IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v6y2017i4p79-d117691.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What’s (Not) on the Map: Landscape Features from Participatory Sketch Mapping Differ from Local Categories Used in Language

Author

Listed:
  • Flurina M. Wartmann

    (Geography Department, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland
    Current address: Institute of Geography, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, UK.)

  • Ross S. Purves

    (Geography Department, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland
    University Research Priority Programme Language and Space, University of Zurich, Freiestrasse 16, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland)

Abstract

Participatory mapping of local land use as the basis for planning and decision-making has become widespread around the globe. However, still relatively little is known about the conceptual underpinnings of geographic information produced through participatory mapping in given cultural and linguistic settings. In this paper, we therefore address the seemingly simple question of what is (not) represented on maps through an exploratory case study comparing land use categories participants represented on sketch maps with categories elicited through more language-focused ethnographic fieldwork. To explore landscape categorization, we conducted sketch mapping with 29 participants and in-depth ethnographic fieldwork with 19 participants from the Takana indigenous people in the Bolivian Amazon. Sketch mapping resulted in 74 different feature types, while we elicited 156 landscape categories used in language, of which only 23 overlapped with feature types from the sketch mapping. Vegetation categories were highly diversified in language but seldom represented on maps, while more obviously anthropogenic features were represented on sketch maps. Furthermore, participants seldom drew culturally important landscape categories such as fallow plots or important plant harvesting sites on maps, with important potential consequences for natural resource management.

Suggested Citation

  • Flurina M. Wartmann & Ross S. Purves, 2017. "What’s (Not) on the Map: Landscape Features from Participatory Sketch Mapping Differ from Local Categories Used in Language," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-16, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:6:y:2017:i:4:p:79-:d:117691
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/6/4/79/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/6/4/79/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. F Harvey & N Chrisman, 1998. "Boundary Objects and the Social Construction of GIS Technology," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 30(9), pages 1683-1694, September.
    2. Martin Dodge & Rob Kitchin, 2013. "Crowdsourced Cartography: Mapping Experience and Knowledge," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(1), pages 19-36, January.
    3. Paul Robbins, 2001. "Fixed Categories in a Portable Landscape: The Causes and Consequences of Land-Cover Categorization," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(1), pages 161-179, January.
    4. Chambers, Robert, 1994. "The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 22(7), pages 953-969, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. World Bank Group, 2012. "Understanding Access to Justice and Conflict Resolution at the Local Level in the Central African Republic," World Bank Publications - Reports 16097, The World Bank Group.
    2. Soltani, Arezoo & Angelsen, Arild & Eid, Tron & Naieni, Mohammad Saeid Noori & Shamekhi, Taghi, 2012. "Poverty, sustainability, and household livelihood strategies in Zagros, Iran," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 60-70.
    3. James Griffiths & William Dushenko, 2011. "Effectiveness of GIS suitability mapping in predicting ecological impacts of proposed wind farm development on Aristazabal Island, BC," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 957-991, December.
    4. Davies-Colley, Christian & Smith, Willie, 2012. "Implementing environmental technologies in development situations: The example of ecological toilets," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-8.
    5. Anton Eitzinger & Peter Läderach & Christian Bunn & Audberto Quiroga & Andreas Benedikter & Antonio Pantoja & Jason Gordon & Michele Bruni, 2014. "Implications of a changing climate on food security and smallholders’ livelihoods in Bogotá, Colombia," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 161-176, February.
    6. Eastwood, C.R. & Turner, F.J. & Romera, A.J., 2022. "Farmer-centred design: An affordances-based framework for identifying processes that facilitate farmers as co-designers in addressing complex agricultural challenges," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    7. repec:elg:eechap:14395_25 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. A. Fleming & S. Agrawal & Dinomika & Y. Fransisca & L. Graham & S. Lestari & D. Mendham & D. O’Connell & B. Paul & M. Po & A. Rawluk & N. Sakuntaladewi & B. Winarno & T. W. Yuwati, 2021. "Reflections on integrated research from community engagement in peatland restoration," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    9. Paul Upham, 2000. "Scientific consensus on sustainability: the case of The Natural Step," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 180-190.
    10. Suliasi Vunibola, 2023. "“Want to help someone? Shut up and listen”: Foreign aid, maladaptation, and community development practices in the Pacific," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S2), December.
    11. Ross, Heather M. & Pine, Kathleen H. & Curran, Sarah & Augusta, Dawn, 2022. "Pathway mapping as a tool to address police use of force in behavioral health crisis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    12. Margaret S. McMillan & William A. Masters & Harounan Kazianga, 2011. "Rural Demography, Public Services and Land Rights in Africa: A Village-Level Analysis in Burkina Faso," NBER Working Papers 17718, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Moomen, Abdul–Wadood, 2017. "Strategies for managing large-scale mining sector land use conflicts in the global south," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 85-93.
    14. Ralph Lasage & Sanne Muis & Carolina S. E. Sardella & Michiel A. Van Drunen & Peter H. Verburg & Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts, 2015. "A Stepwise, Participatory Approach to Design and Implement Community Based Adaptation to Drought in the Peruvian Andes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-32, February.
    15. Chilombo, Andrew & Van Der Horst, Dan, 2021. "Livelihoods and coping strategies of local communities on previous customary land in limbo of commercial agricultural development: Lessons from the farm block program in Zambia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    16. Thompson, John, 1995. "Participatory approaches in government bureaucracies: Facilitating the process of institutional change," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(9), pages 1521-1554, September.
    17. Sung Kyu Kim & Fiona Marshall & Neil M. Dawson, 2022. "Revisiting Rwanda’s agricultural intensification policy: benefits of embracing farmer heterogeneity and crop-livestock integration strategies," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(3), pages 637-656, June.
    18. Jay Mitra & Mariusz Sokolowicz & Ursula Weisenfeld & Agnieszka Kurczewska & Silke Tegtmeier, 2020. "Citizen Entrepreneurship: A Conceptual Picture of the Inclusion, Integration and Engagement of Citizens in the Entrepreneurial Process," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 6(2), pages 242-260, July.
    19. Mushtaq Memon & Shunji Matsuoka, 2002. "Validity of contingent valuation estimates from developing countries: scope sensitivity analysis," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 5(1), pages 39-61, March.
    20. Brooks, Jeremy S., 2010. "The Buddha mushroom: Conservation behavior and the development of institutions in Bhutan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 779-795, February.
    21. Renigier-Biłozor, Małgorzata & Źróbek, Sabina & Walacik, Marek & Janowski, Artur, 2020. "Hybridization of valuation procedures as a medicine supporting the real estate market and sustainable land use development during the covid-19 pandemic and afterwards," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:6:y:2017:i:4:p:79-:d:117691. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.