r/geography

I think South Tyrol, Italy is a great example of this. It is a predominately German-speaking region in the Northern-most part of Italy and is adjacent to the Austrian region to Tyrol. The people there are culturally, ethnically, and linguistically a lot more similar to Austria, Bavaria, and the German-speaking part of Switzerland than they are to most parts of Italy and a South Tyrolean would undoubtedly feel less foreign in Salzburg than they would in Naples.

The current world number 2 tennis player, Jannik Sinner, originates from this region hence why he represents Italy but his name and mother tongue is German.

Which other instances does this occur?

I’ve been thinking about how isolated New Zealand is compared to most other developed countries. It’s pretty far from major population centers like Europe, North America, and even parts of Asia, which seems like it could limit migration, trade, and overall growth.

If New Zealand were located closer to other continents or major global hubs, do you think it would have a significantly larger population today? Or are factors like its terrain, economy, and government policies more important than geographic isolation?

Curious how much of its relatively small population is due to pure distance vs other constraints.

A few weeks ago, I shared an Asian map of tree cover: https://www.reddit.com/r/geography/s/n2oUF1AGrr.

Although my post focused on the boreal forests, there was a pinch of astonishment after seeing the thematic map of the Indian part.

As evident from the map, the major clusters are located in:

1. North East India (due to far eastern Himalayas, and heavy rainfall - this is the wettest place on Earth),

2. The Himalayan belt (Bhutan, Nepal, provinces of Uttarakhand, Himachal, Jammu & Kashmir, and Northern Pakistan),

3. Central India (Deccan plateau regions, presence of deciduous forests. Fun fact: infamous of Revolutionary Communist insurgency)

4. Western Ghats (Hilly region, forests exist due to extensive rainfall in the windward side)

5. Tropical island of Andaman & Nicobar and Sri Lanka,

some minor green patches in Rajasthan (due to Aravalli), and Eastern ghat region in the south, exist too.

With all these stats, it may appear that India has sufficient forest cover, but it is clearly under insufficient considering the human geography of India. The lack of dense tree cover is clearly visible when we zoom out and have a look at East Asian, Russian and South East Asian maps (in the comments below). The majority of the population lives in the Northern Indian plain, traversing states that cumulatively contain more population than the entire South America. The region is blessed by the Ganges river and its tributaries, which enables productive agriculture; However that comes at a cost of forest clearance. The same pattern repeats in Bangladesh (Ganga-Brahamputra delta), Punjab province of Pakistan (Indus river course), and even in the eastern flowing rivers of South India.

Google Map Link

The Blue Banana is a highly urbanized corridor in Western Europe stretching from England to northern Italy.

It is home to around 111 million people and includes some of the continent’s main economic centers, such as London, Frankfurt, and Milan.

A significant share of Europe’s wealth is concentrated in this corridor.

Meaning that any islands near the mainland Antarctica were now legally up to claim by any country? Which countries would race to claim new territories here, how would they enforce their claims and could there be conflicts or even wars because of this treaty change?

I have a 3D wooden map and this island has fallen off. Can anyone identify it?

The scale is inconsistent, especially on smaller islands/archipelagos but this piece is about the same size as Hainan (China) or Northern Ireland.