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