Gall-Peters Projection
Gall-Peters answers the question Mercator ignores: how much area do countries and continents truly occupy? It preserves area more faithfully, but pays for that fairness with strongly stretched shapes.
A map of fair area and uncomfortable shapes
The main value of Gall-Peters is that Africa, South America, and South Asia regain visual weight. Global South countries stop looking like side notes to the northern hemisphere. That is why the projection became a symbol in the debate over whether maps can reinforce political views of the world.
At the same time, it is not visually comfortable. Equatorial countries look vertically stretched, while areas closer to the poles are flattened. In return, you get a fairer answer about area, but a worse answer about natural shape.
Global Cartographic Grid
Distortion Properties
| Property | Characteristic |
|---|---|
| Area | ✅PreservedPreserved (equal-area projection) |
| Shape | ❌DistortedSeverely distorted (vertical stretching near the equator, horizontal stretching near the poles) |
| Distances | ❌DistortedDistorted |
| Angles & Directions | ❌DistortedDistorted |
| Continuity | ✅PreservedPreserved |
History & Origin
First described by James Gall in 1855, and independently popularized in 1973 by German historian Arno Peters. Peters promoted it as a politically fair alternative to Mercator, correctly portraying the size of Global South countries.
Applications
Education, humanitarian agencies (like UNESCO), and publications advocating for geographic equality of developing nations.
How to read this map
This map is like a scale: it is not meant to look elegant, but to weigh continents more fairly. If something looks thin or flattened, check the area, not the silhouette.
- Areas are much more fairly comparable than in Mercator.
- Equatorial countries can look unnaturally tall.
- Shapes near the poles become horizontally compressed.
- It works well for global data measured per square kilometer.
What you gain and lose
Gall-Peters preserves area but gives up natural appearance. It is a strong example of a map that can be mathematically fairer while feeling less intuitive.
Thematic area maps, education about the Global South, and discussions of geopolitical perception.
Navigation, visually polished wall atlases, and country-shape analysis.
✦ How do different countries look in this projection?
Analyze shape distortions of 5 countries in this cartographic projection and test them in the sandbox.
Brazil regains area weight, but becomes much slimmer.
Test on map →
India clearly shows the vertical stretching of the tropics.
Test on map →
Russia loses the dominance it has on Mercator maps.
Test on map →
Greenland stops pretending to be a continent.
Test on map →
Congo reveals the real scale of equatorial countries.
Test on map →Facts worth remembering
- The projection was promoted as a political alternative to Mercator in the twentieth century.
- It is equal-area, so countries with the same area should occupy similar visual size.
- Its controversy shows that mathematical correctness does not always mean comfortable reading.
Keep reading about maps that reshape intuition
Frequently Asked Questions
It is used for equal-area presentations showing the true relative sizes of countries (e.g., highlighting that Africa is dramatically larger than Europe).
It must not be used for navigation, local maps, or surveying. Due to extreme angular distortion, country outlines are severely warped.
Equatorial countries (like DRC, Indonesia, and Brazil) which look vertically stretched, and polar nations (like Canada and Russia) which are heavily compressed horizontally.
Countries around 45° latitude north and south (such as France, Italy, the US, or South Africa) where shape distortion is minimal.
To maintain equal areas on a rectangular grid, this cylindrical projection must stretch shapes vertically near the equator and compress them horizontally near the poles.