knowledge of the environment and spatial cognition

7/15/2019 Knowledge of the Environment and Spatial Cognition

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/knowledge-of-the-environment-and-spatial-cognition 1/17

Ever since Lynch (1960) published his study on the cognitive representations of space,the sketch-map technique has become increasingly popular as a way of expressing a

cognitive image of space. The past forty years of practice have yielded numerousmethodological variations (Kitchin and Blades, 2002), and most importantly this tech-nique has spread to many disciplines such as psychology, cognitive science, anthropology,sociology, linguistics, the study of child development, psychiatric tests, architecture, andgeography (Golledge, 2003). In this respect we are faced with a paradox: very few validitytests have been performed on the sketch-map technique, and, on the other hand, itsmethodological advantages and drawbacks can be determined thanks to the experiencegathered by researchers using this technique. For example, what do we know about thevalidity of this technique when comparing social groups? Researchers' accounts provide a

few insights but very few tests have actually been carried out. We will try to answer thisquestion by comparing the sketch map with another graphic technique.

The popularity of the sketch map is due first and foremost to the fact that such atest is easy to organise. First, it does not require any sophisticated equipment. Second,the procedure can be adapted to the objectives of the research, to the site, the popula-tion, the spatial scale. Third, it is a well-known technique, it is easy to explain becauseit is taken from daily life. Indeed, many people use it to show where to go or how toget to a given place. In other words, it has strong ecological validity (Kitchin andBlades, 2002). Fourth, compared with other techniques such as the ``stimulus compari-

son data'', the sketch map is more pleasurable for the respondent, because it is lessrepetitive and less tedious (Baird, 1979). Furthermore, this technique also makes itpossible to work on the elements expressed by the respondent, instead of performing

Knowledge of the environment and spatial cognition: JRS as a

technique for improving comparisons between social groups

Thierry Ramadier, Anne-Christine Bronner Laboratoire Image et Ville, UMR 7011 CNRS öUniversite ¨ Louis Pasteur 3, rue de l'Argonne,67000 Strasbourg, France; e-mail: [email protected],[email protected] 23 February 2005; in revised form 19 May 2005

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2006, volume 33, pages 285 ^ 299

Abstract. In this paper we compare the sketch-map technique with a spatial modelling task based ona set of eight separate items. The aim of the comparison is to verify, thanks to a special spatialreconstruction set, Jeu de reconstruction spatiale (JRS), whether the difficulties often encountered by unskilled persons when asked to draw a sketch map can be avoided. If so, the JRS could help toimprove comparisons between different social groups. Thirty university students majoring in geog-raphy and twenty-one unskilled staff members were asked to represent the centre of Strasbourg bothby drawing a sketch and with the JRS. The results show that, on one hand, the difference between thetwo groups regarding the number of items mentioned is smaller with the JRS than with the sketchmap. On the other hand, in both groups, the same proportion of respondents increased the number of

urban elements produced in the second trial with the JRS. This was not the case with the sketch map.Also, the JRS is more stable than the sketch map from one trial to the next. Furthermore,the respondents preferred the JRS to the sketch map. However, the JRS is more suggestive than thesketch map, but only for elements which are more rarely represented (railway tracks, etc). Thus, interms of scientific research, the JRS makes it possible to improve comparisons between social groups.In terms of applications, it offers interesting possibilities for promoting citizen participation in urbanplanning.

DOI:10.1068/b3248



analyses on urban items selected by the researcher on the basis of a pilot studyperformed on another sample, as is the case in the `multidimensional-scaling' (MDS)

technique. In other words, the external validity of this technique is higher. Comparedwith the MDS technique, the sketch map is less sensitive to interindividual variability(Baird, 1979). In one of the rare tests of this technique, Blades (1990) has shown that itis also reliable. The results show that an individual who draws a familiar itinerary willdraw the same itinerary one week later. In other words, the individual validity of thesketch map is known and is satisfactory. The study of the sketches is particularlyrewarding because it is possible to analyse them on three separate levels. On onehand we can study the selective and changing content of the spatial representation.In addition, it is also possible to study spatial relationships between different locations,

without excluding analyses of certain categories of items (roads, limits, nodes, neigh-bourhoods, and landmarks). Thus, the sketch has the considerable advantage of expressing information concerning both physical elements and spatial relationships,such as distortions (Ramadier, 2003). Also, analyses of sketch maps can focus ondifferent observable spatial structures.

Despite all these advantages, the use of the sketch-map technique has been widelycriticised. In terms of analysis, according to Byrne (1979), the result depends on thepoint of departure chosen by the person to perform the requested task. However, thisobservation corresponds to a functional variability (Giraudo and Pe ¨ ruch, 1992). Baird

et al (1982) have observed that the graphic production technique is difficult to analyseand interpret because the scale of the sketch and the details vary from one individualto another. However, this drawback can be overcome by constructing, at low cost, astandard grid adaptable to the scale of each sketch (Ramadier, 1997). The mostsignificant criticism concerns the postulate of a correspondence between sketch andmental representation. Downs and Stea (1977) believe that the instruction to ``draw amap'' encourages the respondents to decode the information in spatial terms, on thebasis of the presupposition that the information was internalised in those terms; butthis is far from certain. Similarly, Milgram and Jodelet (1976) underscore the fact that

the maps thus collected do not represent in any way the respondents' mental maps asthey use them in their everyday lives. In the same vein Canter (1977) observes that aspatial product involves four cognitive actions which are not necessarily at work whenan individual is using his or her spatial representation as a support for daily activities:(1) directing oneself in space öthat is, reproducing in spatial terms the relationshipbetween two elements that belong to the individual's mental representation; (2) reduc-ing a large-scale spatial expanse to the size of a sheet of paper; (3) drawing geometricprojections; and (4) giving a symbolic image of elements belonging to one's mentalrepresentation. For Dussart (1978), this last point raises another problem. According to

this author, if one looks at this technique from the point of view of its function, thenthe aim of the sketch is not to express something but to provide information. In thatsense its language is common to the respondent and to the researcher. Siegel (1981) alsobelieves that this technique enables the researcher to grasp the respondents' ability toexpress his representation of space more than the representation itself. In other wordswe are facing a methodological barrier, whereby we only have access to the representa-tion of a representation. Le Ny (1985) establishes a distinction between two largecategories of representations: artificial (or constructed) representations and naturalrepresentations. One of the characteristics of the artificial representation is that it is

designed for someone else, whereas a natural representation is only useful to theperson who produces it. In that sense it can even be completely esoteric. However,this methodological limit is true for any technique used for representational purposes.

286 T Ramadier, A-C Bronner



If the question of communicating cognitive representations concerns all individualsand all methods, the function of the sketch map is certainly not the same in different

social groups. Our hypothesis is thus that the internal validity of the interpretationsof comparisons between social groups is not very high when using the sketch-maptechnique. Indeed, Francescato and Mebane (1973) have observed that persons belong-ing to the lower social classes more often refuse to draw a sketch map. Magana (1978)also observed that the graphic productions of the middle classes are more difficultto process than those of upper classes, because many include fewer than four items.On the other hand, according to the author, the free-listing technique, whereby the res-pondent makes a list of known elements, does not reveal any class differences, neitherin the number of elements recalled nor as concerns the respondents' reticence to

perform the requested task. This brings us back to Lynch's comment (1960) that peopledraw less than they talk. However, as remarked by Fisher et al (1984), the upper classesare usually more at ease with graphic production tasks and tend to use geographicmaps more often than other social classes. In other words, the ability to draw is notequally shared by the different social classes. Communicating a representation throughdrawing discriminates individuals according to their social group because they do nothave the same degree of familiarity with paper-and-pencil tasks. This means that graphmotor skills and competences linked to abstraction öthat is, aiming to provide asymbolic representation of an element öare not equivalent from one social group to

the next.Several studies (Baldy et al, 1992; Pailhous and Vergnaud, 1989) have indeed shownthat unskilled adults have difficulties drawing, especially in conditions in which therespondents are asked to remember information compared with conditions in whichthey are asked to copy (Baldy et al, 1992). In addition, Giraudo and Pe ¨ ruch (1992) haveshown that the impact of cognitive performances ösuch as changing scales and geo-metric projections öon the sketch is relative. Indeed, when asked to represent space,the cognitive performance of more than half of the sample of unskilled adults was the sameas that of adults with a high social and educational level, and a small number of persons

had serious trouble projecting surrounding space on a sheet of paper. The authorsconcluded that the difficulty in representing space is more heterogeneously distributedamong unskilled adults than among skilled adults.

Spatial-cognition researchers have made variations in the sketch-map procedure,and have suggested a sketch-map language (Wood, 1976), usable especially by children.They have also created two alternative techniques to obtain information on the con-figuration of spatial knowledge: (1) tasks involving the completion of a map or adrawing, with a view to reducing the drawing component, and (2) recognition taskswith the help of a map or an aerial photograph. Kitchin (1996) compared both

procedures with the sketch-map technique. Although the social and cultural homoge-neity of the sample was high (geography students), the author observed that the datavaried considerably according to the techniques used, although none could be con-sidered better than the others. For the purpose of a social comparison, Bridel andDelapierre (1982) used a Polaroid photographic camera to collect spatial representa-tions. In this case, unlike the photograph-recognition task, the individual plays anactive part. However, not everyone has similar competence in the use of a photo-graphic camera and an image does not yield the same meaning for different socialgroups. Also, just as in the unidimensional data-collecting techniques ödirection tasks,

distance tasks (Kitchin and Blades, 2002) öthese exercises do not provide any informa-tion concerning the configuration of spatial knowledge. However, our aim is tocompare social groups through a technique preserving the external, individual, andecological validity of the sketch map. This is possible only through a graphic task

Knowledge of the environment and spatial cognition 287



which reflects the configuration of spatial knowledge. The only task that comes close tothis without involving drawing is the modelling of cognitive representation thanks to a

set of standardised items.Our hypothesis is that a space-modelling task should improve the internal validityof a comparison between the cognitive representations of different social groups,contrasted according to social and educational criteria. Indeed, this task does notrequire graph motor skills or familiarity with paper-and-pencil type exercises. Inaddition, the necessity of creating abstract forms is reduced, thanks to the presentationof a set of standardised items which can be made to represent certain categories of physical elements. On the other hand, the three levels of analysis provided by thesketch-map technique can be preserved.

This technique has been used with children (Hart, 1981; Piaget et al, 1960; Siegeland Schadler, 1977) and blind persons (Blades et al, 2002; Passini and Proulx, 1988;Ungar et al, 1997). It seems to have been avoided with other adults because its cost ishigher than that of the sketch map. Indeed, the material must first be elaborated by theresearcher in order to ensure its adequateness to the aims of the task (financial costand time cost). Also, it is cumbersome, both in terms of transportation and during thetest itself (cost in terms of space). In addition, it requires a longer phase of explanationof the material and task than the sketch map. Whereas in terms of space it is difficultto compete with an A3 format sheet of paper and a pencil, in terms of financial cost

the set of modelling blocks can compete with the cost of paper and pencil if the materialhas been designed to be reused. The cost of the time taken to explain the task and carryit out depends on the characteristics of the set (number of items, figurative aspect,flexibility, procedure requested of the respondent, etc). In addition to its cost, thistechnique is less flexible than the sketch technique because it implies that the shapeand number of items must be defined beforehand. The flexibility of the material ishighest when the set of items is made up of all the elements that can be found in thestudied space (Siegel and Schadler, 1977). In this case the constraint would be the scaleof the surrounding environment, because this would be possible only in a very limited

space such as a room. The spatial reconstruction set presented below was elaboratedon the basis of these various constraints; several copies were made in order to test it asa possible alternative to the sketch map in situations of comparison between socialgroups.

Methodology

Sample

The fifty-one respondents were divided into two groups on the basis of their socio-educational level: on one hand a group of thirty third-year university students majoring

in geography, and on the other hand twenty-one staff members of the Louis PasteurUniversity who have not received a higher education (maintenance and kitchen). Allthe individuals belonging to the sample worked or studied in the same neighbourhoodof the city, near the historical centre of Strasbourg. The proportion of respondents whohad lived for at least eight months in another city was about the same in both groups(53.3% of the students and 57.0% of the staff members). However, the proportion of students living in the city centre (63.3%) was higher than that of staff members (42.9%).All other respondents live in the Strasbourg area.

The average age of the students was 23.27 years (standard deviation 1X87) and

they had been living in the Strasbourg area for an average of 5.74 years (standarddeviation 5X80). The average age of the staff members was 43.75 (standard devia-tion 9X82) and they had been living in the Strasbourg area for an average of




24.72 years (standard deviation 12X29).None of the respondents had ever practisedthe plastic arts on a regular basis.

Field of study

The chosen field of study for collecting the spatial representation of both groups wasthe centre of Strasbourg, because this location corresponded to the place of work orstudy of the respondents, and was frequented by both groups on a daily basis. Noprecise limits were given for the city centre. If a person inquired about the limits wewould answer that it is up to her or him to define what she or he believes is the citycentre, because we are interested in what she or he knows. We would also add thatthere are no right or wrong answers in this task. The general assignment was thefollowing: ``what do you know about the centre of Strasbourg?''

Tools and procedures

The tests took place in university facilities. They were taken collectively and theworktables were prepared before the arrival of the respondents. Two tools were used:on one hand the sketch map and on the other a spatial reconstruction set öJeu de

reconstruction spatiale (JRS), which enables the user to model space with standardiseditems.

In the first case a sheet of white paper of A3 format was provided, with an eraser, a`lead' pencil, and a red pencil. Visual screens prevented the respondent from seeing

what his or her neighbour was doing. The assignment was the following:` To answer this question, we ask you to reproduce the city centre on this sheet of paper [indicating the sheet] by drawing a simple sketch.''

The respondents were asked to number each element, as they drew it, with the redpencil. They were given 15 minutes for this task.

In the case of the spatial reconstruction set (JRS), we presented a tray with eightitems, which had the following characteristics and functions:The tray [figure 1(a), over], made of plywood (5 mm thick) covered with yellowfelt. The tray's dimensions are 80 cm Â 70 cm. When folded along a metallic hinge

(for transportation purposes) its dimensions are only 40 cmÂ

70 cm (thickness 12 mm).The set of items used to provide a cognitive representation of the given space areplaced on this tray. The felt provides a uniform background and prevents the itemsfrom slipping off.The red houses [figure 1(b)] are made of wood; they measure 1.5 cm at the base andtheir height is 1.7 cm. The roof is painted red. The red houses represent small buildingsor individual houses, such as shops, residences, or services.The blocks [figure 1(c)] are made of wood and they are 2.5 cm wide, 4.0 cm high, and1.5 cm deep. The blocks are used to represent high buildings, wide buildings, or

buildings that take up a great deal of ground space.The housing blocks [figure 1(d)] are red slabs (size 4 cm Â 4 cm) on which three woodenhouses have been glued. Each roof is a different colour: red, blue, and green. The housesare the same size as the red houses (1.5 cm wide at the base and 1.7 cm high). Theseblocks represent housing blocks or neighbourhoods, regardless of scale.The green blocks [figure 1(e)] are square and 3 mm thick. They come in two sizes. Theirsides measure 2 cm for the smaller blocks and 4 cm for the larger blocks. The greenblocks represent green areas, parks, gardens, etc. They can be placed side by side torepresent a bigger area. Another element, such as a red house, a block, or a cord can

be superimposed onto this item.The blue blocks [figure 1(f)] are square and 3 mm thick. They come in two sizes. Theirsides measure 2 cm for the smaller blocks and 4 cm for the larger blocks. The blueblocks are used to represent public places or surface parking lots. They can be placed




side by side to represent a bigger area. Another element, such as a red house, a blockor a cord can be superimposed onto them.The red , black, or blue cords [figure 1(g)] can be cut to the necessary dimension and canbe given any shape. The red cord represents roadways: paths, streets, roads, avenues,highways, etc. The black cord represents railway tracks: train tracks, streetcar and

subway tracks, etc. The blue cord represents waterways, or ponds or lakes if shapedin a circle. A pair of scissors is provided with which to cut the cord, along with a set of stickers to number the items on the tray.

The instruction given to the respondents was quite similar to that given for thesketch assignment:

` To answer this question, we ask you to reproduce the city centre on this tray[indicating the tray] with a set of items that I am going to show you.''

The respondents were also asked to number each element on the tray with the pre-numbered stickers. Fifteen minutes were allotted to this task. An example of a spatial

reconstruction produced by a respondent, along with a sketch map produced by thesame correspondent, is shown in figure 2.When the time was up, each respondent was asked to fill in a table, with the

following instructions:` This table aims to identify what you have built or drawn. In the first column write

the number of the item on your tray or sketch, in the second column explain what itrepresents. If possible, please write the name of the item, but you can also describeit if you do not know its name (`the avenue leading to Place Ge ¨ ne ¨ ral de Gaulle', `afriend's house', etc). Do not hesitate to ask questions if you encounter any difficulties.''

After each session the respondents filled in a short questionnaire (about 15 minutes),which provided information on their sociodemographic backgrounds, the problemsencountered while performing the task, whether they preferred one or the othertechnique, and how long they had been living in the city.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f ) (g)

Figure 1. Examples of items composing the spatial reconstruction set, Jeu de reconstructionspatiale: (a) the tray, (b) a red house, (c) blocks, (d) housing blocks, (e) green blocks, (f) blueblocks and (g) red, black, and blue cord.




In order to compare the use of the techniques between social groups, both taskswere performed, with an interval of one week. However, to counter the order effect(test ^ retest effect), we reversed the order in which the tasks were performed for half of the respondents. Thus, half of each group began with the sketch map and performedthe JRS one week later, and the other half performed the tasks in the opposite order

with the same time interval (see table 1).

Results

The number of items present in the graphic production

The order effect

Overall, the JRS enabled both the unskilled personnel and the students to produce afew more items (averages: 19.57 and 26.67, respectively) than the sketch map averages:18.76 and 24.30, respectively). However, this result is not statistically significant for tworeasons. The first and main reason is that an experimentally counterbalanced order

effect can mask the group effect on the performance of each technique. Thus (seetable 2, over), on one hand, all tasks considered, the respondents mentioned moreitems in the second task (25.24) than in the first (20.53) (t À3X69, standarddeviation 50, p 0X001). On the other hand, the more items an individual expressedin the first task, the more items were expressed in the second task (t 0X561, standarddeviation 51, p 0X000). As a result, owing to the experimental procedure, therespondents expressed on average as many items with the JRS (23.75) as with the sketchmap (22.02). The second reason is that the standard deviations of these averages aresystematically higher for the sketch map than for the JRS.

The impact of the technique

It is thus necessary to continue the analysis with the order of the trial taken intoaccount. However, it must be noted that only for the sketch map did the number of

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Example of (a) a spatial reconstruction, and (b) a sketch map, performed by the sameperson.

Table 1. Structure of the sample.

Order of tasks Students Workers Total

JRS,a sketch 12 10 22Sketch, JRSa 18 11 29

Total 30 21 51

a Jeu de reconstruction spatiale, a spatial reconstruction set.




items significantly increase depending on whether the task was performed in the firsttrial (17.17) or the second trial (28.41) (t 3X93, standard deviation 49, p 0X000).In other words, the sketch map is less stable than the JRS.

However, in the `retest' situation, the sketch map does not yield more physicalitems (28.41) than the JRS (24.95) in any significant way. Only in the case in which

the respondents first drew the sketch did the number of items in the JRS spatialrepresentation significantly increase (22.83), compared with the sketch map (17.17)(t 4X24, standard deviation 28, p 0X000). This increase in the number of urban items in the second trial with the JRS can be observed both with the students(6.16) (t 3X17, standard deviation 17, p 0X006) and with the unskilled personnel(4.82) (t 3X09, standard deviation 10, p 0X011). Thus, in the retest situation, therespondent is able to produce more items with the JRS than with the sketch map.

This means that the JRS increases the number of items produced, to the extentthat, in the `test' situation, it optimises the rate of items produced in the first trial, and,

in the `retest' situation, it improves the rate of urban items produced after a sketch maphas been performed. This first observation supports our hypothesis, because it seemseasier to express knowledge with the JRS than with the sketch.

A difference between unskilled personnel and students

If we now look at the rate of production of urban items in the first trial, we observethat the difference between the students and the unskilled personnel is smaller with theJRS than with the sketch map (figure 3).

Thus, in the first trial, the unskilled personnel mentioned more urban items withthe JRS (22.90) than with the sketch (11.72) (t 3X58, standard deviation 19, p 0X002), whereas no significant difference was observed among the students. Onthe other hand, and this is more important in the context of our research, though thereis no significant difference between social groups as concerns the number of urbanitems mentioned with the JRS, in the sketch-map test there is a significant differencebetween the students (20.50) and the unskilled personnel (11.73) (t 2X38, standarddeviation 27, p 0X025). However, the interaction effect between the type of tech-nique used and the social group is not significant, which globally confirms that, in thefirst trial, both groups mention more urban items with the JRS than with the sketchmap.

The order effect reveals the limits of the JRS

In order to understand the advantages and drawbacks of each technique, and inparticular the JRS, we must observe in greater detail the relationship between the

Table 2. Average and standard deviation of the number of items expressed in the cognitiverepresentation.

Group Average number of items (standard deviation)

sketch map JRSa

StudentsTrial 1 sketch map (n 18) 20.50 (11.27) 26.67 (7.84)Trial 1 JRSa (n 12) 30.00 (8.76) 26.67 (5.43)Total (n 30) 24.30 (11.22) 26.67 (6.87)

WorkersTrial 1 sketch map (n 11) 11.73 (5.92) 16.54 (7.24)Trial 1 JRSa (n 10) 26.50 (10.82) 22.90 (8.29)

Total (n 21) 18.76 (11.27) 19.57 (8.23)a Jeu de reconstruction spatiale, a spatial reconstruction set.




impact of order and that of the technique itself. Indeed, although on one hand weobserved an increase in the number of urban items produced when the JRS was givenin the retest situation, regardless of the social group, on the other hand we have not yetdetermined in what way the number of items given with the JRS or the sketch mapchanges from one trial to the next. In other words the following analysis deals with thecomparison between techniques depending on the order of trial rather than with a focuson individual differences. For this reason it is necessary to observe the `behaviour' of the

techniques independently of the social group.In the case of the students, whether given as a test or as a retest, the JRS yielded

the same average number of urban elements. However, the average was higher in theretest situation for the sketch map (F 1Y 30 6X06, p 0X020). This means that, for thissocial group, the JRS is more stable than the sketch map and, when it is given in thefirst trial, it leads to an increase in the number of items produced with the sketch mapin the second trial. Thus, the interaction effect between order and technique issignificant: the JRS enables the respondent to mention more items in the first trialwhereas the sketch map enables the respondent to mention more items in the second

trial (F 2Y 27 4X48, p 0X021) (see figure 4).In the case of the JRS, the unskilled personnel mentioned more urban items in the

first trial than in the second. This relationship is a trend (F 1Y 19 3X51, p 0X076).Conversely, the number of urban items in the sketch map was higher in the second trialthan in the first (F 1Y 19 15X46, p 0X001). Thus, the interaction effect between order

M e a n o f e l e m e n t s

30

25

20

15

10

5

0W W Wo

kS

JRS Sketch

S S t u d e n t s

Figure 3. Average number of urban items at first trial. JRS signifies a spatial reconstruction set,Jeu de reconstruction spatiale.

M e a n o f e l e m e n t s p e r t r i a l

30

25

20

15

10

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2

JRS

sketch

(a) (b)Figure 4. Average number of elements per trial: (a) students and (b) workers. JRS signifies aspatial reconstruction set, Jeu de reconstruction spatiale.




and technique is also significant: more items are mentioned in the first trial with theJRS whereas more items are mentioned with the sketch when it is performed in the second

trial (F 2Y 18

7X98, p

0X003). Thus, for this social group, the JRS is as unstable as thesketch-map technique. In addition, when the JRS is given as a first test, the respondents

always produce more items in the sketch-map retest.These results show that, in addition to a dependence of JRS stability on social

group, these tools seem to limit the possibility of mentioning more urban items whenthe individual becomes familiar with the drawing task. This means that the sketch mapis more productive when it is given in the second trial whereas the JRS is moreproductive in the first trial.

Increase in the number of items produced in the second trial

By analysing the second trials it is possible to determine that, with the JRS, the rate of increase in the number of urban items produced is very similar from one social groupto the next (55% more than in the first trial, for those respondents who produced moreitems in the second trial than in the first trial), whereas, when the sketch map isperformed second, the rate of increase is higher for the personnel than it is for thestudents, considering only those respondents who produced more items in the secondtrial (see figure 5).

Similarly, the percentage of respondents exhibiting an increase in the number of items is identical from one social group to the next as regards the JRS. However, in

this case the increase in the number of items represented in the second trial is largeramong students than among workers (figure 6).

In other words, the changes in the cognitive representation of space are equivalentfrom one group to the other with the JRS, whereas with the sketch map we have a largeincrease in the number of items among a small proportion of unskilled persons.

P e r c e n t a g e r a t e o f i n c r e a s e

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

À10

À20

À30

JRS(trial 2)

Sketch(trial 2)

Trial 2 À trial 1 b 0

Trial 2 À trial 1 ` 0

S

S

S

S

À

S t u d e n t s

W W

WÀ

WWok

Figure 5. Rate of increase in produced items in the second trial. Positive rates refer to the averageincreases for those respondents who produced more items in the second trial, and negative ratesrefer to the average decreases for those respondents who produced fewer items in the second trial.JRS signifies a spatial reconstruction set, jeu de reconstruction spatiale.




Qualitative analyses

The scale of the cognitive map

We initially defined five levels:level 1: the street and square;level 2: the neighbourhood;level 3: the ìsland area' (the city centre of Strasbourg forms an island with the river atthe south end and the canal at the north end),

level 4: the ìsland area' and separate elements surrounding it;level 5: the ìsland area' and surrounding neighbourhood(s).Two thirds of the respondents (68.62%) kept the same scale from one trial to the

next. Ten persons (19.60%) shifted to a larger scale in the second trial. In this case weobserved mainly a shift from level 1 to level 2 for the unskilled personnel and fromlevel 3 to level 4 for the students. Also, six persons (11.76%) produced a representationon a smaller urban scale: in both groups, we observed a shift from level 4 to level 3.Concerning this aspect of graphic productions, no notable difference was observedbetween both techniques, not even when the order of trial was taken into account.

On the other hand, we found the usual differences between social groups: the scaleof the students' representations was larger than that of the unskilled personnel'srepresentations.

The content of the spatial representations

We initially divided all the items present in the spatial representations into twelve cate-gories (see table 3, over). However, we must underscore the following: the neighbourhooddoes not correspond to a specific urban scale; the railways include both streetcar tracksand interurban railway tracks; the monuments correspond to historical buildings,churches, etc; other types of buildings include a friend's house, etc; urban equipment

refers to bus or streetcar stops, statues, etc, and the category `òther urban items'' includespassersby, cars, etc.

It turns out that, regardless of the group, the JRS tends to express railways,green areas, and unremarkable buildings more frequently than the sketches. On theother hand, in the sketches, the unskilled personnel put in proportionally moreroads, and the students more urban equipment, than in the JRS. Thus, the differencesbetween the two techniques seem to be independent of the social group, especiallyas the differences between the two groups pertain to other aspects: the unskilledemployees mention services more often whereas students mention squares more

often.

JRS (trial 2) Sketch (trial 2) P e r c e n t a g e o f r e s p o n d e n t s p e

r g r o u p 90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Trial 2 À trial 1

b0 `0

W W W W

À

Wok

Wok

S S S S

À

S t u d e n t s

S t u d e n t s

Figure 6. Percentage of respondents for whom the number of items increased or decreased.




The technique preferred by the respondents

To the question: ``did you prefer the JRS or the sketch map?'' 64.7% of the respondents(33) said they preferred the JRS, 15.7% (8) preferred the sketch map, and 19.6% (10)liked both equally. However, unexpectedly for us, 73.33% of the students preferred theJRS whereas this was true of only 52.38% of the unskilled respondents.

Discussion

Within the framework of an experimental design which aims to vary spatial represen-

tation techniques, the order in which the respondents took the two tests and thesocioeducational level of the respondents enabled us to test the assets and drawbacksof a spatial modelling task as compared with a sketch map. These advantages anddrawbacks were thus tested in a situation of comparison of social groups in order tooffset the serious drawbacks of the sketch-map and paper-and-pencil tasks in this field.

Our hypothesis, according to which the differences between social groups decreasewith the JRS, has been verified. Indeed in the first trial the differences between the twosocial groups in terms of the number of urban items reproduced in the spatial repre-sentation were smaller than with the sketch map. In addition, when given in the first

trial, the JRS led to a considerable increase in the number of urban items expressed,and improved the sketch performance in the second trial. In other words, part of thesocial differences observed is linked to the type of tool used rather than to socialreality. The importance of the order effect also shows that the JRS is more stablethan the drawing, even though Blades (1990) has already shown the reliability of asketch over time. This stability has been observed at several levels, which means that italso plays a part in reducing differences between social groups. First, the performanceson the JRS remained stable from one trial to the next. However, concerning this point,the stability was higher for students than for the unskilled personnel. Second, there

was a high rate of increase in the number of urban items produced in the retestsituation (about 55%) and with the JRS the rate was identical from one social groupto the next. With the sketch test the rate was not as homogeneous from one group to thenext. Third, the same was observed concerning the number of persons who expressed

Table 3. Average proportion of types of items, according to the chosen technique and to thegroup. Numbers in bold are those of particular importance which are discussed in the text.

Item type Percentage of total items (number of persons)

workers students

JRSa sketch JRSa sketch

Neighbourhoods 4.62 (19) 3.05 (12) 3.38 (27) 3.16 (23)Roads 14.36 (59) 20.05 (79) 16.88 (135) 17.97 (131)Squares 13.63 (56) 13.45 (53) 23.38 (187) 21.26 (155)Railway tracks 9.49 (39) 5.84 (23) 7.25 (58) 4.80 (35)Waterways 3.65 (15) 3.30 (13) 4.63 (37) 3.57 (26)Green areas 2.43 (10) 1.52 (6) 1.38 (11) 0.27 (2)Shops 15.82 (65) 17.77 (70) 14.13 (113) 16.19 (118)Services 18.49 (76) 20.56 (81) 13.25 (106) 15.78 (115)Monuments 4.14 (17) 5.58 (22) 9.25 (74) 9.74 (71)Other buildings 10.46 (43) 3.55 (14) 4.75 (38) 2.06 (15)Urban equipment 2.43 (10) 3.55 (14) 1.75 (14) 4.80 (35)Other urban items 0.49 (2) 1.78 (7) 0.00 (0) 0.41 (3)

Total 100 (411) 100 (394) 100 (800) 100 (729)

a Jeu de reconstruction spatiale, a spatial reconstruction set.




a larger number of items in the second test. Thus, if we combine the last two results,the `retest' effect with the JRS can be observed for the greater part of the sample and

in identical proportions from one group to the next, whereas with the sketch the retesteffect is very powerful and can be observed only for a small proportion of the sampleof unskilled personnel.

The limits of the JRS are mainly due to the suggestive nature of the items presented.However, this drawback is relative in the sense that, from one group to the next, thesame items tend to be overrepresented örailway tracks, green spaces, and unremarkablebuildings. Naturally, the simple fact of offering black cords, green blocks, and smallred houses encourages the overrepresentation of certain categories of urban items. Thesecond limit concerns the flexibility of the proposed standardised items. Indeed, one

of the reasons why the sketch is not reliable is that it offers greater freedom to expressone's representation of urban space. However, it seems that the freedom of expression of the sketch is possible for unskilled persons only if they first were able to use concretebut symbolic objects to represent space. For the students the JRS seemed to limit theexpression of urban items which have a great variety of forms and functions, forinstance, urban equipment (statues, fountains, bus stops, etc). However, this limit isalso relative, to the extent that it affects only a minority of urban elements in the spatialrepresentation. In conclusion of these limitations, the JRS is particularly effective incases in which only one trial is possible or as the first of a series of trials; the sketch map

is more successful when performed second, but there are serious methodological biaseswith regard to comparison between social groups.The differences observed between the two groups concerning the extent of the

spatial representation have often been observed in sociocultural group comparisons.However, asking students to express their knowledge of the city centre exacerbatesthese results: as observed by Bonnes et al (1990), the city centre is a favourite meetingplace among this social group, and this fact reinforces differences observed between thisgroup and persons with low qualifications in terms of knowledge of the environment.

In terms of preference, even though we have only one declared response, the

massive tendency to prefer the JRS corroborates observations made of the attitudesof respondents during the trials. Indeed, many respondents spontaneously said thatdrawing was difficult for them whereas the JRS was more amusing without seemingchildish. This last point is important, and this leads us to discourage the partial or totaluse of commercialised game sets. The three-dimensional aspect was also an importantasset for some persons. Finally, the respondents appreciated the figurative nature of theJRS items because it helped them understand and quickly memorise the assignment.They also liked the flexibility of the cord (easy to use in terms of size and shape), andthat of the wood pieces and the green and blue blocks. Many persons used several

items to make an element that was more figurative than what was originally proposed.Usually the respondents with fewer skills tended to increase the figurativeness of theurban items they used.

This research shows on one hand that a comparison between social groups on thebasis of the sketch map tends to put persons with a limited education in a position of handicap, especially if writing, drawing, and even reading are not very frequentoccupations in their daily lives. This situation of handicap is increased by the socialinteraction implicit in the survey situation. Indeed, the surveyor is at ease with paper-and-pencil-type tasks and this can reinforce the respondents' perception of being in a

situation of inferiority. These social relationships, whose symbolic violence veryoften remains unperceived by the persons concerned (Bourdieu, 1993), can oftenlead to self-censorship on the part of the respondent, or to the refusal to performthe task by alleging a form of incompetence which can be accepted by the surveyor




(` I can't draw''). Research has shown that two levels of cultural integration areinvolved in studies on spatial cognition: in addition to the social legibility of space

(Ramadier and Moser, 1998), one must also take into account the cultural integrationpertaining to the expression of environmental knowledge (Parameswaran, 2003).In addition to improving scientific knowledge, the JRS can be used to help promote

citizen participation in urban planning. Indeed, with the JRS one can obtain informa-tion on the cognitive representation of space among very diverse population groups;thus, the resulting `maps', which are based on a common code, can be shown to otherparticipants. In this way the different points of view expressed during debates can bemore easily understood by others. The JRS thus improves our understanding of thespatial representations underlying different viewpoints and ways of using space.

ReferencesBaird J C, 1979, ``Studies of cognitive representation of spatial relations: I. Overview'' Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General 108 90^91Baird J,Wagner M, Noma E, 1982, ` Impossible cognitives spaces'' Geographical Analysis 14

204 ^ 218Baldy R, Chatillon J F, Cadopi M, Gausserand V, 1992, ``Les proble © mes rencontre ¨ s par des

adultes de bas niveau de qualification pour lire et exe ¨ cuter des figures planes et des dessinsen perspective'' [Problems encountered by adults with low levels of qualification in readingand drawing plane figures and figures in perspective] Annee Psychologique 92 59^79

Blades M, 1990, ``The reliability of data collected from sketch maps'' Journal of Environmental Psychology 10 327 ^ 339

Blades M, Lippa Y, Golledge R, Jacobson R D, Kitchin R, 2002, ``Wayfinding by people withvisual impairments: the effect of spatial tasks on the ability to learn a novel route'' Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 96 407 ^ 419

Bonnes M, Manneti L, Secchiaroli G, Tanucci G, 1990, ``The city as a multi-place system: ananalysis of people ^ urban environment transactions'' Journal of Environmental Psychology10 37^65

Bourdieu P, 1993, ``Comprendre'' [Understanding], in La Mise ©re du Monde Ed. P Bourdieu(E è ditions du Seuil, Paris) pp 903 ^ 939

Bridel L, Delapierre C, 1982,``Sud-ouest lausannois: banlieue et mode © les culturels'' [The southwesternLausanne area: suburbs and cultural models] Bulletin de la Societe Neucha ªteloise de Geographie

27 185 ^ 213Byrne R W, 1979, ``Memory for urban geography'' Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology31 147 ^ 154

Canter D, 1977 The Psychology of Place (Architectural Press, London)Downs R M, Stea D, 1977 Maps in Mind: Reflexions on Cognitive Mapping (Harper and Row,

New York)Dussart B, 1978 Dessins et Representation de l'Espace Urbain [Sketches and representation of urban

space] unpublished PhD thesis, Universite ¨ Paris X, ParisFisher J D, Bell P A, Baum A, 1984 Environmental Psychology (Holt, Rinehart and Winston,

New York)Francescato D, Mebane W, 1973, ``How citizens view two great cities: Milan and Rome'', in Image

and Environment Eds R Downs, D Stea (Aldine, Chicago, IL)Giraudo M D, Peruch P, 1992, `Analyse des processus cognitifs mis en jeu dans la representation

de l'espace chez des adultes de bas niveau de qualification'' [Analysis of the cognitive processesused in the representation of space among adults with low levels of qualification] Le Travail Humain 55 135 ^ 153

Golledge R G, 2003, ``Reflections on recent cognitive behavioural research with emphasis onresearch in the United States of America'' Australian Geographical Studies 41 117 ^ 130

Hart R, 1981,``Children's representation of the landscape: lessons and questions from a field study'',in Spatial Representation Across the Life Span Eds L Liben, A H Patterson, N Newcombe(Academic Press, New York) pp 195 ^ 236

Kitchin R M, 1996, ``Methodological convergence in cognitive mapping research: investigatingconfigurational knowledge'' Journal of Environmental Psychology 16 163 ^ 185

Kitchin R, Blades M, 2002 The Cognition of Geographic Space (Tauris, London)




Le Ny J F, 1985, ``Comment (se) repre ¨ senter les repre ¨ sentations'' [Representing representations]Psychologie Franc° aise 30 231 ^ 237

Lynch K, 1960 The Image of the City (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)

Magana J R, 1978 An Empirical and Interdisciplinary Test of a Theory of Urban Perception unpublishedPhD thesis, University of California, Irvine, CA

Milgram S, Jodelet D, 1976,``Psychological map of Paris'', in Environmental Psychology 2nd edition,Eds H Proshansky,W H Ittelson, L G Rivlin (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York)pp 104 ^ 124

Pailhous J, Vergnaud G, 1989 Adultes en Reconversion, Insuffisance de la Formation ou Difficultesd'Apprentissage? [When adults change professions: inadequate training or learning difficulties?](La Documentation Franc°aise, Paris)

Parameswaran G, 2003, ` Experimenter instruction as a mediator in the effects of culture onmapping one's neighborhood'' Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 409 ^ 417

Passini R, Proulx G, 1988, ``Wayfindings without vision: an experiment with congenitally blindpeople'' Environment and Behavior 20 91 ^ 118Piaget J, Inhelder B, Szeminska A, 1960 The Child's Conception of Geometry (Norton, New York)Ramadier T, 1997 Construction Cognitive des Images de la Ville: Evolution de la Representation de

Paris aupre ©s d'Etudiants Etrangers [The cognitive construction of images of the city: changes inthe representation of paris among foreign students] unpublished PhD thesis, Universite ¨ Paris V,Paris

Ramadier T, 2003, ``Les repre ¨ sentations cognitives de l'espace: mode © les, me ¨ thodes et utilite ¨ ''[Cognitive representations of space: models, methods and applications], in Espaces de Vie:Aspects de la Relation Homme-Environnement Eds G Moser, K Weiss (Armand Colin, Paris)pp 177 ^ 200

Ramadier T, Moser G, 1998, ``Social legibility, the cognitive map and urban behaviour'' Journal of Environmental Psychology 18 307 ^ 319

Siegel A W, 1981, ``The externalization of cognitives maps by children and adults'', in Spatial Representation and Behavior across the Life Span Eds S L Liben, A H Patterson, N Newcombe(Academic Press, New York) pp 167 ^ 194

Siegel A W, Schadler M, 1977, ``The development of young children's spatial representation of their classrooms'' Child Development 48 388^394

Ungar S, Blades M, Spencer C, 1997, ``Strategies for knowledge acquisition from cartographicmaps by blind and visually impaired adults'' Cartographic Journal 34 93 ^ 110

Wood D, Beck R, 1976, ``Talking with environmental A: an experimental mapping language'',in Environmental Knowing Eds G T Moore, R G Golledge (Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross,Stroudsberg, PA) pp 351 ^ 361




ß 2006 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain



Conditions of use. This article may be downloaded from the E&P website for personal research

by members of subscribing organisations. This PDF may not be placed on any website (or other

online distribution system) without permission of the publisher.

knowledge of the environment and spatial cognition

Documents