The document discusses landscape heritage maps and their usefulness. It analyzes examples from the Netherlands that show selective representations of cultural heritage with little object names or information. A framework is proposed for evaluating such maps based on levels from visualization to societal impacts. The framework reveals issues like non-mapped cultural history for some maps. Mapping is framed as a context-dependent process involving actors, representations, and impacts on uses and landscape. There is a need for more discussion of expertise, awareness, and balancing representation with needed views and information for different users and scales.

1. The good, the bad and the ignorant:
Cultural
Ethics The Landscape
bad
‘The
The ignorant’
good
Maps, Landscape
information heritage
Ethics and landscape heritage maps
Sophie Visser Symposium Mapping Ethics
Lausanne, April 14-15, 2011

2. Personal background
-M. Sc. In Chemistry & Informatics
-Career in information systems
(organization & user oriented)
-M.A. in (Historical) Geography
2006
Landscape
heritage maps:
‘hardly useful’ – why?
-Independent consultant LandZij/
PhD student Utrecht University

3. Example : “Main heritage structure“ map, Province of South-Holland
Does what it says (‘main structure’)
but: - (too) selective
- no object-names
- no object-information

4. Example: “Knowledge Infrastructure Cult. Heritage”, National system, < 2010
Represents ‘knowledge’ ?!
- selectivity!
- object-names : yes
- object-information : hardly

5. Example: “Knowledge Infrastructure Cult. Heritage”, National system, > 2010
-Appears to show more objects
-But:
-point icons for everything
-hardly ‘real’ landscape objects + information
=> e.g. 3 unnamed objects + 7 general descriptions

6. ‘Social responsibility framework’ for maps (and more …..)
Levels (aggregated) Is about
Map as visualization ‘clear’ + useful
Landscape heritage & information what + why present
+ information
Choices & criteria ‘why’ (or not) In the
present
Process & method More background:
what, how, whom,
Policy & process context why (or not)
Effects & impacts on use & users Practical /emotional Towards
effects => on use the
future
Effects & impacts on society Impacts on landscape

7. ‘Social responsibility framework’ (2)
√
=> Judged from a local perspective
Framework levels Province KICH < 2010 KICH > 2010
Map visualization
+/- + -
Landscape heritage & Region-dependent:
+/- -
information --+
Choices & criteria
~general ~general
Process & method  (+ partly
in recent Policies from not clear)
Policy & process context reports ‘90s!
Effects & impacts on use & What do with it? Not for Hardly used in
users landscape… general?
Effects & impacts on society e.g. – non-mapped cultural history?
- status, power, …?

8. Problem => Views and heritage maps : provided  needed (1)
Administrative levels/scale
Heritage
National map
Provincial Heritage
map
Regional By – professionals
- authorities
needed Other needs
Local views
heritage
people
information activities
contexts
Activity types
Policy general detailed management education,
plan plan & tourism
maintenance

9. Mapping => a processes-in-context with actors and impacts(1)
Landscape/
heritage
(Future) activities use
Landscape/heritage
Topographic map
GIS
Cultural history research
Text,
Heritage Visualization,
‘Represen-
evaluation Publication
tation’

10. Mapping => a processe-in-context with actors and impacts(2)
(2) ‘Inscribing the landscape’ (1) Uses-in-context(s)
(Future)
Landscape/heritage
Mapping as communication-in-context

11. Is all this ‘an issue’? => expertise, awareness, discussion, …
‘ignorant’ ‘good’

12. Thank you!
j.s.visser@planet.nl

13. Example: “Knowledge Infrastructure Cult. Heritage”, National system, > 2010
Upon clicking: 10 objects
Unnamed built heritage 1800-1945
Area: Netherlands
Unnamed built heritage 1800-1945
Area: Regional description
Area: Fens
Mid-Netherlands fens area
Peat/fens reclamation
Lakes from peat digging
Unspecified border
Peat reclamation parcellation