Eric Lovell
Geography 5161
Participatory Mapping and Critical Reflexivity Handout
“Maps are more than pieces of paper. They are stories, conversations, lives and songs lived out in a place
and are inseparable from the political and cultural contexts in which they are used.”
– Warren 2004
What is Participatory Mapping?
Participatory mapping has origins in the 1950s and 1960s in Canada and Alaska as a means of
documenting land-use and occupancy, negotiating aboriginal rights, and to counter colonial prejudice
against conceptions of land tenure (Chapin, Lamb, Threlkeld 2005). In more recent decades (1980s –
present), participatory mapping with tribal and ethnic groups in other parts of the world became a
manner to document and advocate for indigenous land claims. Sketch mapping became a standard
method of rapid rural appraisal (RRA) and later participatory rural appraisal (PRA) as it was discovered
that local inhabitants had their own spatial knowledge and could easily produce their own maps (for
more information of the history of participatory mapping see Chapin, Lamb, Threlkeld 2005).
Participatory mapping can take on many identities as it can be used in the management of natural
resources, urban planning, examining health and disease, and resolving territorial disputes (Cadag and
Gaillard 2012; Chambers 2006); although at the heart of all of these applications, participatory mapping is
a map-making process that elicits the spatial knowledge of community members through the medium of
cartography.
Criteria for Participatory Mapping
IFAD’s Criteria for Participatory Mapping
Critical Reflexivity
Participatory mapping is defined by the
process of production
This is certainly true but this does not mean
that a researcher should underscore the power
held within the finish product. Researchers
should always have in mind what is going to
be done with the finish product and make sure
the community is well informed.
Participatory mapping is defined by a product
that represents the agenda of the community
This is only partially true. Would the
community be mapping if the researcher were
not present? Researchers should always be
critically reflexive of their own positionality in
the mapping process.
Participatory mapping is defined by the
content of the maps, which depicts local
knowledge and information.
We should not romanticize “local knowledge”.
Information that gets presented on the map
may have social, political, and economic
relations that exceed what one may consider
“local”
Participatory mapping is not defined by the
level of compliance with formal cartographic
conventions
It is always important to take the time to gauge
a community’s spatial thinking. While
participatory mapping can be done in a
multitude of ways, it may not always be an
appropriate method. Participatory mapping is
not a panacea.
Purposes of Participatory Mapping
IFAD Purposes of
Participatory Mapping
To help communities
articulate and communicate
spatial knowledge to external
agencies
IFAD Reasoning
Critical Reflexivity
Mapping can provide a
medium to communicate
difficult concepts in an
accessible manner
Researchers must consider
that Western Cartesian
conventions of cartography
may not be accessible to all.
This can lead to a
misunderstanding of how
knowledge is represented in
the community. This
knowledge may already be
catalogued in other, nonspatial forms (songs, dances,
etc.)
The politics of representing
land tenure and desired plans
SHOULD NOT be
downplayed. Maps can also
document access in places
where access is contested (i.e.,
conservation areas) resulting
land appropriation, reallocation, and stricter
enforcement and management
on natural resources.
To allow for communities to
record and archive local
knowledge
Can enhance capabilities of
poor and indigenous
communities and enhance
culturally sensitive
approaches to development
To assist communities in
land-use planning and
resource management
Maps can articulate
community desired
management plans in regional
and government planning.
Maps can increase a
communities access to
productive natural resources
and technologies
To enable communities to
advocate for change
Maps can be used to
demarcate and demand
ownership in areas where
customary land has been
appropriated by the state.
They become a tool for
advocacy.
Understanding the multiple
roles maps can play is critical
to understanding their role in
empowerment. Claiming
advocacy is only part of the
picture (See Bryan 2010)
Mapping can regenerate a
resurgence of interest in local
knowledge. This can help a
community sustain a sense of
place and reinforce a sense of
identity
Communities are not
homogenous. By increasing
the capacity of some
community members, others
may become more marginal.
Also, it may not be in the
interest of the communities to
retain a certain “sense of
identity” – communities may
want televisions, sneakers,
and “Western” clothing. It is
important for researchers not
to place their own values on
other communities.
To increase the capacity
within communities
To address resource-related
conflict
Maps can delineate
boundaries between
competing groups over land
and resource claims
Maps can become agents for
conflict making communities
more vulnerable to
exploitation
Types of Participatory Mapping
Ground Mapping
Uses
Strengths
Weaknesses
Resources
Good for beginning to
frame spatial issues
Useful to engage with
non-expert users
Product not replicable
Raw materials such as
soil, pebbles, sticks,
and leaves
Useful for acquainting
individuals to maps and
building confidence
Low-cost and not
technology dependent
Impermanent, temporary,
fragile, and weather
dependent
Open space
Tangible short-term
outcomes
Not produced at scale
Different types of
sand/dirt
Most participants can
relate to product
The medium used may
lack credibility as a
formal decision-making
document
Large paper to draw
finished product
Easily facilitated
Cameras to capture
finished product
Tacitle - can walk
around and interact
with the map
Audio recorder to
capture mapping
process
Easy to alter
Can be more democratic
and comfortable for
individuals
Sketch Mapping
Uses
Strengths
Good for stimulating
community discussions
Useful to engage with
non-expert users
Good for discussing a
broad picture of issues
covering large areas
Low-cost and not
technology dependent
Tangible short-term
outcomes
Weaknesses
Outputs are not georeferenced and can only
be transposed onto a
scale map with difficulty
Not useful when
locational accuracy is
important
Lack of accuracy may
undermine credibility
with government
officials
Resources
Large sheets of paper,
pencils, or colored pens
Wall or open space to
position the map
Cameras to record
mapping process
More detailed and
permanent than ground
maps
May be unfamiliar and
inhibiting to individuals
Easily facilitated
Harder to alter
Easily adopted and
replicated at community
level
More exclusive relations may dictate
participation and
knowledge inclusion
Increased legitimacy
with officials
Vulnerable to removal
by outsiders
Audio recorder to
capture mapping
process
Scale-Based Mapping
Uses
Good for communicating
information with
decision-makers
Information on the map
can be easily verified on
the ground
Information can be
incorporated into other
mapping tools (including
GIS)
GPS data can be easily
transposed onto scale
maps
Strengths
Weaknesses
May provide
understandable and
accurate representation
of area
Cheaper than producing
scale maps with
surveyors
In many countries,
access to accurate scape
maps is difficult due to
heavy regulation
Training required to
understand formal
cartographic protocols
Can be used to determine
quantitative information
More complex to grasp
than sketch and ground
maps
Pencils and colored
pens
Solidifies the scale of the
mapping conversation
GPS Devices
Imposes a Western
ontology on spatial
representation and
cognition
Will only include formal
place-names, which are
likely rooted in colonial
history
Maps may include text
in another language and
misspellings
Resources
Scale-based maps
Large sheets of Mylar
paper to transpose
Cameras to record
mapping process
Audio recorder to
capture mapping
process
May generate insecurity
among individuals
Participatory 3-Dimensional Mapping
Uses
Strengths
Weaknesses
Resources
Good to stimulate and
inform internal
community
discussions
Finished models can
become a community
installation
Data depicted on
model can be
extracted, digitized,
and plotted
Initial creation of the
community model is
itself a community
activity
Reusable for multiple
planning exercises
Access to accurate
topographic maps may
be difficult
Topographic Maps
Effective in portraying
extensive and remote
areas
Labor-intensive and
relatively time
consuming
Pushpins, colored
string, paint, plaster,
and chicken wire
Can accommodate
overlapping layers of
information (like a GIS)
Storage of the map can
be difficult
Pencils and colored
pens
3-dimensional aspects
may be easily
understandable
Information must be
transferred to another
medium
Audio recorder to
capture mapping
process
Information on the model
can be transposed in a
GIS
Solidifies the scale of the
mapping conversation
Camera to document
the finished product
Imposes a Western
ontology on spatial
representation and
cognition
“More indigenous territory has been claimed by maps than by guns. This assertion has its corollary: more
indigenous territory can be reclaimed and defended by maps than by guns. Whereas maps like guns must
be accurate, they have the additional advantages that they are inexpensive, don't require a permit, can be
openly carried and used, internationally neutralize the invader's one-sided legalistic claims, and can be
duplicated and transmitted electronically which defies all borders, all pretexts, and all occupations.” –
Nietschmann 1995, 37
Structure of the Mapping Process (Some concepts from IFAD 2009)
1) Prepare the community for the mapping process – Prior to the commencement of mapping, it is
important to introduce the concept of mapping to the community, the types of tools that will be
used and the process of making maps. This should also be a time to highlight the risks involved
in mapping and clearly articulate the purpose of the mapping. It is vital here to make sure that it
is clear what the limitations of the map are (NO FALSE PROMISES!). This can be done in a
community workshop or forum.
2) Determine the purpose of map making – Meeting with community members to determine a
strategy about how the map will be created and the issues that will be address is necessary before
commencing mapping. This step is a key component to establishing what medium of mapping
will be used. It is important to remember that people’s time is precious; therefore, a clear plan
should be in place before asking community members to participate. The earlier community
members are involved in the process of map making, the more likely they will take ownership of
the map. It is also important to careful consider the community politics and power dynamics
during this phase. Try to address the most appropriate ways of abiding by the community power
relations while also incorporating the voices of all community members. Breaking mapping
workshops up into several different workshops may be a helpful way of eliciting different age
sets and gender perspectives but always keep in mind the inter and intra-community politics.
This will be important
3) Choosing community members to take the lead – This can include training individuals to take
an active role in facilitating a mapping process through either language
interpretation/articulation, being the primary drawer/sketcher, and collecting information via
ground trothing (i.e., collecting GPS points, photographs, etc.). This step entirely depends on the
size and type of mapping, which is going to be performed. In many instances, it may not be
useful to allocate these tasks to one particular person due to community politics or the fact that
all participants are actively interested in physically producing the map (actively drawing instead
of just discussing).
4) Creating the map and determining the legend – This is actual participatory process of drawing
and creating the map. There are many different directions that can be taken with this process and
creativity is critical. Although it is important to have expectations of the direction of participatory
mapping, a researcher should always remain flexible as curveballs frequently emerge.
5) Analyzing and evaluating the information – It is important to push to complete mapping
projects as maps need to be accurate representations of the views and knowledge of the
community. Once a map product is complete, it is important to evaluate the map’s accuracy,
completeness, quality, and relevance with community members. This can be done in an iterative
process with either individuals or community groups. Individuals should have the right to
remove, add, or modify information presented on the map.
6) Using and communicating the community’s spatial information – One of the most significant
components of the participatory mapping process is the consideration how might the researcher
disseminate the communities mapping products. The community has most likely placed a lot of
time and effort into the mapping process. It is critical that this is respected and the completed
maps serve the purpose identified in prior steps
References and Recommended Reading List:
Bryan, Joe. 2010. Force multipliers: Geography, militarism, and the Bowman Expeditions. Political
Geography 29, no. 8: 414–416.
Bryan, Joe. 2011. Walking the line: Participatory mapping, indigenous rights, and neoliberalism. Geoforum
42, no. 1: 40–50.
Cadag, Jake and J.C. Gaillard. 2012. Integrating knowledge and actions in disaster risk reduction: the
contribution of participatory mapping. Area 44, no. 1: 100-109.
Chambers, Robert. 1994. The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development 22,
no. 7: 953–969.
Chambers, Robert. 2006. Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: Whose map? Who
is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? Electronic Journal of Information
Systems in Developing Countries 25, no. 2: 1-11.
Chapin Mac and Bill Threlkeld. 2001. Indigenous landscapes: A study of ethnocartography. Arlington, VA:
Cent. Support Native Lands.
Chapin, Mac, Zackary Lamb, and Bill Threlkeld. 2005. Mapping indigenous lands. Annual Review in
Anthropology 34: 619–638.
Craig, William, Trevor Harris, and Daniel Weiner. 2002. Community participation and geographical
information systems. New York: CRC Press.
De Certeau, Michel. 1988. The writing of history. New York: Columbia University Press
Elwood, Sarah. 2006. Critical Issues in participatory GIS: Deconstructions, reconstructions, and new
research directions.” Transactions in GIS 10, no. 5: 693–708.
Flavelle, Alix. 2002. Mapping Our Land. Alberta: Lone Pine Publishing.
Fox, Jefferson, Pralad Yonzon, and Nancy Podger. 1996. Mapping conflicts between biodiversity and
human needs in Langtang National Park, Nepal. Conservation Biology 10, no. 2: 562–569.
Hodgson, Dorothy, and Richard Schroeder. 2002. Dilemmas of counter‐ mapping community resources
in Tanzania. Development and Change 33, no. 1: 79–100.
International Fund for Agricultural Development. 2009. Good practices in participatory mapping. Rome:
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Mbile, Peter, Anne DeGrande, and N Okon. 2003. Integrating participatory resource mapping and
geographic information systems in forest conservation and natural resources management in
Cameroon: A methodological guide. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing
Countries 14, no. 2: 1-11.
Nietschmann, Bernard. 1995. Defending the Miskito reefs with maps and gps: Mapping with sail, scuba,
and satellite. Cultural Survival Quarterly 18, no. 4: 34-38.
Pearce, Margaret and Renee Louis. 2008. Mapping indigenous depth of place. American Indian Culture and
Research Journal 32, no. 3: 107-126.
Peluso, Nancy. 1995. Whose woods Are these? Antipode 27, no. 4: 383-406.
Robinson, Catherine and Tabatha Wallington. 2012. Boundary work: Engaging knowledge systems in comanagement of feral animals on indigenous lands. Ecology and Society 17, no. 2: 1-16.
Rocheleau, D. (2005). Maps as power tools: locating communities in space or situating people and
ecologies in place? In Brosius, J.P, Tsing A.L., Zerner, C. (ed.) Communities and Conservation: Histories
and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management, (327-362). Lanham, Maryland: Altamira
Press.
Rundstrum, Robert. 1991. Mapping, postmodernism, indigenous people and the changing direction of
North American cartography.” Cartographica: the International Journal for Geographic Information and
Geovisualization 28, no. 2: 1–12.
Sletto, Bjorn. 2009. ‘We drew what we imagined’. Current Anthropology 50, no. 4: 443–476.
St. Martin, Kevin 2005. Mapping economic diversity in the first world: The case of fisheries. Environment
and Planning A 37: 959-979.
Wainwright, Joel and Joe Bryan. 2009. Cartography, territory, property: Postcolonial reflections on
indigenous counter-mapping in Nicaragua and Belize. Cultural Geographies 16, no. 2: 153–178.
Warren, Andrew. 2004. International forum on indigenous mapping for indigenous advocacy and
empowerment. The Indigenous Communities Mapping Initiative. Personal communication. Cited in:
Rambaldi, G. (2005) ‘Who owns the map legend?’, URISA Journal, 17: 5–13.
Weiner, Daniel, Timothy A Warner, Trevor M Harris, and Richard M Levin. 1995. Apartheid
representations in a digital landscape: GIS, remote sensing and local knowledge in Kiepersol, South
Africa.” Cartography and Geographic Information Science 22, no: 1: 30–44.