Participatory mapping is a promising, yet underexplored method for understanding the spatiality of homelessness in urban environments. In this study researchers employed a group participatory mapping approach with separate groups of homeless women and men to assess the utility of participatory mapping as a method for understanding gendered geographies of homelessness. Findings underscore the value of participatory mapping as a tool for highlighting gender differences in spatiality for urban homeless, including experiences of risk and the underlying meanings and uses of urban space.
In the handful of studies on urban homelessness
that have utilized participatory mapping
approaches, it was used as a tool to examine the
relationship between issues of spatiality and
variables important to wellbeing. For example,
accessibility patterns and community integration
There are two key points about the use of
participatory mapping in these studies most
relevant to how it is used in this research. The
first is the pronounced shift away from
participatory mapping as a natural
resource/environment focused application to a
more clinical or “pedagogical tool” used to
assess and understand individual need
A total of four group participatory mapping sessions were conducted with separate groups of homelessness women and men, two groups with women and two with men. Participants were recruited through the two main adult emergency shelters in Kelowna, one that exclusively serves women and the other primarily accessed by men. There were eight participants in each group mapping session, which were held at the corresponding shelters. Participants ranged in age from their early 20’s to mid 60’s.
Participants were provided a large blank sheet of
construction paper (one to share) and an
assortment of different coloured pens and
markers. They were asked to ‘sketch map’
Our data was derived from the sketch maps
completed in each session (four total),
transcripts of session notes (typed up post
meeting), the thematic analysis of transcripts of
session notes [coded using NVivo and
Consistent with the patterns of gendered geographies of homelessness for visibly homeless women identified by May, Cloke & Johnsen (2007), in our study women’s geographies of homelessness were both similar and dissimilar to those of men. The participatory mapping process helped identify two principal geographic profiles for homeless women. Women either resisted typical male-centric representations of street homelessness by retreating into female spaces of care outside of the downtown (which acts as the epicenter of homelessness and street level activity in Kelowna), or they were more embracing of male representations of homelessness and their identity as a ‘visibly marked’ homeless person existing in public space. Irrespective of their specific geography of homelessness, the homeless women in this study were acutely aware that entering into male dominated spaces meant accepting the presence and influence of men in their day-to-day lives.
For the women in this study, a desire to maintain
or reclaim their sexual independence often
underlies their choice of where to locate
themselves in the urban environment, including
where they access shelter services. By avoiding
male dominated homeless spaces, they are better
able to maintain their freedom, sexual and
otherwise. However, with the rise in violence
and volatility on the street, women are under
increased pressure to couple with men as a form
of protection. Both female and male participants
talked about the increase in ‘coupling’ among
homeless street populations over the last several
years in response to more pronounced culture of
violence on the street. It is now an expectation
that women will ‘couple’ as a way to protect
themselves when they are on the street. This
trend is well noted in the homeless literature
Throughout the participatory mapping process, female participants talked about space more emotively than their male counterparts, both positively and negatively, and they tended to use more feelings-based language to describe locations. For example, “nice people are there”; “good memories and happy times”, “makes me feel at peace when I’m there”, and “I have warm feelings associated with that place”. ‘Shame’ surfaced as a central theme in women’s narratives about the socio-spatiality of homelessness, with spaces of care being identified as significant sources of judgment for women. As one woman put it, “I am being judged based on not looking like I need mental health services. Like, I am sorry I don’t look messed up enough for you.” Although both women and men referenced a lack of dignity and feelings of dehumanization in relation to their experience of homelessness, women’s comments were more heavily focused on feelings of “shame”, “discrimination”, and “judgment” that for them, is more readily levied at women than men. Women noted feeling particularly resentful of judgment from service providers they had to access because they’re “mothers and have children to feed”, such as food banks, income assistance and Ministry of Children and Families offices. In reference to her experience at a local church run food bank one woman commented, “You feel like doing something wrong if don’t have money. They look at me like I am a bad person. It is so embarrassing.”
The difference in women and men’s experience of spatiality as visibly homeless people extends to how they conceptualize space cartographically. Men were generally more reluctant or hesitant to create and work with their own maps through sketch mapping. Men were also more focused on the precision and accuracy of locations on their maps, often asking me to confirm the exactness of their placement of different markers. Women were consistently more open to creating their own spatial renderings, and their maps were often highly creative and colourful, with the scale of buildings and other landmarks based more on the importance of these spaces in terms of their emotional weighting (both positive and negative feelings engendered) versus any actual scaling of size.
Being present with homeless people while they create maps detailing intimate aspects of their lives is an evocative, immediately personal, yet natural way for researchers to work with homeless people to help express their relationship to different spaces in the urban environment. As the researcher, there was an ease and a naturalness to the process of mapping with homeless participants that belied the intimacy and sensitivity of the issues and topics being discussed. As it was used here, the groupbased approach to participatory mapping was an effective process for illuminating the nexus of the space-gender-homelessness interaction. There are two key related benefits of participatory mapping indicated through these findings. The first is as a means to generate context-sensitive and gender-specific service recommendations, and the second is as a way to understand spatiality and the experiences of risk for homeless women in the urban environment.
In conclusion, group participatory mapping provided an effective approach to make visible the differences in geographies of homelessness for women and men, and in turn, gain insight into the meanings, uses, and risks related to urban space based on gender. Researchers across disciplines with an interest in understanding gendered experiences of the spatiality of homelessness should be optimistic about its potential in homelessness research, which has only begun to be explored.