Comparative study of participatory mapping processes in northern Thailand

This paper explores the different mapping approaches of the Raks Thai Foundation and the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and how these differences affect resource management, boundaries, beliefs and culture practices, relationships within and among communities, and among communities and outside players. Since 1994 the Raks Thai Foundation has helped 167 sub- villages in Northern Thailand to build three-dimensional (3D) maps as tools for managing their natural resources. ICRAF has meanwhile built GIS databases for 55 villages and eight sub-watersheds. The paper suggests a number of similarities and differences between the two approaches. Villagers participate in the entire process of building a 3D map but their input into GIS mapping is restricted. 3D mapping is field intensive and requires much community time and participation, while GIS mapping involves time in lab and requires only one to two days of local participation primarily to serve as data sources, to produce sketch maps, and carry out field checks of data. 3D maps are good for using within villages but because of their limited spatial scope, they are less useful for planning resource management at sub-watershed or watershed levels. 3D models are difficult to retrieve and transport, are costly to produce, and are difficult to maintain and change. 3D maps are useful for intra and inter-village communication and planning. GIS maps can be easily produced at different scales and scopes, and data are easy to retrieve, maintain, change, and transport. But GIS maps are difficult for villagers to understand and GIS maps can only be produced by specially trained people and require new technology and special knowledge. Both types of map promote cross village comparisons, increase efforts by villagers to have their forests declared protected areas, and stimulate thinking among villagers about managing community forests

---

• View source