GIS, Indigenous Peoples, and Epistemological Diversity

Rundstrom, Robert

doi:10.1559/152304095782540564

Cited by 245 publications

(125 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Peluso 1995;Fox 1998;Deddy 2005;Chapin 2006). Some authors, such as Rundstrom (1995), even take the view that any mapping of Indigenous cultures done in Western cartographic forms represents a fundamental compromise of cultural autonomy.…”

Section: Discussion and Some Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Being on Country: Githabul approaches to mapping culture

McClean¹

2013

Transcending the Culture–Nature Divide in Cultural Heritage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With a general rise in interest in cultural mapping over recent decades, this chapter 1 discusses two approaches to recording and mapping Indigenous cultural relations to land employed by Githabul people in NE NSW. Mapping scope and methods in this project were developed with participants, revealing their particular views and situations. These approaches are explored, and I argue that the idea of being on Country, a common element of the two approaches, forms a key aspect of maintaining a shared cultural identity within the Githabul community. This influences perceptions of the value of mapping culture, while also opening heritage work up to include intangible aspects of culture.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Some Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Being on Country: Githabul approaches to mapping culture

McClean¹

2013

Transcending the Culture–Nature Divide in Cultural Heritage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We refer to such hand-drawn representations as 'sketch maps', which are produced without topographic maps for guidance. We selected this technologically simple approach because it allows participants to choose how to represent the spatial information and does not presume prior knowledge of topographic maps [22,53] or impose certain forms of representation [54]. We asked participants to draw what they thought was important in the landscape in their community.…”

Section: Sketch Mapping With Local Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Wartmann

Purves

2017

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participatory mapping of local land use as the basis for planning and decision-making has become widespread around the globe. However, still relatively little is known about the conceptual underpinnings of geographic information produced through participatory mapping in given cultural and linguistic settings. In this paper, we therefore address the seemingly simple question of what is (not) represented on maps through an exploratory case study comparing land use categories participants represented on sketch maps with categories elicited through more language-focused ethnographic fieldwork. To explore landscape categorization, we conducted sketch mapping with 29 participants and in-depth ethnographic fieldwork with 19 participants from the Takana indigenous people in the Bolivian Amazon. Sketch mapping resulted in 74 different feature types, while we elicited 156 landscape categories used in language, of which only 23 overlapped with feature types from the sketch mapping. Vegetation categories were highly diversified in language but seldom represented on maps, while more obviously anthropogenic features were represented on sketch maps. Furthermore, participants seldom drew culturally important landscape categories such as fallow plots or important plant harvesting sites on maps, with important potential consequences for natural resource management.

show abstract

“…In GIScience, indigenous conceptualizations of space and time have been depicted as being in direct opposition to those used to design geospatial technologies (Rundstrom 1995;Veland et al 2014). Indeed, geospatial technologies emphasize a more static view of the world that is often inconsistent with indigenous perspectives on space and time.…”

Section: Time and Geospatial Ontologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%