Cartographic Symbols for Humanitarian Demining

Transcription

1 The Cartographic Journal Vol. 45 No. 1 pp February 2008 # The British Cartographic Society 2008 REFEREED PAPER Cartographic Symbols for Humanitarian Demining John C. Kostelnick 1, Jerome E. Dobson 2, Stephen L. Egbert 2,3 and Matthew D. Dunbar 2,3 1 Department of Geography Geology, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA, Formerly affiliated with the Department of Geography, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA, 66045, 2 Department of Geography, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA, 66045, 3 Kansas Applied Remote Sensing (KARS) Program, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA, jkostelnick@ilstu.edu A new standard set of cartographic symbols for landmine hazards and mine actions (e.g., clearances, hazard reductions, mine risk education (MRE), and technical surveys) in humanitarian demining activities is proposed, as well as a five-step approach that was utilised to develop the symbol set and that may be applied to the design of related map symbols in digital mapping environments. To promulgate the new symbol set, the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining and the American Geographical Society recently sponsored workshops in New York, NY, and Reston, VA. Workshop attendees, including key representatives from international organisations, private firms, and NGOs, indicated great enthusiasm for a future global standard. Keywords: map symbolisation, standards, humanitarian demining INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Today, civilian populations in more than 80 countries around the world are threatened by landmines and other unexploded ordnance (UXO). Each year, thousands of civilians are injured from landmines or UXO in mineaffected countries. According to one estimate, approximately million active landmines are currently in the ground worldwide (Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, 2006a). The goal of humanitarian demining operations is to remove landmine and UXO hazards and return the cleared land to civilians and local governments. Collectively, such activities are termed mine actions and include the actual clearance process, as well as related tasks such as impact surveys, mine risk education (MRE) activities, technical surveys, and victim assistance. The Ottawa Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention was established in 1997 as an international effort to address the global landmine problem. It bans the future production of anti-personnel landmines and implements a framework for the removal of existing landmines already in the ground (Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, 2006b). By 2006, more than 150 governments had signed the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, 2006b). The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) is one of many international organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that support humanitarian demining efforts. The GICHD is an independent foundation funded by the governments of 18 nations and granted ambassadorial status by the Swiss government. Specifically, the GICHD provides operational assistance to mine-affected countries, initiates research and development projects, and supports implementation of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention. Maps and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are integral to humanitarian demining efforts for the management, analysis, and display of crucial geographic information necessary for safe and efficient mine action operations. The GICHD maintains and distributes the Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA), the leading information system and GIS for the collection, storage, and mapping of information for minefields and mine actions. IMSMA is currently deployed in more than 40 countries, accounting for over 80% of the humanitarian demining programs worldwide (Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, 2006c). IMSMA is endorsed by the United Nations as the preferred information system for the management of critical data necessary for mine actions (United Nations Mine Action Service, 2003a, p. 8). The most recent version of IMSMA (4.x) is currently in the initial deployment stages following field testing in several mine-affected countries, including Burundi, Colombia, Jordan, Kosovo, and Uganda. DOI: / X276585

2 Cartographic Symbols for Humanitarian Demining 19 GIS-based systems such as IMSMA are incorporated into humanitarian demining for a variety of map production purposes. For example, general maps depicting the location of minefields are produced to alert civilians in affected regions, or to indicate the progress of clearance projects to donors that fund demining programs. Maps of specific information pertaining to various mine action operations, such as the status of a minefield clearance or the types of ordnance in a minefield, are necessary to assist demining personnel in the actual clearance processes. Due to the variety of maps produced, a broad set of cartographic symbols is necessary to depict the many categories of landmine hazards and mine actions for diverse map audiences. Our primary objective is to propose a new cartographic symbology standard for landmine hazards and mine actions, which is currently lacking in humanitarian demining activities. In addition, we introduce a five-step approach that was implemented as a systematic methodology for development of the symbol set and may serve as a framework for the design of related sets of map symbols in digital mapping environments. The remainder of the paper is divided into five sections, the first of which describes related studies of standardised map symbols in the cartographic literature and provides a justification for the new set of cartographic symbols for humanitarian demining. The new symbol set is introduced in the second section, Proposed Standard Symbology for Humanitarian Demining. The five-step methodology used for the development of the symbol set is presented in detail in the Development of the Humanitarian Demining Symbol Set section. Efforts to promulgate the symbol set to major mapping agencies are presented in the Promulgation of Symbols section. Finally, conclusions from this work and areas of future work are presented in the Conclusions section. DEVELOPMENT AND STANDARDISATION OF CARTOGRAPHIC SYMBOLS According to Krygier and Wood (2005, p. 196), a map symbol is a visual mark systematically linked to the data and concepts shown on a map. As such, symbols serve as a graphical language on maps. Similar to other forms of language such as the verbal or written communication is a primary purpose of map symbols (Robinson et al., 1995). A cartographer encodes real-world features, events, or processes with map symbols, and the success of the communication is predicated on the skill of the map maker and the ability of map users to decode or translate symbols correctly into their real-world meanings. As a matter of practicality, numerous factors should be considered to ensure that map symbols are not designed arbitrarily, which may hinder the communication process. Müller and Zeshen (1990) proposed that effective cartographic symbology is based on the following: data characteristics, graphic semiology, and other factors. Data characteristics refer to the level of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio), dimensional characteristics (point, line, or area), and organisational structure of the data (e.g., hierarchical relationships). Graphic semiology refers to the selection of graphic symbols appropriate for the type of data. Other factors include map user requirements, international and national conventions, human perceptual factors, and map production costs. Cartographic research into map symbol design has encompassed both the encoding and decoding aspects of the communication process. Perhaps the most important step in the encoding stage of symbol design is the selection of appropriate graphic properties for symbols. Bertin (1983) was among the first to propose a categorisation of such graphic properties (i.e., color, orientation, size, form, texture, and value), which he termed the visual variables, that serve as the building blocks for map symbols. The visual variables were later modified by others (e.g., Morrison, 1984) and extended for use in dynamic mapping environments as well (e.g., DiBiase et al., 1992; MacEachren, 1995). Research on the decoding stage has included experimentation with the communication effectiveness of map symbols in various contexts, subject areas, cultures, and mediums. For example, much work has been completed in the realm of public information symbols utilised on tourist maps. Clarke (1989) evaluated the comprehension and effectiveness of several symbols used on British tourist maps. Leung and Li (2002) conducted a similar evaluation of tourist symbols in an eastern cultural context for maps used in Hong Kong. Morrison and Forrest (1995) provided guidelines for the development of tourist symbols based on comprehension tests with symbol color and size. In addition to univariate symbols, the communication effectiveness of more complex multivariate symbols such as Chernoff faces (e.g., Nelson et al., 1997) has also been evaluated. Experimentation has also involved the effectiveness of symbols displayed on dynamic or interactive displays in addition to those utilised on static maps. For example, Lai and Yeh (2004) conducted a visual evaluation of blinking point and line symbols in dynamic environments, and concluded that the dynamic symbols attracted more attention than their static counterparts. An important issue for maps used widely across organisations, subject areas, or political borders is the degree of similarity or standardisation of map symbols. A potential benefit of standardised map symbols is that a consistent, familiar graphical language is used during the map communication process. Multiple map symbols representing the same real-world feature, event, or process may disrupt the communication process, thereby creating confusion and inefficiency for map users. The standardisation of map symbols is a topic that has received much discussion in the cartographic literature, particularly in the 1970s (for example, see Joly, 1971; Komkov, 1971; Ratajski, 1971; Board, 1973; and Robinson, 1973). According to Ratajski (1971, p. 138), a consequence of a lack of standardisation of symbols on maps is that many disturbances take place in the process of reading the contents of a map, as a large amount of the reader s effort and time is wasted on the identification of signs, which, in turn, results in mental fatigue and discouragement of the reader. However, as Robinson (1973) cautioned, standardisation is not without practical problems, such as the

3 20 The Cartographic Journal potential difficulties of developing agreement or consensus for symbols as well as a degree of rigidity that might constrain cartographers from developing a specific design solution for an individual thematic map. Due to the benefits of standardisation, it is common for organisations to develop or adopt a formally standardised set of map symbols. Several studies in the cartographic literature have described the need for, and have proposed, standardised map symbols spanning diverse topics and subject areas. For example, Gerber, Burden, and Stanton (1990) outlined a systematic procedure to develop computerized symbols for tourist maps that served as a prototype for standardisation. Ratajski (1971) proposed a detailed set of standard symbols for use on economic maps, and Nikishov and Preobrazhensky (1971) outlined additional considerations for common economic map symbols. In a similar fashion, Rado and Dudar (1971) proposed standardised symbols for features displayed on transportation maps, such as highways, railways, and air and shipping routes. Perhaps most related to humanitarian demining are the recent efforts to standardise map symbols used in emergency management (Dymon, 2003; Winter and Dymon, 2003) in order to improve response to hazards and disasters by emergency officials. Standardised map symbols are also often formalised through standards documents issued by organisations that are involved in significant map production activities. For example, several military organisations have established standardised map symbology through formal documents, such as NATO s Military Symbols for Land Based Systems (APP-6A) (NATO, 2000), the Canadian National Defence s Military Symbols for Land Operations (B-GL /FP-001) (Canadian National Defence, 2000), and the United States Department of Defense s Common Warfighting Symbology (MIL-STD-2525B) (United States Department of Defense, 1999). Map series issued by national mapping agencies, such as the 1: series issued by the United States Geological Survey and the 1: series produced by the British Ordnance Survey, conform to symbols standardised by the issuing organisation. Despite the widespread use of standardised map symbols, currently there is no international standard for humanitarian demining map symbols and no previous efforts have been successful in developing standard symbols specifically for maps used in humanitarian demining. The International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) (United Nations Mine Action Service, 2003c), which provide detailed specifications for many facets of humanitarian demining, do not specify standard symbols for use on maps. In the absence of a formal standard, cartographic symbols used by demining programs often vary considerably. Thus, an international standard for cartographic symbols would provide numerous benefits in humanitarian demining. First and foremost, standard map symbols would ensure a concise and consistent method for marking deadly hazards, including landmines and minefields, on maps. Although statistics are not available for the number of injuries or fatalities in humanitarian demining activities that may have resulted from map-reading errors, it is logical to assume that these errors would likely be reduced with a consistent map symbology. Second, standard symbols would promote efficiency in demining operations by reducing the labor and effort required by civilians and demining personnel to learn additional symbols used by other organisations. Third, standard symbols would aid in the exchange of maps and information among organisations, which would not be required to decode map symbols from other organisations and then recode maps with their own symbols. Rather, common map symbols would provide a more seamless transition for information exchange. PROPOSED STANDARD SYMBOLOGY FOR HUMANITARIAN DEMINING Due to the lack of a global standard and the limitations of existing map symbolisation options in IMSMA, the GICHD contracted geographers at the University of Kansas to devise a new humanitarian demining map symbol set that could be implemented in IMSMA and promoted as a standard in the demining community. The newly developed symbology includes more than 150 point, line, and area symbols for fourteen categories including accidents, country structure, hazards (e.g., minefields, mined areas), hazard reductions (e.g., minefield clearances), impact surveys, locations, mine risk education (MRE), ordnance, organisations, places, population, QA/QC, sample points, and victims. The symbol set includes general symbols for each major category, as well as symbols for more specific attributes such as the status, number, or type of a given feature. Figures 1 and 2 display examples of maps created with the symbols. The new symbol set recently has been implemented in IMSMA version 4.x (Figure 3). The symbol set is available from the GICHD as an ESRI style (.style) file and two True-Type (.ttf) fonts that may be used in common mapping and GIS software. Interested readers are encouraged to visit the websites of the GICHD ( or the University of Kansas ( Projects/symbol.shtml) to obtain the symbol set. DEVELOPMENT OF THE HUMANITARIAN DEMINING SYMBOL SET Our goal was to develop an objective procedure for designing the humanitarian demining symbols through well-defined methodology that could be replicated for the development of similar symbol sets. Despite the abundance of studies related to standardised map symbols in the cartographic literature, few have outlined the specific steps or methods that were utilised in the actual development stages, from start to finish. An exception is Gerber et al. (1990) who discuss a sixteen step procedure used for the development of tourist map symbols. We contribute to this literature by presenting a general five-stage methodology utilised in the design of the humanitarian demining symbol set. Major stages in the methodology are presented in Figure 4, and each stage is discussed in greater detail in the ensuing sections. Step 1: Inventory of Existing Symbols Before designing the new set of cartographic symbols for humanitarian demining, we first completed a systematic

4 Cartographic Symbols for Humanitarian Demining 21 Figure 1. Examples of point symbols included in the humanitarian demining symbol set (Note: Demining data presented on the map are fictitious and for illustrative purposes only) inventory of existing map symbols for landmines, minefields, UXOs, and mine actions. These symbols were assembled into a catalogue to provide an easy way to assess similarities and differences. Maps and symbols were collected from military and governmental organisations, international organisations, NGOs, regional mine action centers, GIS software vendors, and map libraries. Particular attention was focused on gathering symbols from major humanitarian demining organisations representative of several world regions and cultures. When available, symbols were collected from maps available on an organisation s website. In addition, an request for maps, symbols, and other relevant information was sent to appropriate contacts at each organisation. Symbols or related information were available for organisations listed in Table 1. For the sake of simplicity, only portions of the symbol catalogue are presented here: military (Figure 5) and humanitarian demining symbols (Figure 6). (Note: For the full version of

5 22 The Cartographic Journal Figure 2. Examples of point, line, and area symbols included in the humanitarian demining symbol set, including transparent area symbols (Note: Demining data presented on the map are fictitious and for illustration purposes only)

6 Cartographic Symbols for Humanitarian Demining 23 Figure 3. Examples of map symbols displayed in IMSMA 4.x the symbol catalogue, see Appendix B: Landmine, minefield, and mine action symbol catalogue in the report entitled Cartographic Recommendations for Humanitarian Demining Map Symbols in the Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA) (Kostelnick, 2005), available from the GICHD at html or Projects/symbol.shtml). As evident in Figure 5, a high degree of similarity in minefield symbols used in a military context is common not surprising since military forces commonly standardise map symbols through formal documents such as NATO s Military Symbols for Land Based Systems (APP-6A) (NATO, 2000), the Canadian National Defence s Military Symbols for Land Operations (B-GL /FP-001) (Canadian National Defence, 2000), and the United States Department of Defense s Common Warfighting Symbology (MIL-STD-2525B) (United States Department of Defense, 1999). Symbols in these national documents are very similar due to membership in NATO. However, it is significant that a non-nato member included in the symbol catalogue, Australia, also has adopted the NATOstandardised symbology, which indicates a broader appeal for these symbols. Such standardisation documents for map symbols do not exist in humanitarian demining, thus disparity is much greater among map symbols (Figure 6). Interestingly, none of the humanitarian demining organisations that participated in the symbol inventory had adopted standard military symbology. There are two likely reasons for this. First, although military symbology includes symbols for mine laying, they often do not include symbols for the many phases of landmine removal that are characteristic of humanitarian demining. For example, symbols for critical mine actions such as MRE, impact survey, and technical survey are absent from military map symbology documents Figure 4. The five-step methodology used to develop the humanitarian demining symbol set

7 24 The Cartographic Journal Figure 5. Examples of military symbols in the symbol catalogue from the US Department of Defense, US Army, NATO, the Canadian National Defence, and the Australian National Defence Table 1. Pertinent organisations for which landmine maps or other information were available for the symbol catalogue Accelerated Demining Program Mozambique Adopt-A-Minefield Albanian Mine Action Executive American Geographical Society Map Library Applied Research Institute Jerusalem Australian Defence Force Azerbaijan National Agency for Mine Action BACTEC International Limited, UK Belgium Staff Defence Bosnia-Herzegovina Mine Action Center Canadian International Demining Corps Canadian National Defence Croatian Mine Action Centre Danish Demining Group Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) European Union in Humanitarian Demining German Federal Foreign Office, Task Force for Humanitarian Aid and Mine Action Golden West Humanitarian Foundation International Campaign to Ban Landmines International Committee of the Red Cross International Test and Evaluation Program for Humanitarian Demining International Trust Fund for Demining and Mine Victims Assistance National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency MapInfo Mine Action Information Center Mine Advisory Group Mozambique National Demining Institute North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Signal and Image Center of the Royal Military Academy of Belgium South East Europe Mine Action Coordination Council Survey Action Center Swiss Foundation for Mine Action United Nations Mine Action Service United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo Mine Action Coordination Centre United States Department of Defense Humanitarian Demining Research and Development Program United States Department of Defense Humanitarian Demining Training Center United States Library of Congress United Nations Geospatial Information Working Group Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation such as APP-6A and MIL-2525B. Second, military symbols often are abstract and, therefore, most appropriate for the trained specialist and not the general map user. Abstract military symbols may pose particular difficulties when humanitarian demining maps are used by those with little or no military training, especially civilian populations who may have limited map reading skills. As a result, many humanitarian organisations have developed their own map symbols, and some have adopted the default demining symbols included in earlier versions of IMSMA. Consequently, map symbols vary considerably from one organisation to another and, thereby, reflect the lack of standardisation. For example, the Albanian Mine Action Executive, the Bosnia-Herzegovina Mine Action Centre, and the Croatian Mine Action Centre each use different map symbols for their respective demining operations, despite their geographic proximity. Although dissimilarities abound, areas of general agreement among many map symbols in humanitarian demining organisations were noted, such as the selection of colors. For example, red is the consensus color for depicting hazards such as dangerous areas, mined areas, minefields, and suspected areas; green or blue are common for cleared or safe areas. Patterns for area features are often simple so as not to conflict with underlying aerial photography, satellite imagery, or topographic maps. Similarities such as these were carefully recorded, and formed the basis for the initial criteria used to develop the new humanitarian demining symbols. Step 2: Develop Criteria For Symbols and Step 3: Develop Initial Symbol Drafts Any set of map symbols should follow general cartographic principles, such as appropriate use of the visual variables as defined by Bertin (1983). In addition, it is often necessary to develop more detailed criteria that are relevant to the specific subject matter for a particular symbol set. A number of specific criteria were developed in the design of the humanitarian demining symbol set. Important principles that guided development are discussed below.

8 Cartographic Symbols for Humanitarian Demining 25 Figure 6. Examples illustrating the diversity of point and area humanitarian demining symbols currently in use even in neighboring countries. Symbols are for the Albanian Mine Action Executive (AMAE), the Croatian Mine Action Centre (CROMAC), and the Bosnia-Herzegovina Mine Action Centre (BHMAC) Symbols must clearly imply danger Since the consequences for misreading cartographic symbols related to demining may be deadly, it is critical that hazard symbols on humanitarian demining maps clearly imply danger. For this reason, all minefield hazard symbols include a red triangle, the international standard for minefield marker signs as specified in the IMAS (United Nations Mine Action Service, 2003b). Typical examples of hazard signs in the field that follow the IMAS standard are displayed in Figure 7, along with examples of hazard map symbols that incorporate the red triangle. To replicate these hazard signs, point symbols include a red triangle with a skull and crossbones, and area symbols include a polygonal boundary with red triangles spaced at regular intervals. The use of the red triangle is also consistent with many MRE activities, which train local populations in mine-affected regions to recognise red triangles as symbols of minefields. As such, the red triangle serves as an intuitive link for map readers between field marker signs and map symbols. In addition to the IMAS standards, perceptual research suggests the combination of the color red and a skull and crossbones icon is an effective connotation of danger. For example, an experiment of the hazard level conveyed by several colors, shapes, and words by Wogalter et al. (1998) found that, more than other shapes included in the study, a skull icon was perceived as the highest level of hazard by subjects tested from Western cultures. The skull combined with the color red was one of the most effective combinations of a shape and color for signifying hazards. Geographic data may vary in the level of accuracy or precision, and such uncertainty may be depicted with map symbols (MacEachren, 1995). Although there often is uncertainty regarding the exact location of the perimeter for a given minefield, it is common convention in humanitarian demining not to specify such uncertainty on maps as all hazards or suspected hazards are treated in a similar manner. For this reason, no symbols designating data uncertainty or data quality were developed for hazard symbols. Intuitive, pictorial symbols were employed whenever possible All map symbols are representations or abstractions of realworld phenomena. Thus an important step in designing symbols is to determine an appropriate amount of abstractness for the real-world features, events, or processes that are to be represented (MacEachren 1994, p. 40). Symbols may be classified along a continuum, with pictorial (also referred to as mimetic or replicative) symbols at one end of the continuum and abstract (or geometric) symbols at the other (Robinson et al. 1995, p. 479). Pictorial symbols closely resemble the real-world features that they represent (e.g., an icon of a tent to represent a campground), and are often self-explanatory in the absence of a map legend. In contrast, abstract symbols bear little resemblance to the feature that they represent (e.g., a circle to represent a city). Whether the symbol is pictorial or abstract, the goal of all symbols is the same: for map users to decode the symbol successfully into the real-world feature, process, or event that it represents. Since humanitarian demining maps are used by a broad audience, including both specialists (demining operations personnel) and non-specialists (civilians), it is necessary to design symbols that are versatile for these multiple uses. Whenever possible, intuitive, pictorial symbols were designed, since maps produced in humanitarian demining are used by many cultures and by individuals with different levels of education and expertise. An advantage of pictorial symbols is that they are easier to understand than abstract symbols and, for this reason, are appropriate for the general public (MacEachren 1994, p. 57). Research regarding the

9 26 The Cartographic Journal Figure 7. Minefield marker signs near Arica, Chile that adhere to the IMAS standard of a red triangle or skull and crossbones in A) and B). Examples of point, line, and area hazard symbols incorporating a red triangle and/or skull and crossbones are displayed in C) (Photos by authors) design of public information symbols (e.g., Clarke, 1989; Gerber et al., 1990; Morrison and Forrest, 1995; Leung and Li, 2002), such as those found on tourist and recreation maps, has suggested the preference for pictorial rather than abstract symbols on maps for the general public. In addition, pictorial symbols with well-designed icons are more effective than abstract symbols for spanning the diverse cultural, educational and map-use backgrounds that characterise those who use humanitarian demining maps. In some cases, humanitarian demining map users may be illiterate or may not speak the lingua franca of a country or region, and pictorial map symbols are preferred for communication in such situations. Pictorial symbols, such as an icon of a skull and crossbones to depict a minefield and an icon of a demining worker to represent manual clearance, were designed to cross cultural boundaries and span various levels of expertise (Figure 8). Another benefit of pictorial symbols is that map users tend to be more accurate and efficient in interpreting pictorial symbols than abstract symbols. In an experiment with pictorial and abstract symbols on tourist maps, Forrest and Castner (1985) discovered that subjects made fewer errors comprehending pictorial symbols than they did with abstract symbols. Clarke (1989) reported similar results and identified tourist symbols that had little resemblance to the objects that they depicted as the most inefficient for map Figure 8. Examples of pictorial humanitarian demining map symbols: A) technical survey; B) manual clearance; C) accident victim; and D) mechanical demining

10 Cartographic Symbols for Humanitarian Demining 27 Figure 9. Example of a tiered or hierarchical structure for hazard point symbols, depicting general to more specific information readers. The findings are particularly relevant for humanitarian demining symbols, which must be designed in a manner to minimise comprehension errors that have the potential to result in serious injury or death. Furthermore, some of the key advantages of abstract symbols over pictorial symbols such as the ease with which abstract symbols may be created manually by personnel in the field, as well as the simple design of abstract symbols for display in computer mapping and GIS software have been minimised significantly owing to technological changes in humanitarian demining mapping in recent years. For example, the increased use of handheld computer-assisted tools for data collection and field mapping allows a demining operations worker to select map symbols from a predefined menu of symbols on the computer screen, rather than sketch symbols manually on an analog map. In addition, more complex pictorial symbols may be created with ease with the improved symbolisation options in current mapping and GIS software. Symbols display both general and specific information in a tiered or hierarchical structure The humanitarian demining symbol set was organised into a hierarchical or tiered structure to provide a logical order to the amount and type of information conveyed by all symbols. Other standardised symbol sets, such as Ratajski s (1971) symbols for economic maps, have employed a similar hierarchical approach in order to display relationships between symbols. The hierarchical or tiered structure allows for easy display of general or specific information on maps, depending on the map purpose. Higher-level symbols in the hierarchy are useful for communicating with the general public, while lower-level symbols are essential for specialists. For example, a red triangle with a skull and crossbones icon serves as the base symbol for a hazard, which is appropriate for civilian maps. Adding an icon to the symbol classifies the hazard by type (e.g., dangerous area, mined area and minefield) and a border added to the symbol denotes the status of the hazard (e.g., active, expired, not specified) (Figure 9). More specific information such as this is necessary for maps used in demining operations. Appropriate colors were selected for symbols A number of factors were considered when selecting colors for symbols. Color often has different meanings and connotations among cultures, and this poses a challenge in the selection of colors for symbols that indicate danger or hazard, such as a minefield. Red was chosen to represent all hazard symbols partially because red connotes danger in many cultures. In addition, the IMAS specifies red as the standard color for marking minefield signs, and red is the color used by an overwhelming majority of humanitarian demining organisations for landmine hazard and minefield map symbols as indicated through an analysis of the symbol catalogue. Further color selections were based on recommendations from safety color codes for public signs issued by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) (2002) (e.g., red 5 prohibited or danger; orange 5 warning; yellow 5 caution; blue or green 5 safety). For example, all hazards and mine actions that may present danger (e.g., manual clearance) are symbolised with red or orange. Green and blue are only used for symbols in which no danger is present. Another important consideration in map design is the selection of colors that are friendly to those with color vision impairments (Olson and Brewer, 1997). Color-blind friendly schemes recommended by Brewer et al. (2003) in ColorBrewer, an on-line color selection tool for maps, were also chosen for the humanitarian demining symbol set. Symbols do not conflict with underlying topographic maps, satellite imagery, or aerial photographs/orthophotos Topographic maps, satellite imagery, and aerial photographs/orthophotos are commonly utilised for reference in humanitarian demining, and often serve as a base on which demining information is displayed in GIS or mapping software. Thus, demining map symbols must complement and not conflict with these additional data sources. For this reason, all area symbols in the humanitarian demining symbol set are solid, transparent colors and patterns are avoided to ensure that underlying maps and imagery may be viewed. Symbols print and photocopy in black and white Since color printing capabilities are not available for all humanitarian demining personnel, particularly in field offices, color is used for added emphasis for all symbols, and other graphic attributes (e.g., border, icon) are employed to ensure that symbols may be differentiated when printed or photocopied in black and white. To ensure that all area symbols print in black and white, a small point symbol is added to the centroid of each symbol. Symbols accommodate various map scales Maps created for humanitarian demining purposes may range considerably in scale, from a large-scale map of an individual minefield to small-scale national or regional maps of multiple mined areas. To support these map scale ranges, the humanitarian demining symbol set includes symbols appropriate for small-, intermediate-, and large-scale maps. For example, a hazard is displayed as a red triangle on smallscale maps, a red triangle with a skull and crossbones icon at intermediate scales, and as an area feature at large scales (Figure 10).

11 28 The Cartographic Journal Figure 10. Hazard symbols displayed on small-, intermediate-, and large-scale maps Symbols adhere to existing standard symbols as far as is feasible A number of existing standard symbols are included in the humanitarian demining symbol set. These include standard symbols for specific ordnance types (e.g., anti-personnel landmines, anti-tank landmines, missiles, rockets, etc.) from NATO s Military Symbols for Land Based Systems (APP-6A) (NATO, 2000), and emergency management symbols (e.g., airport, first aid station, police station, etc.) developed by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (Federal Geographic Data Committee, Homeland Security Working Group, 2005) in the United States. Step 4: Qualitative Evaluation of Symbols An important step in the development of the humanitarian demining symbol set was a qualitative evaluation of draft symbol designs through questionnaires and a focus group. Suchan and Brewer (2000) have outlined the effectiveness of such qualitative methods as valuable methods of inquiry in many aspects of cartographic research. Qualitative methods have proven to be effective in the cartographic design process, particularly related to the design and development of interfaces for interactive mapping environments (e.g., Harrower et al., 2000; Slocum et al., 2004). A qualitative-based evaluation was deemed a more effective method of data collection than a quantitative evaluation since the primary focus of the evaluation was to determine the cross-cultural understandability of the symbols. Since the symbol set was preliminary at this point and it was expected that several revisions would be necessary, it was assumed that open-ended questions that characterise qualitative data collection would elicit more valuable feedback that would identify specific symbols that required modification. The qualitative evaluation group consisted of 21 participants from national demining programs at the IMSMA Summer Workshop held in Geneva, Switzerland in July All participants had extensive knowledge of humanitarian demining, many with substantial experience in demining operations. Participants were from a variety of cultural backgrounds, representing countries such as Albania, Chile, Croatia, Ecuador, Eritrea, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Kosovo, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Nicaragua, Peru, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand and the United States. Following an hour-long oral presentation about the rationale that guided the design of the draft symbols, each participant was asked to fill out a feedback form (Figure 11). The feedback form displayed the then-current version of each symbol in IMSMA and its newly designed counterpart. Participants were instructed to mark either yes if the draft symbol was an improvement over the previous IMSMA symbol, or no if it was not. Participants were also encouraged to provide written comments or suggestions regarding any additional improvements that could be made to each symbol. Participants evaluated approximately 125 total symbols; results for a selection of symbols are presented in Figure 12. Following the questionnaire evaluation, all participants were assembled together to discuss various aspects of the draft symbols in a guided group discussion akin to a large focus group. Step 5: Revise Symbols Feedback from the evaluation of the recommended symbols and the ensuing group discussion prompted a number of design changes to the draft symbols as well as additions to the general symbology. The yes and no responses for each symbol were tabulated, as well as any written or oral comments and suggestions for each symbol. Collectively, such information guided further modifications to those symbols identified as needing improvement. Such improvements mostly included modifications to icons that were unclear or otherwise difficult to interpret. Participants in the evaluation also identified a few draft symbols that required alteration since they were very similar to other common symbols. For example, one participant observed that the initial draft symbol for a minefield was very similar to the NATO standard military symbol for a defensive stronghold. Another participant identified a minefield perimeter symbol that was similar to a symbol commonly used on geological maps. An unanticipated benefit of the qualitative evaluation was the identification of additional symbols, such as an accident reporting place, to include in the symbol set. All of the additional symbols recommended by participants in the qualitative evaluation were added following the evaluation. PROMULGATION OF SYMBOLS Following various iterations of revisions based on results from the qualitative evaluation as well as other informal evaluation methods, the new symbol set has been distributed to much of the operational demining community through its inclusion in new versions of IMSMA, and is fast becoming a standard there. The GICHD would like to see the symbology adopted by other agencies and organisations. To serve this purpose, the American Geographical Society, in conjunction with the GICHD, organised two workshops to promulgate the new humanitarian demining symbology. A key goal of the promulgation effort is to draw attention to the necessity for an international standard for map symbols used in humanitarian demining. One workshop was held in New York, NY and the other at the United States Geological Survey headquarters in Reston, VA. Workshop attendees included representatives from the United Nations, NGOs (e.g., Vietnam Veterans of American Foundation), private firms (e.g., ESRI), and US federal agencies (e.g., Census Bureau, National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency, and US Geological Survey). The

12 Cartographic Symbols for Humanitarian Demining 29 Figure 11. A portion of the symbol feedback form completed by evaluation participants Figure 12. Evaluation results for selected symbols

13 30 The Cartographic Journal workshops provided an opportunity for presentations about the new humanitarian demining symbol set, and for group discussions regarding formal standardisation. Several workshop attendees pledged their support for the establishment of an international standard, which bodes well for future promulgation efforts to standards organisations. As an example of one outcome of the promulgation workshops, ESRI has made the symbol set available to the cartographic community on their newly created Mapping Center website ( CONCLUSIONS The current absence of a standardised set of cartographic symbols poses a danger to populations at risk in landmined areas and is an important challenge to humanitarian demining efforts around the world. This paper has proposed a new set of map symbols, based on several cartographic guidelines and principles that may fill the current void. In addition, this paper has outlined a five-step methodology that was utilised as a systematic approach in the development of the symbols. A number of observations and conclusions, as well as avenues for future research, may be drawn from this work. First, any map symbol development project involves unique challenges and humanitarian demining maps are no exception. Such topics that require particular consideration for humanitarian demining symbols include developing symbols that clearly indicate danger, are flexible for a diversity of map uses, and are appropriate for map users from different cultural backgrounds. To help overcome the challenges in this project, it was particularly beneficial to utilise a well-defined series of steps in the development of the symbol set, including a qualitative evaluation that provided an opportunity for demining personnel to provide significant input. Second, the integration of the humanitarian demining symbol set into related mapping communities beyond those in humanitarian demining operations will be an important goal. Specifically, it is hoped that the humanitarian demining symbol set will be integrated into standard military symbology schemes, such as NATO s APP-6A, and may thereby fill the current void of map symbols utilised in the context of humanitarian demining. Yet, an important issue will be to rectify differences between humanitarian and military symbols for identical features (e.g., minefields) that overlap due to their varied meanings in the two different contexts. The US National Geospatial Intelligence Agency was represented at one of the promulgation workshops, which is a promising step. Future work for this project includes additional promulgation of the symbology to formal standards organisations. Since symbol design is very much an iterative process, another valuable avenue of future research will be to conduct an additional evaluation of the symbol set now that it has been utilised in the field for daily operations by demining personnel. Of the many benefits for standardised symbols in humanitarian demining, the greatest potential is to improve safety for demining operations personnel and civilians living in mine-affected regions. BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE John Kostelnick is an assistant professor in the Department of Geography Geology at Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA. Jerome Dobson is a professor of geography at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA, and President of the American Geographical Society. Stephen Egbert is an associate professor of geography at the University of Kansas and an associate scientist at the Kansas Applied Remote Sensing (KARS) Program. Matthew Dunbar is a PhD candidate and a graduate research assistant in the Department of Geography at the University of Kansas. The authors have worked with the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining for the past four years, providing cartographic, geographic, and GIS assistance. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) sponsored the work presented in this paper. We wish to acknowledge Alan Arnold, Ananda Millard, and Jean-Paul Rychener of the GICHD for their support and assistance throughout the project. We thank Professor Terry Slocum of the Geography Department at the University of Kansas for comments on the material presented in this paper. We also thank the American Geographical Society (AGS) for their support in promulgating the humanitarian demining symbol set, and FGM, Inc. and Pelican Mapping for implementing the symbology in IMSMA. REFERENCES Bertin, J. (1983). Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press (French edition, 1967). Board, C. (1973). Cartographic communication and standardisation., International Yearbook of Cartography 13, Brewer, C. A., Hatchard, G. W., and Harrower, M. A. (2003). ColorBrewer in print: A catalog of color schemes for maps, Cartography and Geographic Information Science 30(1), Canadian National Defence. (2000). Military symbols for land operations. B-GL /FP-001. Canadian National Defence. Clarke, L. M. (1989). An experimental investigation of the communicative efficiency of point symbols on tourist maps, The Cartographic Journal 26(2), DiBiase, D., MacEachren, A. M., Krygier, J. B., and Reeves, C. (1992). Animation and the role of map design in scientific visualization, Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 19(4), , Dymon, U. J. (2003) An analysis of emergency map symbology, International Journal of Emergency Management 1(3), Federal Geographic Data Committee, Homeland Security Working Group. (2005). Symbology reference [Online]. Available from:, [accessed 13 November 2006].

14 Cartographic Symbols for Humanitarian Demining 31 Forrest, D. and Castner, H. W. (1985). The design and perception of point symbols for tourist maps, The Cartographic Journal 22(1), Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. 2006a. Available from:, [accessed 13 November 2006]. Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. 2006b. AP Min Ban Convention overview and convention text [Online]. Available from:, [accessed 13 November 2006]. Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. 2006c. Information management overview [Online]. Available from:, [accessed 13 November 2006]. Gerber, R., Burden, P., and Stanton, G. (1990). Development of public information symbols for tourism and recreational mapping, The Cartographic Journal 27(2), Harrower, M., MacEachren, A. M., and Griffin, A. L. (2000). Developing a geographic visualization tool to support earth science learning, Cartography and Geographic Information Science 27(4), International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). (2002). International Standard : Graphical Symbols Safety Colours and Safety Signs. Part 1: Design Principles for Safety Signs in Workplaces and Public Areas. International Organisation for Standardisation. Geneva, Switzerland. Joly, F. (1971). Problemes de standardisation en cartographic thématique, International Yearbook of Cartography 11, Komkov, A.M. (1971). The international language of geographical maps, International Yearbook of Cartography 11, Kostelnick, J. (2005). Cartographic recommendations for humanitarian demining map symbols in the Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA). Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. Geneva, Switzerland. Krygier, J. and Wood, D. (2005). Making Maps: A Visual Guide to Map Design for GIS, The Guilford Press, New York. Lai, P.-C. and Yeh, A.G.O. (2004). Assessing the effectiveness of dynamic symbols in cartographic communication, The Cartographic Journal 41(3), Leung, L-F. and Li, Z. (2002). Experimental evaluation of the effectiveness of graphic symbols on tourist maps, Cartography 31(1), MacEachren, A. M. (1994). Some Truth with Maps: A Primer on Symbolisation and Design, Association of American Geographers, Washington, DC. MacEachren, A. M. (1995). How Maps Work: Representation, Visualization, and Design, The Guilford Press, New York. Morrison, J. L Applied cartographic communication: Map symbolisation for atlases, Cartographica 21(1), Morrison, C. and Forrest, D. (1995). A study of point symbol design for computer based large scale tourist mapping, The Cartographic Journal 32(2), Müller, J. C. and Zeshen, W. (1990). A knowledge based system for cartographic symbol design, The Cartographic Journal 27(1), Nelson, E. S., Dow, D. Lukinbeal, C. and Farley, R. (1997). Visual search processes and the multivariate point symbol, Cartographica 34(4), Nikishov, M. I. and Preobrazhensky, A. I. (1971). The problems of the unification of the contents and conventional signs standardization on economic maps, International Yearbook of Cartography 11, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). (2000). APP-6A: Military Symbols for Land Based Systems. NATO. Olson, J. M. and Brewer, C. A. (1997). An evaluation of color selections to accommodate map users with color-vision impairments, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87(1), Rado, S. and Dudar, T. (1971). Some problems of standardization of transportation map symbols in thematical mapping, International Yearbook of Cartography 11, Ratajski, L. (1971). The methodological basis of the standardisation of signs on economic maps, International Yearbook of Cartography 11, Robinson, A. H. (1973). An international standard symbolism for thematic maps: Approaches and problems. International Yearbook of Cartography 13, Robinson, A. H., Morrison, J. L., Muehrcke, P. C., Kimerling, A. J., and Guptill, S. C. (1995). Elements of Cartography, 6th ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York. Slocum, T. A., Sluter, R. S., Kessler, F. C., and Yoder. S. C. (2004). A qualitative evaluation of MapTime, a program for exploring spatiotemporal point data, Cartographica 39(3), Suchan, T. A. and Brewer, C. A. (2000). Qualitative methods for research on mapmaking and map use, The Professional Geographer 52(1), United Nations Mine Action Service. (2003a). IMAS 08.10: General Mine Action Assessment, 2nd ed. United Nations. New York, NY. United Nations Mine Action Service. (2003b). IMAS 08.40: Marking Mine and UXO Hazards, 2nd ed. United Nations. New York, NY. United Nations Mine Action Service. (2003c). International Mine Action Standards (IMAS), 2nd ed. United Nations. New York, NY. United States Department of Defense. (1999). Common warfighting symbology. MIL-STD-2525B. Winter, N. L. and Dymon, U. J. (2003). Seeking hazard and emergency management symbols, Proceedings of the 21st International Cartographic Conference, Durban, South Africa, August Wogalter, M. S., Kalsher, M. J., Frederick, L. J., Magurno, A. B., and Brewster, B. M. (1998). Hazard level perceptions of warning components and configurations, International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics 2(1 2),