As with many environmental issues, conflicts over airport noise are often grounded in the different experiences and knowledges of those who measure it and those who suffer its effects. The ways that airport neighbors challenge noise maps reflect the critical cartography literature, which does not take the truth of maps for granted but instead considers the political and other subjectivities behind their construction. At the same time, work in science and technology studies shows that conflicts between local residents and state officials and/or scientists are in part based on their different types of knowledge about a place, with state-centered scientific knowledge generally considered to override local knowledges. This paper brings together these two literatures in an analysis of conflicts over airport noise at Minneapolis–St Paul International Airport to show how members of the public construct their own critical cartographies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
94 Stat. 50, “Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979”, P.L. 96–193 United States Statutes at Large
2.
AgarwalA, 1995, “Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge”Development and Change26413–439
BragdonC, 1989, “Control of airport- and aircraft-related noise in the United States”Transportation Research Recordnumber 1143, 12–16
5.
CallonM, 1986, “Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fisherman of St. Brieux Bay”, in Power, Action, and Belief A New Sociology of Knowledge? Ed. LawJ (Routledge, London) pp 196–229
6.
ClarkJMurdochJ, 1997, “Local knowledge and the precarious extension of scientific networks: A reflection on three case studies”Sociologia Ruralis3738–60
7.
CraigWHarrisTWeinerD (Eds), 2002Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems (Taylor and Francis, New York)
8.
EdneyM, 1997Mapping an Empire: The Geographical Construction of British India 1765–1943 (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
9.
ElwoodS, 2002, “GIS use in community planning: A multidimensional analysis of empowerment”Environment and Planning A34905–922
10.
EmersonRFretzRShawL, 1995Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
HarleyJ, 1997, “Deconstructing the map”, in Writing Worlds: Discourse, Text and Metaphor in the Representation of Landscape Eds BarnesTDuncanJ (Routledge, London) pp 231–247
13.
HarleyJ, 2001The New Nature of Maps: Essays in the History of Cartography (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
14.
HarrisTWeinerDWarnerTLevinR, 1995, “Pursuing social goals through participatory geographic information systems: Redressing South Africa's historical political ecology”, in Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems Ed. PicklesJ (Guilford Press, New York) pp 196–222
15.
HarwellE, 2000, “Remote sensibilities: Discourses of technology and the making of Indonesia's natural disaster”Development and Change31307–340
16.
HodgsonDSchroederR, 2002, “Dilemmas of counter-mapping community resources in Tanzania”Development and Change3379–100
17.
JordanG, 2002, “GIS for community forestry user groups in Nepal: Putting people before the technology”, in Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems Eds CraigWHarrisTWeinerD (Taylor and Francis, New York) pp 232–245
18.
KwanM-P, 2002a, “Feminist visualization: Re-envisioning GIS as a method in feminist geographic research”Annals of the Association of American Geographers92645–661
19.
KwanM-P, 2002b, “Is GIS for women? Reflections on the critical discourse in the 1990s”Gender, Place and Culture9271–279
20.
KyemP, 2004, “Of intractable conflicts and participatory GIS applications: The search for consensus amidst competing claims and institutional demands”Annals of the Association of American Geographers9437–57
21.
LatourB, 1993We Have Never Been Modern translated by PorterC (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
22.
McLaffertyS, 2002, “Mapping women's worlds: Knowledge, power and the bounds of GIS”Gender, Place and Culture9263–269
23.
MarstonS, 1990, “Who are ‘the people’?: Gender, citizenship, and the making of the American nation”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space8449–458
24.
MeredithTYetmanGFriasG, 2002, “Mexican and Canadian case studies of community-based spatial information management for biodiversity conservation”, in Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems Eds CraigWHarrisTWeinerD (Taylor and Francis, New York) pp 205–217
25.
MitchellD, 1995, “The end of public space? People's park, definitions of the public, and democracy”Annals of the Association of American Geographers85108–133
SchuurmanNPrattG, 2002, “Care of the subject: Feminism and critiques of GIS”Gender, Place and Culture9291–299
37.
SparkeM, 1998, “A map that roared and an original atlas: Canada, cartography, and the narration of nation”Annals of the Association of American Geographers88463–495
38.
StaeheliL, 2003, “The new politics of citizenship: Structuring participation by household, work, and identity”Urban Geography24103–126
39.
StaeheliLThompsonA, 1997, “Citizenship, community, and struggles for public space”The Professional Geographer4928–38
40.
ThongchaiW, 1994Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-body of a Nation (University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI)
41.
WalkerPPetersP, 2001, “Maps, metaphors, and meanings: Boundary struggles and village forest use on private state land in Malawi”Society and Natural Resources14411–424
42.
WarrenS, 2004, “The Utopian potential of GIS”Cartography395–16
43.
Willems-BraunB, 1997, “Buried epistemologies: The politics of nature in (post)colonial British Columbia”Annals of the Association of American Geographers873–31
44.
WoodD, 1992, “How maps work”Cartography2966–74
45.
WoodD, 1997The Power of Maps (Guilford Press, New York)
46.
WoodD, 2000, “Tricksters and cartographers: Maps, science and the state in the making of a modern scientific knowledge space”, in Masons, Tricksters, and Cartographers Ed. TurnbullD (Harwood Academic Publishers, Singapore) pp 89–130
47.
WynneB, 1992, “Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science”Public Understanding of Science1281–304
