04 - community mapping - perkins

7/31/2019 04 - Community Mapping - PERKINS

1/11

S E C T I O N 1

Community Mapping

Chris Perkins

Geography, School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL

[email protected]

The state of the art of collaborative community mapping in the UK is reviewed. Employing five contrasting case studies, a

contextual approach is proposed as the most useful way of assessing the changing significance of these local alternative

cartographies. Parish mapping, green maps, artistic maps, open source mapping and cycle mapping are best understood as

political, social, aesthetic and technological practices reflecting differing institutional configurations.

Keywords: community mapping, contextual approaches, institutional frameworks

Throughout most of the history of cartography, maps havebeen used to administer nations or cities, support colonialprojects, reinforce property rights and underpin militaryoperations (Pickles, 2004). Individuals in modern societieshave, until recently, only rarely mapped; they have usedmaps created by cartographers. Yet all human beings canmap: people have natural mapping abilities (Blaut et al.,2003). And, in response to technological and social changein the last twenty-five years, cartography has increasinglybeen democratised (Rood et al., 2001), with an emergenceof critical approaches to mapping (Crampton and Krygier,2006). People in theory now have the tools to create theirown maps and express their own mapping skills.Community mapping plays a significant role in this process.It might be defined as local mapping, produced collabora-tively, by local people and often incorporating alternativelocal knowledge.

Early research seized upon this alternative potential tohighlight radical possibilities. Aberley (1993) offered

practical advice for local protesters, and King and Clifford(1985) offered an action guide to local communityconservation. Such volumes explored the best ways forwardfor local community mappers, charting possible sourcematerial and explaining how to organise a community map.They showed the kinds of struggle that could be advanced,including

N reasserting indigenous peoples rights

N re-mapping lost place-names

N re-publishing the past for contemporary consumption

N protecting local wildlife in the face of development

N conserving landscapes threatened by agribusiness

N advancing local claims to land

N putting forward arguments over resources such asforests, minerals, or fishing

N protesting against planners

N opposing military power

N rejecting surveillance

N showing the powers-that-be what might be locallydistinctive.

Democratised mapping offers new possibilities forarticulating social, economic, political or aesthetic claims.

Formerly marginalised groups can gain a voice. And thispractical, emancipatory advice has taken on new significancein the era of digital mapping and the world wide web. Dataare increasingly available, accessible and flexible. Softwaretools allow people to make their own maps. The webencourages collaborative participation and cost-effectivedissemination. It can be used as an effective medium toorganise opposition. And the social context has shifted withthe new orthodoxy of sustainable development encoura-ging local involvement. In theory, all of these factors oughtto lead to an upsurge in the amount of communitymapping.

In practice though, community mapping is much lessfrequent or emancipatory than might be expected. In thedeveloped world, it has been largely subsumed into theburgeoning literature around participatory GIS (seeOmsrud and Craglia, 2003). Participatory GIS in theorydelivers a more democratic spatial governance (seeKingston, 2007, this issue), but the majority of this workemphasises the incorporation of local voices into mapsproduced and controlled by specialists, and articulatingtheiragendas, rather than subverting mapping, or changing

what is mapped. And truly participatory GIS is particularlythin in the British context. Wood (2005), for example,

observes that very few community mapping projects in theUK have yet involved GIS. Even in the American context ofpublicly available federal spatial data, community mappingarguably does not threaten the interests of those with realpower, and sits safely marginalised in a local world of

The Cartographic Journal Vol. 44 No. 2 pp. 127137 ICA Special Issue 2007# The British Cartographic Society 2007

DOI: 10.1179/000870407X213440


2/11

struggles over identity politics. In a recent review, Parker(2006) reflects that empirical studies of communitymapping have focused largely upon indigenous mappingand the role of maps in the reassertion of property rights,rather than upon relationships between community map-ping and power per se, or the practices involved in mappingprojects.

Counter-mapping has probably been most practiced inthe Third World. The new orthodoxy of participatorydevelopment relies strongly upon mapping to help imple-ment locally-led, village-based development (Chambers,2006). But there has not yet been much critique of theprocess. Exceptions are King (2002) and Hodgson andSchroeder (2002), who focus on Third World practice, andParker (2006) and Crouch and Matless (1996) whosecritical ethnographies focused on western contexts.

Given the much more sanguine contemporary reactionsto the potential of community mapping, what is the state ofthe art in the UK? Which voices are most likely to bearticulated through a community mapping process? This

article addresses these issues and parallels Parkers work bycharting the relations between community mapping, powerand place in a mature post-industrial western context, butchanges the focus to provide a wider snapshot of some ofdiverse British community mapping contexts. Instead ofParkers (2006) detailed ethnography of a single kind ofcommunity mapping, this research focuses upon institu-tional frameworks and networks of practice, through whichalternative and local maps are created, and argues thatcontexts beyond immediate participation are crucial forunderstanding their significance. The argument is illu-strated by five contrasting case studies, which show how

community mapping reflects and articulates contested andcomplex notions of place, mediated through politics,practices, technology, and aesthetics.

ARTISTIC ENCOUNTERS

Schulz (2001) argues that mapping is increasinglyemployed in modern art. In addition to the map in a fixedartistic representation, created by a single artist, mapping isbeing carried out as part of performance art practice andenacted by wider community groups. Maps are once again

personal and subjective (Harmon, 2003). Engaging inartistic mapping activity allows people to think in new waysabout their places and bring new places into being.

Two contrasting examples illustrate the significance.Psycho-geographic encounters with the city frequentlyinvolve mapping and can be traced back to the situationistderive inspired by the practice of Guy Debord in Paris inthe 1950s. Debord mapped his drifts around Paris as a formof resistance to capitalisms acquisitive power. By walkingand mapping personal tracks across the city, psycho-geographers argue that alternative, more playful maps canbe made, which open up new views of the same spaces. The1990s saw a significant revival in psycho-geography andurban exploration in the UK, which was frequentlyassociated with new social movements, street theatre andprotest (Pinder, 2005). Participants walk the city in newways, following algorithmic patterns (first left, second right,

third left etc), solving puzzles, reclaiming places fromcommerce or surveillance by staged performances, navigat-ing new routes and constructing new maps. Sometimespermanent mapping emerges from these events and isdisplayed in exhibitions. It often, however, remains anephemeral performance, of the moment, and shared by theparticipants alone.

Mapping practice for many community artists also oftenemploys geospatial technologies to subvert accepted norms.Christian Nolds work on bio-mapping illustrates thepotential of mixing geo-spatial technologies with biometricsensors and helps communities create their own maps. BioMapping consists of three different components: a galvanicskin response (GSR) sensor and data logger, similar to theequipment employed in lie-detectors; a commercial GPS unitto locate bodily responses, and mapping software to plothow the person was feeling in a particular place. There is arelationship between GSR response and emotional arousal:anger, being startled, fear and sexual feelings can all producesimilar responses. Using this system it is possible to construct

individual tracks and display the ridges and troughs ofemotion on a map. Results can be merged into compositemaps reflecting wider social responses. Annotated emotionmaps can be produced. In 2006, Nold published a complexemotion map of Greenwich, which brings together thecomposite feelings of local people about their place (seeFigure 1). His data are available in KMZ (compatible withGoogle Maps) and GPX formats and may be downloadedfrom http://www.biomapping.net/data.htm. This andother composite emotion maps may be viewed against aGoogle Earth backdrop, as a Flash implementation, ordownloaded as a .pdf file. Videos and DVDs of the project

are available and the technique is being cast as useful art,showing objective, consensual, community feelings about anarea that might inform the planning process.

THE PARISH MAP PROJECT

Some of the earliest widespread community maps in the UKwere initiated by the charity Common Ground. In 1985,they launched the Parish Map Project, as an ongoinginitiative encouraging local people to map what their ownparish valued. The remit was to support local distinctive-

ness. The mapping process was seen as being at onceaesthetic and political, encouraging active participation inmap making, with the process in theory bringing togetherlocal communities to hold their own ground (King andClifford, 1985).

The project offered general advice but avoided centralstandardisation. Instead local people were encouraged toemploy whatever skills were available to create a map oftheir own place. A travelling exhibition of commissionedmaps from artists encouraged participation. And subse-quent county-level initiatives have kick-started morerecent involvement, for example in Bedfordshire,Cheshire, Shropshire, Devon, Norfolk, Suffolk and WestSussex (England in Particular, 2007). But it is local people

who decide what is mapped, who is involved, howmapping should be carried out, the form of the map andits medium. The Parish Map Project is predominantly

128 The Cartographic Journal
http://www.biomapping.net/data.htmhttp://www.biomapping.net/data.htm


3/11

English, quintessentially local, invariably defined by thelargely backwards-looking spatial frame of the ecclesiasticalparish and, despite the initial wishes of Common Ground,mainly rural.

Common Ground itself has no idea how many Parishmaps there are, and has only managed to track downdetails of around 850 communities that have engaged inmapping (England in Particular, 2007). By 1996, Crouch

Figure 1. Greenwich emotion map (source: http://www.emotionmap.net)

Figure 2. A typical Parish Map Design: Bonsall Parish Map excerpt. Source: http://www.england-in-particular.info/parishmaps/m-bonsall.html

Section 1: Community Mapping 129
http://www.emotionmap.net/http://www.england-in-particular.info/parishmaps/m-bonsall.htmlhttp://www.england-in-particular.info/parishmaps/m-bonsall.htmlhttp://www.england-in-particular.info/parishmaps/m-bonsall.htmlhttp://www.england-in-particular.info/parishmaps/m-bonsall.htmlhttp://www.emotionmap.net/


4/11

and Matless guessed at around 1500 maps. Projectscontinue to be initiated, the millennium witnessing aparticular surge in activity. By 2007, over 2000 differentcommunities have probably engaged in parish mappingand an impressive percentage of rural England has beenmapped.

Parish mapping has been hugely diverse. Most projectshave involved parish surveys, many based on old OrdnanceSurvey mapping, supplemented by historical research,parish walks and discussions. Common Ground encouragesparticipants to map the parish boundary, old tracks or greenlanes, rights of way, commons, field boundaries and names,ancient monuments and historic buildings, parkland,woodland and orchards, water-meadows, streams andponds, quarries and old industrial buildings, naturereserves, recreational facilities, boundary stones and placesassociated with artistic, literary or historical events (Kingand Clifford, 1985). The typical design comprises abounded central map, surrounded by imagery relating tothe place, events, or shared narratives (see Figure 2).Mapping has typically resulted in an artistic artefact, usuallypainted, and often still displayed in village halls, schools orother community facilities. So the maps serve as icons

representingthe place, but are also situated inthe place, andare part of its material culture (Crouch and Matless, 1996).Many parish mapping projects have also involved a stronglyperformative element: dance, stories and events are a centralpart of the recreation of place.

Many maps have also been published as posters or folded

maps, or served from web sites. The same image is oftenavailable in different forms, a valorised original in pride ofplace in the village and a mass-produced representation foroutside consumption and to raise funds. Maps have beensewn, woven, knitted, printed, drawn, painted, filmed,animated, performed and written (Common Ground,1996). Projects have employed photography, photomon-tage, embroidery, quilting, applique, patchwork, needle-

work, batik, soft sculpture, cast metal, collage, ceramics,found natural materials, drawings, and calligraphy, but also

video and multimedia technologies (Clifford and King1996) (see Figure 3). The aesthetics of map designthemselves exercise a politics: some communities celebratea radical multi-vocal aesthetic, deliberately juxtaposingdifferent visual styles and voices, whereas others evoke apicturesque and nostalgic style more akin to a best kept

village competition.

Figure 3. The Parish Map as Artistic Artefact: the Welney Millennium Parish Map. Source: http://www.welney.org.uk/Millenium%20Arts%20Project.htm

http://www.welney.org.uk/Millenium%20Arts%20Project.htmhttp://www.welney.org.uk/Millenium%20Arts%20Project.htmhttp://www.welney.org.uk/Millenium%20Arts%20Project.htmhttp://www.welney.org.uk/Millenium%20Arts%20Project.htm


5/11

Even apparently simple designs, however, rarely reflect asingle persons work; an organisation has almost alwaysengaged in mapping, typically a church group, school,parish council, evening class, or WI. The process sees manydifferent voices raised. The remit encourages sharing, butthe format tends to articulate a single voice. On the surfacemost parish mapping seems to be uncontested, largelyaesthetic and to reflect a single unified sense of place. Butfinal products often hide uneasy and negotiated compro-mises (Crouch and Matless, 1996). Nor do voicesarticulated in the process necessarily support the sameradical planning agenda as Common Ground. They are

often rather conservative: many designs are more celebra-tions than howls of protest. A more careful ethnographyreveals tensions and a local politics strongly at play. Forexample the Parish Map of Mottram-in-Longdendale thatthis author facilitated in a Workers Educational Associationevening class in 1995 elides a vigorous debate over whatshould be included. The final product leaves out theManchester overspill estate, and chooses to silence the roarof traffic heading through the Mottram traffic lights. Thepublished map instead celebrates local history, reflecting theinterests of people in the study group, excluding everythingoutside its remit and the parish.

Figure 4. The global Green Map symbol set. Source: http:www.greenmap.org

http://www.greenmap.org/http://www.greenmap.org/


6/11

THE GREEN MAP SYSTEM

The Green Map System is a global eco-cultural movement,energised by local knowledge, action and responsibility(Green Map, 2007). The first Green Map, of New YorkCity was published in 1992; in 1995 a global network wasestablished to encourage use of a common symbols andpractices. Since then, publication has grown apace. Thereare now 276 published maps and 376 projects worldwide,with 50 or 60 new communities joining each year; there are14 of these Green Map projects in the United Kingdom anda majority of them have an urban focus. Most encompasslarger areas than are covered in the Parish Map Project.

Like the Parish Map Project, Green Map is a centrallyorchestrated, locally delivered and collaborative process.Partnership between different groups is seen as bestpractice. The Sheffield Green Food Map for example wasco-ordinated by a steering group with representatives fromseven different organisations, and supported by fundingfrom health and environmental grants. An altogether largerscale of collaboration exists in some British Green Maps.For example the London Green Map serves as an onlineframework for other local initiatives, offering a mechanismfor local communities to upload information about their

own area, and also as a capital-wide front-end to localauthority-based initiatives (London 21, 2004).

Maps are made locally to different specifications. In theLondon project, the mapping is employed as part of aLondon-wide Local Agenda 21 initiative promoting localgreen activity and communicating green issues, by engagingLondoners to build local sustainability and capacity for

sustainable future action. This map shows: food growingprojects, food coops, farmers markets, community gar-dens, scrap banks, computer, furniture and white goodsreuse projects, walking or cycling projects, residents groups

with a green approach, locations of different local groups,recycling points, health food shops, green businesses, and

various council services.The Green Map system offers, however, a greater

uniformity than the Common Ground project: newmappers register their interest and in return for a smallannual fee receive a kit of Green Maps, a resource disk andadvice about best practice. They are encouraged to use

global icons, grouped under the eleven different headings(see Figure 4). Local mapmakers may also employ theirown symbols. The London map for example devised itsown local set. But the global remit encourages globalparticipation. Co-ordination and networking takes place to

Figure 5. Oxford Green Map excerpt. Source: http://www.greenoxford.com/greenmap.html

http://www.greenoxford.com/greenmap.htmlhttp://www.greenoxford.com/greenmap.html


7/11

facilitate the shared political objective of sustainable localdevelopment and this dictates more control. There is also amuch greater focus on the process of mapping. The ethosof collaboration may be the same, but methods mattermore to Green Map and often explicitly incorporateparticipatory methodologies.

This greater central control has resulted in morestandardised designs, which paradoxically prevent localpeople finding their own aesthetic voice. Green mapping

is much more functional and less diverse than parishmapping. Its media are more limited and less creative.Almost all of the British Green Maps serve as visualdirectories locating point-based green facilities. Some areonline, (such as the Wiltshire map at http://www.big-barn.co.uk/wiltshire/ where postcode searching allowslocal resources to be mapped out); some are simply in hardcopy; whilst some are available both in hard copy and onthe web (for example the Oxford map in Figure 5). A senseof place only rarely emerges from this process. Butincorporating community voices into an articulated, sharedresource faces similar tensions to those that which challengeparish mappers. Aims may not be met when volunteers haveto buy in to the process. Resources may be stretched andurban mapping projects are likely to face grave difficultiesdefining their communities. It may also be difficult toreconcile the often disparate needs of different shades of

green opinion. It is too early to tell whether the lofty idealsof the Green Map system will be realised in the UK.

OPENSTREETMAP

Moves towards participatory mapping in the USA havebenefited strongly from the availability, at minimal cost tothe consumer, of officially produced public-domain federal

spatial data. In the UK, however, official data are stillregarded as a commodity, subject to careful protection ofintellectual property rights. It can be argued that thisdiscriminates against local communities that lack the resourceto be able to access Ordnance Survey map data (Barr, 2001).The lack of community-led and owned GIS in the UKreflects these cost-recovery policies and the status ofOrdnance Survey exploiting its monopoly and marketposition to maximise revenue (Office of Fair Trading, 2006).

Technological advances in the last five years have led tonew community mapping initiatives that aim to buildcollaborative, community-led alternatives to commodifiedmap data. Many of these initiatives have exploited high-resolution satellite data and mapping from portals such asGoogle Maps or Google Earth (see Erle and Gibson,2006). Some explicitly seek to focus public attention onsecret sites (Dodge, 2004). These hacks and mashups,

Figure 6. Raw GPS tracklogs on the OSM web site. Source: http://www.openstreetmap.org

http://www.big-barn.co.uk/wiltshire/http://www.big-barn.co.uk/wiltshire/http://www.openstreetmap.org/http://www.big-barn.co.uk/wiltshire/http://www.big-barn.co.uk/wiltshire/http://www.openstreetmap.org/


8/11

Figure 7. OSM Isle of Wight map data employed in Nestoria. Source: http://www.openstreetmap.org

Figure 8. The Manchester Community Mapping Cycling Map. Source: http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/mapping

http://www.openstreetmap.org/http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/mappinghttp://www.openstreetmap.org/http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/mapping


9/11

however, still depend upon the commercial provision ofbase map and image data.

More completely Open Source alternatives are beingcreated to offer fully sharable data, notably OpenStreetMap(OSM), founded in July 2004 by Steve Coast and currentlytransforming itself into an international non-profitorganisation dedicated to encouraging the growth,development and distribution of free geospatial data andto providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share(www.openstreetmap.org).

OpenStreetMap explicitly seeks to create a free alter-native map, subject to use under Creative Commonslicensing. Data are collected from diverse public domainsources. Probably the most important are GPS tracks,collected by volunteers with standard GPS receivers (seeFigure 6). Local knowledge is also important for street andfeature naming, but sources also comprise public domaindata such as out-of-copyright OS mapping, satellite imageryand TIGER data. The ethic is strongly to oppose any non-public-domain sourcing of material that ends up in the

database.The OpenStreetMap website facilitates access to

collaboratively collected map data, by employing simpleviewing software, including a newly slippy map.Editing tools allow GPS tracks to be converted into ways,support the feature-coding of the database and the creationof properly rendered mapping from SVG formated data.The enterprise is decentralised and strongly collaborative,a kind of Wiki map, shared amongst those who createit. Any user can amend any part of the map and theprocess of map creation explicitly relies upon sharing andparticipation.

So this community mapping shares a functional focus,rather than any necessary geographical propinquity. Sharedidentity is reinforced through mailing lists and a complexarray of online tools. A real community of interest isfostered through regular social events, notably mapparties, which aim to fill in gaps in coverage. Buildingupon successful models held in the Isle of Wight andManchester in 2006, regular parties bring together noviceswith more experienced mappers and have become animportant part of the open ethos.

OpenStreetMap is still growing at an exponential rate. Atthe end of 2006, there were 4400 users, and 44 million

track points had been added to the database. Only threemillion line segments, however, have so far been tagged.The map is far from complete. But data can now beexported as SVG graphics, be output back to a GPS, anddisplayed on mobile devices. Real commercial users areemploying OpenStreetMap data, for example the propertysearch web site Nestoria.co.uk using OSM data for the Isleof Wight (see Figure 7). And OSM has recently negotiatedsupport from the commercial web mapping portalMultimap, as well as reaching an agreement with Yahooto use and extract information from their aerial imagery(with certain conditions) for significant portions of theworld.

There are inevitable tensions in the project. OSM isrun on a shoestring and relies strongly upon a smallkey group of activists who are essentially interested indeveloping the open source code and the functionality

of the system. The majority of users simply collect streetdata: few edit and code. The hardest work is in addinglayers of data to the GPS tracks, labelling the ways andadding value to the street data. As the data becomes richerso there may well be increasing pressure to employ it in

ways that do not conform to the initial collaborative remitof the system.

CYCLING MAPS

Cycling offers a good example of a community leisure activitycreating new mapping. Until recently mapping in the UKcatered badly for the needs of cyclists. Official mapspecifications changed in the 1990s to incorporate longdistance leisure cycling, and commercially published small-scale specialist route-based mapping, began to emergesponsored by the cycling charity SUSTRANS. Today, thereare more cycling maps, but most still focus on cycle touringrather than urban commuting. Perkins and Thomson (2005)

argue that Ordnance Survey and most commerciallypublished urban mapping in the UK is inappropriate forcommunity cycling needs. Cycle City Guides from DomePublishing and the web-served output from Pinder are largerscale representations that map the urban road networkemphasising cycling facilities, hazards, and a system of cycleroutes, derived from local authority classifications, but thesedo not incorporate the views of the cycling community.

A different model of cycling map has also emerged in thelast decade in the UK. This is created by and for cyclists,incorporating road and route classifications that they wantrather than what the local authority might want to be

depicted. In Manchester for example the CommunityMapping project (www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/mapping/)has created a suite of hard copy and web-served cyclingmaps and developed a multi-method approach to incorpo-rate community views (Perkins and Thomson, 2005) (seeFigure 8). This process is similar to the ways in which thecycle maps for London, Sheffield, Kettering andCheltenham have been produced.

The methods employed in Manchester include analysingexisting designs, collecting user reactions and community

views about what should be mapped, producing test mapsof different designs, content and with different degrees of

interactivity. Using focus groups a specification that waswidely acceptable to cyclists was agreed. Cyclists routechoices were then incorporated into a series of completedmaps. Amongst the decisions taken by the cyclists were theneed for multiple scales, preferences over publicationformats, route classification and depiction, a preferencefor photographic depiction and detailed provision, andthe need to incorporate larger scale access information tooff-road routes.

As a collaborative initiative this process sometimes resultedin uneasy compromises. The mapping project was fundedthrough a health promotion agency attached to the localauthority. Funders wanted facilities to be audited and neededto have evidence of the success of the project in terms ofgetting more people to cycle. Elements within the cyclingcommunity distrusted the authority to enact change. There

were also tensions between the research, and the need to create

http://www.openstreetmap.org/http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/mapping/http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/mapping/http://www.openstreetmap.org/


10/11

a community-led map and ongoing process. Divisions withinthe cycling community themselves are also papered over in themapped outcomes. Warning symbols may be appropriate forsome cyclists, but the more activist community saw these aspart of a conspiracy to discourage reclaiming the streets!

CONCLUSIONS

It is hard to quantify how many community mappingprojects exist in the UK in 2007, but the amount ofmapping is almost certainly greater than it ever has been.There are still substantial barriers hindering participation:mapping is still perceived as a technical exercise, demandingexpertise, carried out by others who know best. But byhighlighting different examples, this article has shown thevibrancy of bottom-up initiatives and how the democratisa-tion of cartography is progressing in the UK.

Parker (2006) shows that community empowerment iscomplex. Cycling mapping isnt only about mobility, the

parish map is much more than just rural art, Green Mapsdont just advance ecological protest etc. Safely compart-mentalised projects hide a considerable overlap of places,people, products and systems. Cycling activists are alsooften concerned with green mapping. The politics of OpenSource mapping is closely associated with urban activism:map bases may be shared between different projects andcycling is the most effective mechanism for collecting urbanGPS tracks. Expertise in participatory techniques is sharedat the grassroots. Urban artistic projects rub shoulders withOpen Source hacking and green mapping at artistic festivals(see for example www.futuresonic.org).

Much of this complexity also stems from the nature ofthe technology employed in different projects. At oneextreme, community mapping often eschews anythingmore complex than the practical skills need to create asimple map. In the Parish Map Project, very few of theprojects have employed GIS or the web. Nor is a derivedependent upon new technologies, but much of theupsurge in collaborative and performative communitymapping art relies upon interactive possibilities stemmingfrom GPS, mapping software and the web. A community ofinterest built around shared and complex technology is thefocus for OpenStreetMap and the whole notion of wiki

mapping is strongly technology-dependent. Using morecomplex technologies such as GIS in community mappingcan empower communities (Wood, 2005).

In the UK at least, community mapping is also moststrongly facilitated by institutional structures that encou-rage involvement. It is easier for activists to follow atemplate, whether it is the Green Map methodology, theOpenStreetMap code and structure, or a regional promo-tional exercise for the Parish Map Project. Counties thathave been most mapped in the Parish Map Project are thosewhere agencies have encouraged the process. The existenceof networks of like-minded people has been fundamental inthe spread of community mapping: institutions encouragethe social intercourse that underpins active collaboration. Acycling group, green group, WI, OpenStreetMap mappingparty, or psycho-geography mailing list provides socialpossibilities which encourage mapping.

Interconnections matter. Wider social influences arefundamental for all community mappers. The Green Mapmovement depends upon LA21 for its moral and politicaldirection. OpenStreetMap would probably not exist wereit not for OS cost-recovery. Community cycling mappingimplicitly opposes car culture. Parish mapping reflectsopposition to creeping uniformity and a desire to practisecreative skills, and collaborative artistic community map-ping is fuelled by a creative desire for difference. All ofthese examples depend upon a particular zeitgeist and alocal community mapping initiative is never simply local.Grasseni (2004) argues that the macro-level of policiesand agencies coexist and intertwine with the micro-levelof local mapping capacities. The Greenmap system isglobally scaled and enacted locally. Community-ledcycling maps in the UK enact a local response to aparticular need. The Parish Mapping Project reflectsEnglish national and regional identities. OpenStreetMapfacilitates local activity that feeds in to a potentially globalproject, which has so far largely been enacted at a national

level etc.There are inevitable tensions in this intertwining. Some

exist in a community; some reflect internalexternal conflict(Crouch and Matless, 1996). Many community mappingprojects serve both aesthetic and functional roles: a parishquilting group may want to produce an object of beautyand be much less concerned with political protest, than theobjectors who want to use the project to oppose the latestTesco development. Local constructions of place reflectstruggles that are not always easy to see in the often blandaesthetic of completed Parish mapping. But the morefunctional aesthetic of Green Map projects also hides

argument. Completed mapping will often have to face inseveral directions to satisfy group dynamics: cycling mapshave to show the best routes, but also persuade localauthorities to improve infrastructure. An artist leading acommunity mapping group may have different agendasfrom other participants. Parent bodies may have long-termpolitical agendas remote from the pleasures of creation orparticipation: Green Maps enacted on the ground maydeviate from the global master plan.

The nature of empowerment is complex too. Mostcommunity mapping implicity seeks to change the world.The product is a tool helping towards this process: a Green

Map for example documents organic food shops orrecycling points; OpenStreetmap grows until it competeswith commercial mapping etc. On the other hand mappingexercises are usually about an empowering process in theirown right: local capacity is developed and social groupsgrow around a mapping event. And community mappingtends to be explicit about this, instead of pretending to beneutral (Parker, 2006). This transparency is also explicit inalmost all of the British projects discussed above.

All of these initiatives show the importance of mapping asa set of practices, as well as an end goal (Perkins, 2006).Their longevity varies, but technological and social changeimplies that collaborative community mapping will becomeincreasingly significant. People are once again mappingbecause they want to, and it is the emotional attachmentthat emerges as central to all of these projects. New formsof community mapping can be expected to emerge,

http://www.futuresonic.org/http://www.futuresonic.org/


11/11

employing different styles, media, technologies, contentand politics. The precise configuration of local interests willalmost certainly be strongly influenced by a much widercontext, drawn from a community that at first sight mightappear to be off the map.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC NOTES

Chris Perkins is SeniorLecturer in Geography,School of Environmentand Development,University of Manchester.He is also the Map Curatorat the John RylandsUniversity Library,University of Manchester.His research interests focuson the different roles that

mapping plays in contem-porary western society,with an ongoing interestin cultures of map use andcommunity mapping.

REFERENCES

Aberley, D. (1993). Boundaries of home: mapping for localempowerment, New Society Publishers, Gabriola.

Barr, R. (2001). Spatial data and intellectual property rights. In R. B.Parry and C. R. Perkins (eds) The map library in the newmillennium, pp. 17687. Library Association: London.

Blaut, J. M., Stea, D., Spencer, C., and Blades, M. (2003). Mapping asa cultural and cognitive universal, Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers, 93 (1), 165185.

Chambers, R. (2006). Participatory mapping and geographic infor-mation systems: whose map? Who is empowered and who dis-empowered? Who gains and who loses? Electronic Journal onInformation Systems in Developing Countries, 25(2), 111.

Clifford, S. and King, A. (1996). From place to place: maps andparish maps, London, Common Ground.

Common Ground (1996). Parish maps [leaflet], CommonGround,London.

Crampton, J. and Krygier, J. (2007). An Introduction to CriticalCartography, ACME Journal, 4 (1), 1133.

Crouch, D. and Matless, D. (1996). Refiguring geography the ParishMap Project of Common Ground, Transactions Institute of

British Geographers, 21, 236255.

Dodge M., (2004). Mapping Secret Places and Sensitive Sites:Examining the Cryptome Eyeballing Map Series, Society of Cartographers Bulletin, 37(1), 511.

England in Particular (2007). Parish Maps, from http://www.england-in-particular.info/maplist.html (accessed 25/02/07).

Erle, S. and Gibson, R. (2006). Google Maps hacks, O Reilly,Sebastopol, CA.

Grasseni, C. (2004). Skilled landscapes: mapping practices on locality,Environment and Planning D, 22, 699717.

Green Map (2007). The Green Map System, from http://www.greenmap.org(accessed 25/02/07).Harman, K. (2003). You are here: personal geographies and

other maps of the imagination. Princeton University Press,Princeton.

Hodgson, D. L. and Schroeder, R. A. (2002). Dilemmas of counter-mapping community resources in Tanzania, Development andChange, 33(1), 79100.

King, B. H. (2002). Towards a participatory Global Imaging System:evaluating case studies of participatory rural appraisal in thedeveloping world, Cartography and Geographic InformationScience 29, 4352.

King, A. and Clifford, S. (1985). Holding your ground: an actionguide to local conservation, Penguin, London.

Kingston, R. (2007). Public Participation in local Policy Decision-

making: The Role of web-based Mapping, The CartographicJournal, 44(2), 138144.

London 21 (2004). Green maps for London: the Pack, from http://www.londongreenmap.org(accessed 25/02/07).

Office of Fair Trading (2006). Commercial uses of public informa-tion, OFT, London.

Omsrud, H. and Craglia, M. (2003). Special issues on Access andParticipatory Approaches in Using Geographic Information,URISA Journal, 15(1), 57.

Parker, B. (2006). Constructing community through maps? Powerand praxis in community mapping, Professional Geographer,58(4), 470484.

Perkins, C. (2006). Mapping, in Companion encyclopaedia ofgeography I. Douglas, R. Huggett and C. Perkins (Eds.),(pp. 555571). Routledge, London.

Perkins, C. and Thomson, A. Z. (2005). Mapping for Health:Walking and Cycling Maps of the City, North West Geography, 5(1), 1623.

Pickles, J. (2004). A history of spaces: mapping cartographic reasonand the over-coded world. Routledge, London.

Pinder, D. (2005). Arts of urban exploration, Cultural Geographies12, 4, 383411.

Rood, J., Ormeling, F. and Van Elzakker, C. (2001). An agenda fordemocratising cartographic visualisation, Norsk GeografiskTidsskrift, 55(1), 3841.

Schulz, D. (2001). The conquest of space: on the prevalence of mapsin contemporary art. Henry Moore Institute, Leeds.

Wood, J. (2005). How green is my valley? Desktop geographicinformation systems as a community-based participatory mapping

tool, Area, 37(2), 159170.

Chris Perkins

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0004-5608()93:1L.165[aid=7834306]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0004-5608()93:1L.165[aid=7834306]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0004-5608()93:1L.165[aid=7834306]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0020-2754()21L.236[aid=893927]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0020-2754()21L.236[aid=893927]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0020-2754()21L.236[aid=893927]http://www.england-in-particular.info/maplist.htmlhttp://www.england-in-particular.info/maplist.htmlhttp://www.greenmap.org/http://www.greenmap.org/http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0012-155x()33:1L.79[aid=7884032]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0012-155x()33:1L.79[aid=7884032]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0012-155x()33:1L.79[aid=7884032]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0008-7041()44:2L.138[aid=7884031]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0008-7041()44:2L.138[aid=7884031]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0008-7041()44:2L.138[aid=7884031]http://www.londongreenmap.org/http://www.londongreenmap.org/http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0033-0124()58:4L.470[aid=7736956]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0033-0124()58:4L.470[aid=7736956]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1474-4740()12:4L.383[aid=7884035]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1474-4740()12:4L.383[aid=7884035]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0029-1951()55:1L.38[aid=4930775]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0029-1951()55:1L.38[aid=4930775]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0029-1951()55:1L.38[aid=4930775]http://www.londongreenmap.org/http://www.greenmap.org/http://www.england-in-particular.info/maplist.htmlhttp://www.england-in-particular.info/maplist.htmlhttp://www.londongreenmap.org/http://www.greenmap.org/http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1474-4740()12:4L.383[aid=7884035]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1474-4740()12:4L.383[aid=7884035]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0020-2754()21L.236[aid=893927]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0020-2754()21L.236[aid=893927]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0029-1951()55:1L.38[aid=4930775]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0029-1951()55:1L.38[aid=4930775]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0033-0124()58:4L.470[aid=7736956]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0033-0124()58:4L.470[aid=7736956]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0008-7041()44:2L.138[aid=7884031]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0008-7041()44:2L.138[aid=7884031]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0012-155x()33:1L.79[aid=7884032]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0012-155x()33:1L.79[aid=7884032]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0004-5608()93:1L.165[aid=7834306]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0004-5608()93:1L.165[aid=7834306]

04 - community mapping - perkins

Documents