Purpose: This method is designed to identify how an environment is understood (comprehended) by an individual or group. It is based on methods developed by Lynch, Milgram and Festinger, et. al. It can help understand the unique perspectives that individuals and groups have about places they use, either frequently or infrequently. These perspectives are related to membership in various social networks, social worlds and with reference groups. Thus, cognitive mapping can be used to understand the impact of social structure on our understanding of place. Conversely, those understandings symbolize the differences between individuals and groups and particularly what is important and unimportant. Finally, wide consensus in cognitive maps demonstrates a strong common understanding uniting individuals, a sense of community identified with place.

Definitions:

Cognitive images are memories about places and things. They have two components: features that are remembered, and evaluative information about those features.

A feature map is a user-drawn sketch of a place completed away from the place or at least in a location where key features are not visible.

An evaluation map provides evaluative information about places mapped onto an actual plan.

A sociometric map provides information on who knows who and how that corresponds to their positions in space.

Patterns to consider in the analysis:

Influence of the environment

• Cohesive, accurate and complete feature maps by relatively unfamiliar users indicate high imageability.
• Fragmented, inaccurate and incomplete feature maps by familiar users indicate low imageability.
• High imageability can be traced to cohesive districts, strong edges, continuity and clarity of paths, the presence of important nodes and strong landmarks.
• The inclusion and relative size of elements in a cognitive map is related to the significance it has for the individual.
• The relationship of the sociometric map with the features of space, e.g. physical and functional proximity.

Influences of the person:

• Poor evaluations can reflect poor knowledge of a place or knowledge based on incomplete or inaccurate information, particularly if other people with more familiarity give good evaluations.
• Differences in feature maps and evaluation maps among groups with equal familiarity are due to differences in perspective.
• Group differences can be based on aspects of identify that structure experience: socioeconomic class, ethnic group membership, occupation, visitor or inhabitant status, etc.
• Imaginary places and features may be included that can represent unfulfilled desires or imagined fears.

Analysis Steps:

1. Solicit feature maps of the place to be analyzed
2. Augment the map with questions about specific features of the building, e.g. "What material is the building made from..."
3. Ask people to identify those places in the building they frequent and those they never go to. Establish a unit of time that makes sense for the building, e.g. no. times per week.
4. Solicit appropriate evaluative information about different parts of the building or urban place (through interviews); consider avoidance/ attraction, beautiful/ugly, comfortable/uncomfortable and other evaluative dimensions; solicit reasons for the evaluations given.
5. Obtain critical information about the respondents that might affect their images, e.g. familiarity with the place, occupational role, education level, etc.
6. Analyze the feature maps and develop composite images; plot the composite image of key features (elements and links) onto the actual plan/map.
7. Analyze and code evaluative information onto an actual map.
8. Obtain sociometric information, e.g. who is friends with whom, how close is their relationship, how often do they see each other and where do they meet.
9. Identify relationships between maps and both observed and reported behavior of people in the building, including avoidance of the place or settings within it and socialization.
10. Consider mediating factors leading to individual and group differences like familiarity, occupational perspectives, status perspectives etc.
11. Identify features of the architecture that contribute to both inclusion in the map, accuracy of the image and evaluations of the place and elements.

Documentation:

1. Representative user drawn maps.
2. Composite feature map with photographs and details of key features
3. Coded evaluation maps demonstrating findings for different aspects of evaluation.
4. Coded sociometric maps demonstrating who is friends with whom and the strength of their relationship.
5. Coded maps or annotations showing differences between different user groups or individuals.
6. Explanations of how the architecture influences the maps and evaluations.
7. Explanations of individual and group differences.
8. Explanations for the evaluation images discovered.

Click here for Examples

Analysis #4:

Complete cognitive mapping analysis of the case study buildings. Use both map drawing and interviews to obtain knowledge about features and evaluative information. Complete the exercise with at least 10 people from 2-3 different groups of users. Prepare a presentation using overheads that summarizes your preliminary findings with respect to the entire sample interviewed, different groups and individuals.