Abstract
Applications of participatory mapping (PMapping) and PGIS to the mapping of local spatial knowledge are expanding; therefore, updated ethics and good practice improvements are needed. The intention here is to secern, or distinguish between, two pairs of concepts essential to PMapping – between ‘facts' and ‘values' in the knowledge being mapped and between ‘representation' and ‘representativity in the Pmapping processes. Local spatial knowledge is not homogeneous; facts and values are distinct although intrinsically related. In a world of ‘fake news´ and attacks on science, it is even more essential to distinguish facts from values in maps and other media. Concerning representation of both facts and values, the questions are how to represent local knowledge. Concerning representativity in the process, whose local spatial knowledge is being presented, and why? PMapping is not democratic; it is exceptionalist and informed – that should be acknowledged as a strength, not a deficiency.
Highlights
Applications of participatory mapping (PMapping) and PGIS to the mapping of local spatial knowledge are expanding; updated ethics and good practice improvements are needed
The overall intention of this paper is to secern, or distinguish and discriminate between, two pairs of concepts essential to participatory mapping, firstly ‘facts’ and ‘values’ as components of the knowledge being mapped; and secondly, ‘representation’ and ‘representativity’ as parameters of the processes of the participatory mapping. The article interrogates these concepts and explores their implications employing a methodology of critical review of conceptual material from critical cartography, Citizen Science, Post Normal Science and many field experiences of PMapping
The section interrogates two key problematic concepts that are contested in PMapping practice: - representation in PMapping, that is, how, and which, local spatial knowledge (LSK) items are shown, and representativity, i.e. whose LSK is being represented? The fourth section proposes elements of good practice in bettering representation and representativity
Summary
Applications of participatory mapping (PMapping) and PGIS to the mapping of local spatial knowledge (LSK) are growing apace, their ethics need review and appropriate good practices further developed. The overall intention of this paper is to secern, or distinguish and discriminate between, two pairs of concepts essential to participatory mapping, firstly ‘facts’ and ‘values’ as components of the knowledge being mapped; and secondly, ‘representation’ and ‘representativity’ as parameters of the processes of the participatory mapping. The article interrogates these concepts and explores their implications employing a methodology of critical review of conceptual material from critical cartography, Citizen Science, Post Normal Science and many field experiences of PMapping. Regarding both representation and representativity, PMapping is not democratic; the strength of PMapping - not a deficiency - is that it is exceptionalist, extra-ordinary, and informed
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
