Green Cartography
Mapping Sustainable Futures in Pereira, Colombia
Dissertation Extract
Joe Gerlach
Oxford University Centre for the Environment
2008
Green Cartography
Mapping Sustainable Futures in Pereira, Colombia
Dissertation Extract
Oxford University Centre for the Environment
Mapping Sustainable Futures in Pereira, Colombia
1
Abstract
This visual-ethnographic study of the use of the Greenmap system in Pereira, Colombia
contributes to the ongoing discussion concerning the recent emergence of participatory
cartography amongst other ‘volunteered’ geographies. Whilst participatory mapping has
received little critical attention from academic geography, this report attends to the
affective and circulating engagements manifested between map and mapper. This initial
report signposts the literature which informed the study and then goes on to posit tentative
conclusions from the fieldwork through a brief collection of photographs. The report
concludes that the attendant practices and performances of participatory mapping help
invoke spaces, once obscured, into being; spaces animated by the people and communities
who need them most.
Este estudio visual-etnográfico del uso del sistema de Greenmap en Pereira, Colombia
contribuye a la discusión en curso referente a la aparición reciente de la cartografía
participante entre otros' geographies ofrecidos voluntariamente`. Mientras que el traz
participante ha recibido poca atención crítica de la geografía académica, este informe
atiende a los contratos afectivos y que circulan manifestados entre el mapa y el mapper. Los
postes indicadores de este informe de la inicial la literatura que informó al estudio y
entonces se encienden postular conclusiones tentativas del trabajo en el terreno a través de
una breve colección de fotografías. El studio concluye que las prácticas del asistente y los
funcionamientos de la ayuda traz participante invocan espacios, una vez que estén
obscurecidas, en ser; espacios animados por la gente y las comunidades que las necesitan
más.
2
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Yelitza Andrea Espinosa-Narvaez, Angélica María Rodríguez-García, Daniel
Agudelo and all at Geovida, Pereira; to Carlos Martinez, Greenmap, New York; Harold
Hernandez-Betancourt, Universidad Tecnologia Pereira; to the teachers, students and
ecology study group at Colegio Gonzalo Mejia Echeverry, Altagracia; Institucion Educativa
Deogracias Cardona; Institucion Educativa Sur Oriental and to the producers and staff of
Telaraña, Canal TeleCafe.
Thanks extended to Jesus College, the Economic and Social Research Council, and to the
Abbey-Santander Academic Travel Award for their generous funding of this research.
Thanks to Richard Munday for travel support and James Benn for geographical inspiration.
Thanks also to Thomas Jellis for incisive comments.
All mistakes remain my own.
All photographs © the author unless stated otherwise.
Cover photographs: Greenmap Icons // Euclid // Children Studying Greenmap.
Notes about author:
Joe Gerlach is a PhD student at the University of Oxford. Having completed undergraduate
and masters degrees in Geography, Joe’s research interests include critical cartography,
affective geographies and geographic visualisations.
3
Contents
Abstract 1
Acknowledgements 2
1. Sketching the Study – an Introduction 4-8
1.1 Mapping sustainable futures 4
1.2 Enlivening spaces 5
1.3 Think Global, Map Local! Greenmap, Geovida and Pereira 7
1.4 Charting method and style 7
2. Mapping the Literature 9-23
2.1 Sketching the boundaries – an overview 9
2.2 Emergent cartographies 10
2.3 Mapping in action 13
2.4 Limits to participation 14
2.5 Affective cartographies 17
2.6 More-than-representation 19
2.7 Summary 22
3. Fieldwork Traces 24 - 35
4. Conclusions 36-38
4.1 Charting possibilities 36
4.2 Tracing affect 36
4.3 Limits 37
4.4 A halfway state 37
Coda
References
4
1. Sketching the Study – an Introduction
1.1 Mapping sustainable futures
“Community maps intimate the potential for radical social change... yet these
maps are marked by symbolic and material boundaries that can impose, enforce
and restrict – even when employed for progressive ends” (Parker, 2006: 470).
‘Participatory mapping’, ‘social cartography’, ‘open-source visualisations’ and ‘green
cartography’ are just four interrelated practices drawn from a myriad array of volunteered
geographies which have emerged in the last decade. Their potential and limitations have
important ramifications for cartography and geography, yet these practices have gone
largely under explored in academia.
Following Foucault in Deleuze (1999), we may all be cartographers, but the maps we draw,
or the maps drawn for us sometimes obscure the practices, relations and performances
invested in the map itself; belying the slippage between the performance and the diagram.
Greenmap, a participatory mapping non-governmental organisation, makes claim that
community mapping can chart directions toward and encourage an environmentally
sustainable future. This ethnographic study of Greenmap projects in Pereira, Colombia,
working through affect, investigates the idea that participatory mapping induces such an
environmental sensibility, whilst attempting to trace the precarious linkages and tensions
between praxis (map making) and product (the map itself).
Recent critical cartographic discourse (Pickles, 2004; Crampton and Krygier, 2006; Del
Casino Jr and Hanna, 2006; Harris and Harrower, 2006) demands an epistemological
5
refocusing, a focus which affords more attention to the map-making process over the map
itself, although that is not to say that the map is not a vital and lively more-than-human
participant in the study. This re-adjustment allows us to attend to the practices,
negotiations, arguments, settlements and movements in the creation and destruction of
local cartographies. Freighted with the contested concept of global/local sustainability, the
dissertation will ask how the performance(s) of map-making might generate a sense, or
affect, of environmental concern.
1.2 Enlivening spaces
The theoretical point of departure for this dissertation is informed by geography’s recent
engagement with post-structuralist and pragmatist philosophies, specifically by its dialogue
with the notion of affect and modes of ‘more-than-representational’ thinking, itself a
progression from non-representational theory (Thrift, 1996; 2005; 2007). Affect and more-
than-representation are discussed more fully in the following literature review, but it is
important here to foreground their inclusion into the study.
More-than-representational modes of thinking arise from dissatisfaction with meta-
narratives and their sometimes cumbersome approach in attempting to reason through
representational ontology or by reverting to convenient social theories (Latour, 2005). As
Thrift (2007) contends, more-than-representational thinking is concerned with the
geography of what happens, not what is. Whilst this dissertation does not discard
representation entirely, it apprehends the argument that if so much of what happens in the
world never passes the threshold of contemplative cognition, why do we attempt to
represent, and so inhibit these things or performances in the world? Geography has long
6
been preoccupied with constructivist logics, but a determinist relationship between theory
and supposed ‘reality’ limits the possibility of multiple worlds and multiple politics. Instead
then of suggesting that all maps are power (Wood, 1992) or purveyors of sinister lies
(Monmonier, 1996), this dissertation is concerned with how Greenmaps come into being.
What the maps may or may not represent is almost immaterial, what matters here is how
the map is negotiated, drawn, modified or torn; the micro-politics of the map.
More-than-representational thinking itself takes its lead from a rich vein of thought
surrounding affect. As opposed to its intuitive definition, affect in this instance relates to
what Massumi in Deleuze and Guattari (1989: xvii) describes as a “pre-personal intensity”,
neither a personal feeling nor emotion, but a force between two affective bodies. At its
most elemental, affect is a type of embodied relay, an intensity which does not rely upon
cognition. Many day-to-day encounters are worked through affect, but its importance has
been realised only recently by geographers such as Anderson (2006), McCormack (2003) and
Thrift (2007), themselves drawing extensively on Massumi (2002), Deleuze and Guattari
(1989), who in turn take their lead from Spinoza’s (2000; 1677) affectus. This dissertation
argues that affect plays an important part in the map making process and whilst affect may
be hard to detect in an empirical manner, the effect of Greenmap in Pereira relies on an
affect which might encourage a politics of, or a mode of environmental sustainability. It is
the affect between map and mapper which helps bring new spaces, once obscured, into
being; spaces enlivened by the people and communities who need them most.
7
1.3 Think Global, Map Local! Greenmap, Geovida and Pereira
The ethnography, which took place in June/July 2008 in Pereira, Colombia, involved working
with Geovida, a small environmental non-governmental organisation established in Pereira
by two environmental science graduates from the local university. Geovida consults and
manages numerous environmental and ecological projects in the surrounding province of
Risaralda, one of which is the establishment of Greenmaps in Pereira. The Greenmap
System (GMS) is a participatory mapping tool for communities to design and create maps of
their own spaces, environments and cultures. Designed and owned by Greenmap, a New
York based non-governmental organisation, GMS has helped over 350 communities to
create Greenmaps (Greenmap, 2008). GMS is predicated on a matrix of universal icons, but
the basic design of the map can be articulated by the communities themselves. In Pereira
alone, there are four completed Greenmap schemes, three of which are school-based
projects. Pereira itself is the capital of the Risaralda province at the heart of the Eje
Cafetero, or coffee growing axis of Colombia. With a population of 443,554 (2005 Census;
Informacion Municipal, 2008) Pereira is an important regional centre, but following an
earthquake in 1999, the city has had to contend with hastily induced urban regeneration
projects whilst the outlying rural zone continues to be subject to severe land degradation,
the result of pressure for intensified coffee growing.
1.4 Charting method and style
The Greenmap schemes in Pereira are about enlivening spaces, it followed then that the
ethnography and dissertation itself should be about animating Greenmap’s constituent
actors, practices and performances. Admittedly, the research methodologies transformed
8
on numerous occasions, but this was an important part of the process, part of ‘learning to
be affected’ (Latour, 2004). Consequently, the dissertation relied heavily on visual methods
and devices, including photographs, videos and producing a television programme.
Fortunately, the subject matter lends itself readily to the aesthetic. The map making process
is far from lineal, so this dissertation will attempt to narrate, literally, the practices,
performances and politics of the Greenmap. Moreover the narration is an experiment in
tampering with the morphology and cartography of the text itself, an attempt to enliven the
account of lively processes. Through this narration should arrive a sense of the circulating
manner in which cartographies are brought into being, transformed and contested. It is
through this circulating process through which affect is inflected, affects of environmental
sensibility which can be imagined through the mapping process. The dissertation then goes
on to consider, drawing on discussions with various actors, the challenges and opportunities
Greenmap in Pereira faces and what role social cartography has to play in the wider
governance of the environment.
In conclusion, the dissertation will suggest that whilst there are material limitations to the
Greenmap system, both in Pereira and globally, there remains significant potential for
collaborative mapping schemes to affect change in people’s environmental sensibilities,
achieved through the participatory enlivening and animating of spaces by the people who
depend on them most.
9
2. Mapping the Literature
2.1 Sketching the boundaries - an overview
“Participatory mapping has spread like a pandemic” (Chambers, 2006:1).
Whilst participatory mapping used as a form of community or environmental advocacy is
not new (Aberley, 1993), extant literature concerning its practice(s), impacts and evaluation
is limited (Parker, 2006). What literature does exist on participatory mapping heralds the
arrival of a democratising potential, a hubristic device for community empowerment. For
Perkins and Thomson (2005), the democratising and social potential of ‘new’ cartography is
already being realised, albeit not fully considered or understood, particularly by
geographers.
This overview outlines recent work about participatory mapping, situating this in the wider
discourse of critical cartography; itself questioning the conventional ontological security of
maps as static representations of the world; stable referents of truth, accuracy and
precision. At the broadest level the dissertation is informed theoretically by more-than-
representational thinking, in turn taking its lead from non-representational theory (Thrift,
1996; 2007). What does this mean? “Obviously maps are representations” (Massey,
2005:106) and representations are acknowledged as important. However, in attending to
practice(s), performativity and movements, this review argues that we need to go beyond a
dependence on what is fixated graphically and which seemingly lends itself to the totems of
truth and validity; the “norming fixity inherent in cartographic representation” (Brown and
Knopp, 2008:40). The dissertation’s interest is therefore in the production of multiple
10
(re)presentations and so too the potential of multiple worlds; the outcomes of the “dynamic
susceptibilities” (Thrift, 2007: vii) inherent to the cartographic process.
In agitating the long-held primacy of representational ontologies, the following review
explores why participatory mapping is becoming increasingly popular and why it appears
important for local people to map their own environments and trace their own biographies.
Moreover, through an analysis of participatory mapping case studies, the review
interrogates the meaning of participation. After accounting for the emergence of
participatory mapping and reviewing attendant case studies, the discussion will engage with
the question of working through affect, and how participatory mapping may energise
people and communities into thinking and living in an environmentally sustainable manner.
The review concludes with a broader discussion of more-than-representational modes of
thinking and what implications these modes have for both Greenmap and the research
methodology itself.
2.2 Emergent cartographies
Industry, government and academics have been “rapt in their praise” for virtual map
browsers and platforms such as Google Earth (Harvey, 2007:761). Much seems the same for
the emergence of participatory mapping groups, some of which utilise the aforementioned
digital software to map and so bring into being their own territories, spaces and
geographical imaginations (Gregory, 1994). Greenmap is one of many actors, both individual
and organised to varying degrees, which have emerged in the last decade to promote and
facilitate grass-roots mapping. Numerous articles cite the emergence of these groups (for
example, Parker, 2006 and Rabello et al., 2006) but it is not immediately obvious as to why
11
these groups have surfaced and why people get involved in such volunteered geographies.
Some suggestions as to why are posited as follows.
Blaut et al (2003), drawing on child psychology studies, hypothesises that nearly all humans
acquire the ability to read and use maps in early childhood, it follows therefore that map-
making is part of the fundamental human experience, inherent to all our lives. Proving the
existence of such cognitive ability is beyond the remit and capability of this dissertation, but
it is nonetheless interesting to conceive of a cartographic spatial awareness equivalent to
other elemental facets of development such as language acquisition.
Beyond this fundamental mapping impulse, why else is participatory mapping becoming
increasingly pervasive and why do people volunteer to take part? Many authors point to the
political imperative for countering hegemonic and colonial cartographic practices which
have preceded violent land and territorial acquisitions (Nietschmann, 1995; Peluso, 1995).
Despite the well-rehearsed limitations to his critique, Harley (1989) identified cartography
as a ‘science for princes’, maps being the outward manifestation and enforcement of
privilege and power. Parker (2006) regards participatory mapping as a logical remedy to
hegemony whilst for Benkler (2007), open-source cartography and other such techniques
represent challenges to the state’s traditional ability to author and regulate maps, thus
potentially undermining a government’s monopolistic copyright. As such Kingston et al
(2000) concludes that the onset of participatory systems makes redundant Pickles’ (2004)
claim of the existence of cartographic elitism.
However, counter mapping to counter traditional hierarchies is not the sole reason people
engage in mapping. According to Craig and Elwood (1998:1), “maps and geographic
12
information can play an effective role in the success of a community group”. The authors
continue to suggest that maps can be a source of visual inspiration and also a functional
administrative tool around which strategies and people can coalesce. For Mogel (2008),
participatory mapping represents a radical cartography, “part of a cultural movement that
cuts across boundaries of art, geography and activism” (1). Crucially, the map itself is a
device, an inscription which can be altered, manipulated; laminated, folded, scribbled on,
coloured in infinite ways.
The propagation of Web 2.0, a more interactive iteration of the internet, has spawned
millions of open-source, self-editing, free software packages, some of which rival traditional
and expensive Geographical Information Systems (GIS). Turner (2006) considers this ‘neo-
geography’ a step towards the creation of more emancipatory spaces. Perkins and Dodge
(2008:20) claim excitedly that “democratised mapping offers new possibilities for
articulating different social, economic, political or aesthetic claims”, although access to the
necessary technologies is taken for granted in much of the literature. The excitement
continues. Locally produced maps, with a participatory element don’t simply document the
topology of an area, but for Crouch and Matless (1996), they also depict the natural and
cultural environment and “begin to find a valued beauty in humdrum everyday diversity”
(237).
Elsewhere, participatory mapping has been congratulated for integrating indigenous
knowledge(s) (Minang and McCall, 2006) and for empowering community groups (Wood,
2005). The theme of empowerment is particularly acute whereby an environmental
controversy is implicated. Indeed many environmental problems requiring technical
guidance, according to Sanoff (1990; 1991), can best be solved through the active
13
participation of those affected by the design decision. Carton and Thissen (2008) and Vigar
and Healey (2002) go further in asserting that participatory mapping can help frame policy
debates and set policy agendas in a way that overcomes the inability of written methods to
express multi-vocality or multiple articulations about space. Evidently, many positive claims
have been made about participatory mapping. To elucidate some of these claims and to
discuss the notion of participation, this review now summarises a range of participatory
mapping case studies, some of which include the use of the Greenmap System (GMS).
2.3 Mapping in action
Greenmap has commanded steady attention in the media, but there is little that pertains to
academic literature (see Parker, 2006). The few Greenmap case studies that have been
analysed (Tulloch, 2004; Parker, 2006; Rabello et al, 2006) conclude in a positive manner
similar to the way in which previously listed articles suggest that participatory mapping
alleviates the democratic deficit. In Rio de Janeiro, the GMS has been useful in disseminating
local ecological information by deploying the ‘universally’ understood language of GMS
icons (Rabello et al, 2006). Moreover, Tulloch (2004) posits that the Greenmap’s appeal lies
in its “unique reflection of place…and its power as a tool that can engage and influence the
public” (2). Parker’s (2006) ethnography of Portland’s (USA) Greenmap demonstrated the
lofty ambitions of the project, “to strengthen Portland’s awareness of and connection to its
urban ecology and social resources through locally created maps, thereby enabling residents
to make more sustainable and socially responsible lifestyle choices” (472). Parker’s
evaluation is optimistic, “too optimistic” (Perkins, 2008: pers. comm) perhaps; that
communities may reclaim territory for themselves, “figuratively and literally” (476) and that
Greenmap fosters an enhanced ecological consciousness amongst the general public.
14
In case studies not employing GMS, Glockner et al (2004) document how community
mapping helped identify and resolve problems concerning water and sanitation in Dar es
Salaam. The authors claim that arguments (pertaining to the intrusive location of proposed
sanitation channels) that locals found hard to vocalise orally were more successfully
deployed visually through the medium of sketch maps. Al-Kodmany (1999) relates this
success to the ‘common language’ of maps, an aesthetic which can animate arguments and
which are credible with governance agencies. The uptake and deployment of this common
language, according to Goodchild et al (2007) will have a profound influence on the future
development of GIS, mapping and more broadly on the discipline of geography and its
relationship to the public. Perkins and Dodge (2008) endorse this greater impact on the
subject with their clarion call, “as geographers we need to use the power of maps once
more. We should get out there and make our own maps” (1275).
Clearly the good-news stories surrounding Greenmap and participatory mapping more
generally purport a dynamic innovation which could have significant impacts on
cartographic practice. Parker (2006) admits, however, that there is a “literature imbalance”
(470), not least because very few articles exist on the subject, but also because of a lack of
critical reflexivity in the case studies. Explicitly there is the concept of participation which
has hitherto gone without interrogation.
2.4 Limits to participation
Herlihy and Knapp (2003) state that, “people’s sketching and participation in mapping does
not necessarily mean that an undertaking is participatory” (304). As with all maps,
conventional or participatory, one of the most important questions is also the most obvious;
15
who makes the map? (Lydon, 2003). Design is the most fundamental and creative aspect of
the cartographic process (De Lucia, 1974), yet it is not always apparent who or what is doing
the designing. Participatory mapping does not guarantee, therefore, that the cartographic
black-box (Latour, 1987) will be unpacked. Sui (2008) remarks that the cult of the amateur is
the defining characteristic in this new societal trend of participation. Intuitively, the amateur
should be the defining characteristic, but this is not universally evident. Moreover, it should
never be assumed. Participatory mapping discourse is freighted with issues over access to
technologies, assertions of various cartographic norms, certain levels of mobility and
particular knowledge-claims about, inter-alia, representation. For example, Kingston et al
(2000) assume that increasing access to more sophisticated technology across the globe is a
teleological inevitability. This not only supposes a linear trajectory of development, but it
also hastily presupposes the global standardisation of various technologies and mapping
literacies.
The Dar es Salaam example, superficially, is a case study of good practice in participatory
mapping methods, but rather than being instigated ‘from below’, it was a third-party
consultancy team which schooled participants in how to map. Although the maps were
sketched, the participants were disciplined in the techniques of Cartesian cartography and
all maps were expected to display gridlines and a compass aligned to magnetic north.
Arguably, the imposition of a certain technique is not always inappropriate, however it
seldom results in agreement amongst all parties, as illustrated by Beyersdorff’s (2007)
account of the discontentment which existed between colonial Spanish cartography and an
indigenous ‘pan-Andean’ mapping media which emerged out of Peru but which had been
standardised across the Andean region at the height of the conquistador intrusion. The
16
tension between the Spanish system of Euclidean lines and grids (amojonamiento) and the
Andean/Quechan practice of cyclical reconnaissance walks (muyurir) resulted in numerous
land titling conflicts, some of which persist today. Certainly Minang and McCall’s (2006)
study of participatory GIS suggest that neo-colonial patronising of indigenous spatial
knowledge is ongoing – where sketch maps are used, it is often only a tokenistic effort
which foregrounds the wider application of powerful GIS programmes. Chambers (2006) too
admits shame in his own former anthropological field studies where he would impose his
own ‘proper maps’ upon local ‘uneducated’ people.
Even if the cartographic process itself is ostensibly democratised, this does not necessarily
mean that the mapped outcome, or final visualisation is that of or belonging to the
mapmakers themselves (Ryd and Van Elzakker, 2001). Regarding knowledge-claims (Castree,
2005) that emerge from participatory maps, Cidell (2008) provides a pertinent reminder
from Science and Technology Studies (STS) that in conflicts between local people and state
organisations, it is state-centred scientific knowledge which is generally considered to
override local knowledges and cartographies.
What then, constitutes genuine and meaningful participation? There is no imminent answer
to this question, but it would be prudent to assume that degrees and forms of participation
are spatially contingent and negotiated locally. Whilst somewhat obvious, Jankowski’s
(2008) statement is worth repeating; that exerting too much influence by the experts over
the participatory process inhibits the empowerment of participants and their trust in the
process. Herlihy and Knapp (2003) offer a further provocation, that participation reaches its
highest levels when, “the ‘researched’ is no longer the quiescent object of study” (303). The
implications for the study of Greenmap in Pereira are twofold. The first implication has to do
17
with the dissertation research itself - to what extent are the mappers allowed to ‘speak
back’ to the research? This is discussed in the following chapter. The second implication has
to do with the actual exercise of Greenmap – to what extent are the ‘researched’, namely
the maps and environments, allowed to be lively participants themselves in the mapping
process? Such implications bring forward questions of more-than-human participants and
also questions of affects between things and objects; affects which may play an important
role in the cultivating of an environmental sensibility through the crafting of a map.
2.5 Affective cartographies
“Affects are as diaphanous as they are hard hitting. Perhaps this is why, as concepts go,
affect is not proving the easiest to grasp” (Lorimer, 2008: 551).
The purpose of this section is to expand upon the initial consideration given to affect in the
introduction and to explicate the concept’s role in this dissertation. Lorimer hints at the
complexity of affect, but by situating the notion within the ways it has been deployed in the
social sciences, specifically geography, it may be possible to tighten our conceptual grasp.
McCormack (2003; 2007) has been one of the most forceful exponents of affect in
geography, particularly in its conceptual divorce from emotion, “the sociolinguistic fixing of
the quality of an experience” (McCormack, 2003:490). Drawing on Massumi (2002) and
Deleuze and Guattari (1989), McCormack (2003) argues that working through affect allows
encounters with spaces of practice, “to have a life and force before the deliberative and
reflective consistencies of representational thinking” (490). This means opening up to what
Massumi (2002) terms the ‘virtual’; not to digital simulations, but to the realm of potential;
acknowledging that “skin is faster than the word” (25). Affects themselves are, according to
18
Lorimer’s (2008) summary, “properties, competencies, modalities, energies... intensities of
differing textures, temporality, velocity and spatiality, that act on bodies, are produced
through bodies and transmitted by bodies” (552), or to borrow from Spinoza (2000
(1667):208), “the modifications of the body by which the power of action of the body is
increased or diminished, aided or restrained”. Embodied, visceral experience and
performance then are important facets of working through affect. Moreover, these bodies
do not necessarily pertain to being human. Indeed, if being affected and affecting are two
sides of the same coin (Anderson, 2006), then it is important to recognise and attend to the
vitality of more-than-human movements and sensations.
What implications does affect have for participatory mapping? Serres (1991) suggests that
there is a sense in space before the sense that signifies. Transposed to the performance of
mapping, there is an affect(s), or a bodily intensity, before the cognitive thought and
movement which becomes a stain, a symbol, an icon or any other feature on the map.
Further still, the map is not a passive repository of these symbols – the map speaks back to
the mapper. Sometimes the mapper retorts; s/he might change a feature; a dot here, a line
there. Perhaps s/he might tear it up and start again. So affect has consequences for the
map-making process itself, but attending to affect also has longer term implications for the
cartographic performance, namely in trying to comprehend how an affect of environmental
sensibility might be cultivated through the crafting of a map. Thinking cartography through
Spinoza, “a cartographer without saying it, a cartographer without knowing it” (Cred,
2007:126) and affect therefore becomes a question of relations, “relations between speeds
and shifts in speed; mutations; unknown capacities and germinal lines” (ibid:128).
19
Although not writing of maps per se, McCormack (2007), working through Deleuzian lines
and diagrams, illustrates the possibility of an ‘affective cartography’, one which, “bears
witness to forces with capacity to produce an effect on... duration – a pleasure or pain, a joy
or sadness...passages, becomings, rises and falls” (372). It is these affective becomings, rises
and falls, the emergent lines between things with multiple entryways which Deleuze has
started to draw which may offer participatory mapping the greatest potential to exploit the
cartographic process in cultivating environmental sensibilities.
The methodological implications of affect are discussed in the following chapter, but to
continue this review, the discussion turns to the broader consideration of more-than-
representational thinking, of which affect has been a major influence.
2.6 More-than-representation
Pre-eminent in the discourses of many participatory mapping groups is the drive for
‘accuracy’, ‘truth’ and ‘precision’. Moreover, the majority of these groups tacitly reaffirm
the primacy of the Cartesian and Euclidean norms of geometric cartography in terms of style
and convention. Blaut et al’s (2003:166) definition is telling; “[the] map is any material
artefact or assemblage of artefacts that represents a geographical landscape in the
traditional map-like way, reduced in scale and depicted as though viewed from overhead”.
What of the competing visions and multiple worlds which surely emerge from a
participatory group approach? How can these be resolved let alone represented on a single
sheet of paper? In attending to representational ontologies, it would be impossible to
accommodate multiple and messy visions of multiple spaces. Attempts to deconstruct a
single narrative behind a map are also fraught with danger. Drawing on Derridean
20
deconstructionism to uncover the supposed power underlying a map, Harley (1989)
inadvertently adds another layer of obscurity to the image – what immutable truth hides
behind a map? In other words, deconstruction cannot escape itself. If Harley had followed
Foucauldian and Derridean discourses to their logical conclusions, he may have realised that
“if there is no subtext, no internal/external distinction, if the subject is part of the discourse
rather than a force behind it, then there can be no mask, no veil behind which the map
functions” (Belyea, 1992:3).
As posited in the introduction, an epistemological rethink of mapping is needed.
Representation is important, but not accounting for ‘things’, movements and performances
which are beyond orthodox representation (e.g. affect) increases the risk of spatially fixing
our understandings of certain processes and relationships (Crampton and Krygier, 2006) in
the same way that they may appear rendered fixed graphically on paper, or pixellated on
the screen. Painter (2008: 353) also recognises that the “networks, flows and the non-
congruity of social, economic and political life disrupt conventional modes of cartographic
representation”. Kitchin and Dodge (2007) argue therefore that instead of conceiving maps
as ontologically secure in terms of representation, we should migrate to the idea of maps as
‘ontogenetic’ (emergent), that is to say to understand maps as objects which have no pre-
determined cause, representation or imbued meaning, but which come into being through
various practices and performances with their designers and users. Specifically, maps are
brought into being through affective engagements. Maps are therefore understood as
processual, of-the-moment, “always mappings, spatial practices enacted to solve relational
problems” (ibid: 1). Indeed, “maps are seldom put to use for solely navigational purposes,
rather they are made sense of by the way of the peculiarities of the activities and persons
21
that constitute journeys” (Laurier and Brown, 2008). Serres, quoted in Crang and Thrift
(2000), concludes, “we construct maps – maps not as mirrors of a pre-given world, but as
modes of access, ways of orienting ourselves to the concrete world we inhabit”. Equipped
with this more-than-representational mode of thinking, the epistemological concern of how
we can know the world through the map becomes how can we know the world through the
processes which bring maps into being? Specifically, how do the processes, practices and
performances of Greenmap in Pereira bring into being certain affects of environmental
sensibility or consciousness? One potential answer is the way that the map operates as the
repetitive generation of space, so that maps (like texts and images) can take on the shape of
a green, environmental tautology (Mels, 2002) which in turn could be put to practical use in
terms of green activism.
Much of the work on affect and more-than-representational thinking draws heavily on Gilles
Deleuze and Felix Guattari. To understand the cartography conceptualised by Deleuze and
Guattari goes some way to understanding how Greenmap might be used profitably to
provoke affects of environmental sensibility in its designers and users. Taking Deleuze and
Guattari forward, Coonfield (2007) suggests that cartography is a practice of imaging
relations between forces (perhaps affect), organising the visible and expressible, which in
turn organises and regulates the social field to which the map is connected. Deleuzian
cartography then, is not about tracing accurately in order “to describe a de facto state”
(Deleuze and Guattari, 1989:12). Instead, to map is to experiment, to create a way of seeing
and speaking that is “open and connectable in all of its dimensions it is detachable,
reversible, susceptible to constant modification” (ibid:12).
22
2.7 Summary
In concluding this literature review, there are four main points to consider. Firstly,
participatory mapping schemes are on the increase. Propagated by free internet platforms,
such schemes are exceedingly popular, but the number of evaluated case studies is
extremely limited. Secondly, whilst the concept of participation needs further interrogation,
meaningful participation can arguably be achieved if both the researcher and researched
are allowed to ‘speak back’ to each other, or indeed affect one another. Thirdly, working
through the notion of affect has theoretical and methodological implications for Greenmap
and this dissertation respectively. Instead of trying to empirically assess the efficacy of
Greenmap in Pereira, the dissertation argues it is more appropriate to attend to the
affective engagements generated in the map-making process. Fourthly, deploying more-
than-representational thinking affords an epistemological refocusing. Again, this has
theoretical and methodological implications, but in avoiding the representational impulse, it
becomes possible to accommodate for multiple cartographies, multiple narratives and
perhaps even, multiple worlds. Taken in conjunction with affect, working through more-
than-representational modes of thinking will help in understanding how new cartographies
come into being and as such, how space is animated, enlivened and transformed.
Finally, quoting Deleuze at length, himself drawing from Foucault, illustrates the rhizomatic,
open-ended possibilities of participatory mapping;
“…from one diagram to the next, new maps are drawn. Thus there is no diagram that does
not also include, besides the points which it connects up, certain relatively free or unbound
23
points, points of creativity, change and resistance and it is perhaps with those that we ought
to begin in order to understand the whole picture” (Deleuze, 1999:37).
In the next section, “Fieldwork Traces”, we take a photographic journey through some of
the encounters generated by Greenmap in Pereira. Readers are left to reflect on the images,
some of which are photos, some of which are video stills. What is important here is not
what is ‘discovered’, but how bodies and environments encounter each other.
24
3.0 Fieldwork Traces
25
The index // par excellence
26
Walking // the line
27
Points of encounter // bamboo
28
Icons // Iconos
29
Talking // maps
30
Maps // meaning // Deogracias
31
Becoming mappers // Omar y sus estudiantes (e Yelitza!)
32
Mapa Verde // Altagracia
33
Maps on film // Altagracia
34
Sofa // Camera // Action
35
Hermosa // Altagracia
36
4. Conclusions
“I don’t like points; I think it’s stupid summing things up” (Deleuze, 1995:161).
4.1 Charting possibilities
Rather than positing definitive points, I conclude with three reflections, followed by a brief
coda to the research itself. This is not a summing up, but instead a charting of possibilities.
4.2 Tracing affect
The first reflection draws on the narration of the mapping process; the animation of
animating space. Deleuze (1995) remarks that a map is a set of various interacting lines and
so, “what is interesting, even in a person, are the lines that make them up, or they make up,
or fake, or create” (33). I have attempted to trace some of these lines. Through this rough
tracing, it became clear that the mapping process was not about discovery, but instead
about re-imagining space. In allowing ourselves to be affected by human and more-than-
human actants, allowing things, objects and subjects to speak, or argue back, we collectively
brought new spaces into being, or at least re-imagined space through embodied
encounters. The mapping was at all times experimental and partial; never claiming to be the
total representation of space or an apostolic truth of witnessing things ‘out there’. In a
sense, it was a process of hybrid mapping (Whatmore, 2002); rebutting geometric habits
and instead “emphasising the multiplicity of space-times generated in/by the movements
and rhythms of heterogeneous association” (6). It was through energetic exchanges and
affective encounters that new Points of Encounter would come into being. Animating
spaces, ontogenetically, enlivened environments at the same time as affecting the mappers’
environmental sensibilities. Behind the two-dimensional image of the map is a messy
37
rhizome of associations, performances, practices and affects. More accurately, the map is
not divorced from this rhizome but is in fact fully implicated in its many intersecting lines.
4.3 Limits
The second reflection considers limitations. Undoubtedly, Greenmap in Pereira faces
material challenges; lack of resources, lack of funding, lack of sustained human
commitment. Such problems are geographically contingent, but not beyond overcoming.
Critics argue that Greenmap’s weaknesses emanate from a lack of precision and accuracy.
However, from the discussions held with mappers in Pereira, it is clear that such concepts
are not the preoccupation of Greenmap schemes; their remit is not to represent graphically
truth or falsehood, but to point to multiple spaces. In the same way that the ethical aim of
this research was not to speak for others and so fix singular meanings, so too does
Greenmap try to overcome the ‘aporia’ at the heart of representation. Moreover, is not an
adherence to Euclidean and Cartesian ‘cartographic conventions’ just as likely to result in
numerous ‘inaccuracies’ – is not the Mercator global projection for some as troubling as a
Greenmap?
4.4 A halfway state
The third reflection apprehends the analogue of circulating reference, adding Latour’s
networks to Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizomes. I have tried to start unpacking the black-box
of participatory mapping; of how something travels from object to sign along a risky
intermediary pathway. To be sure, there is further unpacking to be done, but in this brief
study it seems apparent that whilst the pathway between sign and signified is indeed risky,
with many obstacles and arguments along the way, it is this pathway where the affective
38
encounters take place, where the potential of Greenmap is at its zenith. The way the
Greenmap icon circulates between actors and transforms along the way has the effect of a
tautology; a tautology which repeats spaces and environments, which forces the mapper to
consider at every stage what they are encountering, what they are co-fabricating and what
they are bringing into being. The role of the Greenmap icon is interesting, not because of
what they represent, but because of the tension imbued in the image, the ambiguity of its
meaning and the manner in which they are negotiated before their inclusion on to a map.
The icons rupture the convenience of the representational moment as their relevance
cannot be fixed in space; moreover they are susceptible to being modified, detached and
torn. The Greenmaps also confound representational logic in the sense that they chart, in
the words of Greenmap itself, “directions to a sustainable future”. This more-than-
representational moment is captured by Jackson Pollock’s remark about his own paintings
which he claimed, “constitute a halfway state, an attempt to point out the direction of the
future, without arriving their completely” (Pollock quoted in Harrison, 2004:98). Likewise,
Greenmaps constitute a halfway state between representation and pointing towards
potential; the virtual. It becomes even more important then that the Greenmap is an
ongoing iterative process, rather than a singular project which allows the map and the effect
of the mapping process to fade away.
In total, the affective encounters, circulating tautologies and energetic exchanges involved
in the Greenmap projects in Pereira elicit a significant potential for participatory mapping to
be a popular way of animating space and enlivening environmental possibilities.
39
Coda
Environmental change, to be sure, is rapid and unrelenting. That said, organisations such as
Greenmap and Geovida are changing even more rapidly the way we see and move through
the world, and indeed, how we affect and are affected by our environments. With sustained
participation, Greenmap has the potential to offer, through affect and lively encounters
with the virtual, directions to an environmentally sustainable future(s); an affective, hybrid
cartography with multiple topologies and multiple designs for life.
-----
El cambio ambiental, ser seguro, es rápido e implacable. Eso dicha, las organizaciones como
Greenmap y Geovida están cambiando más rápidamente la manera que vemos y que nos
movemos a través del mundo, y de hecho, cómo afectamos y somos afectados por nuestros
ambientes. Con la participación sostenida, Greenmap y Geovida tienen el potencial de
ofrecer, lo afecta a través y el encuentro animado con el virtual, direcciones a un futuro
ambientalmente sostenible; una cartografía con topologías múltiples y un múltiplo
afectivos, híbridos diseña para la vida.
40
6. References (including references not cited in this extract)
Aberley, D. (1993) Boundaries of home: Mapping for local empowerment. Gabriola Island,
B.C.: New Society Publishers.
Al-Kodmany, K. (1999) Using visualisation techniques for enhancing public participation in
planning and design: process, implementation and evaluation. Landscape and Urban
Planning. 45: (1) 37-45.
Anderson, B. (2006) Becoming and being hopeful: towards a theory of affect. Environment
and Planning D. 24: (5) 733-752.
Belyea, B. (1992) Images of Power: Derrida/Foucault/Harley. Cartographica. 29: (2) 1-9.
Benkler, Y. (2007) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and
Freedom. New York: Yale University Press.
Beyersdorff, M. (2007) Covering the Earth: Mapping the Walkabout in Andean Pueblos de
Indios. Latin American Research Review. 42: (3) 129-160.
Bingham, N. (2003) Writing Reflexively. In Pryke, M., Rose, G., Whatmore, S. (eds). Using
Social Theory: Thinking through Research. London: Sage; 145-163.
Blaut, J.M., Stea, D., Spencer, C., Blades, M. (2003) Mapping as a cognitive universal. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers. 93: (1) 165-185.
Brown, M., Knopp, L. (2008) Queering the map: the productive tensions of colliding
epistemologies. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 98: (1) 40-58.
Carton, L.J., Thissen, W.A.H. (2008) Emerging conflict in collaborative mapping: Towards a
deeper understanding? Journal of Environmental Management. Article in Press; 1-
11.
Castree, N. (2005) Nature. London: Routledge.
Chambers, R. (2006) Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: Whose
map? Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? The
Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries. 2: (2) 1–11.
[Accessed: http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc/article/viewFile/238/159;
28 July 2008].
Cidell, J. (2008) Challenging the contours: critical cartography, local knowledge and the
public. Environment and Planning A. 40: (5) 1202-1218.
Clifford, N.J., Valentine, G. (eds). (2003) Key Methods in Geography. London: Sage.
41
Coonfield, G. (2007) Mapping Addicted Subjection: toward a cartography of the addiction
epidemic. Cultural Studies. 22: (1) 80-113.
Crampton, J.W., Krygier, J. (2006) An Introduction to Critical Cartography. ACME: An
International E-Journal for Critical Geographies. 4: (1) 11-33. [Accessed:
http://www.acme-journal.org/vol4/JWCJK.pdf; 18 May 2008].
Crang, M., Thrift, N. (eds). (2000) Thinking Space. London: Routledge.
Craig, W.J., Elwood, S.A. (1998) How and why community groups use maps and geographic
information. Neighbourhood Planning for Community Revitalisation. Report 1109
[Accessed: http://www.cura.umn.edu/publications/NPCR-reports/npcr1109.pdf; 08
June 2008].
Cred, C. (2007) Counter.Cartographies: Notes towards a future atlas. Parralax. 13: (1) 119-
131.
Crouch, D., Matless, D. (1996) Refiguring geography: Parish maps of Common Ground.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 21: (1) 236-255.
Del Casino Jr, V.J., Hanna, S.P. (2006) Beyond the ‘Binaries’: a Methodological Intervention
for Interrogating Maps as Representational Practices. ACME: An International E-
Journal for Critical Geographies. 4: (1) 34-56. [Accessed: http://www.acme-
journal.org/vol4/VDCSPH.pdf; 18 May 2008].
Deleuze, G. (1994) Difference and Repetition. New York: Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, G. (1995) Negotiations, 1972-1990. New York: Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, G. (1999) Foucault. Continuum.
Deleuze, G., Foucault, M. (1977) Intellectuals and Power. In Bouchard, D. (ed). Language,
Counter-Memory, Practice. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Deleuze, G., Guattari, F. (1989) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.
Continuum.
De Lucia, A.A. (1974) Design: The Fundamental Cartographic Process. Proceedings of the
Association of American Geographers. 6: (1) 83-86.
Ferrándiz, F. (1998) A trace of fingerprints: displacements and textures in the use of
ethnographic video in Venezuelan spiritism. Visual Anthropology Review. 13: (2) 19–
38.
Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.
Garcia Marquez, G. (1985) Love in the Time of Cholera. London: Penguin.
42
Glockner, H., Mkanga, M., Ndezi, T. (2004) Local empowerment through community
mapping for water and sanitation in Dar es Salaam. Environment and Urbanisation.
16: (1) 185-198.
Goodchild, M., Yuan, M., Cova, T. (2007) Towards a general theory of geographic
representation in GIS. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 21:
(3) 239-260.
Greenmap. (2008) The Greenmap System. Greenmap. [Accessed: www.greenmap.org; 22
March 2008].
Gregory, D. (1994) Geographical Imaginations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Haraway, D. (1988) Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the
Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies. 14: (3) 575-599.
Harley, J.B. (1989) Deconstructing the map. Cartographica. 26: (1) 1-20.
Harmon, K. (2004) You Are Here: Personal Geographies and Other Maps of the Imagination.
New Jersey: Princeton Architectural Press.
Harris, L., Harrower, M. (2006) Introduction - Critical Interventions and Lingering Concerns:
Critical Cartography/GISci, Social Theory, and Alternative Possible Futures
Geographies. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies. 4: (1) 1-10.
[Accessed: http://www.acme-journal.org/vol4/LHMH.pdf; 18 May 2008].
Harrison, C. (2004) Varieties of Modernism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Harvey, F. (2007) Just another private public partnership? Possible constraints on scientific
information in virtual map browsers. Environment and Planning B. 34: (5) 761-764.
Hay, I. (2003) Ethical Practice in Geographical Research. In Clifford, N.J., Valentine, G. (eds).
Key Methods in Geography. London: Sage; 37-55.
Herlihy, P.H., Knapp, G. (2003) Maps of, by, and for the peoples of Latin America. Human
Organisation. 62: (4) 303-314.
Informacion Municipal para la Toma Decisiones. (2008) Fichas Municipales de la Ecoregion
Eje Cafetero. Federacion Colombiana de Municipios.
Jankowski, P. (2008) Towards participatory geographic information systems for community-
based environmental decision making. Journal of Environmental Management.
Article in Press; 1-6.
Kitchin, R., Dodge, M. (2007) Rethinking maps. Progress in Human Geography. 31: (3) 1-14.
43
Kingston, R., Carver, S., Evans, A., Turton, I. (2000) Web-based public participation
geographical information systems: an aid to local environmental decision-making.
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 24: (1) 109-125
Latham, A. (2003) Research, performance, and doing human geography: some reflections on
the diary-photo diary-interview method. Environment and Planning A. 35: (11) 1993-
2017.
Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1993) Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2004) How to talk about the body? The normative dimension of science studies.
Body and Society. 10: (2/3) 205-229.
Latour, B. (2005) Re-assembling the Social: an Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford
University Press.
Laurier, E. (2003) Participant Observation. In Clifford, N.J., Valentine, G. (eds). Key Methods
in Geography. London: Sage; 133-149.
Laurier, E., Brown, B. (2008) Rotating maps and readers: praxiological aspects of alignment
and orientation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 33: (2) 201-216.
Laurier, E., Philo, C. (2006) Possible geographies: a passing encounter in a cafe. Area. 38: (4)
353-363.
Law, J. (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.
Livingstone, D.N. (2005) Science, text and space: thoughts on the geography of reading.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 30: (4) 391-401.
Lorimer, J. (2007) Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D. 24: (5) 911-932.
Lorimer, H. (2008) Cultural geography: non-representational conditions and concerns.
Progress in Human Geography. 32: (4) 551-559.
Lydon, M. (2003) Community mapping: The recovery (and discovery) of our common
ground. Geomatica. 57: (2) 131–43.
Massey, D. (2005) For Space. London: Sage.
Massumi, B. (2002) Parables for the Virtual. Movement, Affect, Sensation. Duke University
Press. Durham and London.
McCormack, D.P. (2002) A paper with an interest in rhythm. Geoforum. 33: (4) 469-485.
44
McCormack, D.P. (2003) An event of geographical ethics in spaces of affect. Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers. 28: (4) 488-507.
McCormack, D.P. (2007) Molecular affects in human geographies. Environment and Planning
A. 39: (2) 359-377.
McDowell, L. (2001) ‘It’s that Linda again’: Ethical, practical and political issues involved in
longitudinal research with young men. Ethics, Place and Environment. 4: (2) 87-100.
Mels, T. (2002) Nature, home, and scenery: the official spatialities of Swedish national parks.
Environment and Planning D. 20: (2) 135-154.
Melville, H (1851) Moby-Dick, or the Whale. New York: Harper.
Minang, P.A., McCall, M.K. (2006) Participatory GIS and local knowledge enhancement for
community carbon forestry planning: an example from Cameroon. Participatory
Learning and Action. 54: (1) 85-91.
Mogel, L. (2008) Radical Cartography: Artists making activist maps. Subversive
Cartographies; 2008 Annual Meeting of Association of American Geographers,
Boston. [Accessed:
http://communicate.aag.org/eseries/aag_org/program/AbstractDetail.cfm?AbstractI
D=16334; 18 June 2008].
Monmonier, M.S. (1996) How to Lie with Maps. University of Chicago Press; 2nd
Edition.
Muller, M. (2007) What’s in a word? Problematising translation between languages. Area.
39: (2) 206-213.
Nietschmann, B. (1995) Defending the Miskito Reefs with maps and GPS. Cultural Survival
Quarterly. 18: (4) 34-37.
Painter, J. (2006) Cartophilias and cartoneuroses. Area. 38: (3) 345-347.
Painter, J. (2008) Cartographic anxiety and the search for regionality. Environment and
Planning A. 40: (2) 342-361.
Parker, B. (2006) Constructing Community Through Maps? Power and Praxis in Community
Mapping. The Professional Geographer. 58: (4) 470-484.
Peluso, N. (1995) Whose woods are these? Counter-mapping forest territories in
Kalimantan, Indonesia. Antipode. 27: (4) 383-406.
Perkins, C. (2008) Re: Paper Request. Personal Email Communication. Received: 21 April
2008.
45
Perkins, C., Dodge, M. (2008) The potential of user-generated cartography: a case study of
the OpenStreetMap project and Mapchester mapping party. North West Geography.
8: (1) 19-32.
Perkins, C., Thomson, A.Z. (2005) Mapping for health: cycling and walking maps of the city.
North West Geography. 5: 16-23.
Pickles, J. (2004) A History of Spaces. Cartographic Reason, Mapping and the Geo-Coded
World. Routledge. London.
Pink, S. (2007) Doing Visual Ethnography: images, media and representation in research.
London: Sage; 2nd
Edition.
Pryke, M., Rose, G., Whatmore, S. (eds). (2003) Using Social Theory: Thinking through
Research. London: Sage.
Rabello, L.H.L., Lutz Barbosa, J.C., Muniz, M.I.P. (2006) The Green Map of Rio Janeiro.
[Accessed:
http://www.greenmap.org/greenhouse/files/gms/News__Rio_BR_01.pdf; 07 June
2008].
Richardson, P.E. (2004) Agricultural ethics, neurotic natures and emotional encounters: An
application of actor-network theory. Ethics Place and Environment. 7: (3) 195-202.
Rose, G. (1993) Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ryd, J.O.F. and Van Elzakker, C. (2001) An agenda for democratising cartographic
visualisation. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift. 55: (1) 38-41.
Sanoff, H. (1990) Participatory Design: Theory and Techniques. Raleigh, NC: Bookmasters.
Sanoff, H. (1991) Visual Research Methods in Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Serres, M. (1991) Rome. The book of foundations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Spinoza, B. (2000; 1677) Ethics. The Collected Works of Spinoza. Oxford University Press.
Strathern, M. (ed). (2000) Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics,
and the Academy. London: Routledge.
Suchan, T.A., Brewer, C.A. (2000) Qualitative methods for research on mapmaking and map
use. Professional Geographer. 52: (1) 145-154.
Sultana, F. (2007) Reflexivity, Positionality and Participatory Ethics: Negotiating Fieldwork
Dilemmas in International Research. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical
Geographies. 6: (3) 374-385. [Accessed: http://www.acme-journal.org/vol6/FS.pdf;
06 June 2008].
46
Sui, D. (2008) The wikification of GIS and its consequences: Or Angelina Jolie’s new tattoo
and the future of GIS. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 32: 1-5.
Thrift, N. (1996) Spatial Formations. London: Sage.
Thrift, N. (2003) Practising Ethics. In Pryke, M., Rose, G., Whatmore, S. (eds). Using Social
Theory: Thinking through Research. London: Sage; 105-121.
Thrift, N. (2005) Knowing Capitalism. London: Sage.
Thrift, N. (2007) Non-Representational Theory. Space, politics, affect. Routledge. London.
Tulloch, D.L. (2004) The Greenmap System as a means for PPGIS Education and Exploration.
Third Annual Public Participation GIS Conference, Madison, WI. [Accessed:
http://crssa.rutgers.edu/ppgis/PPGIS2004.pdf; 14 April 2008].
Turner , A. (2006) Introduction to Neogeography. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Vigar, G., Healey, P. (2002) Developing environmentally respectful policy programs: five key
principles. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 45: (4) 517–532.
Whatmore, S. (2002) Hybrid Geographies. Natures, Cultures, Spaces. London: Sage.
Whatmore, S. (2003) Generating Materials. In Pryke, M., Rose, G., Whatmore, S. (eds). Using
Social Theory: Thinking through Research. London: Sage; 89-105.
Whitehead, J.W.R. (2005) The problem of Anglophone squint. Area. 37: (2) 228-230.
Wittgenstein, L. (1922) Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge.
Wood, D. (1992) The Power of Maps. New York: Guilford Press.
Wood, J. (2005) “How green is my valley?” Desktop geographic information systems as a
community-based participatory mapping tool. Area. 37: (2) 159-170.
Wordsworth, W. (1789) Expostulation and Reply. The Poetical Works of William
Wordsworth. London: Edward Moxon.
Wylie, J. (2005) A Single Day’s Walking: narrating self and landscape on the South West
Coast Path. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 30: (2) 234-247