Canada in six atlases

Summary

The writer examines six recent Canadian Atlases, the 1958 Atlas of Canada and five provincial atlases, and comments upon some of the patterns, trends and principles that may be observed from their study. The effects of the original aims and purposes of these atlases and the effect of government policy upon them is considered, and it is observed that they may be regarded as pedagogical works organized in accordance with the methodology of geography. It is concluded that the recommendations of the IGU Commission on National Atlases have had an important influence upon each of these publications. With the recent publication of the Economic Atlas of Ontario,[*1] the Atlas of Saskatchewan[*2] and the Atlas of Alberta[*3] and the earlier appearance of the British Columbia Atlas of Resources[*4] and the Economic Atlas of Manitoba[*5] much of Canada is now “covered” with provincial atlases. This is in addition to the coverage of the whole country which is embraced in the Atlas of Canada 1958.[*6] No other State appears to have undergone such “Atlas treatment” and it may therefore be useful to the Commission to consider some of the patterns, trends and principles which can be detected through a critical examination of these six volumes. At this point it is as well to recall that the provincial atlases are not necessarily regional atlases in the usual, geographical, sense of the word “region”. The provinces are indeed political regions but they are otherwise often far from being “geographical regions”. British Columbia comes closest to being so as it embraces almost all of the southern part of the Cordilleran region of Canada. However, the political regions have, over the years, developed other kinds of regional homogeneity, and to this extent the provincial atlases can be said to reflect regional differences. The obvious superficial difference between the six atlases is that the volumes vary in size[*7] and weight, the Canadian and Ontario atlases being the heaviest. It is clear that the atlases were not produced within an overall, coordinated plan and this is even more evident when one examines the scales and projections of the maps. The Atlas of Canada was so designed that the “open-page size should be large enough to accommodate a map of the whole of Canada on a scale of 1:10,000,000 according to the Lambert Conformal Conic projection, with 49° and 77° as the standard parallels, with a polyconic projection superimposed above 80°N latitude.”[*8] Other Dr. Nicholson is Senior Professor of Geography in the Department of Geography at the University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. Presented at the IGU 7th Plenary Session of the Commission on National Atlases. maps in the atlas were to be on scales that were simple multiples of 1:10 M—1:50 M; 1:20 M; 1:5 M; 1:2.5 M and, in one instance, 1:1 M. Saskatchewan’s atlas scales cannot easily be compared with these, the most common being 1:4.5 M; 1:6 M and 1:9 M. The scale of the maps of the Alberta atlas on a double page is 1:20 M, and on a single page 1:3,300,000. The Ontario atlas does not use the representative fraction or the numerical method of expressing scale. When it shows any scale at all, it is linear (graphic) and is expressed in miles to the inch, the most common being 20 miles to 1 inch (approx. 1:1.25 M). The Manitoba method is similar, its full-page maps being on a scale of 40 miles to 1 inch (approx. 1:2.5 M). Before considering other differences it might be useful to endeavour to account for the underlying reasons for them. Professor Klawe, among others, exposed a fundamental question when he reminded the 20th International Geographical Congress in London that today, in spite of automation, completed atlases require at least twenty to twenty-five times as many people as were required in the days of Ortelius and Mercator,[*9] and that “the pattern of atlas-making is taking on the characteristics of an industrial undertaking involving market research, strict production planning and control, publication timing, financial problems, advertising, etc.”[*10] The magnitude of the resources required can be considered as made up of two things—time (or manpower) and money. For large reference atlases of the type to which national and regional atlases usually belong, both time and money are needed in larger amounts than are normally required for the production of less specialized works. The British Columbia atlas took more than two years to produce and more than 100 persons were employed, the Ontario atlas at least eight years, the Alberta atlas six; and the Canada atlas ten years. Indeed, the financial aid and support of the Government of Ontario was so great that the editor of the Ontario atlas likened it to the “royal favour” of Tudor England.[*11] National and regional atlases of the type considered by this Commission can either never be economically self-sustaining or the risks involved in endeavouring to make them so are too great to be acceptable to most commercial firms. Thus, their production and publication must be activities in which government or non-profit organizations must be involved. In Canada this has meant government and university with particular emphasis on the former, especially as Canadian universities are heavily dependent on government funds. THE EFFECT OF AIM AND PURPOSE This means that the philosophy behind the production of the national and regional atlases has to some extent been affected by the policy of the government of the province concerned or the federal government (in the case of the Atlas of Canada). But if it is accepted that the political regions have developed other kinds of regional homogeneity over the years, then the differences in provincial government policies, in many senses, reflect differences in regional geography. These, in turn, are reflected in the purposes of the provincial atlases. From this point of view there is no doubt that the national government could take a wider view of purpose than provincial governments. Thus the purpose of the national atlas “is to present in maps an outline of the physical background and the economic development of the nation at mid-century, and to show how these factors are interwoven to produce the fabric of the life of our people.”[*12] The purpose of the Ontario atlas, however, was to provide “potential for developing the coordinated attack required for research into the complex areas of provincial opportunities and problems.”[*13] The Atlas of Alberta, it is hoped “will prove invaluable as a reference for the citizens of that Province in schools, homes and offices, and equally valuable to all those outside of Alberta who entertain an interest in the Province.”[*14] The Atlas of Saskatchewan which seems to have been less dependent upon the provincial government, simply states that its aim is “to portray the geography of the Province of Saskatchewan,”[*15] These slightly differing purposes provide the explanation for the differing approaches to the contents of each volume. For the Atlas of Canada, for example, the decision was made that the geographical approach to the subject matter would be mainly topical, rather than regional, because “the atlas was to be national in character and, in any case, it was expected that the various provinces of Canada would produce their own atlases which would, at least to a certain degree, be regional atlases.”[*16] This coincided with the recommendations made for national atlases by Salichtchev[*17] a few years later. The Ontario atlas departs most widely from this ideal scheme. It deliberately sets out to map only those interacting spatial elements which comprise the economic geography of the province. Thus, it has no maps solely devoted to any of the physical elements, yet very few of them are not represented. For example, the only map showing relief is entitled “Air Bases”! There is a map of landforms but it is in the Agricultural section, and is one of several of the plate entitled “Physiography”. Climatic data is likewise related to the maps of some economic activity such as aspects of outdoor recreation. The contents of the atlases clearly reflect the different purposes or aims of the volumes. But even if the purposes were the same, true regional atlases are not usually national atlases in miniature. Rado and Bereezy made this point at the 21st International Geographical Congress in New Delhi. National and regional atlases “cannot be substitutes for one another, but they complement each other.”[*18] It is generally true that the Atlas of Canada and the Economic Atlas of Ontario do indeed complement each other insofar as the contents of each is concerned. But some of the other provincial atlases come close to following the format recommended for national atlases. This occurs when their purpose most closely corresponds with that of national atlases. The Saskatchewan atlas is an example of this and is reminiscent of the atlases of some of the Soviet republics.[*19] Like national atlases, regional atlases of this type, frequently stress some feature or set of featureswhich are peculiar to the area. As Stamp pointed out when reviewing the Atlas of Canada, a reader of Canadiana “is likely to be interested in the distribution of the larger mammals, and so it is they which appear on distribution maps; an area of special interest is the Sudbury ore-field and it is given a special map.”[*20] Both Saskatchewan and Alberta include significant sections on water resources, a matter with which the people of these provinces are always preoccupied as their southern parts are so near to being semi-arid. Whether by accident or design it is notable that these maps follow closely the report of the Working Group of this Commission on Maps of Water Resources.[*21] The Manitoba atlas similarly emphasizes agriculture, “despite the greater contribution of manufacturing to the Provincial economy in terms of gross income, an emphasis justified by its greater areal extent and larger labour force,”[*22] THE PEDAGOGICAL COMPONENT As education in Canada is exclusively a provincial responsibility and as the largest part of the provincial income is usually devoted to education, all the provincial atlases have an educational component in their aims. Indeed, it was reported to this Commission in 1962 that “the prime purpose of the provincial atlases may be seen as being pedagogical but with subsidiary promotional and scholarly purposes. We may, therefore, classify them as pedagogical atlases organized in accordance with the methodology of geography. The conformity to the methodology of geography is an important qualification, for one may presume that, by virtue of this conformity, the atlases obtain a content in excess of, and to a degree independent of, the needs of existing curricula, and thereby obtain a rational basis for expansion, as conditions may warrant. Indeed the treatment of agriculture in the Atlas of Manitoba goes well beyond most pedagogical needs, and the atlas may be considered as transitional towards a regional atlas.”[*23] The Ontario atlas also goes beyond what might normally be considered as pedagogical needs, not so much for its subject matter as its techniques of analysing and presenting that subject matter. In this respect, therefore, it also advances the methodology of geography in addition to the advances in the nature of regional atlases which derived from its stated purposes. Earlier conclusions with regard to pedagogical purposes presented to the Commission in 1962 were based in part on the inclusion of texts and photographs. Of the three provincial atlases which have appeared since then, Saskatchewan’s is the only one which makes extensive use of textual information, Alberta’s much less so and Ontario's hardly at all. It was also suggested earlier that “if the atlases are considered to have a textbook function, this would amply justify the duplication of material that appears in the national atlas.”[*24] Once again, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario makes less and less use of the material that appeared in the national atlas. Hence on both counts, that is the use of texts and photographs and the duplication of material in the national atlas, it may be concluded that Ontario comes closest to the ideal “regional atlas”. In their communication to this Commission in Budapest, Nicholson and Fremlin suggested at least five characteristics of a regional atlas in a hierarchical system of atlases.[*25] It is evident that the Saskatchewan and Alberta atlases while not having all of these characteristics have no fewer than the provincial atlases which preceded them. It is also equally evident that the Ontario atlas comes close to having them all. Consequently, our prediction of 1962, that the rationale of a hierarchy of atlases will become apparent.[*26] has been partially fulfilled. The reasons for incomplete fulfillment have also been discussed. It would seem then that the Commission might do well to consider the reasons for similar imperfections in similar hierarchies. One other conclusion is also inescapable — it is simply that the work of the Commission has, in the case of Canada at least, not been in vain. While the recommendations have not been followed in every detail, on close analysis of the atlases discussed, the general influence is evident. RESUME. L’auteur examine six récents atlas canadiens, soit les atlas de 1958 du Canada et cinq atlas provinciaux, et commente certains aspects et tendances qui peuvent être relevés dans certains examens. Les objectifs originaux et l’effet de résultat politique est remarqué, il est aussi observé qu’ils peuvent être considérés comme travaux pédagogiques, organisés d’après la méthodologie de géographie. Il est conclu que les recommandations de IGU, Commission des Atlas Nationales, ont eu une influence importante sur chacune de ces publications. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG. Der Verfasser untersucht sechs neuere kanadische Atlanten, den Atlas of Canada von 1958 und fünf Provinzialatlanten, und bespricht einige Stile, Richtungen und Grundgedanken, die aus dieser Studie entnommen werden können. Er betrachtet die Auswirkungen des ursprünglichen Zwecks und Ziels der Atlanten sowie den Einfluss offizieller Politik und bemerkt, dass man die Atlanten als pädagogische Werke ansehen kann, die in Übereinstimmung mit der geographischen Methodik aufgebaut sind. Der Verfasser kommt zu dem Schluss, dass die Empfehlungen der IGU-Kommission für Nationalatlanten einen bedeutenden Einfluss auf jede einzelne dieser Veröffentlichungen hatten. RESUMEN. El autor examina seis Atlas Canadienses recientes: el Atlas de Canada de 1958 y cinco atlas provinciales, comentando sobre algunos de los patrones, tendencias y principios que pueden observarse al estudiar cada uno de ellos. Se toman en consideración los efectos de los objetivos y propósitos originales de estos atlas y el efecto de la política oficial sobre ellos y se observa que se les puede considerar como obras pedagógicas, organizadas de acuerdo con la metodología geográfica. Se concluye que las recomendaciones de la Comisión sobre Atlas Nacionales de la UGI ha tenido una influencia importante sobre cada una de estas publicaciones. --- Notes --- [*1] Economic Atlas of Ontario. Edited by W. G. Dean: cartographer G. J. Mathews. University of Toronto Press, 1969. [*2] Atlas of Saskatchewan. Edited by J. Howard Richards: cartographic editor, K. I. Fung. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, 1969. [*3] Atlas of Alberta, Government of Alberta and the University of Alberta, Edmonton, 1969. [*4] British Columbia Atlas of Resources. Edited by J. D. Chapman and D. B. Lewis: cartographic editors, A. L. Farley and R. I. Ruggles. British Columbia Natural Resources Conference, Department of Lands and Forests, Victoria, B.C., 1956. [*5] Economic Atlas of Manitoba. Edited by T. R. Weir. Department of Commerce, Winnipeg, 1960. [*6] Atlas of Canada. Edited by N. L. Nicholson. Geographical Branch, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, Ottawa, 1959. [*7] British Columbia 22 x 17 inches Manitoba 22¼ x 16 inches Alberta 17 x 13 inches Ontario 17¼ x 13 inches Canada 20¾ x 15¼ inches Saskatchewan 13¼ x 9¾ inches [*8] Nicholson, N. L. Some elements in the development of the National Atlas of Canada, Geog. Bulletin, 16, 1961, p. 47. [*9] Klawe, Janusz J. Atlas production management in Abstracts of Papers, 20th International Geographical Congress, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., London, 1964, pp. 42-43. [*10] Klawe, Janusz J. The limits of Editorial Freedom in School Atlases, ibid., p. 43. [*11] W. G. Dean in the Preface to the Economic Atlas of Ontario. [*12] The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys in his introduction to the Atlas of Canada. [*13] The Ontario Minister of Economics at the reception to introduce the Economic Atlas of Ontario. [*14] The Premier of Alberta in the Preface to the Atlas of Alberta. [*15] J. Howard Richards in the Foreword to the Atlas of Saskatchewan. [*16] Nicholson, N. L. loc. cit. [*17] Salichtchev, K. A. Atlas Nationaux, Academie des Sciences de l’URSS, Moscow, 1960, pp. 140-147. [*18] Rado, Sandor and Odon Bereczy, Interdependence of National and Regional Atlases in Abstracts of papers, 21st International Geographical Congress, Sree Saraswaty Press Ltd., Calcutta, 1968, p. 383. [*19] See, for example, Kosoleva, M. A. and A. S. Chartchenko, The National Atlas of the Ukrainian S. S. R. in Abstracts of papers, 21st International Geographical Congress, p. 381. [*20] Stamp, L. D. Atlas of Canada in The Geographical Journal, Vol. CXXVI, June 1960, p. 242. [*21] Report of the Working Group on Maps of Water Resources in the National and Regional Complex Atlases in Abstracts of papers, 21st International Geographical Congress, p. 379. [*22] Humphrys, G. Economic Atlas of Manitoba in The Geographical Journal, Vol. CXXVIIIL, June 1962, pp. 242-243. [*23] Proceedings of the Plenary Session of the Commission on National Atlases, Geodetic and Cartographic Society, Budapest, 1962, p. 166. [*24] Ibid. [*25] Ibid., p. 164. [*26] Ibid., p. 167.