Abstract

This case study describes the experiences of an anthropologist conducting GIS-based ethnographic research in the Kelabit Highlands of Sarawak, Malaysia, using the e-Bario Telecentre as a local collaborating institution, a base for the input and storage of hard and soft copies of data and reports, and as a nexus for training community members to use GIS technology. Grounded in discussion of current collaborative research trends in the fields of anthropology and geography, this paper elaborates on the challenges and benefits of using the technology, facilities, and personnel currently available at the e-Bario Telecentre. It also describes how this current project is laying the foundation for a larger project that will be owned, managed, and used by the local community. This article elaborates on the social, cultural, political, economic, and environmental context in which this project is developing, demonstrating how this research project, and the transfer of technological knowledge that is a key component of it, can be both beneficial and challenging to the Kelabit community. Finally, it offers suggestions for the improvement of e-Bario by suggesting both what e-Bario can do to better serve the needs of researchers in the Kelabit Highlands and what researchers can in turn do to assist e-Bario in meeting its goals to serve the community, visitors, and other researchers.

Introduction

Guided by the principles outlined in Wawasan 2020, it is Malaysia’s goal to become a “fully-developed country,” competitive in all respects with the world superpowers by the year 2020. These goals include: higher education for more Malaysians; broader availability of health care, higher income, and improved standard of living for all citizens; more direct revenue from the export of manufactured goods; and infrastructure and communications development for even the remotest areas. Connecting the most remote and isolated communities with communications capabilities is a distinct challenge for a country like Malaysia, and especially for a state as large as Sarawak, located on the island of Borneo.

Concurrent with the national drive to link rural Malaysian villages to the rest of the world via telephone and internet connections is an international movement promoting ICT¹ projects in small communities all over the world. Because of its remote location and a population that was mostly unaware of the internet but eager to embrace new technologies to enhance communication², Bario (the administrative center of the Kelabit Highlands of Sarawak) was chosen as the site to implement the first rural ICT network in Malaysia, using a multi-disciplinary team of researchers and a participatory approach to the implementation and management of the project³. The e-Bario project was initially funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of the Canadian government and the Malaysian government⁴ and was first administered as a joint venture between the Kelabit community in Bario and Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), with the technological support of Telekom Malaysia, the major telecommunications company in Malaysia. It has proven to be highly successful. Since its inception in 1999 and the opening of the internet telecentre in 2002, e-Bario has won numerous national and international awards⁵.

E-Bario is a computer network system that provides public internet access using wireless VSAT (Very Small Aperture Terminal) satellites that run on solar power and transmit signals to Telekom Malaysia⁶. The main facility, Gatuman@Bario (the e-Bario Telecentre), houses ten computers for public use, all of which are linked to the internet and to a printer, as well as a management office and a meeting room. E-Bario allows residents and visitors to access the internet, print photographs and documents, and burn CDs. With this ability, they are able to conduct business (as lodge owners, guides, and shopkeepers), do remote work for companies outside the Kelabit Highlands, maintain personal contacts with friends and family (this is especially important since only about 1200 of the approximately 6000 Kelabit people currently live in the Kelabit Highlands), and produce websites and blogs⁷ related to issues of Kelabit interest. Internet communication and the other office facilities of e-Bario also make it possible for researchers like myself to maintain contact with their home institutions and other collaborators and researchers around the world and to produce interim reports in the Kelabit Highlands that can be immediately distributed to people living here and elsewhere. Finally, the telecentre serves both as a nexus for training community members to use various kinds of technology, which is a large part of my dissertation research project, and as a friendly place to conduct formal and informal meetings with community members regarding issues that have inevitably surfaced though the course of my own project.

In this article I will describe my dissertation research project, which is focused on documenting Kelabit land use history using ethnographic and geospatial research methods. I will examine the social, cultural, historical, political, economic, and political context of the Kelabit Highlands and the role of the e-Bario Telecentre as a local collaborating institution. I locate my research within the emergent fields of participatory anthropological research and community mapping, and relate how I have used e-Bario as a forum to attempt to overcome some of the challenges inherent in this type of research. I describe the complementary role that researchers can play in supporting e-Bario’s mission in the community, and how e-Bario can in turn provide crucial support for researchers working in the Kelabit Highlands. As an institution linking community priorities with the research enterprise, e-Bario ensures a congruence of goals. I end by making suggestions about how e-Bario can grow to incorporate other types of research, be more supportive of local and foreign researchers, and prepare members of the Kelabit community to both continue research and to store, manage, and use data produced by such projects on a long-term basis.

Documenting the Land Use History of the Kelabit Highlands using GIS

Building on recent advances in the historical ecology of anthropogenic landscapes⁸ and the political ecology of conservation⁹, my dissertation research focuses on documenting the land use history of the Kelabit Highlands of Sarawak, Malaysia. My two main objectives in creating this land use history are 1) to advance a multidisciplinary methodology of analyzing spatial and temporal data from different sources and 2) to promote a multi-level collaborative approach to participatory anthropological research methods in the context of a state-led conservation initiative¹⁰ that affects the Kelabit community. Applying an array of complementary ethnographic methods, including archival research, participant observation, interviews that include oral history collection and sketch mapping, and guided visits to cultural monuments and past settlement sites, I will incorporate these codified ethnographic and ecological data into a GIS database that will also include GPS locations of features and layers of regional geospatial data from existing maps, satellite images, and aerial photographs. This project will result in the creation of a digital land use history that acknowledges the role of cultural institutions and historical and political events in shaping the current landscape. A digital map and GIS database will make this landscape history visible.

In addition to the hallmark method of anthropological fieldwork, participant observation¹¹, I plan to conduct GIS overlay analysis¹² of the various data layers, spatial¹³ and temporal analysis of geospatial and ethnographic data, and ethnographic analysis of data using a grounded-theory approach¹⁴ that includes frequency analysis of “code words” collected in interviews¹⁵ and examination of historical events that have shaped the land use history of the Kelabit Highlands. Incorporating GIS technology into ethnographic fieldwork will allow for the cross-checking of attributed tabular data collected from interviews, document archives, ecological observations, and geospatial images¹⁶. Creating a GIS database flexible enough to include qualitative and multi-media ethnographic data will be a distinct challenge, but the result will be a more complete land use history than could be obtained by any of these methods in isolation.

The GIS database and digital map can be used by local people not only as a cultural archive, but also as a tool in negotiations with agencies involved in conservation or development. My research project includes training for local people in technological and ethnographic methods. This transfer of knowledge and building of local capacity will allow the Kelabit to experiment with other ways of promoting their interests with regard to lands they have historically occupied and to use GIS technology to document and preserve their cultural monuments and other sites of social, cultural, environmental, or economic importance. The fact that this map and database will be produced in a collaborative manner and then managed and owned by the Kelabit community allows residents to use this resource in ways that are beneficial to them now and in the future.

This research project is ongoing; I am still in the process of working with the Kelabit community to collect data for entry into the database, which is also still under construction. All analyses of the data layers will be done later. During the past eighteen months, I have been living and working in the Kelabit Highlands, conducting interviews, and collecting ethnographic and GPS data on the cultural monuments and old longhouse sites. I have written an interim research report on my findings to date¹⁷ and am now distributing it to the Kelabit community living both within and outside of the Kelabit Highlands for comments, additions, and suggestions for more completeness and greater accuracy. E-Bario, as I will explain, has been an important element determining the pace and outcome of my research here.

Community Mapping and Participatory GIS (PGIS)

Two challenges for anthropologists working with local peoples in biologically diverse and politically dynamic areas have been (1) moving beyond purely extractive research toward inquiry that is more relevant to the community being studied and (2) addressing critiques by local peoples that anthropological ethnographies do not adequately represent them¹⁸. Participatory data collection and mapping methods address these challenges¹⁹. Other anthropologists have linked ethnography with geospatial data in participatory ways,²⁰ and there is now a substantial literature on community mapping, participatory mapping, participatory GIS (PGIS), and public participation GIS (PPGIS)²¹. Here I will outline some of the major issues involved in introducing mapping technology to local communities and in carrying out participatory mapping projects in rural areas.

Simply put, maps are representations of places, but the “truth” of maps²² is a hotly debated topic, and now people are starting to look at maps more critically. Maps themselves are never objective representations of reality, as mapmakers are always in control of what people or places are or are not on a map,²³ and maps have always been powerful tools for the control of people, places, and resources. Official (colonial and postcolonial) maps have often misrepresented or under-represented local communities, often subjugating various forms of indigenous knowledge by trying to fit them into a Western framework. As a result, many local communities have begun to “counter-map,”²⁴ creating their own maps in ways that render their needs, desires, and ideas about space, land rights, and resource use visible to outside agencies²⁵. Counter-mapping projects, or locally-driven community mapping initiatives, have proliferated in recent decades. Much of the literature on community and participatory mapping has focused on the process of mapping, often critiquing conventional processes as exclusionary and offering a range of alternative ways of mapping that respect local interests and priorities and that also reflect local perceptions of landscape. These insights about how maps are made (and by whom) have led to further experiments in community mapping, with varying goals, mixed results, and both intended and unintended consequences.

Community mapping entails placing the mental maps of a community on paper. Communities can make many types of thematic maps, including ones focused on territorial boundaries, cultural sites, forest uses, land tenure systems, farming and other land uses, or traditional ecological knowledge. Indigenous or rural communities often want to create maps of their territories in order to assert legal recognition of their land rights, document local knowledge, manage community lands, or increase their capacity to communicate and negotiate with external agencies who are sometimes actively deciding the future of community lands. Other purposes for community maps include solving or preventing boundary disputes with other communities, initiating discussion with government agencies or logging or mining companies about land uses within or near the community territory, planning a land use or resource management system, documenting baseline demographic and geographic data, and educating children in the community about their culture and traditional land²⁶. Community mapping can potentially revitalize and connect communities, strengthen local institutions, support local challenges to external forms of authority, and serve as a nexus between formal and informal governance systems²⁷. Full community participation is important in making such maps; otherwise the interests and knowledge of some people are left off the map²⁸. Maps can be made in a participatory manner in conjunction with outside researchers, NGOs, or governmental agencies, but if the local people do not retain control of the maps, they are much less useful to them, and could be used against them.

GIS²⁹ has been continually changing the way that space and spatial relationships can be analyzed. GIS and other geospatial technologies (remote sensing, GPS³⁰) greatly influence the ways in which natural resources are perceived, managed, and exploited³¹. In studies of land use and land cover change, GIS can be particularly useful in presenting geographical information at different spatial and temporal scales. There are many publications now that describe the technical aspects of integrating qualitative ethnographic and historical data into GIS databases and digital maps³². GPS points can be collected at the same time that qualitative data from informants is recorded. Such qualitative data can be incorporated into attribute data tables, which can include information about land quality, usufruct rights and restrictions, types of land and resource ownership, density of resources, and intensity of land and resource use, as well as information about the informants, including age, gender, and social status. These “classification matrices” can be quantified into data tables or added to attribute tables in qualitative format. Geomatics can be used to “build on local knowledge to articulate traditional concepts and present them in a format that facilitates transactions with external agencies,”³³ thus making local knowledge perceptible to outsiders.

Participatory GIS (PGIS) or Public Participation GIS (PPGIS)³⁴ is a process by which local groups are given the ability to utilize GIS technologies in ways that fit their own needs and capabilities³⁵. It has spread into many remote locations to allow more equal access to GIS technologies for marginalized peoples, often with support from indigenous advocates, computer software developers, researchers, and public and private funders³⁶. It allows local groups to collect and analyze spatial data and to use this knowledge in decision-making processes that affect their lands and rights. As with community mapping in general, PGIS should be seen as a process guided by a set of inclusive principles, not merely as a tool or a result. The outcome of a PGIS project should not be merely extractive, and local people should be involved in the analysis of GIS data, not just providers of information for a GIS database that outside “experts” will analyze away from the social context in which it was collected. PGIS should have the capability to store qualitative information that is not easily represented spatially. It must be accepted that not all parts of the reality of a community can be stored in a GIS database, but the database should be flexible enough, perhaps through the use of multimedia components, to store and show as much qualitative information as possible. The focus should always be on incorporating local knowledge and local decision-making capability into the PGIS project. PGIS has begun to play an important role in empowering marginalized groups³⁷, but its success is also dependent on its use within a broader context of involvement with government agencies, NGOs, and the private sector that allows for community participation.

There are critics of the use of GIS technology in ethnographic studies and of GIS use by local peoples. Some scholars have claimed that GIS technology requires and imposes a certain logic and way of spatially representing reality that favors Western paradigms and therefore symbolizes a scientific, masculine, data-driven, and hegemonic worldview that cannot adequately include the worldviews of under-represented peoples³⁸. Feminists, for example, question the data layers analyzed in conventional GIS; they question whose input is left out (often that of women)³⁹. Similarly, it is troubling for anthropologists and indigenous advocates who claim that local groups should be judged on their own merits and not on their ability to fit into a certain technocratic schemata.

Since the primary function of GIS has been to organize data for decision-making processes, some researchers and local communities have argued that the technology exists more to benefit policy makers than marginalized groups⁴⁰. Science-based maps of land features, such as soil, vegetation, slope, watershed, and species have often increased centralized control over locally managed lands by claiming scientific authority and positive environmental intentions⁴¹. Further, GIS-based scientific mapping into homogenous zones does not adequately represent complicated property rights structures in many local communities⁴² and often ignores the human presence altogether. As a result of these concerns, PGIS has not been used much in development planning, in part because social scientists who promote community participation in development projects do not fully trust GIS technologists and often feel that the GIS framework is too simplistic to accurately reflect the complexity of local land management regimes⁴³, and local communities feel that the future developments they envision cannot (or will not) be incorporated into the GIS systems used by developers. Scholars, advocates, and communities also claim that GIS cannot properly visualize the landscapes of the past, thus disregarding the roles that local communities have played in creating the present landscapes. Development agencies, on the other hand, often feel that local communities are incapable of contributing reliable technological data to a GIS database or that their contributions would complicate or delay development plans.

GIS has often been used with the intention of settling land conflicts, but GIS does not in itself produce or represent the values inherent in these conflicts. Some scholars argue that GIS intensifies conflicts,⁴⁴ while others claim that GIS can be used in myriad ways that produce a number of possible solutions that can help resolve conflicts⁴⁵. Kyem (2004) argues that GIS can be used to resolve land conflicts, so long as people realize that conflicts operate within specific socio-cultural contexts, and that there are different types of conflict (within or between socio-political systems, for example). The introduction of GIS to local communities can also lead to power imbalances, created by unequal access to technology⁴⁶. But the critiques of the way that GIS is used emphasize the need to allow indigenous groups access to the same technology in order to level the playing field in public policy debates over lands they have historically occupied⁴⁷. The fact is that indigenous communities can take the tools formerly used against them and use them to their own advantage.

Some of these critiques of GIS have been applied to PGIS and participatory mapping in general; when outsiders seek to implement community mapping programs for marginalized or under-represented communities, it is essential to assess the ways that mapping and the introduction of new technologies will affect the communities⁴⁸. Mohamed and Ventura (2000:234) say that: “Technology must be considered a double-edged sword with the potential to cause harm as well as bring benefits.” It is therefore necessary to inform them of potential risks and problems associated with mapping. It has been suggested that to prevent conflicts and other dilemmas associated with community mapping, it is necessary for the community to write by-laws at the outset of the project that detail the effects the maps will or will not have on traditional resource use systems; they should also include codified structures for resource sharing and for sanctioning corrupt leaders for illegal land sales, to prevent dilemmas such as the ones that have occurred in the past⁴⁹. For community mapping to be successful, mechanisms should also be in place for dispute resolution, conflict mediation, attention to gender, status, and ethnic considerations, and a system of checks and balances⁵⁰. Communities should also create ways to protect knowledge that they do not want to be openly available. Culturally-appropriate GIS methods are needed to ensure sensitivity, confidentiality, and respect for intellectual property rights. In short, the technology must be adapted to the needs of local people.

Context: Kelabit Highlands and Sarawak

In this section I will give a brief description of the social, cultural, environmental, economic, and political context in which I am conducting this participatory GIS project. Understanding the context is crucial in any mapping project, and I address some of the issues and challenges that have presented themselves so far during the course of this project.

Though little archeological research has been conducted in the Kelabit Highlands, and though it is difficult to link many existing archaeological sites to current communities, Kelabit oral histories attest to a long history of occupation of the area⁵¹. The Kelabit Highlands are unique in Sarawak because of the existence of a large number of megaliths and other cultural monuments: carved stones (batuh narit), raised stone slabs or dolmens (batuh nangan), standing stones or menhirs (batuh sinuped), large circular rock piles (perupun), burial grounds with ancient Chinese pottery (lungun belanai) or hollowed stone urns (batuh nawi), kawang (notches in treelines), and nabang (large trenches cut through stone or soil)⁵². Also common is evidence of past landscape engineering, including dams, bunds, irrigation ditches, and stream diversions⁵³. Nowhere else in Sarawak can one find such a dense assemblage of monuments. Numerous stories surround these cultural monuments, and link them to particular luminary ancestors and mythological figures. Kelabit value these monuments as evidence of the antiquity of their occupation of the region. Old longhouse sites (rumah ma’un) dot the landscape, and these sites are surrounded by extensive stands of old secondary forest, fruit trees, and other evidence of human modification. Prior to the 20th century, the Kelabit subsistence system was based on shifting cultivation of rice⁵⁴. According to Kelabit oral histories, their ancestors were very mobile, moving longhouses every few years. As is evident by the sheer number and diversity of cultural sites in the Kelabit Highlands, it is obvious that this is a highly anthropogenic landscape which has been altered by many generations of Kelabit.

The 20th century was a period of dramatic transformation for the Kelabit Highlands. As one of the most remote regions of Sarawak, the Kelabit Highlands was largely isolated from colonial influence before 1900. This began to change in the early 20th century and continued at an accelerating pace after World War II. In recent generations, there have been several political and historical events that have affected patterns of migrations and land use in the Kelabit Highlands. These include:

1) the introduction of wet rice agriculture to the Kelabit, which supplemented or replaced shifting cultivation of dry rice⁵⁵;

2) the arrival of Christian missionaries, who began preaching among Kelabit in the 1920s, and succeeded in encouraging large-scale conversion after World War II⁵⁶;

3) the demarcation of the political boundary between Malaysia and Indonesia, which influenced the travel and marriage patterns between Kelabit in Malaysia and related ethnic groups in Indonesia⁵⁷;

4) the subsequent war (Konfrontasi) between these countries in the 1960s, during which time many Kelabit moved from remote villages to Bario⁵⁸; and

5) the construction of the first school in the Kelabit Highlands in 1946 and subsequent enthusiasm for higher education, which has led to many Kelabit receiving advanced degrees and high levels of achievement in all sectors of the economy and government⁵⁹, as well as high levels of out-migration from the Kelabit Highlands.

In creating a digital land use history of the Kelabit Highlands, it is necessary to incorporate ethnographic information about these more recent events, in addition to events and cultural land use practices that occurred before widespread contact with the Western world. These recent events have had profound effects on the landscape of the Kelabit Highlands today, and it is these events which will be the most visible in geospatial data that is currently available for the Kelabit Highlands. Regardless, there are many older land use patterns that are still visible in the landscape today. More recent uses of the land have not completely obliterated or obscured these older uses. Many layers of history coexist in the current landscape of the Kelabit Highlands. For example, pre-Christian burials and Christian burials may occupy the same graveyard, and current wet rice fields may contain megaliths that are old enough to have passed out of living memory. The digital map and database will reflect the complexity of the highly anthropogenic nature of this landscape. This land use history will give support to the case that over many generations, the Kelabit have contributed to the socio-historical creation of this landscape and are largely responsible for the density and distribution of the biological diversity in the Kelabit Highlands today, which has important implications for conservation plans for the area.

The value of the Kelabit Highlands as a rich reservoir of cultural significance and ecological diversity has been noted by the state of Sarawak, and it is now included as a potential site for the expansion of Pulong Tau National Park (PTNP). Planning for the establishment of PTNP began in the early 1980s when researchers from Sarawak’s National Parks and Wildlife Division discovered a remnant population of rhinoceros in the area. When the original proposal was developed in 1984, PTNP encompassed 164,500 hectares. Two subsequent boundary revisions reduced PTNP to 59,917 hectares by the time it was officially gazetted in 2005. PTNP runs along the western side of the Kelabit Highlands, extending along the Tamabuh Range from near Long Lellang in the south to Gunung Murud (2423 meters, Sarawak’s highest peak) in the north. From the outset, there has been a high level of community support for the establishment of PTNP because Kelabit leaders played a key role in putting forth the original proposal for the park. This high level of local support derives both from the fact that the Kelabit have a strong interest in protecting the watersheds that supply water to rice fields, and from their interest in preserving the natural features that attract eco-tourists and historical monuments that are an integral part of their cultural identity .

When I first began working in the Kelabit Highlands, the Sarawak State government had recently signed an agreement with the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) for research and planning support to expand PTNP eastward across the Kelabit Highlands to the Indonesian border. This would have linked PTNP to Indonesia’s 1,000,000 hectare Kayan Mentarang National Park, and all seven communities in the Kelabit Highlands would have been incorporated into PTNP⁶⁰. The state agreement with ITTO mandated a research program designed to support the expansion of PTNP and the development of a management plan, formulated in coordination with the Kelabit community, that addressed both biodiversity conservation values and community development priorities. The ITTO conservation planning framework incorporated a number of innovative participatory elements, including community mapping. It was this agreement between the Sarawak State Government and ITTO that made it possible for me to conduct my own dissertation research. Especially significant, rather than mandating strict protection in a way that excluded human communities, the ITTO agreement acknowledged the human role in creating and maintaining this landscape.

Most Kelabit strongly support this extension of PTNP, although extenuating circumstances may prevent this from happening. While the Sarawak State Government has undertaken concrete steps to conserve biodiversity in the Kelabit Highlands, in 2004 members of the Kelabit community received confirmation from the Sarawak Forest Department that much of the highlands had been given out as a timber concession; logging operations are currently moving through the Kelabit Highlands from the south. Though many Kelabit favor the building of a road to Bario, they are deeply concerned that siltation will destroy rice fields and that logging activities will render the highlands an unattractive destination for eco-tourists. They are also concerned that logging activities will reduce populations of wild game, and that they will lead to the destruction of cultural sites⁶¹, due both to the direct impacts of mechanized logging and because of the possibility of looting by itinerant workers.

Today it appears that continued logging in the Kelabit Highlands is inevitable, and community members are now actively negotiating with the timber company to ensure that the damage done is minimal and that the villages receive fair compensation for the trees harvested. It is possible that certain areas of the Kelabit Highlands will be included in PTNP after logging is completed. It is also possible that much of the Kelabit Highlands could be converted to large-scale agricultural plantations, producing larger quantities of the famous “Bario rice,” cinnamon, or other crops. Once the road reaches Bario, a new type of tourism might be developed here, possibly including resorts, golf courses, or other attractions to lure wealthy visitors. In sum, the future of the Kelabit Highlands after logging has occurred is uncertain, which makes it difficult for residents to make long-term plans.

This uncertainty about the future of the Kelabit Highlands has spurred many Kelabit, both those living within the area and those who have migrated out, to become intensely aware of the importance of mapping their village boundaries, water catchment areas, requested communal forest reserve areas, and cultural sites. Although they are keen to do this mapping, they have been constrained from doing so by lack of funds, lack of technology, and legal challenges. First, though the state government has encouraged local communities to map their territories, community-made maps are not legally valid, due to the passage of the 2002 Land Surveyors’ Bill, which states that only professional surveyors licensed by the state can make legally valid maps of lands claimed by local communities⁶². The cost for hiring licensed surveyors to map Native Customary Land (NCL) is prohibitively high, and villages in the Kelabit Highlands lack the funds to do this. So they have been actively seeking other methods of producing maps, even if these maps are not recognized legally by the government. Some communities have received limited technical assistance from Sarawak Forest Department and ITTO representatives during the course of their preliminary baseline socio-economic studies and cultural site surveys in the Kelabit Highlands, or from local non-governmental organizations. Other Kelabit have acquired their own GPS units and have used them to mark cultural sites, village boundaries, and personal family land.

Within this political context, I have obviously had to approach the matter of introducing GIS and GPS technology to the Kelabit community as part of my dissertation research carefully, to avoid inviting trouble for myself and community members. In requesting research permission from the State Planning Unit of Sarawak, I have complied with all regulations that apply to foreign researchers and am conducting my research strictly within the stipulations of my research visa. It is also helpful to note that the ITTO proposal to extend PTNP across the Kelabit Highlands opened a window of opportunity for the type of technology transfer that is integral to my research, as it calls explicitly for community mapping. Continued cooperation and data-sharing among the various stakeholders – me (who can collect, collate, and analyze data), the Sarawak Forest Department (who can negotiate with timber companies and supervise timber extraction), the Sarawak Museum (who can demarcate and protect cultural sites under the Cultural Heritage Ordinance of 1993), Univeristi Malaysia Sarawak (who can provide technology and technological assistance to e-Bario), and the Kelabit community (who can decide what data and which areas are in need of mapping and protecting and can manage the data collected) – can benefit all parties. The transfer of not just technology but also skills and contacts can help the Kelabit community to manage the data (all of which are being immediately repatriated to the community) and database once my particular research project is finished. The Kelabit are well aware of the benefits of acquiring technology and technological skills, and they are keen to expand and strengthen their networks with individuals in all relevant governmental and educational institutions.

Community Mapping in the Kelabit Highlands

In addition to navigating the complex political landscape of Sarawak in such a way that compels them to seek cooperation with the government, members of the Kelabit community must also make other decisions on how to effectively proceed with a community mapping project (both the one outlined in my research proposal and other related mapping projects they have initiated on their own). One key decision is logistical: which people within the Kelabit community have the necessary skills in technology, human resource management, and financial accounting, as well as the necessary motivation and time, to implement such a project on the ground? There is no lack of qualified individuals within the Kelabit community; as noted, many Kelabit are highly educated, and other members of the community are highly knowledgeable about Kelabit history, culture, and landscape. By combining the knowledge and talents of such a diverse community, the Kelabit are positioned to successfully implement an effective mapping project, perhaps more so than other remote communities in Sarawak. However, this diversification in educational levels and expertise also leads to special challenges that must be overcome in order to ensure cooperation, transparency, and accurate transmission of information among all Kelabit people involved in the project. The diasporic nature of the Kelabit community is a particular obstacle, though efforts are being made to coordinate efforts of Kelabit living within and outside the Kelabit Highlands. This issue needs to be sorted out among Kelabit themselves; no outside researcher can or should interfere with internal matters such as which individuals should serve on project committees.

Another specific consideration for mapping projects in the Kelabit Highlands that has been raised in conjunction with my own research is the question of which cultural sites to include or not include on open-access maps and databases. There has been concern about placing some sites on maps that will be seen by outsiders, particularly burial sites that contain valuable jars or other artifacts such as beads that could be looted. Although the Kelabit agree that these sites should be mapped, and particularly that maps containing these sites be given to timber extractors to avoid damage to the sites and artifacts, there is less agreement on how public the complete maps should be, or on which versions of the maps should be available to whom. This is another issue that must ultimately be decided by community members, and I, as a researcher, need the guidance of a representative committee when the time comes for decisions to be made about which data and maps derived from my own research project to publish. Other maps and data sets produced or collected by the community will also be subject to these same concerns. The Kelabit community realizes this, and they have recently created a Community Research Steering Committee. This committee will oversee all research done in the Kelabit Highlands, monitor outside researchers, and ensure repatriation of data and reports produced by them. It will also guide research and mapping projects undertaken by community members themselves.

The Role of e-Bario as a Collaborating Institution

The e-Bario Telecentre serves as an institutional nexus for research undertaken in the Kelabit Highlands, and thus serves as the local collaborating institution for my own research (in addition to Rurum Kelabit Sarawak, the Kelabit Association of Sarawak). As noted, it serves many purposes for community members, and in addition to the technological facilities it houses, it also provides logistical and personnel support for all types of community functions (everything from setting up microphones and LCD players for speeches and presentations by visiting politicians, researchers, etc. to creating banners, logos, and laminated nametags for community meetings). For researchers such as myself, e-Bario provides critical technologies such as telephones, printers, photocopiers, and computers with internet access that allow me to maintain contact with my home institution and with all the other institutions and individuals that are assisting in my research. It also serves as a repository for hard and soft copies of reports, raw data, and photographs; I have stored many files on the computers there and have informed people of where these documents are located so that they can be read or viewed by community members at their convenience. I have also left paper copies of reports and data lists near the computer sign-in sheet that community members can “check out” or read (and edit) while sitting in the telecentre or at the adjacent coffee shops.

The e-Bario Telecentre also serves as a locus for training community members to use GPS technology. Its location near the main kedai (row of shophouses and cafes) make it a convenient meeting spot and location to circulate information. Within the telecentre is a meeting room which provides the community with a place to discuss issues of local interest. This meeting room has been the setting for many meetings in which I have discussed my research project and issues regarding the link between cultural heritage and community mapping. Meetings at e-Bario have also provided a forum for discussions about what community members hope to gain by learning to use the GPS units. At various meetings I have given an overview of how the units work and passed out sheets with instructions on how to take waypoints. As the area around the e-Bario Telecentre is open, it is a good place to practice using the GPS unit. In small training sessions, I usually have three or four GPS units and split the group into pairs or small groups. Each person or small group practices taking waypoints and recording the data systematically on paper. Then, after arranging a follow-up meeting, I suggest that they go practice in the forest, where it is much more difficult to collect waypoints under the tree canopy. This is a vital step in the training process because once people practice using the units on their own, they often encounter problems; sometimes they accidentally change the settings, or they change the batteries without re-calibrating the compass and altimeter, or they forget to actually record the waypoint in the unit or mislabel the waypoint in their notebooks. At the follow-up session, I can meet with each person individually and help him or her straighten out issues such as these. At this point they are more confident about using the GPS to record waypoints while hunting, guiding tourists, or marking sites or boundaries. In later stages of this project, as it moves from data collection to integration of the data into the database, e-Bario will again serve as a place to train community members to enter the data into the database and eventually onto the maps which will be housed in electronic form on the computers at the telecentre.

People also know that when I am in Bario, I am often working in the e-Bario Telecentre, so they can find me there if they need further assistance or want to give me written copies of data they have collected. They can also leave notes or written data with the personnel at e-Bario, and these people will pass on such things to me when they next see me in Bario. They have also passed notes, letters, emails, and other documents to me when I am staying in the village of Pa’ Lungan. Logistically, the staff members of e-Bario have also helped me to set up community meetings to discuss certain aspects of the research; these topics have ranged from the sensitivity of placing certain sites on an open-access map to discrepancies associated with alternate spellings of words, places, and people in the non-standardized Kelabit language. As noted, the e-Bario personnel and other community members have also recently formed a Community Research Steering Committee (in cooperation with Rurum Kelabit), which oversees all research undertaken in the Kelabit Highlands, with the goal of promoting community awareness of and participation in research initiated by outsiders (as well as locals). This committee is now in the process of creating guidelines and protocols for researchers and producing written agreements between researchers and the research committee. This is a proactive step taken by the Kelabit community to gain more access to and control over data collected in the Kelabit Highlands, ensuring community benefit from research projects.

Improving Capabilities for e-Bario

The personnel of e-Bario intend to expand the capabilities and facilities of the telecentre to make it more useful for community members, visitors, and researchers. They are well aware of the current technological limitations of e-Bario: a lack of up-to-date software programs, which often require expensive site licenses; limited bandwidth for internet usage; and limited RAM on the computers for storing large data files or running large programs. With limited bandwidth, if more than a few people are online at once, the connection is so slow that it is virtually impossible to use the internet. Further it is virtually impossible to store digital maps or to run RAM-intensive software programs such as ArcGIS. There is also a lack of office equipment such as photocopiers and printers capable of quickly producing large numbers of documents, and scanners large enough to scan oversized documents such as maps. Even limited basic office supplies such as toner and paper for printers are in short supply. E-Bario staff members know that acquiring these types of things would both improve support for researchers and benefit community members who have become dependent on the telecentre for business transactions and marketing their skills, handicrafts, lodges, etc. via internet. Thus, they have been actively seeking grants as well as donations (corporate or private) of cash or equipment such as computers. As e-Bario is now licensed as a community-owned business, rather than a pilot project funded through Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, its aim is to be self-sufficient through both grants and income generated by services provided to the community⁶³, tourists, and researchers.

In addition to improving the technological capabilities of the telecentre itself, the staff of e-Bario also hopes to expand its sphere of technological reach to all of Bario and other villages in the Kelabit Highlands. One key goal is to extend the wireless service beyond 50 meters from the telecentre, so that locals can access the internet from their own homes and so that tourists and researchers can access it from the lodges or from the cafes and coffee shops. Further, because of limited bandwidth, currently only one laptop can access the network at a time. Since several community members own laptops, and since researchers almost always bring their own laptops (and occasionally tourists do as well), it can be difficult or impossible for a researcher to access the wireless service. With improved bandwidth and routers to expand the wireless capabilities of e-Bario, it will be possible for numerous community members, researchers, and tourists to access the internet simultaneously.

It has been difficult for the personnel of e-Bario to acquire more bandwidth, and “wiring” the whole of the Kelabit Highlands is at present a very ambitious undertaking. But another more manageable goal in the meantime that could help both community members and researchers is e-Bario’s goal of providing computers to each village. Even if the computers cannot access the internet now, people could create documents in the villages and then download them to flash drives or CDs to be emailed at the telecentre in Bario. This could also greatly improve computer literacy in the villages, since the children learn to use computers in schools and could teach their parents to use them in the villages. For researchers like myself who focus their studies in villages other than Bario, computers in the villages would be very helpful. Since an integral part of my project is training community members to enter data into a database, having a computer in the village would make this aspect of the project much easier. Community members could create documents and input data into the database in the village computer and then transfer the data to the main computers at the telecentre in Bario. The staff members of e-Bario are actively seeking means to make this possible.

There are several other ways that e-Bario could support research in the Kelabit Highlands, and that researchers could in turn work to improve e-Bario. A larger meeting room is crucial. Currently the meeting room can hold around ten people comfortably; for larger gatherings, the use of a lodge, large house, or the Balai Raya (community meeting hall) is necessary. An expansion of the meeting room at the telecentre (which may need to be relocated to a larger building), and the purchase (or donation) of furniture, an LCD projector, screen, and a dedicated in-house computer could make community meetings and research briefings more productive and inclusive. At the telecentre itself, designated spaces for researchers which include computers, printers, large desks and bookcases, and private lockable offices that would allow researchers to work without disrupting community members or being interrupted would be helpful as well. It has also been suggested that small houses could be constructed near e-Bario, which could be rented by researchers. In addition, the establishment of a library at e-Bario would benefit both researchers and community members; researchers themselves are best positioned to contribute to this goal. It might include reports of all research undertaken in the area, as well as books, articles, and other documents about the Kelabit Highlands, as well as literature on topics of interest to community members: issues such as community mapping, community museums, cultural heritage preservation, etc. Paper and electronic lists of contact information for other researchers who have visited or worked in the Kelabit Highlands could also strengthen ties between researchers themselves and serve as a nexus for linking the work done here and for bringing new researchers into the area. Links on the e-Bario website could also steer new researchers through the appropriate channels for gaining governmental and community support for research projects, and researchers could contribute comments to an online forum that could ease the transition into research in the Kelabit Highlands by providing information on topics such as prices for transportation and lodging in different areas as well as names of community members that are especially knowledgeable about certain aspects of Kelabit culture, history, or forest use. By first defining both the ways that e-Bario can support researchers and that researchers can support e-Bario, e-Bario personnel can incorporate these and other ideas into a long-term management plan that will benefit all users of the telecentre and e-Bario communications network.

Conclusion

Designing and implementing a truly participatory GIS-based research project in any remote community is a difficult undertaking, and there are particular challenges in the Kelabit Highlands of Sarawak. However, the Kelabit community is eager to embrace new technologies, including GIS, that will enhance communication and that will enable them to disseminate information amongst themselves and with external agencies more effectively. They also realize the benefits that can come from more systematic study of the history, ecology, and culture of the Kelabit Highlands and so are receptive to research projects initiated by outside researchers with the understanding that reports and data will be repatriated to the community. Staff members of the e-Bario Telecentre are actively trying to encourage more researchers to study in the Kelabit Highlands and to improve the existing facilities of the telecentre to make it more conducive the effective conduct of research. These proactive efforts of one rather remarkable remote community in the middle of Borneo dovetail nicely with Malaysia’s vision of Wawasan 2020 and have proven to be a beacon for other rural communities in Sarawak and other parts of the world. In turn, researchers who have the opportunity to benefit from the communications capabilities of e-Bario should contribute to the continual improvement of e-Bario for all users.

References Cited

ABBOTT, J., R. CHAMBERS, C. DUNN, T. HARRIS, E. DE MERODE, G. PORTER, J. TOWNSEND, AND D. WEINER. 1998. Participatory GIS: Opportunity or oxymoron? PLA Notes 33: 27-33.

ADAMS, J. AND T. MCSHANE. 1992. The myth of wild Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press.

AITKEN, S.C. AND S. MICHEL 1995. Who contrives the ‘real’ in GIS? Geographic information, planning, and critical theory. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22(1):17-29.

ALDERDERFER, M. AND H. D. G. MASCHNER, EDITORS. 1996. Anthropology, space, and geographic information systems. Oxford; Oxford University Press.

AMSTER. M. 2003 “Gender complementarity and death among the Kelabit,” in Journeys of the soul: Anthropological studies of death, burial, and reburial practices in Borneo. Edited by William D. Wilder, pp. 251-307. Kuching: Borneo Research Council, Inc.

AMSTER, M. 2005. Cross-border marriage in the Kelabit Highlands of Borneo. Anthropological Forum 15(2): 131-150.

ANSELIN, LUC. 1992. Spatial data analysis with GIS: An introduction to application in the social sciences. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Technical Report 92-10.

ARMSTRONG, M.P., P.J. DENSHAM, AND P. RUSHTON. 1986. “Architecture for a micro-computer decision support system-based,” in Proceedings of the 2^nd International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling. PP. 120-131. Williamsburg, New York.

BALA, P. 2002. Changing borders and identities in the Kelabit Highlands: Anthropological reflections of growing up in a Kelabit village near the international border. Dayak Studies Contemporary Society Series, No. 1. Institute of East Asian Studies. Kuching: Unit Penerbitan Universiti Malaysia Sarawak.

BALA, P., R. HARRIS AND P. SONGAN. 2003. “E-Bario project: In search of a methodology to provide access to information communication technologies for rural communities in Malaysia,” in Using community informatics to transform regions. Edited by S. Marshall, W. Taylor and X. Yu., pp. 115-131. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

BALÉE, W. 1992. “People of the fallow: A historical ecology of foraging in lowland South America,” in Conservation of neotropical forests: Working from traditional resource use. Edited by K.H. Redford and C. Padoch, pp. 35-57. New York: Columbia University Press.

BANKS, E. 1937. Some megalithic remains from the Kelabit Country in Sarawak with some notes on the Kelabit themselves. Sarawak Museum Journal IV, Part IV (15), 1937: 411-437.

BEHRENS, C. A. 1996. “A formal justification for the application GIS to the cultural ecological analysis of land-use intensification and deforestation in the Amazon,” in Anthropology, space, and geographic information systems. Edited by Mark Aldenderfer and Herberbert D. G. Maschner, pp. 55-77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BERNARD, H. R. 2002. Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, 3^rd ed. New York: Altamira Press.

BERRY, J.K. 1993. “Cartographic modeling: The analytical capabilities of GIS,” in Environmental modeling with GIS. Edited by M.F. Goodchild, B.O. Parks, and L.T. Steyaert, pp. 58-74. York, UK: Oxford University Press.

BLAIKE, P. AND H. BROOKFIELD. 1987. Land degradation and society. London: Methuen.

BROWN, K. 1998. The political ecology of biodiversity, conservation, and development in Nepal’s Terai: Confused meanings, means and ends. Ecological Economics: 1-15.

BULAN, L. AND D. LABANG. 1979. The Kelabit harvest. Sarawak Museum Journal XXVII (48): 43-52.

BULAN, R. 2003. Boundaries, territorial domains, and Kelabit customary practices: Discovering the hidden landscape. Sarawak Museum Journal.

CALAMIA, M. A. 1999. A methodology for incorporating traditional ecological knowledge with geographic information systems for marine resource management in the Pacific. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin # 10: 2-12.

CARVER, S. 1991. Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographic information systems. International Journal for Geographic Information Systems 5(3):221-239.

CHAMBERS, R. 1994. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) challenges, potential and paradigm. World Development 12(10):1437-1454.

COLCHESTER, M. 1992. Pirates, squatters and poachers: The political ecology of dispossession of the native peoples of Sarawak. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 3 (4/6): 158-179.

COLCHESTER, M. 1994. Sustaining the forests: The community-based approach in south and south-east Asia. Development and Change 25:69-100.

COLCHESTER, M. 2005. “Maps, power and the defense of territory: The Upper Mazaruni land claim in Guyana,” in Communities and conservation: Histories and politics of community-based natural resource management. Edited by J.P. Brosius, A. Tsing, & C. Zerner, pp. 271-304. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

COLFER, C. J. P. 1980. “Change and indigenous agroforestry in East Kalimantan,” in Whose trees? Proprietary dimensions of forestry. Edited by Louise Fortmann and John W. Bruce, pp. 306-309. Boulder: Westview Press.

COLFER, C. J. P., WITH N. PELUSO AND CHIN S. C. 1997. Beyond slash and burn: Building on indigenous management of Borneo’s tropical rain forests. Bronx: New York Botanical Garden.

COLFER, C. J. P. AND H. SOEDJITO. 1996. “Food, forests, and fields in a Bornean rain forest: Toward appropriate agroforestry development,” in Borneo in transition: People, forests, conservation, and development. Edited by C. Padoch and N. L. Peluso, pp. 162-186. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

COOKE, F. M. 2003. Maps and counter-maps: Globalised imaginings and local realities of Sarawak’s plantation agriculture. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 3 4(2):265-284.

COURGEAU, D. AND É. LELIÈVRE. 1992. Event history analysis in demography. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

CRAIG, W. AND S. ELWOOD. 1998. How and why community groups use maps and geographic information systems. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22(2):95-104).

CRAIG W. J., T. M. HARRIS, AND D. WEINER, EDS. 2002. Community participation and geographic information systems. New York: Taylor and Francis.

CRONON, W. 1995. “The trouble with wilderness, or getting back to the wrong nature,” in Uncommon ground: Toward reinventing nature. Edited by W. Cronon, pp. 69-90. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

CRUMLEY, C. L. 1994. “Historical ecology: A multidimensional ecological orientation,” in Historical ecology: Cultural knowledge and changing landscapes. Edited by Carole Crumley, pp. 1-13. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

CURRY, M.R. 1994. Image, practice, and the hidden impacts of geographic information

systems. Progress in Human Geography 18(4):44-459.

DE JONG, W., B. BELCHER, D. ROHADI, R. MUSTIKASARI, AND P. LEVANG. 2003. “The Political Ecology of Forest Products in Indonesia: A History of Changing Adversaries,” in The Political Ecology of Tropical Forests in Southeast Asia: Historical Perspectives. Edited by Lye Tuck-Po, Wil de Jong, and Abe Ken-ichi, pp.107-132. Kyoto: Kyoto University Press.

DE MUNCK, V. C. 1998. “Participant observation: A thick explanation of conflict in a Sri Lankan village,” in Using methods in the field: A practical introduction casebook. Edited by V. C. de Munck and E. J. Sobo, pp. 39-54. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

DENSHAM, P.J. 1991. “Spatial decision support systems,” in Geographic information systems: Principles, vol 1. Edited by D.J. Maguire, D.F. Goodchild, and D.W. Rhind. London: Longman Scientific Technical.

DEWALT, K. M. AND B. R. DEWALT. 2002. Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

DIAMOND, J.T. AND J.R. WRIGHT 1988. Design on an integrated spatial information system for multi-objective land use planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 15:205-214.

DOVE, M. R. 1996. “So far from power, so near to the forest: A structural analysis of gain and blame in tropical forest development,” in Borneo in transition: People, forests, conservation, and development. Edited by Christine Padoch and Nancy Lee Peluso, pp. 41-58. Kuala Lampur: Oxford University Press.

EASTMAN, J.R., P.A.K. KYEM, AND J. TOLEDANO. 1993. GIS and decision-making.

Geneva: UNITAR.

EGHENTER, C. 2000. Mapping people’s forests: The role of mapping in planning community-based management of conservation areas in Indonesia. Peoples, Forests and Reefs (PeFoR) Program Discussion Paper Series. BSP/WWF-US, Washington D.C.

ENGLISH, K. Z. AND L. FEASTER. 2003. Community geography: GIS in action. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.

ESCOBAR, A. 1998. Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, Conservation, and the Political Ecology of Social Movements. Journal of Political Ecology 5:53-82.

FLAVELLE, A. 2002. Mapping our land: A guide to making maps of our own communities and traditional lands. Edmonton, Canada: Lone Pine Foundation.

FOTHERINGHAM, A. S. AND M. E. O’KELLY. 1989. Spatial interaction models: Formulations and applications. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

FOX, J. 2002. Siam Mapped and mapping in Cambodia: Boundaries, sovereignty, and indigenous conceptions of space. Society and Natural Resources 15:65-78.

FRANKENBERG, R. 1982. “Participant observers,” in Field research: A sourcebook and field manual. Edited by Robert G. Burgess, pp. 50-52. London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.

GADGIL, M. AND R. GUHA. 1992. This fissured land: An ecological history of India. London: Routledge.

GANS, H. J. 1982. “The participant observer as a human being: Observations on the personal

aspects of fieldwork,” in Field research: A sourcebook and field manual. Edited by Robert G. Burgess, pp. 53-61. London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.

GHOSE, R. 2001. Use of information technology for community empowerment: Transforming

geographic information systems into community information systems. Transactions in GIS 5(2):141-163.

GNANIAH, J., A. YEO, P. SONGAN, H. ZEN AND K. AB HAMID. 2004. “A comparison on the implementation approaches for the e-Bario and e-Bedian projects,” in Work with computing systems, Edited by the H.M. Khalid, M.G. Helander and A.W. Yeo, pp. 286-291, Kuala Lumpur: Damia Sciences.

GOODCHILD, M. F. 1996. “Geographic information systems and spatial analysis in the social sciences,” in Anthropology, space, and geographic information systems. Edited by Mark Aldenderfer and Herbert D. G. Maschner, pp. 241-250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

GOSS, J. 1995. “Marketing the new marketing: The strategic discourse of geographic information systems,” in Ground truth: The social implications of geographic information systems. Edited by John Pickles, pp. 130-170. New York: Guilford.

GREENBERG, J. AND T. PARK. 1994. Political ecology. Journal of Political Ecology 1(1):1-12.

GREGORY, D. 1994. Geographical imaginations. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing Company.

GUYER, J. AND P. RICHARDS. 1996. The invention of biodiversity: Social perspectives on the management of biological diversity in Africa. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 66(1): The Social Shaping of Biodiversity: Perspectives on the Management of Biological Diversity in Africa: 1-13.

HARRIS, R., 2001. Internet access by remote communities in Sarawak: The Smart School as a demonstrator application. Research report: UNIMAS and IDRC.

HARRISSON, T. AND PENGHULU BALANG SIRAN. 1984 [1959]. World within: A Borneo story. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

HODGSON, D. L. AND R. A. SCHROEDER. 2002. Dilemmas of counter-mapping community resources in Tanzania. Development and Change 33:79-100.

HUME, L. AND J. MULCOCK, EDITORS. 2004. Anthropologists in the field: Cases in participant observation. New York: Columbia University Press.

INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATION (ITTO), 2004. Transboundary biodiversity conservation: The Pulong Tau National Park, Sarawak State, Malaysia, ITTO Project Document.

JANOWSKI, M. 1988. The motivating forces behind recent changes in the wet rice agricultural system in the Kelabit Highlands. Sarawak Gazette 114(1504):9-21.

KABUTHA, C., B. P. THOMAS SLAYTER,AND R. FORD. 1990. Participatory rural appraisal handbook: Conducting PRA’s in Kenya. Prepared jointly by Kenya National Environment Secretariat, Ergeton University, Clark University, and World Resource Institute.

KING, V. T. 1993. Politik pembangunan: The political economy of rainforest exploitation and development in Sarawak, East Malaysia. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 3 (4/6): 235-244.

KING, G. 1996. Mapping reality: An exploration of cultural cartographies. London: MacMillian Press, Ltd.

KRIPPENDORFF, K. 1990. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

KYEM, P. A. K. 2000. A Choice heuristic algorithm for managing land resource allocation problems involving multiple parties and conflicting interests. Transactions in GIS 5(2):113-132.

KYEM, P. A. K. 2004. Of intractable conflicts and participatory GIS application: The search for consensus amidst competing claims and institutional demands. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94(1):37-57.

LIEW, J.A., W. YEO, K. AB AMID AND A. OTHMAN. 2004. “Implementation of wireless networks in rural areas,” in Work with Computing Systems. Edited by H.M. Khalid, M.G. Helander and A.W. Yeo, pp. 282-285, Kuala Lumpur: Damia Sciences.

LOFLAND, J. AND L. H. LOFLAND. 1995. Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

LOGAN, B. I. and W. G. MOSELEY. 2002. The political ecology of poverty alleviation in Zimbabwe’s Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE). Geoforum 33: 1-14.

MCCONCHIE, J. A. AND J. M. MCKINNON. 2002. Using GIS to produce community-based maps to promote collaborative natural resource management. ASEAN Biodiversity: 27-34.

MCGWIRE, K., N. A. CHAGNON, AND C. B. CARÍAS. 1996. “Empirical and methodological problems in developing a GIS database for Yanomamö tribesmen located in remote areas,” in Anthropology, space, and geographic information systems. Edited by Mark Aldenderfer and Herberbert D. G. Maschner, pp. 97-106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

MOHAMED, M. A. AND S. VENTURA. 2000. Use of geomatics for mapping and documenting indigenous tenure systems. Society and Natural Resources 13:223-236.

MOORE, D. S. 1993. Contesting terrain in Zimbabwe's eastern highlands: Political ecology, ethnography, and peasant resource  struggles.  Economic Geography 69 (4) Environment and Development, Part 2: 380-401.

NYGERES, A. 1996. Ethnography in the reconstruction of African land use histories: A Sierra Leone example. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 66(1): 122-144.

OBERMEYER, N.J. 1991. GIS in a Democratic Society: Opportunities and Problems. Paper presented at European Geographic Information Systems Conference, April 1991, Brussels.

OBERMEYER, N.J. AND J. PINTO. 1994. Managing geographic information systems. New York: Guilford.

O’NEILL, JOHN. 2001. Representing people, representing nature, representing the world. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19: 483-500.

ORLOVE, B. S. 1991. Mapping reeds and reading maps: The politics of representation in Lake Titicaca. American Ethnologist 18(1):3-38.

PELUSO, N. 1995. Whose woods are these? Counter-mapping forest territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Antipode 27(4):383-406.

PETERS, P. 1996. Who's local here? The politics of participation in development. Cultural Survival Quarterly 20(3):22-25.

PIPER, K. 2002. Cartographic fictions: Maps, race, and identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

POOLE, P. 1995. Indigenous peoples, mapping, and biodiversity conservation: An analysis of current activities and opportunities for applying geomatics technologies. Washington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program.

ROBERTS, C. 1997. “A theoretical map for selecting among text analysis methods,” in Text analysis for the social sciences: Methods for drawing statistical inferences from text and transcripts. Edited by Carl W. Roberts, pp. 275-283. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

ROBERTS, S. M. AND R.H. SCHEIN. 1995. “Earth shattering: Global imagery and GIS,” in Ground truth: The social implications of geographic information systems. Edited by John Pickles, pp. 71-95. New York: Guilford.

ROBIGLIO, V., W. A. MALA, AND C. DIAW. 2003. Mapping landscapes: Integrating GIS and social science methods to model human-nature relationships in Southern Cameroon. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy 2(2):171-184.

ROCHELEAU, D. 1995. Maps, numbers, text and context: Mixing methods in feminist political ecology. The Professional Geographer 47(4):458-466.

ROCHELEAU, D. 1997. Musings on mapping against power: Comments, questions, and selected examples. Paper presented at the Ford Foundation-sponsored Conference on Representing Communities: Histories and Politics of Community-based Resource Management, Helen GA, 1995.

ROSEMAN, M. 1996. Singers of the Landscape: Song, History, and Property Rights in the Malaysian Rain Forest. American Anthropologist 100(1): 106-21.

RUNDSTROM, R. A. 1995. GIS, indigenous peoples, and epistemological diversity. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22(1):45-57.

RUSSELL, D.AND C. HARSHBARGER. 2003. Groundwork for community-based conservation. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

RYAN, G. AND T. WEISNER. 1998. “Content analysis of words in brief descriptions: How fathers and mothers describe their children,” in Using methods in the field: A practical introduction casebook. Edited by V. C. de Munck and E. J. Sobo, pp. 57-68. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

SAGING, R. L. AND L. BULAN. 1989. Kelabit ethnography: A brief report. Sarawak Museum Journal Vol. XL, No. 61: 89-118.

SCHNEEBERGER, W.F. 1945. The Kerayan-Kelabit Highland of Central Northeast Borneo, Geographical Review, 35(4): 544-562.

SONGAN, P., K. AB HAMID, A. YEO, J. GNANIAH AND H. ZEN. 2004. “Community informatics: Challenges in bridging the digital divide,’ in Work with Computing Systems. Edited by H.M. Khalid, M.G. Helander and A.W. Yeo, pp. 267-270, Kuala Lampur: Damai Sciences.

SOUTHWELL, H. C. 1999. Uncharted waters. Calgary: Astana Publishing.

SPRADLEY, J.P. 1979. The ethnographic interview. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

TALLA, Y. 1978. The Kelabit of the Kelabit Highlands, Sarawak Report No. 9, Edited by Clifford Sather, Pulau Pinang: Universiti Sains Malaysia.

VANDERGEEST, P. 1996. Mapping nature: Territorialization of forest rights in Thailand.Society and Natural Resources 9:159-175.

WARREN, C. 2005. Mapping common features: Customary communities, NGOs and the state in Indonesia’s Reform Era. Development and Change 36(1):49-73.

WEBER, R. P. 1990. Basic content analysis, 2^nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

ZEN, H., K. AB HAMID, P. SONGAN, A.W. YEO AND J. GNANIAH. 2004. “Bridging the digital divide: The e-Bario and e-Bedian telecommunication framework,’ in Work with Computing Systems. Edited by H.M. Khalid, M.G. Helander and A.W. Yeo, pp. 277-281, Kuala Lumpur: Damia Sciences.

ZIMMERER, K. S. AND T. J. BASSETT. 2003. “Approaching Political Ecology: Society,

Nature, and Scale in Human-Environment Studies,” in Political Ecology: An Integrated Approach to Geography and Environment-Development Studies. Edited by Karl Zimmerer and Thomas Bassett, pp. 1-28. New York: The Guilford Press.