Interdependence of national and regional atlases

Summary

The article examines the interdependence, functional distinctions, and developmental tendencies of national and regional atlases. The rapid expansion of comprehensive atlas production after the Second World War resulted from advances across the geosciences, closer cooperation between cartography and specialized disciplines, growing demands for the rational use of natural resources and territorial organization, and the activities of the International Geographical Union’s Commission on National Atlases. Both atlas types are understood not as miscellaneous collections of thematic maps but as purposefully organized cartographic systems in which coordinated subjects, symbols, scales, and principles of generalization allow individual maps to acquire greater scientific and practical value. Their shared mission is twofold: to synthesize knowledge of physical and socioeconomic conditions and processes, and to support education, resource assessment, economic management, territorial planning, and development. Consequently, the conventional opposition between national atlases as purely scientific works and regional atlases as merely practical planning instruments is rejected; each combines theory and application, although their relative emphasis may differ. The main differences arise from the character of the territory represented, the thematic system adopted, and the purposes governing compilation. A national atlas portrays the entire state as a defined socioeconomic unit. It generally applies a relatively uniform depth of treatment and a higher degree of cartographic generalization across the national territory, thereby presenting an integrated national picture and facilitating comparison with other countries. A regional atlas may cover an administrative unit, a physical-geographical region, an economically important area, or a territory designated for coordinated development. Its boundaries, thematic priorities, map scales, and level of detail are therefore more flexible. Regional works can emphasize distinctive local conditions, internal contrasts, interregional relations, resources, and concrete development problems, and different subjects within one atlas may receive unequal treatment according to regional needs. The article further classifies atlases by the motivations behind their production. The first group comprises comprehensive geographical atlases intended primarily to present a balanced scientific synthesis. The second consists of resource atlases that analyze physical and socioeconomic assets in detail and encourage their fuller use, particularly in developing countries or resource-rich regions. The third includes planning atlases designed to guide the long-term territorial distribution of productive forces, infrastructure, architecture, and regional development. The fourth contains specialized agricultural, industrial, forestry, statistical, census, commercial, and marketing atlases. Most national atlases belong to the first group, with a smaller share in the resource category, whereas regional atlases occur mainly among planning and resource works; nevertheless, these categories express tendencies rather than rigid boundaries. The central conclusion is that national and regional atlases are complementary rather than interchangeable. A national atlas supplies a coherent, uniformly generalized framework for the country as a whole, while regional atlas systems add detailed and selectively intensified treatment of local characteristics. International harmonization of national-atlas programmes, symbols, and generalization principles promotes comparison among countries, continents, and the world. Conversely, a coordinated series of regional atlases enables detailed comparison among regions and contributes to a more rational spatial organization of economic life.