The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Dilemmas of Counter‐Mapping Community Resources in Tanzania
Abstract
Recent work has celebrated the political potential of ‘counter‐mapping’, that is, mapping against dominant power structures, to further seemingly progressive goals. This article briefly reviews the counter‐mapping literature, and compares four counter‐mapping projects from Maasai areas in Tanzania to explore some potential pitfalls in such efforts. The cases, which involve community‐based initiatives led by a church‐based NGO, ecotourism companies, the Tanzanian National Parks Authority, and grassroots pastoralist rights advocacy groups, illustrate the broad range of activities grouped under the heading of counter‐mapping. They also present a series of political dilemmas that are typical of many counter‐mapping efforts: conflicts inherent in conservation efforts involving territorialization, privatization, integration and indigenization; problems associated with the theory and practice of ‘community‐level’ political engagement; the need to combine mapping efforts with broader legal and political strategies; and critical questions involving the agency of ‘external’ actors such as conservation and development donors, the state and private business interests.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Other examples demonstrate how mapping technologies and skills, or even basic sketch maps, can be used to foster greater participation of local people in conservation efforts (see Hodgson and Schroeder, 2002, for critical evaluation of such efforts in Tanzania).”
From Power of Maps: (Counter) Mapping for Conservation (2015) · cites this paper as Hodgson and Schroeder, 2002
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Power of Maps: (Counter) Mapping for Conservation
Harris, L. M., & Hazen, H. D. (2015) · ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies · doi:10.14288/acme.v4i1.730 · Cited by 158
Álvarez Larrain, A., & McCall, M. K. (2019) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-018-9385-z · Cited by 89
Oslender, U. (2021) · Political Geography · doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102444 · Cited by 61
Walwa, W. J. (2020) · The Journal of Peasant Studies · doi:10.1080/03066150.2019.1602523 · Cited by 44
John Walwa, W. (2017) · Journal of Eastern African Studies · doi:10.1080/17531055.2017.1359878 · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Hodgson, D. L., & Schroeder, R. A.
- Venue
- Development and Change
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-01
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 79-100
- ISSN
- 0012-155X
- 1467-7660
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review