Controversial maps: spatial visualisation as argument

Carton, L.J. and B. Enserink (2006) Controversial maps: Spatial visualization as argument in policy discourses. In: Metze, T. and M. van den Brink (eds) Words Matter in Policy and Planning. (p. 157 - 170). Utrecht: KNAG. Part of Series Netherlands Geographical Studies (NGS), special Issue about Discourse Analysis.

Controversial maps: spatial visualisation as argument in policy discourses Linda Carton and Bert Enserink, Delft University of Technology “The map is not the territory” Alfred Korzybski in ‘Science and Sanity’ (1933)

Introduction

Maps are influential tools to fuel or articulate policy issues with a spatial dimension. The images contain lots of information in a condense form, combining graphics, metaphors, quantitative analyses and stories. Therefore, maps are powerful instruments for handling, structuring and making sense out of the huge amount of information that characterises participative processes. As a consequence, maps are used strategically, and can be disruptive in policy preparation. Ulied and Guevara (1999) for instance, show that maps were a continuous point of discussion in the process of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). The map of the ‘Blue Banana’ (see Figure 1) that divided Europe in a core and a periphery was fiercely objected by countries outside the banana. Their resistance eventually resulted in the complete absence of policy maps in the ESDP, and illustrates how controversial maps can become. In their evaluation of the ESDP process, Faludi and Waterhout (2002) call this ‘the problem of the maps’.

157

Figure 1. The ‘Blue Banana’ (reprinted from Faludi and Waterhout 2002).

However, there are counter-examples where maps mobilised communities, and aligned and harmonised governmental policy with local interests. Under the heading of ‘Public Participation GIS’ or ‘Community Mapping’1, more and more cases pop up in the literature (e.g. Craig, Trevor and Weiner 2002), showing that maps, used in a participative setting, can successfully support policy making.

The above examples give rise to the question why in some cases maps are pointed at as a cause of controversy, whereas in other cases they are perceived as having a catalysing effect on the policy process. The objective of this paper is to understand the ways in which maps are used in 1

See for examples of papers on Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) the collection of papers and experiences of practitioners at http://www.iapad.org.

158

participative processes, and how this use of map information influences the ongoing policy process.2 Hence, our interest is how maps work in practice, that is, in the complex, emergent process of policy formulation and policy design. In what follows, we will first describe our theoretical framework, which focuses on maps as policy analysis tools. Next, we will discuss the use of maps in the practice of water policy making at the Delfland water board. We will show how controversy and consensus emerged, and how this related to the various roles of the maps. We will conclude this paper with a discussion.

Maps and map-making as a tool for policy analysis Generally speaking, policy analysis aims to produce knowledge that can be used by policy makers. In the diversity of interpretations of how policy analysis should be practiced, we adopt the viewpoint that knowledge and policy processes should be intertwined in order to achieve good decision-making, and that policy analysis theory should provide the methods, tools, guidelines and insights to achieve this (Van Eeten and Ten Heuvelhof 1998; Thissen and Twaalfhoven 2001; Edelenbos, Monnikhof and Van de Riet 2003; Priemus 2004).

Maps are one of the many model-types in the policy analysis toolkit that should support good decision-making. However, there is not much theory developed in the field of policy analysis about maps. Policy analysts who discuss the use of maps are Van Eeten (1999), and Vigar and Healey (2002). They have pointed at the importance of maps in strategic spatial planning debates, because of their power to communicate and perpetuate metaphors like the Dutch ‘Green Heart’, and the ‘Finger Plan’ of Copenhagen. Both Van Eeten and Vigar and Healey link the power of maps to their ability to influence the framing of a policy problem.

As the theory on framing and frames explains why policy processes sometimes result in controversies (Schön and Rein 1994), we will use this theory to interpret the role of maps in the emergence of controversy and consensus. Framing is the way in which a policy problem is structured and made sense of, according to a fundamental frame of reference (Bobrow and

2

The issue is not whether maps influence the policy process, but how maps influence the policy process.

159

Dryzek 1987; Schön and Rein 1994). Schön and Rein (ibid: viii) describe policy frames as “taken-for-granted assumptional structures, held by participants in the forums of policy discourse and by actors in policy-making arenas”. These frames can be made explicit, Schön and Rein argue, by reconstructing the lines of reasoning in a discourse, and by reflecting on the basic assumptions made. In this context, ‘discourse’ is defined as “verbal exchange, or dialogue, about policy issues” (ibid: 31). Our interpretation of the concept of discourse is somewhat extended, as it not only refers to the verbal debate about a certain policy issue, but comprises all the policy relevant arguments that are being explicated in any form of language (both verbal, textual, and in the language of geographical maps).

As maps are one of the communication channels, we study maps in their context of the ongoing policy discourse. It is our assumption that it is not only the map itself that causes controversies in different contexts, but rather the frames of practitioners in combination with the maps. In our view, it is the user who determines the role maps play in the ongoing process, that is, the status of these documents in the debate, the conceptualisation of issues into legend items, and the chosen scope visualised on the maps. These aspects are ‘silently’ translated into particular titles, themes, and borders of the map-view, and result in a particular message of the map.3 Because in a participative setting, there are multiple users of the same map, it can be expected that these users have different intentions with the same map, and different frames of reference from which they perceive the map.

In order to reveal the (implicit) frames of reference of the map users, we have, analogous to Mayer et al. (2004), developed in our framework of analysis a theory of different perspectives on policy analysis in decision-making. Mayer et al. have distinguished six general perspectives on the policy analysis toolkit, based on a case-survey of policy analysis studies in the Netherlands. These perspectives vary in objectives and (set of) values for conducting policy analysis, and for using policy analysis tools. The perspectives range from ‘investigating the problem situation in terms of facts, causes and effects’, through ‘design and assessment of alternative solutions’, to ‘mediation’, and ‘democratisation’. We have interpreted these general perspectives as potential frames of reference of the people who use maps as policy analysis tools in decision-making. 3

In the PhD-research this paper is part of, a conceptual model is being developed on the choices practitioners make while using (map) models to influence the participative process (Carton, forthcoming).

160

In our analysis of the arguments in a discourse, we have included the arguments on the map images, by a close reading of their content and appearance. For this purpose, we have used the cartographic theories of Bertin (1967), Harley (1989) and Monmonnier (1991). These cartographers have defined and analysed the structure, and the different parts of a map. In particular, we have looked at: the topics visualised (the titles, legend and legend items); the scale and borders chosen for the map; the cartographic variables employed by the map-maker for the layout (colours, line thickness, textures, symbols, etc.); and the techniques for constructing the map (GIS-data, overlay techniques, drawing). The case study, water policy making at the Delfland water board, is based on direct observation of over 20 project meetings during two years, detailed analysis of arguments taken from the spoken and written deliberations, and on repeated interviews with participants after the meetings (Carton 2002).

Constructing water maps in Delfland

Delfland is situated in the western - lowest - part of the Netherlands. It comprises the cities of The Hague and Delft, and a large greenhouse area called Westland. It is a low-lying area situated along the Dutch coast, and at the mouth of the main trench of the river Rhine, through the harbour of Rotterdam. During 2001-2002, the Dutch water board Delfland developed a water vision in close collaboration with the municipalities in their region. Delfland used maps as a means as well as an end product, and called the resulting vision a ‘water opportunity map’.

In the interactive and iterative process various types of maps were made. At first, various problems and potential solutions of the actual water system were articulated, as well as concerns for the future. Whereas the purpose of the project was agreed upon, namely to formulate a vision for ‘a more sustainable water system’, participants maintained different ideas about sustainability. In this debate, sketches of the area were made to clarify the competing perspectives on sustainable water management (Figure 2).

161

Figure 2. Two sketches with visions for the water circulation through the territory of Delfland, according to the competing perspectives on sustainable water management. Upper sketch 2a: water is directed from high to low areas (natural run-off). Lower sketch 2b: water is circulated counter clock-wise, by pumping the water from the clean lower polders to the polluted higher areas.

162

After agreeing on the guiding principle of the water opportunity map, namely that water should flow from clean to dirty areas, descriptive maps were made to clarify the current situation, and to articulate the tacit knowledge of the water board’s experts. Ten maps were made of current problem situations and potential areas for measures. Internally, this led to a discussion on the underlying normative interpretations: “How should we differentiate target values for water quality (and quantity)?” or “In what area’s should we develop a natural urban run-off and exclude rainwater from the drainage system?” Various options were designed in several versions, of each topic individually. The resulting set of 11 maps was used for consultation, each map showing a specific policy measure on behalf of water management. In this consultation, spatial planners of the surrounding municipalities were invited to add their comments on each map.

In the next step, the resulting 60 maps were overlaid with the help of a Geographic Information System (GIS) to explore conflicts and win-win situations. Finally, these situations were prioritised by the water board’s experts, and integrated into an integral vision. In order to make sense of all these data, two main ‘target images’ were formulated: (1) a target image for extreme rainy periods, ‘water surplus situation’; and (2) a target image for extreme dry periods, ‘water shortage situation’. The two resulting maps, which were created by several experts, showed many areas with conflicting claims.

In the succeeding project meetings, the participants decided to process the water surplus map further, by distinguishing subclasses with different policy measures (see Figure 3, upper map 3a). The controversy concentrated on the water shortage map. The potential transformation of grassland polders into permanent water storage basins was considered so controversial, that some argued to “take this legend item off the map”. Their arguments were threefold: 

Water shortage is a long-term issue; water surplus is more urgent (threat of flooding).



Due to uncertainties mapping solutions for water shortage is premature. Before that, quantitative modelling is necessary.



Water basins for shortage situations are ‘hard to sell’ to municipalities, as it would mean transformation of ‘their’ grasslands into permanent lakes.

163

Defenders of water storage basin-claims argued that this issue would require the largest spatial reservations on the long term, which is the most difficult objective to achieve, and therefore the greatest challenge to anticipate on. Furthermore, the idea of water storage basins fits in the ambitions towards more sustainable water management. Therefore, this legend item should stay on the map. In the end, the project leader solved the dispute. She asked the map-maker to replace the bounded areas or the water storage basins by indicative star symbols to keep them on the map (Figure 3, lower map 3b). On the final map they are still apparent as blue stars, labelled as ‘search locations water conservation to be assessed on the level of Delfland’ (Figure 4).

164

Figure 3. GIS-overlays of various policy measures in a sub-area of Delfland. Upper map 3a: water surplus situation. Lower map 3b: water shortage situation. Some search locations overlap.

165

Figure 3b. water shortage situation.

166

As part of the final policy product, Delfland wanted to make a ‘synthesis map’ of the most important issues. Here, the priority of policy measures was highly disputed. Not all the measures could be presented in a single image. To end the discussions and to finish the maps, a new consultancy firm was hired. Instead of copying the GIS-maps, these landscape designers listened to the various arguments and re-organised them in three groups: 1. Water claims: options that are not negotiable according to Delfland. 2. Water wishes: strong requests towards spatial planners to adopt zones or search locations in their plans for the sake of water management. 3. Water opportunities: ambitions that deserve attention of water managers and planners. In this way, the status of different spots and contours of the map were differentiated explicitly in separate groups of legend items, with a differentiated political status. This solution settled the dispute (see Figure 4, the three groups of legend items). The landscape designers did not use GIS for the final layout, but redraw the picture. The GIS-package did not offer them the options and subtleties that manual (computer-aided) drawing offers. For instance, choosing specific patterns of texture, drawing a red line just next to a blue line instead of above it, giving a symbol some ‘shade’, etc, is not possible with the standard layout-options of the GIS-package used in this case.4

4

The GIS used here is Arcview of ESRI.

167

Figure 4. Resulting Water Opportunity Map (source: Delfland 2002).

168

Analysis: re-occurring interaction styles with concurrent map use Maps serve different purposes at different times and in different occasions. Actors have different individual intentions in the process, hold different frames or worldviews, and use different strategies to achieve their objectives. All these elements influence the use of maps (and models in general), and influence how actors perceive the role of maps in debate. The case enabled us to distinguish three roles of the map, which reflect fundamental differences in how the actors interpret the policy process. We found that groups of actors, who agree on the role of the map, share the same interpretation frame. Furthermore, conflicts about what should be on the map, and how this should be visualised cartographically, can be ‘re-casted’ as conflicts between the competing frames. The first frame, the ‘analysis frame’, reasons from a rational perspective: “to measure is to know”. This frame filters the meaning of a map by focusing on details in the (spatial) data, categorisation in classes and sub-classes (the legend items on a map, called ‘feature classes’ in a GIS), and on (scientific) methods used to produce the map image. Hence, the analysis frame is characterised by large amounts of data that need to be collected, organised, monitored, and mapped, before decisions can be made, and coincides with Mayers 'research and analysis' perspective (Mayer et al. 2004). From this perspective, maps are used as an interactive model, but the structure of a map must be logical, that is, each spot on the map should be properly defined and clearly bounded. The essence of the overall policy analysis process is seen primarily as a process for analysis, research and assessment, and aggregation and validity are important issues in the making and use of a map. Furthermore, Geographic Information System (GIS) is an important technical aid, as GIS allows its users to perform spatial analyses with endless variation, based on a large spatial data-set (the geo-database). The example of the numerous GIS overlays in the inventory stage of the Delfland water board is a typical example of maps interpreted through an analysis frame (Figure 3, left).

The conceptual maps of Figure 2, showing the conceptual scheme of the Delfland water management system, are a typical example of maps made with the intention to facilitate a discussion. The second frame, the ‘design frame’ is associated with creativity and intuition. Actors who perceive the policy process through this frame, interpret the (participative) policy 169

making process as an assignment to develop new plans. Then, the essence of the overall policy analysis process is seen primarily as a process for creating and presenting new options and alternatives, which can be realised by applying the methods of urban/rural design crafts, and by relying on the skills for conceptualisation and visualisation of professional landscape architects. These professionals use maps as a visual language to consolidate and express their thoughts. The designers also create and conceptualise their ideas by drawing; the resulting (sketch) maps are used to present and express all kinds of ideas, variants and possibilities - new things in space that did not exist before. In the case of Delfland, the consultant who made the sketches of Figure 2 is an obvious example of an actor who interprets the policy analysis process through a design frame, at that moment. The third frame that is visible in the Delfland case is the ‘negotiation frame’. As this frame is based on political reasoning, it resembles the more political oriented perspectives as formulated by Mayer et al. (2004), in which aspects of argumentation, consensus building, advocacy, strategic behaviour and democratic values are emphasised. The information presented on maps consists of symbols or metaphors that make sense of the world, according to a particular political claim. As Stone (1988: 108) explains: “Any good symbolic device, one that works to capture the imagination, also shapes our perceptions and suspends scepticism, at least temporarily...”. The blue and orange stars in Delfland’s water opportunity maps are such symbolic devices (see Figures 3 right and 4). These maps show the claims of the water board, the most contentious of them nicely packed as blue or yellow stars, in order not to scare off the local authorities.

However, the selectiveness of the presented information on the final map is not singularly the result of negotiations or strategic considerations. It is also the result of analysis and design. Hence, the three frames with concurrent roles of the map - analysis, design and negotiation - have all contributed to the final outcome. This process has been incremental, participative and partly unconscious, as the belief in the (validity of a) symbol or map has grown, while it settled itself in the language that was practiced.

Let us now recapitulate the story of the case study in terms of interference patterns between different frames. In the Delfland case, after initial discussions a few experts made the map images 170

‘water surplus situation’ and ‘water shortage situation’, and presented the results back to the other participants. As a response, it was quickly agreed to process the water surplus image further in an analytical manner. The other map image about water shortage faced objections. Some participants criticised the validity of the water shortage image, by calling for more quantitative modelling. They perceived this map through an analysis frame. The water shortage map was also criticised on its value for future deliberations with municipalities. This argument reflected the negotiation frame. Then, the map was defended with the argument that it expressed ideas for more sustainability in the future. This argument reflected the design frame. Here we see how the three frames came to meet each other, and how they conflicted. In a later phase, when the final ‘synthesis map’ (Figure 4) was made, the map-makers re-shuffled the legend items according to negotiation priorities. They used subtle drawing options to emphasise their message in a redrawing of the GIS-maps into a readable, persuasive map image. At this stage, the negotiation frame dominated and determined the role and appearance of the map, while using information from the earlier phases. To conclude, the Delfland case shows how a policy map ‘emerges’ in incremental steps. The group of participants builds further on information provided by others, while (re-)framing the pre-eminence and meaning of a map.

The overview of the discussed archetypical frames and the concurrent roles of the map are presented in Table 1. In each frame, the map is used according to a different rationale, which is reflected in a different interpretation of the policy analysis process, a different view on what role the map plays (or should play), and different characteristics of the resulting policy map images.

171

Table 1. Resulting overview of how three different frames of reference, each with its own type of rationality, perceive the use of maps in policy debates. Actor perspective

ANALYSIS

DESIGN

NEGOTIATION

frame

frame

frame

Interpretation of the policy process Urge

 Gain knowledge

 Create new ideas

 Choose

Focus

 Research and assessment

 Creation and presentation of alternatives

 Interaction and arranging trade-off

Perceived limitations

 Bounded by problem scope, available data, scientific uncertainty and technologic considerations

 Bounded by objectives, conditions, imaginative capacity and considerations of ‘beauty’

 Institutional constellation and timeframe, limits to (re-) framing capacity, and pragmatic and strategic considerations

 Serve as visual interface to the data of the underlying spatial model

 Elicit and explicate patterns in the landscape, generate ‘back talk’6

 Assist in moving latent arguments7 towards an explicated policy agenda

 Reassure transparency and validity; consolidate scientific evidence

 Articulate (new) concepts about the landscape

 Serve as supportive medium for sharing or distributing information

 Clarify (existing) mechanisms in the morphology of space

 Express ideas and options; being a result of art and crafts work

 Persuade actors with an argument or story, presented graphically.

Role of the map Modelling function

Presentation function

Appearance of the map image Overall

 Specific, superfluous information

 Abstract, metaphoric information

 Dedicated, selective information

Legend items

 Clearly defined categories and subclasses

 Conspicuous names with ambiguous interpretations

 Few legend items - only those (to be) decided upon

Boundaries

 Sharp boundaries

 Sketchy boundaries

 Boundaries on or off the map8

6

Back talk is described by Schön (1983) as the phenomenon that a design, once explicated as graphic drawing, figuratively starts to ‘talk back’ to its creator. A halfway designed plan limits the degrees of freedom, and simultaneously offers new insights on the possibilities and problems. 7 The latent arguments exist of opinions, ideas and knowledge that may yet exist in implicit, tacit form. 8 Whether the boundaries are deliberatively put on or off the map depends on the negotiation strategy (e.g. an advocative, mediative or strategic strategy).

172

Map controversies as frame conflicts The three roles of maps discussed in this paper frame spatial policy issues in a specific way. This framing largely explains the rising controversies over these maps. In policy debates, using the right map at the wrong time or the wrong map at the right time will prove almost inevitable. If we realise that different frames define the role of the map, this awareness can help us understand why seemingly pointless controversies over maps do occur in policy debates. If participants share the same frame, the role of the map may be evidently clear and unambiguous. In such situations, actors may oppose against the decisions or alternative proposed, but not against the status or role of the map, because this role is implied in the concurrent, shared frame. The map will either be used primarily to ‘register’ negotiated decisions (negotiation role), or used as expressive tool to ‘articulate, invent and construct’ new patterns in the landscape (design role), or as scientific model to ‘discover, quantify and diagnose’ questions about land uses, such as the quality of the ecosystem (analysis role).

A map has a specific character when designed for a specific purpose on a certain moment in time, but its status changes once it is interpreted within different frames in a policy debate. For instance, when the idea of the water storage basins became formal policy next to other potential and conflicting - policy measures for water management in the Delfland case, the analytic GISmaps became a strategic political document, which polarised discussions ‘pro’ or ‘con’ maps, map layers or individual legend items.

Maps as instrument for the policy analyst In the introduction we have claimed that maps are rich models, but that this richness implies costs elsewhere. A downside is that one single map can overload people with information. The message of the map will be lost by the quantity of data. Furthermore, as all maps are in essence a scale model, the high level of abstraction gives the map-maker freedom in choosing the ‘rules for generalisation’. As people tend to think in spatial dimensions of a map in the same manner as they look at the real world, they will take the underlying assumptions for granted. These downsides do not dismiss maps as helpful instruments for policy analysts, but we think the role of maps should be more consciously reflected upon. The overview of Table 1 can serve as a

173

handheld for the different roles a map may serve. By clarifying the different roles of a map on different moments in time, controversial maps may be prevented.

Reflection on the applied method We see the analysis of map images as a form of discourse analysis. In our interpretation, discourse analysis is the analysis of a debate around a particular issue. Spoken, textually and visually expressed arguments are the primary data source. In the case study of the water opportunity map in Delfland, we have studied the policy debate to explain the roles of this map and in doing so, we have tried to explain the rise of policy controversies. Whereas the arguments of the maps are not expressed aloud, they are the silent witnesses of the ongoing framing process. The shifting of names, the re-classification of legend-items and priorities, and the choices made in cartographic layout on the (temporal) maps are representative for the ongoing conceptualisation and negotiation process among participants. We incite discourse analysts (particularly those who use frame reflection techniques for interpretation) not to neglect maps as data source, but encourage a critical approach to maps, as they fit in specific types of rationalities and incorporate hidden frames.

References

BERTIN, J. (1967), Diagrammes, réseaux, cartographie. Sémiologie graphique. France: Gauthier-Villars. English version: Bertin, J. (1983) ‘The Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps’. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. BOBROW, D.B. & J.S. DRYZEK (1987), Policy Analysis by Design. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburg Press. CARTON, L.J. (2002), Strengths and weaknesses of spatial language. Mapping activities as debating instrument. In: Conference Proceedings International Federation of Surveying (FIG XXII International Congress, Washington, D.C., April 19-26 2002). CARTON, L.J. (forthcoming), Reticence of the map. How making and using spatial models frames participative policy analysis processes (dissertation, working title). Delft: Eburon.

174

CRAIG, W.J., M. TREVOR & D. WEINER, eds. (2002), Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems. London: Taylor and Francis. DELFLAND (2002), Waterkansenkaart Delfland. Watereisen, waterwensen en waterkansen voor deelgebied Oostland. Samenvatting. Delft: Hoogheemraadschap van Delfland. EDELENBOS, J., R. MONNIKHOF, & O. VAN DE RIET (2003), A Double Helix approach. A proposal to forge a better integration of analysis and policy development. In: International Journal of Technology Policy and Management, Vol 3(1), pp.1-21. EETEN, M.J.G. VAN & E.F. TEN HEUVELHOF (1998), ‘Servicable truth’. De procescontingente inzet van wetenschappelijke expertise. In: Hoppe, R. & A. Peterse eds. Bouwstenen voor argumentatieve beleidsanalyse. The Hague: Elsevier. EETEN, M.J.G. VAN (1999), Dialogues of the deaf. Defining new agendas for environmental deadlocks (dissertation). Delft: Eburon. FALUDI, A. & B. WATERHOUT (2002), The making of the European Spatial Development Perspective. No Masterplan. London: Routledge. HARLEY, J.B. (1989), Deconstructing the map. Cartographica, Vol. 26 (2), pp. 1-20. MAYER, I.S., C.E. VAN DAALEN & P.W.G. BOTS (2004), Perspectives on policy analyses. A framework for understanding and design. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management. Vol. 4 (2), pp. 169-191. MONMONNIER, M. (1991), How to lie with maps. Chicago: University of Chicago press. PRIEMUS, H. (2004), Strategisch plan TBM 2004-2010. Delft: Faculty Technology, Policy and Management. SCHÖN, D.A. (1983), The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. SCHÖN, D.A. AND M. REIN (1994), Frame reflection. Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books. STONE, D.A. (1988), Political paradox and political reasoning. USA: HarperCollins Publishers. THISSEN, W.A.H. & P.G.J. TWAALFHOVEN (2001) Towards a conceptual structure for evaluating policy analytic activities. In: European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 129(3), pp. 627-649. ULIED, A. & M. GUEVARA (1999), The missing dragon. Mapping European spatial policy in the 21st century. Barcelona: Mcrit. 175

VIGAR, G. & P. HEALEY (2002), Developing environmentally respectful policy programs. Five key principles. In: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 45 (4), pp. 517-532.

176