In Defense of Ugly Maps: High Stakes Participatory Mapping and Community Risk

Type: Panel
Theme:
Sponsor Groups:
Poster #:
Day: 4/6/2019
Start / End Time: 8:00 AM / 9:40 AM
Room: Ambassador Ballroom, Omni, West
Organizers: Alex Orenstein, Amber Bosse
Chairs: Amber Bosse

Call for Submissions

Since the 1990s, participatory mapping has been a methodological swiss army knife in the toolkit of planners, developers, and emergency response/relief workers across the world (Sieber 2006; Mcall and Minang 2005; Smith, Barrett, and Box 2000). While the increasing accessibility of mapping software and hardware has advanced the technological possibilities of participatory mapping, there remain many projects where in-person participatory sketch mapping, and subsequent digitizing and georeferencing of sketched data, remains the most effective mode of data collection and representation. These seemingly low-tech techniques often persist in areas and among populations that are exposed to to environmental risks and humanitarian disasters (Ratte, Excell, Williams 2014). As a result, these participatory mapping engagements can produce profound impacts and are often integral in attempts to support policy-making or emergency response planning.

This panel brings together researchers and practitioners from a wide range of experience with high stakes participatory mapping to discuss the many tensions that are inherent to the process.

More specifically, we will discuss:

How decisions around “who participates” and “how” are made
Negotiations/translations of participants’ varied conceptualizations of space
The impacts of generalization and attempted standardization of data
How to communicate the high-stakes of data collection
How design is conceptualized and achieved in map production
Best practices around workflows that translate moments of participation into meaningful results

Want to join the conversation? Please send an expression of interest to

Amber Bosse (amber.j.bosse@uky.edu) or Alex Orenstein (aorenstein@wa.acfspain.org) by November 5th 2018.


References:
McCall, Michael K., and Peter A. Minang. 2005. “Assessing Participatory GIS for Community-Based Natural Resource Management: Claiming Community Forests in Cameroon.” The Geographical Journal 171 (4): 340–56.
Ratte, Stephanie, Carole Excell, and Lauren Williams. 2014. “Crossing the Digital Divide to Protect the Environment.” Tech Crunch (blog). December 19, 2014. https://techcrunch.com/2014/12/19/crossing-the-digital-divide-to-protect-the-environment/.
Sieber, Renee. 2006. “Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Review and Framework.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96 (3): 491–507.
Smith, Kevin, Christopher B. Barrett, and Paul W. Box. 2000. “Participatory Risk Mapping for Targeting Research and Assistance: With an Example from East African Pastoralists.” World Development 28 (11): 1945–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00053-X.


Description

Since the 1990s, participatory mapping has been a methodological swiss army knife in the toolkit of planners, developers, and emergency response/relief workers across the world (Sieber 2006; Mcall and Minang 2005; Smith, Barrett, and Box 2000). While the increasing accessibility of mapping software and hardware has advanced the technological possibilities of participatory mapping, there remain many projects where in-person participatory sketch mapping, and subsequent digitizing and georeferencing of sketched data, remains the most effective mode of data collection and representation. These seemingly low-tech techniques often persist in areas and among populations that are exposed to to environmental risks and humanitarian disasters (Ratte, Excell, Williams 2014). As a result, these participatory mapping engagements can produce profound impacts and are often integral in attempts to support policy-making or emergency response planning.

This panel brings together researchers and practitioners from a wide range of experience with high stakes participatory mapping to discuss the many tensions that are inherent to the process.

More specifically, we will discuss:

How decisions around “who participates” and “how” are made
Negotiations/translations of participants’ varied conceptualizations of space
The impacts of generalization and attempted standardization of data
How to communicate the high-stakes of data collection
How design is conceptualized and achieved in map production
Best practices around workflows that translate moments of participation into meaningful results

Want to join the conversation? Please send an expression of interest to

Amber Bosse (amber.j.bosse@uky.edu) or Alex Orenstein (aorenstein@wa.acfspain.org) by November 5th 2018.


References:
McCall, Michael K., and Peter A. Minang. 2005. “Assessing Participatory GIS for Community-Based Natural Resource Management: Claiming Community Forests in Cameroon.” The Geographical Journal 171 (4): 340–56.
Ratte, Stephanie, Carole Excell, and Lauren Williams. 2014. “Crossing the Digital Divide to Protect the Environment.” Tech Crunch (blog). December 19, 2014. https://techcrunch.com/2014/12/19/crossing-the-digital-divide-to-protect-the-environment/.
Sieber, Renee. 2006. “Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Review and Framework.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96 (3): 491–507.
Smith, Kevin, Christopher B. Barrett, and Paul W. Box. 2000. “Participatory Risk Mapping for Targeting Research and Assistance: With an Example from East African Pastoralists.” World Development 28 (11): 1945–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00053-X.


Agenda

Type Details Minutes
Panelist Edward Carr Clark University 15
Panelist Alex Orenstein Action Against Hunger 15
Introduction Amber Bosse University of Kentucky 10
Panelist Gabriella Subia Smith 15
Panelist Francis Koti University of North Alabama 15
Panelist Rajesh Bista UNC Chapel Hill 15

To access contact information login