Assessing Impact of Community Mapping

Participatory mapping has gained visibility within geographic information sciences in recent decades. Alongside community engagement, it can complement traditional data production to better capture local knowledge. Geographic data production has advanced in line with the underpinning technologies in the same period. However, those participatory exercises do not always positively impact the intended populations. This paper compiles and analyses a series of participatory mapping cases presented in the “mapping with communities” workshops organized at the GIScience 2023 and AGILE 2024 conferences. The authors use five categories to understand the case studies contributions: i) What and Why, or the purpose and elements mapped; ii) Who, or the stakeholders involved in the mapping activities; iii) Where, or the location of the mapping activities; iv) How, or the methods applied and v) Impact, or the personal and territorial changes that the mapping initiated. To assess the last category, the team screened different general impact assessment frameworks. An adapted framework helps assess the impact of all the case studies in terms of Higher-level, Instrumental, Conceptual, and Low-Level. Conversely, the research question: \textit{How can participatory mapping drive impactful changes or benefits for society?} drives the discussion. By compiling, discussing and publishing this impact assessment, the authors acknowledge contributions from workshop participants to enable advocacy of vulnerable communities' livelihoods. The identified research focus of the studies in countries of the global south indicates the particular data requirements of those regions and the researchers' interests in working with historically marginalized communities. Moreover, the role of external parties and researchers initiating most of the mapping procedures highlights that these are still complex processes that require stronger engagement, especially from government agencies. Among other outcomes, the analysis claims that in order to strengthen the credibility of participatory methods, better impact assessment frameworks are needed while this first attempt served to identify key impact dimensions. This assessment highlights the importance of embedding impact throughout the entire process. While high-level impact (i.e., societal change) is desirable, it often requires additional time to materialize.