Aerial surveying enhances cultural sensitivity in planning for indigenous women's spaces, suggesting integrated approaches.
Objectives: The study aimed to technically and territorially characterize a plot of approximately 4,000 m² designated for the implementation of the Indigenous Women's House (CAMI), reconciling technical, symbolic, and sociocultural criteria defined in a participatory process with Indigenous leaders and partner institutions. Theoretical Framework: It is based on frameworks that value active listening, Indigenous territoriality, and participatory planning, highlighting Pazos et al. (2024) and the Takinahaky Center Handbook (2024), which guide methodologies sensitive to the worldviews of Indigenous peoples. Method: The adopted method consisted of aerial surveying with an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), whose images were processed in Agisoft Metashape software to generate orthomosaics, digital elevation and surface models, contour lines, and point clouds. Results and Discussion: The results revealed the possibility of articulating precise technical mapping with a symbolic reading of the territory, ensuring compatibility between the geophysical conditions of the terrain and the cultural, spiritual, and functional demands of the architectural project. The discussion indicates that the convergence of geospatial technologies and traditional knowledge reaffirms the territory as a living, political, and relational space. Research Implications: The research implications demonstrate that the integration of science, technology, and Indigenous epistemologies offers concrete support for the planning of culturally sensitive public facilities, committed to territorial justice and ancestral care. Originality/Value: The originality of the study lies in the articulation of aerial surveying using UAVs and participatory practices, overcoming the limits of institutional architecture and affirming CAMI as a territory of re-existence, dignity, and empowerment for Indigenous women.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fuentes et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: