Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Like it! Maps as a Subject and a Springboard for discussion in social media Cover

Like it! Maps as a Subject and a Springboard for discussion in social media

Open Access
|Sep 2020

References

  1. Andrienko G., Andrienko N., Savinov A., 2001, Choropleth maps: Classification revisited. In: “Proceedings of the 20th International Cartographic Conference – ICA 2001, August 6−10, 2001, Beijing, China”, pp. 1209−1219.
  2. Blom J.N., Hansen K.R., 2015, Click bait: Forward-reference as lure in online news headlines. “Journal of Pragmatics” No. 76, pp. 87−100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.010
  3. Brandeis M.W., Carrera Zamanillo M.I., 2017, Finding meaningful participation in volunteer geographic information and citizen science: a case comparison in environmental application. “Cartography and Geographic Information Science” Vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 539−550, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2016.1221779
  4. Brewer C.A., Pickle L., 2002, Evaluation of methods for classifying epidemiological data on choropleth maps in series. “Annals of the Association of American Geographers” Vol. 92, no. 4, pp. 662−681, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.00310
  5. Buckingham W.R., Dennis S.F. jr., 2009, Cartographies of participation: How the changing natures of cartography has opened community and cartographer collaboration. “Cartographic Perspectives” No. 64, pp. 55−61, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14714/CP64.150
  6. Cosgrove D.E., della Dora V., 2005, Mapping Global War: Los Angeles, the Pacific, and Charles Owens’s pictorial cartography. “Annals of the Association of American Geographers” Vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 373−390, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2005.00465.x
  7. Crampton J. W., 2001, Maps as social constructions: power, communication and visualization. “Progress in Human Geography” Vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 235−252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/030913201678580494
  8. Czepkiewicz M., Jankowski P., Młodkowski M., 2017, Geo-questionnaires in urban planning: recruitment methods, participant engagement, and data quality. “Cartography and Geographic Information Science” Vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 551−567, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2016.1230520
  9. Dodge M., Kitchin R., 2011, Mapping experience: crowdsourcing cartography. “Environment and Planning A”, Vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 19−36, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/a44484
  10. Faliszewska A., 2012, Badania czytelności kartograficznych anamorfoz powierzchni. “Polski Przegląd Kartograficzny” T. 44, nr 3, pp. 225−238.
  11. Field K., 2012, Mapping the London 2012 Olympics. “The Cartographic Journal” Vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 281–296, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/0008704112Z.00000000033
  12. Field K., 2014, The cacophony of cartography. “The Cartographic Journal” Vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 1−10, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/0008704114Z.000000000120
  13. Green D.R., 1999, Journalistic cartography: good or bad? A debatable point. “The Cartographic Journal” Vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 141−153, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/caj.1999.36.2.141
  14. Kent A., 2017, Trust me, I’m a cartographer: post-truth and the problem of acritical cartography. “The Cartographic Journal” Vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 193−195, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00087041.2017.1376489
  15. Kent A., Vujakovic P., 2017, Introduction. In: A.J. Kent, P. Vujakovic (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Mapping and Cartography, pp. 1−5.
  16. Kraak M.-J., 2011, Is there a need for neo-cartography?. “Cartography and Geographic Information Science” Vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 73−78, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1559/1523040638273
  17. Liu S.B., Palen L., 2010, The new cartographers: crisis map mashups and the emergence of neogeographic practice. “Cartography and Geographic Information Science” Vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 69−90, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1559/152304010790588098
  18. Markowska A., Korycka-Skorupa J., 2015, An evaluation of GIS tools for generating area cartograms. “Polish Cartographical Review” Vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 19−29, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/pcr-2015-0002
  19. McCartney E.A., 2015, Crowdsourcing the national map. “Cartography and Geographic Information Science” Vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 54−57, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2015.1059187
  20. Muehlenhaus I., 2012, If looks could kill: the impact of different rhetorical styles on persuasive geo-communication. “The Cartographic Journal” Vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 361−375, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/1743277412Y.0000000032
  21. Muehlenhaus I., 2014, Going viral: the look of online persuasive maps. “Cartographica” Vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 18−34, DOI: https://doi/org/10.3138/carto.49.1.1830
  22. Pánek J., 2016, From mental maps to geoparticipation. “The Cartographic Journal” Vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 300−307, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00087041.2016.1243862
  23. Robinson A.C., 2019, Elements of viral cartography. “Cartography and Geographic Information Science” Vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 293−310, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2018.1484304
  24. Sirko M., 1999, Zarys historii kartografii, Lublin.
  25. Slocum T.A., McMaster R.B., Kessler F.C., Howard H.H., 2009, Thematic cartography and geovisualization.
  26. Sun H., Li Z., 2010, Effectiveness of cartogram for the representation of spatial data. “The Cartographic Journal” Vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 12−21, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/000870409X12525737905169
  27. Tomaszewska M., 2009, Sposób ujęcia danych a poprawność map opracowanych metodą kartogramu. “Polski Przegląd Kartograficzny” T. 41, no. 3, pp. 209−220.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/pcr-2020-0005 | Journal eISSN: 2450-6966 | Journal ISSN: 0324-8321
Language: English
Page range: 51 - 60
Submitted on: May 2, 2020
Accepted on: Jun 15, 2020
Published on: Sep 22, 2020
Published by: Polish Geographical Society
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2020 Kamil Nieścioruk, published by Polish Geographical Society
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.