Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
process, such as the map user's skills and capacities, and the use the map is put
to in different circumstances. Rase (1991: 196) for example stated that 'we are not
sure what really attracts the attention of the reader, how the essence of the map is
extracted, how the content is stored in memory, or what makes a specific map type
superior to another one under certain conditions'. As a result, empirical research
and the theories proposed appear disjointed and unconnected. More recently,
however, there has been a turn towards the understanding of maps as social con-
structions and forms of power-knowledge that go well beyond the goals of the car-
tographic communication model with its underlying assumptions of maps as
containing 'scientific' and 'objective' information. Yet cartography is often still
applied as a craft discipline rather than a science, and many cartographers create
maps and cartographic illustrations following their knowledge and experience
rather than any 'universal' and comprehensible rules and guidelines.
THEORIES ON THE FUNCTION AND USE OF CARTOGRAPHIC
REPRESENTATIONS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS
There is a strong relationship between plans and cartographic representations and
the planning discipline. Clearly, maps, plans, sketches, images or other carto-
graphic representations are (besides language) the most important communication
medium for planning, as only they are able to clearly visualise the complexity of dif-
ferent demands on space. Surprisingly perhaps, not much research has been
undertaken into the use of cartography in planning, and Jarvis (1994, quoted by
Faludi, 1996a) even commented that planning theory hardly touches 'drawing' at
all. An explanation for this might be the understanding of planning as a craft discip-
line in many countries. The traditions of creating spatial plans are strongly rooted in
nation-states' planning discipline and were thus never questioned.
The literature on previous work which compares the use of cartographic
representations in planning across different countries is also limited. The Austrian
planner Otto Neurath, however, already in the 1930s argued for an internationally
understandable sign language for planning. Faludi (1989, 1996b) has documented
that Neurath undertook research into graphic symbols in planning, and the compara-
bility of pictorial symbols across different planning traditions with a view to develop-
ing a 'universal' visual language or an international sign language for town planning. In
a time when the scientific-rational view of planning was dominant, Neurath was
notable for accepting uncertainty of knowledge in decision-making, and in scientific
insights more generally. He argued strongly for better co-operation between different
spatial disciplines, in particular architects, geographers and planners, in order to
achieve the best possible results in planning and design. In particular, Neurath aimed
