States; Australia, Canada, and Chile are all reasonably safe; Morroco is OK, but northern Africa is "iffy"; Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama are safe, but El Salvador less so, and Honduras is a shooting gallery, just like South Africa; and so on -- see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/worlds-highest-murder-rates_n_5125188.html .
On the downside, this map might be a bit "hard" on South and Central America. Notice how much more generous the travel advisory maps are towards Argentina and Brazil.
*************************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
Last edited:
).
