The Cartographic Journal Vol. 45 No. 1 pp.

18–31 February 2008

# The British Cartographic Society 2008

REFEREED PAPER

Cartographic Symbols for Humanitarian Demining

John C. Kostelnick1, Jerome E. Dobson2, Stephen L. Egbert2,3 and
Matthew D. Dunbar2,3
1
Department of Geography–Geology, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA, 61790. Formerly affiliated with the
Department of Geography, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA, 66045, 2Department of Geography, University
of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA, 66045, 3Kansas Applied Remote Sensing (KARS) Program, University of Kansas,
Lawrence, KS, USA, 66045
Email: 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 organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs)

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 mine-
affected countries. According to one estimate, approxi-
mately 40–50 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
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 manage-
ment, analysis, and display of crucial geographic informa-
tion 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 informa-
tion 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: 10.1179/000870408X276585
Cartographic Symbols for Humanitarian Demining
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 demin-
ing. The new symbol set is introduced in the second
section, Proposed Standard Symbology for Humanitarian
Demining. The five-step methodology used for the devel-
opment 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 carto-
graphic 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
19
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 require-
ments, 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 experi-
mentation 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 effec-
tiveness of more complex multivariate symbols such as
Chernoff faces (e.g., Nelson et al., 1997) has also been
evaluated. Experimentation has also involved the effective-
ness 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 standardisa-
tion 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, standar-
disation is not without practical problems, such as the
20
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 compu-
terized 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 standar-
dised 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-
331-003/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 1:24 000 series
issued by the United States Geological Survey and the
1:50 000 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 humanitar-
ian 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 specifica-
tions 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
The Cartographic Journal
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 (http://www.gichd.ch/1228.0.html) or the
University of Kansas (http://web.ku.edu/,landmines/
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
Cartographic Symbols for Humanitarian Demining
Figure 1. Examples of point symbols included in the humanitarian demining symbol set (Note: Demining data presented on the map are fic-
titious and for illustrative purposes only)
inventory of existing map symbols for landmines, mine-
fields, 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
21
several world regions and cultures. When available, symbols
were collected from maps available on an organisation’s
website. In addition, an email request for maps, symbols,
and other relevant information was sent to appropriate
contacts at each organisation. Symbols or related informa-
tion 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
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)
Cartographic Symbols for Humanitarian Demining
Figure 3. Examples of map symbols displayed in IMSMA 4.x
the symbol catalogue, see Appendix B: Landmine, mine-
field, 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 http://www.gichd.ch/
1228.0.html or http://web.ku.edu/,landmines/
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-331-003/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,
Figure 4. The five-step methodology used to develop the humanitarian demining symbol set
23
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 NATO-
standardised 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 partici-
pated 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
24
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
The Cartographic Journal
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 agree-
ment 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.
Cartographic Symbols for Humanitarian Demining
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 sym-
bols 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
25
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 real-
world 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 camp-
ground), 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 humani-
tarian 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
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 Figure 8. Examples of pictorial humanitarian demining map sym-
identified tourist symbols that had little resemblance to the bols: A) technical survey; B) manual clearance; C) accident victim;
objects that they depicted as the most inefficient for map and D) mechanical demining
Cartographic Symbols for Humanitarian Demining
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 humani-
tarian 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 relation-
ships 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
27
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 recom-
mendations 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 photo-
graphs/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 small-
scale maps, a red triangle with a skull and crossbones icon at
intermediate scales, and as an area feature at large scales
(Figure 10).
28
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 environ-
ments (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 partici-
pants from national demining programs at the IMSMA
Summer Workshop held in Geneva, Switzerland in July 2004.
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
The Cartographic Journal
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 ques-
tionnaire 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 improve-
ments 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 dis-
tributed 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 organisa-
tions. 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 work-
shop 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
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

30
workshops provided an opportunity for presentations about
the new humanitarian demining symbol set, and for group
discussions regarding formal standardisation. Several work-
shop 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
(http://mappingcenter.esri.com/).
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 promul-
gation 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.
The Cartographic Journal
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
John Kostelnick is an assis-
tant 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 associ-
ate 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 promul-
gating 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, 229–236.
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), 5–
32.
Canadian National Defence. (2000). Military symbols for land
operations. B-GL-331-003/FP-001. Canadian National Defence.
Clarke, L. M. (1989). ‘An experimental investigation of the commu-
nicative efficiency of point symbols on tourist maps’, The
Cartographic Journal 26(2), 105–110.
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), 201–
214, 265–266.
Dymon, U. J. (2003) ‘An analysis of emergency map symbology’,
International Journal of Emergency Management 1(3), 227–
237.
Federal Geographic Data Committee, Homeland Security Working
Group. (2005). ‘Symbology reference’ [Online]. Available from:
,http://www.fgdc.gov/HSWG/index.html. [accessed 13
November 2006].
Cartographic Symbols for Humanitarian Demining
Forrest, D. and Castner, H. W. (1985). ‘The design and perception of
point symbols for tourist maps’, The Cartographic Journal 22(1),
11–19.
Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. 2006a.
Available from: ,http://www.gichd.ch. [accessed 13 November
2006].
Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. 2006b. ‘AP
Min Ban Convention overview and convention text’ [Online].
Available from: ,http://www.gichd.ch/211.0.html. [accessed
13 November 2006].
Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. 2006c.
‘Information management overview’ [Online]. Available from:
,http://www.gichd.ch/22.0.html. [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), 92–103.
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), 279–293.
International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). (2002).
International Standard 3864-1: 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, 116–119.
Komkov, A.M. (1971). ‘The international language of geographical
maps’, International Yearbook of Cartography 11, 209–215.
Kostelnick, J. (2005). Cartographic recommendations for humanitar-
ian 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), 229–244.
Leung, L-F. and Li, Z. (2002). ‘Experimental evaluation of the
effectiveness of graphic symbols on tourist maps’, Cartography
31(1), 11–20.
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. 1984. ‘Applied cartographic communication: Map
symbolisation for atlases’, Cartographica 21(1), 44–84.
Morrison, C. and Forrest, D. (1995). ‘A study of point symbol design
for computer based large scale tourist mapping’, The Cartographic
Journal 32(2), 126–136.
31
Müller, J. C. and Zeshen, W. (1990). ‘A knowledge based system for
cartographic symbol design’, The Cartographic Journal 27(1),
24–30.
Nelson, E. S., Dow, D. Lukinbeal, C. and Farley, R. (1997). ‘Visual
search processes and the multivariate point symbol,’ Cartographica
34(4), 19–32.
Nikishov, M. I. and Preobrazhensky, A. I. (1971). ‘The problems of
the unification of the contents and conventional signs standardiza-
tion on economic maps’, International Yearbook of Cartography
11, 127–136.
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 impair-
ments’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers
87(1), 103–134.
Rado, S. and Dudar, T. (1971). ‘Some problems of standardization of
transportation map symbols in thematical mapping’, International
Yearbook of Cartography 11, 160–164.
Ratajski, L. (1971). ‘The methodological basis of the standardisation
of signs on economic maps’, International Yearbook of
Cartography 11, 137–159.
Robinson, A. H. (1973). ‘An international standard symbolism for
thematic maps: Approaches and problems.’ International
Yearbook of Cartography 13, 19–26.
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), 43–68.
Suchan, T. A. and Brewer, C. A. (2000). ‘Qualitative methods for
research on mapmaking and map use’, The Professional
Geographer 52(1), 145–154.
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,
10–16 August 2003.
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), 123–143.