Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
'Scientific'/Detailed
'Artistic'/Abstract
Outline of
territory
detailed
generalised
'45-degree'
Logical
differentiation
site-specific
schematised
schematic
Area symbols
strict
medium-strict
fuzzy
Point and line
symbols
locationally true
territorially true
Use of colour
strong, solid
pale, soft
RPG10 RPG1 Draft RPG14
Figure 4.8
Level of abstraction in English RPGs/RSSs
clearly indicate that comparatively little attention is given to this instrument in a
policy-led planning system, and also give an insight into the lack of experience with
visualising spatial policy at regional level. Generally, however, the key diagrams are
significantly more diagrammatic and abstract than binding German plans and even
than indicative planning instruments in the Netherlands.
THE COMPLEXITY OF CARTOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATIONS
The cross-national analysis of the complexity of cartographic representations in
Dutch, German and English strategic spatial plans is presented in Figure 4.10. The
complexity of key diagrams is expressed through the number of individual elements
listed in the key and the number of categories of planning policy as discussed in
the key. Given that not all elements are differentiated into clearly identifiable cat-
egories (except for the German plans), and a certain amount of interpretation was
involved in determining these, the number of elements listed in the key is in this
case the more 'objective' criterion to express the level of complexity.
Overall, there are certain differences in the complexity of cartographic
representations in strategic plans in the three countries, with a generally higher
complexity of German
LEPs/LEPros
and Dutch
Streekplannen
than of English
RPGs/RSSs. The identification of categories in the English key diagrams was to a
certain degree subjective as categories are generally not distinguished. In the
Streekplannen
for Noord-Holland and Noord-Brabant, a series of analytical and
