Dr. John D Morgan

As coastal landscapes face increasingly rapid transformation due to hurricanes and redevelopment, cartography offers a critical lens for understanding and communicating shoreline access's shifting visual, legal, and ecological dimensions. This research presents a cartographically driven framework for modeling and visualizing viewsheds in hurricane-prone communities along Florida’s Gulf and Atlantic coasts. It emphasizes the design of maps that convey how sightlines to the coast intersect with multiple land use and property categories, highlighting the complexity of coastal planning and amenity access.
Using digital elevation models (DEMs), state-level land use/land cover data (FLUCCS), and cadastral property layers, we developed a GIS-based method to generate observation-based viewsheds, incorporating key angular metrics such as Maximum View Angle (MVA°) and Individual Property View Angle (IPVA°). The resulting viewsheds are expressed not simply as binary visibility maps, but as visual fields that interact with human-defined land use classifications and physical landscape features. Integrating land use and land cover data provides essential context, revealing how views are mediated by zoning, development, vegetation, and post-hurricane changes to shoreline morphology.
Cartography is essential to this work, not just for its analytical rigor but also for its ability to translate complexity into understanding. Each viewshed is designed as a spatial model and a visual narrative that speaks to planners, policymakers, property owners, and the public. A suite of cartographic outputs—including oriented imagery datasets, interactive web maps, and shoreline-focused visibility diagrams—demonstrates how changes to coastal viewscapes and adjacent land uses can be measured and meaningfully visualized in both plan and perspective views.
This research is presented at the International Cartographic Conference to support the International Cartographic Association’s (ICA) mission of fostering the understanding, sharing, and application of cartographic knowledge. It contributes to key ICA themes of sustainable development, spatial justice, and educational innovation. It shows how thoughtful cartographic design can guide land use decisions and shape public conversation in disaster-impacted regions.

Web map and project viewer: https://jderekito.github.io/ValidateViewsheds.html

Forensic science organizations are high-reliability organizations (HRO’s) that are challenged to produce consistent excellence in a high-risk, high-throughput environment. Inevitably, even well-managed laboratories will produce forensic errors that may undermine public trust and threaten organizational cohesion. An HRO framework will be presented that draws on lessons learned from wrongful convictions and insights from cognitive science to improve the reliability of forensic experts and the resiliency of forensic science organizations.

Forensic errors in wrongful convictions may have many root causes. Much attention has been paid to the relative role of contextual bias, which may influence subjective judgments that are a part of any forensic analysis. That view is lacking in several respects. Expert errors may encompass many other types of bias that may be more important in forensic science organizations. Also, forensic experts may be able to mitigate the effects of contextual bias through training and experience. Finally, interventions specifically tailored to contextual bias may increase the likelihood of other causes of errors. Thus, it is important that forensic science leaders consider a broad range of possible factors related to forensic errors and cognitive science.

Case studies of wrongful convictions provide useful insight into the scope of expert errors related to forensic evidence and intervention strategies that will mitigate the risk of future errors. Importantly, causative factors can be evaluated using the full breadth of insights from cognitive science, which includes elements related to the recruitment and development of experts, successful communication with users of forensic analyses, and organizational development strategies. In this session, case studies will be presented to demonstrate specific lessons from cases in which organizational deficiencies contributed to preventable expert errors. These examples provide key insights into practical interventions that may be considered by forensic science organizations.

More broadly, an HRO framework can be used to build a supportive culture around forensic experts. Typical HRO values include a preoccupation with failure, deference to expertise, reluctance to simplify, sensitivity to operations, and accountability. These values align with specific, proven interventions—such as testimony review and quality assurance—that are closely connected to forensic errors in wrongful convictions. Other interventions—such as linear sequential unmasking and blind reviews—can be designed to maximize impact within specific organizational contexts. The HRO framework has utility as a proactive model to identify and assess effective improvements in policy and practice. It also has utility as a reactive model to establish root causes of errors and promote positive, evidence-based change. The HRO framework can assist forensic science organizations to navigate the difficult environment that arises when expert errors contribute to miscarriages of justice.

This session is based in part on a complete analysis of wrongful convictions related to false or misleading forensic evidence. Building on that foundation, the session provides key insights into specific intervention strategies to improve forensic science reliability.