<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# How do stakeholders engage with critical cartography in planning? Analysis of a decision-making process in marine governance

Juliette Davret, Brice Trouillet

► To cite this version:

Juliette Davret, Brice Trouillet. How do stakeholders engage with critical cartography in planning? Analysis of a decision-making process in marine governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 2025, 169, pp.104083. 10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104083. hal-05054796

HAL Id: hal-05054796

https://hal.science/hal-05054796v1

Submitted on 3 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# How do stakeholders engage with critical cartography in planning?
## Analysis of a decision-making process in marine governance

Juliette Davret* ID, Brice Trouillet ID

Nantes Université, CNRS, LETG, UMR 6554, Nantes 44000, France

ARTICLE INFO

Key word :

Critical cartography

Maps

Stakeholders

Planning

Power relations

A B S T R A C T

Maps play a vital role in planning processes, especially marine spatial planning (MSP), as they are the primary means of representing the vast ocean spaces for stakeholders. While numerous studies have explored the roles stakeholders play and their involvement in MSP, few have considered how maps are created for these stakeholders or how they interpret them. This research seeks to unveil the ‘black box’ of mapping, highlighting how stakeholders engage with the decision-making aspects of map creation and expanding the knowledge base in this domain. It examines the interplay between power and knowledge by analysing how laypeople engage in critical cartography and why it is crucial they understand the maps. Data was collected from focus groups consisting of 30 stakeholders from professional marine sectors, civil society and state departments. The findings reveal that stakeholders actively engage in critical cartography, demonstrating how power dynamics are shaped by the use and perception of maps. These dynamics often reinforce the dominance of already powerful stakeholders. The study confirms the existence of non-academic critical cartography and emphasises the importance of taking it into account in multi-stakeholder workshops and participatory mapping projects to prevent the reinforcement of power imbalances. This approach can foster a more equitable mapping process, ensuring that all voices are heard.

1. Understanding maps

Research in the field of critical cartography has shown how cartog-
raphy influences society (Harley, 1989; Monmonier and Grataloup,
2019; Wood and Fels, 1992), and the field of critical GIS in particular has
demonstrated the role that geotechnologies play in power relations
(Schuurman, 2000). It is now widely recognised that maps are not
neutral but can create circumstances as well as representing them
(Aitken and Michel, 1995). Following on from this work, other studies
have focused on the processing of geographic information (GI) and
cartography by laypeople (Elwood, 2002; Peluso, 1995; Walker and
Peters, 2001), but these works focus primarily on laypeople as potential
(counter-) cartographers and not as map receivers (Cidell, 2008). The
term ‘laypeople’ refers to anyone who is not an expert in cartography. In
this context, stakeholders can be laypeople even if they are experts in the
activities being mapped. While critical cartography has largely docu-
mented the non-objectivity of maps, the digital revolution in cartog-
raphy has made map making much harder to understand by multiplying
and invisibilizing the processes involved in map production. Several

studies have examined the relationship between planning and GIS
(Aitken and Michel, 1995; Wegener, 1998), and more recently in the
context of marine spatial planning (MSP) (Leroy, 2018).

Ever since the first marine plan was created, policy recommenda-
tions and scientific studies have emphasised the importance of stake-
holder participation in decision-making (Gopnik et al., 2012; MSP
directive, 2014; MSPglobal, 2020; Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008).
Accordingly, it is recognised that a stakeholder is (by definition) "any
group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of
the organisation's objectives" (Freeman, 2010, p. 48) and must be
involved in the planning process. In the MSP context, stakeholders
include any actors with an interest in the maritime realm, such as state
representatives, NGOs and maritime professionals. However, the liter-
ature widely criticises the potential contribution of participatory ap-
proaches that are designed to include stakeholders in MSP. It reveals
that stakeholder participation is difficult to organise and that there is a
non-negligible risk of tokenism, whether intentional or unintentional
(Flannery et al., 2016; Ritchie and Ellis, 2010; Smith and Jentoft, 2017;
Davret et al., 2023; Guyot-Téphany et al., 2024). Consequently, this is an

<footnote>* Correspondence to: Maynooth University Social Sciences Institute, Iontas Building, North Campus, Maynooth University, Room 2.38C, Maynooth, Kildare, Ireland.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail addresses: Juliette.davret@mu.ie (J. Davret), Brice.trouillet@univ-nantes.fr (B. Trouillet).</footnote>
inherent limitation of governance mode if the chosen model leaves no room for debating pre-established objectives. At the same time, stakeholder participation in decision-making processes is recognised as key to effective decision-making (Papadopoulos and Warin, 2007).

Due to the highly quantitative and data-driven nature of MSP decision-making (Kidd and Ellis, 2012), it relies heavily on geo-technologies (Trouillet, 2019). At the end of the process, a marine spatial plan emerges in the form of maps accompanied by a written report, and in the digital version of MSP the plan itself is replaced by a geoportal (Campbell et al., 2020), often with very limited functionalities (Davret et al., 2023). However, despite the pivotal role that maps play in the planning process, few studies have examined their importance and limitations in the participatory process, and in particular whether they are understood by the participants (Cidell, 2008). One important research blind spot still remaining is the way in which maps are received by laypeople (i.e. understood and criticised) and what this means for stakeholder involvement. In other words, how the planning process is influenced or challenged by critical cartography when practised by laypeople.

To investigate this, the relationships between stakeholders in the planning process were assessed to analyse the interactions between cartography and society. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how people using GI in its most tangible form - maps - in the field of MSP, understand the processing of information and how this knowledge structures power relations according to the Foucauldian approach. The aim is to understand how stakeholders, potentially laypeople, in the cartography field, perceive and engage in the critical analysis of planning maps.

Section 2 of this paper explains the theoretical framework for the study. Section 3 presents the material and methods used, as identified through a focus group approach in which stakeholders were brought together to discuss map making, and how the material was analysed through textual analysis. The results are presented in Section 4 and discussed in Section 5, feeding into the debate on the link between cartography and society, and discussing alternatives for bringing these two aspects closer together.

## 2. Framework to deconstruct map making

### 2.1. Critical GIS

There are three main approaches to the critical analysis of power relations through cartography, particularly with the rise of GIS (Cidell, 2008). The first focus on the construction of the map, as with a text, by analysing the role of the creator. Perkins (2003) and Schuurman and Pratt (2002) lamented the gap between map production and the self-critical view that map makers take of their work, and this has led other researchers to suggest alternative approaches to the working methods of GIS and cartography (Kwan, 2002a, 2002b; McLafferty, 2002; Pavlovskaya, 2002). The second approach looks at how maps not only show or represent space, but also create it (Harley, 1989; Wood, 2003; Wood and Fels, 1992). The way maps create places as well as represent them provides an opportunity to examine power relations through maps (Cidell, 2008). Harley (1989) argues that maps are a form of power since they are intended to convince. Wood (2003) explains that by representing spaces and places, maps make them real and palpable. In planning, overlapping activities are only ‘real’ because they can be represented as such on a map; in reality, where overlapping concerns individual activities that take place within a space, it is easier to accept that multi-use of the space is accurate. In this sense, the map shapes the interpretation of the user. The third approach explores the power dynamics involved in map making and map use. Public engagement,

particularly with participatory GIS (Chambers, 2006; Elwood, 2002; Weiner et al., 2002), could be a way of counterbalancing power in cartography. Critical cartographers have therefore encouraged the use of geotechnologies to empower stakeholders and give them an understanding of the map’s power. This is one of the main contributions of participatory cartography and countermapping. Participatory GIS does, however, raise the problem of the gap in technological knowledge between those who produce maps and those who read them (Pickles, 1995). Whether in the field of participatory GIS or counter-mapping, the main argument or the best way to reduce this gap is therefore to give these communities access to geotechnologies (Peluso, 1995; Warren, 2004; Weiner et al., 2002).

Despite the growing body of literature on public participation and critical analysis of cartography and GIS (e.g. Kwaku Kyem, 2004; Kwan, 2002a, 2002b; Pickles, 2004), few studies have focused on how individuals engage in the critical analysis of maps (Cidell, 2008), revealing how geographical information is processed, especially as part of a planning process. Until now, critical cartography has largely focused on the role of maps as a tool of empowerment for those in power, but there are few studies on how map users understand the processing undertaken prior to mapping. Some studies have examined the processing of GI and cartography by laypeople (Elwood, 2002; Peluso, 1995; Walker and Peters, 2001), but have focused mainly on these laypeople as potential map makers and not as receivers of maps. The extent to which laypeople can criticise maps has been neglected. Cidell (2008) demonstrates how the literature on participatory GIS in particular has failed to take into account the issue of critical cartography by laypeople. Participatory GIS mostly recommends putting geotechnologies in the hands of stakeholders to facilitate greater participation (Jordan, 2002; Mericskay, 2013; Peluso, 1995), which represents a strategy for overcoming power differentials in mapping and GIS. However, other research has shown that this strategy is not sufficient (Hodgson and Schroeder, 2002; Meredith and Yetman, 2002). Elwood (2002) demonstrated that access to technology alone is not enough to counterbalance power relations and that the social and political context is also significant. Work has also been done involving researchers and stakeholders, where stakeholders are not assigned the role of map producers, but rather participants in the production of alternative maps (Trouillet et al., 2019).

Cidell (2008) also showed the extent to which the elements of critical cartography can be established by the public when dealing with official maps, demonstrating that the public is well aware of the problems raised by critical cartography in the literature, and that “far from holding up a simple mirror of nature that is true or false, maps redescribe the world - like any other document - in terms of relations of power and of cultural practices, preferences, and priorities” (Harley, 2001, p. 35). Cidell (2008) showed that the main way in which laypeople criticise maps is by putting forward their experience and knowledge of the particular field as it relates to the product of scientific methodology. Cidell’s study focuses on the distinction between local knowledge and scientific knowledge, but another aspect of critical cartography involving the extent to which laypeople understand the processes involved in GIS remains untested, opening up the black box of map making so that laypeople don’t simply contribute their knowledge, but also understand how it is processed by map makers. The term ‘map makers’ here refers to professional GIS software operators who process GI. Consequently, it is no longer just about producing knowledge but also about the geotechnical requirements that enable it to be used.

### 2.2. Conceptualising power in spatial planning and cartography

Power is a central concept in spatial planning and cartographic representation, shaping both the production of knowledge and the
decision-making processes that structure territorial governance. To
analyse the role of power in the construction and use of maps in MSP,
this study draws on key theoretical frameworks, particularly the work of
M. Foucault and J. Allen, who offer complementary perspectives on the
multiple modes of power at play.

Foucault's (1980), (2015) conceptualisation of power challenges
traditional notions of power as a possession or repressive force. Instead,
he argues that power is diffused through networks and institutions via
discourse and knowledge production. This idea is particularly relevant
in the context of critical cartography, where maps are not neutral rep-
resentations of reality but are embedded in regimes of knowledge that
shape how space is perceived and governed (Harley, 1989; Crampton
and Krygier, 2006). The production, processing, circulation and use of
data and maps can thus be understood as expressions of the
power-knowledge nexus, where certain realities are legitimised and
others are marginalised. In the case of MSP, the prioritisation of specific
data – such as satellite data over qualitative local knowledge – reflects a
Foucauldian logic of governmentality in which technical expertise
serves as a mechanism for governing space and people (Elden, 2007).

Complementary to Foucault’s insights, Allen (2003) offers a refined
framework for understanding power. He demonstrates that power can
take multiple forms: as an ‘inscribed capacity’, as a
collectively-generated resource mobilised by groups to achieve goals, or
as a dynamic and diffuse phenomenon expressed through various stra-
tegies, techniques and practices. In addition, power is both instrumental
and facilitative. It is not exercised solely through control or domination
(e.g. corporate or state power) but can also function as a fluid medium,
emerging collectively through social movements and networks of in-
dividuals pursuing social, economic, environmental or political goals.

This nuanced conceptualisation of power can help explain how, in
MSP, stakeholders can influence decision-making without having direct
hierarchical control. For instance, the authority of scientific expertise in
spatial planning confers legitimacy on certain actors, while others such
as local fishers or environmental groups may rely on negotiation or
resistance to assert their perspectives (Cowell and Owens, 2006). This
multiplicity of power relations can be shown in the ways in which focus
group participants challenge official maps, contest the datasets used and
seek to influence the planning decision through argumentation and
collective action.

Critical cartographic studies further emphasise that maps are not
merely technical tools but instruments of power that reflect and rein-
force existing socio-political structures (Wood, 2010; Pickles, 2004). The
process of selecting and omitting certain data, the visual representation
of space and the institutional authority behind map production
contribute to shaping spatial imaginaries and policy outcomes (Harley,
1989). In the context of MSP, where many of the stakeholders do not
operate in the marine environment, the selection of certain datasets over
others in official maps is a particularly good illustration of how certain
forms of knowledge are sidelined, reinforcing power asymmetries be-
tween state institutions and local stakeholders. This aligns with
Crampton’s (2010) argument that cartography is inherently political,
since it frames what is visible and what remains obscured in spatial
decision-making processes.

By integrating these theoretical perspectives, this study places the
analysis of stakeholder discussions in the broader framework of power
relations in spatial planning. Understanding power as a dynamic,
multifaceted phenomenon allows for a more critical examination of how
maps function in MSP. Drawing on the theoretical contribution of Fou-
cault and Allen, this study aims to highlight the ways in which authority,
expertise and negotiation intersect in the production and contestation of
spatial knowledge. This perspective provides a foundation for analysing

how different stakeholders engage with maps, and the implications of
these power relations for inclusive and democratic spatial planning. The
heuristic value of marine planning is of particular relevance in this
regard.

3. Materials and Methods

This study used a two-stage approach: Focus group discussions were
first collected and then textually analysed. This approach integrates
textual analysis of discussions in a multistakeholder context (Van
Campenhoudt et al., 2009), mirroring the marine planning process.
Stakeholders analysed ‘official’ French MSP maps or derived versions to
identify power-knowledge dynamics. Discussions were then processed
with the IRaMuTeQ software to examine how maps were used and
understood.

3.1. Recreating a multi-stakeholder context with focus groups

Focus groups are useful for identifying stakeholder disagreements and differences on two levels. First, they allow researchers to study a subject and its related social practices in context (Kitzinger et al., 2004). Second, they facilitate analysis of social representations, including their construction, transmission, and transformation in communication processes (Linell, 2001). They are widely used to explore social issues, such as decision-making in environmental conservation (Nyumba et al., 2018) or reforming interest-based communities (Parker and Tritter, 2006). Methodological guidelines suggest 4–10 participants per focus group (Tétreault and Guillez, 2014). This study involved 30 stakeholders divided into four groups (Fig. 1), selected for their participation in the MSP process through the Maritime Facade Committee (CMF), which facilitates joint decisions between the French government and maritime stakeholders. Stakeholders were categorised as ‘professional’ (e.g. fisheries, wind farms), ‘civil society’ (e.g. citizens, environmental groups), ‘academic’ (e.g. scientists), or ‘state’ (e.g. ministries, local authorities) (Appendix 1). Groups were balanced by category and adjusted for participants’ schedules.

Civil society was underrepresented, reflecting challenges noted in
involving NGOs in marine planning (Tissière and Trouillet, 2022). The
focus groups, held during the COVID-19 pandemic (July–September
2021), were challenging to organise but included a diverse range of
stakeholders. Despite these difficulties, the quality of the debates
remained high, as the priority was creating conditions for open,
respectful discussion of differing views, beliefs, and opinions (Baribeau,
2009). This exploratory study examines potential map scenarios for
fishing and pleasure boating, chosen for their contrasting nature and
debate potential. The focus on these two activities allows us to address
key issues in MSP cartographic processing, as both are widespread,
temporally variable, and challenging to represent with geotechnologies.
They are also economically and socially significant and encompass
various activities under ‘pleasure boating’ or ‘fishing’. A total of 12
fisheries maps and 16 pleasure boating maps were specially made for the
exercise (for details, see Davret, 2024), along with 4 contextual maps
and 8 official state maps for comparison. However, note that the maps
used for focus group discussions are not analysed here, since it is only
the discussions they generate among the stakeholders that are of interest
in this paper.

Each focus group had two three-hour sessions, one in the afternoon
and another the next morning, totalling six hours of discussion. The first
session focused on characterising fishing and pleasure boating activities.
Stakeholders reviewed maps to explore how changes in technical factors
shaped different perspectives on the same activity. In the second session,
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Stakeholder participation in focus groups.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Timeline of the two focus groups sessions.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Two focus groups at work.</figcaption></figure>

these maps were compared with official state-produced maps. See Fig. 2 for focus group details.

The aim of the first session was to discuss different ways of characterising fishing and pleasure boating activities. The participants were invited to analyse sets of maps on these two activities and observe how modifying the technical parameters influenced results, revealing multiple cartographic issues. The participants recorded their thoughts on Post-its, categorising them into four geoinformation lifecycle stages: data production, pre-processing, mapping and circulation.

For the second session, maps were presented from marine planning documents depicting fishing and pleasure boating activities. Using insights from the first session, the participants compared these maps with the previous ones. As before, they recorded and categorised their reflections on Post-its, then prioritised key elements by marking them with stickers for deeper discussion, highlighting challenges and proposing solutions (Fig. 3).

Each focus group was led by a facilitator supported by a GIS expert in case of technical questions on the maps produced for the first session.
draw a clear distinction.

# 4. Results: Understanding maps in depth

The results are divided into two main findings. First, the debates were polarised on basic mapping information for boating and on data pre-processing and mapping issues for fishing. Second, analysis of stakeholder vocabulary revealed differing views and uses of cartography, influenced by their roles in the planning process.

## 4.1. Data issues that polarised the debate

Fig. 5 illustrates the results of Reinert’s descending hierarchical classification (Reinert, 1993), a method used to analyse discussions by grouping words into five lexical classes based on the sentences in which they appear. This technique helps reveal the structure of stakeholder discourse by identifying recurring themes and relationships between concepts.

In this classification, the most important is the hierarchy of classes (rather than their relative weight). At the top of the hierarchy, class 2, which accounts for almost 24 % of vocabulary segments, represents overarching critiques of cartography, highlighting ‘general public’ perspectives (e.g. *public, people, consultation, educational*) rather than decision-maker’s viewpoint (e.g. *decision, specialist, to discuss, vocation*). It includes words related to the readability and purpose of maps, questioning how maps are created and understood.

The remaining four classes (1, 3, 4 and 5) focus on specific aspects of fishing and recreational boating. Class 5, which ranks highest in this subgroup, accounts for 12.4 % of lemmas and concerns the definition and representation of pleasure boating on maps: (i) concerning the definition of pleasure boating and how to characterise it (e.g. *port, yachtsman, high attendance, anchorage, territory*); (ii) how to represent pleasure boating on maps (e.g. *notion, dock, series, discretisation, information, AIS, appear on maps*). Class 4, the largest category which accounts for 25.5 % of all lemmas, broadly critiques data acquisition and processing methods (e.g. *data, VMS, goal, question, acquisition, processing, raw, method, to explain*) in marine activities. Finally, classes 1 and 3 specifically address fisheries, examining their interaction with other activities and how they are visually represented. Class 1 accounts for 17.3 % of lemmas and questions the interactions between activities - fisheries and other activities in particular (e.g. *activity, impact, nature, wind-powered, species, environmental, economic*) and the way these interactions are represented on maps (e.g. *mesh, season, temporality, to show, difficult*). Class 3, which accounts for 20.8 % of the lemmas, also reflects vocabulary questioning the representation of fisheries (e.g. *12 m, pictogram, title, representation, incomplete, 15 m, fishing gear*). Overall, Fig. 5 provides a visual representation of how stakeholders engage with the challenges of mapping, showing distinct but interconnected concerns about the quality, interpretation and representation of data.

By analysing the corpus as a whole, any differences between the maps under consideration can be disregarded. This was done through a correspondence factorial analysis (CFA) of the maps: fisheries maps, pleasure boating maps and state-produced official maps (Fig. 6).

The CFA reveals that the maps in question have maximum explanatory value, the combined factors approaching 100%; factor 1 explains almost 52 % and factor 2 just over 48 %. The vocabulary associated with each set of maps also includes some specificities. The pleasure boating activity focuses on the need to define the activity and the lack of data (e. g. *acquisition, to understand, notion, to miss, issue*); the fisheries activity focuses on the need to standardise representations and information (e.g. *VMS, class, mesh, type, analysis, indicator, processing, representation*); finally, the official map set incorporates vocabulary relating to issues with the State mapping and the limitations of these maps for planning purposes (e.g. *information, dynamics, planning, choice, vision, goal, concern, decision*).

As a result, it appears that the maps served to focus discussions on certain aspects of cartographic processing: data selection (for pleasure boating), indicator standardisation (for fisheries) and the purpose and target of the maps (for official maps). In this way, stakeholders were able to discuss some issues that were highly technical and others of a more general nature and pre-GIS processing, concerning a common understanding of the activities. This also highlights the problems of co-constructing maps for projects that are intended to be participatory, such as MSP. The need to review processing decisions, as they relate to official maps in particular, therefore, links this experiment to the underlying issues highlighted by critical cartography and the importance of counter-mapping (Peluso, 1995).

Taken together, Figs. 5 and 6 demonstrate how studying the activities of fishing and pleasure boating allows stakeholders to critically engage with the overall processing of GI, including data production, algorithmic data pre-processing, mapping of activities, and, of course, the purpose of the map. Combined with an analysis of the segment discourse carried out during the focus group discussions, it appears that the primary issue debated by stakeholders concerns the choices embedded in the maps. These choices are perceived as being “surely political or technical choices” (Group_1_Professional_1). The technical nature of the maps is seen as significant because “understanding the technical aspects of the map indicators allows for a better grasp of the issues [...] it doesn’t advance political decisions but it is important” (Group_1_Professional_18). In other words, the position taken by a stakeholder depends on a set of normative arguments structured in a hierarchy which varies from one person to another. One key point of contention lies between those who argue that “data are objective” (Group_2_CivilSociety_1) and therefore “when we present the number of moorings in the port for recreational boats, the map is neutral” (Group_3_CivilSociety_1), and others who consider data to be subjective and inherently meaningful. According to this latter perspective, “the map cannot be neutral” (Group_3_Professional_10). This point of view is supported by examples discussed during the focus groups; for instance “on fishing maps, failing to specify that the data concern vessels over 12 m and omitting details of different types of passive and active fishing gear – despite their distinct challenges” (Group_3_Professional_8) – ultimately shapes how reality is represented. In addition, stakeholders share the same straightforward assessment of the data relating to pleasure boating and fishing activities. Not only is “the real issue that we lack data and high-quality data on these activities, and that may be the core of the problem” (Group_3_State_6), it also appears that “open data is not for everyone” (Group_3_Professional_12), given the limited dissemination of certain datasets, which creates significant differences between stakeholders.

## 4.2. Influence of stakeholder roles on their use of maps

As demonstrated above, studying the vocabulary used can reveal how discussions are polarised and structured. However, an analysis of the entire corpus may conceal differences between stakeholder types. To explore this further, another CFA analysis was carried out (Fig. 7) with the aim of discovering whether the critical vocabulary used could be differentiated according to the types of stakeholders participating in the focus group meetings.

In a CFA of this type, the division between factors is significant because it reveals the primary dimensions of variations in the datasets, helping to interpret underlying structures in stakeholder discourse. Fig. 7 shows how the distribution of vocabulary is influenced by type of stakeholder, covering almost 78 % of the lemmas. Factor 1 (40.99 %) separates practitioners (professionals and civil society) on the right from decision-makers and analysts (state and academic stakeholders) on the left, with professionals in the centre due to their interaction with all groups. Factor 2 (36.73 %) separates civil society stakeholders at the top from academic stakeholders at the bottom, highlighting differences in how they engage in mapping discussions. The CFA highlights differences
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. Results of descending hierarchical classification (visual representation of at least the first 25 occurrences in each class<fnref n="2" />).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6. Correspondence factorial analysis based on the three map sets.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 7. Correspondence factorial analysis based on stakeholder types (normalised lemma counts per participants, word size proportional to Chi2) Factor 1 (X-axis, 40.99 % of variation): this factor separates professionals and civil society stakeholders on the right from state and academic stakeholders on the left. Factor 2 (Y-axis, 36.73 % of variation): this factor separates civil society stakeholders at the top from academic stakeholders at the bottom.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="2">² Two vocabulary items in Fig. 3 appear in French because there is no English equivalent: DSF and CEREMA. DSF means *Document Stratégique de Façade*, the name of the French marine spatial plan (translation: Strategic Coastline Document). The French acronym is used here as it does not occur frequently in this article. CEREMA means *Centre d'études et d'expertise sur les risques, l'environnement, la mobilité et l'aménagement* (translation: Centre for Studies on Risks, the Environment, Mobility and Urban Planning). This organisation is heavily involved in map production for the French MSP.</footnote>
between stakeholders who produce or analyse maps (state, academic) and those who deal with map-related issues (mainly professionals and civil society). Professionals and civil society form a unique category as both observers and subjects of scrutiny by other stakeholders, a dynamic common in planning procedures as seen in focus group meetings.

Factor 1 interprets the vocabulary associated with each type of stakeholder. Academics focus on questioning and problem-solving (e.g. *concern*, *limit*, *analysis*, *problem*, *indicator*), state stakeholders, by contrast, emphasise spatial planning (e.g. *Mediterranean*, *DSF*, *context*, *reality*, *planning*) and on the way in which spatial planning is mapped and activities characterised (e.g. *to show*, *class*, *to see*, *to work*, *economic*, *planning*). Civil society stakeholders prioritise communication and accessibility (e.g. *goal*, to pass [information]), while professional stakeholders highlight ‘interpretation’ challenges (e.g. *to find*, *interpretation*, *key*, *difficult*). Factor 2 contrasts views of the maps; civil society and state stakeholders see them as prescriptive tools (*planning*, *goal*, *validity*, *reality*, *and show*), whereas academics and professionals view them as interpretative instruments (*interpretation*, *decision*, *choice*).

This analysis reveals how different stakeholders engage with maps differently depending on their role and priorities. For professionals and civil society, maps carry immediate, tangible consequences, whereas academics use them for long-term analysis. State stakeholders, positioned between these groups, balance planning needs with practical implementation. It also reveals discussion dynamics in which participants systematically turn to strategic actors depending on the topics addressed. Naturally, professionals in the fishing industry serve as key reference points for discussions on fishing activities. Given the strong coexistence challenges between offshore wind energy (OWE) and fishing, energy sector representatives play a significant role in discussions relating to fishing maps. At the same time, stakeholders with an interest in marine environmental issues are also highly engaged in shaping the debate.

When indicators relating to the environmental impact of activities - potentially affecting the fishing industry - are introduced, certain strategic actors react promptly: “We said we weren’t going to tear each other apart today” (Group_1_Professional_1). This statement hints at the underlying tensions surrounding this issue. Although the focus groups were held in a constructive, respectful atmosphere with extensive discussion, tensions arising from activity planning can be detected in these exchanges. The government’s policy objectives are also frequently mentioned, as spatial planning efforts aim to accommodate all stakeholders while simultaneously meeting European requirements. Additionally, within the decision-making process and the production of maps, the apparent standardisation of maps in the planning document conceals deeper issues. As revealed during the discussions, “[the map producers] did not take responsibility for it and we had to redo them. They didn’t stand by their work and didn’t want it published because it wasn’t based on rigorous methods - it’s not drawing, but almost. It seems to align with reality, but methodologically it’s not rigorous. So perhaps users can make sense of it, but it raises concerns about the data” (Group_2_State_2). At the same time, “information needs to be represented, but we also have to satisfy the members of the maritime council” (Group_2_State_2). Consequently, multiple layers of power and hierarchical relationships among stakeholders influence and shape map production in the context of spatial planning.

Understanding these power relationships and differences in map literacy is essential to improve map design and communication between different stakeholder groups. This analysis clarifies how the roles of stakeholders affect their approach to cartography, so it is crucial to consider these roles when designing participatory mapping projects.

## 5. Discussion and conclusion

These results raise two main issues. Firstly, the legitimacy of non-academic critical discourse, as stakeholders also express critical views of maps. Secondly, we must clarify how power relations between

stakeholders are influenced by the mapping process and technologies, aiming to minimise the negative effects of the map-technology-stakeholder relationship.

### 5.1. Non-academic critical cartography

The results of the discourse analysis carried out for this study illustrate the problems associated with recognising the choices made in all aspects of map-making, from data production to reception of information. They also highlight the authority relationships that affect how maps are constructed, which are intrinsically linked to the roles of stakeholders in project planning.

In the case study examined, since MSP is in France OWE-oriented, the spatial reality represented by the maps aligns with development objectives. For instance, alternative data and maps for activities affected by OWE projects, such as fisheries from the Valpena system (Trouillet et al., 2019), were not really considered by the authorities (i.e. the State). According to some stakeholders, however, there is no clear evidence that including these data would have altered the view of the space or decisions regarding OWE deployment, but incorporating these alternative datasets would have provided different representations of fishing activities, which may have given rise to debates around map-making and data.

Building on these observations, a key concern expressed by stakeholders is that maps do not reflect their experience of the situation. For many activities that are subject to automated monitoring, the State systematically prioritises remote data (i.e. satellite) over survey data, even though they are fully aware of the limitations of such datasets. Consequently, local knowledge is excluded from the planning process and the gaps inherent in satellite data remain unaddressed. These data-selection processes favouring primarily quantitative information further underscore the power dynamics between stakeholders and the State. The approach also reinforces the perception that only ‘scientific’ data are valid for legitimising decisions, which in turn leads to the depoliticisation of planning decisions and an apparently diminished form of accountability in decision-making.

This dynamic presents a paradox; while official maps are perceived as neutral and objective, they are in fact shaped by power relations that marginalise local knowledge and dismiss technical choices that are outside the sphere of marine planning debates. This tension between institutional mapping practices and lay perceptions reinforces the relevance of critical cartography, as explored by Cidell (2008). Cidell showed that laypeople, i.e. people with no experience of map making, are considered in the literature as naive and ignorant of the power relations occasioned by maps, and that these people consider ‘official’ or ‘scientific’ maps to be neutral and objective (Harley, 2001; Wood and Fels, 1992). However, other works in the field of critical GIS have demonstrated that laypeople are not necessarily unaware of power relations (Elwood, 2002; Peluso, 1995; Walker and Peters, 2001), but these studies mainly concern scenarios where laypeople are the makers of maps rather than the receivers. Along with Cidell (2008), this study confirms that stakeholders are aware of the power that maps have to influence decisions, the lack of transparency in processing and representation decisions, and the implications these decisions have for the purpose of the map. This also leads to criticism of the role of decision-makers in representing a situation in a single way when different realities coexist (Leroy, 2018) and is demonstrated by work on the potential use of alternative datasets (St. Martin and Hall-Arber, 2008; Trouillet, 2019). Drawing on this research, non-academic critical cartography could be part of (marine) spatial planning processes and could even play a pivotal role for several reasons. Firstly, it could support the inclusion of local perspectives, incorporating the knowledge and experience of (coastal) communities, stakeholders, and environmental groups as opposed to or in addition to official knowledge. Secondly, it could help to identify social issues associated with spatial planning, anticipating conflicts and allowing for solutions that address
the concerns of all stakeholders. Finally, by doing so it could enhance social legitimacy by actively involving stakeholders and local communities in the mapping process, fostering greater acceptance of decisions based on the maps. Non-academic critical cartography should be expanded to encompass a critical approach to the entire data lifecycle. This is particularly relevant as maps are increasingly seen less as a finished product (Gautreau and Noucher, 2022). For instance, a marine plan disseminated through geoportals can generate multiple mapping, albeit within certain limits, and since these plans are regularly updated, the process is inherently continuous rather than fixed. Additionally, non-academic critical cartography can be conceived as a tool for pedagogy and mutual knowledge-sharing among stakeholders. This approach requires a long-term perspective, extending beyond the mere timeframe of producing a specific marine plan.

Finally, the intricate relationship between power and knowledge is characteristic of planning schemes, especially when they are based on quantitative, technology-driven data since, by extension, this relegates qualitative knowledge to the sidelines of the process. And, in line with the Foucaultian approach to the power-knowledge relationship, “it must be admitted that power produces knowledge<fnref n="3" />” (Foucault, 2015, p. 288), so in a planning approach, the hierarchisation of knowledge takes place according to the hierarchisation of power.

## 5.2. Dominance relationship between maps, technology, and people

As demonstrated above, stakeholders criticise the maps used in the planning process on two levels: (i) the objectivity and universality of representations; (ii) the legitimacy of producing ‘knowledge based on experience’ as a power struggle. Examples of this include the environmental controversies referred to by Clark and Murdoch (1997) and Peluso (1995) and to a lesser extent, the assessment of noise pollution (Cidell, 2008). This approach reveals different dimensions of power through the analysis, reception, and understanding of geographic data and geotechnologies. Based on the work of Tafon et al. (2019), geotechnologies and GI first appear to perform an ‘in-planning’ power that is hidden, as maps communicate a situation that appears universal. When we look at how actors perceive planning maps, we also see a ‘power of planning’, that is, the power that impacts society through planning decisions, since the dominant stakeholders dictate their decisions. There is also a power ‘on planning’, since actors outside the planning process, e.g. geomatics experts and data providers, also influence dominance relationships either consciously or unconsciously. Finally, a fourth though less visible dimension known as ‘over-planning’ power, as theorised by Tafon (2019) - the self-inflicted urge of individual stakeholders to rally to the group opinion. This form of power was observed in the focus group meetings in the way the maps were understood or perceived by stakeholders on the margins of the planning process, compared to those more closely involved in the process or having a greater stake in marine activities, such as major economic activities. It was also observed between the civil society stakeholders, who rallied to the opinion of the stakeholders more closely involved in the planning process, such as the State, fishers, or marine renewable energy stakeholders, even if their interests diverged.

In addition, analysing the dialogue during focus group meetings reveals not only the content of critical approaches by the actors but also the power relations intrinsic to the planning process. The maps used for planning were questioned in terms of both their validity and the technical issues at stake, opening up the ‘black box’ of GIS processing. Using these maps as a decision-making tool for MSP implementation is discussed as [with respect to maps] “if it is not the truth in the field at the time, as long as it is the consensual truth, we will be largely satisfied with it, even in the context of planning” (Group_1 Professional_18). This shows that, however, maps are used to represent activities, if they do not

resonate with the view of the stakeholders they can be overridden to reach a consensus between different interests, without resorting to scientific information. Although the value of the data used seems to have a major influence on the results, maps are no longer indispensable since “technical data have nothing to do with it” (Group_1 Professionnel_18, referring to the consultation of fishers on the subject of implementing an OWE off the French Atlantic coast); other human and non-human actors have a greater influence on planning negotiations. This reflects the difficulty of evidence-based scientific decision-making in planning, which is “a priori [...] rational, but today it is not, it is mostly irrational” (Group_1 Institutionnel_2). So, even though planning actors take a critical approach to the maps produced as part of the planning process, which are supposed to guide decision-making and rank power-knowledge relationships, it appears that dominance relationships are, at the decision-making stage, detached from maps and other scientific approaches.

An interesting approach to counterbalance these power-knowledge relations would be to encourage a participatory approach to cartography. Participatory GIS has so far been used mainly in urban planning and environmental issues, but there are also initiatives in marine planning (e.g. Baldwin and Mahon, 2014), supported by scientific research. Participatory science “transforms governance into more transparent, socially relevant, and democratic endeavours” (McAteer and Flannery, 2022, p. 1). The participatory model can influence ocean governance to move towards greater consideration of local communities and away from economic-based knowledge (McAteer and Flannery, 2022), but it can also lead to unequal dispositions of power that impede social progress (McAteer and Flannery, 2022). Additionally, since the interactions between power and knowledge are two-way, the institutionalisation of participatory science practices is regulated by dominant stakeholders through their power to integrate the knowledge produced (Jentoft, 2017). Studies suggest that to restore the balance between knowledge and power, the first approach is to become aware of it (McAteer and Flannery, 2022). This research also shows that many stakeholders know that maps shape power relations and are aware of the choices made in the mapping process. So, although critical cartography by non-academics is still little understood, it can be observed that in the field of planning, both marine and urban, the consultation of stakeholders reflects an awareness not only of the power relations inherent to cartography, but also because maps create rather than reflect reality (Cidell, 2008).

In complement to Cidell (2008), this study shows that the influence of technical limitations on power-knowledge relations escapes the use of critical cartography approaches by laypersons, as this was not addressed by the focus groups, and no related terms appeared in this analysis. However, geotechnologies play a role in structuring knowledge, which is especially important in planning conflict situations where standardised data is favoured over the knowledge of local stakeholders, which is often less well-structured (Alphandéry et al., 2012). This can lead to the impoverishment of knowledge due to the data production systems used (Gautreau, 2021), as Gautreau demonstrated in relation to the production of environmental data. These findings would also seem to apply to planning since the limitations of tools for integrating certain forms of data, e.g. qualitative data, create a power relationship with the users of these tools, who are not taken into account in the planning process. These limitations include the data that can be used (data formats are fairly limited and qualitative data is difficult to process), 2D or multi-dimensional representations, representation methods, markers of lack of representation (e.g. blank maps can indicate either a lack of information or a type of information) (Noucher, 2023).

To conclude, this study reveals the critical approach taken by stakeholders in a multi-actor context and the power relations involved, with particular reference to the power relations exposed and articulated through cartography in the MSP context. Foucault’s concept of power-knowledge helps explain the favouring of quantitative scientific data over qualitative local knowledge, while Allen’s understanding of power

<footnote n="3">³ Original citation: *il faut admettre que le pouvoir produit du savoir*</footnote>
modes provides insight into strategies that stakeholders can use to exert influence. The findings reveal that power in MSP is exercised not only through formal authority but also through discursive control, technical expertise and the inclusion of selective data, all of which affect the governance of marine space. At the same time, stakeholders in this experiment are also aware that the maps used for planning purposes are also intended to determine a future reality, so it is important not to underestimate the inequality between different marine activities. The stakeholders' backgrounds have a bearing on the structure of the debates; there are distinctions between the stakeholders who produce maps and knowledge and those who interpret them. This work shows that stakeholders take a critical approach to maps in the context of MSP, but more research is needed to determine whether there are different critical approaches and how they are expressed in multi-stakeholder debates.

## Funding

This research was funded by a doctoral grant from the University of Nantes and the Pays de la Loire Regional Council (2019-2022).

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Trouillet Brice:** Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision.
**Davret Juliette:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.

## Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Acknowledgements section

We would like to acknowledge the logistical support of the Chaire Maritime in organising the focus groups and in particular Sarah Petrovitch for her conceptual contribution, and Jeremy Daniel for his cartographic expertise.

JD and BT contributed to the conception of this research and provided insight and context to support the interpretation of results. JD translated the materials from French into English. JD led the writing of the manuscript, data collection and analysis. All the co-authors contributed to the preparation, editing and refining of the manuscript. All the authors have approved the final manuscript.

We would like to thank the two reviewers who provided us with useful comments and helped us improve the article.

## Appendix A. Supporting information

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104083.

## Data availability

The data that has been used is confidential.

## References

Aitken, S.C., Michel, S.M., 1995. Who Contrives the “Real” in GIS? Geographic Information, Planning and Critical Theory. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 22 (1), 17–29.
https://doi.org/10.1559/152304095782540519

Allen, J. (2003). Lost Geographies of Power. Blackwell.

Alphandéry P., Fortier A. and Sourdril A. (2012) Les données entre normalisation et territoire: La construction de la trame verte et bleue. Développement durable et territoires. Économie, géographie, politique, droit, sociologie, Vol. 3, n° 2, Article Vol. 3, n° 2. https://doi.org/10.4000/developpementdurable.9282.

Baldwin, K., Mahon, R., 2014. A Participatory GIS for marine spatial planning in the grenadine islands. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 63 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2014.tb00452.x.

Baribeau, C., 2009. Analyse des données des entretiens de groupe. Rech. Qual. 28 (1), 133. https://doi.org/10.7202/1085324ar.

Campbell, L.M., St. Martin, K., Fairbanks, L., Boucquey, N., Wise, S., 2020. The portal is the plan: Governing US oceans in regional assemblages. Marit. Stud. 19 (3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00173-3.

Chambers, R., 2006. Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: whose map? Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 25 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00163.x.

Cidell, J., 2008. Challenging the contours: critical cartography, local knowledge, and the public. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 40 (5), 1202–1218. https://doi.org/10.1068/a38447.

Clark, J., Murdoch, J., 1997. Local knowledge and the precarious extension of scientific networks: a reflection on three case studies. Sociol. Rural. 37 (1), 38–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00035.

Cowell, R., Owens, S., 2006. Governing space: planning reform and the politics of sustainability. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 24 (3), 403–421.

Crampton, J.W., 2010. Mapping: A Critical Introduction to Cartography and GIS. Wiley-Blackwell.

Crampton, J.W., Krygier, J., 2006. An introduction to critical cartography. ACME: Int. J. Crit. Geogr. 4 (1), 11–33.

Davret, J., Deconstructing marine maps: revealing map-making choices through fishing and pleasure boating, *L'atlas Bleu, Revue cartographique des mers et des littoraux*. https://doi.org/10.35109/atlasbleu-eng.10048.

Davret, J., Trouillet, B., Toonen, H., 2023. The digital turn of marine planning: a global analysis of ocean geoportals. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2023.2283081.

Doody, O., Slevin, E., Taggart, L., 2013. Focus group interviews part 3: analysis. Br. J. Nurs. 22 (5), 266–269. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2013.22.5.266.

Directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning (MSP directive), 2014/89/EU (2014). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0089&from=EN).

Dupont, C. (2021) Contribution des données de surveillance maritime à la Planification de l'Espace Maritime français-AIS, VMS, radar: Entre potentiels techniques et contraintes politiques [Ph.D Thesis]. Université de Bretagne occidentale.

Elden, S., 2007. Governmentality, calculation, territory. Environ. Plan. D: Soc. Space 25 (3), 562–580.

Elwood, S.A., 2002. GIS use in community planning: a multidimensional analysis of empowerment. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 34 (5), 905–922. https://doi.org/10.1068/a34117.

Flannery, W., Ellis, G., Nursey-Bray, M., Kelly, C., Coffen-Smout, S., Fairgrieve, R., Knol, M., Jentoft, S., Bacon, D., O'Hagan, A.M., 2016. Exploring the winners and losers of marine environmental governance. Plan. Theory Pract. 17 (1), 121–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2015.1131482.

Foucault, M., 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Harvester Press, pp. 1972–1977.

Foucault, M. (2015) Surveiller et punir. In M. Foucault (Ed.), *Oeuvres II* (Gallimard).

Freeman, R.E., 2010. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge university press.

Gautreau, P., 2021. La Pachamama en bases de données: Géographie politique de l'information environnementale contemporaine. Éditions de l'IHEAL. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ihegal.9362.

Gautreau, P., Noucher, M., 2022. Farewell to maps: reformulating critical cartography in the digital age. The Politics of Mapping. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119986751.ch3.

Gopnik, M., Fieseler, C., Cantral, L., McClellan, K., Pendleton, L., Crowder, L., 2012. Coming to the table: Early stakeholder engagement in marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 36 (5), 1139–1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.02.012.

Guyot-Téphany, J. (2019) Protéger la nature à l'ère de l'anthropocène: Géo-graphies de l'archipel des Galapagos (Equateur) [Ph.D Thesis]. Université de Limoges.

Guyot-Téphany, J., Davret, J., Tissière, L., Trouillet, B., 2024. Public participation in marine spatial planning in France: From minimal requirements to minimal achievements. Ocean Coast. Manag. 256, 107310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2024.107310.

Harley, B., 1989. Deconstructing the map. Cartogr. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Geovisualization 26 (2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3138/E635-7827-1757-9T53.

Harley, J.B. (2001) The New Nature of Maps: Essays in the History of Cartography. Baltimore MD.

Hodgson, D.L., Schroeder, R.A., 2002. Dilemmas of counter-mapping community resources in Tanzania. Dev. Change 33 (1), 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00241.

Jentoft, S., 2017. Small-scale fisheries within maritime spatial planning: knowledge integration and power. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 19 (3), 266–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2017.1304210.

Jordan, G., 2002. GIS for community forestry user groups in Nepal: Putting people before the technology. Community Participation and Geographical Information Systems. CRC Press.

Kalampalikis, N., 2005. L'apport de la méthode Alceste dans l'analyse des représentations sociales. Méthodes d'étude des représentations sociales. Érès, pp. 147–163. https://doi.org/10.3917/eres.babric.2003.01.0147.
Kidd, S., Ellis, G., 2012. From the land to sea and back again? Using terrestrial planning to understand the process of marine spatial planning. *J. Environ. Policy Plan.* 14 (1), 49-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2012.662382.

Kitzinger, J., Markova, I., Kalampalikis, N., 2004. Qu'est-ce que les focus groups? *Bull. De Psychol.* 57 (3), 237-243.

Kwaku Kyem, P.A., 2004. Of intractable conflicts and participatory GIS applications: the search for consensus amidst competing claims and institutional demands. *Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.* 94 (1), 37-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.09401003.x

Kwan, M.P., 2002a. Feminist visualization: re-envisioning GIS as a method in feminist geographic research. *Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.* 92 (4), 645-661. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.2003.00309.

Kwan, M.P., 2002b. Is GIS for Women? Reflections on the critical discourse in the 1990s. *Gend., Place Cult.* 9 (3), 271-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369022000003888.

Leroy, Y. (2018) Cartographie critique de réalités géographiques [Ph.D. thesis]. Nantes.

Linell, P., 2001. A dialogical conception of focus groups and social representations. In: Linell, P. (Ed.), *Socio-cultural theory and methods: An anthology (University Trollhättan). Tema, Univ. pp. 163-206.*

McAteer, B., Flannery, W., 2022. Power, knowledge and the transformative potential of marine community science. *Ocean Coast. Manag.* 218, 106036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106036.

McLafferty, S.L., 2002. Mapping Women's Worlds: knowledge, power and the bounds of GIS. *Gend., Place Cult.* 9 (3), 263-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369022000003879.

Meredith, T.C., Yetman, G.G., 2002. Mexican and Canadian case studies of community-based spatial information management for biodiversity conservation. *Community Participation and Geographical Information Systems. CRC Press.*

Mericskay, B. (2013) Cartographie en ligne et planification participative: Analyse des usages du géoweb et d'Internet dans le débat public à travers le cas de la Ville de Québec [Ph.D Thesis]. Laval.

Monmonier, M., Grataloup, C., 2019. Comment faire mentir les cartes (Autrement).

MSPglobal, 2020. Empowering a new generation of stakeholders to sustainably plan our ocean. *J. Ocean Technol.* 15 (2) https://www.mspglobal2030.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/MSPglobal_JOT_TradeWinds_2020.pdf.

Noucher, M., 2023. Blancs des cartes et boîtes noires algorithmiques. *CNRS Editions.*

Nyumba, T.O., Wilson, K., Derrick, C.J., Mukherjee, N., 2018. The use of focus group discussion methodology: insights from two decades of application in conservation. *Methods Ecol. Evol.* 9 (1), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860.

Papadopoulos, Y., Warin, P., 2007. Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective? *Eur. J. Political Res.* 46 (4), 445-472.

Parker, A., Tritter, J., 2006. Focus group method and methodology: current practice and recent debate. *Int. J. Res. Method Educ.* 29 (1), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/01406720500537304.

Pavlovskaya, M.E., 2002. Mapping urban change and changing GIS: other views of economic restructuring. *Gend., Place Cult.* 9 (3), 281-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369022000003897.

Peluso, N.L., 1995. Whose woods are these? Counter-mapping forest territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. *Antipode* 27 (4), 383-406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.1995.tb00286.x

Perkins, C., 2003. Cartography: mapping theory. *Prog. Hum. Geogr.* 27 (3), 341-351. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132503ph430pr.

Pickles, J., 1995. Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems. Guilford Press.

Pickles, J., 2004. *A History of Spaces: Cartographic Reason, Mapping, and the Geo-coded World*. Routledge.

Pomeroy, R., Douvere, F., 2008. The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. *Mar. Policy* 32 (5), 816-822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.017.

Ratinaud, P., Déjean, S., 2009. IRAMuTeQ: implémentation de la méthode ALCESTE d'analyse de texte dans un logiciel libre. Mod. élisation Appliquée Aux. Sci. Hum. Et. Soc. MASHS 8-9.

Reinert, M., 1993. Les "mondes lexicaux" et leur "logique" à travers l'analyse statistique d'un corpus de récits de cauchemars. *Lang. Soci. été* 66 (1), 5-39. https://doi.org/10.3406/lsoc.1993.2632.

Ritchie, H., Ellis, G., 2010. A system that works for the sea? Exploring Stakeholder Engagement in Marine Spatial Planning. *J. Environ. Plan. Manag.* 53 (6), 701-723. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.488100.

Schuurman, N.C. (2000) Critical GIS: Theorizing an Emerging Science [PhD Thesis, University of British Columbia]. 10.14288/1.0089782.

Schuurman, N., Pratt, G., 2002. Care of the subject: feminism and critiques of GIS. *Gend., Place Cult.* 9 (3), 291-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369022000003905.

Smith, G., Jentoft, S., 2017. Marine spatial planning in Scotland. Levelling the playing field? *Mar. Policy* 84, 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.06.024.

St. Martin, K., Hall-Arber, M., 2008. The missing layer: geo-technologies, communities, and implications for marine spatial planning. *Mar. Policy* 32 (5), 779-786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.015.

Tafon, R. (2019) The “Dark Side” of Marine Spatial Planning A study of Domination, Empowerment and Freedom through Theories of Discourse and Power.[PhD. Thesis] Södertörn University. (http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-38051).

Tafon, R., Howarth, D., Griggs, S., 2019. The politics of Estonia's offshore wind energy programme: discourse, power and marine spatial planning. *Environ. Plan. C Polit. Space* 37 (1), 157-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654418778037.

Tétreault, S., Guillez, P., 2014. Méthodes de recherche pour des groupes. Guide pratique de recherche en réadaptation. *De Boeck Superieur*.

Tissière, L., Trouillet, B., 2022. What participation means in marine spatial planning systems? *Lessons from the french case*. *Plan. Pract. Res.* 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2022.2027638.

Trouillet, B., 2019. Aligning with dominant interests: the role played by geo-technologies in the place given to fisheries in marine spatial planning. *S0016718519303008 Geoforum*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.10.012.

Trouillet, B., Bellanger-Husi, L., El Ghaziri, A., Lamberts, C., Plissonneau, E., Rollo, N., 2019. More than maps: providing an alternative for fisheries and fishers in marine spatial planning. *Ocean Coast. Manag.* 173, 90-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.02.016.

Van Campenhoudt, L., Franssen, A., Cantelli, F., 2009. La méthode d'analyse en groupe: explication, applications et implications d'un nouveau dispositif de recherche. *SociologieS*. https://doi.org/10.4000/sociologies.2968.

Walker, P.A., Peters, P.E., 2001. Maps, metaphors, and meanings: boundary struggles and village forest use on private and state land in Malawi. *Soc. Nat. Resour.* 14 (5), 411-424.

Warren, S., 2004. The utopian potential of GIS. *Cartogr. Int. J. Geogr. Inf.* Geovisualization 39 (1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.3138/JW0L-3577-0J40-V3Q4.

Wegener, M., 1998. GIS and spatial planning. *Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des.* 25 (7), 48-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/239980839802500709.

Weiner, D., Harris, T.M., Craig, W.J., 2002. Community participation and geographic information systems. *Community Participation and Geographical Information Systems. CRC Press.*

Wood, D., 2003. Cartography is dead (Thank God!). *Cartogr. Perspect.* (45), 4-7. https://doi.org/10.14714/CP45.497.

Wood, D., 2010. Rethinking the Power of maps. Guilford Press.

Wood, D., Fels, J., 1992. The Power of Maps. Guilford Press.