Participatory mapping is an interactive approach that draws on local people’s knowledge, enabling participants to create visual and non-visual data to explore social problems, opportunities and questions. One of the strengths of participatory mapping as a research method is that it allows different features of a particular place, and the interplay between them, to be explored simultaneously. Physical and social geography, changes that have occurred over time, residents’ personal and collective experiences, and their attitudes and perspectives on their environment are just a few of the subjects that can be explored through a mapping exercise. The approach explicitly recognizes local people as capable research collaborators, and it fosters empowerment in that it helps participants define and represent places and relationships that are important to them. Participatory mapping, can therefore be more than a technical research exercise involving the extraction of data and information from the ‘subjects’ of research: it can become a rich social encounter between research participants and research facilitators (S.Kindon et al, 2010).
Participatory mapping – also called community-based mapping – is a general term used to define a set of approaches and techniques that combines the tools of modern cartography with participatory methods to represent the spatial knowledge of local communities. Participatory maps often represent a socially or culturally distinct understanding of landscape and include information that is excluded from mainstream or official maps. Maps created by local communities represent the place in which they live, showing those elements that communities themselves perceive as important such as customary land boundaries, traditional natural resource management practices, sacred areas, and so on (Jefferson Fox et al, 2005).
Over the last four decades, the practice of participatory mapping has become widespread among development workers and researchers (Chambers 2008; International Fund for Agricultural Development 2009). It has been used for a wide range of applications including managingnatural resources, planning farming activities, implementing health and educational activities, and resolving territorial disputes. Maps are powerful instruments that givevisual expression to realities that are perceived, desired orconsidered useful (Chambers 2008). Yet, participatory
mapping has been subject to criticisms, i.e. if not carefully and purposefully conducted, maps may be used by facilitators to either replace indigenous conceptions of territory or impose their own views of the world (Cooke and Kothari 2001).Participatory mapping is increasingly being used forcommunity-based DRR (Twigg 2004; Benson et al. 2007).It enables people to delineate areas that are perceivedas both prone to hazards and vulnerable. It also allows communities to plot desired and useful risk reduction measures.
River flooding is a serious hazard. Professional have been working with communities at a risk of flooding to get people as prepared as possible with knowledge and plans in place to take action when necessary. This work is constrained by the ways in which people respond to risk (beck 1992;1999). For example how can people at risk from flooding be encouraged to become resilient if there is no community memory of such hazard (kearnes et al.,2012) and once people have accepted the risk how can communication assist in developing resilience (kearnes et al.2012). Flood hazard map are important tools to understand the hazard situation in the area. Hazard maps are important for planning development activities in an area and can be used as supplementary decision making tools ( cities and flooding, a guide to integrated urban flood risk management for the 21th century ,2011). Participatory mapping is excellently suited to the needs for incorporating local knowledge, participatory needs assessment and problem analysis, local prioritizing and understanding responses and coping strategies(M.K.McCall,2008). This enables a large array of stakeholder to collaborate it is cheap and foster the use of local material, it branches the participation of all sectors of communities, emphasizes indigenous knowledge , enable to plot community features and vulnerability and upsurges people perception of their vulnerability. Understanding local knowledge is not enough; it is only a means to the inclusion and participation of local people in disaster management and preparedness activities. As such local knowledge can be entry point for promoting local people participation with high level institution in those aspects of disaster risk prevention and management for which they have a comparative advantage (Battista and Baas 2004, p.8). Participatory approach to disaster management and preparedness often presuppose a basis in local knowledge and practices because communities in disaster prone areas have accumulated a lot of experiences over time (Battista and Bass, p.10).Maps are generally prepared by the experts. But in participatory mapping approach the knowledge of community people about their local surrounding is plotted on the map with their knowledge and help. They as well as the experts sit together and create the map for the surrounding. Similarly, the main earthquake hazard(danger) is the effect of ground shaking. Buildings can be damaged by the shaking itself or by the ground beneath them settling to a different level than it was before the earthquake. The second main earthquake hazard is ground displacement along a fault. If a structure is built across a fault, the ground displacement during an earthquake could seriously damage or rip that structure.Community based mapping is our first approach that is undertaken as a project. It has been a long trend that project basically depends on technical issues that only depend upon the personal research and that don‟t involve the community people. So to override this trend, we will be going certain schools and communities of Kavreplanchok district, to involve them to make a map as their perception. The higher level of participation by all members of the community, the more beneficial outcome because the final map will reflect the collective experience of the group producing the map. Participatory mapping is important because map production undertaken by communities to show information that is relevant and important to their needs and is mainly for their use. This project will be milestone to promote the community people about mapping and its importance..
• To prepare 2D map of Panauti showing Vulnerable areas.
• To aware community people about mapping, and its importance.
• To prepare a map representing the flood prone zone with the help of community people.
• Serve as a community organizing tool, because it gathers people to share information and concerns.
Participatory mapping is a powerful tool that increases participant involvement and provides a means for participants to express their ideas in an easily understandable visual format. Participatory mapping is an interactive approach that draws on local people’s knowledge, enabling participants to create visual and non-visual data to explore social problems, opportunities and questions. One of the strengths of participatory mapping as a research method is that it allows different features of a particular place, and the interplay between them, to be explored simultaneously. Physical and social geography, changes that have occurred over time, residents’ personal and collective experiences, and their attitudes and perspectives on their environment are just a few of the subjects that can be explored through a mapping exercise. The approach explicitly recognizes local people as capable research collaborators, and it fosters empowerment in that it helps participants define and represent places and relationships that are important to them. Participatory mapping, can therefore be more than a technical research exercise involving the extraction of data and information from the ‘subjects’ of research: it can become a rich social encounter between research participants and research facilitators (S.Kindon et al, 2010). Participatory mapping – also called community-based mapping – is a general term used to define a set of approaches and techniques that combines the tools of modern cartography with participatory methods to represent the spatial knowledge of local communities. Participatory maps often represent a socially or culturally distinct understanding of landscape and include information that is excluded from mainstream or official maps. Maps created by local communities represent the place in which they live, showing those elements that communities themselves perceive as important such as customary land boundaries, traditional natural resource management practices, sacred areas, and so on (Jefferson Fox et al, 2005).Participatory mapping is commonly used in the following ways.
• To create maps that represent resources, hazards, community values, usage (e.g., for recreation or other visitor use), perceptions, or alternative scenarios
• To gather traditional knowledge and practices and to collect information (hazards, environmental, socioeconomic, visitor use, etc.) for assessments or monitoring
• To identify data gaps and inform other data collection methods (e.g., formal surveys, interviews, etc.)
• To evaluate existing programs, plans, and activities
• To facilitate the decision-making process
• To assist with data gathering for research
• To empower stakeholders
• To conduct trends analysis
• To educate stakeholders about issues and interrelationships of resources outside their immediate areas of concern
Participatory mapping is a group-based qualitative research method that gives participants freedom to shape discussion on a given topic with minimal intervention from researchers. Mapping can generate a rich understanding of the connections between people, places and organizations over space and/or time. The approach attempts to subvert some of the power dynamics between the investigator and those being investigated allowing the space for participants to identify and define the issues, ideas and experiences that are important to them through representation on paper. For participants it can lead to new understandings of an issue, of a locality and the influences of wider social, political and economic forces. It may also increase the relevance of a study as the questions being asked are the important ones for those taking part. For the researcher it can often provide a surprising and rich set of data which can be both visual (the maps produced) and auditory (the conversations).
There are a number of principles to consider when running a participatory mapping session. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but should be considered food for thought.
• The process of producing maps will capture both shared and distinct experiences of those involved in the study. It is important that both the maps and the discussions are captured by the researcher.
• The map should show information that is relevant to those taking part in the study. It should represent their agenda.
• The maps produced should be representative of the language and symbols used by that community. For example, if you are working with students and their social experiences of university, you might expect logos and symbols such as Face book, or Twitter to emerge.
• The process of taking part in a session may lead to new understandings for both researcher and participants and can also facilitate further action.
• Maps do not have to be drawn on pieces of paper, they can be designed over time, with passers-by contributing over weeks or months, they can be created online or in all sorts of spaces.
When Is Participatory Mapping Appropriate?
Because every situation is different, it isn’t always clear when participatory mapping should be considered. Participatory mapping generally isn’t appropriate for minor decisions because the process can be time-consuming and requires significant planning. More complex situations with far-reaching impacts, however, usually warrant some type of stakeholder involvement. Participatory mapping may be an option in these cases. Consider using participatory mapping for the following situations.
Initial data collection when . . .
• A better understanding of the issue is needed and the maps will be a valuable communication tool
• Perceptions are needed to help guide next steps
• Traditional knowledge can contribute to scientific understanding and facilitate future interactions
• Stakeholder engagement is needed to monitor and evaluate the success of existing programs, plans, and activities
• Additional information is needed to better inform other stakeholder engagement processes such as formal surveys
Validating and ground-truthing collected data when . . .
• Maps will visually enhance stakeholders’ understanding of the data collected
• Uncertainty exists about certain data and their spatial relevance
• The process will help stakeholders better understand the issue you are trying to address with the data collected
Decision support when . . .
• Visually displaying scenarios will enhance stakeholder understanding and awareness
• Visually displaying alternative solutions will provide stakeholders with an opportunity to provide feedback
• The process can enhance other stakeholder-engagement methods—for example, during a focus group to help visualize issues and resources and thereby stimulate discussion
• The process will help develop alternative solutions generated by stakeholders
• The maps can help foster a more holistic or ecosystem approach by educating stakeholders about the issues and interrelationships of resources outside their immediate areas of concern
Fostering stakeholder support when . . .
• The process can help empower the stakeholders to develop solutions
• Projected solutions may be controversial, rather than unanimous—for example, creation of a no-take zone in a marine protected area
• The process can help foster successful implementation since participatory mapping requires significant time and resources; it may not be feasible or effective for all situations. Use participatory mapping when the process will benefit the overall purpose. The following sections provide some strategies for proceeding.
Participatory mapping tools
A broad range of participatory mapping tools exists. The choice of which to use is determined by the way in which the maps will be employed, mapping tool, audience, available resource and time. Some of the principal tools used in participatory mapping initiatives ranges from low cost, low resource activities (hands on mapping) to high cost and high resource input activities (GIS). General participatory mapping tools are described briefly below.
Hands on mapping
In this method, community people draw map on the ground. These maps represent key community identified features on the land from a bird’s eye view. They do not rely on exact measurement a consistent scale or geo-referencing yet they do show the relative size and position of features. Hands on mapping techniques are a good starting point for framing important land based issues. They can help plan subsequent mapping activities and engage non expert users. Hands on mapping are low cost and not dependent on technology. The main drawbacks is that the final map outputs are not geo referenced and can only be transposed onto a scale map with difficulty. This makes them less useful when locational accuracy is important.
Participatory mapping using scale map and images
In this method, information from community people is identified through conversation and then drawn directly onto a photocopied scaled map. This method is commonly used where accurate and affordable scale maps are available. This method also works well with aerial and satellite images, which can be particularly helpful when working with people who cannot read a topographic map and with non-literate communities, including those from marginal livelihood systems(eg. Indigenous peoples, forest dwellers and pastoralists). These mapping techniques are a good format for communicating community information to decision makers because they use formal cartographic protocols. Information can be incorporated into other mapping tools ,as GIS and GPS data can be easily transposed onto these scale maps.
Participatory 3D model
This method integrates local spatial knowledge with data on land elevation, scaled and geo- referenced model. They are scale relief models created form the contours of a topographic map. Sheets of cardboard are cut in th shape of the contour lines and pasted on top of each other to create a three dimensional representation of topography. As with many forms of participatory mapping this can be used to encourage the rediscovery and visualization of local community knowledge. The 3D aspect of the model is intuitive and understandable. This is important for non-literate groups. But creating the model is labour-intensive and time consuming yet the time required to create the model can also be interpreted as a strength of the activity because people spend time together during which discussion of important spatial knowledge takes places.
Multimedia and internet based mapping
This method combines maps with other digital media such as picture, videos, and audios. This form of participatory mapping is becoming increasingly popular in either stand- alone systems or through the internet and can be used to communicate complex, qualitative local knowledge related to the landscape. This approach remains expensive for many communities. Training is required to understand the computer equipment as well as video production, photographic editing and file management software.
In this tool geographical data is stored, retrieved, mapped and analyzed. GIS technology has been long regarded as complicated, costly and used primarily by experts. The analytical functionality of GIS can be used for designing the management of natural resources and lands. Maps produced using GIS also convey a sense of authority which makes them a valuable tool for advocacy and for influencing land related decision making processes. The drawbacks are: GIS have a steep learning curve even for people with extensive computer knowledge. They require continual updating of software and re-training. These expenditure make GIS too expensive for many communities to buy and maintain.
Vulnerability, Hazard and Capacity- A Disaster perspective
It derives from Latin word “VULNERARE”( to be wounded) and potential to be harmed. It is shown to be the vital component of risk and the principle element of disaster impacts. It refers to the inability to withstand the effects of a hostile environment. “A window of vulnerability is a time frame within defensive measure are reduced, compromised or lacking because it most apparent when calamity occurs, many studies of social vulnerability are found in risk management literature”( peacock and Ragsdale 1997;Anderson and Woodrow 1998;alwang,siegel et al.2001;Conway and Norton 2002). However social vulnerability is a preexisting condition that affects a society ability to prepare for and recover from a disruptive event.
Fig. Risk hazard model
A dangerous phenomena substrates, human activity or condition that may cause loss of life. A hazard is any biological, chemical, mechanical, environmental or physical agent that is reasonably likely to cause harm or damage to human, other organism or the environment in the absence of its control. Identification of hazard is the first step in performing a risk assessment.
According to UN, capacity is a combination of all the strength and resource available within a community, society or organization that can reduce the level of risk or the effects of a disaster. The affected community itself possesses knowledge about local needs and capabilities. The role of outside organization is not to take over unnecessary but to enable the community thereby increasing their capacity to take control over their decision
Essentially based on recollections form memory land use and cover and other feature are depicted by informants on the model by using push pins for pins, yarns for lines and paints for polygons.
A PRACTICE AT LMTC
As the practice for our project, we conducted a practice participatory mapping program at LMTC on 3rd June, 2014. In this practice session we gathered students of junior survey training as our participants. Participants of this program are:
1. Deepkiran Tiwari
2. Resham Lamsal
3. Dinesh Rawal
4. Madhav Joshi
6. Kailash Katuwal
8. Sahadev Sharma
As they were new to this subject, our program started with an orientation which includes presentation on topics like participatory mapping, scale of map, different symbols and colors used in map. We also showed them some maps prepared by participatory practice.
After orientation, mapping session started in which we provided them with boundary map of LMTC premises. We allowed them to map all details existing in the area including buildings, roads, trees, etc. During the mapping session we encountered some problems.
It was difficult to manage the participants while mapping.
Some difficulties occurred to make them understand technical terms and processes.
Some of participants lacked logical knowledge such as mapping object with reference to others.
This program boosted us physically and mentally before going to our field. It also gave us chance to point out our drawbacks about working with community. However we learned how to work with community people and how to share and implement our knowledge with others.
OVERVIEW OF PANAUTI AND HAZARD ANALYSIS
Panauti, located 32 km east of Kathmandu and immediate south of Banepa Municipality. It is bordered by SharadaBatase, ShankhuPatiChaur VDC and Dhulikhel Municipality on the east; Kushadevi, Mahendrajyoti and Kalati VDC on the west; Janagal VDC and Banepa Municipality on the north; and KalatiDanda, ChalalGanesthan and Balthali VDC on the south. Panauti is a historical city with rich culture, also a tourist destination.
The spatial extent of the municipality is between 27°33.5′ to 27°37′ north latitude and 85°29′ to 85°33.5′ east longitudes. According to survey conducted for UEIP urban base map 2008, the total area of this municipality covers nearly 28 squares kilometer. Politically this municipality is divided into 13 wards among which 4 are urban and 9 fall under rural and semi-urban group. The current population of Panauti is estimated at 24,563 with about 5989 households (municipal profile of Nepal, 2008). The elevation ranges from 1340-1826m. Main town of the municipality lies at the centre and the junction between Punyamata and Roshi River are the major rivers of this municipality.
Earthquake hazard Assessment
The earthquake risk in Panauti has increased significantly in recent years due to multiple reasons. First, t development of urban amenities and various political, economical and social reasons has contributed to rapid urbanization. This has further led to haphazard construction practices without earthquake safety considerations. Second, the relentless population growth and lack of awareness intensifies the level of risk. Third, there is a severe deficiency in mainstreaming disaster risks and preparedness in the development plans at central and local levels, both politically and technically(UNDP/ERRRP,2009). Earthquake hazard maps that delineate most risk prone areas can guide municipality in development planning for effective disaster risk management in the form of emergency response, relif and rehabilitation.
Flood hazard assessment
The devastating nature of floods annually claims 20,000 lives and adversely affects approximately 20 million people around the world (Smith K et al.,2008). Nepal ranks 30th position in the world in terms of vulnerability of flood. Floods are frequently occurring hazards in Nepal. Most of the middle hills, especially the river valleys, and the plains of terai are exposed to severe flooding (UNDP, 2007). In our study area, past histories show that flash floods in Punyamata river have claimed lives and destroyed properties.
I. Field Works
We choose the community which is near the river and prone to flood. We too choose the ward no 7 of Panauti area for earthquake and flood hazard mapping. We took a tour around the ward and viewed the important places. We collected necessary material for the mapping. We bought necessary pencils, color pencils, base paper, etc. We then manage the map, then discussed from where to start and how to start. We then choose the appropriate place for mapping. We choose the temple premise for mapping because it is easy to collect people because a lot of people are gathered there. When everything was ready then we finally collected some local people for mapping purpose. Then we give orientation.
Before starting mapping activity in community we conducted an orientation program among the community people. In the orientation program we were able to make the participant understand the following information:
1. Introduction of map, general terms related to mapping, the information that map consist.
2. Introduction of participatory mapping, its objectives, scope and procedure of participatory mapping.
3. Introduction of hazard mapping. What is hazard? And what a hazard map consist of and its importance.
4. Introduction to representation of features on map, use of cartographic tools, identification of hazard factors and their representation, significances of color in representing the objects on map: we told them to sketch brown color for the house 15-50 years old, blue color for house less than 15 years old and red color for more than 50 years old. Further hatch the area that is prone to flood. We also tell them to differentiate old designed house and newly constructed housed with earthquake resistance.
Afterward the mapping process was started. Community people start mapping with their knowledge. They start discussing among themselves and start plotting on the map. Totally 217 houses were mapped. Among which 28 houses were mostly vulnerable and other were safe.
d. Map validation
When the final map was made then again we went to see the places where they had plotted the regions. We found out of 217 houses 211 houses were exactly plotted.
Although we did mapping based on the map we have some sort of limitation aroused. In map the new constructed buildings and under construction building were not digitized. The age of building was plotted with the analysis of local people knowledge no accurate and specific date of house build was unavailable.
• Kindon, R.pain&M.Kesby, 2010 Participatory actions research Approaches & Methods, New York
• M.K. McCall, 2008, Participatory Mapping, & Participatory GIS for DRR, Community Risk & Hazard Assessment, ITC, Netherlands
• Daniel Muller & Bjorn Wode, 2003, Manual on Participatory Village Mapping using Photomaps, Son La
• David E-de Vera, 2007, Mapping Today & Future, University of Technology, Vietnam
• Jefferson Fox, KrishnawatiSuryanata& Peter Hershock, 2005, Mapping Communities, Ethics, Values & Practices, Honolulu, Hawaii
• Rambaldi G. and Callosa-Tarr J. 2002. Participatory 3-Dimensional Modelling: Guiding Principles and Applications. ASEAN Regional Center for Biodiversity Conservation (ARCBC), Los Baños, Philippines. ISBN 971-8986-47-2.
• Abbot et al. (1998). Participatory GIS: Opportunity or oxymoron? PLA Notes 33: 27-34. IIED: London
• CARE (2009) Climate vulnerability and capacity analysis: handbook. CARE,Chatelaine. Available from: http://www.careclimatechange.org/cvca/CARE_CVCAHandbook.pdf
• Abarquez I and Murshed Z 2004 Community-based disaster riskmanagement: ﬁeld practictioners’ handbook Asian DisasterPreparedness Center, Pathumthani