Cited by 158Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementEcology, Conservation, and Geographical StudiesGeographies of human-animal interactions

Power of Maps: (Counter) Mapping for Conservation

Open access
Harris, Leila M., Hazen, Helen D.·2015·ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies

Abstract

This paper considers what is at stake in defining and mapping protected areas for conservation. We link issues of power in cartography to themes from political ecology, social natures, and conservation biology literatures to extend our understanding of maps as reflective of, and productive of, power. Reviewing insights from these literatures to consider power asymmetries common to conservation practice, we highlight ways that mapping practices and products reinforce and contribute to such dynamics. Doing so enriches consideration of the power geometries of conservation cartographies by inviting fuller consideration of diverse species and landscapes, as well as enabling discussion of other representational and productive effects of conservation mappings. Once determined, how might conservation maps serve to naturalize certain spaces or boundaries as fixed, or contribute to certain socio-psychological understandings of conservation possibilities or outcomes? In the closing sections, we invoke the idea of ‘counter-mapping’ to explore strategies that might redress these concerns. Possibilities range from efforts to adapt the form of protected areas to more critical approaches that question the appropriateness of territorial focus and mapping practices for conservation goals. In conclusion, we argue that theorizing power in human, other-than-human, and inter-species contexts is essential to understanding the power geometries of conservation mapping.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.14288/acme.v4i1.730

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harris, L. M., & Hazen, H. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Venue
ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies
Publisher
ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies
Published
2015-03-03
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
99-130
ISSN
1492-9732 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2151260877
Cited by
158
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
6.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • ACME (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • cIRcle (University of British Columbia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Open Collections
  • ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology, Conservation, and Geographical Studies
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Geographies of human-animal interactions
Keywords
protected areas, counter-mapping, political ecology, social nature, conservation biology, power imbalance, territoriality, non-human beings

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