Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Box 4.1
Criteria for the analysis of the 'graphic structure' of cartographic representations in strategic
spatial plans
STYLE AND CONTENT: GRAPHIC STRUCTURE
Level of abstraction: 'scientific'/detailed versus 'artistic'/abstract representation
Outline of the territory
•
Detailed
•
Generalised
•
'45°'
Logical differentiation (Junius, 1991a, b)
•
Site-specific
: relatively clear orientation at topographic elements or land use
boundaries
•
Schematised
: rough orientation at topographic elements or land use boundaries
•
Schematic
: no orientation at topographic elements or land use boundaries,
hence spatially vague
Graphic differentiation of area symbols (Junius, 1991a, b)
•
Strict
: area contour delineated by line symbol
•
Medium-strict
: coloured area symbols with little colour contrast adjoining
•
Fuzzy
: indication of continuous transition
Graphic differentiation of point and line symbols (Junius, 1991a, b)
•
Territorially true
: approximate location of an object
•
Locationally true
: exact location of an object
Use of colour
•
Strong/solid
•
Pale/soft/mute
Complexity
•
Number of elements listed in key
•
Number of categories in key
Association and convention
•
Use of colour
•
Use of pictorial symbols
more regulative or discretionary approach, but also about experiences of dif-
ferent planning traditions with 'mapping' in more informal planning processes.
The level of abstraction, thus, communicates much about the reliability and
binding character of planning policy. Where the graphic structure shows a
high degree of abstraction and generalisation, the message that the content
of the plan is 'tentative' and/or negotiable is more clearly communicated (a
guiding principles approach). Is the graphic representation in contrast very
detailed, site-specific and strict, possibly presented on a topographic map