I think your caption addresses very well the frustrations of the uptake of this type of map for citizen scientists. I would also love to know more about places where this map might be leveraged, or contested--are there public meetings where citizen scientists and experts can have some kind of dialogue, however limited? And I would love to know what strategies citizen scientists develop as alternatives to the kind of "data treadmill" it seems such maps are symptomatic of.
This is a great ethnographic artifact. The image reads as a highly techincal rendering of a toxic place, with some reference to geological and logistical features. Your caption adds credence to the sense one gets looking at the map that only a somewhat specialized audience can look at and appreciate the data in this map. "Who is doing whose job," you ask, and I wonder, who is actually reading this map, and the footnotes and glossary and appendices buried in the prohibitively long report you describe? Does this map actually become an actionable artifact for the citizen scientists in your fieldsite?