Mapping interfaces, exploring the possiblities and power of visualization

Maps and graphics are powerful and interesting tools to explore a particular landscape and its spatial and socio-historical context 9. They also provide clues about the main land use of a site as pointed out in the prelude. Conventional maps, however, generally fall short in indicating overlapping or interacting uses, and spatial or temporal changes and evolutions of uses on a site. Sequences of maps over a period of time or more recent interactive mapping methods allow for the capturing of land use change to a much wider extent. Unfortunately, traditional mono-temporal maps are still used in many spatial planning exercises. Particularly, these traditional maps often show a wide gap between theoretical census data and the actual situation in the field.

Maps include topographical maps, land use maps, orthophotographs and remote sensing imagery, analytical maps such as flooding sensitivity maps, biological valuation maps and agricultural land use maps as well as relatively detailed historical maps (figure 1). Planning policy documents, such as land use plans, determine one desired land use situation of a site, somewhere in the future, and focus on fixing land uses as a representation of passive and static visions. Land use plans often work with a limited number of fixed homogeneous categories or ‘boxes’ of land use (figure 2). All these maps and representations fall short in providing a fine-grained detailing of the actual transformations in an area, how the landscape is evolving, and which dynamics are
developing. Moreover, continuous landscape and land use changes within and outside the legal framework have caused a profound mismatch between both the desired and recorded situation on a map and the actual spatial reality.

This being said, it should not be surprising that it is the very nature of interfaces to be invisible in traditional land use maps. As seeing and labeling interfaces is the first step in making them discussable; visualizing and mapping them is a second step. Without claiming to offer a complete solution for the problem, this reflection explores some potential approaches to the mapping and visualization of interfaces. Following in the footsteps of the previous reflection by Elke Vanempten, this reflection also focuses on Asbeek for some explorative mapping exercises using different approaches. Besides actually applying mapping techniques to Asbeek, other promising techniques are reflected upon theoretically.