Geomethodology Review: Behavioral Mapping

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 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). Alessandro Rigolon, GEOG 5161, February 18, 2013

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 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 Alessandro Rigolon, GEOG 5161, February 18, 2013 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 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. 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. Alessandro Rigolon, GEOG 5161, February 18, 2013

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_w eb.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.