by Greg Zegas

Trash. Every day we create it - and every day we toss it out of sight. We hide it in trash bins, dumpsters, landfills, sometimes a closet. Anything to keep it from being visible. But what do we do when it starts encroaching on the public lands we use for outdoor recreation – the places we rely on for escaping the city’s grit and pollution? This account follows an expat who recently moved to Mongolia as he documents his experience with the growing problem of trash in Ulaanbaatar’s protected natural areas. The takeaway is that we can all work harder to limit our waste in these public areas, and principles such as the “pack in, pack out” philosophy of Leave No Trace are a good starting point.

I spent my formative years in University in an Outdoors Club. Almost every weekend my friends and I traveled to the White Mountains National Park to hike and camp. We’d sleep under the stars, build campfires, cook feasts, summit peaks, and escape from the grind of studying for exams. The spirit of enjoying the outdoors, pushing one’s limit outside, and meeting cool people in the process are all things I strongly identify with. So I was pretty excited when I came to Mongolia and heard about the dozens of hiking clubs in UB and the popularity of outdoor recreation. It’s a no-brainer with Mongolia’s beautiful landscape. 

I jumped right in to UB’s hiking scene. On my second weekend I went up Tsetsee Gun with a ragtag group that ended up getting pretty lost. From the summit, my friend pointed north to a green valley that stretched for miles and said something to the effect of “I don’t know where the trail is, but we need to go in that direction.” So, off we went. For about two hours we stumbled through the woods without any semblance of a trail. Eventually she proved right – we did stumble upon the trail she thought was there – but we were only able to do so because of a trail of plastic bags and other discarded items that pointed us in the right direction to the main path.

The hike was great. But I was torn over the day’s misadventures. A key part of my college outing club experience was adherence to the Leave No Trace principles for outdoor ethics. On that day we broke several of the principles: we set out without enough knowledge about the trail system and navigation, we walked for kilometers on unmarked trail (trampling plants and damaging habitat in the process), and – while it ended up helping us find our way, for which I am grateful – we were only able to make it out quickly because other people had left so much trash behind for us to follow.

Leave No Trace (LNT) is a code of conduct adopted by outdoor recreationists as a commitment to minimize environmental impact. The principles of LNT span across trail etiquette, safe campfire techniques, and proper wildlife interactions, among others, as shown in Figure 1. While the Leave No Trace organization (a not-for-profit) distinguishes between “back country” (i.e., rural areas) and “front country” (i.e., areas in proximity to an urban center), the spirit of the principles is the same: leave as little trace of your visit as possible so that others can also enjoy pristine nature. These principles are strongly instilled in most outdoor clubs, wildnerness programs, and National and State Park enforcement programs. There is a lot of social pressure to leave a minimal impact on the environment. 

Figure 1. ​Frontcountry Leave No Trace principles for outdoor ethics

I’ve highlighted principle number three – “Trash your trash” – because of its relevance to Ulaanbaatar’s protected areas. A couple weeks after Tsetsee Gun, I went to hike at Bogd Khan mountain. It was my second foray into the Mongolian protected park area, so I wanted to pay closer attention to how people handled waste when recreating outside (addition to doing a better job of adhering to Leave No Trace principles, after the Tsetsee Gun debacle). Since Leave No Trace was founded in the U.S. and has no international presence (to my knowledge), I didn’t expect it to be phrased as “Leave No Trace” here in Mongolia. Regardless, I was eager to see whether there was an equivalent universally-adopted code of outdoor ethics to minimize environmental impact. 

There are several signs along the beginning portion of the main Bogd Khan trail to remind visitors that trash is prohibited (see Figure 2). But trash is clearly visible despite the reminders. My friends and I filled up a few plastic bags’ worth of trash just on our way down as we exited the park. Clearly, many people aren’t paying much attention to the signs. 

Figure 2. A sign’s poetic reminder to keep nature pure

This led me to believe that the popularity of hiking and outdoor recreation in Mongolia has not gone hand in hand with universal awareness and adoption of principles to minimize environmental impact. Mongolian friends with whom I’ve spoken and my own observations on other trips both near and far from the city have affirmed this sentiment. I think this partly stems from the sheer density of people visiting this area because its proximity to the city center. This, combined with a general attitude of carelessness and perhaps a belief that someone else will pick up one’s trash, have combined to produce an inundation of litter in the protected area south of Ulaanbaatar. 

With the help of my friends at the Ger Community Mapping Center, I made a brief survey to ask Mongolians themselves how they identify with LNT principles when they partake in outdoor recreation around UB. I posted this survey on a handful of Facebook groups and pages related to hiking, climbing, and mountaineering in Mongolia. The results of this survey are of course skewed toward people in hiking groups around UB, so it is no surprise that over 100% of these outdoor-enthusiast respondents reported they “Always” or “Fairly often” try to minimize their impact on their environment when they are hiking, picknicking, relaxing, horseriding, or biking in the protected areas near UB. Figure 3 shows the responses to a few key questions. 

Figure 3. Answers to selected questions related to outdoor recreation around Ulaanbaatar ( 15 respondents )
​
                               3A – Percent of respondents who engage in each behavior

We asked these respondents to rate the behaviors listed in Figure 3 (among others) as “Appropriate”, “Innapropriate”, or “Neutral” to engage in while visiting protected areas.  The results indicate a clearly-negative attitude towards waste being left behind in protected areas: 93% of respondants indicated that both "Leaving pet waste on or near the trail" and "Littering" were “Innapropiate” behaviors. All respondents indicated they “Rarely” or “Never” litter. These are straightforward, to-be-expected results given the audience of the survey – and a positive sign that UB’s hikings groups have a good baseline awareness of the environmental and aesthetic consequences of waste. 

However, a few less-straightforward takeaways also emerge from the survey and indicate outdoor recreationists have a complicated, sometimes paradoxical relationship with waste. Sixty percent of respondents indicated “Dropping food on ground to provide wildlife a food source” was not an innapropriate behavior, while 47% indicated “Carrying all artificial litter out, but leaving food scraps behind” was not innapropriate; 34% and 40% of respondents indicated they actually partake in these two behaviors, respectively. Given that this survey audience was given to outdoor enthusiasts, it is likely that the general population views these two behaviors as even less innapropriate and engages in them more frequently. This is problematic because food scraps and organic waste have a documented negative impact on wildlife and the habitat food chain.  Responses about several non-waste-related behaviors are problematic as well: a minority of respondants felt "Traveling off trail to experience the natural environment" and "Walking around muddy spots on the trail" were "innapropriate" behaviors, despite these behaviors having documented negative impact on plant species density and erosion.  However, this post is primarily focused on organic and inorganic waste and will not discuss these behaviors further (though they may be a topic of future posts). 

These results suggest UB’s hiking enthusiasts generally have an anti-waste attitude. But what about the rest of UB’s population, who aren’t in hiking clubs, but still visit the protected areas on occasion? We asked respondants to indicate which “Innapropriate” behaviors were most commonly seen in other visitors. These respondants likely spend an above-average amount of time in the protected areas and can therefore provide a realistic view of other visitors’ behavior. It is interesting to note that the behavior most unanimously deemed “Innapropriate” by our respondants – “Littering” – was also the behavior that these respondents felt was most common in other visitors. As shown in Figure 4, 80% of respondents indicated other visitors engage in littering. 

Figure 4. Percentage of respondents indicating whether other protected-area visitors engage in each “Innapropriate” behavior (15 respondents)

The results of this informal survey compellingly indicate that Ulaanbaatar’s park visitors are not sufficiently minimizing their waste in Ulaanbaatar’s protected areas. Further surveys would be needed to determine whether littering is driven by intentional disregard for the environment’s well-being, an expectation that other people will clean up one’s mess, obliviousness to one’s personal belongings, or lack of awareness about trash’s impact on plants and animals. Regardless, a good starting point to reverse this pattern would be to circulate information about the amount of years it takes for various waste products to decompose (as done in Figure 5) and to promote a “pack in, pack out” philosophy. In other words, if you bring it in to a protected area, you should also be responsible for taking it with you as you leave and throwing it out somewhere other than the woods. If universally adopted, it could drive a drastic decline in the amount of visible, long-lasting organic and inorganic waste in Ulaanbaatar’s protected areas. 

Figure 5. Number of years for products to fully biodegrade 

A key aspect of minimizing one’s waste is related to pre-trip planning. People should build a habit of thinking about what they are bringing into a protected natural area and whether it could become waste. For instance, packing a dedicated plastic trash bag can reduce the temptation to toss a messy apple core or sandwich remnants onto the ground. Avoiding wrappers and other loose, small items like tissues (and using a handkerchief instead) can prevent trash from being blown away in the wind. Keeping belongings in a zippered backpack or securely fastened to the outside of a bag can reduce the amount of items inadvertently left behind. By paying attention to whether our belongings and actions will leave a “trace” on the environment after we leave the park, we can keep nature unspoiled for future use. 

Of course, I am an outsider in Mongolia. I do not speak the language fluently, and am sure I am oblivious to unspoken social mores that dictate one’s behavior. I am not so self righteous as to believe the U.S. system of LNT should be entirely replicated here, or to suggest that all Mongolians litter. But I think it is natural for people to become entrenched in their behaviors. We sometimes do things without thinking or we become habituated to our surroundings. Sometimes it takes the ramblings of a newcomer to make us think twice about our everyday actions or those of friends and strangers. 

I hope this post can spur some people to reconsider their relationship with waste when they recreate in areas around Ulaanbaatar. The Leave No Trace “pack in, pack out” philosophy for outdoor ethics is a useful starting point. UB’s hiking club outdoor enthusiasts are in a good position to use peer pressure and informal enforcement to help spread awareness of LNT’s waste-related principles to other protected area visitors.
​
Keep an eye out for future posts about microtrash, fires, and other topics related to waste in Mongolia’s protected areas.

 
PAWEŁ SZCZAP (Ulaanbaatar Studies): A few words of introduction if you may.
 
BATDORJ GONGOR (Ger Community Mapping Center): The Ger Community Mapping Center (GCMC) is a non–governmental organization dedicated to sustainable, equal access urban development through community engagement and participatory decision-making. The GCMC, formerly a community group named Eco Friendly Community, has been doing community mapping activities in the ger areas since 2012. We promote community mapping as a planning, awareness and outreach tool to advocate for sustainable, participatory and eco-friendly solutions to address local urban problems.
            Myself I have been interested in and working with animating community participation in the ger areas since 2006. In 2012 I have participated in organizing an active group of neighbors in my own neighborhood. It was called Eco Friendly Community. That is when my efforts took on momentum. In 2015 the community activity got formalized and transformed into an NGO and that’s when GCMC was officially created. GCMC is working towards creating inclusive development and transfer of knowledge about the city to its citizens via the means of community mapping among others.
 
SZCZAP: Where did the initial inspiration for such a project come from in the first place, and what’s your position at the moment?
 
BATDORJ: When in 2006 I arrived in the ger area as a graduate freshman, just looking at the immediate surroundings was motivating enough. I think the general idea was born during the process of neighbors getting together to collaborate and resolve the problems they were facing on an everyday basis.
In 2009 there was a conference of the Community Architects Network – many people working with so-called ‘slum areas’ in Asian countries attended – architects, urban planners, social workers and others – that was a big inspiration for me. I understood that it was crucial to undertake efforts similar to their’s in Ulaanbaatar’s ger area. Our city had five General Plans designed so far. It was only in the last of them that the ger area were considered an integral part of the city organism. Before they were being left out – their existence was considered somewhat independent – left to themselves for everyone’s sake. It is important to state that the policies still fall short. The city is a concept encompassing as well as created by a lot of factors, infrastructure for one. The availability of infrastructure and services in the ger districts is insufficient. There are a lot of persisting problems here – poverty, medical care and education availability. Yet the ger districts remain a part of the city and so also from the city’s perspective these problems need addressing and subsequent solving. Of course this will not happen in a day. For me it’s been already several years of engagement.
 
SZCZAP: Could you tell something more about the circumstances if which GCMC was established?
 
BATDORJ: At that time I was living in the city center renting an apartment. When I became a father it also became difficult to continue that way, that’s why I decided to acquire land in the ger area and move there. That’s how I came to live here. And so as I said in order to take care of the problems of the immediate surroundings we started to organize as a community to better our living conditions. This is how we continued between 2012 and 2015. Along the way I talked to a lot of friends, sharing, consulting my ideas. Some of them were interested in working together. And so, at some point we decided to formalize our activity and establish an NGO to further the scope of our work. It was five people then.
 
SZCZAP: Could you explain more about the process of your work?
 
BATDORJ: What is characteristic for the GCMC is not any specific idea for this or that project. I think the most characteristic feature of our work is that we pay attention to the urban environment in which we work and try to notice those issues that hardly ever get officially mentioned and yet they are faced on a daily basis by the inhabitants of the ger districts. We take these and try to sort them out by means of community participation. Along this process ideas for solutions are born. Then we look for financing and try to carry out the project from start to end by ourselves – no outsourcing.
            In terms of mapping on one of the projects we’ve realized so far was the one financed by the Local Development Fund. It was a joint project of the city authorities, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the The Asia Foundation. Between 2013 and 2016 the work of mapping all the ger districts was carried out.
            In the beginning we collected all the required budget data year by year from the government agencies and the district authorities. Then we took all the data and headed out into the field. Khoroo by khoroo we met with local citizens and using maps we verified whether the projects included in the budget documents have been realized or not. Next we took the verified data back to our office and used computer software to transform all of that into a unified digital format. When the data got digitalized and visualized back onto maps we took these backs to the khoroos and again we verified the outcomes of the work with the local communities asking them more about the quality of the projects undertaken and their importance for the community. After that we made final corrections and handed the ready outcomes to the city authorities. After that was done the only thing that was left was to put the outcomes up online which we did in cooperation with the Information Technology Department of Ulaanbaatar.
 
SZCZAP: Which website was that, the GCMC website?
BATDORJ: No, it was a municipality website.
SZCZAP: Was it Manai Khoroo?            http://manaikhoroo.mn ?
BATDORJ: Yes that’scorrect, Manai Khoroo.
SZCZAP: So is it correct to understand that the Manai Khoroo project was created on the basis of the data you have organized and collected?
BATDORJ: Well not directly, no. We were basing on resources and the work of people from the khoroos we visited and cooperated with. So the data was brought into the project by the people from the khoroos themselves, we only facilitated parts of that process and were responsible for the technical part of the project. We were more like technicians.
SZCZAP: Who was it then, those who did most part of the data collecting?
BATDORJ: Well mostly the citizens themselves, those living in the khoroos, the supervisors of the khesegs, and of course the employees of the khoroos.
SZCZAP: So people worked on a voluntary basis?
BATDORJ: Those for who it was outside of their work duties – yes.
SZCZAP: I understand.
BATDORJ: There is also a substantial amount of work we have done in the matter of waste management. In 2012 just next to  where I lived there was a big waste disposal site. Regardless of my actual feelings about it, if I wanted to do something concerning that issue, it would have been impossible for me alone. An so we organized meetings in a local group of neighbors. Examining the map of the area we named problems related to the proximity of the site. Actually in that khoroo there were 6 waste disposal sites. When we facilitate the process of discussion on such issues obviously there will be ideas coming from inside of the community itself, not from me or anyone animating a certain activity in the beginning. So also that time I actually ended up only facilitating the process. So in the end we managed to solve the problems in our khoroo and what we did next was to take the outcomes and ‘export’ them to the neighboring khoroo. Well, that was a few years ago but waste management still remains in the direct scope of our activity. At the moment we are aiming at discussing and solving problems related to waste management of the city level. Probably it will take some time but we hope it will also come to a point where it’s possible to impact the general strategies of waste disposal on a country level. And so through this example (and our hopes for the future) it becomes obvious that we represent and support a bottom-up or in other words a grassroots approach. Still, we cannot do without some kind of strategy implemented by the authorities, be it on city or country level. With our efforts we are trying to provoke and influence the development of mindful strategies.
 
SZCZAP: Could you elaborate more on the technical process of working with maps inside the community? Is it based on any specific techniques or tools?
 
BATDORJ: Well you know, when working inside a given khoroo, which is a rather limited area it is fairly easy – everyone knows what is where, so we just print a map, sit down around it, mark and discuss for example the locations of the waste disposal sites – ‘there’s one here, one here, and one more there’ etc. – so this happens in the process of a group discussion. The main activity here is that the people come together, engage in dialogue and come up with possible solutions.
 
SZCZAP: Well then how about generally mapping the ger districts? Do you engage in such processes as well?
 
BATDORJ: We do not take part in cadastral or similar works on this level, but for example the locations of all the wells, kindergartens and schools, waste disposal sites, areas potentially endangered by flooding – these are the kinds of information we collect and mark on maps together with our interlocutors from a given khoroo.
 
SZCZAP: So along these lines, how many and which khoroos did you work with?
 
BATDORJ: All of them.
 
SZCZAP: That’s very impressive. So how are the responses of the khoroo administration towards your work, is there interest in making further use of the data you ‘provide’ them with?
 
BATDORJ: Generally, as this project was implemented in cooperation with the city authorities, the khoroos were rather willing to cooperate, on different levels.
 
SZCZAP: How is working with maps of an area such as Ulaanbaatar unique? What difficulties are you faced with in the process of your work.
BATDORJ: Well in space-specific terms of in the context of the city-scape itself it is obviously the ger districts. But the thing that is most important is the fact that it’s impossible to call them slums. The population of the ger districts is quite mixed but in the social sense there is not much visible stratification. In terms of the natural environment it’s not much different from the rest of Mongolia – in winter it gets -30, summertime it’s +30 Celsius degrees. If precipitation is high there a substantial risk of flooding or related problems occurs– that can be quite extreme and at such times, the fact where do you live makes a difference – a ger, a house you built for yourself, a block of flats. Despite the at times harsh atmospheric conditions, the ger districts are a rather peaceful place to live in. You’re on your own, but then you are also on your own grounds, you have much freedom in creating your immediate surroundings. The presence of the ger districts to an extent impacts the visual environment of the city, some people say in a negative way, but for me it’s a very interesting phenomenon. From GCMC’s point of view one difficulty is that even if we make a thousand maps we do not have sufficient resources or infrastructure distribute the outcomes of our work to people and make the difference we would desire. If they reach the communities in question they can really make an impact.  For me personally what was most inspiring, was the engagement of the community itself – people are very curious, interested to participate. When they look at their living environment on a map it’s a totally different perspective which enables people to see for example what is most needed and at the same time what is lacking in a given area and community. Another thing is that people here don’t know much about the city. They are familiar with their immediate surroundings or daily routes but often not much beyond that. So to deliver the spatial knowledge and better understanding of problems by means of maps – that’s a most exciting experience.
 
SZCZAP: Assuming that it’s possible for you to reach a desired portion of the population, what other kinds of impact (apart from those already mentioned) would you hope to make?
 
BATDORJ: Well, it’s not that our work’s outcomes don’t return to the communities, they do, but even if they impact the perception of a certain amount of people, there is still the question of the amount of time needed for change to take root. We do have some successes we could talk about, like the ones discussed before. When a map or a resource is ready it still takes time for it to be utilized, and have a chance to make an impact. All of that depends on the problem in question and solutions the maps are to be a tool for. As I said we began in 2012 dealing with the waste disposal and related issues. Today in 2017 we are still working on that problem.
 
SZCZAP: How about technical aspects of your work ? What kind of tools or technologies do you make use of?
 
BATDORJ: When talking about work in the ger districts you need to remember that if we go out into the field you are most likely to encounter Dorj. Dorj, an average person from the ger district community is likely to have little computer or qualified technical skills so it doesn’t make sense to rely too much on laptops or fancy gear – it will make it harder for us to find a mutual language with the community. So our basic technology are human-to-human communication skills. Obviously later in the process we transfer the data into digital form via means of software, we try to use free  and open source software and support its development. The software however varies depending on the situation for example we might use ArcGIS for on project and QGIS for another one. All depends on the nature of the project, the group etc. What is most important is that after the work in the field is finished, the feeling of accomplishing or creating something remains. That is most crucial. This way people get interested in further participation. They see that their involvement makes a difference that they take part in something that actually stems tangible outcomes.
 
SZCZAP: So there is no notion to make use of the some simple yet useful tools among the communities or in the field? You don’t use drones, GPS, any apps for smartphones etc.?
 
BATDORJ: Well, at the moment for example we do not have high resolution satellite or aerial maps of the city. So we use a drone for photographing areas in question, we are also in the process of developing websites and software/apps. So for example we are working on an app that enables you to get information on waste disposal services in your area, the companies responsible, the timetable of waste pick-up etc.
 
SZCZAP: How about courses and workshops? Does the GCMC engage in these kinds of educational activities?
 
BATDORJ: At the moment we’re not really that focused on organizing workshops or courses for the sake of themselves. We rather pass knowledge on during the process inside the community while working toward some defined goal. We do teach using OpenStreetMap to school and high-school youths. So, we are trying to bring maps to people in a more interesting, interactive way.
 
SZCZAP: Any additional remarks in terms of cooperating with the communities in the ger districts?
 
BATDORJ: Well, when we arrived and started work at the some of the khoroos, for many people it was their first contact with the medium of a map. It was a new idea for them. Now they got used to it, but that doesn’t mean that there is less enthusiasm. When we come into the community with an idea of goal we’d like to introduce and work with the people are usually very quick to make it happen. It was very important to see this change happen, that’s an indicator of actual impact
 
The other thing is – it you get to know something better, you develop an emotional bond to it. Only then you can begin to truly respect it. It’s the same with the city. If you respect your surroundings you will also be more likely to contribute to the city’s development, participate in the process. So by means of maps we deliver knowledge and help develop a bond to the place represented on th map, we make you come closer with your immediate surroundings or your neighbor, engage both of you in a mutual process. That’s the proper process of development. For example, in the communities we work with before there might not have been a water kiosk or a kindergarten and the people depended only on the possible interest of the politicians. In my case – since as I said myself I also live in the ger district – thanks to the use of maps within the community my own knowledge of my khoroo improved and now I am able to explain what is lacking where and why it is needed. So when meeting with administration or local government representatives I’m not talking about a problem I have, I’m talking about a problem WE have. Because of my knowledge of the characteristic of the problem in question it is also easier for the administration employees or policy-makers to work towards solving the issue, with this kind of expertize on entry point it is easier from the beginning. For me in turn that means that I am able of realizing specific goals and doing my job. Also because I am speaking in the name of a community, my voice is stronger.
 
SZCZAP: So apart from this kind of work flow do you also make use of other mapping tools or techniques, for example sketch maps, surveys etc.? These are obviously very useful in getting a better idea of how a community perceives and imagines their immediate surroundings.
 
BATDORJ: Oh yes, we use sketch maps all the time. If we want to know how do people envision  their living environment we can do it by means of visual representation not only dialogue. Another example is 3D mapping – something we actually did not use yet, but this year we are going to try it in Arkhangai, where we will be working on a project aiming to map people’s memories of climate change. But sketch maps as well as modeling clay – we use them all the time. When we talk about mapping the understanding a lot of people have is of a strictly scientific activity making use of GPS equipment, complicated, expensive software and such.
 
SZCZAP:  It looks like you are working on quite many diverse issues. With limited resources it probably will be not possible to successfully develop in all the directions one might hope for. What kind of help could you use from an external party – a community, an NGO or other agent willing to cooperate with the GCMC? In which areas would you hope for assistance, support or higher activity on the side of third party agents?
 
BATDORJ: Well, as you are saying – our city faces various problems on many fronts. Of course one small NGO cannot solve all of these problems. How we see our mission is to provoke and stimulate social participation by means of maps, trying to create a method with which citizens can have adequate access to formal procedures and impact them. If we succeed in creating such a model it means that most of the future problems can be approached by means of that model and at least an attempt can be made at solving them in that more participatory way.
 
SZCZAP: So where would you see space for other community-oriented groups in this process of creating more healthy communities and arming them with useful social change tools?
 
BATDORJ: When talking about a community first we need to answer what do we mean by the term itself? A district (düüreg) population? A khoroo population? A khoroo can be anywhere from around eight up to maybe fifteen thousand people. All of them can’t meet at a given moment and talk through the burning problems of that particular community. Maybe we should be talking about a community on the level of neighbors from one street then? Where I’m getting at is that we need to prepare those communities first. So we would be looking forward to seeing more groups working with healthy community formation, information processes, facilitating such learning and creation processes, be in outside agents or ones from within the communities themselves. When there is an integrated community in place our work becomes way easier so obviously we are open to cooperation with everyone working towards achieving similar goals. There is quite some people or companies that are capable of creating beautiful,  advanced maps, but none of them is working in such a community-oriented way as the GCMC. Even though as an organization we have at our disposal tools such as the abilities of community mapping facilitation, community organizing or other social skills, sometimes we look at problems from an open perspective and situate or understand them on a city level, yet we are unable to identify conditions intrinsic to a given community which is the basic need in such work as ours. It would be useful to be able to deal with common issues that have already been identified as such by the community itself or facilitators working within a given community. We are glad to work it from there.
 
 
SZCZAP: So how can people support your endeavors?
 
BATDORJ: Generally, we are open to all forms of cooperation. We look forward to creative individuals coming forward with ideas they would like to cooperate on and are interested in looking for common grounds. For us the most important is that all parties involved are doing what they know best and can realize their particular goals through a given collaboration possibility which breeds some concrete outcome. For those without specific projects planned, we are open to their contributions in a volunteer capacity as part of our own projects. Of course, it is also possible to support us by donating money but we are not the kind of organization that will organize its message to the outside world around requesting donations. ‘Human resources’ is what we are more interested in – we see true value in the collective energy and one’s own efforts to support a given project be it photographer, doctor, cartographer or anyone else. The problems of a densely populated urban organism are not only those of traffic or air quality. There is so many areas of expertise which can contribute to creating a pleasant living environment that almost everyone’s input can be crucial. Those interested in any form of cooperation with GCMC should contact us via e-mail and we can take it from there.
 
SZCZAP: Apart from those mentioned before, what kinds of links have you established so far? Who are you working with at the moment? You mentioned engagement with school youths, do you have any other connections to education institutions?
 
BATDORJ: I’d say you could divide them into two main categories: those agents (both private and institutional) we work with while implementing specific projects, and those that are in a similar position to ours – grassroots groups with limited funding, working towards a generally understood mutual goal. We have cooperated with several researchers, mostly foreign ones working on issues related to the ger districts. Obviously they have their own funding and research agenda independent from our work, so this kind of cooperation is at times somewhat informal but we try to support them on a concrete level and make their work more rooted it real life circumstances. If thanks to our support their research outcomes end up being of better quality that means more professional insight into the vast ocean of issues related to the ger districts, improved future expertise and more successful work for us as well. We are in the constant process of learning, so such experiences, even though they tend to be informal are of much much value to us as well. Not to mention other ger districts’ community members – self-knowledge is a crucial tool for change.
 
SZCZAP: How about the pros and cons of working with state agencies and administration?
 
BATDORJ: At the moment most of our work is organized in an exchange manner. The pros are definitely: they are the prime source of official data and statistics so tapping into their data resources is of crucial importance for the accuracy of our work. On the cons side its mostly the inconsistency of their work due to the election-induced staff changes as well as ideological issues. But I guess we are already used to that (laughs).
 
SZCZAP: How about the situation of official statistical, quantitative data in Mongolia. Is it satisfactory?
 
BATDORJ: Generally its satisfactory, and a lot of the data is freely available on governmental websites so that is also good. Of course we can discuss how much biased some of the data is but that’s a different story. We need to remember that official statistics are also what represents a given country on an international level also so their accuracy and availability generally is of crucial importance. I do not see the statistics sector’s level as unsatisfactory.
 
SZCZAP: How about the question of the ger districts’ redevelopment strategies? What are your views on the issue and how can these perspectives affect your work?
 
BATDORJ: Well, this topic is a bit outside of my area of expertise, I am not much interested in the strategies and plans for redevelopment. If I was o speak my mind, I’d say that to a certain extent such strategies are needed. But specific solutions that are to be applied also need to be re-examined. For example, most of the social housing that is to replace the current housing resembles square boxes. This mode of construction will impact both the city’s image as well as issues related, for example those of emergency situations be it earthquakes or other emergencies. On another note it seems like there is not much reflection upon the questions of cultural heritage or creating and preserving some kind of a unique Mongolian city-scape. And by that I don’t mean that we should all start living in gers in the city. I’m talking more about intangible elements of the city landscape – traditions, human relations all of which affect the approach to questions of land and settlements we have as nomads. Instead of eradicating one element and replacing it with another, we should reflect upon creating something new out of their union, something suitable to our local characteristic and needs. The related question of the ger districts as tangible heritage is yet another thing.
 
SZCZAP: There is this saying that if you weren’t born in a round house (i.e. a Mongolian ger), but in a house that has corners you’re not going to understand a Mongol...
 
BATDORJ: Ah that’s gibberish, I was born in a hospital (laughs). But yes, to an extent that does truth to the fact that the environment in which you were brought up shapes who you become.
 
SZCZAP: Speaking about different environments inside the city, what’s your take on the city zoning strategy?
 
BATDORJ: Here it’s still a rather fresh idea, you could say it’s raw, unprocessed. Even though I’m not able to speak to it in detail, generally my opinion is that we should approach th question of zoning from an organic starting point. What this means is that instead of creating artificial zones we first need to pay attention to supporting existing elements and divisions of the city, those that stay in tune with their surroundings and internal functioning as well as refrain from dividing communities by means of artificially delimiting zones. But that is a big topic, I actually doubt that it will move shortly and bring much change  to the city in the immediate future.
 
SZCZAP: What do you think about what3words (w3w)? Can this technology be of help with your work or is it just going to make things more messed up?
 
BATDORJ: What can I say, it seems just a “cool” service, thats all. If people get accustomed to it and it becomes a common technology it might be useful, but how long is that going to take? You know well how it is in Mongolia, ways of and attitudes towards spatial and temporal reference are quite unique. Maybe w3w could fill some kind of niche? I seriously have no idea, I guess some habits are embedded too deep in our common psyche and so w3w will probably remain an unimportant novelty. Maybe for the businesses it could make more sense, but for a average Ulaanbaatar citizen not that much.
 
SZCZAP: How about w3w vis-à-vis the efforts to establish proper addresses (хаягжих), what are your thoughts on the relation of these two phenomena ?
 
BATDORJ: Establishing proper addresses is something that should be further implemented in order to better organize the city space but with taking the city-scape into consideration. I don’t see much how these two should be related, they should stay separate domains, it’s a bit scary to think that w3w could interfere with official addressing strategies. I guess it can be helpful, so if you want to – use it, it is of course your free choice, but personally I don’t think it would be of help for me.
 
SZCZAP: Changing the topic – how about your plans for the near and more distant future? What is GCMC planning on focusing on?
 
BATDORJ: Our main goal was always to increase the civic involvement in decision making processes affecting a given community.  In the long run I guess that is what we are aiming for – to constantly strive towards increasing that civic involvement and keeping it possibly high.
In a shorter perspective I’d say what we are looking forward to is developing a mapping methodology suited to local needs and by its means creating a platform enabling further work with Ulaanbaatar’s problems – those related to the urban, the human, the natural, the economical and all other aspects of the city environment.
SZCZAP: Thank you very much for this insightful and inspiring talk! Wishing the whole GCMC crew nothing less but success in all fields.
 
BATDORJ: Thank you !

Maps are an interesting phenomenon. While still a child you usually see them either as boring plans you need to study at school or as a means to mind-travel around the world – visit faraway or exotic places both mentally in your head as well as physically with your finger on the map. For many of us maps remain such simple “dual” objects throughout our whole lives. Yet for many others they become much more – a collector’s hobby, a grown person’s plaything, a profession, a object of study, a means of control. Many years ago I was taken by surprise when I understood that maps can help create that for which many struggle with their lives – a more positive and empowering alternative to a reality of injustice, exclusion and oppression.
            When I started to learn about unorthodox, alternative mapping I began to understand how much the narrative of the “objective representation” is fiction and how that fiction can be used to blur people’s vision on the one hand and how on the other hand the graphically and discoursively  radical questioning of that representation can successfully deconstruct such “objectiveness” thus exposing possible manipulation.
            Since then I have been developing my interest in the unusual maps and graphical representations of space as well as became interested in the mental and verbal aspect of space cognition both in terms of mechanisms with which we conceive the world as well as those by which we can become either empowered or disempowered.
            I have known for some time already that those who research maps are quite often like children at play – their eyes glitter when they see a new toy, they can chat about the smallest details and the maps themselves, especially those older ones containing figurative imagery are perfect eye candy for these little grown-ups. They can (as also do those who would like to own space and its representations) become jealous and mean and that jealousy can lead to a need of imposing a space-related hegemony.
            Recently I took part in an international conference on Mongolian maps and toponyms held in Ulaanbaatar. It was a very inspiring opportunity to listen to renowned scholars and exchange ideas with them. Unexpectedly a paper on Kazakh place names replacing official Mongolian names in colloquial language in Bayan-Ölgii (a quite natural process I guess in a definitively Kazakh-majority community) became the hottest potato of the conference, warmed up by nationalist sentiments of some of the scholars. I will not go into detail of the argument held between several academics re-presenting (sic!) different, more or less reasonable points of view but this case is a very good example of a more general tendency, mainly the fear of loosing control over the narrative concerning land description and depiction. The heated discussion that followed seems even more symptomatic in the face of an exhibition with which the conference concluded. The theme of the exhibition of maps from the collection of the Mongolian National Archive was „Land – A Country’s Root”. I’d like to take this metaphor further and add that depiction (representation, both graphical and verbal) is the root of a governance.
            To me the main lines of argument here were quite obvious – firstly the general question of power over land usurped by those who control the narrative and secondly the all-too-often-returning question of how to finally deal with „the Kazakh question” (Sounds familiar? Well, unfortunately so...) which is a quite controversial topic yet, even more so a rather complex one.
            Obviously one who decides upon the narrative concerning a specific space literally creates executive power over that space and thus nobody is willing to give up such power or be deprived of it. In fact such narrative creation (including also vocabulary, proper names and their etymologies also those legendary as well as graphical representation of space etc.) seems an essential right of every person and a feature of every community in order for them to fully establish their self-determination, independence and integrity in space as well as continually sustain them in time. As we can see, the above statement is valid for both place names as well as maps and it is those in power that decide how to officially verbally designate as well as graphically represent a given area remaining in their jurisdiction. And so via the graphical-verbal representation they impose their perspective on (and thus their jurisdiction of) a specific area. Historically maps have very often been a means of representing an area too big to conceive by a single person or even a community at one given moment in time and that thus needed to be replicated in a smaller scale in order for them to be observed as a whole. This is one of the functions maps still continue to fulfill today. It is most a most important example in terms of national identity creation and fostering – to see the whole country in order to be able to recreate it mentally and only thus identify with it as less abstract then before. This is one of the paradoxes of such representation – at the same time de-abstractify a space (make it possible to see a whole country at once – in reality rather impossible) and achieve that goal via means of abstract representation (scaled down, graphic, 2D instead of 3D etc.).
            Many examples exist of taking advantage of the process of map creation in order to realize or validify a specific social, political or military agenda. Even more so often it happens that a supposedly „objective” map causes unplanned harm by underrepresentation or false representation of a specific issue from a specific point of view.
            It needs to be said that there is no such thing as an objective representation. Neither is there objective presentation as there is no objective perception. And that is because each object or idea present or re-presented is filtered through the subject’s senses, the subject’s mind and then passed on by means of verbal or non-verbal communication which is also personalized and thus quite subjective.
            Maps should not be treated as such objective, 1:1 depictions. Has anyone seen a 1:1 map? I guess not many of us because if its scale was to be 1:1 what would be the need for such a map? Only in specific, rather rare contexts such depictions of space can be used. Already this is quite enough of an example of how maps deform space. Each map uses a special, “professional” perspective or projection by which it casts the three-dimensional reality onto a piece of paper or a screen. That perspective can be metaphorically understood as the language of narrative, because all maps pass on a specific narrative. And so, as with every map be it political, physical or whatsoever, the clue here is to look through the seeming objectivity and try to decipher the narrative, decide if you are in tune with it. Ask yourself what does the „objective” map lack that you are in need of? How to re-imagine the space in question? Believe in the space you re-create and in your power to do so. This is an affirmative practice that helps bring about the reality you crave for. This is why all kinds of alternative, grassroots mapping practices are so important and precisely the reason why they are seen as radical and deemed amateur – a denomination that is supposed to render them untrustworthy in the eyes of potential supporters. They are crucial because they contest professional cartography’s monopoly over space. By doing so they question the monopoly to author a narrative and retain the decisive voice. These subversive, radical maps question “objectivity” and thus undermine it. It is however not always necessarily done in order to negate all that the „objective” maps tell us about a given space. It is to read what is being said between the lines and decide whether we want and/or need to rewrite that. The act of creation of such alternative maps is also a means giving hope that in a longer perspective grassroots narratives will get noticed and listened to. And if that is too much to hope for, one’s own map still serves its purpose – it recreates a given space and thus empowers its author.
            Some general clues as to how maps deform space can be found in their schematic and symbolic character. Cities for example are often represented as dots size varying depending on the population numbers. The bigger the range for a dot the more similar cities with a different population will look. Schemes of public transport networks are another example of straightforward   simplification of space. The Merator projection and its effect on the size of areas depending on their distance from the equator can be another example of how space is deformed. Another practice is the designation of so called “disputed territories” by encircling them with a dotted line thus flattening the struggle for self-determination of minorities inhabiting a disputed area – connect the dots, or disconnect the dots? Speaking of disputed territories and their toponymy – China’s quarrels over several islands and archipelagos in basins that are being named differently depending on the side of the conflict referring to them is another good, contemporary example. Sometimes it is hard to tell whether someone is using a specific name because of a historical narrative, a point of view they are relating to or maybe because they are bringing that historical narrative up only in order to legitimize specific contemporary views or claims.
            But getting back to the maps – other obvious examples of how the fixed, “objective” map defines our conceptions of space could include maps having Europe and Africa as the lands in the center (the “Old World”, in other words europocentric maps) of the map versus “Asian” maps with Asia in the center (most often interpreted as  “sinocentric”, yet at the same time depicting the distance between Alaska and Kamchatka and thus Russia and the US more adequately), maps of the world turned upside down (defying the euphemistic division of global South and North that replaced the concept of the “Western world” or the division between the 1st and 3rd worlds), maps using unconventional scales or projections or challenging those most popular. Another important example would be maps questioning the supposed ethnic homogenity or fixed crime rate of neighborhoods thus “creating” areas unwanted. This is also important in the context of using maps as visualizations for statistics which if approached unconventionally can lead to visually unusual and very telling maps.
            The below images are not so much radical or subversive maps (maybe apart from the one of the world upside down), they are only supposed to show how representation of space can impact our perception of it.

For more resources visit:
http://www.radicalcartography.net/
http://radicalcartography.blogspot.com/
https://whitelocust.wordpress.com/2017/10/21/european-genetics-reveal-the-differences-between-european-ethnic-groups/
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/maps-cartographycolonialismnortheurocentricglobe.html
https://www.culturaldetective.com/related/131-training-with-map-power.html
http://subersivemapsntravel.blogspot.com/2011/05/subversive-maps.html


and begin your search from there. These are just starting points for further exploration and recreation of space!