MAPS for PUBLIC PARTICIPATION in WATER MANAGEMENT Conceptual limits and possibilities Sébastien CAQUARD Department of Geography - Dartmouth College Water Time Seminar Oct. 02, 2003 – Cordoba, Spain [NB This presentation has been modified slightly in order to reduce its size for presentation on the Watertime website.]

Introduction  “The better citizens are informed, the better they can participate” Public Participation = information access Maps are designed to disseminate information Public Participation is part of water management  Present in many international conventions  To make information understandable with regard to regions and localities Maps might be useful for improving public participation…

 Conceptual limits 1. Maps for Public Participation 2. Example of maps for water management Conclusion  Multimedia maps and Public Participation 3. Technological evolution and perspectives Introduction  Analysis of a French Cartographic Guide

 Map quality  Map reader experience  Map reader perspectives Map reading is related to: 1. Maps for public participation - Conceptual limits Maps are great tools  To represent geographical information  But map reading is not universal Each map is read differently by each user at each time

THEMATICMAPS Analysis Commu- nication  To better understand a situation (analysis)  To better communicate the results (communication) Historically, thematic maps have 2 functions: Expert Mapmaker Non expert Mapreader 2 levels of expert choices Maps for public participation - Conceptual limits  Analytical  Communication Thematic maps are subjective: present expert perspective

They are perceived as being objective...  “They represent the reality” 1. Maps for public participation - Conceptual limits... because they pretend to be objective…  To present their point of view as reality Maps never acknowledge this subjectivity  They are a mirror of nature... Which gives to mapmakers a strong power THEMATICMAPS Analysis Commu- nication Expert Mapmaker Non expert Mapreader The “false objectivity” of maps is a powerful tool

Maps present expert perspectives Maps have never been designed to improve Public Participation  Designed by and for experts Maps pretend to be objective  Makes them very powerful 1. Maps for public participation - Conceptual limits Maps do not provide egalitarian access to information  Depends on the map readers’/makers’ perspectives

2. Example of maps for water management Analysis of a French Cartographic Guide SAGE Guide Cartographique

 Watershed = management unit  Local participation (Local Commission of Water)  SAGE (Water management schema) = framework  5 stages In France water management is based on the 1992 law 2. Examples of maps for water management Analysis of this cartographic guide Stage 1 Inventory Stage 2 Diagnostic Stage 4 Strategy Stage 3 Scenarios Stage 5 Actions  A cartographic guide (national)  Based on local examples (Drôme watershed) Maps have been chosen to improve public participation

2. Examples of maps for water management  Only experts are involved in stages 1 & 3 Information mapped Stage 1 Inventory Stage 2 Diagnostic Stage 4 Strategy Stage 3 Scenarios Stage 5 Actions  Very nice graphically…  …but quite technical Stage 2 & 4: expert maps

Example 2. Examples of maps for water management Stage 1 Inventory Stage 2 Diagnostic Stage 4 Strategy Stage 3 Scenarios Stage 5 Actions  Very nice graphically…  …but quite technical Stage 2 & 4: expert maps  Only experts are involved in stages 1 & 3 Information mapped Expert maps disguised as non expert ones

2. Examples of maps for water management Reinforce existing hierarchies Maps and hierarchies  National guide  Based on existing administrative structure Stage 1 Inventory Stage 2 Diagnostic Stage 4 Strategy Stage 3 Scenarios Stage 5 Actions

2. Examples of maps for water management Reinforce local hierarchies: Downstream Vs. Upstream Stage 1 Inventory Stage 2 Diagnostic Stage 4 Strategy Stage 3 Scenarios Stage 5 Actions  More pollution downstream… but no further actions to take Environmental issues are not primary Maps and hierarchies

 At different level: National, Regional & Local  Thematic hierarchies: Environmental Vs. Economic Maps present expert perspectives  Public is not involved in fundamental stages Maps reinforce existing hierarchies 2. Examples of maps for water management These maps are not designed to improve Public Participation

How to improve maps for public participation 3. Technological Perspectives - Multimedia Maps How technological maps might be used?  Represent information as well as its limits... ... On the same document... ... Without discrediting the entire map…  Represent different perspectives on information...  … without graphical limitations Interactivity Multimedia

Interests of this “plural map”: 3. Technological Perspectives - Multimedia Maps Technological maps have also some limits  Easy to use  Integrates different levels of knowledge  Highlights information limitations and the false objectivity of the map  Destabilizes the authority of the map

 Information access gap between users  Map “false objectivity” (Technology like GIS)  Expert knowledge dissemination (Internet) Risks: Technological maps might increase 3. Technological Perspectives - Multimedia Maps Interest of multimedia is not primarily technological  Destabilizes the authority of the map  Difficult to generate Limits for its development

 In a top-down context...  … to disseminate expert perspectives Maps have been designed Conclusion & Perspectives Multimedia maps give the opportunity to  Challenge this “traditional” map conception  … by changing map representation The interest of technology is primarily conceptual  Rethink the place of information in Public Participation  Give it a place better adapted for societal evolution THE END

1. Maps for public participation - Conceptual limits Maps for (water) management have been produced  By experts… for experts  To better understand/analyze the situation Maps for (water) management were originally tools for experts

 Nicer  Clearer  Easier to understand These maps look 1. Maps for public participation - Conceptual limits But they still represent  Expert information… Maps for communication are still expert maps More recently these maps have been designed for a wider public  Politicians, citizens, etc.