Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
partly a result of the organisation of the planning system. This part of the frame-
work relates to what Harley (1989) has called the 'internal power' of the map, that
is, the power of cartographers over non-cartographers embedded in the carto-
graphic process as such: how maps are produced, information is selected and
generalised. The analysis of cartographic products is a complicated matter and
involves much uncertainty about the graphic language used, and especially the
intended message and meaning (cf. Chapter 3). The majority of approaches to the
analysis of maps can be found in the areas of history of cartography or history of
geography. Thus, although the work by for example Harley (1989) or Pickles
(1992) provides a useful starting point for the analysis of cartographic representa-
tions, it does not offer comprehensive tools for the analysis of the contemporary
situation of the planning process, and the role of cartographic illustrations in this.
The elements of this part of the framework, which is related to the cartographic
aspects of form and style of cartographic representations in spatial planning, were
therefore constructed by borrowing from a variety of sources.
The first two aspects in the field of the 'production' of cartographic
representations in planning are founded on Pickles's (1992) work on regarding
maps as being based on two structures, one graphic and one linguistic, and on
Harley's (1989) work on 'deconstructing the map', which employs a hermeneutical
approach to map analysis (cf. Chapter 3). However, neither Pickles's nor Harley's
work provides a very detailed account of the 'elements of a map' with regard to its
graphic or linguistic structure. The framework criteria related to the graphic struc-
ture of maps are therefore borrowed from cartographic literature on map design
and semiotics, whereas the criteria related to the linguistic aspects of maps are
derived mainly from Harley's (1989), Pickles's (1992) and Söderström's (1996,
2000) work.
Three categories were chosen for the comparative analysis of the 'graphic
structure' (Pickles, 1992) of cartographic representations in strategic planning
instruments, which relate to the abstraction, the level of complexity and the use of
associative colours and symbols 'on the map' (cf. Box 4.1):
•
The
level of abstraction
relates to a more detailed (or 'scientific') versus a
more abstract ('artistic') cartographic representation in spatial plans. The
rationale for this criterion for analysis is that a 'scientific' mapping approach is
still predominant in many planning traditions, which communicates the
message of 'objective' and trustworthy information. In contrast, a highly gen-
eralised approach to cartography, as for instance suggested by Brunet
(Reclus, 1989; Ormeling, 1992), communicates a more tentative, 'guiding
principles' understanding of the plan's content. The level of abstraction can
therefore give clues about the understanding of planning with regard to a
