Whose Map? | ¿De Quién Son Los Mapas? | à qui appartiennent les cartes ? English / français/ español

In recent years, changes in participatory methodologies (PMs) may have been even more rapid than those in spatial technologies. Local people's abilities to make maps only became widely known and facilitated in the early 1990s. In this article Dr. Robert Chambers argues that participatory mapping has spread like a pandemic with many variants and applications not only in natural resource management but also in many other domains. With mapping as one element, there are now signs of a new pluralist eclecticism and creativity in PMs. The medium and means of mapping, whether ground, paper or GIS and the style and mode of facilitation, influence who takes part, the nature of outcomes and power relationships. Much depends on the behaviour and attitudes of facilitators and who controls the process. Many ethical issues present troubling dilemmas, and lead to overarching questions about empowerment and ownership. Questions to be asked, again and again, are: Who is empowered and who disempowered? And, who gains and who loses?

Below is the original article published on  EJISDC, an open access journal, and translations in French and Spanish done in the context of the development of the "Training Kit on Participatory Spatial Information Managamant and Communication" soon to be published by CTA and IFAD.

• Robert Chambers. 2006. Participatory Mapping and Geographic Information Systems: Whose Map? Who is Empowered and Who Disempowered? Who Gains and Who Loses? EJISDC 25, 2, 1-11

• Robert Chambers. 2006. El Mapeo Participativo Y Los Sistemas De Información Geográfica: ¿De Quién Son Los Mapas? ¿Quién Se Empodera Y Quién Se Desempodera? ¿Quién Gana Y Quién Pierde? EJISDC 25, 2, 1-14 - Traducido y publicado por: Centro Técnico para la Cooperación Agricultural y Rural ACP-EU (CTA), 2010. Con la autorización de: EJISDC

• Robert Chambers. 2006. Cartographie participative et systèmes d’information géographique : à qui appartiennent les cartes ? Qui en ressort renforcé, qui en ressort affaibli ? Qui gagne et qui perd ? EJISDC 25, 2, 1-14 - Traduit et publié par le Centre Technique de Coopération Agricole et Rurale (CTA) avec la permission d’EJISDC

Here is a related interview with Robert Chambers subtitled in 10 languages (you can embed this video on your blog or web site!)

Power of Maps: (Counter) Mapping for Conservation

This paper considers what is at stake in defining and mapping protected areas for conservation. The authors link issues of power in cartography to themes from political ecology, social natures, and conservation biology literatures to extend our understanding of maps as reflective of, and productive of, power. Reviewing insights from these literatures to consider power asymmetries common to conservation practice, they highlight ways that mapping practices and products reinforce and contribute to such dynamics.

The authors argue that in doing so enriches consideration of the power geometries of conservation cartographies by inviting fuller consideration of diverse species and landscapes, as well as enabling discussion of other representational and productive effects of conservation mappings. Once determined, how might conservation maps serve to naturalize certain spaces or boundaries as fixed, or contribute to certain socio-psychological understandings of conservation possibilities or outcomes?

In the closing sections, the authors invoke the idea of ‘counter-mapping’ to explore strategies that might redress these concerns. Possibilities range from efforts to adapt the form of protected areas to more critical approaches that question the appropriateness of territorial focus and mapping practices for conservation goals.

In conclusion, Harris and Hazen argue that theorizing power in human, other-than-human, and inter-species contexts is essential to understanding the power geometries of conservation mapping.

Citation: Leila M. Harris and Helen D. Hazen, 2006. Power of Maps: (Counter) Mapping for Conservation. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 4 (1), 99-130