1. The assessment of participatory
mapping methods based on the
expert system
Jiří Pánek
Department of Development Studies
Palacky University in Olomouc

2. Overview
• Introduction
• Why is participation important
• Participatory methods used (for mapping
and visualization)
• Expert system (preliminary survey results)
• Conclusion
• One more slide

3. Introduction
• Participatory mapping as an independent
approach historically comes mainly from
Participatory Rural Appraisal (Chambers 2006).
• Creating their own community maps has an
empowering effect on the participating
members of the community (Vlok & Panek 2012).

4. Why is participation important?
• In the Local Agenda 21 (UN Earth Summit)
community-based mapping was identified as a
best practice for locally-based sustainability
planning (IDRC, 1996).
• The sense of ownership sparks empowerment
and actuates the momentum for sustainable
development — driven and run by the
community as it comes from within the
community (Vlok & Panek 2012).

5. Participatory methods used in research
• 10 methods, mainly from Training Kit on
participatory spatial information
management and communication
developed by EU-ACP Technical Centre
for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation

6. Image by Mount Kenya Environment Protection Project

7. Images
courtesy of
Peter Poole
©/LEO

8. Image courtesy of Giacomo Rambaldi©/CTA

9. Image courtesy of A. Murphy, Global Diversity Foundation.

10. Image courtesy of Rachel Olsen

11. Expert system and survey results
•
•
•
•
Who are the ―experts‖?
Male/Female = 64/36 (167 in total)
Average age = 38
Participants structure:
– LinkedIn, PPGIS, ResearchGate, Facebook
– UNISA, ICC2013, students

12. Who were the experts?
• Dr. Stefano Marras – Map Kibera Project
• Dr. Peter Kyem – Central Connecticut State
University
• Prof. Nancy Obermayer – National Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis
• Prof. Sarah Elwood – University of Washington
• Prof. Jon Corbett – Centre for Social, Spatial
and Economic Justice, University of British
Columbia

13. Preliminary survey results

14. Conclusions
• ―Time available and needed for the mapping
activity‖, ―Facilitator’s geo-skills and
experience‖ and ―Reason of the mapping
activity‖ are the most important factors.
• On the other hand ―Internet connection
available‖, ―Colonial history of the community‖
and ―Electrical equipment (PC, laptop)
available‖ are among the least important
factors.

15. Conclusion
• The results from the survey will be used in
order to create a tool for selecting the
most optimal participatory mapping
method for specific community settings.

16. One more slide
• Please take part in the survey!
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/InDOG

17. Thank you for your attention!
Jiří Pánek
Department of Development Studies
Palacky University in Olomouc