Page | 1 Participatory Mapping Denwood T.*1, Huck, J.J.1 1 MCGIS, Department of Geography, University of Manchester This research explores the potential of developing Participatory Mapping interfaces that do not include an explicit map or other spatial contextualisation, using a case study in the Lake District, UK. Whilst there are countless examples of the successful deployment of map-based interfaces for collecting spatial information from citizens, in some cases, a map may not be an appropriate tool and other types of visual representations more suitable. We will demonstrate that the uncritical use of spatial contextualisation can impact both the usability of the interface for the user and robustness of the resultant data for the researcher. KEYWORDS: Participatory Mapping, PGIS, Lake District, Photo Comparison 1. Introduction The popularity of Participatory Mapping has increased significantly in the past decade; defined as a “multi-agent practice, through which citizens are required or communicate their spatial thoughts, feelings, or knowledge in support of a specific research aim or decision-making goal” (Denwood et al., 2022a p. 2324). Participatory Mapping has, unsurprisingly, thus far focused upon the use of a range of map-based interfaces (e.g. participatory geographic information systems (PGIS), sketch mapping and mental mapping; Denwood et al., 2022a). Each of these methods comes with a unique set of advantages and drawbacks, for example in terms of accessibility, ease of participant recruitment and the type of data collected. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that the uncritical choice of map interface can result in poor quality data (e.g., Huck et al., 2014; 2019, Denwood et al., 2022; 2022a), and that the specific context (e.g., geographic location, cultural setting) and questions being asked of participants should be key considerations in selecting which method to use (Denwood et al., 2022b). Building on the findings of Denwood et al, (2022b), in this research we explore whether the use of a map-based interface is always appropriate when collecting participatory spatial data. It has long been understood that maps hold “power” (Wood, 2010), and the influence of cartography upon individuals’ interaction with (Field, 2013) and use of (Huck et al., 2016) the map are well understood. It follows that the choice of base map for a Participatory Mapping exercise has the potential to influence participants’ decisions, particularly in cases when those participants are not intimately familiar with the landscape in question; or when the phenomenon being mapped is easily associated with map symbology. For example, consider the question of asking individuals to identify what they consider to be “natural” in a landscape using a Google Map interface. Those without a detailed knowledge of the landscape (e.g., tourists) might easily find themselves influenced by the map and drawn to mark the ‘green’ areas of the map, irrespective of what they are. 2. Methods Here, we examine one such situation, in which we ask a range of stakeholders to identify what they find to be “natural” and “valuable” in the landscape. Participants will complete the survey using a traditional map-based interface, and a photograph-based approach, in which the photographs are representative of certain parcels of land. Using images in perception surveys for assessing landscape * timna.denwood@manchester.ac.uk