© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

2020
J. Servaes (ed.), Handbook of Communication for Development and Social Change
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2014-3_6

38. Participatory Mapping

Logan Cochrane1 and Jon Corbett2
(1) International and Global Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON,
Canada
(2) University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Logan Cochrane (Corresponding author)

Email: logan.cochrane@gmail.com

Jon Corbett (Corresponding author)

Email: jon.corbett@ubc.ca

Abstract
Participatory and community mapping has emerged as a key tool for
identifying and communicating development needs and been further
recognized as a means to support social change. Drawing upon a broad
assessment of the literature, more than two decades of experience with
mapping initiatives from three continents, and covering a diverse array
of applications and issues, this chapter explores both the application of
participatory and community mapping and the range of impacts
experienced. In so doing, the chapter explores the potential
effectiveness for participatory and community mapping to effect
positive change. At the same time, we will critically review the
assumptions about social change and empowerment, highlighting
challenges and limitations to their meaningful usage. This chapter
provides practitioners and academics with an overview of participatory
and community mapping uses, processes, and impacts and their role as
a tool of communication for development and social change.

Keywords Participatory mapping – Participation – Empowerment

38.1 Introduction
The past 25 years have witnessed a rapid increase of participatory
mapping initiatives throughout the world (Brown and Kyttä 2014;
Cochrane et al. 2014). Robert Chambers wrote that participatory
mapping has spread “like a pandemic with many variants and
applications” (2006, p. 1). It has become a vibrant area of practice and a
well-used research method and is increasingly seen as an area of study
in its own right.
Participatory mapping is a mapmaking process that strives to make
visible the relationship between a place and local communities through
the use of cartography (Aberley 1999; Flavelle 2002). Participatory
maps provide a unique visual representation of what a community
perceives as their place and identify features of significance within it –
both physical and sociocultural (Bird 1995; Tobias 2000). Furthermore,
the process of participatory mapping recognizes the intrinsic value of
crafting an inclusive environment where all voices have the space to be
expressed (Rambaldi et al. 2006).
Participatory mapping employs a range of tools. These include
sketch mapping, transect mapping, and participatory three-
dimensional modeling. More recently, participatory mapping initiatives
have begun to use geographic information technologies including
Global Positioning Systems (GPS), aerial photos and remote-sensed
images (from satellites), geographic information systems (GIS), and the
geospatial web (IFAD 2009; Johnson 2017).
Drawing upon a broad assessment of the literature and informed by
more than two decades of experience with mapping initiatives from
three continents, this chapter explores both the application of
participatory and community mapping and the range of impacts
experienced. In so doing, we examine the potential effectiveness of
participatory mapping to effect positive change. At the same time, we
critically review assumptions made about empowerment and social
change, highlighting challenges and limitations to the meaningful usage
of these terms in the context of participatory mapping practice. This
chapter provides both practitioners and academics with an overview of
participatory mapping practice – its uses, processes, and impacts in
relation to their role as a tool of communication for development.
38.2 Participatory Mapping: Context, Impacts,
and Limits
Participatory mapping is a process in which community members, writ
large, contribute their own experiences, relationships, information, and
ideas about a place to the creation of a map. The practice is usually
conducted in an inclusive, or participatory, way. Many examples of
participatory mapping initiatives emphasize the process of mapmaking
as a transformative agent of change, while others focus upon the
product and its use. In this chapter, we utilize the terminology of
participatory mapping but in doing so recognize that a diversity of
nomenclature and practices have emerged that also fall within the
sphere of its practice. Other terms used include community mapping,
asset mapping, participatory GIS, bottom-up GIS, community
information systems, community-integrated GIS, counter-mapping,
cultural mapping, indigenous mapping, participatory 3D mapping, and
public participation GIS.
Participatory mapping projects often assume an advocacy role and
actively seek recognition for community interests through identifying
boundaries, traditional land uses, and place-based issues (Alcorn 2000;
Chapin et al. 2005; Hazen and Harris 2007). In this form, participatory
maps can play an important role in supporting diverse interests, such
as those held by farmers, indigenous peoples, the homeless, recreation
groups, youth, and seniors (Bryan 2011; Rocheleau 2005). Mapping
initiatives can also challenge dominant worldviews, provide counter-
narratives, and be used as a tool of resistance (Cooke 2003; Ghose
2001). The processes and outcomes of participatory mapping are
viewed as being more inclusive and democratic and thus have
commonly been adopted as a means to facilitate individual
empowerment and societal change (Corbett 2003; Lydon 2002; Sieber
2006).
Acknowledgment needs to be given to the role of intermediaries in
the practice of participatory mapping; often researchers, governments,
NGOs, and community groups play a crucial role as interlocutors,
trainers, advocates, and facilitators in participatory mapping initiatives
(Alcorn 2000; IFAD 2009). Additionally, participatory mapping can be
initiated by outsider groups, and the maps produced will contribute to
an outsider’s agenda, such as contributing to research, assisting in
collaborative spatial planning exercises, ameliorating land and resource
conflicts, or assessing local development potential. The levels of
community involvement and control over the mapping process vary
considerably between projects (Cochrane et al. 2014).
As both a multidisciplinary practice and area of research, the aims
and specific objectives, as well as how outcomes are articulated, of
participatory mapping initiatives vary significantly. This variation
ranges from a focus on the process of participation through to the end
use to which these maps are put, which in turn is influenced by the
actors that will view and make decisions related to the content of these
maps.
A broad body of literature has noted that participatory mapping has
been an effective mechanism in amplifying the voice of community
concerns. It has also been effective for highlighting and engaging in
dialogue on a diverse set of community-relevant issues and themes.
Initiatives have contributed to advancing land and resource rights
(Stocks 2003) and indigenous title and claims (Parker 2006; Peluso
1995), supporting the revival and recovery of indigenous knowledge
(Wilson 2004), improving mobility for individuals living with
disabilities and mental health issues (Corbett and Cochrane 2017;
Townley et al. 2009), and enhancing spatial information during
humanitarian crises (Camponovo and Freundschuh 2014; Harvey 2012;
Shekhar et al. 2012). Maps produced through participatory mapping
initiatives have been utilized as a communication tool, ranging from
climate change issues (Piccolella 2013) to zoning decisions (Zhang et al.
2013) and disease exposure (Keith and Brophy 2004). These examples
demonstrate the potential of participatory mapping to contribute to
social justice issues and positive societal change. It is often the
examples such as those mentioned above that further inspire others to
integrate mapmaking into their development activities and processes,
with the understanding that they will serve as a pathway to
transformational change.
Yet, participatory mapping is not exclusively utilized as a tool to
empower individuals and communities. At times, these processes have
been used purely to extract information from participants, especially in
the realm of academia where participatory mapping is an often-used
data acquisition method. Furthermore, they have been adopted as a
means to coerce public support, with an understanding that people
may be less likely to oppose decisions if they have been involved (even
superficially) in the process (Yearley et al. 2003). In other instances,
engagement in participatory mapping processes can be cursory or even
be used manipulatively (McCall 2004). Mapping processes can also lead
to unintended consequences; they can exacerbate conflict, influence
land use and ownership, and facilitate the expansion of state control
(Anau et al. 2003; Bryan 2011; Corbett 2003; Fox et al. 2003; Pramono
et al. 2006; Wright et al. 2009). More fundamentally, there are critiques
that these approaches are often not as participatory nor inclusive as
claimed (Chapin et al. 2005; Lasker and Weiss 2003).
While online participatory mapping, or geospatial web, technologies
have broadened participation in certain contexts, these changes do not
equate with equal opportunity and access. Marginalization in many
cases is systemically entrenched with continued exclusion. This may
manifest itself with the exclusion of individuals of low socioeconomic
status, groups living in remote or inner-city areas, indigenous
communities, recent migrants, the homeless, people with disabilities or
experiencing mental illness, and senior citizens (Beischer et al. 2015;
Cochrane et al. 2014). Currently, challenges related to the digital divide
reflect caution raised by Harley (1990, pp. 3–4) when commenting on
the early development of GIS technologies: “technological progress
does not automatically translate into maps that are more relevant in a
society.”
There are also fundamental challenges with participatory mapping.
Based on a review of academic publications, issues of social justice
rarely feature in projects related to online mapping and crowdsourcing
geographic information (Cochrane et al. 2017). Cochrane et al.’s meta-
analysis found that, within the academic literature on participatory
mapping since 2005, the practice and analytical findings of
participatory mapping have tended toward being overtly technical,
despite recognition of the political nature of maps and repeated calls to
integrate social, economic, and political components. Limited progress
has been made since these issues were first highlighted in the 1990s
(Cochrane et al. 2017). Many practitioners, on the other hand, are
engaging issues of social justice, but these activities are not well
represented in the literature (Brown and Kyttä 2014).

38.3 Power and Empowerment

What gets included and excluded on a map, how it is represented, and
why a map is made, are all questions linked to power. As Poole (1994, p.
1) notes, maps have always been “both symbols and instruments of
power.” Harley (1990, p. 16) argued that mapmaking is “never merely
the drawing of maps: it is the making of worlds.” The most influential
forms of mapmaking in modern history were means to express and
exert control. Control over territory was claimed with a map. Taxes
were levied with the support of maps. Ruling elite understood the
power of maps, and in some cases, mapmaking that challenged official
versions was viewed as an act of treason. In the past, mapmaking was
primarily undertaken by ruling elite because the task required
cartographic proficiency, as well as being time and resource intensive.
Maps expressed a “top-down, authoritarian, centrist paradigm” and
were produced by experts (Goodchild 2007, p. 29). The emergence of
new technologies – from geographic information systems (GIS) to the
geospatial web and geo-social media – has enabled more people to
engage in mapmaking (Ghose 2001; Harris and Weiner 1998). As these
technologies become more accessible, affordable, and user-friendly,
new forms of participatory mapping practice are emerging. As a direct
result of this shift, the power expressed by and within maps is
constantly being challenged (Crampton and Krygier 2005; Wright et al.
2009).
Participatory mapmaking is often claimed to be an empowering
process (Bryan 2011; Cochrane et al. 2014; Elwood 2002; Kesby 2005).
Increasingly, the literature on this topic has employed empowerment as
a simplistic phrase for expressing success or social change, but the
majority of these initiatives do not define or measure empowerment
(Corbett et al. 2016). While empowering and marginalizing processes
are occurring (Harris and Weiner 1998), we know little about the
extent and duration of these changes. Participatory and community
mapping initiatives have the potential to be empowering; however, with
a lack of measurement, we are currently unable to outline how these
processes occur, for whom, and for how long, beyond anecdotal
experiences.

38.4 Understanding Impact

From the literature and practical experience, we know that the
outcomes of some mapping initiatives are more instrumental in
contributing to social change than others. Cochrane et al. (2014)
outline best practices categorized by the stage of the mapmaking
initiative. They define three core stages in the participatory mapping
process – pre-process, in-process, and post-process . For the pre-
process, or dialogue and idea development phase, success includes
having clear objectives, ensuring maps are socioculturally and
politically contextualized, verifying that the capacity for participation
exists, having processes to engage with disagreements, communicating
realistic expectations, having champions to promote the initiative, and
having clear and transparent communication.
While a mapping initiative is in-process, Cochrane et al. (2014)
highlight the importance of feedback mechanisms regarding usability
and inclusivity, of celebrating small successes, and of ongoing
engagement and the value of quality checks on data accuracy. These
design- and process-related features are critical to success, but other
factors are less visible and are unpredictable.
Cochrane et al. (2014) further note that impacts are most likely to
fall in the post-process phase . The common factors that contribute to
impact include participation, empowerment, and ownership. The role
of participation in the post-process phase encourages ongoing public
awareness raising, which translates into continued use and
development of the map (Ganapati 2011). Specifically, with regard to
online maps, which may experience enthusiastic participation while in-
process, the post-process period may see interaction decline or stop
entirely. Some projects have a timeframe or are designed for a specific
purpose and period; for those that are ongoing, participation is a
critical factor for success. Enabling continued engagement may require
creativity, such as using social media and contests, while ensuring that
participants see that their interaction is contributing to an objective.
 Linked with a feeling of contribution, or of personal benefit, the
ability for a project to empower those that engage with it will
contribute to its post-process success. Empowerment in this form may
be building capacity so that maps and mapmaking can become a feature
of the community, whereby maps are revised and reinvented with time
(Fox et al. 2008). The complexity both of projects and empowerment,
however, makes this task a challenging one.
As Perkins (2008, p. 154) notes “Community empowerment is
complex. Projects have different goals...The same project may carry
different meanings for different members, who are likely to engage in
different ways with the mapping” (Perkins 2008, p. 154).
Ownership of the map and the information that it represents also
affect post-process impact. In some cases, the ownership can restrict
accessibility and availability of the information and map, which is an
outcome that can be purposeful or unintentional. Communities, in some
cases, may not have access to information and maps due to ownership
by consultants, researchers, or nongovernmental organizations (McCall
and Minang 2005). On the other hand, participatory maps that are
public, easily accessible, readily available and offer ongoing
engagement opportunities can support a larger audience in the post-
process period. Regardless of the arrangement and reasons for it,
ownership will greatly affect the post-process phase.
Other key factors that contribute to variation in outcomes relate to
motivation, organizational capacity, and leadership (Corbett and
Cochrane 2017). The less visible factors include issues related to trust
in the process, which relates to the person, people, or organization
managing the initiative as well as the histories between the various
actors. A lack of trust may materialize if the individuals involved have
past connections that might be suggestive of bias. Other factors that are
beyond strong technical design include the ways in which people
interact, the ways in which their contributions are expressed and
responded to, and the sociocultural or political incentives that influence
actor motivations. Similarly, unpredictable events may alter the impact
of a mapmaking process or the impact of a participatory-produced map.
An example of this is broad-based re-problematizing of the issue being
discussed, spurring widespread engagement and interest, which may
translate into political responsiveness. Alternatively, interest may wane
due to external forces or the rise of public attention to different issues.
As a result, technical design and ideal processes are critical but do not
necessarily result in positive cultural, political, economic, legal, or
societal changes.

38.5 Conclusion
Participatory mapping has been widely utilized, especially in
development contexts, as a means to challenge ideas, priorities, and
power. These initiatives have contributed to positive social change in a
diverse array of spheres, from land rights to language revitalization.
However, even with ideal technical design and processes, participatory
mapping does not always result in positive outcomes. Sometimes
projects fail, and other times there are notable negative impacts. To
date the focus of research has been upon the technical and process
aspects of mapping, with little measurement and few evaluations
occurring on the medium- and long-term impacts. This chapter has
highlighted both the potential and the problems of participatory
mapping so that academics and practitioners can be better informed of
their uses, processes, and impacts. This overview aims to support more
informed decision-making about what options might be most suitable
and appropriate when considering a range of different tools of
communication for development and social change.

References
Aberley D (1999) Giving the land a voice: mapping our home places. Land Trust Alliance of
British Columbia, Salt Spring Island

Alcorn JB (2000) Keys to unleash mapping’s good magic. PLA Notes 39(2):10–13

Anau N, Corbett J, Iwan R, van Heist M, Limberg G, Sudana M, Wollenberg E (2003) Do

communities need to be good mapmakers? Center for International Forestry Research, Jakarta

Beischer A, Cochrane L, Corbett J, Evans M, Gill M, Millard E (2015) Mapping experiences of

injustice: developing a crowdsourced mapping tool for documenting good practices for
overcoming social exclusion. Spatial knowledge and information conference proceedings, 27
February – 1 March, Banff

Bird B (1995) The EAGLE project: re-mapping Canada from an indigenous perspective. Cult
Survival Q 18(4):23–24
Brown G, Kyttä M (2014) Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS
(PPGIS): a synthesis based on empirical research. Appl Geogr 46:122–136

Bryan J (2011) Walking the line: participatory mapping, indigenous rights, and neoliberalism.
Geoforum 42(1):40–50

Camponovo ME, Freundschuh SM (2014) Assessing uncertainty in VGI for emergency response.
Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 41(5):440–455

Chambers R (2006) Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: whose map?
Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? Electron J Inf Syst Dev
Ctries 25(2):1–11

Chapin M, Lamb Z, Threlkeld B (2005) Mapping indigenous lands. Annu Rev Anthropol 34:619–
638

Cochrane L, Corbett J, Keller P, Canessa R (2014) Impact of community-based and participatory

mapping. Institute for Studies and Innovation in community-university engagement. University
of Victoria, Victoria

Cochrane L, Corbett J, Evans M, Gill M (2017) Searching for social justice in crowdsourced
mapping. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 44(6):507–520

Cooke FM (2003) Maps and counter-maps: globalised imaginings and local realities of
Sarawak’s plantation agriculture. J Southeast Asian Stud 34(2):265–284

Corbett J (2003) Empowering technologies? Introducing participatory geographic information

and multimedia systems in two Indonesian communities. Doctoral Dissertation submitted to
the University of Victoria

Corbett J, Cochrane L (2017) Engaging with the participatory geoweb: exploring the dynamics
of VGI. In: Campelo C, Bertolotto M, Corcoran P (eds) Volunteered geographic information and
the future of geospatial data. IGI Global, Hershey

Corbett J, Cochrane L, Gill M (2016) Powering up: revisiting participatory GIS and
empowerment. Cartogr J 53(4):335–340

Crampton JW, Krygier J (2005) An introduction to critical cartography. ACME Int E J Crit Geog
4(1):11–33

Elwood S (2002) GIS use in community planning: a multidimensional analysis of

empowerment. Environ Plan 34(5):905–922

Flavelle A (2002) Mapping our land: a guide to making maps of our own communities and
traditional lands. Lone Pine, Edmonton

Fox J, Suryanata K, Hershock P, Pramono AH (2003) Mapping power: ironic effects of spatial
information technology. Spatial information technology and society: ethics, values, and practice
papers. East-West Center, Hawaii

Fox J, Suryanata K, Hershock P, Pramono AH (2008) Mapping boundaries, shifting power: the
socio-ethical dimensions of participatory mapping. In: Contentious geographies: environmental
knowledge, meaning, scale. Ashgate, Burlington, p 203

Ganapati S (2011) Uses of public participation geographic information systems applications in

e-government. Public Adm Rev 71(3):425–434

Ghose R (2001) Use of information technology for community empowerment: transforming

geographic information systems into community information systems. Trans GIS 5(2):141–163

Goodchild MF (2007) Citizens as sensors: web 2.0 and the volunteering of geographic
information. GeoFocus (Editorial) 7:8–10

Harley JB (1990) Cartography, ethics and social theory. Cartographica Int J Geogr Inf
Geovisualization 27(2):1–23

Harris T, Weiner D (1998) Empowerment, marginalization, and “community-integrated” GIS.

Cartogr Geogr Inf 25(2):67–76

Harvey F (2012) Code/space: software and everyday life by rob kitchen and Martin dodge. Int J
Geogr Inf Sci 26(10):1999–2001

Hazen HD, Harris LM (2007) Limits of territorially-focused conservation: a critical assessment

based on cartographic and geographic approaches. Environ Conserv 34(4):280–290

IFAD (2009) Good practices in participatory mapping. International Fund for Agricultural
Development, Rome

Johnson PA (2017) Models of direct editing of government spatial data: challenges and
constraints to the acceptance of contributed data. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci. 44(2):128–138

Keith MM, Brophy JT (2004) Participatory mapping of occupational hazards and disease among
asbestos-exposed workers from a foundry and insulation complex in Canada. Int J Occup
Environ Health 10(2):144–153

Kesby M (2005) Retheorizing empowerment-through-participation as a performance in space:

beyond tyranny to transformation. Signs 30(4):2037–2065

Lasker RD, Weiss ES (2003) Broadening participation in community problem solving: a

multidisciplinary model to support collaborative practice and research. J Urban Health Bull N Y
Acad Med 80:14–47

Lydon M (2002) (Re)presenting the living landscape: exploring community mapping as a tool
for transformative learning and planning. Master of Arts submitted to University of Victoria

McCall MK (2004) Can participatory-GIS strengthen local-level spatial planning? Suggestions

for better practice. In: 7th international conference on GIS for developing countries (GISDECO
2004). University Teknologi, Johor

McCall M, Minang P (2005) Assessing participatory GIS for community-based natural resource
management: claiming community forests in Cameroon. Geogr J 171(4):340–356

Parker B (2006) Constructing community through maps? Power and praxis in community
mapping. Prof Geogr 58(4):470–484

Peluso NL (1995) Whose woods are these? Counter-mapping forest territories in Kalimantan,
Indonesia. Antipode 27(4):383–406

Perkins C (2008) Cultures of map use. Cartogr J 45(2):150–158

Piccolella A (2013) Participatory mapping for adaptation to climate change: the case of Boe
Boe, Solomon Islands. Knowl Manag Dev J 9(1):1–13

Poole P (1994) Geomatics: who needs it? Cultural Survival quarterly magazine, December 1994:
www.​culturalsurvival​.o
​ rg/​publications/​cultural-survival-quarterly/​geomatics-who-needs-it

Pramono AH, Natalia I, Arzimar III J, Bogor I, Janting Y, Kasih PP, Pontianak I (2006) Ten years
after: counter-mapping and the dayak lands in west Kalimantan, Indonesia. http://​dlc.​dlib.​
indiana.​edu/​dlc/​bitstream/​handle/​10535/​1997/​Pramono_​Albertus_​Hadi.​pdf

Rambaldi G, Chambers R, McCall M, Fox J (2006) Practical ethics for PGIS practitioners,
facilitators, technology intermediaries and researchers. In: Participatory learning and action
mapping for change: practice, technologies and communication, vol 54. IIED, London, pp 106–
113

Rocheleau D (2005) Maps as power tools: locating communities in space or situating people
and ecologies in place? In: Communities and conservation: histories and politics of community-
based natural resource management. AltaMira, Walnut Creek, p 327

Shekhar S, Yang K, Gunturi VM, Manikonda L, Olive D, Zhou X, Lu Q (2012) Experiences with
evacuation route planning algorithms. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 26(12):2253–2265

Sieber R (2006) Public participation geographic information systems: a literature review and
framework. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 96(3):491–507

Stocks A (2003) Mapping dreams in Nicaragua’s Bosawas reserve. Hum Organ 62(4):344–356

Tobias TN (2000) Chief Kerry’s moose: a guidebook to land use and occupancy mapping,
research design, and data collection. Union of BC Indian Chiefs: Ecotrust Canada, Vancouver

Townley G, Kloos B, Wright PA (2009) Understanding the experience of place: expanding

methods to conceptualize and measure community integration of persons with serious mental
illness. Health Place 15(2):520–531

Wilson AC (2004) Introduction: indigenous knowledge recovery is indigenous empowerment.

Am Indian Q 28(3/4):359–372

Wright DJ, Duncan SL, Lach D (2009) Social power and GIS technology: a review and
assessment of approaches for natural resource management. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 99(2):254–
272

Yearley S, Cinderby S, Forrester J, Bailey P, Rosen P (2003) Participatory modelling and the local
governance of the politics of UK air pollution: a three-city case study. Environ Values
12(2):247–262
Zhang Z, Sherman R, Yang Z, Wu R, Wang W, Yin M, Yang G, Ou X (2013) Integrating a
participatory process with a GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis for protected area
zoning in China. J Nat Conserv 21(4):225–240