Alessandro Rigolon, GEOG 5161, February 18, 2013
Geomethodology review: Behavioral mapping
Behavioral mapping, or behavior mapping, is a form of systematic unobtrusive
observation research that tracks people’s behavior in relation to features of the
physical environment (Cosco, Moore and Islam 2010; Moore and Cosco 2010).
Researchers can record on a map and on appropriate tables individuals’ positions
within a certain study area, their physical activity level (Cosco, Moore and Islam 2010),
their activity type and some characteristics of the observed subjects (gender,
presumed age and ethnicity, and level of engagement with other people) (McKenzie
et al. 2000). Researchers have used behavioral mapping to study people’s activities in
schools, neighborhood open space, children’s museums, zoos (Moore and Cosco
2010), senior residences (Milke et al. 2009), hospitals (Bernhardt et al. 2004; Lincoln et al.
1996) and grocery stores (Larson, Bradlow and Fader 2005).
Environment and behavior researchers started the development of this method
in the late 1960’s to study the influence of the physical environment on the behavior of
individuals and groups (Barker 1968; Ittelson, Rivlin, and Proshansky 1976). From the early
days, people’s locations, actions and characteristics were recorded with pencil and
pens on printed maps (Beeken and Janzen 1978; Moore 1986; Moore and Young 1978).
In the 1980’s van Andel (1985) started recording behavior in outdoor settings with digital
means. The use of paper in behavioral mapping has been limited by the availability of
tablets and Geographical Information Systems, providing a means to collect more
complex data (Cosco, Moore and Islam 2010). Other researchers have used time-lapse
photography, video recording, or radio frequency identification systems to collect
behavioral data (Larson, Bradlow and Fader 2005). However, the pencil-and-paper
approach of data collection has still been used in recent studies (Kinoshita 2007).
Examples of research questions that can be answered through behavioral
mapping are the following: How many people access North Boulder Park averagely
every day? (Descriptive: count the number of people in several days). Which is the
neighborhood park that is most utilized during weekends? (Comparative: count and
compare the number of users on weekends). Which park features tend to foster
exploratory play in children? (Explanatory: find correlations between locations and
types of play).
Conceptual Background
Behavioral mapping is grounded in two concepts developed by some of
pioneers of environmental psychology: Gibson’s concept of affordances (1977) and
Barker’s idea of behavior settings (1968). Affordances are relational features of the
environment, simultaneously defined by intrinsic characteristics of the environment and
abilities of the organism (e.g. a child may be able to reach a tree branch for climbing
but a shorter child may not be able tor reach the same branch) (Gibson 1977).
Analyzing affordances is aimed to understand how the physical environment could
influences individuals’ activities. Also, behavior settings are regular patterns of behavior,
specifiable by time and place and dependent on the physical characteristics of the
place and prescribed social roles for what is expected to happen there (e.g. a football
game in a ball field or a lecture in a classroom) (Barker 1968). This is relevant to
Alessandro Rigolon, GEOG 5161, February 18, 2013
behavioral mapping because many outdoor settings tend to prescribe some patterns
of use, mostly through informal social programs.
Types of Behavioral Mapping
The analysis can be centered on a specific setting or focus on the movements of
an individual. These two methods are named respectively place-centered and
individual-centered mapping (Sommer and Sommer 2001).
Place-centered maps record people’s behavior in a predetermined setting and
time window (Sommer and Sommer 2001). For example, children’s activities within a
school building (Beeken and Janzen 1978). The goal of these maps is to uncover
whether a location is used or not, at what time, by which type of people, and what
activities are performed in different areas of the studied location (Sommer and Sommer
2001). Behavior settings can be considered the units of analysis in place-centered
maps. The choice of the time when observations take place is fundamental because
the same place can be used very differently depending on the time of the day. For
example, the Pearl Street Mall, observed on Saturday morning and on a Saturday night,
would highlight very different users and activities. Place-centered maps have been
used more frequently by landscape architects, urban designers, and environment and
behavior scholars (Cosco, Moore and Islam 2010; Francis 1984; Krizek, 1995).
Researchers performing individual-centered mapping record individuals’
movements within some predefined settings and time windows (Sommer and Sommer
2001). Such an activity results in the researcher following the individual in his or her
actions through space, in person or with the help of technology. Preliminary individual
centered mapping can be performed without knowing the people that are observed.
However, to create more detailed person-centered maps, the researcher has to ask
the individuals’ written consent to perform the prolonged observations (Sommer and
Sommer 2001). Individual-centered behavioral mapping has been used to assess the
physical activity levels of hospital patients (Bernhardt et al. 2004; Lincoln et al. 1996) or
to map the consumers’ paths within grocery stores (Larson, Bradlow and Fader 2005).
Strengths of the Method
Behavioral mapping allows the researcher to directly observe phenomena in
their natural settings, with very limited or no influence on the observed subjects (Moore
and Cosco 2010). Also, this method allows researchers to empirically evaluating possible
correlations between the studied behavior settings and individuals’ types of actions
and physical activity levels (Cosco, Moore and Islam 2010). For example, the
observation of a park could display different levels of physical activity associated to
different settings (sand pits, ball fields, lawns, etc.). Regression analysis is generally used
to find statistically significant correlation between settings and behaviors.
Behavioral mapping tends to be mainly a quantitative research method. For
example, techniques developed to code levels of physical activity and to record types
or play like SOPARC (System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities) and
SOPLAY (System for Observing Play and Leisure Activity in Youth) have a very
quantitative approach and adopt very standard procedures to collect the data
(McKenzie et al. 2000; McKenzie et al. 2006). However, the quantitative part of
behavioral mapping could be integrated with more qualitative field notes recording
Alessandro Rigolon, GEOG 5161, February 18, 2013
individuals’ verbal and physical language and their attitudes towards behavior settings.
A thick description of individuals’ behavior could help explain the reasons behind some
observed patterns.
Weaknesses of the Method
A few methodological weaknesses have limited a widespread use of behavioral
mapping in academia and in design practices. Some of these issues are specific to this
method and others have commonalities with other data collection techniques.
First, behavioral mapping can be quite time and resource consuming (Sommer
and Sommer 2001). Indeed, several observation sessions have to take place over a
prolonged period of time. The need of coding requires a team of two to three people
for each area of observation (McKenzie et al. 2006). Also, if researchers want to
compare the rate of usage of different sites, different observation sub-teams have to
operate in the same time-windows in different settings. Like and more than other
methods, behavioral mapping needs accurate pilot studies. “Hanging out” in a
neighborhood or in a park to explore at what time and where things are “happening” is
a fundamental step in defining the behavior settings to observe and the time windows
for the observations. Also, the method has some reliability issues. Indeed, research
assistants have to be trained to code activities consistently (McKenzie et al. 2006). This is
another reason to conduct pilot studies. Furthermore, individual-centered mapping can
interfere with the life of the observed subject (Sommer and Sommer 2001). Finally, like in
most quantitative methods, in behavioral mapping researchers can only infer why
individuals are performing certain activities in the studied settings, but they cannot ask
directly to them.
Other Methods that Could Be Used to Ask Similar Questions
Researchers could use surveys or interviews (self-report) with a variety of subjects
to answer similar research questions. Instead of place-centered mapping, inquirers
could administer on-site or mail surveys to people using a given space and ask them
which behavior settings attract them the most, which ones pushes them off and why.
Individual-center mapping could be replaced by in-depth interviews in which
individuals are asked about their everyday interactions with a given environment. The
limitation of these alternative methods compared to behavioral mapping is that they
rely on self-report, while their advantages are economic and time efficiency and the
possibility to ask “why” questions (Hill 1984).
Examples of Empirical Research and Key Sources
A few geographers have used this research technique, from the 1980’s to more
recent times. For example, Hill (1984) analyzed pedestrians’ route choice in an urban
setting. Also, Malone and Tranter (2003) studied the play and environmental learning
opportunities offered by schoolyards. As previously said, the method has been
developed mainly by environmental psychologists and landscape architects. Recent
research articles using behavioral mapping are the ones by Refshauge (2012), Cosco,
Moore and Islam (2010), and Milke and colleagues (2009).
Three main methodological key sources have defined and advanced
behavioral mapping. The first comprehensive piece about the technique has been
written by Ittelson, Rivlin, and Proshansky (1976) in the 1970’s. This book chapter is part of
Alessandro Rigolon, GEOG 5161, February 18, 2013
one of the first methodological publications covering the emerging field of
environmental psychology. Sommer and Sommer (2001) gave a more practical
contribution to the discourse about behavioral mapping in their book about behavioral
research. Finally, Moore and Cosco’s (2010) book chapter combined empirical
research with an updated conceptual framework for this method. In his long career,
Robin Moore contributed to advance the theory and practice of behavioral mapping
(Cosco, Moore, and Islam 2010; Moore 1986; Moore and Cosco 2010; Moore and Young
1978).
Current Debate on the Method
Further opportunities of this method include the possibility of developing
longitudinal studies to study the influence of seasonality in the usage of certain spaces
and to develop quasi-experimental designs to assess the effectiveness of certain design
interventions (Cosco, Moore and Islam 2010). For example, children’s activities in a
playground can be mapped before and after shading structures (canopies and shade
trees) are made available.
Alessandro Rigolon, GEOG 5161, February 18, 2013
References
Barker, Roger G. 1968. Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the
environment of human behavior. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Beeken, D., and H Janzen. 1978. Behavioral mapping of student activity in open-area
and traditional schools. American Educational Research Journal 15, no. 4: 507–
17.
Bernhardt, Julie, Helen Dewey, Amanda Thrift, and Geoffrey Donnan. 2004. Inactive
and alone: Physical activity within the first 14 days of acute stroke unit care.
Stroke 35: 1005–09.
Cosco, Nilda G., Robin C. Moore, and Mohammed Z. Islam. 2010. Behavior mapping: A
method for linking preschool physical activity and outdoor design. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise 42, no. 3: 513–19.
Francis, Mark. 1984. Mapping downtown activity. Journal of Architectural and Planning
Research 1: 21–35.
Gibson, James J. 1977. The theory of affordances. In Perceiving, acting, and knowing:
Toward an ecological psychology, ed. Robert Shaw and John Bransford. Hillsdale
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kinoshita, Isami. 2007. Children’s participation in Japan: An overview of municipal
strategies and citizen movements. Children Youth and Environments 17, no. 1:
269–86.
Krizek, Kevin. 1995. Patterns of use in main street activity: A case study of downtown
Chapel Hill. Carolina Planning 20, no. 2: 62–70.
Hill, Michael R. 1984. Stalking the urban pedestrian: A comparison of questionnaire and
tracking methodologies for behavioral mapping in large-scale environments.
Environment and Behavior 16, no. 5: 539–50.
Ittelson, William H., Leanne G. Rivlin, and Harold M. Proshansky. 1976. The use of
behavioral maps in environmental psychology. In Environmental psychology:
Man and his physical setting, ed. Harold M. Proshansky, William H. Ittelson, and
Leanne G. Rivlin, 340-51. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Larson, Jeffrey S., Eric T. Bradlow, and Peter S. Fader. 2005. An exploratory look at
supermarket shopping paths. International Journal of Research in Marketing 22:
395–414.
Lincoln, Nadina B., D. Willis, S. A. Philips, L. C. Juby, and P. Berman. 1996. Comparison of
rehabilitation practice on hospital wards for stroke patients. Stroke 27: 18–23.
Malone, Karen and Paul J. Tranter. 2003. Children's environmental learning and the use,
design and management of schoolgrounds. Children, Youth and Environments
13,
no.
2.
http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/13_2/Malone_Tranter/
ChildrensEnvLearning.htm (accessed February 12, 2013).
McKenzie Thomas L., Simon J. Marshall, James F. Sallis, and Terry L. Conway. 2000.
Leisure-time physical activity in school environments: An observational study
using SOPLAY. Preventive Medicine 30: 70–7.
Alessandro Rigolon, GEOG 5161, February 18, 2013
McKenzie Thomas L., Deborah A. Cohen, Amber Sehgal, Stephanie Williamson, and
Daniela Golinelli. 2006. System for Observing Play and Leisure Activity in
Communities (SOPARC): Reliability and feasibility measures. Journal of Physical
Activity and Health 3 (suppl. 1): S208–S22.
Milke, Doris, Charles Beck, Stefani Danes, and James Leask. 2009. Behavioral mapping
of residents’ activity in five residential style care centers for elderly persons
diagnosed with dementia: Small differences in sites can affect behaviors. Journal
of Housing For the Elderly 23, no. 4: 335–67.
Moore, Robin C. 1986. The power of nature: Orientations of girls and boys toward biotic
and abiotic settings on a reconstructed schoolyard. Children Environments
Quarterly 3, no. 3: 52–69.
Moore, Robin C. and Nilda G. Cosco. 2010. Using behaviour mapping to investigate
healthy outdoor environments for children and families: Conceptual framework,
procedures and applications. In innovative approaches to research excellence
in landscape and health, ed. Catharine Ward Thompson, Peter Aspinall, and
Simon Bell. London: Taylor and Francis
Moore, Robin C., and Donald Young. 1978. Childhood outdoors: Toward a social
ecology of the landscape. In Children and the environment, ed. Irwin Altman
and Joachin F. Wohlwill, 83–130. New York: Plenum Press.
Refshauge, Anne D. 2012. PlayLab Cph. Design and use of public playgrounds in urban
green spaces. Forest and Landscape Research 53: 1–70. http://curis.ku.dk/ws/
files/40378650/Forest_Landscape_Research_53_2012_Anne_Dahl_Refshauge_phd
_web.pdf (accessed February 12, 2013).
Sommer, Robert, and Barbara B. Sommer. 2001. A practical guide to behavioral
research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Van Andel, Joost. 1985. Effects on children's behavior of physical changes in a Leiden
neighborhood. Children Environments Quarterly 1, no. 4: 46-54.