Five hundred years ago when John Cabot explored the coast of present day Atlantic Canada, he could lower a pail into the sea and pull out a bucket full of fish. The schools were so thick in some places that his boat was occasionally slowed by the incalculable mass of animals below. Today, there are hardly enough fish left to grace the dinner table in Newfoundland, Canada's easternmost province. Six years have passed since the Atlantic Groundfish Moratorium was declared (June 1992) and there are still too few cod in much of the region to permit commercial extraction. Beyond the environmental degradation that this stock collapse represents, the social impact has been devastating for fisheries dependent communities, particularly those reliant on the traditional small-boat inshore harvest. Confronted by the ominous spectre of rotting skiffs, closing hospitals and massive out migration, many groups are working diligently to conserve remaining fisheries, such as lobster, and the traditional way of life that now depends on them. Before the present crisis, the concerns of fishers and their families were often disregarded- indeed marginalized-by biologists and ocean related agencies. Now, communities expect to participate actively in every facet of fisheries science and management, especially where spatial and temporal limitations to harvest may be implemented. This paper describes preliminary efforts to link government organizations and harvesters in Bonavista Bay, a historically strong fishing area of Newfoundland. I discuss a collaborative project intended to capture local fisheries knowledge through participatory mapping aided by emerging geographic technologies, principally, GIS.

2.0 RESEARCH OVERVIEW

 The project described here evolved over three years (1994-1997) during several research terms with Parks Canada. During this time period, I worked with staff at Terra Nova National Park (see Figure 1) to explore marine conservation initiatives in Bonavista Bay. I was invited to participate in small boat fishing activities with local harvesters and later, I co-facilitated a series of community meetings to discuss conservation measures. As a reaction to industry demands that government managers and conservation agencies acknowledge and incorporate local knowledge, I began organizing a GIS project to capture traditional fishing patterns in Bonavista Bay. The project evolved as a collaborative effort with input from several government agencies, a local fishermen's committee, a geomatics training program and a software firm. A customized basemap depicting topographic and hydrographic features was produced, and as a pilot project, this prototype chart was used during mapping sessions with harvesters to delineate fishing grounds, spatial management controls and local toponyms. Multiple overlay sheets were compiled and digitally rendered to produce thematic maps of the area.

3.0 BACKGROUND

3.1 The Setting

 Situated on the northeast coast of Newfoundland, Bonavista Bay encompasses shoals and deep troughs, exposed shorelines, archipelagos and sheltered fjords. The cold waters of the Labrador Current support a wide variety of fish species as well as populations of North Atlantic seabirds, seals and whales. These living resources have supported humans for over seven thousand years as evidenced by numerous Indian and Eskimo habitation sites (Major 1979). Europeans arrived for a seasonal fishery in the 1500's and settled permanently in the 1600's. Cod, the primary species harvested, was salted and dried for export markets by family enterprises until well into this century. At the operational level, large fibreglass vessels gradually replaced home-built wooden boats while monofilament nets supplanted hook and line gear. The intensification and expansion of the inshore sector was also accompanied by the imposition of an increasingly centralized management regime, new regulatory measures and scientific stock assessments. After Canada declared a 200-mile fishing zone in 1977, stern trawlers delivered a welcome bounty from the offshore banks where foreign vessels once prospered. All seemed fine until the early 1980's when fishers from the small boat inshore sector started to express concerns about declining catch rates and decreasing fish size (Finlayson 1994; Neis 1992). A considerable drop in biomass was finally detected in the offshore fishery towards the end of the 1980's (Hutchings and Myers 1995) and by 1992, the Atlantic Groundfish Moratorium was declared leaving 30,000 Newfoundland harvesters and plant workers without a livelihood.

3.2 Community-Based Conservation

 Life in post-moratorium Bonavista Bay carries on, but coastal communities' modern day dependence on the fishery has become painfully evident. The strengthening of other sectors such as tourism and aquaculture has been promoted, but many assert that the survival of coastal communities is inextricably linked to a renewed fishery. Against this backdrop, government personnel, academics and harvesters opened a dialogue to explore precautionary approaches to the management of remaining resources in Bonavista Bay (see Macnab 1996; 1997a). Marine protected areas attracted considerable attention from harvesters and scientists alike, especially for the conservation of spawning fish, juveniles, sedentary species and supporting habitats.[1] The possibility that reserves could act as "insurance policies" against overfishing (Ballantine 1995) received very little argument from fishers; however, where to establish such harvest refugia and how to make up for lost fishing space were questions not easily answered. After interacting with small boat fishers, it became evident that locally-supported reserves would emerge through dialogue about conservation measures as they related to specific locations and fishing activities.

 Meanwhile, an assessment of existing marine resource data showed that current scientific knowledge was entirely inadequate for a biophysical approach to planning such a reserve. Information on human activities was also lacking; in particular, areas fished by small boats remained uncharted and unknown to those outside the fishery.[2] To complicate matters, the existing nautical chart for the Bay, produced by the British Admiralty in 1869, was inaccurate, small-scaled and largely unsuitable for inventory purposes. Modern hydrographic surveys were in progress, but finished charts were estimated to be many years from publication.[3] With very little scientific guidance available in the way of bathymetry, substrate, reserve size or optimal placement, a group of fishers active in the waters adjacent to Terra Nova National Park began to discuss seriously the establishment of closed areas for lobster. The membership of the Eastport Peninsula Inshore Fishermen's Committee eventually agreed that their fishery might benefit from trial closures.[4] Harvesters started to discuss potential refugia based on local harvest patterns, long-term knowledge of the lobster stocks and observed oceanographic circulation.

3.3 Local Knowledge

 The rich knowledge base of resource users has been recognized as an important complement to scientific modes of inquiry for environmental management and protected areas planning (e.g., Pimbert and Pretty 1995; Sadler and Boothroyd 1994). Mailhot characterizes this knowledge as "the sum of the data and ideas acquired by a human group on its environment as a result of the group's use and occupation of a region over many generations" (1993, 11). Johnson (1992) extends the definition to include "nonindigenous groups such as outport fishermen" and describes three categories of knowledge: i) a system of classification, ii) a set of empirical observations about the local environment, and iii) a system of self-management that governs resource use. Research on local knowledge systems in marine settings has been undertaken by a range of investigators, many of whom recommend its inclusion in fisheries and coastal management regimes (e.g., see Cordell 1989; Dyer and McGoodwin 1994, Jackson 1995).[5] The myriad demands from NGOs, communities and scientists in Newfoundland are expressed succinctly in the Report of the Partnership for Sustainable Coastal Communities and Marine Ecosystems:

There is a neglect of fishers' information and an absence of serious efforts to use this to supplement scientific research. Partnerships should be established and supported between federal and provincial governments to develop appropriate databases for integrating scientific and traditional knowledge. (National Round Table 1995, 32)

 What often goes missing in such broad calls, however, are the challenges of collection, veracity, analysis, application and ultimately, ownership. Many writers suggest that local knowledge should be integrated or somehow blended with scientific forms of knowledge after collection and careful evaluation by "outsiders" (e.g., DeWalt 1994; Maquire et al. 1995; Murdoch and Clarke 1994).[6] Others argue that local knowledge is developed and transmitted in situ, and therefore must be captured and applied by people that live "inside" the socio-cultural setting where it has evolved (e.g., Chambers 1997; Agrawal 1995; Heyd 1995).[7] Is it really a "black and white" case of one way or another? Is there not some middle ground that could accommodate both of these perspectives?

3.4 Facilitated Community Inventories

 Few would disagree that fishers and other customary users of marine resources have a substantial body of knowledge that might be useful for science and management, but if the information flow is only in one direction _ knowledge extracted for use by outsiders _ communities will most certainly be reluctant to contribute. If an inventory of local marine knowledge is to stimulate participant concern for resources and lead to stewardship activities, it must be community-based, and ideally, it should be community-driven: "Our experience in Canada tells us that it is at the community level where the required actions to maintain coastal resources are implemented; it is from this level that the true effort springs" (Norrena 1994, 160). It is fine to have a conceptual notion of a community-driven inventory, but it is quite another thing to enable one. Unless such a plan originates at the community level, how is a community to become interested? There are also structural considerations: communities should conduct their own studies, but with limited access to government information and cartographic production techniques _ manual or digital _ how can community groups best capture and display their own knowledge?

 Here, there is a definite role for collaborators, especially when it comes to technical assistance and project funding. Where government participation is regarded with suspicion at the local level, academic researchers and non-governmental organizations have helped to gather and organize information with and for interested communities, often to support and reinforce traditional stewardship activities (e.g., see Nietschmann 1995; Berkes et al. 1995; Fox 1990; Laituri and Harvey 1995; Sirait et al. 1994). A common element in many of these projects is the degree of control maintained by participating communities; coordination is provided by existing organizations (e.g., First Nation Elder Councils) and knowledge is often protected by some form of copyright. Problems of cross-cultural communication are lessened when local people collect knowledge and work as facilitators in their own communities.[8] Outsiders might provide elicitation skills and technical support, but ideally, the knowledge is captured, held and applied by the community.[9]

3.5 A Role for Geomatics

 Local knowledge is often dismissed as being qualitative and unscientific, particularly within a positivist conservation paradigm that "gives credibility to opinion only when it is defined in scientific language" (Pretty and Pimbert 1995, 8). When defined orally, or sketched without scale, orientation and formal grid reference, local knowledge remains anecdotal. Geomatics technology provides a more technical and precise, if not more "scientific," means of capturing the spatial components of local knowledge.[10] When cognitive earthscapes are inscribed and georeferenced in the field with affordable GPS, or merged with government maps and remotely-sensed digital imagery, local knowledge assumes far more authority than possible with oral descriptions and simple sketch maps (e.g., see Conant 1994; Dunn et al. 1997; Poole 1995; Tabor and Hutchinson 1994; Thomas 1994; Bronsveld 1994).[11] Decreasing costs have permitted these technologies to be applied in ethnographic surveys and local knowledge documentation projects around the globe. Published applications include studies in forestry (Barry 1996; Fox 1990; Peluso 1995; Sirait et al. 1994; Sussman et al. 1994), coral reef habitats (Nietschmann 1995; Stoffle et al. 1994) and agriculture (Gonzalez 1995; Harris et al. 1995; Lawas and Luning 1996; Tabor and Hutchinson 1994). Suggesting that "low quantitative salience" has prevented broad acceptance of social scientific data in fisheries, McGoodwin (1990) recommends that practitioners "develop more rigorous techniques and the kind of data that will permit comparability, as well as integration, with other already formalized means of analysis." GIS offers considerable promise in this regard; information that was once dismissed by biologists (e.g., experiential knowledge of spawning sites) can be made more compatible with accepted "scientific" forms of spatial knowledge (e.g., depth, temperature, salinity and flora) through proper geo-coding.

3.6 The Lure of Salt Water GIS

 Biophysical mapping of the world's oceans and coasts has progressed remarkably in the last decade with the introduction of better remote sensing devices and enhanced digital processing equipment.[12] Generally though, our oceanic knowledge still pales by comparison with that of terrestrial environments. There are many reasons for this, not least of which are the challenges and expenses posed by: i) a mobile ecosystem that demands mapping in four dimensions, and ii) a management regime that is administered by numerous agencies, each with distinct and at times redundant, conflicting and incompatible data collection programs (Ricketts 1992; Furness 1994). Despite these limitations, Bonavista Bay has been subject to extensive surveying. Beyond the aforementioned hydrographic exercise, the Bay has received a digital shoreline classification scheme (see Sherin and Edwardson 1995), hydroacoustic and airborne stock assessments (e.g., Rose 1993), visits by Navy submersibles and 3-d telemetry tracking of radio implanted fish (Cote et al. 1998). Still, with all of this ocean science and the proliferation of digital data that comes with it-if only we had Disney's animation studios for a day-there is minimal scientific knowledge of inshore fishing locations.

 Remote sensing instruments may indicate where fish are located or suggest habitats where they are likely to occur, but sensors remain limited for detecting where people actually go to fish. Unfortunately, land use mapping, which relies upon the correspondence between land cover and land use (e.g., a field indicates agriculture), has proven limited for delineating fishing grounds and other ephemeral sea uses. In fact, aside from maritime boundaries, mapping the human dimension of the world's oceans remains little practiced.[13] Why? Activities on land are relatively fixed and basically two dimensional (Bradbury 1995); by comparison, fishing activities are mobile and four dimensional (i.e., occurring at different times and levels in the water column).[14] Furthermore, unlike a cut boundary or fence on land, or even a natural boundary, fishing territories cannot generally be detected, photographed or visited _ and thus mapped _ without some kind of local interpretation.[15] To collect such knowledge, two workable options appear to be available: i) visit fishing locations and map the grounds with GPS and sounders (e.g. see Nietschmann 1995), or ii) map harvest areas from memory onto suitable hydrographic charts.[16] The remainder of the paper deals with a project designed to work through the second option.

4.0 THE EASTPORT MAPPING PROJECT

4.1 A Collaborative Project Emerges

The idea for a fishing grounds inventory was discussed initially with the Chair of the Eastport Peninsula Inshore Fishermen's Committee. I had been investigating marine mapping for some time and had regularly communicated my findings to the Chair, so he was aware of recent hydrographic surveys and local mapping initiatives in other areas. While reviewing various charts with the Chair, his wide knowledge and local perspective were demonstrated with reference to specific locations.[17] I suggested that we could relabel the maps with local names and add fishing patterns. My function, I explained, would be to provide the cartographic support necessary for such an undertaking; fishers would provide the information to be mapped.

 The Committee Chair could see the value in documenting local knowledge, but would other fishers share his interest? To find out, the idea was presented at a committee meeting with a display of sample inventory maps from other jurisdictions. New hydrographic fieldsheets, which many fishers knew existed, but few had ever seen, were demonstrated alongside the familiar British Admiralty chart of the Bay. The inventory was presented not as an extractive government exercise or an impersonal academic survey, but as way for fishers to communicate their knowledge. Visualization by way of graphic display, I suggested, could demonstrate local concerns and help to identify conservation priorities to outside agencies.[18] Attention was drawn to the copyright statement included on maps drawn by harvesters in Nova Scotia and the message was simple: fishers' knowledge leads to fishers' maps.[19] The Chair borrowed these sample maps for the next committee meeting to gauge whether or not the larger membership agreed that harvest area mapping was a desirable undertaking. At that session, the committee discussed and endorsed the project. Afterwards, the Chair indicated formal acceptance of the inventory project and invited me to proceed.

4.2 Partnerships in GIS

 The harvesters' proximity to Terra Nova National Park, a committee structure and keen interest, coupled with existing relationships and an established rapport made the Eastport group a strong candidate for collaboration. Initially, I believed that fishers could provide valuable information about sensitive areas and thus help to guide further scientific investigations and conservation planning efforts. Before long, the project focus shifted towards the committee's objective: harvest area maps for use in their own deliberations and in dealings with outside agencies. Parks Canada provided funding, computers, data and in-kind support for the project. The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, a central coordinating agency for coastal inventories (Fisheries and Oceans, in press), grew interested in the project and committed financial assistance; officials also wished to add the collected information to a Province-wide database. The research continued to evolve with digital contributions from several bodies including the Canadian Hydrographic Service and the Newfoundland Department of Natural Resources. Universal Systems Limited of Fredericton, New Brunswick, made available a complementary version of their CARIS software (Computer Aided Resource Information System), a GIS package that is installed and used widely in Canadian government organizations. Finally, instructors and displaced fisheries workers training for a GIS diploma provided technical assistance and plotting services.

4.3 Methods and Procedures

 As outlined earlier, I worked from Terra Nova National Park and met with fishers to explore their ideas for marine conservation. Participation in lobster and crab trips enabled me to see fishing patterns up close; it also demonstrated that I was genuinely willing to learn from harvesters. Honesty-and perhaps my own experience as a commercial fisherman-led to an open exchange of ideas and information. In dry land map discussions involving digitally-produced hydrographic data, accessed through my government contacts, I was the specialist with something to contribute, but on the water, fishers were clearly the specialists possessed of their own unique brand of expertise. Spending time in boats with fishers also helped me become familiar with a substantial part of the seascape that was to be charted.

 Technical support was provided to the Eastport Fishermen's Committee in an interactive and adaptive fashion. It seemed opportune to take advantage of recent sounding data, digital topography and the possibilities enabled by GIS to create custom maps. Meetings were held with Committee members to review data sources, to demarcate the Eastport fishing territory and to determine basemap features. CARIS was then utilized to combine topographic and hydrographic data for the area. The intent was to build a geographic database that would reflect the members' world view, a view that still relies on terrestrial features for navigation and experiential knowledge of water depths for fish detection and gear placement.[20] By using the tools available within CARIS, it was possible to customize data according to the harvesters' wishes. For example, metric depth soundings were converted to fathoms-still the standard measure in the fishing industry. Successive topo-bathy maps were generated, plotted, reviewed by fishers and reworked to produce a 1:25,000 basemap depicting the Eastport harvest area.

 To capture information about fishing grounds, individuals and small groups used mylar to create thematic overlays. Mapping methods were inspired by research in several fields including: marine resource mapping (Butler et al. 1986), maritime anthropology and folklore (Ryden 1993), indigenous countermapping (Poole 1995; Nietschmann 1995, Orlove 1993), participatory rural appraisal (e.g., Chambers 1997), land use and occupancy studies (e.g., Duerden and Keller 1991; Elias 1989; Usher et al. 1992; Robinson et al. 1994) and the bioregional movement (e.g., Aberley 1993). Practitioners in these fields stress the importance of relaxed rapport and informal check- lists of potential items to be mapped. As the outside "specialist" in the Eastport project, I facilitated the mapping sessions, occasionally prompting for categories of information, but participants did the actual sketching and map delineation of features and activities. In most cases, fishers had a clear idea of what information they wished to capture. Mylar sheets were compiled for digitization and thematic entry. Draft place name and composite harvest area maps were then generated and laser-printed on 11" x 17" paper to enable low-cost reproduction and wide distribution.[21] A set of these maps was returned to each participant for review and corrections.

5.0 DISCUSSION

5.1 Results and Applications

 Local knowledge _ spatial, biological, technical, ecological and historical _ continues to inform the cognitive basis of inshore fishing. Individuals and small-groups demonstrated tremendous above and below water environmental recall as they documented the harvest of lobster, squid, herring and crab in the waters surrounding Eastport. There was a form of built-in peer review when mapping sessions were conducted by groups of fishers; as the information was filled in, the group automatically performed checks to make sure that the map was "complete." Some new fisheries, such as urchin, shrimp and skate were charted, but these species have done little to take the place of once vibrant flatfish, cod, lumpfish and capelin fisheries. Fishers continue to regulate fishing space within their communities by means of informal local boundaries, individual tenure for lobster territories and acceptance of local customs for net spacing. Much of this area management is accomplished with local toponyms used to denote bays, grounds, rocks, islands and landforms.

 The project maps have been used in community discussions and in meetings with scientists and managers. Local place names serve a mnemonic role, that is, they help people locate themselves on the water and on cartographic abstractions, but they also demarcate marine territories (Nietschmann, 1989). In this manner, Eastport fishers have used maps of their lobster grounds to help establish reserves and to define community boundaries. Government agencies have identified potential applications in coastal zone management such as oilspill preparedness and aquaculture siting, but several distribution issues have yet to be resolved including ownership of the contributed knowledge and licensed government data. Collaboration, interaction and adaptation enabled people, knowledge, data and processes to be assembled for far greater efficacy than would have been possible with individual efforts. Regrettably though, government stakeholders have access to all of the data, including the local knowledge, but the fishers still don't have full computer access to the high resolution digital hydrography.

5.2 Constraints

 Much has been written on the high hopes for GIS and the importance of product delivery in a management context (e.g., Montgomery and Schuch 1993; Warnecke 1995). If organizations do not see tangible results from GIS investments, they will not continue to support the technology. Expectations run high and there is still a perception that mapping with GIS and digital data is somehow quick and easy: "Premature delivery of products will be demanded, and then the recipients will be disappointed. Plans must be made to avoid the stresses and unreal expectations of this event" (Giles and Nielsen 1992, 91). As with many GIS undertakings, the amount of lead time in the Eastport project remained invisible. Participants asked the predictable question: "We keep spending all of this money on GIS - why haven't we seen any useful maps yet?" With multi-participant GIS databases, a "project champion" is of utmost importance (Montgomery and Schuch 1993). Someone must secure senior-level interest, funding support and staff commitments from one or more organizations if collaborative GIS projects are to succeed. Insecure funding for the Eastport project culminated in the apparent bankruptcy of the educational collaborators. The informal partnership with a training program seemed cost effective and entirely appropriate at the outset, but in retrospect, a formal agreement should have been in place. In general terms, The Eastport experience is mirrored by Warnecke's comments: "Initiation _ and success _ was often the result of ingenuity and perseverance of dedicated employees, instead of _ or sometimes even despite _ agency direction" (1995, 39). GIS provided for the adaptive improvement of basemaps, and in that fashion, it did assist in the documentation of local knowledge. We had the data and the right tools; it would have been a shame not to have used them as Tortell (1992) hints, to "tailor-make" the printed map to meet the user's needs. Was it worth the effort? Yes, but a "low tech" approach utilizing existing map products would have freed up more time for activities on the water and in the community.

5.3 Opportunities

 Now that the Eastport Fishermen's Committee has reviewed and corrected draft maps, additions and editing of the database can take place. This will be followed by full size color plots annotated with appropriate copyright statements. Digital versions of the database are being considered for distribution on CD. A growing number of harvesters operate home computers, so if the database is bundled with some form of shareware for viewing and simple queries, many more participants could access the collected knowledge. Given the shift towards new technology in the fishing industry (e.g., electronic navigation charts, GPS units, sounders) the potential for field truthing and continued documentation is unlimited. Although women's impressions of fishing space and coastal environments have not yet been accommodated in the Eastport undertaking, there is much that women could contribute.[22] With due respect for potential conflicts, the project could also be expanded to include other user groups such as scuba divers and recreational boaters. Federal funding has been secured to undertake a larger inventory project in Bonavista Bay; if the agencies involved collaborate in an open and honest fashion, GIS and computer assisted visualization will continue to benefit inshore fishing communities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 The Eastport Peninsula Inshore Fishermen's Committee contributed their time, interest, consent and wealth of knowledge to this project. I was humbled on many occasions and the learning has been permanently imbedded in my psyche. The generous financial support of Parks Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans enabled the project to realize its present life. The views and opinions expressed here come as result of extensive reading, interaction with hundreds of individuals and through my employment with the Government of Canada, but in no way should the content be construed as representative of those agencies and people with whom I have collaborated. I am also conscious of the potential for misrepresentation I might risk by posing as a translator of local knowledge for a general audience, however, the pressing need for dialogue in Atlantic Canada's fisheries, to borrow from Rundstrom (1995), "appears sufficiently urgent to cause me to take these risks anyway." A detailed report of this undertaking is available in my Master's thesis (Macnab 1997b), a piece of work that never would have been completed were it not for the patient encouragement of Dr. Gordon Nelson, my advisor at the University of Waterloo.

SOURCES

 Aberley, D. (ed.) (1993). Boundaries of Home: Mapping for Local Empowerment. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.

 Acheson, J.M. (1979). Variations in Traditional Inshore Fishing Rights in Maine Lobstering Communities. In R. Anderson (ed.) North Atlantic Maritime Cultures: Anthropological Essays on Changing Adaptations, pp. 253-276. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.

 Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the Divide Between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge. Development and Change 26: 413-439.

 Ballantine, W.J. (1995). Networks of "No-Take" Marine Reserves are Practical and Necessary. In Marine Protected Areas and Sustainable Fisheries. N.L Shackell and J.H.M. Willison (eds.), pp. 13-20. Wolfville: Science and the Management of Protected Areas Association.

 Barry, G. (1996). Using Information Technologies for Forest Advocacy with an Emphasis on Papua New Guinea's Rainforest. World Rainforest Report February 1996. Electronic version from the Rainforest Information Centre.

 Bartlett, D. (1993). GIS and the Coastal Zone:An Annotated Bibliography. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Technical Report 93-9.

Berkes, F. (1993). Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Perspective. In J.T. Inglis (ed.) Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases, pp.1-9. Ottawa: IDRC.

 Berkes, F., A. Hughes, P.J. George, R.J. Preston, B.D. Cummins, and J. Turner (1995). The persistence of aboriginal land-use: Fish and wildlife harvest areas in the Hudson and James Bay lowland, Ontario. Arctic 48(1): 81-93.

 Bjorklund, I. (1993). Property in Common, Common Property or Private Property: Norwegian Fishery Management in a Sami Coastal Area. Resource Management and Optimization 9(2): 85-93.

 Bohnsack, J.A. (1993). Marine Reserves: They Enhance Fisheries, Reduce Conflicts, and Protect Resources. Oceanus 36(3): 63-71.

 Bowie, I. (1995). Whose Environment Are We Mapping? The Globe: Journal of the Australian Map Circle 43: 12-17.

 Bradbury, R. (1995). Marine Informatics: a new discipline emerges. Maritime Studies 80: 15-22.

 Brice-Bennett, C. (ed.) (1977). Our Footprints are Everywhere: Inuit Land Use and Occupancy in Labrador. Nain: Labrador Inuit Association.

 British Admiralty (1873). East Coast of Newfoundland: Gander Bay to Cape Bonavista. Chart 293 originally surveyed 1869-1871. London.

Bronsveld, K. (1994). The use of local knowledge in land use/land cover mapping from satellite images. ITC Journal 4:349-358.

 Butler, G.R. (1983). Culture, Cognition, and Communication: Fishermen's Location-Finding in L'Anse-a-Canards, Newfoundland. Canadian Folklore Canadien 5(1-2): 7-21.

 Butler, M.J.A., C. LeBlanc, J.A. Belbin, and J.L. MacNeill (1986). Marine Resource Mapping: An Introductory Manual. Fisheries Technical Paper 274. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

 Canessa, R.R. (1997). Towards a Coastal Spatial Decision Support System for Multiple-Use Management. Unpublished dissertation. Victoria: University of Victoria.

Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the first last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

 Conant, F.P. (1994). Human Ecology and Space Age Technology: Some Predictions. Human Ecology 22(3): 405- 413

 Cordell, J. (ed.) (1989). A Sea of Small Boats. Cambridge: Cultural Survival Inc.

 Cote, D., D. Scruton, G. Niezgoda, R. McKinley, D. Rowsell, R. Lindstrom, L. Ollerhead, C. White (1998). A Coded Acoustic Telemetry System for High Precision Monitoring of Fish Location and Movement: Applications to the Study of Nearshore Nursery Habitat of Juvenile Atlantic Cod (Gadus Morhua). Marine Technology Society Journal 32(1): 54-62

 Dene Cultural Institute (1994). Guidelines for the Conduct of Participatory Community Research. In B. Sadler and P. Boothroyd (eds.) Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Impact Assessment. pp. 69-75. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

 DeWalt, B.R. (1994). Using Indigenous Knowledge to Improve Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. Human Organization 53(2): 123-131.

 Duerden, F. and Keller, C.P. (1991). GIS and Land Selection for Native Land Claims. Operational Geographer 10(4): 11-14.

 Dunn, C.E., P.J. Atkins and J.G. Townsend (1997). GIS for development: a contradiction in terms? Area 29(2): 151-159.

 Dyer C.L. and J.R. McGoodwin. (eds.) 1994. Folk Management in the World's Fisheries: Lessons for Modern Fisheries Management. Colorado: University Press of Colorado.

 Egenhofer, M.J., and D.M. Mark (1995). Naive Geography. In A.U. Frank and W. Kuhn (eds.) Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences No. 988, pp. 1-15.

 Elias, P. D. (1989). "Rights and Research: The role of social sciences in the legal and political resolution of land claims and question of aboriginal rights." Canadian Native Law Reporter 1:1-43.

 Finlayson, A.C. (1994). Fishing for Truth: A Sociological Analysis of Northern Cod Stock Assessments From 1977-1990. St. John's: ISER.

 Fisheries and Oceans (in press). Community Coastal Resources Inventory: Procedures Manual. St. John's, Newfoundland: Habitat Management Division, Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

 Fox, J. (1990). Diagnostic Tools for Social Forestry. In M. Poffenberger (ed.) Keepers of the Forest: Land Mangement Alternatives in Southeast Asia pp. 119-133. Quezon City: Ateneo De Manila University Press.

 Furness, R.A. (ed.) (1995). CoastGIS `95: Proceedings of the International Symposium on GIS and Computer Mapping for Coastal Zone Management. Held 3-5 February 1995, Cork, Ireland. Sydney: International Geographical Union Commission on Coastal Systems.

 - (1994). Data Access for Effective Coastal Zone Management: A cri du coeur for openness. Cartography 23: 11-18.

 Gaffin, D. (1994). The Geographic Identities of Faeroe Islanders. Landscape 32(2): 20-27.

 Gibson, J.P., A.R.G. Price and E. Young (1993). Guidelines for Developing a Coastal Zone Management Plan for Belize: The GIS Database. Gland: International Union for Conservation of Nature.

 Giles, R.H. and L.A. Nielson (1992). The Uses of Geographic Information Systems in Fisheries. American Fisheries Society Symposium 13:81-94.

 Harmon, D. (ed) (1994). Coordinating Research and Management to Enhance Protected Areas. Cambridge: IUCN.

 Harris, T.M., D. Weiner, T.A. Warner and R. Levin (1995). Pursuing Social Goals Through Participatory Geographic Information Systems: Redressing South Africa's Historical Political Ecology. In J. Pickles (ed.) Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems, pp.196-222. New York: The Guildford Press.

 Head, C.G. (1976). Eighteenth Century Newfoundland: A Geographer's Perspective. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

 Heyd, T. (1995). Indigenous Knowledge, Emancipation and Alienation. Knowledge and Policy 8(1): 63-73.

 Hirtle, S.C. and P.B. Heidorn (1993). The Structure of Cognitive Maps: Representations and Process. In T. Garling and R.G. Colledge (eds.) Behaviour and Environment. Psychological and Geographical Approaches, pp. 170-192. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

 Humphreys, R.G. (1989). Marine Information Systems. The Hydrographic Journal 54:19-21.

 Hutchings, J. A. and R. A. Myers (1995). The Biological Collapse of Atlantic Cod off Newfoundland and Labrador: An exploration of historical changes in exploitation, harvesting technology and management. In R. Arnason and L. Felt (eds.) The North Atlantic Fisheries: Successes, Failures and Challenges., pp. 37-93. Charlottetown: Institute of Island Studies.

 Igarashi, T. (1977). Fishermen's Locality-finding in the Marine Environment. In H. Watanabe (ed.) Human Activity System: Its Spatiotemporal Structure, 171-206. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

 Jackson, S.E. (1995). The Water Is Not Empty: Cross-Cultural Issues in Conceptualising Sea Space. Maritime Studies 84(September-October): 1-12. [Originally published in Australian Geographer 26(1), 1995].

 Ji, W. and J.B. Johnston (1995). Coastal Ecosystem Decision-Support GIS: Functions and Methodology. Marine Geodesy 18: 229-241.

 Johnson, M. (1992). Lore: Capturing Traditional Environmental Knowledge. Ottawa: IDRC.

 Jorion, P. (1978). Marks and Rabbit Furs: Location and Sharing of Grounds in Coastal Fishing. Peasant Studies 7(2): 86-100.

 Kemp, W.B. and L.F. Brooke (1995). Towards Information Self-Sufficiency: The Nunavik Inuit gather information on ecology and land use. Cultural Survival Quarterly, Winter: 25-28.

 Kloppenburg, J. (1991) Social Theory and the De/Reconstruction of Agricultural Science: Local Knowledge for an Alternative Agriculture. Rural Sociology 56(4): 519-548

 Knecht, R.W. and B. Cicin-Sain (1993). Ocean Management and the Large Marine Ecosystem Concept: Taking the Next Step. In K. Sherman, L.M. Alexander and B.D. Gold (eds.) Large Marine Ecosystems: Stress, Mitigation and Sustainability, pp. 237-241. Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

 Laituri, M.J. and L.E. Harvey (1995). Bridging the space between indigenous ecological knowledge and New Zealand conservation management using geographic information systems. In D.A. Saunders, J.L. Craig and E.M. Mattiske (eds.) Nature Conservation 4: The Role of Networks pp. 122-131. Chipping Norton, Australia: Surrey Beatty and Sons.

 Lalonde, A. and S. Akhtar (1994). Traditional Knowledge Research for Sustainable Development. Nature and Resources 30(2): 22-28.

 Lawas, C.M. and H.A. Luning (1996). Farmers' knowledge and GIS. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 4(1). Electronic version.

 Lockwood, M. and R. Li (1995). Marine Geographic Information Systems - What Sets Them Apart? Marine Geodesy, 18: 157-159.

 Macnab, P.A. (1997). Exploratory Planning for a Proposed National Marine Conservation Area in Northeast Newfoundland. In G.Nelson and R. Serafin (eds.) National Parks and Protected Areas: Keystones to Conservation and Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Contributions of National Parks and Protected Areas to Heritage Conservation, Tourism and Sustainable Development, held in Krakow, Poland, August 26-30, 1996. NATO ASI Series G Vol. 40, pp. 133-143. New York: Springer.

 - (1997b). Maps and Traps: A Geographers Perspective on Fishing and Marine Protected Areas in Bonavista Bay, Newfoundland. Unpublished Master's thesis. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo.

 - (1996). Fisheries Resources and Marine Heritage in Newfoundland: Crisis, Conservation and Conflict. Environments, 24(1): 106-115.

 Maguire, J., B. Neis and P.R. Sinclair (1995). What are we Managing Anyway?: The Need for an Interdisciplinary Approach to Managing Fisheries Ecosystems. Dalhousie Law Journal 18(1): 141-153.

 Mailhot, J. (1993). Traditional Ecological Knowledge: The Diversity of Knowledge Systems and Their Study. Background Paper No. 4. Montreal: Great Whale Public Review Support Office.

 Major, K. (1979). Terra Nova National Park "Human History Study:" A History of Southern Bonavista Bay from Alexander Bay to Goose Bay. Manuscript Report Number 351. Parks Canada.

 McGoodwin, J.R. (1990). Crisis in the World's Fisheries: People, Problems and Policies. Stanford: Stanford university Press.

 McNeely, J.A. (ed.) (1995). Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. Washington: Island Press.

 Meadon, G.J. and J.M Kapetsky (1991). Geographical Information Systems and Remote Sensing in Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture. Fisheries Technical Paper No. 318. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

 Montgomery, G.E. and H.C. Schuch (1993). GIS Data Conversion Handbook. Fort Collins, Colorado: GIS World Books.

 Mumby, P.J., P.S. Raines, D.A. Gray, and J.P. Gibson (1995). Geographic Information Systems: A Tool for Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Belize. Coastal Management, 23: 111-121.

 Murdoch, J. and J. Clark (1994). Sustainable Knowledge. Geoforum 25(2): 115-132.

 National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (1995). The Report of the Partnership for Sustainable Coastal Communities and Marine Ecosystems in Newfoundland and Labrador. Ottawa: NRTEE.

 Neis, B. (1995). Fishers' Ecological Knowledge and Marine Protected Areas. In Marine Protected Areas and Sustainable Fisheries. N.L Shackell and J.H.M. Willison (eds.), pp. 265-272. Wolfville: Science and the Management of Protected Areas Association.

 - (1992). Fishers' Ecological Knowledge and Stock Assessment in Newfoundland. Newfoundland Studies 8(2): 155-178.

 Nelson, J.G. (1993) Toward a Sense of Civics: The Universities, Sustainable Development and Provincial Renewal. Toronto: Council of Ontario Universities.

 Nietschmann, B. (1995). Defending the Miskito Reefs with Maps and GPS: Mapping with Sail, Scuba, and Satellite. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 18(4): 34-37.

 - (1989). Traditional Sea Territories, Resources and Rights in Torres Strait. In J. Cordell (ed.) A Sea of Small Boats, pp. 60-93. Cambridge: Cultural Survival, Inc.

 Norrena, E.J. (1994). Stewardship of Coastal Waters and Protected Spaces: Canada's Approach. Marine Policy 18(2): 153-160.

 O'Regan, P.R. (1996). The Use of Contemporary Information Technologies for Coastal Research and Management - A Review. Journal of Coastal Research 12(1): 192-204.

 Orlove, Benjamin (1993). "The Ethnography of Maps: The Cultutral and Social Contexts of Cartographic Representation in Peru." Cartographica 30(1):29-46.

 Peluso, N.L. (1995). Whose Woods are These? Counter-Mapping Forest Territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Antipode 27(4): 383-406.

 Pimbert, M.P. and J.N. Pretty (1995). Parks, people and professionals: Putting "participation" into protected area management. Geneva: UN Research Institute for Social Development.

 Pocius, G.L. (1992). A Place to Belong: Community Order and Everyday Space in Calvert, Newfoundland. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

 Poole, P. (1995). Indigenous Peoples, Mapping & Biodiversity Conservation: An analysis of current activities and opportunities for applying geomatics technologies. Biodiversity Support Program Discussion Paper Series. Washington: WWF; The Nature Conservancy; World Resources Institute.

 Ricketts, P.J. (1992). Current Approaches in Geographic Information Systems for Coastal Management. Marine Pollution Bulletin 25(1-4): 82-87.

 Rickman, T.L. and A.H. Miller (1995). A Catergorized Bibliography of Coastal Applications of Geographic Information Systems. Madison, Wisconsin: Sea Grant Institute, University of Wisconsin.

 Robinson, M., T. Garvin and G. Hodgson (1994). Mapping How We Use Our Land: Using Participatory Action Research. Calgary: Arctic Institute of North America, University of Calgary.

 Rocheleau, D., B. Thomas-Slayter and D. Edmunds (1995). Gendered Resource Mapping: Focusing on Women's Spaces in the Landscape. Cultural Survival Quarterly 18(4): 62-68.

 Rose, G.A. (1993). Cod spawning on a migration highway in the north-west Atlantic. Nature 366: 458-461.

 Ruddle, K. (1994). Local Knowledge in the Folk Management of Fisheries and Coastal Marine Environments. In C.L. Dyer and J.R. McGoodwin (eds.) Folk Management in the World's Fisheries: Lessons for Modern Fisheries Management, pp. 161-206. Colorado: University Press of Colorado.

 Rundstrom, R.A. (1995). GIS, Indigenous Peoples and Epistemological Diversity. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22(1): 45-57.

 Ryden, K.C. (1993). Mapping the Invisible Landscape: Folklore, Writing, and the Sense of Place. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

 Sadler, B. and P. Boothroyd (eds.) (1994). Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Impact Assessment. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

 Safer, A. (1997). Canada'a Multibeam Platform: Advantages & Applications. Sea Technology March: 17-25

 Sherin, A. and K. Edwardson (1995). A Coastal Information System for the Atlantic Provinces of Canada. Proceedings of the Third Thematic Conference on Remote Sensing for Marine and Coastal Environments. Held 18-20 September 1995, Seattle. Ann Arbor: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan. Vol. II, pp. 401-413.

 Simpson, J. J. (1994). Remote Sensing in Fisheries: A Tool for Better Management in the Utilization of a Renewable Resource. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51: 743-771.

 Sirait, M., S. Prasodjo, N. Podger, A. Flavelle and J. Fox. (1994). Mapping Customary Land in East Kalimatan, Indonesia: A Tool for Forest Management. Ambio 23(7): 411-417.

 Stouffle, R.W., D.B. Halmo, T.W. Wagner and J.J. Luczkovich (1994). Reefs from Space: Satellite Imagery, Marine Ecology, and Ethnography in the Dominican Republic. Human Ecology 22(3): 355-378.

 Sussman, R.W., G.M. Green and L.K. Sussmen (1994). Satellite Imagery, Human Ecology, Anthropology, and Deforestation in Madagascar. Human Ecology 22(3): 333-354

 Tabor, J.A. and C.F. Hutchinson (1994). Using Indigenous Knowledge, Remote Sensing and GIS for Sustainable Development. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 2(1). Electronic journal: http://www.nufficcs.nl/ciran/ikdm.

 Thapa, B., F. Sinclair and D.H. Walker (1995). Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and Perspectives in Agroforestry Development, Part 2: Case-study on the impact of explicit representation of famers' knowledge. Agroforestry Systems 30(1-2): 249-261.

 Thomas, G. (1994). Traditional ecological knowledge and the promise of emerging information technology. Nature and Resources 30(2): 17-21.

 Thrupp, L. (1989). Legitimizing Local Knowledge: From Displacement to Empowerment for Third World People. Agriculture and Human Values 6(3): 13-24.

 Tortell, P. (1992). Coastal Zone Sensitivity Mapping and its Role in Marine Environmental Management. Marine Pollution Bulletin 25: 88-93.

 Usher, P. J., F. Tough, and R. Galois. 1992. "Reclaiming the Land: Aboriginal Title, Treaty Rights and land claims in Canada." Applied Geography 12:109-32.

 Walker, D.H., F. Sinclair and B. Thapa (1995). Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and Perspectives in Agroforestry Development Part 1: Review of Methods and Their Application. Agroforestry Systems 30(1-2): 235-248.

 Warnecke, L. (1995). GI-GIS Projects in the Field: Overcoming the Government Maze. Geo Info Systems 5 (10):34-43.

 Warren, D.M., D. Brokensha and L.J. Slikerver (eds.) (1994). Indigenous Knowledge Systems: The Cultural Dimension of Development. London: Intermediate Technoology Publications.

 Wells, M., K. Brandon and L. Hannah (1992). People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. Washington: World Bank, World Wildlife Fund and U.S. Agency for International Development.

 Wells, S. and A.T. White (1995). Involving the community. In S. Gubbay (ed.) Marine Protected Areas: Principles and techniques for management, pp. 61-84. London: Chapman and Hall.

 West, P.C. and S.R. Brechin (eds.) (1991) Resident Peoples and National Parks. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.

 Western, D., R.M. Wright and S.C. Strum (eds.) (1994). Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. Washington: Island Press.

 Whelan, J.P. and P.H. Phillips (1984). Offshore Toponyms of the Louisiana Gulf Coast. In Communicating Coastal Information: Proceedings of Eight Annual Conference, pp. 151-156. Bethesda, Maryland: The Coastal Society.

NOTES

[1] The evolving theory of how "no-take" zones might function in fisheries management is as follows: if areas are set aside from harvesting, the resident species will grow in size, increase egg production and replenish the surrounding fishery (Bohnsack 1993). Notwithstanding the scientific basis for establishing such refugia in the sea, the very notion of a marine "reserve" implies the cessation of some or all fishing activity, particularly so in regions like northeast Newfoundland where most coastal space is used by small boat fishers.

[2] Head's dated comments still accurately described the paucity of information in this regard: "While inshore, the various cod populations become further concentrated and it is these concentrations that become the "fishing grounds" of Newfoundlanders. Although these grounds are well known to the fishermen, even today they are little known to the scientific observer. In very few places in Newfoundland have they been identified and mapped" (1976, 21)

[3] An accurate basemap depicting enduring features "is a prerequisite for the ecological assessment of marine resources" (Mumby et al. 1995, 113) and thus, it became a priority for any further data collection in Bonavista Bay. During the summer of 1994, I visited the Matthew, a low draft survey vessel working in Bonavista Bay. The Chief Hydrographer gave a tour of the ship and demonstrated the technology and processes used to produce survey fieldsheets. These files have since produced Canada's first fully digital nautical publications; from soundings through to paper and electronic navigation charts, the work has utilized computer technology.

[4] It is important to observe that until that time, there had been precious few Atlantic Canadian efforts to implement harvest restrictions and area closures through processes that incorporated fishers and their harvesting patterns. A growing body of literature attests to the importance of having communities play an active role in conservation (e.g., see McNeely 1995; Pimbert and Pretty 1995; Wells et al. 1992; Wells and White 1995; Western et al. 1994). Without local compliance, self-policing, and resource stewardship, the integrity of conservation measures will be compromised, especially in regions where funds are insufficient for surveillance and enforcement by more conventional methods (i.e., wildlife officers) (Pimbert and Pretty 1995). By incorporating the ways local people use, perceive, delimit and manage their resources, conservation measures can be made more relevant to communities. Neis encapsulates these points when she suggests that marine protected areas "... based on local management systems and fishers' [knowledge] are more likely to meet the cultural and economic needs of fishing communities and to be accepted by those communities" (1995, 270).

[5] Known variably as traditional ecological knowledge (e.g., Johnson 1992), naive geography (e.g., Egenhofer and Mark 1995) or indigenous knowledge (e.g., Warren et al. 1994)12, "local knowledge" avoids some of the semantic and conceptual problems associated with other labels and is adopted here after Ruddle (1994).

[6] Ruddle (1994) summarizes the contemporary importance of local knowledge in fisheries and marine environments: i) inherent academic interest, ii) practical usefulness, and iii) an instrument of empowerment. Many academic and government-supported studies reflect Ruddle's second point regarding the practical significance of local knowledge: i) new biological and ecological insights, ii) resource management, iii) protected areas and conservation education, iv) development planning and, v) environmental assessment (IUCN 1986, cited in Berkes 1993). Rundstrom summarizes this perspective: "the underlying attitude is that indigenous peoples and their geographical knowledge must be `saved,' i.e., before we destroy them, because they have information that we need" (1995, 55, author's emphasis). Others have recognized this trend towards extraction with increasing demands that local knowledge "not be reduced to an interesting research topic for western science to explore" (Kemp and Brooke 1995, 27).

[7] Indigenous groups collect local knowledge with aims of empowerment: i) recognition of land rights, ii) demarcation of traditional territories, iii) protection of demarcated lands, iv) gathering and guarding knowledge, v) management of lands and resources and, vi) mobilizing community awareness and resolving conflicts (Poole 1995; also see Kloppenburg 1991 and Thrupp 1989). This illustration of an alternative vision for local knowledge reads initially as a criticism of the IUCN list above and the researchers who are compelled by it; my intent, however, is to convey the different sense of priority in the two approaches. In Poole's version, biodiversity conservation _ the ecological dimension _ will be achievable once autonomy is secured and people have real control over their resources. And, in all fairness to the IUCN and its adherents, the importance of maintaining community ownership of local knowledge _ the political dimension _ is regularly discussed as an afterthought to the ecological motivations (e.g., see Johnson 1992; Lalonde and Akhtar 1994).

[8] Many projects employ and train local data collectors with great success. This practice has several benefits as discovered in the Labrador Land Use and Occupancy Study: "A local person has the advantage over a stranger that he does not have to establish rapport with the community (often a difficult task for an outsider), because he is already an established and accepted member of it. Moreover, because he himself has grown up in the community, he already has a store of valuable knowledge that would take an outsider a long time to acquire. His knowledge of the community, the residents, their backgrounds, and the areas in which they have lived makes it much easier for him to select the informants whose contributions are likely to be of the greater value" (Brice-Bennett 1977, 279).

[9] Information may be collected in a collaborative fashion with invited outside technical assistance, but caution is advisable for several reasons. First, with formal methods of elicitation, interview "subjects" are made uncomfortable; they may also feel that they are contributing to "someone else's" project even when the intent may be to help visualize local knowledge for local people. Second, people may lie when asked to provide information about their activities, particularly if there is a perceived, or real threat to their livelihoods. Third, initial capture by and with local people may be faithful, but further treatment and analysis by outsiders could lead to misinterpretation, misuse and even further alienation of already marginalized groups. Comments in this vein by Harris et al. are of particular relevance to the present study: "... because of the nature of current GIS technology, community knowledge transfer into a GIS must be filtered by outsiders. ... This `knowledge distortion' necessarily separates the local community from their own cognitive information. The nuances of the local context, which underpins local knowledge, may easily be lost in the encoding process" (1995, 217).

[10] Geomatics is fast becoming the preferred title in Canada to describe the digital convergence of several fields including geodesy, surveying, hydrography, remote sensing, photogrammetry, cartography, GIS and GPS. In terms of reducing local knowledge to a series of on-off electrical impulses (i.e., computer code), Harris et al. caution that "cognitive information is geographically imprecise and is not expressed comfortably within a point/line/polygon paradigm" (1995, 216). Bowie, however, enthuses "the fact that socioeconomic factors may be ... less amenable to precise measurements than biophysical ones is not a reason for excluding them from environmental mapping" (1995, 17).

[11] Peluso (1995) describes meetings between government mappers and "peasant groups" possessing legitimate and technically acceptable maps. Contrast the ready acceptance of these digitally-enhanced maps with the government rejection of sketch maps "prepared by peasants" in an effort to claim lake portions of the Titicaca National Reserve in Peru (Orlove 1993).

[12] For a general discussion of GIS and emerging information technologies in marine and coastal environments, see any number of overview papers (e.g., Bartlett 1994; Bradbury 1995; Canessa 1997; Furness 1994; Gordon 1994; Humphreys 1989; Ji and Johnston 1995; Lockwood and Li 1995; O'Regan 1996; Ricketts 1992; Safer 1997). Also see bibliographies and conference proceedings devoted the topic (e.g., Bartlett 1993; Furness 1995; Rickman and Miller 1995).

[13] The human oceans _ legal, cultural, spiritual and economic entities _ have escaped the discipline's attention: "While the land has been seen by cultural geographers and others as layered with proprietary rights, use rights and cultural symbols, the water has been seen as empty ... [and with very few exceptions] this field has not attracted the interest of human geographers" (Jackson 1995). Indeed, rarely do we approach the human parameters of the oceans with "the same enthusiasm and zeal that we map the parameters that describe the physical characteristics" (Knecht and Cicin-Sain 1993, 241).

[14] Vertical zoning may be in place on land for urban construction (i.e., height limitations for new buildings) and in the atmosphere for aeronautical purposes, but this is hardly the same as multiple use of the same ocean location.

[15] Acheson (1979) demonstrates this challenge with an example of community-derived lobster territories mapped in the state of Maine after completing 42 interviews.

[16] Other methodologies have been described. For example, in Louisiana's coastal waters, where "various submarine structures and features have been named by local fishermen," toponyms were mapped using magnetic headings from coastal navigation points (e.g., jetties), mileage and Loran C coordinates (Whelan and Phillips 1984, 151). Gaffin (1994) gathered local place names for a coastal village in the Faeroe Islands and later compiled them on an official Danish Survey map, but it is not clear whether the names were collected on site or through map interviews.

[17] For example, while discussing some of the features that he had pointed out on an earlier lobster fishing trip, the Chair motioned to an inlet far too small for annotation on a government map. The inlet was known locally as `Hospital Cove,' named for a past fishers' practice of leaving sick and injured lobsters there to recover without the threat of capture.

[18] In a paper describing participatory diagnostic tools for social forestry, Fox makes the following instructive comments: "Because social forestry programs have a practical rather than theoretical goal, it is important to see this process not as an `academic' exercise but as a process whereby farmers and foresters learn about each other, develop a foundation for cooperation, and begin negotiating on the design and implementation of forest management plans (1990, 120).

[19] The sample maps from Nova Scotia bear the following note: "This mapping series was compiled under the direction of the Guysborough County Community Futures Fisheries Sub-Committee and is now the property of the Guysborough County Inshore Fisherman's Association. The information and basemaps can only be duplicated or altered with permission of the Association."

[20] Pocius comments on spatial cognition among fishers: "No visual boundaries exist on the water to distinguish one place from another. Without complex attention to land features, no one could clearly recognize the location of trap berths" (1992, 71). As has been well-documented by anthropologists, fishing peoples around the world employ two or more triangulation `marks' in coastal landscapes (e.g., rocks, trees, hills, built structures) to locate otherwise unseen bottom features (e.g., see Bjorklund 1993 and explanatory diagrams in Butler 1983, Igarashi 1977 and Jorion 1978). While this particular type of wayfinding appears not to have attracted the attention of cognitive researchers in geography and psychology, similar observations have been made regarding general spatial cognition: "Locations are by their very nature relative to some frame of reference. Whenever an object's location or orientation is specified it is done in relation to some other object" (Hirtle and Heidorn 1993, 181).

[21] Tortell argues that "... the constituency sought for resource maps and atlases is wider than those who have access to the latest computer technologies. Therefore, in deference to the majority of potential users which include coastal zone managers in developing countries and interested members of the general public anywhere, resource maps and atlases are still required in the traditional, hardcopy paper format" (1992, 92). Reporting on coastal resource mapping in the Caribbean, Mumby et al. claim that "[v]isual evaluation of this information was adequate for the purposes of planning, and therefore the GIS was not required to conduct user-defined queries on the data set" (1995, 118).

[22] Rocheleau et al. (1995) review gendered resource mapping, and although their discussion relates mostly to agricultural communities, the principles and methods they highlight could be applied in coastal communities.