=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2323/SKI-Canada-2019-7-7-4
|storemode=property
|title="Spatially, we are Creatures of Habit" - Understanding Gendered Geographies of Homelessness Using Participatory Mapping
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2323/SKI-Canada-2019-7-7-4.pdf
|volume=Vol-2323
|authors=Shelley Cook,Jon Corbett
}}
=="Spatially, we are Creatures of Habit" - Understanding Gendered Geographies of Homelessness Using Participatory Mapping==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2323/SKI-Canada-2019-7-7-4.pdf
Spatial Knowledge and Information Canada, 2019, 7(7), 4
“Spatially, we are Creatures of Habit” –
Understanding Gendered Geographies of
Homelessness Using Participatory Mapping
SHELLEY COOK JON CORBETT
Community, Culture, & Global Studies Community, Culture, & Global Studies
(CCGS) (CCGS)
UBC Okanagan UBC Okanagan
shelley.cook@alumni.ubc.ca jon.corbett@UBC.ca
relationship between issues of spatiality and
ABSTRACT variables important to wellbeing. For example,
accessibility patterns and community integration
Participatory mapping is a promising, yet (Chan, Gopal, & Helfrich, 2014; Chan, Helfrich,
underexplored method for understanding the Hursh, Rogers, & Gopal, 2014), access to care
spatiality of homelessness in urban and health (Ensign & Gittelsohn, 1998), and
environments. In this study researchers spatial dislocation and increased risk (McNeil,
employed a group participatory mapping Cooper, Small, & Kerr, 2015). By promoting
approach with separate groups of homeless improved understanding of the meaning of space
women and men to assess the utility of in the day-to-day lives of homeless people, a
participatory mapping as a method for main benefit of these studies (and of using
understanding gendered geographies of participatory mapping approaches with homeless
homelessness. Findings underscore the value of people more generally) is as a means to generate
participatory mapping as a tool for highlighting practical recommendations that have a positive
gender differences in spatiality for urban impact on homeless people’s health and
homeless, including experiences of risk and the wellbeing (Townley, Pearson, Lehrwyn,
underlying meanings and uses of urban space. Prophet, & Trauernicht, 2016).
1. Introduction: There are two key points about the use of
The application of participatory mapping in participatory mapping in these studies most
environmental and natural resource relevant to how it is used in this research. The
management, conservation, and risk reduction is first is the pronounced shift away from
well established (Brown, Montag, & Lyon, participatory mapping as a natural
2012; Karimi, & Brown, 2017). Increasingly resource/environment focused application to a
participatory mapping is being used to engage more clinical or “pedagogical tool” used to
and understand experiences of people within assess and understand individual need (Literat,
complex urban environments (Brown & Kytta, 2013). Most notable in this regard are the
2018; Brown, Sanders, & Reed, 2018). To date activity space studies that use participatory
however, few applications and their associated mapping as a way to measure community
studies have used participatory mapping and integration (Chan et. al., 2014; Townley et al.,
related approaches to examine issues of 2016). The second is the use of participatory
homelessness in urban contexts. mapping as a process for understanding and
making explicit geographies of homelessness
In the handful of studies on urban homelessness that illuminate the experience of the spatiality
that have utilized participatory mapping for homeless people.
approaches, it was used as a tool to examine the
2 Spatially, we are Creatures of Habit
In the research outlined in this article, group analyzed our findings from group participatory
participatory mapping was used as a method for mapping sessions in consultation with our
understanding the differential effects of project Advisory Committee (composed of
homeless spatiality for women and men. In other formerly homeless individuals) and other key
words, it was used to explore the gendered homelessness stakeholders throughout data
geographies of homelessness. Our research took collection using reflexive member checking
place in the City of Kelowna in British (Fisher, 2009; Tufford & Newman, 2010).
Columbia. Particular attention was paid to the
experiences of visibly homeless women and 3. Results
their geographies of homelessness, a research
area that needs further exploration (Cloke, May, Differences in Geographies of
& Johnsen, 2007; Klodawsky, 2006). To our Homelessness for Women and Men
knowledge, this is the only study of its kind to
use participatory mapping to examine gendered Consistent with the patterns of gendered
geographies of homelessness. geographies of homelessness for visibly
homeless women identified by May, Cloke &
2. Methods and Data: Johnsen (2007), in our study women’s
geographies of homelessness were both similar
A total of four group participatory mapping and dissimilar to those of men. The participatory
sessions were conducted with separate groups of mapping process helped identify two principal
homelessness women and men, two groups with geographic profiles for homeless women.
women and two with men. Participants were Women either resisted typical male-centric
recruited through the two main adult emergency representations of street homelessness by
shelters in Kelowna, one that exclusively serves retreating into female spaces of care outside of
women and the other primarily accessed by men. the downtown (which acts as the epicenter of
There were eight participants in each group homelessness and street level activity in
mapping session, which were held at the Kelowna), or they were more embracing of male
corresponding shelters. Participants ranged in representations of homelessness and their
age from their early 20’s to mid 60’s. identity as a ‘visibly marked’ homeless person
existing in public space. Irrespective of their
Participants were provided a large blank sheet of specific geography of homelessness, the
construction paper (one to share) and an homeless women in this study were acutely
assortment of different coloured pens and aware that entering into male dominated spaces
markers. They were asked to ‘sketch map’ meant accepting the presence and influence of
(Corbett, 2009) or draw the places in Kelowna men in their day-to-day lives.
they viewed as being ‘receptive’ or ‘welcoming’
of them and those they felt were not, and to For the women in this study, a desire to maintain
clarify their rationale for the different between or reclaim their sexual independence often
the two. Extensive notes were taken during underlies their choice of where to locate
mapping sessions. themselves in the urban environment, including
where they access shelter services. By avoiding
Our data was derived from the sketch maps male dominated homeless spaces, they are better
completed in each session (four total), able to maintain their freedom, sexual and
transcripts of session notes (typed up post otherwise. However, with the rise in violence
meeting), the thematic analysis of transcripts of and volatility on the street, women are under
session notes [coded using NVivo and Tesch’s increased pressure to couple with men as a form
(1990) coding process], and a list of receptive of protection. Both female and male participants
and non-receptive spaces broken out by talked about the increase in ‘coupling’ among
sex/gender with the rationale for their homeless street populations over the last several
assessment. As part of a broader Community- years in response to more pronounced culture of
based Participatory Research Project, we violence on the street. It is now an expectation
Spatially, we are Creatures of Habit 3
that women will ‘couple’ as a way to protect
themselves when they are on the street. This Although both women and men referenced a
trend is well noted in the homeless literature lack of dignity and feelings of dehumanization
(Duff, Deering, Gibson, Tyndall, & Shannon, in relation to their experience of homelessness,
2011; Rowe & Wolch, 1990). According to one women’s comments were more heavily focused
male participant who was homeless on and off on feelings of “shame”, “discrimination”, and
for decades, “If [women] are alone now like they “judgment” that for them, is more readily levied
were in the past, they are scared and carrying a at women than men. Women noted feeling
knife.” particularly resentful of judgment from service
providers they had to access because they’re
These coupling relationships are impermanent “mothers and have children to feed”, such as
and specific to the street homeless context. One food banks, income assistance and Ministry of
women spoke about how she “felt unsafe” when Children and Families offices. In reference to
she was on the street alone, but felt “safer and her experience at a local church run food bank
less a target for bad people” when with a one woman commented, “You feel like doing
boyfriend. Once she found private housing something wrong if don’t have money. They
however, she ended her relationship with him look at me like I am a bad person. It is so
because as she put it, “I didn’t need protection embarrassing.”
anymore.”
The difference in women and men’s
Even when seemingly similar in terms of basic experience of spatiality as visibly homeless
geography, women’s experience of spatiality is people extends to how they conceptualize space
fundamentally dissimilar to men’s because space cartographically. Men were generally more
represents different risks for women, risks they reluctant or hesitant to create and work with
must navigate in the day-to-day survival. As their own maps through sketch mapping. Men
noted by women in this study, the most were also more focused on the precision and
significant risk that male dominated spaces accuracy of locations on their maps, often asking
represent, other than the immediate threat to me to confirm the exactness of their placement
women’s safety and sexual independence, is the of different markers. Women were consistently
risk to their continued sobriety/recovery. more open to creating their own spatial
renderings, and their maps were often highly
Differences in how women and men creative and colourful, with the scale of
understand and experience space buildings and other landmarks based more on
the importance of these spaces in terms of their
Throughout the participatory mapping emotional weighting (both positive and negative
process, female participants talked about space feelings engendered) versus any actual scaling of
more emotively than their male counterparts, size.
both positively and negatively, and they tended
to use more feelings-based language to describe Reflections on the Use of
locations. For example, “nice people are there”; Participatory Mapping
“good memories and happy times”, “makes me
feel at peace when I’m there”, and “I have warm Being present with homeless people while they
feelings associated with that place”. ‘Shame’ create maps detailing intimate aspects of their
surfaced as a central theme in women’s lives is an evocative, immediately personal, yet
narratives about the socio-spatiality of natural way for researchers to work with
homelessness, with spaces of care being homeless people to help express their
identified as significant sources of judgment for relationship to different spaces in the urban
women. As one woman put it, “I am being environment. As the researcher, there was an
judged based on not looking like I need mental ease and a naturalness to the process of mapping
health services. Like, I am sorry I don’t look with homeless participants that belied the
messed up enough for you.” intimacy and sensitivity of the issues and topics
4 Spatially, we are Creatures of Habit
being discussed. As it was used here, the group- Chan, D., Helfrich, C., Hursh, N., Rogers, S., &
based approach to participatory mapping was an Gopal, S. (2014). Measuring community
effective process for illuminating the nexus of integration using Geographic
the space-gender-homelessness interaction. Information Systems (GIS) and
participatory mapping for people who
There are two key related benefits of were once homeless. Health & Place,
participatory mapping indicated through these 27, p. 92-101.
findings. The first is as a means to generate Cloke, P., May, J. & Johnsen, S. (2008).
context-sensitive and gender-specific service Performativity and affect in the
recommendations, and the second is as a way to homeless city. Environment and
understand spatiality and the experiences of risk Planning D: Society and Space, 26, pp.
for homeless women in the urban environment. 241-263.
Corbett, J. (2009). Good practices in
4. Conclusion participatory mapping: A review
prepared for the international fund for
In conclusion, group participatory mapping agricultural development (IFAD).
provided an effective approach to make visible Available at: https://www.ifad.
the differences in geographies of homelessness org/documents/10180/d1383979-4976-
for women and men, and in turn, gain insight 4c8e-ba5d-53419e37cbcc, Accessed
into the meanings, uses, and risks related to date: June 4, 2018.
urban space based on gender. Researchers across Duff, P., Deering, K., Gibson, K., Tyndall, M.,
disciplines with an interest in understanding & Shannon, K. (2011). Homelessness
gendered experiences of the spatiality of among a cohort of women in street-
homelessness should be optimistic about its based sex work: the need for safer
potential in homelessness research, which has environmental intervention. BMC Public
only begun to be explored. Health, 11(643), pp. 1-7.
Ensign, J. & Gittelsohn, J. (1998). Health and
access to care: perspectives of homeless
References youth in Baltimore City, U.S.A. Social
Brown, G. & Kytta, M. (2018). Key issues and Science Medicine, 47(12), pp. 2087-
priorities in participatory mapping: 2099.
Toward integration or increased Fischer, C. (2009). Bracketing in qualitative
specialization? Applied Geography, 95, research: conceptual and practical
pp. 1-8. matters. Psychotherapy Research, 19(4-
Brown, G., Sanders, S., & Reed, P. (2018). 5), p. 583-590.
Using public participatory mapping to Karimi, A., & Brown, G. (2017). Assessing
inform general land use planning and multiple approaches for modelling land-
zoning. Landscape and Urban Planning, use conflict potential from participatory
177, pp. 64-74. mapping data. Land Use Policy, 67,
Brown, G., Montag, J. M., & Lyon, K. (2012). 253–267.
Public Participation GIS: A Method for Klodawsky, F. (2006). Landscapes on the
Identifying Ecosystem Services. Society margins: gender and homelessness in
& Natural Resources, 25(7), 633–651. Canada. Gender, Place & Culture,
Chan, D., Gopal, S., & Helfrich, C. (2014). 13(4), pp. 365-381.
Accessibility patterns and community Literat, I. (2013). Participatory mapping with
integration among previously homeless urban youth: the visual elicitation of
adults: A Geographic Information socio-spatial research data. Learning,
Systems (GIS) approach. Social Science Media and Technology, 38(2), p. 198-
& Medicine, 120, pp. 142-152. 216.
McNeil, R., Cooper, H., Small, W., & Kerr, T.
(2015). Area restrictions, risk, harm, and
Spatially, we are Creatures of Habit 5
health care access among people who New York: Falmer.
use drugs in Vancouver, Canada: A Townley, G., Pearson, L., Lehrwyn, J.M.,
spatially oriented qualitative Prophet, N., Trauernicht, M. (2016).
study. Health & Place, 35, pp. 70-78. Utilizing participatory mapping and GIS
Rowe, S. & Wolch, J. (1990). Social networks in to examine the activity spaces of
time and space: Homeless women in homeless youth. American Journal of
skid row, Los Angeles. Annals of the Community Psychology, 3/4, pp. 404-
Association of American Geographers, 414.
80(2), p. 184-204. Tufford, L. & Newman, P. (2010). Bracketing in
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative Research: qualitative research. Qualitative Social
Analysis Types and Software Tools. Work, 11(1), pp. 80–96.