Next Article in Journal
In the Land of the Dammed: Assessing Governance in Resettlement of Ghana’s Bui Dam Project
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Soil Depth and Topography on the Effectiveness of Conservation Practices on Discharge and Soil Loss in the Ethiopian Highlands
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Land 2017, 6(4), 79; doi:10.3390/land6040079

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

1
Geography Department, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland
2
University Research Priority Programme Language and Space, University of Zurich, Freiestrasse 16, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland
Current address: Institute of Geography, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, UK.
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 25 September 2017 / Revised: 31 October 2017 / Accepted: 1 November 2017 / Published: 5 November 2017
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [6032 KB, uploaded 5 November 2017]   |  

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. View Full-Text
Keywords: land use mapping; participatory mapping; cognitive mapping; community mapping; sketch maps; landscape characterization; landscape ethnoecology land use mapping; participatory mapping; cognitive mapping; community mapping; sketch maps; landscape characterization; landscape ethnoecology
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Wartmann, F.M.; Purves, R.S. What’s (Not) on the Map: Landscape Features from Participatory Sketch Mapping Differ from Local Categories Used in Language. Land 2017, 6, 79.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Land EISSN 2073-445X Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top