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.