This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 23 November 2014, At: 15:37Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Annals of GISPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tagi20

Review: Cartography: challenges and potential in thevirtual geographic environments eraMilan Konecny aa Department of Geography , Laboratory on Geoinformatics and Cartography, MasarykUniversity , Brno, Czech RepublicPublished online: 26 Sep 2011.

To cite this article: Milan Konecny (2011) Review: Cartography: challenges and potential in the virtual geographicenvironments era, Annals of GIS, 17:3, 135-146, DOI: 10.1080/19475683.2011.602027

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2011.602027

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Annals of GISVol. 17, No. 3, September 2011, 135–146

REVIEW

Cartography: challenges and potential in the virtual geographic environments era

Milan Konecny*

aDepartment of Geography, Laboratory on Geoinformatics and Cartography, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

(Received 28 June 2011; final version received 28 June 2011)

The author analyzed previous development and current state of the art of cartography on the background of latest scientificresults coming with improvement of virtual geographic environments. Cartography has been influenced by developmentof information and communication technologies and geographical thinking. The strongest and most visible contemporarystreams in cartography and geographic information systems are the existence and use of Web 2.0, which supports Web-basedservices for many people all around the world and fast development of crowd-sourcing allowing collection of voluntaryinformation. The author deals with the current position of cartography which is influenced by progressively new environ-ment, especially realization of idea of spatial information infrastructures through projects such as Global Monitoring forEnvironment and Security, Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe or Shared Environmental Information System,and others. New achievements of ubiquitous cartography, especially adaptive and context mapping are overviewed as well.The article also highlights virtual environments and explains immersive, perception, and interaction aspects. Basics of neo–geography and volunteer geographic information are also described. The core of this article includes analyses, ideas, andconsiderations of cartographical challenges in virtual geographic environment era. The author delimits the so-called innerand outer development of cartography. The former deals with selective aspects of contemporary cartography development,such as user interface and cartographic generalization streams. The latter deals with development of three-dimensional mapsand models in cartography, new and still hypothetical investigations of recognition, and possible use of cognitive styles incartography. The last part of the article is devoted to the role of cartography in realization of the concepts of spatially enabledsociety and digital earth.

Keywords: virtual geographic environments (VGEs); ubiquitous cartography; neo-geography; volunteer geographicinformation (VGI); digital earth

1. Introduction

Cartography is an age-old activity, with the first drawingsdating back to 24,000 BC (south Moravia, Czech Republic)or 12,000 BC (the Ukraine). Although there is some doubtover the accuracy of these European assertions, there ismore agreement over the Chinese, cadastral map from 2000BC and Catal Huyuk city in Anatolia, Turkey, dating backto 7200 BC.

Cartography was originally an instinctive science,which today has entered a new, revolutionary period in itsdevelopment. In the modern approach, mapping is under-stood as the ability to create a knowledge frame of anenvironment in space. Although it is in principle cognitive,cartography has traditionally transmitted knowledge mostlywith the use of paper products that expressed geospatialideas and allowed storage and transfer of spatial informa-tion. With the passage of time, maps have been used forresearch and analyses of increasingly complex spatial prob-lems in scientific work and in society. Paper maps havemany positive features, and over the centuries they have

*Email: konecny@geogr.muni.cz

been able to derive benefit from technological develop-ment. However, until recently, all paper maps lacked thedynamic and interactive flexibility of their cognitive alter-natives (Wood 2003, Konecny and Ormeling 2005). Afteran evolution lasting for many centuries, cartography hasreached the status of a discipline that helps to understandthe geography of the world. The development of cogni-tive mapping based on the perception of the environmentand the perception mediated by cartographic products, orin other words the creation of maps and the use of maps,have evolved separately for centuries.

Computer technology began to influence cartographyfrom the mid-twentieth century. Today, geographic infor-mation systems (GIS) support a wide range of spatialprojects; however, creation of maps remains the indepen-dent and dominant conception. GIS have not replacedcartography; they have equipped it with exceptionally suc-cessful technologies providing a higher level of perfectionand efficiency. GIS started the process of geoinformati-zation of cartography (Konecny 2008). Most geographic

ISSN 1947-5683 print/ISSN 1947-5691 online© 2011 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2011.602027http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

37 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

136 M. Konecny

(spatial) information is geo-referenced. Cartographic visu-alization plays an important role in the user’s orientation.Visualization is not an isolated element of the informa-tion transfer process; it depends on the status of sourcedatabases, decision-supporting models, and behavior andthe needs of the user.

Public and private organizations gradually shift theirfocus from collection of data to their utilization in var-ied applications. Use of existing data, verification of theirtimeliness and integrity, analysis of their quality, interpre-tation, representation, and implementation of user accessare currently the key requirements placed on the scien-tific community by the administration bodies that maintainthese databases.

Today, cartography is influenced by the latest tech-nological advances, in which GIS are strongly linkedwith spatial information infrastructures (SDIs) and vari-ous information and communication technologies (ICT) toprovide services to millions of users.

Characterizing contemporary state of the art of GIS,Dangermond (2009, p. i) notes that much of this revolu-tion has been driven by miniaturization and exponentiallyincreasing speed of computer hardware, specifically mem-ory, which has led to a massive proliferation of machines,from handheld devices to various kinds of supercomputer.But dissemination is also driven by the convergence ofcomputers and communications where computer hardware,software, and data are increasingly accessible from remotelocations and where the network is all that is important inaccessing these resources. In this, mapping and GIS play anincreasingly important role. The development of systems atmany different levels, from research and professional use toroutine queries by non-expert users who require map data,represent a burgeoning of map-based technologies that arebeginning to empower many groups that hitherto have notbeen exposed to geographic information.

The strongest and most visible contemporary streams incartography and GIS are the existence and use of Web 2.0supporting Web-based services for many people all aroundthe world and fast developing crowd-sourcing allowingcollection of voluntary information.

2. Contemporary cartography

The International Cartographic Association (ICA) is theglobal authoritative organization for cartographers. TheICA has a strategic plan, which recognized five operat-ing environments of cartography: science and technology,education, professional practice, society (social and orga-nizational), and art. Cartographers aim at being able toapply scientific knowledge for society’s everyday needs,for use in the realization of the ideas of sustainable devel-opment, risk situations, economic development, and manyother situations.

Cartography is increasing efforts to be visible and –in specific cartographical aspects – the leading part of the

global GI community; to be prepared to deliver data andinformation emanating from different sources, especiallyfrom National Spatial Data Infrastructures or global spatialdata projects, by cartographical means to users with differ-ent skills and experience; to be part of many g-processesand e-processes that are so visible and well-articulatedin the contemporary world. Among other very importantroles, the ICA also sees itself taking part in solving awide spectrum of activities linked with the United NationsMillennium Development Goals and helping to providesolutions for global, regional, and local problems such aspoverty, sustainable development, early warning, disastermanagement, disaster reduction, security and safety, andother related topics. Cartography uses conventional andmodern digital methods and many technologies comingfrom ICT and new media, such as Google. Contemporarycartography is developing and improving cartographicaland geographical thinking, which is so important for ana-lyzing the needs of the contemporary world and find-ing optimal solutions for the decision-making process(Konecny 2008).

2.1. Cartography and geoinformatics in the SDIs,SESs, and DE world

The characteristics of cartography and the GI communityare changing according to advancing technology and thedevelopment of new ideas, including geographical think-ing. For example, new techniques such as Google, WebMaps, GI portals, and others have influenced the develop-ment of cartography in recent years. Cartography also dealswith qualitatively new conditions related to the existenceof spatial information infrastructures (SDIs) and helps torealize and complete new social concepts such as SpatiallyEnabled Societies (SESs) or Digital Earth (DE).

Today, we are able to provide enormous volumes ofgeospatial information, on the basis of which we can takebetter-informed decisions for the use of natural resources,for environmental protection, or for managing disasters andtheir after-effects. However, we are only able to use them ifthey fit our concepts, if we understand them properly, andif they have been tailored to our needs. It is not enough tobuild the technical infrastructure without teaching the pop-ulation how to use the maps, be they in analog or digitalform. We have to provide the concepts with which the pop-ulation is able to deal with geospatial information, and wehave to provide maps from which the population is able toderive the information they need: information that is up-to-date and tailor-made for problem-solving (Konecny andOrmeling 2005).

Currently, the potential of cartography to offer newinformation, knowledge, and sometimes also wisdom isincreasing. But still we see undervaluation of GI and map-ping possibilities, especially during disasters. The recentFukushima nuclear power plant tragedy, Hurricane Katrina,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

37 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Annals of GIS 137

the Wenchuan earthquake, and the Indian Ocean tsunamiin 2004 are evidence of the lack of spatial information thatcould improve the decision-making process and the lackof development in basic approaches of how GI and carto-graphical models can help in such situations. In the UnitedStates, Europe, and other places, governments deal with theidea of the emergency management cycle. However, we canfind only a few publications dealing in detail with role ofGI and cartography in crisis management situations (NRC2007, Mulickova and Kubicek 2011).

Another example is cartography-based research ofmedical problems and discovery of new knowledge aboutprevalence and mortality, new relations, and models work-ing with certain probabilities, which allow not onlyimprovement of treatment methods for different types ofdiseases such as cancer but also help in planning and allo-cation of corresponding funding to prevent the spread ofvarious diseases. Transformation of the earth into a ‘globalvillage‘ brings advantages and disadvantages. One of thedisadvantages is the risk of a pandemic outbreak of a con-tagious disease in a world where global travel has becomea possibility for millions and the time spent in travelingfrom one continent to another can be as little as a fewhours. In this situation, it is very difficult to stop the spreadof any epidemic. In a pandemic situation, decisions mustbe taken and acted upon in a short time. Accessible andaccurate data are required for accurate decision-making(Stampach et al. 2010a). GIS and spatial analysis playimportant roles in the management of crises such as pan-demic situations. They allow, for example, the modeling ofthe likely spread of a disease or the localization of emer-gency infrastructures. Cartography and maps can be usedfor the monitoring, prediction, and analysis of a situationin space as well as in time.

Not only pandemic outbreaks but also lifestyle-relateddiseases, such as some cancers and type 2 diabetes, arethreats to our modern society, economy, and well-being(Geryk et al. 2008, Konecny et al. 2008, Geryk et al. 2010,Stampach et al. 2010b).

Cartographical visualization is a possible method forpresentation of health statistics. A good map is more inter-esting and visually pleasing to the user than a table withnumbers. Cartography can also be used for monitoringand analyzing a situation – in space as well as in time.During the past 20 years, maps have been created mostly bycomputers and cartographic software. At the present time,more and more medical information is published over theInternet and visualized in a different cartographic manner.

2.2. Ubiquitous cartography

The idea of ubiquitous mapping was developed by TakashiMorita (2004). There is an evident shift in the requestsfrom base map to thematic map, to shape or develop newelements of cartographic language, especially for mobile

tools; moreover, improvements in principles, rules, andmethods of visual communication are ongoing. The devel-opment of digital cartography is strongly influenced by ICTand vice versa; digital cartography is enhancing efforts toplay a more important role in the information/knowledgesociety environment. There is an evident integration ofmap makers and map users and new fields of cartogra-phy enhancing the shift from analog maps to ubiquitousmapping. To solve a problem one has to define it, makestrategic planning how to solve it and how to derive a solu-tion. The research agenda for this (Morita 2004, Konecnyand Hrebicek 2007) contains the following points:

● Generation of personalized maps according to theobjective and spatial context.

● Mapping system development considering participa-tion, collaboration, and partnership of users.

● Cross-cultural comparative studies to clarify simi-larities and differences between ubiquitous mappingimplementations.

● Consider information security and privacy.

Morita also adds that ubiquitous mapping aims to real-ize technical solutions for map creation and use to predictthe effect on society, and ubiquitous mapping acceler-ates, facilitates, and stimulates the universal nature ofmap creation and use through the application of advancedinformation technologies.

GI technologies allow real-time dynamic change ofsymbolic and map content. Contrary to analog map whereproduction time leads to universality and maximum infor-mation saturation, today we can produce maps for uniqueusers and situations with the proper amount information(Hrebicek and Konecny 2007).

Our research team participates in the development ofadaptive and context cartography principles supportingubiquitous cartography. The principles of adaptive cartog-raphy as formulated by Konecny and Stanek (2010) areas follows: technological advances related to computerscience have dramatically changed the cartographic pro-cedures. New methods of geographic data acquisition andgraphic design speed up the creation of maps and allow thegeneration of huge amounts of alternative representations.New electronic media for map publishing enhance interac-tivity of users and change the traditional, one-directionalmap information transmission. Traditional cartography hasfocused on providing maximum information to a broadcommunity of map readers. These changes have led to theadoption of a progressively wider approach to digital dataand hence to the individualization of cartography, that is,maps that are more focused on individual users and needs.

‘Map individualization‘ is the essential characteristic ofadaptive cartography. In 2003, for the first time, the term,‘adaptive map‘ appeared in connection with mobile maps(Reichenbacher 2003, Sarjakoski and Nivala 2003). The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

37 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

138 M. Konecny

term, ‘Adaptive Cartography’ is used to describe a set ofapproaches aiming to create specifically focused variantsof cartographically correct representations from the samegeodata source (this source can constitute a hub for het-erogeneous data resources). A specifically designed maprepresentation is determined by the map’s context. Theterm, ‘context’ refers to a set of parameters describingthe purpose of geodata usage, environment (e.g., decision-making conditions), and user characteristics and needs, forexample, the user’s skills and ability to use geodata, maps,and charts, etc.

Adaptive cartography is useful in many cartographicfields, but has an especially important role in the areasof ubiquitous cartography and pervasive (sensor) mapping(Morita 2004, Hrebicek and Konecny 2007). The mostimportant aspects of adaptive cartography are (Figure 1)

● Task orientation – Its arrangement and presentationof map content to a level of detail and symbolizationthat reflects needs for the representation of geoinfor-mation ready for user decision in whatever tasks heor she may have, so that any definitions of contextbegin with definitions of tasks.

● User orientation – Any cartographic method appliedand symbols adopted should reflect the user skillsand customs.

● Portrayal environment awareness – The symboliza-tion and the level of detail should be appropriateto the hardware/software displays of maps and the

surrounding conditions in which each map is beingused.

● Portrayal homogeneity – The heterogeneous dataresources are uniformly represented. This allowsquick browsing for geoinformation and easy visualcomparison of geodata. Necessary prerequisites forsuch portrayal are ontological description, onto-logical thesauri, and deterministic automated car-tographic generalization (see also Hrebicek andKonecny 2007).

3. Virtual environments

Development in the fields of virtual realities (VRs) gener-ally and virtual geographic environments (VGEs) in partic-ular is a new and very important challenge resulting fromthe above-described trends. In particular, the concept ofVGEs formulated in the new book by Hui Lin and MichaelBatty (2009a) describes the most current and progressiveinfluence for development of all fields dealing with geo-graphic information, including cartography and GIS. Theyinclude the strong potential methodological and technolog-ical capacity of new media, which can be used for futureintegration in the fields of cartography and GIS.

Lin and Batty (2009a, p. iii) state that, ‘Virtual Geo-graphic Environments build on the development of GISand geographic information science in ways that focuson how users are able to embed themselves within suchsystems. VGEs thus constitute environments in which the

AC

TIO

N

task

spatia

l exte

nt

featu

re re

levance

TECHNOLOGYdisplay sizetransfer rateinteractivity

SITUATION

location

time

orientation

environment

US

ER

educa

tion

know

lege a

nd s

kills

cultu

ral b

ackg

round

pre

fere

nce

s

symbolics

resolution

contents

cartographic method

Figure 1. Examples of changes in visualization according to change of context (Stanek et al. 2007).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

37 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Annals of GIS 139

user interacts with the geographical or spatial system ofinterest through immersion in its spatial representation, themethods used to model it, and the processes used to uti-lize such environments in problem-solving. Virtual Reality(VR) Technologies, computer-aided design (CAD), games,animations, movies, indeed the whole plethora of multime-dia with geo-coded data and geo-process models, can beenlisted to enrich and extend such environments.’

The key word ‘immersion’ is defined by J. Nechvatal(1999) as the state of consciousness where an immersant’sawareness of physical self is diminished or lost by beingsurrounded in an engrossing total environment, often arti-ficial. This mental state is frequently accompanied withspatial excess, intense focus, a distorted sense of time, andeffortless action. The term is widely used for describingimmersive VR, installation art, and video games, but it isnot clear if people are using the same word consistently.The term is also cited as a frequently used buzzword, inwhich case its meaning is intentionally vague, but carriesthe connotation of being particularly engrossing.

Staffan Björk and Jussi Holopainen (2004) in Patternsin Game Design divide immersion into similar cate-gories, and call them sensory-motoric immersion, cognitiveimmersion, and emotional immersion. In addition to these,they add a new category of spatial immersion. Spatialimmersion occurs when a player feels the simulated worldis perceptually convincing. The player feels that he or sheis really ‘there’ and that a simulated world looks and feels‘real.’

3.1. Immersive digital environments

An immersive digital environment is an artificial, inter-active, computer-created scene, or ‘world’ within whichusers can immerse themselves. Immersive digital environ-ments could be thought of as synonymous with VR, butwithout the implication that actual ‘reality’ is being simu-lated. An immersive digital environment could be a modelof reality, but it could be also a complete fantasy userinterface or abstraction, as long as the user of the environ-ment is immersed within it. The definition of immersionis wide and variable, but here it is assumed to mean sim-ply that the users feel like they are part of the simulated‘universe.’ The success with which an immersive digitalenvironment can actually immerse the user is dependent onmany factors, including believable three-dimensional com-puter graphics, surround sound, interactive user-input, andother factors such as simplicity, functionality, and potentialfor enjoyment. New technologies that claim to bring realis-tic environmental effects to the players’ environment suchas wind, seat vibration, and ambient lighting are currentlyunder development.

3.2. Another important term is perception

To create a sense of full immersion, the five senses (sight,sound, touch, smell, and taste) must perceive the digital

environment to be physically real. Immersive technol-ogy can perceptually fool the senses through panoramicthree-dimensional displays (visual), surround-sound acous-tics (auditory), haptics and force feedback (tactile), smellreplication (olfactory), and taste replication (gustation).

3.3. Interaction

Once the senses reach a sufficient belief that the digitalenvironment is real, the user must then be able to inter-act with the environment in a natural, intuitive manner.Various immersive technologies, such as gestural controls,motion tracking, and computer vision, respond to the user’sactions and movements. Brain control interfaces respond tothe user’s brainwave activity.The sensation of total immersion in VR can be describedas implied complete presence within an insinuated spaceof a virtual surroundings where everything within thatsphere relates necessarily to the proposed ‘reality’ of thatworld’s cyberspace and where the immersant is seeminglyaltogether disconnected from exterior physical space.With the movement of GIS technologies to the Web anddesign of Web-based services as well as grid and cloudcomputing applications organized around highly decentral-ized and seamless interactions between remote servers andvarious clients, the notion of the geographic environmenthas become important in terms of the way users mightinteract with the system and with each other becomingcentral to the use of VR technologies of various kinds.

3.4. Neo-geography and volunteer geographicinformation

With the new technologies and new research approachesinfluenced by changes in behavior of societies, two newterms appeared: neo-geography and volunteer geographicinformation (VGI), which also gave new impulses andpotential to cartography.According to Papadimitriou (2010) ‘Neo-geography pro-vides the link between the science of geography and digitalart. The carriers of these links are geospatial technolo-gies (global navigation satellite systems such as the globalpositioning systems, GIS, and satellite imagery) alongwith ubiquitous information and communication technolo-gies (such as mobile telephony and the Internet). Neo-geography constitutes a vibrant new field of interactionbetween geography, geospatial technologies and digital art,capable of gradually transforming the everyday experienceof exploration and perception of the geographical spaceinto an art form of its own, to the extent that we mayneed a neo-geographical education, “particularly for adultlearners.” ’

Goodchild (2009, p. 18) describes VGI as ‘The terms,“crowdsourcing” and “collective intelligence” draw atten-tion to the notion that the collective contribution of anumber of individuals may be more reliable than those of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

37 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

140 M. Konecny

any one individual. The term VGI refers specifically to geo-graphic information and to the contrast between the actionsof amateurs and those of authoritative agencies.’ The termasserted that geographic information draws attention to thefact that such information is not subject to the normalchecks and quality control mechanisms of those agen-cies, while neo-geography emphasizes the contrast betweenthe grass-roots phenomenon and the current state of theacademic discipline of geography.

4. Cartographical challenges in VGE era

Cartography is and remains a form of literacy (similar towriting), helping us to understand spatial context of phe-nomena in the real world through visual messages. Thecartographical symbol system, like the linguistic systemof Esperanto, very often does not need translation andthis makes cartography understandable for many peoplecoming from different nations. It is a substantial part ofnatural and social sciences with a role similar to statis-tics, logic, and even more closely to scientific visualization.Cartography as a science (used for many centuries butdefined as a science in 1921 by Max Eckert) createdits own methodology of elaboration of data, information,and mainly knowledge about space. Classical cartographywas, in some way, a recursive science following thou-sands of years of cartographic production based on flatrepresentation of spatial relationships.

4.1. Inner development of cartography

VGE comes with many impulses for the developmentof cartography in connection to GI science and repre-sents the newest challenge for cartography. Cartographyurgently needs to design a new theory of developmenthere due to the necessity to enhance traditional or createnew approaches allowing cartographers to use latest tech-nologies and formulate the role of cartography in such anenvironment. As mentioned in Friedmannova and Stanek(2010), ‘Cartography has a long tradition of visual repre-sentation of spatial knowledge. There are verified mecha-nisms how to deal with graphic variables of symbols, howto generalize symbol arrangement etc. Nevertheless, thereis always a necessity to confirm cognitive mechanismsin the new environment due the fact, that not everythingcan be transferred. New environments have abilities whichmake them attractive and usable, the enforcement of thelook and handling mechanisms of traditional maps hasusually detrimental consequences.’

There are many important areas such as user interface,graphic variables, generalization, data integration, contextformalization, influence of cognitive sciences, and ethics ofVGI, etc. The next section will comment on several of theseand on cartographic visualization and projects.

4.1.1. User interface

VGEs are built on the foundations of GIS and in geographicinformation science considerable attention is paid to theusers in terms of the manner in which they interact withthe software (Lin and Batty 2009b, p. 1). User interac-tion is thus a key component of such systems. They canrange from systems designed for professional and scientificuse, where spatial analytic functions are dominant, all theway to systems which aim to popularize and disseminateinformation about geographical events in different scales.

The degree to which users are immersed in such sys-tems defines major differences between VGEs. The afore-mentioned authors divided contemporary VGEs into fourkey areas (p. 2): virtual cities and virtual landscapes; userinterfaces and immersion; games and virtual works; Web2.0 technologies, DE and neo-geography. The second andthe fourth circles of problems, in particular, are remarkablyinfluential in contemporary development in cartography.

Lin and Batty (2009b, p. 2) define VGE as an environ-ment that is explicitly geographical but into which usersare more deeply embedded in terms of the experiencesthey require than those which have hitherto characterizedthe uses of GIS. Spatial modeling, geovisualization, andhuman vision are fundamental components of VGEs (Meng2009, p. 135). In current VGEs, geovisualization typicallyperforms a twofold task:

● To create a display surface onto which a symbolizedsubset of digital geographic concepts are projected,and

● To provide an interface for the user’s access to sec-ondary information that is either embedded in orrelated to the graphic symbols.

In the former case, the communication of geoinformationstarts with eye contact, that is, by seeing. The compre-hension of what has been visually attended relies on anagreed visual literacy between the designer and the user.Developing such a visual literacy has been a constantresearch focus of cartographic semiotics. In the latter case,however, geoinformation is essentially communicated andcomprehended by means of user interactions that requireseeing and doing at the same time.

Meng (2005, 2009) also highlighted that continuouslyevolving multimedia technologies and the steadily increas-ing computing performance during recent decades have ledto a dramatic expansion of design freedom of geovisual-ization. Not only has the number of elementary graphicvariables defined by Bertin (1967, 2011) more than tripled,but many design patterns dedicated to satisfying constraintsconcerned with areas such as server–client architecture,storage capacity, rendering speed, display size, and user’smemory load have been implemented.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

37 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Annals of GIS 141

In addition, the fact that a limited display surfacecan only accommodate a limited number of recognizablegraphic symbols has forced the designer to adopt the‘Swiss Army Knife’ principle to hide much informationbeneath the display surface of individual graphic symbols.Apart from ethical concerns, without a smart information-hiding strategy, global platforms such a Google Maps orMicrosoft Live Search Maps, which allow the geotaggingof micro-blogging services and photo-sharing services likeFlicker, may become too cluttered to be useful. However,information-hiding techniques need to be coupled withinformation-revealing techniques.

Meng (2009) develops ideas to the concept of affor-dance and reflex depth and their forms in VGEs. Hisapproach is creating a new fundamental approach in car-tography connected with GI science and VGEs.

Another important and dynamically developing field ofcartography is cartographic generalization.

4.1.2. Cartographic generalization

Zhilin Li (2007a) provided an outlook for the near futureof map generalization development. First, digital map gen-eralization will play a central role in digital cartography.In most countries, topographic maps at various scaleshave been produced. Currently, the most critical problemfaced by national mapping agencies is the frequent updat-ing of their map products. An attractive solution is toupdate maps at smaller scales by deriving information fromfrequently updated larger-scale maps through automatedgeneralization. Ideally, only one detailed database shouldbe frequently updated and maps at other scales are onlyupdated on demand using that database. In this way, digitalmap generalization will become increasingly important incartography.

Second, research on digital map generalization will beshifted from feature level to class and map levels. Withthe establishment of algorithmic foundation (Li 2007b), thegeometric transformations for different types of general-ization operations can be achieved. These algorithms willbe called whenever there is a need and an algorithm maybe used for generalization of different types (classes) offeatures. At the next development stage, these algorithmswill be used for the generalization of a class of features,for example, relief, hydrographical features, settlements,and transportation network. At the map level, the effectof generalization on map representation in terms of spatialinformation has to be clarified. Although some efforts havebeen made to study such a transformation of information,the problem remains unsolved due to the lack of compre-hensive quantitative definitions of spatial information on adigital map.

Third, semi-automated systems for digital map gener-alization will be widely available in a few years. However,such a system may mainly provide the essential functions

for geometric transformations and editing. More intelligentsystems will be developed only after the generalization atclass level is well studied.

Fourth, digital map generalization will become increas-ingly important in multi-scale modeling and representation,with widespread use of GIS that integrates multi-scale andmulti-source data. Indeed, as early as the 1980s, multi-scalerepresentation was recognized as a fundamental issue inspatial data handling. In 1983, a small group of leadingscientists in the United States was convened by NASA todefine critical research areas in spatial data handling, andmulti-scale representation was identified as one of them.Since then, this topic has become part of the internationalresearch agenda in spatial information sciences. Zooming(as in a camera) function, which can be by means of gener-alization, has been regarded as one of the two most excitingfunctions in GIS (with the other being overlay). As a result,a number of research projects on this topic have beeninitiated internationally.

In VGEs, as in two-dimensional cartography, similar(but not identical) generalization operators are involved.The role of simplification is emphasized due to three-dimensional object handling (transmission to device ren-dering issues) and also due to better orientation of the userin the view area. This simplification involves simplificationof three-dimensional object shape, omission of unimpor-tant three-dimensional objects, aggregation of close similarobjects, and typification (individual or group one). A lessimportant role is played by the operator of displacementthat is much more dissimilar than the aforementioned sim-plification method, which can be seen as the extension oftwo-dimensional operators.

Research in this field is quite recent (non-cartographicaspects of three-dimensional simplifications are quite welldeveloped in computer graphics). Most work is focused ongeneralization of buildings. Forberg (2004) adapts the mor-phology and curvature space operators of the scale spaceapproach to work on three-dimensional building models.Thiemann and Sester (2004) do a segmentation of thebuilding’s boundary surface with the purpose of generatinga hierarchical generalization tree. An aggregation approachis proposed by Anders (2005). In Kada (2008), simplifica-tion algorithms based on the decomposition of space alongthe major planes of the building are proposed.

4.2. ‘Outer’ influence of cartography

VGE of course offers another way of sharing andusing geographic information in comparison with maps.A map elaborates knowledge about objects, areas, andenvironments, including that ones coming from virtualenvironments generally and VGE particularly. One of thedominant VGE abilities is to visualize everything in three-dimensional photo-realistic environment. Bandrova (1997)comments on problems arising from the necessity to create

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

37 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

142 M. Konecny

three-dimensional symbols for three-dimensional maps, aswell as the requirements for their design. She found theusage of different levels of detail for symbol designing asone of the most important tasks in the creation of suchkinds of maps. Her definition of a three-dimensional mapis ‘Computer mathematical defined three-dimensional vir-tual representation of the surface of the Earth or otherplanet; representation of the objects and phenomena innature and society. The represented objects and phenom-ena are classified, designed, and visualized according toconcrete aim.’

In 2010, Bandrova described three-dimensional modelsas giving the possibility to understand and receive knowl-edge of the real world. An easy, communicative access tousers and visualization and manipulation with such mapsgive the professional cartographers more possibilities torepresent spatial information. On the other hand, nonpro-fessionals and all users not only receive more attractivecartographic products but have in their hands opportuni-ties to manage, add, and extract information (Bandrova andBonchev 2010). It may seem that this approach will solveall problems related to cartographic flat graphical encodingbut that is not the case. For example, when we are watchingthe development of a flood, we see a more realistic pro-cess in VGE than we can imagine with the assistance ofmaps. But to understand context and get a general view,and to also obtain quantitative information about extent offlood, height of water, its pollution level and consistency,and which places will be flooded and when, we still needinformation to be processed through maps.

Maps are about spatial context. For example, in the caseof navigation maps, the user is offered not only one solu-tion but a space of solutions where they can consider whichone is appropriate for the given situation. VGEs still needcooperation with them to be able to offer people not only‘three-dimensional attractions‘ but also models of recog-nition, understanding, and development of the events weare searching. To add that knowledge to virtual environ-ments, we need maps; in other words, it is a challenge todevelop map functions for the virtual world and enrich bothworlds (maps and virtual) together. All these worlds andcomments prove the point that different users need mul-tidimensional (n-dimensional) maps, multilayer databases,and cartographical visualization and decision-making fordifferent purposes.

Currently, the categorical imperative is in (often imme-diate) request for understanding of space not with the assis-tance of paper maps but with electronic tools and devicesin VGE. It is necessary to investigate people’s behaviorand design new skills of space understanding. Cognitionof the space is higher and corresponds with improvedsupportive technological possibilities of space imagina-tions. Cartography here can be a source for knowledgemanagement practices.

One of the basic questions is how to transfer gainedinformation in the virtual world into contextual spatial

knowledge. It is impossible to realize by mechanical trans-fer of technologies (symbology, classification, etc.) fromcartography to VGE. Cartographic science should ratherdeal with research of cognition in virtual environmentsand be able to implement new knowledge into the maps,which will be in the position of effective tools for scien-tific investigation and research. On the other hand, it willalso be necessary to transfer functions of cartography, espe-cially the ability to convey spatial knowledge into virtualworlds.

VGE not only offers new media for spatial knowledgetransfer but also new ways to handle traditional ones. In thecase of cartography, we can principally designate wikimap-ping and map service mashups. Cartographic science needsto accept the reality of wikimapping and participate in itsdevelopment. These processes have to begin in schoolsand in children’s education. Modern pupils are familiarwith computer games and can imagine space from thispoint of view, but to improve the skills of combinationof knowledge from maps with VGE will be welcomed.Famous Czech scholar, John Amos Comenius (1592–1670), founder of modern pedagogy, who was called ‘theteacher of nations,’ created the doctrine of ‘school by play,’which now has value in the world that he could probably nothave imagined. What is substantial from the point of devel-opment of the cartographic education is not to be focusedon map use but on map design from the earliest age. Thatmeans significant redefinition of this education. Until now,map design education is focused on college students, butprimary and secondary schools need a completely differentapproach. And here, the use of VGE is not only a challengebut also a huge help that may ultimately lead to widespreadcartographic literacy into the new societies developmentconcepts (such as SES and DE, etc.). Simulation withinVGE will better illustrate principles of cartographic lan-guage and, conversely, cartographic knowledge can lead tohigher effectiveness in usage of VGE.

But challenges are not limited to the development ofnew theory and education. In spite of being understoodmainly as a science for spatial visualization, cartographyalso deals with standards and metadata services, model-ing, spatial data mining, quality of data, and many otherresearch items. It is also evident that, with the arrivalof VGE, users will use cartography less for process-ing of knowledge about space but more deeply developmethods of elaboration of research results through car-tographical visualization in connection with realizationof key contemporary projects like Global Monitoringfor Environment and Security, Infrastructure for SpatialInformation in Europe (INSPIRE), the Group on EarthObservations (GEO), Global Earth Observation System ofSystems (GEOSS), and others.

Cartography and VGE both need to continue in thedevelopment of ubiquitous mapping, especially in the sup-portive, contextual, and adaptive areas, which will helpcartographers also in VGE to understand the real needs of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

37 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Annals of GIS 143

various users with different cultural and educational back-grounds, skills and abilities, environments and conditions.

4.3. Cognitive styles in cartography

The aforementioned approaches are about creation of mapsin the contemporary area of ICT development and thepotential provided by the VGEs. However, there is anotherimportant area, which is the ability and skills of usersor customers to work with maps in the broader sense ofthe word. A group of Czech cartographers and psycholo-gists improved existing theories of adaptive mapping andstarted to investigate the so-called cognitive style. The ideaof the former is based on the works of Konecny (2008),Friedmannova and Stanek (2010), Konecny and Stanek(2010), Stachon et al. (2010), and others (see Section 2.2).

The second idea was for the first time described in thepaper of M. Konecný et al. (in press), Usability of SelectedBase Maps for Crises Management – Users Perspectives.The concept of symbolic representation is a core conceptwithin cognitive science dealing with modes of informa-tion representation and processing (Isaksen and Kaufmann1992). The concept of cognitive styles refers to distinc-tion between how different people process information andwhich form of information presentation they prefer. Themeasurement of cognitive styles is rooted in the study ofperception and personality (Isaksen and Puccio 2008).

We can generally hypothesize that if the method of mapvisualization corresponds with the cognitive style of thespecific user, he or she will achieve better results in themap reading. The usefulness of this concept in the carto-graphic field resides in the possibility of adapting the mapvisualization to a group of users with defined and knowncognitive styles.

The concept of cognitive style is at present still notunambiguously defined and there are many approaches thatexplore this problem domain from different points of viewand different researchers have used a variety of labels forthe styles they have investigated.

Riding and Cheema (1991) surveyed approximately30 different cognitive styles and concluded that most ofthem measured 2 broad style dimensions: a verbal–imagerydimension (which indicates a preference for representinginformation using pictures or words) and a wholistic–analytic dimension (which indicates a preference for infor-mation to be structured to get the big picture or the detail)(Figure 2).

4.3.1. The wholistic–analytic dimensions

‘Wholists’, as the term suggests, tend to see the wholeof a situation, have an overall perspective, and appreci-ate the total context. By contrast, analytics will see thesituation as a collection of parts and will often focus onone or two of these at a time, to the exclusion of the

AnalyticVerbaliser

AnalyticImager

WholistImager

WholistVerbaliser

Verbal-Imagerydimension

Wholist-Analyticdimension

Figure 2. Two main dimensions of cognitive style (adapted fromRiding and Sadler-Smith 1997; Konecny et al. 2011).

others (Rezaei and Katz 2004). While the wholist–analyticdimension is concerned with the mode of organization andinformation arrangement, the verbal–imagery dimensionreflects more an individual’s habitual mode of representa-tion in memory during thinking. Verbalizers ‘consider’ theinformation they read, see, or listen to, in words or verbalassociations. Imagers, on the other hand, when they read,listen to, or consider information, experience ‘fluent spon-taneous and frequent pictorial mental pictures’ (Riding andSadler-Smith 1997).

4.3.2. The verbal-object imagery-spatial imagerydimensions

Blazhenkova and Kozhevnikov (2009) argued that theircurrent study challenges traditional approaches to visual–verbal cognitive style as a unitary bipolar dimension, andinstead suggests a new three-dimensional cognitive stylemodel developed on the basis of modern cognitive sciencetheories that distinguish between object imagery, spatialimagery, and verbal dimensions. Object imagers prefer toconstruct vivid, concrete, and detailed images of individualobjects (e.g., visual artists) and spatial imagers prefer to useimagery to schematically represent spatial relations amongobjects and to perform complex spatial transformations.They developed the Object-Spatial Imagery Questionnaire,which is a self-report questionnaire designed to distinguishbetween two different types of imagers.

It could be supposed that the transmission of geo-graphic information coded in the visual form will be moreeffective when the cartographic method of visualizationwill be in correspondence with the cognitive style of theuser. Some kinds of cartographic visualization methodscould be characterized more as pictorial, while the othersare more schematic. Blazhenkova and Kozhevnikov (2009)offered a tool for measurement of these concepts. We are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

37 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

144 M. Konecny

able to distinguish the preferences of users in the visualinformation processing with the help of Object-SpatialImagery Questionnaire.

Integral to the design of cartographic products shouldbe the evaluation of their quality for users. We needto observe how users are dealing with them and studyinterindividual differences in their operations, which couldbe caused by different personalities and/or cognitive styles.By comparing and interpreting relative simple data visu-alized by alternative cartographic methods, we can detectbasic differences. Stachon et al. (2010) used experimentsto compare three types of images. Their test consisted ofthree variants, each using a different cartographic method.Variant A used a choropleth map, variant B used a dot map,and variant C used simple bars. The test shows not onlysignificant differences in reaction times in various tasksbut also important differences in mental representation ofinterpreted events. In other words, identical data visualizedby various cartographic methods lead to fundamental, dif-ferent imaginations about appearance of certain events andtherefore to different interpretations of the situation. Suchresults of the experiments with relatively elementary datacreate expectations of greater differences in the case ofcomplex tasks based on elaboration of complicated data.Cognitive style expresses itself not only in map readingbut also in the manner of orientation in the environment.A field experiment shows remarkably stronger tendenciesto ‘object imagers,’ that is, usage of the information fromclose surroundings in comparison to ‘spatial imagers.’

Differences in perception exist also between inhabitantsof various cultural regions. Differences in such percep-tion are evident on the level of most elementary perceptionprocesses and it is possible to detect them in monitoringof sensitivity for fallacies. Segall et al. (1966) have stud-ied influence of long-term experience with some differentkinds of physical environment (such as dense jungles asopposed to flat land) on visual perception. They found that,for example, Europeans and Americans are more suscepti-ble to Müller–Lyer and the Sander parallelogram illusions.Nisbett et al. (2001) point that not only environment butalso culture has fundamental influence on manner of under-standing of the world but also perception itself. They pointout that there are profound differences in conceptions of theworld and also differences in the way of thinking, whichwe can find when we compare Eastern and Western cul-tures. The Western way of thinking is described as analytic,whereas the way of thinking of the East Asian nationsis considered as more holistic. Other authors, for exam-ple, Kitayama et al. (2003) realize cross-cultural studiesin which these presumptions are tested by experimentsof visual perception. The possibilities to create univer-sal ontology of geographic space or rather the limitationsof variability of different cultures as well as individu-als are investigated from cartographic and psychologicalperspectives (Stachon and Šašinka in press).

5. Geodata projects and new trends: spatially enabledsociety and digital earth: the role of cartography

One of the most important aspects of contemporary devel-opment in cartography and related disciplines is the exis-tence of SDIs and newly oriented and organized geo-data projects, such as Global Monitoring for Environmentand Security, Infrastructure for Spatial Information inEurope, or Shared Environmental Information Systemusing European examples or GEO and GEOSS on a globalscale. Their existence and development create a historicallynew situation in which data and information are adminis-tered by governmental offices over Europe, their quality isguaranteed, standards and metadata created, data specifica-tions elaborated, and access organized in a less expensiveway than before. The realization of the above steps is cre-ating a new quality base of geodata in the entire continentwith ambitious for future global cooperation.

In the theoretical and practical development, it isimportant to transfer from the first to the second generationof SDIs. The process is accelerated by the aforementionedprocesses and by creating a premise for realization of con-cepts such as SES or DE (Rajabifard et al. 2006, 2010,Williamson et al. 2006, 2007).

Successful development of SDIs created a principlebase for practical building of new concepts of our societieswith higher participation of geographic information, suchas SESs or DE.

5.1. Spatially enabled societies

Societies can be regarded as spatially enabled when loca-tion and spatial information are regarded as common goodsmade available to the citizenry and business to encour-age creativity and product development (Williamson et al.2006). Rajabifard et al. (2009) describe characteristics ofthe SESs and list important elements. In such societies, theuser is expected to know which datasets are required and tospecifically request these and combine them. van der Molen(2007) describes the meaning of SES as two-fold, namely:1. When the public administration, the private sector, andcitizens (the actors in ‘governance’) decide on issues wherethe spatial component is one of the determinants for thosedecisions, they need access to spatial information that isrelevant and might contribute in a meaningful way to theprocess of making that decision. 2. Decisions seldom needonly one source of information; on the contrary, they tendto require information from many sources. Integration andsparing transforms data and information into meaningfulinformation and services. This cannot be pursued withoutdigital environment.

5.2. Digital earth

The idea of DE was first formulated by US Vice PresidentAl Gore, in a speech written for presentation at the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

37 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Annals of GIS 145

California Science Museum, Los Angeles, in January1998. Al Gore defined DE as: ‘A multi-resolution, three-dimensional representation of the planet, into which we canembed vast quantities of geo-referenced data.’

DE is a digital format of the earth, and a virtualrepresentation of the earth. It is formed by a system com-posed of earth observation technology, global positioningsystem, geographical information system technology, high-performance computing technology, network technology,and VR. Today, DE is an integration of space technology,information technology, and earth science. DE connectspublic individual ‘mental earth,’ and is directly expressedby virtual representation of the object’s information onthe earth and its evolution process, and conducts analysisand prediction of the present and future earth scenes. Realearth, mental earth, and DE have interactive connectionsand will be a basic mode of mankind to understand andexplore the earth.

In all the aforementioned approaches, maps, amongother tools, are essential to realize the mentioned conceptsand to open their potential to the people. The people donot expect pieces of data and information, they expecttheir elaboration and outputs, which they will be able tounderstand and work with, either with the help of maps orthrough VGE, or in the best case with a combination ofboth.

6. Conclusions

In the previous sections, the author described the contem-porary role and development of cartography and its newfields (ubiquitous, adaptive, context cartographies) in thecontemporary level of development of science and ICT.Special attention was paid to formulation of the role ofcartography in VGE, which is dynamically developed byseveral teams worldwide. With the continued developmentof new technologies, cartographers will become a veryimportant part of the process, one which they have beena part of for many years.

ReferencesAnders, K.-H., 2005, Level of detail generation of 3D building

groups by aggregation and typification. In: Proceedings ofthe XXII international cartographic conference. A CoruñaLocal Organizing Committee Produced by Global Congresosand V. Lemp,. CD ISBN 0-958-46093-0, 11–16 July 2005, ACoruna, Spain.

Bandrova, T., 1997. Creation of Three-dimensional symbol sys-tem. In: International symposium “modern technologies incadastre”. Sofia, Bulgaria, 132–138 (in Bulgarian) Ed. G.Milev. Bulgaria: Union of Surveyors and Land Managers.

Bandrova, T., 2010. Bulgarian cartography: from paper to virtualreality. In: 3rd international conference on cartography andGIS, CD proceedings. Nessebar, Bulgaria. ISSN: 1314–0604.

Bandrova, T. and Bonchev, S., 2010. 3D maps for inter-net application. In: 3rd ISDE digital earth summit, CD

proceedings. Nessebar, Bulgaria, 12–14 June. ISBN: 978–954–724–039–1.

Bertin, J., 1967. Sémiologie Graphique: Les Diagrammes, LesRéseaux, Les Cartes. Paris, France: Gauthier-Villars.

Bertin, J., 2011, Semiology of Graphics. Diagrams, Networks,Maps. ESRI Press. ISBN: 9781589482616. 436 pp.

Björk, S. and Holopainen, J., 2004. Patterns in game design.Florence, KY: Charles River Media, 206. ISBN 1584503548.

Blazhenkova, O. and Kozhevnikov, M., 2009. The new object–spatial–verbal cognitive style model: theory and measure-ment. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 638–663.

Dangermond, J., 2009. The future of GIS and the web. Foreword.In: L. Hui and M. Batty, eds. Virtual geographic environ-ments. Beijing, China: Science Press, 350 p., pp. i–ii.

Forberg, A., 2004. Generalization of 3D building data basedon a scale-space approach. Edited by O. Altan In: TheInternational archives of the photogrammetry. Istanbul,Turkey: Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences,Vol. XXXV, Part B.

Friedmannová, L. and Stanek, K., 2010. Cartographically aug-mented reality. In: The 3rd ISDE digital earth summit –digital earth in the service of society: sharing informa-tion, building knowledge – proceedings. 1. vyd. Nessebar,Bulgaria: ISDE. 9 pp. ISBN 978-954-724–039–1.

Geryk, E., et al., 2010. Cancer multiplicities in the Czech pop-ulation. Casopis lékaru ceských, Prague: Ceská lékarskáspolecnost JEP, 149 (4). ISSN 0008–7335.

Geryk, E., Dite, P., and Konecny, M., 2008. Epidemiology ofgastrointestinal cancers. In: Gastrosymposium Tallinn 2008.Estonia: University of Tallinn, 2008. od s. 12–12, 1s. ISBN80-902266-9-8.

Goodchild, M.F., 2009. Virtual Geographic environments as col-lective constructions. In: Hui L. and Batty M., eds. Virtualgeographic environments. Beijing, China: Science Press, 350p., 15–24.

Hrebícek, J. and Konecný, M., 2007. Introduction to ubiqui-tous cartography and dynamic geovisualization with impli-cations for disaster/crises management. In: A. Scharl and K.Tochtermann, eds. The geospatial web: How geo-browsers,social software and the web 2.0 are shaping the networksociety. London: Springer-Verlag.

Isaksen, S.G. and Kaufmann, G., 1992. Mode of sym-bolic representation and cognitive style. Imagination,Cognition, and Personality, 1 (3), 271–277. Available from:http://cpsb.com/resources/downloads/public/Symbolic_Representation.pdf [Accessed 20 April 2010].

Isaksen, S.G. and Puccio, G.J., 2008. Adaption-innovation andthe Torrance tests of creative thinking: The level-styleissue revisited. The Creative Problem Solving Group, Inc.Available from: http://cpsb.com/research/articles/problem-solving-style/KAI-TTCT.html [Accessed 15 February 2010].

Kada, M., 2008. Generalization of 3D building models formap-like presentations. The International Archives of thePhotogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial InformationSciences, XXXVII, 399ff. Part B2, Commission 2. Beijing,China: ISPRS Congress. ISSN 1682–1750.

Kitayama, S., et al., 2003. Perceiving an object and its context indifferent cultures: a cultural look at new look. PsychologicalScience, 14 (3), 201–206.

Konecny, M., 2008. Cartography new perspectives in crises man-agement context. In: Geography, environment, sustainability.Vol. 1 (1). Edited by N.S. Kasimov, V.M. Koltyakov andCh. Vandemotten. Moscow: MGU Press, 46–67.

Konecny, M., et al. 2008. Cancer Prevalence in the CzechRepublic in 1989–2005–2015. Brno, Czech Republic: Facultyof Science, Masaryk University, Brno and Obcanské sdružení

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

37 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

146 M. Konecny

podpory zdraví a onkologické prevence. 257 s. ISBN 978-80-903255-2–4.

Konecný, M., et al., in press. Usability of selected base mapsfor crises management – users perspectives. Springer JWF– Applied Geomatics, doi: 10.1007/s12518-011–0053–1.

Konecný, M. and Ormeling, F., 2005. The role of cartographyin the GSDI world. In: Proceedings, FIG Working Weekand 8th International Conference of the Global SpatialData Infrastructure (GSDI-8), 16–21 April 2005, Cairo,Egypt.

Konecný, M. and Stanek, K., 2010. Adaptive cartogra-phy and geographical education. International Researchin Geographical and Environmental Education, 19 (1),75–78.

Li, Z., 2007a. Digital map generalization at the age of enlight-enment: a review of the first forty years. The CartographicJournal, 44 (1), 80–93.

Li, Z. 2007b. Algorithmic Foundation of Multi-scale SpatialRepresentation. CRC Press (Taylor & Francis Group). 281pp.

Lin, H. and Batty M., eds., 2009a. Virtual geographic environ-ments. Beijing, China: Science Press, 350 p.

Lin, H., and Batty, M., 2009b. Virtual geographic environments “A primer”. Beijing, China: Science Press, 350 p.

Meng, L., 2005. Egocentric design of map-based mobile services.The Cartographic Journal, 42, 5–13.

Meng, L. 2009. Affordance and reflex level of geovisualizattion.In: Hui L. and Batty M. Virtual geographic environments”Aprimer”. Beijing, China: Science Press, 136–150.

Molen, P.v.d., 2007. E-government and e-land administration inorder to spatially enable a society. In: Rajabifard A., ed.Towards a spatially enabled society. Melbourne: MelbourneUniversity, 43–58.

Morita, T., 2004. Ubiquitous mapping in Tokyo. Internationaljoint workshop on ubiquitous, pervasive and internetmapping (UPIMap2004), Tokyo, Japan. Available from:http://www.ubimap.net/upimap2004/html/papers/UPIMap04-A-01-Morita.pdf [Accessed 7 September 2004].

Mulícková, E.- and Kubícek, P., 2011. Definition of cartographiccontext in emergency management - conceptual frameworkof the pilot study flood. In: Jalovecký R. and Štefek, A.Proceedings of the international conference on military tech-nologies 2011 (ICMT’11). Brno, Czech Republic: Universityof Defence, 1331–1338. ISBN 978-80-7231-788–2.

NRC (National Research Council), 2007. Successful responsestarts with a map. Improving geospatial support for disastermanagement. NRC of the National Academies. Washington,DC: The National Academic Press, 184 p. ISBN-10: 0–309–10340–1.

Nisbett, R.E., et al., 2001. Culture and systems of thought: holisticvs. analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108 (2), 291–310.

Papadimitriou F., A., “Neogeographical Education”? The Geo-spatial Web, GIS and Digital Art in Adult Education. 71–74.In: Lidstone J., Stoltman J., eds. International Research inGeographical and Environmental Education. Vol. 19, No 1,February 2010. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis. ISSN:1038-2046 print/1747-7611 online.

Rajabifard A., Crompvoets J., Kalantari M. and Bas Kok 2009,Spatially Enabled Societies. Chapter 1, pp. 15–25. In:GSDI 11 world 1010 conference, 15–19 June, Rotterdam,The Netherlands. Edited by: Rajabifard A., Crompvoets J.,Kalantari M. and Bas Kok. GSDI Association and LeuvenUniversity Press. 248pp. ISBN 978 90 5867 851 5.

Rajabifard A., Crompvoets J., Kalantari M. and Kok B., eds.,2010. Spatially enabling society. Research, emerging trendsand critical assessment. Belgium: Leuven University Press,246 p.

Rajabifard, A., et al., 2006. The role of subnational governmentand the private sector in future spatial data infrastructures.International Journal of GIS, 20 (7), 727–741.

Reichenbacher, T., 2003. Adaptive methods for mobile cartog-raphy. In: 21st international cartographic conference, 10–16August 2003, Durban, South Africa.

Rezaei, A.R. and Katz., L., 2004. Evaluation of the reliabilityand validity of the cognitive styles analysis. Personality andIndividual Differences, 36, 1317–1327.

Riding, R. and Cheema, I., 1991. Cognitive styles – an overviewand integration. Educational Psychology, 11, 193–215.

Riding, R.J. and Sadler-Smith, E., 1997. Cognitive style andlearning strategies: some implications for training design.International Journal of Training and Development, 1 (3),199–208.

Sarjakoski, L.T. and Nivala, A.-M., 2003. Context-aware mapsin mobile devices. In: A. Salovaara, H. Kuoppala and M.Nieminen, eds., Perspectives on intelligent user interfaces,Helsinki University of Technology Software Business andEngineering Institute, Technical Reports 1, HUT-SoberIT-C1,Espoo, Finland, 112–133.

Segall, M.H., Campbell, D.T., and Herskovits, M.J., 1966. Theinfluence of culture on visual perception. Indianapolis,IN:Bobbs-Merrill.

Stachon, Z. and Šašinka, C., in press. Human cognition: people inthe world and world in their minds. In: Towards a universalontology of geographic space.

Stachon, Z., Šašinka, C., and Talhofer, V. 2010. Perception of var-ious cartographic representation under specific condition. In:M. Konecný, S. Zlatanova and T.L. Bandrova eds. Geographicinformation and cartography for risk and crisis management– towards better solutions. Berlin: Springer, 349–361.

Stampach, R., et al., 2010a. Dynamic cartographic methodsfor visualization of health statistics. In: Cartography inCentral and Eastern Europe. Berlin: Springer, LectureNotes in Geoinformation and Cartography. ISBN 978-3-642-03293–6.

Štampach, R., Kubícek, P., and Geryk, E., 2010b. Cartographicaspects of health databases visualization in global context. In:3rd ISDE digital earth summit. Sofia, Bulgaria: Universityof Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy. 10 s. ISBN978-954-724–039–1.

Stanek, K., Konecný, M., and Friedmannová, L., 2007. Anadaptive cartographic visualization for support of the crisismanagement. In: XXIII international cartographic confer-ence – cartography for everyone and for you. 1. Moscow:Roskartografija. od s. 1–9 on CD-ROM, 9 s. ISSN 2071-9388.

Thiemann, F. and Sester, M., 2004. Segmentation of build-ings for 3D-generalisation. In: Working paper of the ICAworkshop on generalisation and multiple representation,Leicester, UK. http://aci.ign.fr/Leicester/paper/Thiemann-v2-ICAWorkshop.pdf

Wikipedia. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_%28virtual_reality%29 (accessed 27 June 2011).

Williamson, I., Rajabifard, A., and Binns, A., 2007. The role ofspatial data infrastructures in establishing an enabling plat-form for decision making in Australia. In: H. Onsrud, ed.Research and theory in advancing spatial data infrastruc-ture concepts. USA: ESRI Press, 121–132. 293 s. ISBN978-158948–162–6.

Williamson, I., Wallace, J., and Rajabifard, A., 2006. Spatiallyenabling governments: a new vision for spatial information.In: Towards a 2015 vision of land, 24–25 October 2006,Taipei, Taiwan.

Wood, M., 2003. Some personal reflections on change...The pastand future of cartography. The Cartographic Journal, 40 (2),111–115.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

37 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014