Abstract
Participatory methods are a great support to engage residents into disaster risk reduction. Their experience and knowledge about previous disasters, such as floodings, can support the preparation for future events. How can their knowledge be captured in an easy and fast way so that local authorities can use the methods themselves? How can the results be made available in a digital form for the use within disaster risk reduction processes? These questions are answered by the Sketch Map Tool, which combines analogue data collection with digital data processing. A paper map with OpenStreetMap (OSM) data is used for participatory mapping with residents. These sketch maps with the markings of the participants can be uploaded to the Sketch Map Tool website where they are automatically georeferenced. Results can be downloaded and used in a geoinformation system (GIS) for further risk analyzes or to create risk perception maps based on the collected information from all participants. The Sketch Map Tool can also be used in combination with questionnaires in order to gain insights into the background of the participants and further information about the disaster. The quality of the OSM data can be analyzed beforehand to evaluate whether participants can easily orientate on the map during the mapping activity. The automation of the steps allows the use of the tool with little technical knowledge. Further, it is an open-source software so that communities with limited resources can also use it for their own projects. When using the Sketch Map Tool, the users are encouraged to follow appropriate guidelines and regulations regarding data protection. It is the duty of everyone to ensure good practice.
During the finalizing of the book, the Sketch Map Tool was undergoing some changes. Please check the Sketch Map Tool website for more information (https://www.geog.uni-heidelberg.de/gis/sketchmaptool_en.html). We will also provide the link to the new version of the tool there.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ballatore, A., McClintock, W., Goldberg, G., & Kuhn, W. (2019, June). Towards a usability scale for participatory GIS. In The international conference on geographic information science (pp. 327–348). Springer.
Broder, A. (1998). Deception can be acceptable. American Psychologist, 53(7), 805–806.
Brown, G., & Kyttä, M. (2018). Key issues and priorities in participatory mapping: Toward integration or increased specialization? Applied Geography, 95, 1–8.
Brown, G., McAlpine, C., Rhodes, J., Lunney, D., Goldingay, R., Fielding, K., et al. (2018). Assessing the validity of crowdsourced wildlife observations for conservation using public participatory mapping methods. Biological Conservation, 227, 141–151.
Bustillos Ardaya, A., Evers, M. & Ribbe, L. (2019). Integrated participatory methodologies for disaster risk reduction: Tools to analyze complex systems through participatory processes in Brazil. In Strategies and tools for a sustainable rural, Rio de Janeiro, ed. U. Nehren, S. Schlüter, C. Raedig, D. Sattler, and H. Hissa, 361–376. Berlin: Springer.
Burnett, C. M. (2020). Incorporating the participatory process in the design of geospatial support tools: Lessons learned from SeaSketch. Environmental Modelling & Software, 127, 104678.
Chambers, R. (2006). Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: Whose map? Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 25(1), 1–11.
Davis, M. (1997). Indigeneous people and intellectual property rights. Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from: Indigenous Peoples and Intellectual Property Rights – Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au).
Fagerholm, N. (2014). 14 Whose knowledge, whose benefit? Ethical challenges of participatory mapping. In J. Lunn (Ed.), Fieldwork in the global south: ethical challenges and dilemmas (pp. 158–169). Routledge.
Fox, J., et al. (2005). Mapping power: Ironic effects of spatial information technology in mapping communities, ethics values, practice. East-West Center. See: www.eastwestcenter.org/res-rp-publicationdetails.asp?pub_ID=1719
Haworth, B., Whittaker, J., & Bruce, E. (2016). Assessing the application and value of participatory mapping for community bushfire preparation. Applied Geography, 76, 115–127.
ICH GCP – International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline, Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1) Current Step 4 version dated 10 June 1996.
Klonner, C. & Blessing, L. (2019). Gathering local knowledge for disaster risk reduction: The use of sketch maps in group discussions. In Proceedings of the ISCRAM 2019 conference, Valencia, Spain (pp. 1397–1398).
Klonner, C., Hartmann, M., Dischl, R., Djami, L., Anderson, L., Raifer, M., Lima-Silva, F., Degrossi, L. C., Zipf, A., & de Albuquerque, J. P. (2021a). The sketch map tool facilitates the assessment of OpenStreetMap data for participatory mapping. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information., 10, 130. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10030130
Klonner, C., Usón, T. J., Aeschbach, N., & Höfle, B. (2021b). Participatory mapping and visualization of local knowledge: An example from Eberbach, Germany. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science., 12(1), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-020-00312-8
McCall, MK. (2006). PGIS–PSP–IK–(CB)NRM: Applying Participatory-GIS and Participatory Mapping to participatory spatial planning and to local–level land & land resources management utilizing indigenous & local spatial knowledge: a bibliography.
Oczak, M., & Niedźwieńska, A. (2007). Debriefing in deceptive research: A proposed new procedure. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(3), 49–59. [PubMed: 19385851].
Rambaldi, G., Chambers, R., McCall, R., & Fox, J. (2006). Practical ethics for PGIS practitioners, facilitators, technology intermediaries and researchers. Participatory Learning and Action, 54(1), 106–113.
Spielman, S. E. (2014). Spatial collective intelligence? Credibility, accuracy, and volunteered geographic information. Cartographic Geography Information Science, 41(2), 115–124.
Simpson Reeves, Laura. (2015). Visualizing Participatory Development Communication in Social Change Processes: Challenging the Notion that Visual Research Methods are Inherently Participatory. International Journal of Communication. 9, 3327–3346.
WMA declaration of Helsinki-ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects-59th WMA general assembly, Seoul, Korea, October 2008.
Wubishet, Z. S., Bygstad, B., & Tsiavos, P. (2013). A participation paradox: Seeking the missing link between free/open source software and participatory design. Journal of Advances in Information Technology, 4(4), 181–193.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Klonner, C., Norze, J. (2023). Sketch Map Tool. In: Burnett, C.M. (eds) Evaluating Participatory Mapping Software. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19594-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19594-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-19593-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-19594-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)