Who Owns the Map Legend?

Who Owns the Map Legend? Giacomo Rambaldi Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on GIS for Developing Countries (GISDECO 2004), 10–12 May 2004, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Malaysia. Introduction Maps are media in cartographic or digital formats. Communication occurs mainly by way of symbols that need to be interpreted via the map legend and its graphic vocabulary. Lacking universal standards, each map has its own visual language. his language—or enough of it—has to be “common property” in order for communication of any kind to take place. This ad hoc language has become increasingly important since maps have been used in the contexts of interactive processes aimed at bridging barriers among stakeholders having different backgrounds, perspectives, and communication patterns. Intellectual ownership of such language and the content of knowledge that it communicates, are critical factors in determining the success of the processes to which mapping and maps are put. Based on literature review and case studies done in developing countries in the contexts of participatory planning and territorial negotiations, this paper analyzes the roles of the legend—and the processes that lead to its composition—in determining the intellectual ownership of spatial information visualised in the form of maps. Mapping And Participatory Processes Historical Perspective Mapping is a fundamental way for displaying spatial human cognition. “It is a representational medium that both has a history and is part of the practice of history.” (Herrington 2003) For centuries and increasingly with the advent of Geographic Information Technologies and Systems (GIT&S), graphic representations of part or the whole of Earth in cartographic, electronic, 2- or 3-dimensional formats have been playing signiicant roles as media (Sui and Goodchild 2001) used to store, display, and convey information, and as a basis of analysis and decision making. In the past, maps have been made primarily to serve precise tasks, such as describing discoveries, navigating space, deining boundaries, registering ownership, and locating resources. In the early 1990s, Monmonier (1996, 2) wrote that “a single map is one of an indefinitely large number of graphical models of the spatial aspects of reality that might be produced for the same situation or from the same data.” URISA Journal฀• Rambaldi Changes have occurred since GIT&S have increasingly become accessible to civil society and graphic representations of space have been used as channels for two-way communication purposes to support social learning, dialogue, and negotiation processes. In March 2004, more than 200 representatives from indigenous groups attended the International Forum on Indigenous Mapping in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, sharing the motto: “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) The participatory use of maps started in the late 1980s. At that time, development practitioners were inclined to adopt PRA sketch mapping tools (Mascarenhas 199 1) rather than venturing into more complex, demanding, and time-consuming scale mapping. This was because preference was given to eliciting village dynamics and to facilitating communication between insiders and outsiders (researchers), rather than to courses of action enabling communities to interact eficiently with policy makers. In addition, in many developing countries, aerial photography, satellite imagery, and oficial, large-scale topographic maps were under governmental control and their access restricted because of national security concerns. The situation changed in the 1990s, with the diffusion of modern GIT&S including geographic information systems (GIS), low-cost global positioning systems (GPS), remote sensing image analysis software, open access to data via the Internet, and the steadily decreasing cost of hardware. Spatial data, previously controlled by government institutions became progressively more accessible to and mastered by non-governmental and community-based organisations, minority groups, and sectors of society traditionally disenfranchised by maps and marginalized from decision-making processes (Fox 2003). This new environment facilitated the integration of GIT&S into community-centred initiatives, particularly to deal with spatial information and communication management. Practitioners and researchers around the world have been working on different approaches making use of a variety of GIT&S, but all sharing the goals of placing ordinary people in the position to generate, analyse, manage, and exchange georeferenced data, and to integrate multiple realities and diverse forms of information to foster social learning and 5 broaden public participation across socio-economic contexts, locations, and sectors. This has spurred a rapid development in the management of spatial multimedia information through what is generally termed as Participatory GIS (PGIS), where maps are conceived as interactive vehicles for discussion and information exchange, are physical or virtual, are in 2- or 3-dimensional formats, and are enriched by an array of data types including sound and images (Aberley 2002). Large-scale maps (< 1:20,000 scale) and physical or digital terrain elevation models have been used for conducting collaborative research (Hampson 2003; Tran Trong 2002; Quan 2001; Martin 2001; Tan-Kim-Yong 1994, 1992), community-based planning, monitoring change, asserting territorial claims (McCall 2004; Bersalona 2004; Rambaldi 2002a; Zingapan 1999; Poole 1998, 1995; Denniston 1995), managing territorial disputes and supporting related negotiations (Cook 2003; Chacon 2003; Carton 2002a; Rambaldi 2002b; Wood 2000; Johnson 1999; Poole 1998), preserving and revitalising indigenous cultural resources and intangible heritage (Poole 2003; Crawhall 2003, 2001), and consultative policy making (Carton 2002b). While most authors point to the effectiveness of GIT&S used in a participative mode, McCall (2004), Fox (2003), Crawhall (2003), Rambaldi (2002a), Abbot (1998), and Rundstrom (1995) call for caution because these may lead to increased conlict, resource privatization, and loss of common property. Maps As Media The Power of Maps Maps are highly communicative forms of spatial representation, and as Alcorn (2000, 11) puts it: “Maps communicate information immediately and convey a sense of authority.” Few dispute them, particularly when these are drawn as planimetric projection (in two dimensions) and at scales smaller than 1:20,000. his may be due to the diiculty encountered by individuals in relating the information displayed on small-scale maps to their real world, thus limiting their capability of critical argumentation. The communicative power of maps has been used for both noble and questionable purposes, including among others education, awareness raising, advertisement, political propaganda, disinformation (Monmonier 1996), re-/deterritorialization, and nationalisation (Wood 2000). “Maps produced by European explorers were an exemplar expression of cartographic power: by ignoring indigenous names, and barely alluding to the presence of local settlements, in effect they declared the land to be empty and available.” (Poole 1998) The Key to Using Maps as Media Visual language. Mapmakers use maps to convey information mainly through a visual language made out of legend items, a combination of symbols (points, lines, polygons, and volumes), their variables (hue, orientation, shading value, shape, size, and texture), and interpretation keys. Physical terrain models offer a more eficient interpretation base in displaying the vertical dimension, which provides additional cues to memory and facilitates 6 mental spatial knowledge processing. The “talkative” capacity of maps rests in the selection of featured items, in the manner these are depicted, and in the capability of users to understand, interpret, and relate these to their real worlds. Particularly when a map is used to support a dialogue, it is important that its graphic vocabulary is fully understood by all parties involved. Each displayed feature needs a key to be interpreted. As Carton (2002b) puts it, the legend items form the kernels of the mapping language. Choosing symbols and their variables. The most expressive variables associated to symbols are colour and size. More authoritative than others, colour (or hue) serves as a powerful system of differentiation, “burdened with cultural meaning, overwhelmed by its associations and its history. Yet colour is a code that is constantly subject to change.” (Ferrier 2002, par. 3) Nonetheless, when it comes to mapping Earth features, there are some silent conventions that have become common practice: water bodies are shown as blue and vegetation as green; more is darker and less is lighter. Other hues are associated with traditional meanings depending on the cultural traits of the participating communities: death is associated to white in India, black among Westerners, and violet amid Mangyans in the Philippines. “What these various figurative uses of colour have in common is the way that they present colour as linked with perception, and as perception that is not neutral or objective, but value added that is, overlaid with cultural value.” (Ferrier 2002, par. 5) In mapmaking, the association of a speciic hue to a symbol or feature is therefore far from being a neutral act and may even become provocative in a participatory setting, like the false colour red that symbolises vegetation in remote sensing. The same applies to points, lines, areas, and volumes, the remaining sets of symbols. When used to depict real-world features, their choice and their variation correspond to selected interpretations of reality made by those who compose the map. Defining the attribute. For mapmakers, an attribute is the characteristic of a geographic (physical and social) feature described by numbers, characters, images, or sounds. To be objectively interpreted, spatial characteristics depicted by the use of symbols need clearly deined attributes. This is quite straightforward with numbers and images, but it becomes relatively critical when text is the chosen medium and when the purpose for participatory mapmaking is to establish two-way communication channels. Primary forest, as an example, is a term that may have a different meaning for a scientist, a government oficial, or a farmer, or it may mean nothing at all. URISA Journal • Vol. 17, No. 1 • 2005 Figure 2. Villagers in Mindanao, Philippines, Preparing a Resource Distribution Sketch Map Figure 1. Indigenous People in the Philippines Featuring a Catchment by the Use of Soil Map Legends From A Practical Perspective From Pebbles to Keyboards he most basic mapmaking method consists of drawing maps on the ground (Figure 1). Informants use raw materials like soil, pebbles, sticks, and leaves, at the reach of their hands to reproduce the physical and cultural landscapes as they know and perceive them. Finger-pointing, verbal interactions, and progressive additions and modiications of landmarks lead to the visualisation of the territory and issues at stake. Hardly any legend is produced, and such ephemeral maps disappear in a matter of a wind blow. Acquired knowledge is memorised by participants and mentally recomposed when needed. Sketch mapping is a slightly more elaborate method that makes use of large sheets of craft paper and is usually facilitated (Figure 2). Features are depicted by the use of natural materials or more frequently by coloured marker pens or chalk. Participants are in the position to make their choices in terms of what to use and how to visualise desired items. Usually depicted features are exaggerated in size, depending on the importance participants attached to each of them. When properly facilitated, the process is documented and records are kept in terms of the keys necessary for interpreting depicted symbols. Provided a legend is produced and joint to the inal output, this method ensures storage, mobility, and wider shareability of collated information. Still, the lack of a consistent scale and georeferenced data leaves ample room for subjective interpretations. More sophisticated methods of participatory 2- or 3-dimensional scale mapping aim at generating georeferenced data and depend on a disciplined use of selected symbols and colours for depicting desired features (Figure 3). URISA Journal฀• Rambaldi Figure 3. 1:5,000 Scale Participatory 3D Model (Indigenous people outlining boundaries.) These methods rely on the availability of such topographic data as contour lines, and they require substantial preparatory work. Good facilitation ensures suficient and varied stock of materials for depicting symbols and their variables to be placed at the disposal of mapmakers. A legend may be “proposed,” “imposed,” or better “composed” during the course of the mapping exercise. In the latter case, the legend evolves dynamically through an iterative process. GIS used in a participatory mode allow communities to display and eventually handle spatial data. Nonetheless, these are necessarily fed via a computer keyboard or other digital devices. Thus, the choice on how to visualise tangible or intangible features through digital maps rests in the sole hands of the system operator and in the graphic capacity of the software, which may 7 Table 1. Evolution of Legend Items during Phases of Participatory Mapmaking On the Field On/Off the Field Community Consultation and/or Raw Data Collection & Data Collection Non-digital Mapmaking Data Analysis, Digital Editing, Manipulation, etc. • • • • • • • Tentative list of features compiled Textual description of single features drafted Eventual customary associations between “features” and “their display” identiied Draft legend prepared • • • • • Draft legend items revised New items included Selected items excluded Sensitive features identiied Makeshift legend(s) produced (showing public and/or conidential items) • • Content matching Polishing Symbols and variables matched with available software graphics Display of layers (public and restricted access) agreed on and deined Legends prepared In practical terms, the facilitation of a community-based mapping exercise involves the drafting of a list of legend items ahead of the event to kick-start the process (Table 1). Such a list is the result of preparatory consultations held with concerned stakeholders with the objective of identifying features of the physical and cultural landscapes that are relevant and known to those who will take part in mapmaking. As the mapping process enfolds, facilitators solicit the thorough revision of the proposed legend items (Figure 4), their unambiguous deinition, and their association with clearly identiiable and culturally acceptable symbols in order to distinctively depict and describe physical, biological, and socio-cultural features of the territory and its people, and to facilitate their objective interpretation. The participatory process of progressively adding features to a map has important discovery and social learning implications that frequently induce participants to identify, prioritise, and select new items to display or, in some cases, to remove previously listed ones, for example, those that are nonexistent, are considered as nonrelevant, or are insuficiently deined (Boxes 1, 2, and 3). These processes, which lead to the interactive development of the legend, depend on local knowledge, perceived priorities, and sensitiveness of data, and are based on dialogue and negotiation as documented by Hardcastle (2004), Rambaldi (2003, 2002a, 2002b), and Carton (2002b) in the contexts of community-based mapping exercises in Southeast Asia, the Paciic, and Europe. in a participatory process aimed at addressing community-based issues related to the territory and its resources The key for depicting spatial information for communication purposes is to make such visualisation objectively understandable through the development of a visual language having a clearlydeined vocabulary. Common ground and understanding need to be established, and the use of local deinitions and vernacular translations helps. In choosing symbols and their variables, good practice ensures that these are visually linked to real-world features, culturally signiicant and acceptable, suficiently assorted, readily available, and consistently applied. Furthermore, good practice makes sure that their attributes are clearly and unambiguously spelled out to grant as far as possible objective understanding. Except for community maps making use of locally available materials, such as soil, leaves, charcoal, and the like, community mapmakers have to match the features they want to depict with symbols made available by the technology in use. Participatory 3D models offer pushpins and map pins, yarns, and paint to depict points, lines, and polygons. Digital maps display results based on the available sets of symbols, which are numerous but limited to the software and available add-ons. Questions of ownership should arise in the minds of the facilitators: Who decides on what is “important”? Who deines the attribute of single items in objectively understandable terms? Who selects the symbol and variable to depict a given feature? If made public, who decides on what to display on the map and its legend? Ultimately, who owns the pictorial language, its graphic vocabulary, and the resulting message? Who owns the map legend? Discussion Conclusion or may not be in the position to reproduce features as envisioned by the participants. Nurturing the Legend he three cases featured in this paper indicate that prioritising and getting a consensus among mapmakers on which items are relevant and what should be featured on a map, are the irst steps 8 he full potential of GIT&S as two-way communication channels will become a reality when practitioners and facilitators realise the importance of ensuring full involvement of concerned stakeholdURISA Journal • Vol. 17, No. 1 • 2005 Box 1 Context: Protected area management plan preparation, Pu Mat National Park, Social Forestry and Nature Conservation (SFNC) Project in Nghe An Province, Vietnam (1998–2004) Purpose of the community mapping exercise: To improve relationships and foster reciprocating respect between National Park staff and local communities; to induce a paradigm shift on “Who knows” and “Whose knowledge counts”; and to provide stakeholders with a comprehensive, user-friendly research, planning, and management instrument. GIT&S used: P3DM and GIS Key informants/mapmakers: 76 Dan Lai, Thai and Kinh Hill Tribe peoples, 6 park rangers, and 10 SFNC project staff Figure 5. Hill Tribe People Discussing Legend Items during a P3DM Exercise, Pu Mat, Vietnam Context issue: At the beginning of the activity informants were invited to review the draft legend, suggest changes, make integrations, and improve deinitions (Figure 5). By the end of the exercise, after 4 days of intensive dialogue, the initial legend had expanded from 18 features to a total of 55 features, including points, lines, and polygons. Some items listed on the draft legend were removed, because they were nonexistent or deemed as irrelevant or too sensitive as per community perspective. These included among others the following features: (1) points: goldmining site, abandoned village, hunter’s hut, resting site for forest rangers; (2) polygons: industrial crop (changed by informants to more speciic deinitions, such as sugarcane and tea plantations and planted bamboo forest); and (3) lines: buffer zone boundary. Others were added, including: (1) points (i.e., locations): like Commune’s Figure 6. Final Legend of the 3D Model of Pu Mat People Committee, border police station, temple, cave, docking site along river, National Park, Vietnam tree nursery, cemetery, etc.; and (2) polygons: identiied as natural bamboo forest, resettlement area, crops on terraces, stony areas. Some features identifying wildlife sighting sites for tiger, bear, elephant, deer (saola), gayal, and the like were removed from the model and excluded from the inal legend because they were deemed sensitive and at risk of exposing endangered species to increased pressure from poachers. In addition to revising the listing of the legend items (Figure 6), the villagers in collaboration with government oficials improved their textual deinitions and ensured the translations of the various features to ensure an objective understanding across stakeholders (Rambaldi 2003). URISA Journal฀• Rambaldi 9 Box 2 Context: Collaborative Protected Area Management Planning, Mount Malindang Natural Park, Misamis Occidental, Mindanao, Philippines. National Integrated Protected Area Programme (NIPAP), Philippines (1996–2001). Purpose of the community mapping exercise: To contribute to the development of a protected area management plan based on a blend of indigenous technical knowledge (ITK) and scientiic knowledge. GIT&S used: P3DM and GIS Figure 7. Villager Inputting Data on a 3D Model by the Use of Colour-coded Paint Key informants/mapmakers: 98 community members including representatives from the Subanen Indigenous Communities, residents of all local administrative units (barangays), local government oficials, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and non-governmental organizations (NGO). Context issue: The 1:10,000-scale exercise covered a vast area (1,176 km2) including portions of ive Indigenous Peoples’ Ancestral Domains. In order to assist participants in recomposing their mental maps (Figure 7), the facilitators produced base maps featuring roads in addition to contour lines, which are a standard feature for base maps used in P3DM. Figure 8. Map Resulting from Data Extracted from a Participatory 3D Model, Mt. Malindang National Park, Philippines, 1999 10 When assisted in outlining the roads by transposing their coordinates from the base maps to the 3D model, participants contested the validity of the data, stating that the roads no longer existed and that these were logging roads currently overgrown by natural vegetation. The legend item was modiied and what was originally indicated as “road” was redeined as “footpath” (old logging road) and depicted on the model only where applicable depending on its actual existence. It is worth noting that the data used for the production of the base map were obtained from the National Mapping Resource and Information Agency (NAMRIA). The data turned out to date back to World War II. In reviewing and expanding the legend, informants included such new items as “landslide” and “landill area,” and further reined speciic land uses (e.g., coconut plantations, vegetable gardens, orchards, etc.) and vegetation types. In this latter case, participants listed and depicted ive different types of forest that were not shown on pre-existing maps (Figure 8). URISA Journal • Vol. 17, No. 1 • 2005 Box 3 Context: Collaborative Protected Area Management Planning, Mount Pulag National Park, Benguet, Cordillera Region, Philippines. National Integrated Protected Area Programme (NIPAP), Philippines (1996–2001). Purpose of the community mapping exercise: The model has been used by the Protected Area Ofice for raising awareness on the location of the park boundaries and important natural resources. More importantly, it has been used for discussing the outlining and revision of protected area boundaries with local communities (Figure 9). The local government unit has used the model for revising local administrative boundaries and for planning purposes. Figure 9. Village Elders Outlining Linear Features on a 3D Model in the Cordillera Administrative Region, Philippines, 1999 GIT&S used: P3DM and GIS Key informants/mapmakers: 75 representatives from the Ibaloi, Kalanguya, Kankana-eys, and Karaos indigenous communities, local government oficials, DENR, National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR), and NGOs. Context issue: This has been the irst P3DM exercise implemented in 1998 in the framework of NIPAP. Informants were provided with a draft legend including 15 different features, and were asked to check, update, and further expand it. The deinition and translation of each legend into vernacular required thorough discussion and levelling off among informants and facilitators. Proposed items were redeined, associated to clearly identiiable symbols. New items sprung up as the mapping process enfolded. These relected deep-rooted community concerns and priorities. “Landslides” and “bare land” were singled out as important items to be depicted on the model. The discussion and depiction of administrative and cultural boundaries turned out to be an extremely sensitive topic among neighbouring tribal communities (Figure 10), and was toned down and inally dropped from the discussion. This was an important learning from the exercise, as boundaries are most frequently leaded with latent conlicts and need special, well-prepared approaches to be dealt with, possibly after the “neutral” depiction of land use and cover, most likely in a separate exercise. Figure 10 . Elders Locating Sacred Areas in Mt. Pulag, “Sacred areas” with extensive textual description took their due place Cordillera, Philippines, 1999 among the listed legend items. URISA Journal฀• Rambaldi 11 ers throughout the entire process. his means that besides putting stakeholders at the forefront in generating, collating, and analysing local knowledge, they must be prime actors in deining the map’s pictorial language and its graphic vocabulary, the legend. This also means that in an interactive process that would lead to the composition of a map as a means for social learning and negotiation, the preparation of the legend, particularly the selection of features to display, and the way they are depicted and textually deined, assumes a key role in determining its inal intellectual ownership, its resulting message, and its usefulness in the process. About the Author Corresponding Address: Giacomo Rambaldi Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Co-operation (CTA) P.O. Box 380 6700 AJ Wageningen The Netherlands E-mail: grambaldi@iapad.org References Abbot, J., R. Chambers, C. Dunn, T. Harris, E. De Merode, G. Porter, J. Townsend, and D. Weiner. 1998. Participatory GIS: Opportunity or oxymoron? PLA Notes 33: 27–34. IIED, London. Aberley, D., and R. Sieber. 2002. Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) Guiding Principles. First International PPGIS Conference held by URISA at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 20–22 July 2002. Alcorn, J. 2000. Borders, rules and governance: Mapping to catalyze changes in policy and management. Gatekeeper Series No. 91. IIED, London. Bersalona, R., and K. Zingapan. 2004. P3DM: Mapping out the future of Indigenous Peoples in 3D. ICT Update 17 (May) CTA, Wageningen, The Netherlands. <http://ictupdate.cta. int/index.php/article/articleview/305/1/56/>. Carton, L. 2002a. The power of maps in interactive policymaking: Visualization as debating instrument in strategic spatial policy processes. In: E.F. ten Heuvelhof, ed. Proceedings of the irst International Doctoral Consortium on Technology, Policy and Management (Delft, 17–18 June 2002). TU Delft, Delft, 269–283. Carton, L. 2002b. Strengths and weaknesses of spatial language: Mapping activities as debating instrument in a spatial planning process. FIG XXII International Congress, Washington, D.C., USA, 19–26 April 2002. Chacon, M. 2003. Principles of PPGIS for land conflict resolution in Guatemala. Geography Department, UCGIS Summer Assembly 2003. 12 Cook, S.E., R. O’Brien, R.J. Corner, and T. Oberthur. 2003. Is precision agriculture irrelevant to developing countries? Paper presented at the European Conference on Precision Agriculture, 4th ECPA, Berlin, Germany, 15–19 June 2003. Crawhall, N. 2003. Giving new voice to endangered cultures. Crawhall & Associates for UNESCO. <www.iapad.org/publications/ppgis/crawhall_nigel.pdf>. Crawhall, N. 2001. Written in the sand: Cultural resources auditing and management with displaced indigenous people. Cape Town, The South African San Institute (SASI) and UNESCO (unpublished). Denniston, D. 1995. Defending the land with maps. PLA Notes 22: 36–40. IIED, London. Ferrier, L., and C., Dauber. 2002. “Editorial” M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 5(3). <http://www.media-culture.org. au/0207/editorial.php> (Accessed 18 March 2003). Fox, J., H. Krisnawati Suryanata, P. and A. Hadi Pramono. 2003. Mapping power: Ironic effects of spatial information technology. Spatial Information Technology and Society: Ethics, Values, and Practice Papers. East-West Center, Hawaii, USA. Hampson, K., D. Bennett, P. Alviola, T. Clements, C. Galley, M. Hilario, M. Ledesma, M. Manuba, A. Pulumbarit, M.A. Reyes, E. Rico, and S. Walker. 2003. Wildlife and conservation in the Polillo Islands, Philippines. Polillo Project Final Report. Viper Press. <http://mampam.50megs.com/polillo/2001>. Hardcastle, J., G. Rambaldi, B. Long, L. Van Lanh, and S. Do Quoc. 2004. The use of Participatory 3-Dimensional Modelling in community-based planning in Quang Nam province, Vietnam. PLA Notes 49: 70–76. IIED, London. Harmsworth, G. 1998. Indigenous values and GIS: A method and a framework. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 6(3) (December 1998). Herrington, S., and D. Lopes. 2003. Maps: here, then, and now. Vancouver: Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, University of British Columbia. Johnson, R. 1999. Negotiating the Dayton Peace Accords through digital maps. United States Institute of Peace (USIP) Virtual Diplomacy Report (25 February 1999). Martin, C., Y. Eguienta., J.C. Castella, T.T. Hieu, and P. Lecompte. 2001. Combination of participatory landscape analysis and spatial graphic models as a common language between researchers and local stakeholders. SAM Paper Series. IRRI-IRD. Mascarenhas, J., and P.D. Prem Kumar. 1991. Participatory mapping and modelling users’ notes. Source: RRA Notes 12, 9–20. IIED, London. McCall, M. 2004. Can Participatory GIS strengthen local-level planning? Suggestions for better practice. The 7th International Conference on GIS for Developing Countries (GISDECO 2004), 10–12 May 2004, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Malaysia. Monmonier, M. 1996. How to lie with maps, Second ed. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. URISA Journal • Vol. 17, No. 1 • 2005 Poole, P. 2003. Cultural mapping and indigenous peoples. A report for UNESCO, March 2003 (unpublished). Poole, P. 1998. Indigenous lands and power mapping in the Americas: Merging technologies. Native Americas 15(4): 34–43. Poole, P. 1995. Indigenous peoples, mapping & biodiversity conservation: An analysis of current activities and opportunities for applying geomatics technologies. Peoples and Forest Program discussion paper. Biodiversity Support Program (BSP). Washington, D.C., USA. Quan, J., N. Oudwater, J. Pender, and A. Martin. 2001. GIS and participatory approaches in natural resources research. Socio-economic Methodologies for Natural Resources Research Best Practice Guidelines. Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK. Rambaldi, G., and L. Le Van. 2003. The seventh helper: The vertical dimension. Feedback from a training exercise in Vietnam. PLA Notes (46): 77–83. IIED, London. Rambaldi, G., and J. Callosa-Tarr. 2002a. Participatory 3-dimensional modelling: Guiding Principles and Applications. Los Baños, Philippines: ARCBC. <http://www.iapad.org/ p3dm_guiding_principles.htm>. Rambaldi, G., S. Bugna, A. Tiangco, and D. de Vera. 2002b. Bringing the vertical dimension to the negotiating table. Preliminary Assessment of a Conlict Resolution Case in the Philippines. ASEAN Biodiversity 2(1): 17–26. Rundstrom, R. 1995. GIS, indigenous people, and epistemological diversity. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22(1): 45–57. URISA Journal฀• Rambaldi Sui, D., and M. Goodchild. 2001. GIS as media? International Journal of Geographical Information Science 15(5): 387–390. Tan-Kim-Yong, U., S. Limchoowong, and K. Gillogly. 1994. Participatory land use planning: A method of implementing natural resource management. Paper presented at the UNDCP-ONCB Seminar, “Two Decades of Thai-UN Cooperation in Highland Development and Drug Control: Lessons Learned-Outstanding Issues-Future Directions.” Chiang Mai, 1994. Tan-Kim-Yong, U. 1992. Participatory land use planning for natural resource management in northern Thailand, rural development forestry network. Network Paper 14b. Tran Trong, H., J.C. Castella, and Y. Eguienta. 2002. Participatory 3-D landscape modeling: Towards a common spatial language among researchers and local stakeholders. In: PAOPA, eds. Scaling-up Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Development. Agricultural Publishing House: Hanoi, Vietnam, 13. Warren, A. 2004. International forum on indigenous mapping for indigenous advocacy and empowerment. The Indigenous Communities Mapping Initiative. Personal communication. Wood, B.W. 2000. GIS as a tool for territorial negotiations. IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin 8(3): 72–78. Zingapan, K., and D. De Vera. 1999. Mapping the ancestral lands and waters of the Calamian Tagbanwa of Coron, Northern Palawan. PAFID, Quezon City, Philippines. Paper presented at the “Conference on NGO Best Practices.” Davao City Philippines, 1999. 13