Loading evaluation data…
counter-mapping is not merely a technical practice of visualisation but a political process of resistance
directly grounded in workshop episodes and map circulation, with case-study rather than universal scope
The map is now being used and discussed by these communities and their broader river defence networks
specific delivery formats, organisations, protest settings, and testimonial evidence are reported
matterialisation operates across multiple levels
community negotiation and external circulation are both documented, though theorised from one focal case
Counter-maps become effective not simply because they visualise alternative territorial realities
article links map uptake to pre-existing organisations, alliances, and political conjunctures
the counter-map does not emerge from a homogeneous communitarian voice
internal differences and strategic synthesis are explicitly acknowledged during map revision
Derived from the full evaluation — not a separate score.
Strengths
Section 3.1 discusses the first author's Latin American but non-Ecuadorian positionality, alignment with non-dominant perspectives, and the negotiated role of researcher-collaborator. This supports interpretive transparency for a politically engaged mapping project.
↳ §3.1
The paper documents the movement from preliminary base maps to community sketches, revised drafts, and the final counter-map through Figures 3–13. The pivotal map reorientation in §3.2 gives concrete evidence for the claim that mapping practices embody different territorial logics.
↳ §§3.2–3.3; Figs. 3–13
Section 2.3 recognises that counter-maps can simplify, stabilise, and translate complex territorial relations, and that their effects depend on context, audience, and circulation. This avoids treating participatory mapping as automatically emancipatory.
↳ §2.3
Section 3.4 reports delivery of the map in banner, brochure, and digital forms and describes its use during the Contra Cumbre and later water-defence mobilisation. This gives the article a clearer impact pathway than most purely academic case studies.
↳ §3.4; Fig. 14
Limitations
The paper reports interviews and workshops but does not provide an interview guide, workshop protocol, interview duration, recording/transcription procedures, or a systematic analysis workflow. These omissions limit auditability of the qualitative interpretation.
↳ Introduction methods overview; §3.1
The article states that 20 interviews included activists, researchers, hydraulic engineers, institutional actors, and others, but the results primarily develop the Soldados community mapping process. The broader interview set mainly provides context rather than a systematically reported multi-stakeholder analysis.
↳ §3.1
Matterialisation is a useful label for linking materiality, what matters, and counter-mapping, but the paper builds closely on existing work on hydrosocial territories, counter-cartography, and situated territorial knowledge. The contribution is therefore solid rather than field-redefining.
↳ §§2.1–2.3; Conclusions §4
The article reports human-participant interviews, participatory workshops, and personal communications, but no ethics approval or consent-process statement is visible in the supplied full text. This is a research-conduct watch-out rather than a finding-level reliability failure.
↳ Full text; §3.1
The scores are driven by the article's well-documented co-mapping process in §§3.1–3.4, where community sketches, revisions, participant quotations, and Figures 3–14 make the empirical pathway visible. The conceptual contribution is credible because 'matterialisation' links hydrosocial territory theory to a concrete counter-map, but it remains an incremental synthesis of established debates on cartographic power and situated knowledge. Methodological Rigour is competent for action-research and strengthened by reflexivity, yet reduced by missing procedural details on interview and workshop conduct, recording, transcription, and analysis. Impact potential is comparatively strong because the map is already in use by named organisations, while demonstrated effects stop short of policy or project change.
Sound3.7/5.0
The score reflects a clear conceptual contribution in framing counter-mapping as 'matterialisation' and grounding it in a detailed Yanuncay case. The advance is moderated because maps as political tools, counter-mapping as resistance, and situated hydrosocial knowledge are already well-established literatures.
counter-mapping is not merely a technical practice of visualisation but a political process of resistance
The design fits the action-research question and includes interviews, participatory mapping workshops, iterative draft revision, participant validation, and positionality reflection. The score is limited by incomplete reporting of interview/workshop protocols, recording and transcription procedures, analytic audit trail, and the thin treatment of the initial 20 interviews.
Twenty open-ended interviews were conducted
The paper has a clear arc from extractive threat to conceptual framing, mapping process, and political circulation, and the staged map figures help readers follow the empirical process. The score is moderated by conceptually dense prose and occasional blurring of matterialisation as concept, methodology, and political practice.
To matterialise is to render politically visible
The article situates the case in hydrosocial territories, political ecology, critical cartography, decolonial cartography, and counter-mapping critiques. The score is below the top range because engagement is strongest within an aligned Riverhood/hydrosocial-territory tradition and less developed for adjacent participatory GIS and community-mapping literatures.
this does not invalidate counter-mapping but calls for a more reflexive understanding
Lower confidence on Contribution, Methodological Rigour — domain match limited.
Watch-outs4 of 4 checks
The qualitative action-research account is internally coherent: the reported interviews, workshops, iterative map revisions, and subsequent circulation align with the findings and argument. No material contradiction, impossible quantitative result, or methods-results mismatch is evident from the supplied reviews.
The paper reports human-participant interviews, participatory workshops, and personal communications, but no ethics approval or consent-process statement is identifiable in the supplied full text. No image-integrity, preregistration, data/code, or conflict concern rises beyond assessability limitations for this qualitative design.
Flags: 0 declared / 5 total
49 references verified via PubMed, Crossref, or OpenAlex.
No retraction notice found in Retraction Watch.
Sources: Retraction Watch ✓PubPeer (coming soon)
High3.8/5.0
The paper addresses an active territorial conflict over mining and hydropower in the Yanuncay basin and identifies communities and organisations using the map. This supports high traction because stakeholders, need, and mechanism are explicit.
adopted it as a key tool in ongoing struggles for territorial defence
The map is not merely proposed but delivered in banner, brochure, and digital formats and used in protests and public events. Readiness remains below the top range because the paper shows mobilisation and pedagogy rather than demonstrated policy or project-change outcomes.
a mobile and performative tool
The counter-mapping process and River Co-learning Activities offer a transferable methodological template for similar territorial conflicts. Generalizability is constrained by the single focal community, one river section, and dependence on local networks and Ecuadorian political conjunctures.
depends on the broader political networks, alliances, and conjunctures
The work is embedded in an active research and activist programme on river grabbing, hydrosocial territories, and counter-cartography. The documented route from workshop to mobilisation gives the concept a plausible cumulative trajectory within politically engaged geography.
linking representation, communication, and mobilisation
Lower confidence on Readiness, Generalizability — domain match limited.
Nabu’s assessment, alongside the field’s view.
Evaluation Metadata
AI-powered, human-governed. Something look off? Contact us to request a review.