The Shape of Public Engagement - Participatory Mapping: New Data, New Cartography - page 138

8.2. An ad hoc engagement
The mapmaking process shows that the activities of the
various participants remained ad hoc and did not produce
infrastructure for sharing the measurements or
visualizations. Extracting and mapping data appear more
closely related to the individualization of risk management
[LAS 93] than opening up toward a public issue [GUS 84].
These maps and data were used to interpret the crisis
situation, to help decipher the event and to verify data from
different sources. It does not however result in infrastructure
for data sharing, or in a common reference from which to
position oneself in a public debate.
Three factors may explain this phenomenon:
- First, the heterogeneity of the participants' profiles
makes the emergence of common infrastructure difficult.
Moreover, the data processing and mapping is supported by
the logic of self-expression. Indeed, the participants aimed to
address a problem but this was not devoid of self-promotion
intents.
- Second, most of the maps were produced for a
spontaneous use limited in time. So many of the maps are
inactive today or redirect Web users toward applications
which are deemed more effective.
- Third, the absence of common infrastructure for data
sharing can be explained by the presence of experts among
the participants, who played a leading role in obtaining the
data. Pachube and Safecast were custom structures with
their own objectives which took on the role of global
data-sharing platforms.