UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The subjective geometry of regional space : a cross cultural inquiry Francoeur, Jean-Gilles 1981

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A8 F73.pdf [ 12.71MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095394.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095394-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095394-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095394-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095394-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095394-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095394-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095394-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095394.ris

Full Text

THE S U B J E C T I V E GEOMETRY OF REGIONAL SPACE:'. A CROSS CULTURAL INQUIRY  by  J E A N - G I L L E S FRANCOETJR B.A.  ( H o n s . ) , U n i v e r s i t y o f O t t a w a , 1977  A T H E S I S SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS  FOR THE DEGREE  OF  MASTER OF ARTS  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department o f Geography  We a c c e p t t h i s  t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g  to t h e r e q u i r e d  standard  THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H April, (c)  COLUMBIA  1981  J e a n - G i l l e s F r a n c o e u r , 1981  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I  further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may  be  department o r by h i s or her  granted by  the head of my  representatives.  -  It i s  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not  be  allowed without my  permission.  Department of  (s>G^oaya-  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h 2075 Wesbfook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date  DE-6  (2/79)  |fc  t  Columbia  written  i i i ABSTRACT This  t h e s i s i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h s p a t i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o r more p r e c i s e l y ,  distance cognition.  I t examines t h e n a t u r e  how p e o p l e p e r c e i v e stand  distances  of space.  their  surrounding  i s s t u d i e d i n t e r m s o f how p e o p l e space.  o f s p a c e , a n d (2)  ways o f o r g a n i z i n g t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n t h r o u g h p e r s o n a l  The  of ten high  schools  d a t a was a n a l y z e d  Subjects  analyses,  made t h e b e s t  smallest-space  estimates  i n an a b s t r a c t " s t r a i g h t l i n e " time dimension, the r a t i o  correspond  p r o j e c t i v e space.  a n a l y s i s and c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s .  o f d i s t a n c e when t h e y This  ratio  estimate  c o u l d gage t h e i r was  conceptualized  f a s h i o n b u t , when i n t e r p r e t e d i n t h e l i g h t o f estimate  p r o v e d t o b e much more s e n s i t i v e t o  t o an i n t e r m e d i a t e  coordinated  c o g n i t i o n was shown t o b e t h e p r o d u c t or of the experience  i n t o various sub-spaces.  of space w h i l e  i n particular,  environmental  Distance  of the mental r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the  d e p e n d s much m o r e o n p e o p l e ' s i m p r e s s i o n s ways o f s i m p l i f y i n g  judgment.  l e v e l o f measurement, t y p i c a l o f  o f movement i n s p a c e .  depends on p e o p l e ' s e x p e r i e n c e  and  questionnaire.  The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n r e m a i n s d i s t o r t e d a n d p a r t l y s u b j e c t i v e ;  p r o v e d t o be p a r t i a l l y  trip  F r e n c h and E n g l i s h s e n i o r  U n i t s o f t i m e have p r o v i d e d more p e r s p e c t i v e f o r r e l a t i v e  Such estimates  it  Ontario.  o f t h e r e g i o n completed an e x t e n s i v e  j u d g m e n t o n a w e l l known d i s t a n c e ( s ) .  space.  c a t e g o r i e s as w e l l as t h e  a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l and aggregate l e v e l w i t h s o p h i s t i c a t e d  multi-variate statistical  the  people's  c a t e g o r i e s and dominant f e a t u r e s o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t .  Experiments were conducted i n E a s t e r n students  make  I t i s b e l i e v e d t o be a f u n c t i o n  (1) p e o p l e ' s a c t i v e k n o w l e d g e a n d i m p r e s s i o n s  existing  A l s o , i t seeks t o under-  responsible f o r people's mental trans-  Cognitive distance  sense o f and o r g a n i z e of  at the regional scale.  some o f t h e c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s  formations  of distance c o g n i t i o n , i n v e s t i g a t i n g  The amount o f s p a c e  the d i r e c t i o n  of that experience.  (sign) of d i s t o r t i o n Also,  information influenced distance  d i r e c t i o n estimates.  distortion  people's  estimates,  C u l t u r a l b a r r i e r s w e r e shown t o e x i s t  iv and t h e i m a g e a b l e f e a t u r e s o f t h e r e g i o n p r o v e d t o h a v e a s i g n i f i c a n t  effect.  V TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Abstract  i  i  i  List  of Tables  v i i  List  of Figures  ix  List  o f Maps  x  Acknowledgement  xi  CHAPTER I  Introduction  CHAPTER I I  Cognitive Distance  1 Literature  2.1 C o n c e r n a n d R e s u l t s o f t h e R e s e a r c h  CHAPTER I V  14  2.3 M e t r i c o f S p a c e I s s u e  16 Cognition  19  The T h e s i s  24  3.1 M e c h a n i s m s o f S p a t i a l C o g n i t i o n  24  3.2 D e v e l o p m e n t a l T h e o r y  40  3.3 M o d e l s  49  o f Space C o g n i t i o n  3.4 F o c u s o f R e s e a r c h  51  Methodology  56  4.1 R e g i o n o f S t u d y  56  4.2 S t i m u l i P o i n t s  61  4.3 S a m p l e  63  4.4 The E x p e r i m e n t  66  4.4.1  66  Operational variables  4.4.2 Q u e s t i o n n a i r e :  CHAPTER V  4  2.2 M e t h o d s U s e d  2.4 M e c h a n i s m s o f D i s t a n c e CHAPTER I I I  4  f o r m a t and a p p l i c a t i o n  70  4.4.3 A n a l y s i s  72  R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n  79  5.1 M e t r i c o f S p a c e A n a l y s i s  79  vi PAGE 5.2 I n f l u e n c e o f F a c t o r s o n D i s t a n c e 5.2.1  CHAPTER V I  Personal factors  Estimates *  86 86  5.2.2 The s p a t i a l f a c t o r  92  5.2.3 K n o w l e d g e a n d m e a n i n g  94  5.2.4 O r g a n i z a t i o n o f k n o w l e d g e  105  5.3 D i r e c t i o n E s t i m a t i o n a n d T w o - d i m e n s i o n a l Maps  117  5.3.1  117  Generalities  5.3.2 F a c t o r s  118  5.3.3 T w o - d i m e n s i o n a l maps  127  Conclusion  131  6.1 M a j o r F i n d i n g s a n d C o n c l u s i o n s  131  6.2 L i m i t a t i o n s for Future  of t h e Study and Research  Suggestions 136  Notes  140  Bibliography  147  Appendix 1  159  Appendix 2  186  Appendix 3  192  Appendix 4  202  vii L I S T OF TABLES TABLE  PAGE  2.1  Factors  4.1  Characteristics of stimuli points  63  4.2  Sampling points  65  4.3  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sample  66  4.4  List  68  4.5  Comparison of m e t r i c s  5.1  D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s f o r each d i s t a n c e a l l sample and c u l t u r a l groups  5.2  of o p e r a t i o n a l  Level for  influencing distance-cognition  variables  73  o f r e s p o n s e on t h e r a t i o  each s t i m u l u s  5  point  estimate  estimate 78 (SUBMAG)  (%)  80  5.3  Means o f s t r a i g h t e r r o r measures  81  5.4  Means o f r e l a t i v e e r r o r m e a s u r e s  82  5.5  Standard deviations measures  o f s t r a i g h t and r e l a t i v e "<  Results  of variance  5.6  of a n a l y s i s  with  error 84  repeated  measures on t h e p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s  87  5.7  Means o f e r r o r m e a s u r e s f o r e a c h s c h o o l  88  5.8  Means a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r each c u l t u r e  5.9  5.10  R e s u l t s o f one-way a n a l y s i s distance Tau b s t a t i s t i c variables  over  of error  measures 90  of covariance  with 92  'knowledge' and 'meaning' 95  5.11  Results  o f one-way a n a l y s i s  of covariance  96  5.12  Results  o f two-way a n a l y s i s  of covariance  97  5.13  Results  o f r e p e a t e d measures a n a l y s i s  5.14  R e a s o n s why p l a c e s w e r e g r o u p e d t o g e t h e r - i n p e r c e n t a g e s f o r each s c h o o l and f o r a l l  5.15  Resu l t s of h i e r a r c h i c a l a n a l y s i s schema e f f e c t  of covariance  of variance  98  107 on 110  viii 5.16  5.17  Results of h i e r a r c h i c a l a n a l y s i s of on schema e f f e c t  covariance 111  Results of m u l t i - f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of covariance w i t h r e p e a t e d measures on s t i m u l i p o i n t s n e s t e d i n geop o l i t i c a l groups  113  5.18  Means a n d s t a n d a r d  114  5.19  Results of m u l t i - f a c t o r analysis of covariance ( w i t h RSURGRO) w i t h r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s o n t h e s t i m u l i p o i n t s nested i n g e o - p o l i t i c a l groups  116  Results of a n a l y s i s of variance with repeated m e a s u r e s on t h e p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s ( f o r DIRER)'  120  5.20  5.21  d e v i a t i o n s f o r POLBAR c a t e g o r i e s  Results of a n a l y s i s of covariance  w i t h the distance  error  121  5.22  Signed  (+/-) d i r e c t i o n e r r o r m a t r i x  122  5.23  R e s u l t s o f one-way a n d two-way a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e o n DIRER  124  Results of m u l t i - f a c t o r analysis of covariance w i t h r e p e a t e d measures on s t i m u l i p o i n t s n e s t e d i n g e o - p o l i t i c a l g r o u p s - DIRER  125  Means a n d s t a n d a r d POLBAR c a t e g o r i e s  126  5.24  5.25  d e v i a t i o n s f o r PHYSBAR a n d  L I S T OF FIGURES FIGURE 3.1  3.2  3.3  3.4  5.1  5.2  5.3  PAGE Illustration o f Moore's f i r s t l e v e l o f s p a t i a l cognition: Undifferentiated egocentric reference system  46  Moore's second l e v e l o f s p a t i a l c o g n i t i o n : D i f f e r e n t i a t e d and p a r t i a l l y c o o r d i n a t e d i n t o f i x e d subgroups  46  Moore's t h i r d l e v e l o f s p a t i a l c o g n i t i o n : Operat i o n a l l y c o o r d i n a t e d and h i e r a r c h i c a l l y i n t e g r a t e d  47  I l l u s t r a t i o n o f P a i l h o u s ' s model o f t h e s p a t i a l representation of t a x i drivers i nParis  50  C o m p o s i t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e schemas i d e n t i f i e d i n C a s s e l m a n ( f r o m s i m i l a r i t i e s d a t a SURGRO)  106  C o m p o s i t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e schemas i d e n t i f i e d i n C a s s e l m a n ( f r o m map e x e r c i s e d a t a MAPGRO)  109  Examples o f d i r e c t i o n e s t i m a t i o n the road network (a) and a r i v e r reference lines  119  e x e r c i s e where (b) were used as  5.4  Transformation  5.5  N i n e t y - f i v e (95) percent c o n f i d e n c e estimated l o c a t i o n s - Williamstown  6.1  space o f Williamstown  Frequency of v i s i t  curves  128 zones o f 130 135  X L I S T OF MAPS PAGE Map  1  Region  of study  Map  2  Cultural  Map  3  Stimuli points  62  Map  4  Sampling  64  zones of a r e a of study  points  57 60  xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly,  I would l i k e  t o thank  Ken Denike f o r h i s guidance  throughout  t h i s p r o j e c t and J i m Duncan and Ray C o r t e e n  criticisms  of the e a r l i e r  Beyond t h i s , f i n a n c i a l support  t h e p r o j e c t would have been u n e x e c u t a b l e o f Canada C o u n c i l , T r a n s p o r t  t o t h e many h i g h - s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ,  data c o l l e c t i n g  such a rewarding  Frank Flynn but mostly through  precious e d i t o r i a l  without the  C a n a d a , t h e UBC C e n t r e f o r A l s o , I am  greatly  t e a c h e r s a n d s t u d e n t s who made  and enjoyable experience.  t o Malcolm  the s t a t i s t i c a l  helpful  work.  T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S t u d i e s and t h e Geography D e p a r t m e n t . i n debt  f o rtheir  and support  Thank y o u t o  G r e g f o r h i s p a t i e n c e i n h e l p i n g me  a n a l y s i s and t h a n k y o u t o Donna M c C r i r i c k f o r h e r  comments a n d t o M a g g i e W a t s o n f o r h e r h e l p i n t y p i n g .  But most o f a l l ,  I would l i k e  help with the d r a f t i n g ,  t o thank  K r i s t i w i t h much l o v e .  Her  t h e e d i t i n g and t h e t y p i n g and h e r c o n t i n u o u s  e n c o u r a g e m e n t s made t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h i s merci m i l l e f o i s pour t a presence  thesis possible.  s iprecieuse.  Kristi,  CHAPTER I Introduction  Since  t h e e a r l y 1 9 6 0 ' s g e o g r a p h e r s h a v e become more and  man's o v e r t  and  c o g n i t i v e r e a c t i o n s to the  g e o g r a p h y a r e now  well established fields  t o u n d e r s t a n d how  man  b e h a v e s and  environment. of the  spatial patterns.  migration,  residential mobility, diffusion,  have been p r e o c c u p i e d s p a t i a l behaviors.  2  by  In perception 3  s e n t a t i o n of the environment. r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of behavior  can  Since  o n l y be  CC.  i n s p a c e , and perception 1 9 6 0 ' s by  the  geography evolved K.  Boulding  followed various  (1956),  directions:  on  D.  The  Lowenthal  They these  and  (1961),  repre-  cognitive  o b j e c t i v e environment.  Therefore,  f o r m o f c o g n i t i v e m a p p i n g i s known. "imaginary  research  (1) p e r c e p t i o n  to  studied  reflects his  " C o g n i t i v e Maps and  rapidly.  seeks  e m p h a s i s i s on man's m e n t a l  ( 1 9 1 3 ) e a r l y w o r k on  Tolman's p i e c e  research  consumer b e h a v i o r .  i n d i v i d u a l ' s behavior  understood i f the nature  perception  learning process behind  environment r a t h e r than the  Trowbridge's E.C.  An  geography the  This  geographers have  t r a v e l and the  and  the processes l e a d i n g  Typically, behavioral  d e c i s i o n m a k i n g and  Behavioral  discipline."'"  t h e n c e , what a r e  observable  more i n t e r e s t e d i n  was and  maps" and  R a t s and  orienting  Men"  (1948),  launched i n the K.  Lynch  early  (1960).  of n a t u r a l hazards,"*  (2)  It mental  images of t h e different (4)  c i t y ( i n s p i r e d by L y n c h , ^ and f o l l o w e d b y s i m i l a r s t u d i e s a t 7 8 s c a l e s ) , (3) P. G o u l d ' s m e n t a l map s t u d i e s , and more r e c e n t l y ,  s t u d i e s of  distance  cognition,  o r g a n i z a t i o n o f s p a c e and  (5)  s t u d i e s of the  of the processes of  i n d i v i d u a l ' s mental  c o g n i t i v e m a p p i n g , and  (6)  studies  9 of the development of s p a t i a l This will  cognition.  t h e s i s i s concerned w i t h  examine d i s t a n c e  s p a t i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . More p r e c i s e l y , i t  cognition or people's representations  o b j e c t i v e h e r e i s t o u n d e r s t a n d some o f t h e  1  of separation.  cognitive processes responsible  The for  2 people's mental transformations  of space.  M e a n i n g f u l measures o f d i s t a n c e a r e  needed f o r t h e development o f b e t t e r measures o f a c c e s s i b i l i t y , b e t t e r l a n d u s e models, and b e t t e r s p a t i a l academic l e v e l , of  i f man's s p a t i a l a c t i o n s  cognitive distance  influence spatial go,  dual's  i s c e r t a i n l y worthwhile.  thesis cognitive distance  to stay,  Cognitive their  distance  surrounding  cognitive factors responsible  for  their generality.  space and p l a c e s  Distance  cognition i s believed  i n particular),  through personal  dominant f e a t u r e s  arid  Ontario,  o f space  (their  experience of  (2) p e o p l e ' s ways o f o r g a n i z i n g  categories  that  as w e l l as t h e e x i s t i n g c a t e g o r i e s and  to provide  a better  c o g n i t i o n by i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e i s s u e o f t h e adopted  (a f i e l d where r e s e a r c h  the study of distance  i s almost nonexistent),  cognition with  c o g n i t i v e mapping; and s e c o n d l y ,  originality  images  of the environment.  understanding of distance  integrating  Mental  t o be a f u n c t i o n o f :  t h e s i s h o p e s t o make two c o n t r i b u t i o n s : f i r s t ,  o f space  space, o r  f o r t h e image, a r e c e r t a i n l y w o r t h i n v e s t i g a t i n g  (1) p e o p l e ' s a c t i v e k n o w l e d g e a n d i m p r e s s i o n s  This  i s studied i n  u n i q u e t o each i n d i v i d u a l , b u t t h e p r o c e s s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n and  the  information  directly  t o go, o f where t o  c a s e , how p e o p l e s t r u c t u r e t h e i r r e g i o n a l e n v i r o n m e n t .  are d e f i n i t e l y  on  c o g n i t i o n might  i s v i e w e d a s one e l e m e n t o f t h e i n d i v i -  t e r m s o f how p e o p l e make s e n s e o f a n d o r g a n i z e  metric  Distance  to take."^  comprehensive s p a t i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .  in this  On a more  a r e i n f l u e n c e d by images, t h e n t h e s t u d y  interaction decisions: decisions  and o f what r o u t e In this  i n t e r a c t i o n and l o c a t i o n a l m o d e l s .  of the study's s e t t i n g .  to contribute  b u t m o s t l y , by  t h e more e n c o m p a s s i n g to current  research  work through t h e  Experiments were conducted i n Eastern  i n an a r e a dominated by Ottawa and M o n t r e a l a t e i t h e r end and l o c a t e d  between Quebec and t h e U n i t e d  States  (MAP 1).  The r e g i o n a l s c a l e d f s t u d y i s  i n t e r e s t i n g b e c a u s e i t h a s b e e n somewhat a b a n d o n e d l a t e l y , urban s t u d i e s .  Also,  the population  of this  to the p r o f i t of  a r e a c o n s i s t s o f two d i s t i n c t  g r o u p s , F r e n c h and E n g l i s h C a n a d i a n s , p r o v i d i n g t h e b a s i s f o r an i n t e r e s t i n g c r o s s - c u l t u r a l a n a l y s i s and a l o o k a t t h e impact o f n o t o n l y p h y s i c a l and p o l i t i c a l b a r r i e r s , but also c u l t u r a l b a r r i e r s , space. focus  However, t h i s  latter  interest w i l l  on p e o p l e ' s c o n c e p t i o n  be m o s t l y  e m p i r i c a l as t h e main  o f t h e t h e s i s i s on p s y c h o l o g i c a l r a t h e r than s o c i a l The  l i t e r a t u r e on d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n w i l l  of  be r e v i e w e d  theory. first  (CHAPTER I I ) ,  t h e n my a p p r o a c h p r e s e n t e d  a n d d o c u m e n t e d a t l e n g t h i n CHAPTER I I I .  this theoretical discourse  t h e p a r a m e t e r s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t and t h e methodology  will  be d e s c r i b e d  presented  (CHAPTER I V ) .  and a s s e s s e d  Finally,  Following  the r e s u l t s of the study w i l l  i n CHAPTER V, a n d c o n c l u s i o n s  be  d r a w n i n CHAPTER V I .  CHAPTER I I Cognitive Distance L i t e r a t u r e  Downs a n d S t e a h a v e d e f i n e d b e l i e f s made o r h e l d stored  impressions,  c o g n i t i v e d i s t a n c e as " d i s t a n c e estimates  i n t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e o b j e c t s a n d w h i c h r e l i e s u p o n memory, judgments, and b e l i e f s "  have added t h a t d i s t a n c e e s t i m a t e s ces  t h e m s e l v e s a s much a s t h e y  distance"  "express  represent  i s s e l d o m known a s f a c t ,  needed i n everyday l i f e consistency  they  a complex o f f e e l i n g s about t h e p l a -  a human s c a l i n g o f s i m p l e  geographical  simply because such i n f o r m a t i o n i s not  ( r o a d s i g n s , maps, a n d t h e h i g h  i n the environment provide  f u n c t i o n s on i m p r e s s i o n s ed  (1973, p.317). More r e c e n t l y ,  (1977, p.142).  Distance  and  and  l e v e l of organization  t h e i n f o r m a t i o n when n e e d e d ) . Man  of separation. Cognitive distance i s " f e l t " ,  l i t e r a l knowledge, i f a t a l l present,  q u i c k l y gets  not l e a r n -  d i s t o r t e d i n the expe-  r i e n c e o f s p a c e a n d p l a c e . One may know t h a t two s i t e s a r e e q u i d i s t a n t f r o m home yet a f t e r Distance  traveling  t o e a c h , one p l a c e  cognition i s experientially  subjective:  i ti s particular  (knowledge and i m p r e s s i o n s ) , experience. than they longer  Distances  seems t o b e f a r t h e r away t h a n t h e o t h e r .  d e r i v e d and t h e r e f o r e i n h e r e n t l y h i g h l y  to the i n d i v i d u a l — h i s motives, and t h e c o n t e x t  ( p h y s i c a l and s i t u a t i o n a l ) o f h i s  i n v o l v i n g complex and s t r e s s f u l  t r a v e l w o u l d seem g r e a t e r  a c t u a l l y a r e . The d r i v e r i n a g r e a t h u r r y w o u l d f i n d  than the t y p i c a l  Sunday d r i v e r .  the thesis  distances  much  TABLE 2.1 s u m m a r i z e s t h e f a c t o r s t h a t i n -  f l u e n c e d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n . The i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e s e as  h i s sense of space  factors w i l l  be d i s c u s s e d  progresses.  2.1 C o n c e r n a n d R e s u l t s o f t h e R e s e a r c h The  notion of perceived  distance  ( i . e . distance to objects w i t h i n the reach  >  4  5 TABLE 2.1 Factors influencing distance cognition Cognitive  Environment 1. r e a l d i s t a n c e magnitude ( i n miles, time, or cost) 2. t y p e o f r o u t e ( s c e nery, pace, t r a f f i c , risk, variety) 3. t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r o p e r t i e s (comfort, convenience of t r i p ) 4. a p p e a l , c o m p l e x i t y , i m a g e a b i l i t y (conc e p t u a l form) o f environment 5. t y p e o f d e s t i n a t i o n 6. t y p e a n d number o f barriers (physical, political,cultural) to overcome  Individual  process  ( p r o c e s s o f a c q u i r i n g and processing environmental i n formation through s u b j e c t / object contact) 1. E x p e r i e n c e o f t r i p : -complexity, level of a c t i v i t y , and u n i t y o f traveling task -impression of route, t r a v e l mode a n d t y p e of t r i p  1. a g e , s e x , s o c i o economic c h a r a c t e r istics, l e v e l of mobility, traveling habits 2. d e s i r e o r m o t i v a t i o n t o o v e r c o m e space (purpose of t r i p vs. o p p o r t u n i t i e s foregone)  2. E x p e r i e n c e o f s p a c e a n d places: -knowledge a c q u i r e d ( o r i e n t a t i o n i n space; s i z e , a c t i v i t y , l o o k and char a c t e r o f p l a c e s and their population) -meaning and v a l u a t i o n o f p l a c e s and t h e i r populat i o n , b u t a l s o o f space (regions, areas) i n general (impressions f o r med t h r o u g h d i r e c t e x p e ^ rience, extrapolations from t h a t , and o t h e r i n d i r e c t knowledge)  3. mood a n d c i r c u m stances 4. p r e f e r e n c e s a n d a t t i t u d e s toward obj e c t i v e parameters of space ( d i s t a n c e ) and o f s e p a r a t i o n (time, c o s t , convenience, pleasure)  3. C o g n i t i v e m a p p i n g p r o c e s s e s : - s i m p l i f i c a t i o n and o r g a n i zation of s p a t i a l information  of senses) has a t t r a c t e d  t h e a t t e n t i o n o f p s y c h o l o g i s t s s i n c e t h e 1 9 5 0 ' s . How-  e v e r , r e s e a r c h on d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n o n l y began i n t h e 1960's w i t h t h e work o f T. L e e  (1964)  o n t h e f a c t o r s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s p a c e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , a n d D.L.  Thompson ( 1 9 6 3 ) o n t h e "new c o n c e p t "  of subjective distance to d i f f e r e n t  of s t o r e s . A group from t h e U n i v e r s i t y  of Stockholm  types  (Ekman a n d B r a t f i s c h , 1 9 6 5 ;  B r a t f i s c h , 1 9 6 9 ; L u n d b e r g , 1 9 7 3 , e t c . ) p r o d u c e d a number o f s t u d i e s o n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s u b j e c t i v e d i s t a n c e and e m o t i o n a l  involvement  which  continues  6 to  generate  c r i t i c a l work today  B u t m o s t l y , D. S t e a generated  ( S t a n l e y , 1968, 1971; Walmsley, 1974, 1978).  ( 1 9 6 9 ) , G o l l e d g e , B r i g g s a n d Demko  a l o t of i n t e r e s t  i n the f i e l d  t i o n s o f man's t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f u r b a n (1972), Lowrey and  Staplin  with their  provoking  illustra-  studies followed—Briggs  (1973), C a n t e r and Tagg ( 1 9 7 5 ) , C a d w a l l a d e r  (1976), and S a d a l l a  (1980).  the processes of distance cognition.  problem  thought  space. Major  Most o f these s t u d i e s were n o t t o o concerned of  ( 1 9 6 9 ) a n d T. L e e ( 1 9 7 0 )  of modeling  with theory, the understanding  E m p h a s i s was p l a c e d o n t h e p r a g m a t i c  c o g n i t i v e d i s t a n c e . Most r e s e a r c h e r s have been  interested  in  t h e form o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s u b j e c t i v e and o b j e c t i v e d i s t a n c e and  in  the type of f u n c t i o n that best described that r e l a t i o n s h i p .  B r i g g ' s avowed c o n c e r n was i n i n v e s t i g a t i n g  i f there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t  between r e a l and c o g n i z e d d i s t a n c e i n a c o n t r o l l e d that difference. ble  fruitless  situation  " I f s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s cannot  likely  be demonstrated  difference  t o maximize considera-  r e s e a r c h e f f o r t c a n b e a v o i d e d , a n d t h e c o n t i n u e d u s e o f t h e much  s i m p l e r o b j e c t i v e measures  ( o f d i s t a n c e , i n models of s p a t i a l b e h a v i o r )  r e s t upon a f i r m e r t h e o r e t i c a l  f o u n d a t i o n " (1972,  That concern  modeling  experiments  For instance,  f o r mathematical  p.14) ( p a r e n t h e s i s m i n e ) .  has s e t t h e tone f o r h i g h l y  controlled  on t h e e f f e c t s o f a few f a c t o r s , and f o r l i m i t e d a n a l y s e s  (establishment of f u n c t i o n parameters tend t o be r e p e t i t i v e w i t h t h e i r  will  over aggregated  designs  d a t a ) . These s t u d i e s  e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e same f a c t o r s  i n similar  urban contexts. A r t i c l e s b y G o l l e d g e , B r i g g s a n d Demko Lowrey  (1969), Golledge e t a l . (1976),  (1973), and p a r t o f t h e work o f t h e Stockholm  School have been  ed • w i t h m e t h o d o l o g y . T h e y l o o k e d a t t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y such as v a r i a n t s  s t e p toward  o f new t o o l s o f a n a l y s i s  o f p s y c h o p h y s i c a l and m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g  G o l l e d g e e t a l . have overemphasized a better understanding  concern-  m e t h o d o l o g y when t h e y s t a t e d  procedures. that the f i r s t  o f c o g n i t i v e s p a c e was t o i m p r o v e  "methods  of f i t t i n g forming  g r i d s t o t h e MDS c o n f i g u r a t i o n s ( a n d t o d e v e l o p ) m e t h o d s f o r t r a n s -  ' r e a l ' maps o f C o l u m b u s  obtained  from  ( t h e i r ) sample r e s p o n d e n t s "  i f methods and t e c h n i q u e s  should  the e l a b o r a t i o n o f theory! understanding  (the city)  t o f i t t h e p a r t i c u l a r map p r o j e c t i o n s  (1976, p.112) ( p a r e n t h e s e s  come b e f o r e  Few a u t h o r s  ideas, insight  interesting  Results which r e l a t e  h a v e made a s i g n i f i c a n t  (1972, 1 9 7 3 ) , C a n t e r and Tagg ( 1 9 7 5 ) ,  1970), S a d a l l a and S t a p l i n (1980a, b ) , S t e a ever, \ provided  insights into  1961;  Bratfisch, ledge  t o t h e form o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o g n i t i v e and  1969; G o l l e d g e ,  Briggs  ten different  t h e two v a r i a b l e s  e t a l . , 1976), w h i l e only  f o r one f u n c t i o n o r t h e o t h e r relationship.  Even i f these  done a t d i f f e r e n t  Stapf  relationship.  studies  (Tobler,  a n d Demko, 1 9 6 9 ; Ekman a n d B r a t f i s c h , 1 9 6 5 ;  1969; Lundberg, 1973; B r i g g s , 1973; Lowrey, 1973; B u r n e t t ,  evidence of a l i n e a r  tance  Lee (1963,  the question.  on a c u r v i l i n e a r o r power f u n c t i o n l i n k i n g  Stea,  contri-  ( 1 9 6 9 ) a n d Thompson ( 1 9 6 3 ) h a v e how-  r e a l d i s t a n c e a r e abundant and q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t . A t l e a s t reported  i n t o a problem and  have been i n t e r e s t e d i n g e t t i n g a b e t t e r  of d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n ; fewer s t i l l  b u t i o n . The w o r k o f B r i g g s  mine)—as  (1968),  and C a d w a l l a d e r  C a n t e r and Tagg  1974; G o l -  (1973, 1976) had  ( 1 9 7 5 ) showed no  a n d L e e ( 1 9 7 0 ) o b s e r v e d no s p e c i f i c  preference  trend i n the  s t u d i e s have used d i f f e r e n t methods and have been  geographical  scales there  c o g n i t i o n does i n f a c t v a r y w i t h  r e a l distance but at a decreasing s y s t e m a t i c a l l y underestimated.  i s a m p l e e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t  dis-  scale. Cognitive distance increases  with  r a t e , consequently,  long distances a r e quite  The c a u s e s o f t h i s r e g u l a r i t y however, a r e n o t  so c l e a r , a n d b a s i c a l l y no o n e w o u l d e v e n s p e c u l a t e  on t h a t .  G e n e r a l l y , a t t h e urban and r e g i o n a l s c a l e s , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e two  v a r i a b l e s has been d e s c r i b e d  d i s t a n c e s and they interested tionship  as q u i t e strong  (people  have adequate knowledge  a r e c o n s i s t e n t i n t h e i r e r r o r ) , but the Stockholm  School,  i n w o r l d w i d e s p a c e c o g n i t i o n , h a s a l w a y s o b s e r v e d a v e r y weak r e l a -  (most p e o p l e h a v e no f e e l i n g  f o r such a d i s t a n t and o u t o f p r o p o r t i o n  8 space).  One  should  note however, t h a t such r e l a t i o n s h i p s have been observed  over aggregated data;  these  trends  are not  There i s ample ground f o r q u e s t i o n n i n g s h i p s " .- •"  Finally,  overestimation der,  1973;  the r e l i a b i l i t y  a number o f r e s e a r c h e r s  of d i s t a n c e s  C a n t e r and  to s h o r t e r d i s t a n c e s . Here a g a i n  t h a n an  e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t . That r e s e a r c h has  The  f r a m e w o r k was  f i n d i n g s on  s t i m u l a t i n g . For g o r i e s of "the  2.1).  t o be  "the  not  for distances  no  age  (group of  those  Mobility  i t s e l f , was  stable i n their ing ' a result distances  the  "the  more  explanation.  results.  under the  cognitive  the f a c t o r s p a r t i c u l a r  t o w a r d downtown, an a r e a  likely  but  he  cate-  processes"  estimates  while  ( 1 9 7 3 ) and  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p seems  and  (1974) got  family  Tagg have r e p o r t e d  no  similar  results  income groups c o u l d  from t h e i r higher  found that non-drivers  t e s t has  a great v a r i a b i l i t y  for pro-  l e v e l of m o b i l i t y . were more  been c o n t r o l l e d f o r t r a v e l i n g  strict  do  composition  d r i v e r s t e n d e d t o be m o r e c a r e l e s s — n o t  i n the c i t y . Although  WoLee  i n L e e ' s w o r k women  education  t e s t e d o n l y by L o w r e y . He  individual.  t h e y v i s i t more o f t e n f o r  found that higher  resulting  to the  by L o w r e y  s t r o n g . In Lowrey's study  c o n s i d e r i n g b o t h g r o u p s had  C a n t e r and  greater  especially with  r e s u l t s are presented  s l i g h t l y better estimators  t o 55 y e a r s )  duce b e t t e r e s t i m a t e s ,  i s much  f a c t o r s on d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n a r e more  i n f l u e n c e on c o g n i t i v e d i s t a n c e ; B u r n e t t 21  in  Cadwalla-  left with l i t t l e  to help understand  s h o p p i n g p u r p o s e s . Lowrey a l s o found t h a t age,  and  are  a t t r i b u t a b l e to a d i f f e r e n c e of m o b i l i t y , w h i l e  had  B r i g g s , 1972; there  relation-  trend  been concerned w i t h  e n v i r o n m e n t " , and  b e e n d o n e on  the evidence i s not  better only  level.  1  h a v e b e e n shown t o be  (1970) b u t  1970;  t h o u g h , we  the r o l e of v a r i o u s  individual",  L i t t l e w o r k has men  provided  the sake of c l a r i t y  ( a s u s e d i n TABLE  Lee,  i s for underestimation,  respect  theoretical  have observed a g e n e r a l  (Thompson, 1963;  than there  individual  of such " s t r o n g  Tagg, 1975). C a d w a l l a d e r m a i n t a i n s  leeway f o r o v e r e s t i m a t i o n  No  so c l e a r a t t h e  b e e n made, B r i g g s ,  surpristhe  same  Lowrey,  i n the r e s u l t s a t the i n -  9 dividual level.  This p o i n t s to the uniqueness of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s space  s e n t a t i o n a n d t h e n e e d f o r more a n a l y s i s a t t h a t  repre-  level.  S a d a l l a and S t a p l i n (1980a, b) have s t u d i e d t h e e f f e c t s o f i n f o r m a t i o n conveyed by v a r i o u s  environments. I n a l a b o r a t o r y experiment they  d i s t a n c e s o n p a t h s w i t h more i n t e r s e c t i o n s w e r e o v e r e s t i m a t e d  ( 1 9 8 0 b ) . They c o n f i r m e d  those  that  (1980a),  d i s t a n c e s o n p a t h s a b o u t w h i c h more a t t r i b u t e s ( i n t e r s e c t i n g p a t h remembered  found  as were  names) w e r e  findings i n a "real world"  experiment  w h i c h showed t h a t a r o a d w i t h more i n t e r s e c t i o n s ( s t o p s a n d l i g h t s ) was atically'  overestimated.  storage" model, s t a t i n g  They e x p l a i n e d  their findings with  the "information  t h a t r o u t e s w h i c h p r o v i d e more i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d t h u s  more cues f o r e s t i m a t i n g d i s t a n c e s , w i l l be j u d g e d t o be l o n g e r with less attributes.  system-  This  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n seems t o o s i m p l e .  than  First,  routes  their  macro  space t e s t i s not v a l i d :  a s t r e e t w i t h more i n t e r s e c t i o n s i s a l s o a s t r e e t w i t h  more t r a f f i c  a c t i v i t y , w h i c h p r o d u c e s l e n g t h i e r ( i n t i m e ) a n d more  stressful ticular their  and g e n e r a l  travel.  I t i s therefore impossible  t o draw c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t one p a r -  f a c t o r (amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n s t o r e d ) . M o r e g e n e r a l l y , I w o u l d  theory  to i n d i c a t e that a journey  information i s also a journey b l y a more c o m p l e x j o u r n e y . of a l o n g e r Briggs  a b o u t w h i c h one c a n r e c o n s t r u c t m o r e  t h a t c a n b e s e g m e n t e d i n t o more p a r t s , a n d p o s s i -  This would c e r t a i n l y  contribute to the " i l l u s i o n "  distance. (1972) a l s o l o o k e d  at the e f f e c t of route  type,  arguing  w i t h bends would be j u d g e d as l o n g e r b e c a u s e o f t h e i n c r e a s e d the p e r c e p t u a l and  concluded  extend  t a s k . I n s t e a d , he f o u n d t h a t t h o s e  that  routes  segmentation of  d i s t a n c e s were  underestimated,  t h a t a c e r t a i n " a i r l i n e " v i e w o f space, whereby d i s t a n c e s a r e p e r -  ceived  i n a straight line  looked  a t t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s o f t h e r o u t e and found t h a t  p l e tended t o underestimate As  a trip  f a s h i o n , was i n o p e r a t i o n  (1973, p.190). Stea  distances over a t t r a c t i v e ,  g e t s more i n t e r e s t i n g  differentiated  (1969) peo-  routes.  a t t e n t i o n i s d r a w n away f r o m t h e t a s k o f  over-  10 coming space and o f s e p a r a t i o n i t s e l f .  F i n a l l y , Lowrey  o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e end p o i n t but  Burnett  conforms w i t h those  relative  (1974)  ( d e s t i n a t i o n ) made no d i f f e r e n c e  found that h i s respondents overestimated  This r e s u l t  (1970) and B u r n e t t  distances  to the complexity  to b i g c i t i e s .  of the t r i p  t o be  discussed shortly. F a r more a t t e n t i o n h a s b e e n p u t o n f a c t o r s t i e d as  s u c h — t h e process  surrounding iarity  consistent: distances  to places  ( S t e a , 1969; G o l l e d g e , B r i g g s  (1972) and C a d w a l l a d e r  l a t i o n s h i p s which, they  suggest,  . on t r i p  length to other people,  to  t o s u b s t a n t i a t e these r e -  t o become m o r e o b j e c t i v e . T h i s o c c u r s  planning  l a t e at meeting,  t o b e t t e r known p l a c e s  tend  report-  time budget of the day, being  i n the d i r e c t i o n of the " r e a l " distance. t o be underestimated  as  ex-  t o change  Nevertheless,  compared t o d i s t a n c e s  p o o r l y known p l a c e s . A s a p l a c e g e t s v i s i t e d more o f t e n t h e a c t u a l t a s k o f  the  trip  g r a d u a l l y becomes m o r e a c t i v e a n d i n t e r e s t i n g b e c a u s e o n e c a n c o n c e n -  t r a t e on o t h e r  things than wayfinding.  of i n t e r e s t along road to  (Thompson, 1963; L e e ,  s t r e e t b l o c k s , and v a r i o u s cues) t h a t a r e l i k e l y  impressions  distances  (1976) f a i l  with various s i t u a t i o n s (e.g.a r r i v i n g  posed t o r o a d s i g n s , first  underestimated  e t a l . , '..  may b e due t o t h e i r m e t h o d o l o g y . A s o u r e x p e r -  i e n c e "-' o f d i s t a n c e i n c r e a s e s , we t e n d we a r e c o n f r o n t e d  that are f a m i l i a r are generally  a n d Demko, 1 9 6 9 ; G o l l e d g e  Thompson, 1 9 6 3 ; L e e , 1 9 7 0 ) b u t s t i l l  1970). Only B r i g g s  our  a t the e f f e c t of d e s t i n a t i o n famil-  on d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n ( u s u a l l y u n d e r s t o o d a s a c t i v e k n o w l e d g e ) . The r e -  more a c c u r a t e  ing  process  r e a c t i n g t o , and making sense o u t o f t h e  space. Most s t u d i e s have looked  s u l t s are very  1976;  of experiencing,  to the cognitive  environment  trip).  One g e t s  t h e way a n d i n g e n e r a l , g e t s ( e . g . by o b s e r v i n g  The t r i p  to identify  t o be p a r t o f t h e l i f e  changes b e i n g  becomes more d i v e r s i f i e d  of progressing  done h e r e and t h e r e  and d i s t r a c t i n g .  ment i n s p a c e e x c i t e s t h e a t t e n t i o n a n d c u r i o s i t y impression  landmarks and cues of the from  Therefore,  of the person,  trip  a s move-  gives him the  t o w a r d h i s g o a l , a n d d r a w s h i s a t t e n t i o n away  from  11 the m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of f r i c t i o n o f m o v i n g and pp.  88-89,  ( e . g . i n t e r r u p t i o n s and  t h e a c t u a l d i s t a n c e s w i l l be  d e l a y s of t r i p ) ,  considered  shorter (Fraisse,  of the d e s t i n a t i o n ( s t i m u l i p o i n t ) . Here again  t e n t and Stea  i n a sense,  (1969),  and  1963,  and  desirabil-  the r e s u l t s a r e v e r y c o n s i s -  are complementary to those j u s t  d i s c u s s e d . Thompson  (1963),  Buckman ( 1 9 6 6 ) h a v e shown t h a t d i s t a n c e s t o d e s i r a b l e p l a c e s  are underestimated. direction.  task  94-96).  Many s t u d i e s h a v e l o o k e d a t t h e e f f e c t o f t h e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s o r ity  the  Research  by  the U n i v e r s i t y  of Stockholm  p o i n t s i n the  same  These s t u d i e s looked a t the r e l a t i o n between s u b j e c t i v e d i s t a n c e  emotional  involvement  (EI) to b i g c i t i e s  of the w o r l d under d i f f e r e n t  (SD)  con2  ditions All  of s t i m u l i s e t , d i s t a n c e ranges,  studies confirmed  the r e l i a b i l i t y  i n d e s c r i b i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p . soon q u e s t i o n e d  s c a l i n g m e t h o d s and  groups of s u b j e c t s .  of the " i n v e r s e square r o o t law"  Stanley  ( 1 9 6 8 , 1971)  and  Walmsley  the l e v e l of p r e c i s i o n of the f u n c t i o n , but  not  (EI=1/VSD)  (1974,  the general  • o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h shows t h a t p l a c e s " c l o s e t o h e a r t " a r e a l s o ed,  t o be  emotional it  be  c l o s e i n space. r e a c t i o n make us  before, the higher  i s this relationship  feel spatially  t h a t a t t r a c t i v e n e s s and  k n o w l e d g e ? P l a c e s we  goal,  B u t why  desirability  closer  are j u s t  l i k e a r e u s u a l l y p l a c e s we  tend  p r e f e r ? Or  other e x p r e s s i o n s of 3 to v i s i t .  T h u s , as  imaginsimple could spatial  argued  their  aspects  of experience  we are  e f f e c t on s p a t i a l c o g n i t i o n seems t o be  cumu-  From a t e c h n i c a l s t a n d p o i n t h o w e v e r , t h e e f f e c t s o f k n o w l e d g e and  mean-  i n g s h o u l d be  t o g e t h e r , and  the  p p . 9 3 , 9 4 - 9 6 ) . Where do  d r a w t h e l i n e b e t w e e n k n o w l e d g e and m e a n i n g ? T h e s e two  lative.  Does a  sense  t h e i n t e r e s t and m o t i v a t i o n i n t h e t a s k o f m o v i n g t o w a r d  t h e e a s i e r t h a t movement seems ( F r a i s s e , 1 9 6 3 ,  largely built  so s t r o n g ?  t o p l a c e s we  1978)  tested while controlling  f o r each o t h e r , something t h a t has  not  y e t r i g o r o u s l y been done. In the study  of u r b a n d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n , the i s s u e t h a t has  t h e most a t t e n t i o n has  probably  drawn  been the l o c a t i o n of the d e s t i n a t i o n p o i n t i n r e f e r e n c e  12 t o t h e CBD.  B r e n n a n ( 1 9 4 8 ) and  Lee  (1962) p r o d u c e d e v i d e n c e  t h a t housewives  w o u l d r a t h e r s h o p i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f downtown t h a n away. L e e  (1970),  in his  s t u d y o f C a m b r i d g e , d i s c o v e r e d t h a t women f o r e s h o r t e n e d d i s t a n c e s t o w a r d t o w n . The  CBD  was  thought  of the shops; Lee v a l e n c e . He  t o be more a t t r a c t i v e and  t o women b e c a u s e  i n t r o d u c e d t h e n o t i o n o f t h e downtown schema w i t h i t s p o s i t i v e  a l s o p o i n t e d out  c o r n e r s and w e r e m o r e t i m e that inward  rewarding  t h a t outward journeys  consuming  (consequently  j o u r n e y s w e r e much more f a m i l i a r  (away f r o m CBD)  t o h i s s u b j e c t s . A number o f  c r e a t i n g a l o t of c o n f u s i o n . G o l l e d g e ,  (1969),  and  CBD sity  were o v e r e s t i m a t e d , areas  tended  and W a l m s l e y  t o be  vague f a c t o r ,  s t r e s s and  the d i r e c t i o n  toward  ledge, valence, or the nature not  clear,  and  in fact,  results  been put  the examination  downtown. W h e t h e r we  i n terms of the p r e f e r e n c e s  According  the B r i t i s h  i s viewed very p o s i t i v e l y .  and  factor  t h e A m e r i c a n CBD  k i n d s , numerous a c t i v i t i e s )  i s h i g h l y segmented  and  complex  (Fraisse,  1963,  p.89).  of a r a t h e r  (time, complexity) be  different  In Lee's study,  is  a l lacting explained  c u l t u r e s have f o r  i s seen n e g a t i v e l y whereas  a trip  the  downtown i s  (traffic  lights,  i n t o o v e r e s t i m a t i o n of  i t was  the t r i p s  experienannoying  cues of a l l  ( c o n g e s t i o n t o a v o i d , maze o f  S u c h o b s t a c l e s t o movement a r e t r a n s l a t e d  in  T h i s would e x p l a i n the d i f f e r e n c e s  i s c r u c i a l h e r e a g a i n . I n most c i t i e s  time consuming, t r a v e l i n g  den-  a r e d e a l i n g w i t h know-  i n s p a t i a l c o g n i t i o n . C u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s a s i d e , i t seems t o me tial  the  downtown.  ( 1 9 7 6 ) b e l i e v e s i n t h e v a l e n c e a r g u m e n t . He  urban elements. CBD  into  of the journey  of the t r a v e l experience  to him,  Demko  These w r i t e r s e x p l a i n e d t h e i r r e s u l t s  e l e m e n t s o f t h e t h r e e f a c t o r s and more may  a t t h e same t i m e . R a p o p o r t the d i f f e r e n t  ( 1 9 7 8 ) showed t h a t d i s t a n c e s i n h i g h  time requirement  t o o much e f f o r t h a s  B r i g g s and  ( 1 9 7 3 ) showed t h a t d i s t a n c e s t o w a r d  overestimated.  terms of the c o m p l e x i t y , In a sense,  Cadwallader  North-  s t r a n g e l y , h a v e come up  with opposite results, (1972),  i n v o l v e d more  p e r c e i v e d as l o n g e r ) , and  A m e r i c a n s t u d i e s h a v e i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e same i s s u e and  Briggs  down-  one-ways).  distances  outward t h a t i n v o l v e d  13 more t i m e a n d m o r e a r t i f i c i a l tude toward  t h e CBD  b r e a k s i n t h e t a s k . C e r t a i n l y , k n o w l e d g e and  complement t h i s  t i v e f e e l i n g s which  i n their  e x p l a n a t i o n : bad  atti-  experiences generate  turn generate minimal t r a v e l i n g  nega-  to the point i n  q u e s t i o n . A l l t h e s e f a c t o r s combine t o have a s t r o n g i m p a c t on t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of  space.  A last  type of f a c t o r  o r g a n i z e space as s i m p l i f i e d by L o r d ' s  t o be c o n s i d e r e d s p e c u l a t i v e l y ,  i n t h e i r mind. Lee  (1963)  pushed  compartments of space s i g n i f i c a n t  (1941)  study,  he  found  i s t h e way  t h e i d e a o f schemas o f to the i n d i v i d u a l .  that children divided  their  ma,  one  total  f o r which p h y s i c a l dimensions were i r r e l e v a n t .  space  Inspired  spatial world  i n t o v a r i o u s l o c a l schemas w h i c h b o r e a d e t e c t a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p w o r l d . O u t s i d e t h i s known a r e a t h e r e was  people  to the  physical  schema, t h e " e l s e w h e r e "  sche-  Cox  pur-  and  Zannaras  (1973)  sued t h i s  i d e a by s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e f r a g m e n t a t i o n o f s p a c e i n t o schemas prob-  a b l y * had  a major  tion.  i n f l u e n c e on d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n , b u t a t t e m p t e d no  S t e a (1969)  proposed  investiga-  t h a t p h y s i c a l o r c o n c e p t u a l b a r r i e r s a l s o had an  p a c t on t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f s p a c e . He  im-  showed t h a t t h e number o f b a r r i e r s r a -  t h e r t h a n t h e t y p e o f b a r r i e r m a t t e r e d . D i s t a n c e s w e r e o v e r e s t i m a t e d a s t h e number of b a r r i e r s Finally,  increased.  C a n t e r and Tagg  (1975)  c o n c l u s i v e s t u d y on t h e r e l a t e d investigated ers,,  a v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g , but not  i s s u e of the c o n c e p t u a l form of the c i t y .  the impact of h i g h l y  roads, topography)  produced  l e g i b l e r e f e r e n c e l i n e s of the c i t y  on t h e f o r m o f i m a g e s i n g e n e r a l , a n d  too They  (e.g.  distance  riv-  cogni-  t i o n i n p a r t i c u l a r . These r e f e r e n c e l i n e s were seen as o r g a n i z i n g o r a n c h o r i n g f e a t u r e s o f the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . They found e v i d e n c e o f such an i n f l u e n c e i n G l a s g o w and Tokyo where t h e c i r c u l a r r a i l w a y p l e ' s e s t i m a t e s . The  next chapter w i l l  d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n and  tracks really  gave shape t o peo-  examine more t h o r o u g h l y t h e l i n k s  the o r g a n i z a t i o n of mental  space.  between  u 2.2  Methods Used The  first ask  studies reviewed  difficulties  reflect  certain methodological  i s asking people  how  they  l i n e d i s t a n c e e s t i m a t e ? What f o r m a t  or w r i t t e n ? I f w r i t t e n , estimate?  the  t h i n k about d i s t a n c e s . Should  s h o u l d one  ask  should  for a line  the r a t i o  estimate  Cadwallader,  ( B r i g g s , 1972;  1973;  h o l m S c h o o l ) . The  S a d a l l a and  Staplin,  one  estimate asks  This estimate i s w e l l regarded  tional metrics  ( m i l e , time)  ratio  w a r d e t a l . (1973) u s e d mapping and  crow f l i e s "  e t a l . (1976) asked  increases spatial  left  tric,  Stockeval-  distance index  fam-  the b a s i s  i n v o l v e the  convenhis  to b e t t e r approximate  i n v o l v e s r e l a t i v e judgments ( B r i g g s , f o r d i r e c t mileage  model b u i l d i n g  or time  techniques  estimates.  to d e r i v e  Ho-  distan-  independent of each  other.  f o r an o r d i n a l l e v e l j u d g m e n t . Most w r i t e r s  used f o r l a r g e r s c a l e s , t h i n k i n g  t h a t as  the the  c o g n i t i o n becomes m o r e and more a b s t r a c t . S u c h  t h e t y p e o f e s t i m a t e a r e q u i t e s p e c u l a t i v e and  open f o r s t u d y , not  m o s t s t u d i e s u s e d o n l y one  1973;  to  t h a t r o u t e d i s t a n c e s s h o u l d be u s e d f o r t h e c i t y w h i l e " a s  grounds f o r d e t e r m i n i n g s h o u l d be  s u b j e c t has  as i t d o e s n o t  recommended s i n c e e s t i m a t e s a r e n o t  d i s t a n c e s s h o u l d be  s c a l e of study  Lowrey,  a l l s t u d i e s from the  estimate i s a l s o thought  p.158). Other s t u d i e s have asked  have i n d i c a t e d  been  i t leaves the s u b j e c t q u i t e f r e e to express  the c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s w h i c h most l i k e l y  Only Golledge  and  Demko, 1969;  the m e t r i c of space i s the d i s t a n c e index,  and  numeral  t h e y a l l seem t o w o r k ,  the b a s i s of a predetermined  of comparison.  t h i s i s not  estimate or a  f o r a r e l a t i v e j u d g m e n t . The  Therefore,  s e n s e o f d i s t a n c e . The  and  a  questions t a k e — o r a l  o f t h e m o s t common h a s  1 9 8 0 a , b;  i l i a r '• t o h i m .  ces but  scaling  G o l l e d g e , B r i g g s and  u a t e • t h e d i s t a n c e t o a p l a c e on  1972,  these  A l l t h e s e m e t h o d s and m o r e h a v e b e e n t r i e d ,  y e t t h e y p r o d u c e s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s . One  sue  of  f o r a m i l e , time, or a s u b j e c t i v e m e t r i c estimate, a route d i s t a n c e or  straight  own  p r o b l e m s . One  fixed  i n a d v a n c e by  this i s -  the r e s e a r c h e r . A l s o ,  p a r t i c u l a r m e t r i c . R e s u l t s v a r y w i t h the type of  t h e r e f o r e , as many a s p o s s i b l e s h o u l d be  used to permit  investigation  meof  15 the  d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n them.  Objective  measures o f d i s t a n c e  t i m e ) h a v e s i m i l a r l y b e e n u s e d a s i f t h e r e was o n l y compare t o . V a r i o u s reality  o b j e c t i v e measures should  the estimates  A very gregation  serious  the  of the data.  only very showed  the previous  Most a n a l y s e s  estimates,  studies  lies  i n the l e v e l of ag-  t h e whole sample o r subgroups o f  of residence,  mobility, etc.).  Only  Cadwallader  ( 1 9 7 2 , 1 9 7 6 ) , a n d G o l l e d g e e t a l . ( 1 9 7 6 ) ( b u t t h e l a t t e r two  s l i g h t l y ) were c o n c e r n e d w i t h  that  be used t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h  h a v e b e e n done w i t h means o r m e d i a n s o f  aggregating  sample (based on s e x , l e n g t h  (1976), Briggs  one p o s s i b l e r e a l i t y t o  are closer to.  problem w i t h  individual distance  ( i n mileage or  conclusions  the i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l of a n a l y s i s .  a r e n o t as c l e a r and s t a b l e a t t h a t  level.  They  When a g g r e -  g a t e measures a r e used most o f t h e v a r i a t i o n i n t h e d a t a i s c u t o u t and i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s thus overlooked.  Behavioral  and p e r c e p t i o n  geography arose  i n r e a c t i o n t o t h e e l a b o r a t i o n o f s i m p l i s t i c m o d e l s o f man, w i t h i n t e n t i o n o f e x p l o r i n g a n d t a k i n g man i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n . not  account d i r e c t l y  f o r the individual's reactions  The l a s t m e t h o d o l o g i c a l analysis.  difficulty  Analysis  i s not  t o be c o n s i d e r e d  How c a n o n e i n v e s t i g a t e a q u e s t i o n  modeling the r e a l d i s t a n c e / c o g n i t i v e and  therefore  few o u t s i d e  a n a l y s i s were used a very  (mostly  t i g h t experiment  acceptable. of the  i n v o l v i n g s o many known a n d How c a n o n e a c c o u n t  Most s t u d i e s have been p r e o c c u p i e d distance  function f i t t i n g ) .  ( c a r e f u l choice  two v a r i a b l e s  regression  lines f o r the various  with  r e l a t i o n s h i p i n a few s i t u a t i o n s ,  Briggs,  f o r example, has performed  of stimuli points  and sample) i n o r d e r  ( d i r e c t i o n v s . CBD a n d t y p e o f r o u t e ) a n d t h e n f i t situations studied.  w e l l d e s i g n e d and they have v e r y  The l a t t e r  does  f a c t o r s were i n v e s t i g a t e d , and q u i t e r i g i d methods o f  to i s o l a t e  not  that  i s the design  unknown v a r i a b l e s a n d i s o l a t e t h e e f f e c t o f e a c h v a r i a b l e ? f o r a s many v a r i a b l e s a s p o s s i b l e ?  the major  a r e o f t e n assumed  little  t o be c o n s t a n t  B u t most s t u d i e s  c o n t r o l over outside  were  variables.  e v e n when t h e s a m p l e s i z e i s v e r y  16 small  (Cadwallader,  Stanley, terest ous  1968,  1976;  1971;  i s i n understanding  M e t r i c of do  Space  t h e phenomenon I w i l l  using  an  When one  of  t h i n k i n g o r do  the  l e v e l of  surement i s not  o n l y be  t o p o l o g i c a l space  no  general  enclosure  transform.  a strong  generally  that l e v e l  Lynch  and  between p l a c e s ?  the  (terminology  those of  ( 1 9 6 0 , p.87)  r e a l l y been a d d r e s s e d .  The  exists.  of P i a g e t ,  according  r e f e r r e d to  un-  places.  the  des-  observed  underlays  i t . The  topological level,  space,  that  only  inter-  "neighborhoodness", d i v i s i o n ,  order,  p.43). B a s i c a l l y ,  i s no more t h a n an  in a  a  point  sequence  order-preserving  t h a t h i s m e n t a l maps, h o w e v e r d i s t o r t e d , respect  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . Lowrey  really  1 9 4 7 - 1 9 6 0 ) mea-  Unlike Euclidean  e x t r e m e l y good knowledge o f t h e o r d e r  the  the  to i t s neighbors or ordered  c o g n i t i v e map  s o m e t h i n g t h a t nobody e l s e has Following  they f a -  p l a c e , or the p o s i t i o n of  element of t o p o l o g i c a l i n v a r i a n c e w i t h  an  Do  to  separation  c o n t i n u i t y ( P i a g e t , 1956,  t r u e o f a l l m e n t a l map  s u b j e c t s had  effect  t o m i n d — t h e number o f m i l e s , m i n -  system of r e f e r e n c e  positioned i n reference  of p l a c e s . At  numer-  points?  point r e l a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d are surroundings,  in-  sample.  have not  to a reference  p o s s i b l e s i n c e no m e t r i c  space i s e l a s t i c ,  e f f e c t of  i n d i v i d u a l when e s t a b l i s h i n g s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o  i n a sequence of the  the  they measure s e p a r a t i o n  t h i n k s o f a d i s t a n c e w h a t comes f i r s t  tination  School;  attempt to minimize the  random  s c a l e ? Those q u e s t i o n s  . or hours, the p r o x i m i t y  At  important  Stockholm  T a g g , 1 9 7 5 ) . S i n c e my  consider  of space i s a u n i t of measurement of s p a t i a l  c o n s c i o u s l y by  had  C a n t e r and  people measure or account f o r d i s t a n c e s  a p a r t i c u l a r way  metric  can  Demko, 1969;  Issue  s i t u a t i o n or s p a t i a l  utes  1978;  and  . v a r i a b l e s t h r o u g h m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s and  How vor  Briggs  W a l m s l e y , 1974,  o f o u t s i d e v a r i a b l e s by  2.3  Golledge,  tested  to r e a l i t y .  This  ( 1 9 7 3 ) showed t h a t  of d i s t a n c e s  is his  to  places,  l e v e l where r e f e r e n c e  objects  since.  comes t h e  17 a r e u s e d as u n i t v a l u e , and j e c t s may  be  (concessions)  to the i n d i v i d u a l :  c i g a r e t t e s o r f o r one  l a p s e of h a b i t u a l a c t i o n s  most i m p o r t a n t ,  to Montreal"  then  c a l l e v e l but  experienced  the time  estimate  two  d i s t a n c e s . In the  o r " S e a t t l e i s t w i c e as  latter  f a r as  f o r that reason,  as  functions daily  i n that world. lives.  " I t ' s 140 m i l e s  to r e a l i t y )  h i s s t u d y by  t e r w h i c h f a c t o r was  than  time  the r a t i o  s a y i n g t h a t the time  introduced. This  ( r o a d s i g n s , maps,  But  i s preferred  the time m e t r i c  Time r u l e s our  day,  we  s l e e p i n g t i m e s , and " I t ' s a two  i s also have  times  hour t r i p  traffic  to  estimates  congestion,  etc.  seemed s l i g h t l y  bet-  estimate. Also, Burnett  (1974)  e s t i m a t e s w e r e q u i t e s t a b l e no  shows t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f t h a t m e t r i c  a good s e n s e of s e p a r a t i o n . L i t t l e  to  t o V a n c o u v e r " , i n c l u d i n g as i t  c o n d i t i o n s , v e h i c l e type,  ( 1 9 7 6 ) f o u n d t h a t t h e m i l e and  t e r known ( c l o s e r  erties  ra-  a l s o more s o p h i s t i c a t e d .  convey a c l e a r sense of e f f o r t .  does c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f road  conveying  as,  Bellingham".  m i g h t assume s u c h a m e t r i c  to meet, m e e t i n g s t o a t t e n d , l u n c h t i m e s ,  V a n c o u v e r " means a l o t more t h a n  concluded  one  i t i s so much p a r t o f o u r  U n i t s of time  Cadwallader  (land-  of "neighborhoodness" of the t o p o l o g i -  m e t r i c s a r e m o r e c o n v e n t i o n a l and  t h e i n d i v i d u a l who  spare!  two  at a d e s t i n a t i o n ) , range  m i l e or k i l o m e t e r i s the m e t r i c of the organized world  deadlines  be  discussed previously.  last  very popular  or  for  a l s o i n v o l v e s a m e t r i c . I t i s the b a s i s f o r the very popular  c a r o d o m e t e r s ) and by  arriving  (e.g.  p r o v i d e a r e l a t i v e judgment such  T h i s judgment f o l l o w s from the r e l a t i o n s  The  ob-  i n t h e r u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t . A l s o , t h e y may  f a m i l i a r p l a c e ) ; people  "Ottawa i s h a l f - w a y  The  d i s t a n c e s . Such  t h e m e t r i c o f s p a c e becomes t h e known d i s t a n c e t o a p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t  mark, cue,  tio  space to estimate  c a s s e t t e of music before  o f p h y s i c a l c a p a c i t i e s , and case,  over  p a r t of the environment: b l o c k s , house numbers, avenue system,  land d i v i s i o n system particular  repeated  e l s e h o w e v e r , i s known o f t h e  matin prop-  of the v a r i o u s m e t r i c s .  In c o n c l u s i o n , I would l i k e  to b r i n g back the i s s u e of the route v s .  straight  18 l i n e distance estimate.  Indirectly  of e x p r e s s i o n of e i t h e r  the m i l e , time or r a t i o  goes" e s t i m a t e  related  to the m e t r i c i s s u e , i t i s the e s t i m a t e s . The  i s much more s o p h i s t i c a t e d b e c a u s e i t i s t i e d  of the network. I t i s i n d i c a t i v e of e i t h e r l i t e r a l o r o f a v e r y a c t i v e and of t r i p s a b s t r a c t way  the  route  down t o t h e  knowledge (which  detail  i s unlikely)  a t t e n t i v e knowledge of a r o u t e , p o s s i b l e o n l y i n the  done r e g u l a r l y .  The  "as  case  t h e . c r o w f l i e s " e s t i m a t e r e f l e c t s more o f  an  o f t h i n k i n g o f s p a c e when k n o w l e d g e i s i m p e r f e c t . I t i s t y p i c a l  of  l o n g d i s t a n c e s where the d e t a i l of a r o u t e i s h a r d ( 1 9 7 5 , p.63)  "as  level  make t h i s  interesting  t o remember. C a n t e r  and  Tagg  observation:  C r o w f l i g h t e s t i m a t e s may be d r a w n more d i r e c t l y f r o m some a b s t r a c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l p r o c e s s w h i c h t h e p e r s o n has d e v e l o p e d . A d m i t t e d l y t h i s p r o c e s s may be b u i l t u p o n many e x p e r i e n c e s , s u c h a s t r a v e l l i n g a b o u t t h e c i t y , b u t c r o w f l i g h t e s t i m a t e s s h o u l d e n a b l e us t o d e a l w i t h the g e n e r a l r e s i d u e of t h i s e x p e r i e n c e , r a t h e r than i t s p a r t i c u l a r manifestations.  Yet  Briggs  ( 1 9 7 2 ) and  "crow" e s t i m a t e s  over  Howard e t a l . (1973) p r o v i d e i n d i c a t i o n s o f p r e f e r r e d r a t h e r short d i s t a n c e s w i t h i n the c i t y .  I would say  t h e m i l e o r t i m e m e t r i c s a r e much m o r e o f t h e l e v e l o f s o p h i s t i c a t i o n o f r o u t e e s t i m a t e . M i l e and a c t u a l process  time m e t r i c s are experienced  of overcoming the f r i c t i o n  d i s t a n c e s would probably  of the road  be b e t t e r e s t i m a t e d  at ground l e v e l ,  that the  i n the  system, t h e r e f o r e , route  i n m i l e s o r t i m e . On  the other  hand,  c r o w d i s t a n c e s s h o u l d be b e t t e r e s t i m a t e d w i t h t h e " i n d e x d i s t a n c e " m e t r i c ( r a tio  e s t i m a t e ) . One  can  t h i n k of these  " i n d e x d i s t a n c e s " as y a r d s t i c k s t h a t  i n d i v i d u a l moves o v e r h i s m e n t a l s p a c e o f r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n s i n o r d e r the comparative  judgments. T h i s c o g n i t i v e process  the m i l e or time u n i t  i t e r a t i o n process  presentational a b i l i t i e s  (building  course,  less  i s more t h e p r o d u c t  perform  flexible  than  of a b s t r a c t r e -  t h e i m a g e o f i m p e r f e c t l y known r e a l i t y )  o f t h e r e c o l l e c t i o n o f a p r e c i s e l y known Of  and  i s probably  to  the  than  reality.  the b i g q u e s t i o n t o answer b e h i n d  a l l that concerns  the  geomet-  19 f i c a l .nature  of c o g n i t i v e space: i s i t t o p o l o g i c a l ,  mediate level?  l e v e l a t a r o u n d 6 y e a r s . He  t u a l - s c a l e s p a c e and largely a cultural  i t most c o n v e n i e n t  i n our  ious  geometry i s  s c h o o l and  of E u c l i d e a n have to opt  p r o p e r t i e s over  f o r an  Cognition How  r e s u l t s presented  a b o v e , i n a c o m p r e h e n s i v e and  c o n v i n c i n g way? Up  been e s s e n t i a l l y pragmatic  "experimental  still  the  alternative.  c o g n i t i v e distance estimates?  t h a t we  there-  cognitive  generate  i n t e r e s t has result  through  percep-  e v e r y d a y c o n t a c t s w i t h s o l i d b o d i e s . On  of n o n - c o n s e r v a t i o n  Mechanisms of D i s t a n c e do we  however d e a l i n g w i t h  are c o n d i t i o n e d to E u c l i d  s p a c e i s s o s t r o n g t h a t i t i s c l e a r we  How  was  not m a c r o - s c a l e space. I n g e n e r a l , E u c l i d e a n  f a c t : we  o t h e r hand e v i d e n c e  2.4  inter-  P i a g e t shows t h a t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f s p a t i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n r e a -  ches the E u c l i d e a n  fore find  e u c l i d e a n ' o r o f some  h a v e no  theory  model of c o n c e p t u a l  ( m o d e l i n g ) and  on w h i c h t o g u i d e  s p a c e " was  to account f o r the  methodological, research.  var-  to  now  with  the  Stea's  r e a l l y n o t h i n g more t h a n a  (1969) frame-  work w i t h i n w h i c h to c o n s i d e r the c o g n i t i o n of d i s t a n c e , a framework u s e f u l i n suggesting  factors likely  t i o n of the p r o c e s s . generating  to i n f l u e n c e s p a t i a l c o g n i t i o n but  Briggs  ( 1 9 7 2 , 1973)  cognitive distance 1. m o t o r y r e s p o n s e : 2.  time  and  4.  t h e amount o f p h y s i c a l e n e r g y e x p e n d e d i n m o v i n g  velocity:  the knowledge of the mathematical and  relationships  distance  ( o r l a n d m a r k s ) on  the route from A  between  to B  p a t t e r n s i n the s t r u c t u r e of the environment: l i k e b l o c k s or fic  5.  f i v e p o s s i b l e mechanisms f o r  p e r c e p t i o n : the a d d i t i o n of a l l the p e r c e i v e d d i s t a n c e s places  explana-  estimates:  between time, v e l o c i t y , 3.  suggested  lacking in  traf-  lights  symbolic  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s : r e l i a n c e on maps, r o a d s i g n s ,  and  ( B r i g g s , 1973,  the  like  p.187)  20 Although  B r i g g s has  circumstances  he  recognized  suggested that "perception"  b a s e d on v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n : ible  processes  jacent pairs;  lieved  of the d i s t a n c e s  segments and  that factors influencing perceived  t e n d s t o be  concentrated  on  first  w o u l d be  the  hypothesis longer  r o u t e s w o u l d a l s o be  as  summarize, i t i s from  be-  successive, as  the  sum  this  view  distance  objective distance increases,  the c o g n i t i v e d i s t a n c e w i l l  t o w a r d t h e CBD  and  the second hypothesis  be  and  ( i . e . one  designed  his  t o be  land-use  identified)  t h a t d i s t a n c e s over bended  ( s i n c e more b e n d s means p o t e n t i a l l y more  t o t a l distance). His  has  experiment  (where the h i g h  first  hypothesis  seriously contradicted his mechanistic  p . 1 6 1 ) e v e n when he h a d earth" estimates  not  addition  i m p l i c a t i o n of  over long d i s t a n c e s ) . Briggs  overestimated  d i s t a n c e s were e s t i m a t e d  specific  important  by  ad-  was  link-  confirmed  not.  Those r e s u l t s  perceive  To  simultan-  upon t h e s e  points i s obtained pairs.  divis-  d i s t a n c e must a l s o i n f l u e n c e c o g n i t i v e  that distances  n o d e s , more d i v i s i o n o f t h e h i s s e c o n d was  then operate  t i m e o f t r a v e l a l l o w s more l i n k - n o d e s  overestimated,  is  t h e number o f s e g m e n t s i n t o w h i c h t h e s p a c e b e t w e e n  l e s s chance to underestimate  d e n s i t y and  can  seen  the e m p i r i c a l evidence t h a t p e r c e i v e d  p o i n t s i s d i v i d e d , the g r e a t e r  upon the  process  t o t a l distance i s estimated  p r o g r e s s i v e l y underestimated  suggested t h a t the g r e a t e r  is  the  The  different  p o i n t s i s a s s u m e d t o be  i s reconstructed  i n v o l v e d i n e a c h s e g m e n t . An  distance. Briggs  to  distant places  under  p a i r s o f w h i c h can be  d i s t a n c e s between the l i n k - n o d e  separately perceived  but  s p a c e b e t w e e n two  of d i s t a n c e p e r c e p t i o n  t h e s p a c e b e t w e e n two  operate  i s most c r i t i c a l .  c o g n i t i v e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e end  of the p e r c e i v e d  two  the  -in a s e r i e s of " l i n k - n o d e s " , a d j a c e n t  e o u s l y . - The  is  a l l m e c h a n i s m s may  i n an  abstract, straight line  asked f o r "best  h i s m o d e l was  asking  m o d e l . He  fashion  route" estimates,  (Briggs,  the  individual  cues, but  a t t e n t i v e to the p o i n t of p e r c e i v i n g d i s t a n c e s between these  he  that  1972,  denying the very  f o r . When t r a v e l i n g  f e a t u r e s of the environment or s p e c i f i c  showed  "down may  certainly  points,  or  21u l t i m a t e l y p u t t i n g a l l those g l o b a l image. D i s t a n c e it  perceived  c o g n i t i o n has  i s based upon i m p r e s s i o n s  from memories of p e r c e i v e d do w i t h t h e  complexity  To  the  very  little  (of moving, p a r k i n g , w a l k i n g , to the v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n  list,  to introduce  Rapoport  t o t h e CBD  etc.)  and  the  perception: and  has  not  just  more t o  slow  progress  of numerous segments  (1976) has  suggested t h a t the  of  the  c e r t a i n l y not  S t a p l i n (1980a,  " i n f o r m a t i o n s t o r a g e m o d e l " . The  (1973) s u g g e s t i o n  i n f o r m a t i o n an  differ-  a s i x t h m e c h a n i s m . I t seems  t h e s t u d i e s o f S a d a l l a and  evidence supporting  b a s e d on M i l g r a m ' s  t h e amount o f  the t r i p  t h i s as a f a c t o r o f d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n b u t  a g e n e r a l mechanism. F i n a l l y ,  is  of  the  way.  complete Briggs's  have p r o v i d e d  to r e c o n s t r u c t  t o do w i t h d i s t a n c e  overestimation  e n t i a l ' ' a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of d e s t i n a t i o n s provide right  together  developed from a l l aspects  s e g m e n t s . The  toward the g o a l t h a n i t has space along  distances  t h a t s p a t i a l d i s t o r t i o n s may  i n d i v i d u a l has  s t o r e d about a  as  b)  model reflect  region:  R e g i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h more i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d h y p o t h e t i c a l l y be c o g n i z e d as l a r g e r t h a n r e g i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l e s s i n f o r m a t i o n . A p p l y i n g t h i s model to r o u t e s t r u c t u r e would l e a d to the p r e d i c t i o n t h a t r o u t e s w i t h more s t o r e d a t t r i b u t e s ( s u c h a s t u r n s o r i n t e r s e c t i o n s ) w o u l d be e s t i m a t e d as l o n g e r t h a n r o u t e s o f e q u i v a l e n t l e n g t h w i t h f e w e r s t o r e d a t t r i b u t e s . ( 1 9 8 0 b , p. 185) Laboratory  e x p e r i m e n t s h a v e shown t h a t p a t h s w i t h m o r e i n t e r s e c t i o n s o r  m o r e m e m o r i z e d a t t r i b u t e s (name o f s t r e e t s ) a r e Their  theory  submitted  simply  p o i n t s t o some k i n d o f  t o w h i l e he m e n t a l l y  which presents plex  i t might be,  previous high  more b r e a k s . and  the  e f f e c t m i g h t be  are  the  as  longer.  i n d i v i d u a l would  present  but  The  longer  more d i v i d e d t h e  recon-  journey  t a s k o f m o v i n g , t h e more com-  i t seems. V i e w e d t h i s way,  overestimated.  be  further interpre-  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h more i n f o r m a t i o n i s a  r e s u l t s w h i c h showed t h a t t r i p s  density area  illusion  recognized  r e t r a v e r s e s t h e p a t h w a y i n an a t t e m p t t o  s t r u c t cues f o r d i s t a n c e . Such an t a t i o n i s required. A journey  indeed  with  the s t u d i e s  t o l a r g e c e n t r e s , downtown, o r  confirm any  22 All  those  m e c h a n i s m s a p p e a r t o be v e r y  v i d e a g l o b a l e x p l a n a t i o n of the process s e p a r a t i o n has  nothing  of  time  travel with  r e s t r i c t e d h o w e v e r , and  This  but  review  t o do w i t h u s i n g a map  ( m e c h a n i s m 2 ) ; i t may  clarified  some a s p e c t s  s t u d i e s showed t h a t i t i s " f e l t " o n l y an a p p r o x i m a t i o n tortion:  and  one  problem.  o f c o g n i t i v e d i s t a n c e . Numerous  subjective: cognitive distance i s  t o t h e CBD  and  and  individual  f a c t o r s , the nature  dis-  of  the  a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of the d e s t i n a t i o n , i t s  finally,  the. i n d i v i d u a l ' s m e n t a l  common d e n o m i n a t o r e m p h a s i z e d was  t h e amount and  nature  of t h a t e x p e r i e n c e .  the a c t i v e experience  Many w r i t e r s h a v e p o i n t e d  i m p o r t a n c e o f t h a t d i m e n s i o n . P i a g e t ' s w r i t i n g s ( 1 9 4 7 , 1960,  been almost o b s e s s i o n a l b u i l t up is  to the  infor-  organiza-  space.  The  tical  other  a t t r a c t i v e n e s s , and  global outlook  speed  o f r e a l i t y . Many f a c t o r s seemed t o i n f l u e n c e s p a c e  p h y s i c a l environment, f a m i l i a r i t y  t i o n of  very  the d i s t a n c e magnitude i t s e l f ,  position in relation  no  the  pro-  about  (mechanism 5 ) , or r e l a t i n g  h a v e s o m e t h i n g t o do w i t h  such elements provide  has  not  of d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n . T h i n k i n g  mechanisms, e s p e c i a l l y motor r e s p o n s e , d i f f e r e n t i a l mation storage,  do  in their reiteration  of out  space, the  1966)  have  that s p a t i a l representations  are  t h r o u g h t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f a c t i o n s p e r f o r m e d on o b j e c t s i n s p a c e .  also very  d e f i n i t e on  that  cri-  Tuan  matter:  The m e a n i n g o f d i s t a n c e i s as v a r i e d a s i t s e x p e r i e n t i a l modes: we a c q u i r e t h e f e e l o f d i s t a n c e by t h e e f f o r t o f m o v i n g f r o m one p l a c e t o a n o t h e r , by t h e n e e d t o p r o j e c t o u r v o i c e , by h e a r i n g t h e d o g s bark a t n i g h t , and by r e c o g n i z i n g t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l c u e s f o r v i s u a l p e r s p e c t i v e . (1977, pp.15-16) Estimates of longer f o r t . (1977, p.45) Downs a n d  distances  d r a w on  the experience  and  idea of  ef-  S t e a h a v e s t r e s s e d t h e same i d e a s :  C o g n i t i v e d i s t a n c e e s t i m a t e s r e f l e c t much more t h a n t h e s i m p l e g e o g r a p h i c a l s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n p l a c e s on t h e e a r t h ' s s u r f a c e . T h e y a r e one r e s u l t o f t h e a t t e m p t by c o g n i t i v e m a p p i n g t o s y n t h e s i z e a v a r i e ty of s p a t i a l e x p e r i e n c e s . . . . A l l of these e x p r e s s i o n s of d i s t a n c e ( n e a r - f a r , t i m e , m i l e a g e , e t c . ) a r e b a s e d on t h e human s c a l e o f e x p e r -  23 ience; .They c a l i b r a t e d i s t a n c e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e human e x p e n d i t u r e of e f f o r t t h a t i s needed t o overcome t h e s e p a r a t i o n between p l a c e s : Man i s t h e m e a s u r e . ( 1 9 7 7 , p.141) ( p a r e n t h e s i s m i n e ) Yet  t o i n s i s t on e x p e r i e n c e  c o n s i d e r how  the i n d i v i d u a l  a n d k n o w l e d g e o f s p a c e i s n o t e n o u g h . One  d e a l s w i t h a l l t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n , how h e  k n o w l e d g e i n h i s m i n d . The p r e l i m i n a r y r e s e a r c h Tagg h a s p r o v e n t o b e m o s t In the next chapter Piaget, I w i l l spatial  I will  i n d i c a t e why  cognition. Finally,  formation  a n d how  this  inspiring  of Lee, Stea,  my  and C a n t e r  p o s i t i o n more f u l l y .  a c t i o n s and n o t p e r c e p t i o n s  and  speculate  In the l i g h t of  are at the source  of  on t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f s p a t i a l i n -  r e l a t e s to d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n , borrowing from the c o g n i -  t i v e m a p p i n g a n d d e v e l o p m e n t a l l i t e r a t u r e , t h e m e n t a l map structural  organizes  here.  present  I will  must  models of c o g n i t i v e space.  s t u d i e s , and t h e few  CHAPTER I I I The  In t h i s  chapter I w i l l  which u n d e r l i e distance  discuss  cognition.  man t r a n s f o r m s t h e s p a c e t h a t  Thesis  some i m p o r t a n t p s y c h o l o g i c a l  The o b j e c t i v e h e r e i s t o u n d e r s t a n d  surrounds him.  has  information  extracted  "psychological  (Kaplan,  Kaplan a person  1972, p . 3 ) . Moore and G o l l e d g e t a l k o f  f r o m t h e l a r g e r e n v i r o n m e n t a s e x i s t i n g i n some t y p e o f  space" o r "mental c o n f i g u r a t i o n "  Other researchers  have been u s i n g  expressions  (Moore and G o l l e d g e ,  like  e x i s t e d i n t h e mind.  1976).  " m e n t a l maps", " t h e  g e o g r a p h y i n men's m i n d s " , a n d t h e " c o g n i t i v e a t l a s " , actually  spaces.  t h e c o g n i t i v e map a s " t h e s t r u c t u r e t h a t h o l d s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n  about h i s environment"  how  In the past a s t r u c t u r a l  approach has o f t e n been taken t o t h e study o f conceptual defines  processes  a s i f a p h y s i c a l map  My m a i n i n t e r e s t i s i n how p e o p l e t h i n k  t h e i r r e g i o n a l e n v i r o n m e n t a n d how t h e y c o n c e p t u a l i z e  about  and  organize  separation.  The  m o t i v e i s n o t t o come t o a d e s c r i p t i v e a c c o u n t o f t h e c o g n i t i v e map, b u t t o  come t o a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e m e n t a l p r o c e s s e s b e h i n d c o g n i t i v e m a p p i n g . As  Downs p u t s i t , " C o g n i t i v e  maps a r e g e n e r a t e d t o s e r v e a s p e c i f i c p u r p o s e a n d  do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y " e x i s t " a s a g i v e n sets of information (1976, p.68).  3.1  quite  maps"  unclear.  Cognition  i s a collective  term f o r t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l  t h e a c q u i s i t i o n , o r g a n i z a t i o n and use o f knowledge  attention, problem-solving,  What d o e s e x i s t a r e  or h e u r i s t i c s f o r generating  How t h e s e " r u l e s " o p e r a t e i s s t i l l  Mechanisms o f S p a t i a l Cognition  in  and s e t s o f r u l e s  s t r u c t u r a l form.  processes  ( i . e . perception,  language, t h i n k i n g , imagery).  More  memory,  specifically  s p a t i a l c o g n i t i o n u s u a l l y r e f e r s t o t h e knowledge and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  24  involved  of the  25 elements  ( e n t i t i e s ) and  space i n thought.  relations  I t i n v o l v e s the  of space, or study  a b o u t how  environmental The and  the  the environment.  i n d i v i d u a l experiences  information surrounding  r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of  of images, i m p r e s s i o n s ,  the s u b j e c t i v e meanings t h a t p e o p l e have of questions  to the  him,  s p a c e and  m u s t be  beliefs  Some a n s w e r s  how  he  Werner, Kaplan,  i s c o n s t r u c t e d by  and  other  an  active subject  his  theory  and  one  e m p i r i c a l work, and  of space c o g n i t i o n i n p a r t i c u l a r —  man  This  h i g h l y o r i g i n a l theory  chapter  will  briefly  f u n c t i o n i n g as w e l l as ideas  on  calls  t h e o r e t i c a l and intellectual attitudes  experimental  other value  area of i n t e l l i g e n c e . crucial  ontogenetic  perceptual  the  development.  and  general  Piaget's role  d e s c r i b e d by  F l a v e l l as,  "the  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the q u a l i t a t i v e development Piaget  researched  perception,  h i s m a j o r c o n t r i b u t i o n has  o f a d u l t human b e h a v i o u r .  culture.  of  "intuition").  c a r e f u l d e s c r i p t i o n and  been i n  Piaget's  H i s main o b j e c t of i n q u i r y i s  i s c h r o n o l o g i c a l age.  He  does not  the change  developmental  t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s of  The  of  moral  of ontogenetic  t o more a d v a n c e d ways o f f u n c t i o n i n g .  concerned with  Piaget.  containing  emphasize  fundamental nature  f i r m l y b e l i e v e s t h a t the study  states i n a given  change from p r i m a r y really  roughly  systems but  t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  approach i n v o l v e s the  is  He  enormous l i t e r a t u r e  above a l l , w i l l  spatial  s t r u c t u r e s " (1963, p.15).  and  an  of  development  s y s t e m , i t s c o n t r i b u t i o n and  i t s l i m i t a t i o n s , but  (what h e  above a l l f o r the d e t a i l  o f i n t e l l e c t u a l and  examine P i a g e t ' s  P i a g e t ' s m a j o r i n t e r e s t was  is  created  of  Bentley,  the developmental p s y c h o l o g i s t Jean  t h e m e c h a n i s m s o f c o g n i t i o n , and  space r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  out  Piaget,  Supporters  h i s comprehensive a n a l y s i s of the  F o r more t h a n f o r t y y e a r s , P i a g e t h a s a b r o a d and  stands  subject  ( p o s i t i o n of  c o g n i t i v e developmental t h e o r i s t s ) .  Werner,'' b u t  the  sought.  t h a t n e o - K a n t i a n e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n i n c l u d e Mead, Dewey a n d Whorf, and  to  deals with  problem of knowledge i s the problem of the r e l a t i o n between  object: r e a l i t y  and  successive behaviour  only v a r i a b l e  deal with  he  independent  26 variables  (i.e.  sociocultural factors, personality,  intelligence, previous  e x p e r i e n c e , e t c . ) w h i c h c o u l d a f f e c t b e h a v i o u r s , a l t h o u g h he a d m i t s variables  such  c o u l d c h a n g e t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l age a t w h i c h a g i v e n s t a g e o f  f u n c t i o n i n g becomes p r o m i n e n t . s o c i a l i z a t i o n on development;  P i a g e t does r e c o g n i z e t h e e f f e c t s o f he b e l i e v e s s o c i a l f o r c e s a r e c r u c i a l  i n the  3 f o r m a t i o n o f c o n c e p t u a l thought and a d e c e n t e r e d s u b j e c t . a l w a y s comes b a c k of a n a l y s i s .  Piaget,  t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l , whom he c o n s i d e r s t o b e t h e b a s i c  He m a i n t a i n s t h a t , w h i l e l a n g u a g e i s a s o c i a l  (social signs),  however,  t h e m e n t a l image-  remains  individual  o f p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s and t r u e i n t e r i o r i s a t i o n  construction  (a symbol), a  (1962,  level  translation  p.71).  . . . t h e r e i s i n a l l v e r b a l and c o n c e p t u a l thought a s t r a t u m o f imaged r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w h i c h e n a b l e s t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o a s s i m i l a t e f o r h i m s e l f t h e g e n e r a l i d e a common t o a l l ( 1 9 6 2 , p . 1 6 4 ) . . . ... t h e c o l l e c t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n o f l a n g u a g e i s t h e m a i n f a c t o r i n b o t h t h e f o r m a t i o n and s o c i a l i s a t i o n o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , b u t t h e c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y t o use v e r b a l s i g n s i s dependent on t h e p r o g r e s s of his,own thought. Thus, i n a d d i t i o n t o words, t h e b e g i n n i n g s of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n r e q u i r e t h e s u p p o r t o f a system o f u s a b l e s i g n i f i e r s a t t h e d i s p o s a l o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l . (1962, p.273) *  And  those  "signifiers"  individual,  o f h i s accommodations t o t h e environment.  the i n d i v i d u a l social  (as discussed l a t e r ) are the product of the  (1971,  l e v e l o f a n a l y s i s , he b e l i e v e s  Even i f P i a g e t f a v o u r s  i t cannot be s e p a r a t e d from t h e  p.360).  P i a g e t ' s major h y p o t h e s i s i s t h a t c o g n i t i v e development process of successive e q u i l i b r a t i o n s deriving  inevitably  of c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s , each  from t h e p r e c e d i n g one.  produced  (external behaviour).  the q u a l i t a t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  structure  These s t r u c t u r e s a r e a c t u a l l y  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l properties of the i n t e l l i g e n c e , and d e t e r m i n i n g f u n c t i o n i n g  i s a coherent  through  Piaget  functioning  i s interested  in  of those p a r t i c u l a r s t r u c t u r a l stages i n order  t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l p r o c e s s and n o t m e r e l y t o c a t e g o r i z e b e h a v i o u r . A l t h o u g h he was m o s t l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h course of development,  he h a s a l s o  the d e t a i l s of s t r u c t u r a l  change i n t h e  devoted a l o t of a t t e n t i o n to the processes  27 b e h i n d those changes, to the n a t u r e of  intellectual  functioning.  Piaget's  perspective  on  intellectual  functioning  i s a s p e c i a l form of b i o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t y .  h e r e d i t y we how  we  inherit  perceive  c o n c e r n e d , we  our  and  c o g n i t i v e development i s m o s t l y  basic physiological characters  behave.  inherit  Most i m p o r t a n t ,  so  a mode o f i n t e l l e c t u a l  i n which to deal with  the  environment.  which p a r t l y  f a r as  (1)  o r g a n i z a t i o n and  (2)  important processes, to i n t e l l e c t u a l All  and  a s s i m i l a t i o n and  f u n c t i o n i n g but  hold  the  evolve  latter  through  for biological  i n more d e t a i l w e l l as  so  possible.  t h a t t h e m a t e r i a l on  the n a t u r e of  Piaget  adaptation  believes  the  that  the  life.  They  are  r e s u l t of  They a r e n o t  two  very  specific  functioning i n  general.  p o s s e s s e s some i n t e r n a l The  m e c h a n i s m s w i l l be  r o l e of a c t i o n s  i n the  s p a t i a l i m a g e becomes more r e l e v a n t c o g n i t i o n i s an  that  development  throughout  i s the  accommodation.  l i v i n g m a t t e r a d a p t s t o i t s e n v i r o n m e n t and  o r g a n i z a t i o n t o make t h e  manner  I t i s t h i s mode o f f u n c t i o n i n g  "functional invariants".  adaptation,  condition  intelligence is  a l t h o u g h the b a s i c mechanisms r e m a i n e s s e n t i a l l y c o n s t a n t r e f e r s t o t h e s e m e c h a n i s m s as  Through  functioning, a specific  generates c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s which constantly  Piaget  biological;  organized  process.  described  theory  as  later. The  intellectual  a c t p r e s u m e s some k i n d o f s t r u c t u r e o r o r g a n i z a t i o n , w i t h i n w h i c h i t p r o c e e d s . Most of P i a g e t ' s  w o r k shows t h a t  i n development.  In the  the  this  organization  p r o c e s s o f c o m i n g t o know an e n v i r o n m e n t we  r e i t e r a t i n g p r o c e s s o f a c c u m u l a t i n g new  changing our  current  dynamic a s p e c t of a s s i m i l a t i o n and  structures  intellectual  I t r e f e r s to the  e x p e r i e n c e s i n t o the interpreting  i n the  reality.  information,  light  of  t h e new  When t h e  two  go  stage  through  organizing  i t , and  information.  The  f u n c t i o n i n g i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  accommodation .  have i n t e l l e c t u a l a d a p t a t i o n . organization.  changes from s t a g e t o  processes are  the process  i n balance  we  A s s i m i l a t i o n i s the b a s i c mechanism b e h i n d process of  existing intellectual  i n c o r p o r a t i n g new  objects  framework, i . e . the  and  process  of  of  28 E v e r y a c t o f i n t e l l i g e n c e , h o w e v e r r u d i m e n t a r y and concrete, p r e s u p p o s e s an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s o m e t h i n g i n e x t e r n a l r e a l i t y , t h a t i s , a n a s s i m i l a t i o n o f t h a t s o m e t h i n g t o some k i n d o f meaning system i n the s u b j e c t ' s c o g n i t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n ( F l a v e l l , 1963, p . 4 8 ) .  As  new  this  experiences are  integrated  o r g a n i z a t i o n gets modified.  adapting  oneself  to the v a r i o u s  A c c o m m o d a t i o n c a n n o t be occur  i n t o the  individual's cognitive  Accommodation r e f e r s to the r e q u i r e m e n t s of  dissociated  the  organization,  process  objective  of  world.  f r o m a s s i m i l a t i o n as b o t h  processes  simultaneously:  A s s i m i l a t i o n c a n n e v e r be p u r e b e c a u s e by i n c o r p o r a t i n g new elements i n t o i t s e a r l i e r schemata the i n t e l l i g e n c e c o n s t a n t l y m o d i f i e s t h e l a t t e r i n . o r d e r t o a d j u s t them t o new e l e m e n t s . C o n v e r s e l y , t h i n g s a r e n e v e r known b y t h e m s e l v e s , s i n c e t h i s w o r k o f a c c o m m o d a t i o n i s o n l y p o s s i b l e as a f u n c t i o n o f ^ t h e i n v e r s e p r o c e s s o f a s s i m i l a t i o n ( P i a g e t , 1952, pp. 6-7) .  For  Piaget,  expressions  as  a specific  s t r u c t u r a l concept, the  " i n t e l l e c t u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n " and  concept i s c r u c i a l  to understanding P i a g e t ' s  schema, embraces  such  "mental s t r u c t u r e s " .  This  system:  A schema i s a c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e w h i c h has r e f e r e n c e t o a c l a s s of s i m i l a r a c t i o n sequences, these sequences of n e c e s s i t y b e i n g s t r o n g , bounded t o t a l i t i e s i n w h i c h the c o n s t i t u e n t b e h a v i o u r a l e l e m e n t s a r e t i g h t l y i n t e r r e l a t e d . ( F l a v e l l , 1963,  Schemas r e f e r t o s e q u e n c e s o f a c t i o n s , a t f i r s t increasingly  i n t e r n a l i z e d as  o v e r t , but  development progresses.  then becoming the  level  speaks of  o f p r e h e n s i o n , and  schemas r e f e r t o a c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s f o r  on.  s o l v i n g p a r t i c u l a r problems two  sets  Later, (e.g.  schema o f s u c k i n g ,  of  sensori-motor development, P i a g e t so  the  At  problem of a s s e s s i n g  equivalence  of  distance).  Those m e n t a l a c t i o n sequences a r e  p.53)  the  schema  numerical  of elements, or problem of c o n s e r v a t i o n r e f e r r e d t o as  the  o f v o l u m e or--  "operational  schemas". The  schema i n v o l v e s  the  formation  o f a c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e and  thus  the  29 d i s p o s i t i o n to perform c e r t a i n acts organized  w h o l e , c o h e s i v e and  repeated occasions.  quasi-stable.  dynamic and-supple o r g a n i z a t i o n s during  on  Nevertheless,  to which actions  c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g ; they are  I t becomes  and  schemas  objects  constantly being  are  an  are  assimilated  reorganized  in  their  accommodations. One  of  they apply  t h e most i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t s of schemas i s t h a t , once c o n s t i t u t e d , themselves repeatedly  assimilation).  In the course of t h i s  transformed, f i r s t  by  schemas o f s u c k i n g  more and  For  field  instance,  with  new  and  o f a p p l i c a t i o n t o new the newborn c h i l d  increasingly varied objects.  more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d ( r e c o g n i t o r y  confronted  varied  (functional  r e p e a t e d e x e r c i s e , schemas a r e  extending t h e i r  (generalizing assimilation). i n the  to a s s i m i l a b l e m a t e r i a l  a s s i m i l a t i o n ) as  objects  soon  Also,  the  the  continually  incorporates schemas  get  individual is  experiences:  R e p e t i t i o n c o n s o l i d a t e s and s t a b l i z e s i t ( t h e s c h e m a ) , as w e l l as p r o v i d i n g t h e n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n f o r c h a n g e . Generalization e n l a r g e s i t by e x t e n d i n g i t s d o m a i n o f a p p l i c a t i o n . And d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n has the consequence of d i v i d i n g the o r i g i n a l l y g l o b a l s c h e m a i n t o s e v e r a l new s c h e m a s , e a c h w i t h a s h a r p e r , d i s c r i m i n a t i n g f o c u s on r e a l i t y ( F l a v e l l , p . 5 7 ) . ( p a r e n t h e s i s m i n e )  On  the  other  hand, s e p a r a t e schemas, i n the  get  united,  e a c h schema a s s i m i l a t i n g t h e  For  instance,  the  allowing  m e a n i n g f u l a s s i m i l a t i o n s ( P i a g e t , 1952, In Piaget's  other  s e n s o r y schemas ( v i s i o n ,  i m p r e s s i o n s ) become . c o o r d i n a t e d  system, a c t i o n , the  course of  m a t e r i a l of a l l i n t e l l e c t u a l  touch, hearing,  pp.  actions  are  but  with  and  covert.  child  overt,  development-, i n t e l l i g e n t First,  does l i t t l e  internalization  t h u s more  75-76).  perceptual  s e n s o r i - m o t o r ones (e.g.  may  kinesthetic  f o r more g l o b a l and  a c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e of  and  evolution,  (reciprocalassimilation).  the b a s i c element behind the process of c o g n i t i o n . raw  their  the  Actions  adaptation.  grasping,  environment, i s constitute In  sucking,  the  infancy, v i s u a l searches)  a c t i o n s become p r o g r e s s i v e l y i n t e r n a l i z e d i s f r a g m e n t a r y and  quite l i t e r a l ;  more t h a n r e p l i c a t e i n h i s m i n d s i m p l e  concrete  the  action  30 sequences. and  As  i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n p r o c e e d s , c o g n i t i v e a c t i o n s become m o r e a b s t r a c t  b r o a d e r i n r a n g e ; t h e y become w h a t P i a g e t  the enormous d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e t h o u g h t and as  the  simple  latter.  in  the  "intuition"  the p r o p e r t i e s of s p a c e , but  right  image does not  derive  from the p u r e l y  activity  v i s u a l image does not subject  truly  actions  a "reading"  interest.  an  as  distinct  exist  per  from p e r c e p t i o n  or  action  and  than i s .generally r e a l i z e d ( l i k e  viewpoints,  r o t a t i n g , e n l a r g i n g or reducing  itself.  Piaget  perception;  events.  extension  Imagery i s For  the  a c t i o n s of p u t t i n g  s o on.)  The  the part  things  t i g h t e n i n g or l o o s e n i n g ,  and  the  instance  more on  visual  image of a p o t e n t i a l a c t i o n r e l a t i v e t o what i s s e e n  a purely v i s u a l i n t u i t i o n .  argues  w h i c h i s an  s e , s i n c e i t i n v o l v e s much  a n o t h e r , a c t i o n s of e n c l o s i n g , of  He  r e c e p t i v e aspect of  image, a motor element i s p r e s e n t  n e x t t o one  an  logical  from the s t a r t ,  image i s of p a r t i c u l a r  a c t i v e process of r e c o n s t r u c t i n g o b j e c t s  really  as  of space i s not  of the  of p e r c e p t u a l  of the  of mature,  former are  conception  t h e make-up o f t h e  very  the  Despite  space.  Piaget's that  "operations".  abstract operations  behaviour,  Consequently, the  a p p r e h e n s i o n of p e r f o r m e d on  sensori-motor  calls  changing  image i s  . rather  than  says,  Even i n the case of everyday images, i s i t at a l l p o s s i b l e to imagine a landscape, a house or other f a m i l i a r o b j e c t w i t h o u t t h e a i d , as e s s e n t i a l c o m p o n e n t s , o f t h e s c h e m a o f t h e v a r i o u s roads t r a v e r s e d , the a c t i o n s performed, or the changes of p o s i t i o n commanding d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s ? And t h i s a s s i s t a n c e i s made e v e n more n e c e s s a r y by t h e f a c t t h a t s u c h i m a g e s a r e n e a r l y a l w a y s m u l t i - s e n s o r i a l and r e f e r t o c o m p l e x a c t i o n s . ( 1 9 5 6 , pp. 4 1 - 4 2 )  T h i s we  can  easily  r e l a t e to the  s i t u a t i o n s of d i s t a n c e  more a p p r o p r i a t e l y , t r a v e l o r t r i p The gestures is  an  i m a g e i s an although  i m i t a t i o n , one  at f i r s t  or  representation. t h a t i s made w i t h o u t  associated  internalizedimitation:  representation  or b o r n out  r e s o r t to  external  of such g e s t u r e s .  The  image  31 I n i t s a c t u a l o r i g i n s , t h e i m a g e i s no more t h a n a r e c o r d o r t r a c e of t h e m u s c u l a r a d a p t a t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n an a c t i o n . Every a c t i o n p e r f o r m e d o n o b j e c t s i s a d a p t e d o r a c c o m m o d a t e d t o them. That i s . to say, i t r e c e i v e s the n e g a t i v e i m p r e s s i o n of the t h i n g s whose form i t e x p l o r e s . Of c o u r s e , t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e of a c t i o n i s not t h i s process of i m p r i n t i n g , but r a t h e r the a s s i m i l a t i o n of the o b j e c t t o the s u b j e c t ' s schemata. However, e v e r y e f f e c t i v e a s s i m i l a t i o n has as i t s c o u n t e r p a r t a more o r l e s s e f f e c t i v e a c c o m m o d a t i o n . When t h i s l a t t e r o c c u r s a t t h e s e n s o r i - m o t o r l e v e l i t c o n s i s t s o f an i m i t a t i o n o f t h e o b j e c t by an a c t i o n . M o r e p r e c i s e l y , t h e i m i t a t i o n i s m e r e l y the p o s i t i v e t r a c e of the b a s i c a l l y n e g a t i v e process of accommodation. Now a t t h e c o n c e p t u a l o r i m a g i n a l l e v e l , d e l a y e d i m i t a t i o n becomes p o s s i b l e ( i t i s m o r e o v e r j u s t t h i s t r a n s i t i o n from immediate t o delayed i m i t a t i o n which forms the s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r a l l t y p e s o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l t h o u g h t ) and t h i s i s i n t e r n a l i z e d i n the form of images or i m i t a t i v e schemata of the o b j e c t - ( P i a g e t and I n h e l d e r , 1 9 5 6 , p . 4 5 5 ) ,,  P i a g e t made c l o s e o b s e r v a t i o n s i m i t a t i o n to i n t e r i o r s t a r t reproducing f o r some t i m e . imitates  i m i t a t i o n or imagery.  A r o u n d 12 - 16 m o n t h s , h i s  s c e n e s , w o r d s , o b j e c t s , e v e n when t h e m o d e l h a s  For  i n s t a n c e , , i n o b s e r v a t i o n 58,  perceived.  i m i t a t i v e gestures  not  c h i l d r e n to understand the passage from  ( P i a g e t , 1962,  t h e o p e n i n g o f a m a t c h b o x w i t h h i s h a n d and  w h a t he h a d  box.  on  I n o b s e r v a t i o n 57  i n order  f o l l o w the  image, but  i n t e r i o r i z a t i o n and f u r t h e r when he  not  mouth t o t r y t o  concludes  understand  opens  that representative i m i t a t i o n  p r e c e d e s i t . The  a new c r e a t i o n f r o m  T.  same  t o a n t i c i p a t e w h a t w i l l h a p p e n when h e  From s u c h examples P i a g e t  image i s t h u s a p r o d u c t  some o t h e r  source.  subjects  been absent  p.66)  (p.65) L . r e s o r t s t o the  overt  Piaget  the does  of explains  asks:  What i s t h e p r o c e s s w h i c h t a k e s p l a c e when we f o r m a m e n t a l image o f a v i s u a l scene p e r c e i v e d e a r l i e r ? We a n a l y s e , c o m p a r e and t r a n s f o r m , u s i n g an a c t i v i t y w h i c h s t a r t s i n p e r c e p t i v e r e g u l a t i o n and c o m p a r i s o n , b u t i s i n t e g r a t e d i n a s y s t e m o f c o n c e p t s e n a b l i n g us t o g i v e m e a n i n g s t o t h e e l e m e n t s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s thus analysed. Now i t i s t h i s p e r c e p t i v e a c t i v i t y , a n d n o t p e r c e p t i o n as s u c h , w h i c h p r o d u c e s t h e i m a g e , w h i c h i s a k i n d o f s c h e m a o r summary o f t h e p e r c e i v e d o b j e c t ( P i a g e t , 1962, p . 7 7 ) .  All  forms of s p a t i a l i n t u i t i o n  P i a g e t ' s numerous o b s e r v a t i o n s  are e s s e n t i a l l y  active i n character.  show t h a t y o u n g c h i l d r e n c a n n o t  visualize  32 the  r e s u l t s of even the  themselves. action itself  Thought can provides.  of h i s experience as  such);  results.  simplest only  child  intrinsic  .coordinated  the b a s i s of the  concerned w i t h  i n f a c t e x p e r i m e n t s on  and  one  the s u b j e c t ' s  more a d v a n c e d , t h i s h a p p e n s more f r e q u e n t l y , a n d  the  and  e s p e c i a l l y , represent,  own  actions —  evolves The  from the  and  Representation of the  i s not  rise  his  only b u i l t  r e s u l t s of a c t i o n s , but  be  reconstruct  to  the  The  child  actions  only  recognize  through  their  actions. intuition  the E u c l i d e a n ,  discussed  levels.  i n the next s e c t i o n .  through a c t i o n , i t i s not  i s active  outward  coordination  become more c o m p l e x , s p a t i a l  e v o l u t i o n of s p a t i a l representation w i l l  situation  actions.  l e v e l of  coordinated  t o p o l o g i c a l , t o t h e p r o j e c t i v e and  aspects  t h e e x p e r i m e n t becomes  t h o s e f a c t s w h i c h t h e y can  increase  which  their  P i a g e t ' s w o r k shows t h a t c h i l d r e n c a n  f a c t s f o r which they have  •Coordinations  seeing  a l s o l e a r n s s o m e t h i n g o f t h e way As  increases.  own  data  or  experiments which give  determines another.  between a c t i o n s  how  he  by  them  the p h y s i c a l  p r o p e r t i e s of the o b j e c t  a w a r e o f h i s a c t i o n s he m u s t b e g i n  l e a r n s about the o b j e c t but are  is first  More i m p o r t a n t l y , however, the  idea of space are  they have performed  r e p l a c e a c t i o n on  The  ( i . e . the  f o r t o be  actions u n t i l  only  images  itself:  To a r r a n g e o b j e c t s m e n t a l l y i s n o t m e r e l y t o i m a g i n e a s e r i e s of t h i n g s a l r e a d y s e t i n o r d e r , nor even to imagine the a c t i o n o f a r r a n g i n g them. I t means a r r a n g i n g t h e s e r i e s , j u s t as p o s i t i v e l y and a c t i v e l y as i f t h e a c t i o n w e r e p h y s i c a l , b u t p e r f o r m i n g t h e a c t i o n i n t e r n a l l y on s y m b o l i c o b j e c t s ( P i a g e t , 1956, p.454).  For  instance,  transferring p i e c e by out  concept of order  i s abstracted  ( t r a n s p o r t i n g elements mentally)  piece.  The  the  d i r e c t i o n s on  t h a t e l e m e n t as  remainder of the  and  through mental a c t i o n s r e p l a c i n g s t e p by  step  c o n c e p t o f m e a s u r e m e n t comes f r o m e x t r a c t i n g one  of a whole, c o n s i d e r i n g  t h i s u n i t on for  the  road,  the whole.  a u n i t , and  mentally  M o r e g e n e r a l l y , when we  i t i s clear that:  of and  element  transposing are  asked  33 . . . u s e o f g e s t u r e s and c a l l i n g a m o t o r s c h e m a t o m i n d a r e f a r more h e l p f u l t h a n t r u e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . A b o v e a l l , i f we t h i n k c l o s e l y , we m u s t r e c o g n i z e t h a t o u r own c o m i n g s and g o i n g s p r o v i d e t h e f r a m e w o r k f o r o u r m e m o r y - i m a g e s o f d i s t r i c t s and landscapes. ( P i a g e t , 1960, p. 12) However, i t s h o u l d subject  to g a i n knowledge of the  a s s i m i l a t i o n as it.  The  such, but  the  the  the  an  theory his  interacting  great  i t with  the  the  already  general  actual lines the  basis  of  Durham r e v e a l e d reflects road of  determine  signified  object  is  in earlier  Piaget's  the schemas,  aspects of  T u a n ' s and  accommodation  this  t h e s i s comes f r o m  a  images  Stea's views  the node-path s t r u c t u r e i s very  have  the  dominant  E a s y f o r t h e newcomer t o l e a r n , t h e l e a r n i n g proceeds  of  m e s s a g e seems t o add  Downs and  his  discussed  t o the p o p u l a r argument t h a t  A d d i t i o n a l support of  s t a b l e as  although s p e c i f i c  c o g n i t i o n , a s s i m i l a t i o n and  credibility  of e x p e r i e n c e of  ( D e v l i n , 1976).  node-path  Routes,  s p a c e , a r e p r o m i n e n t on m o s t maps; t h e y  serve  image o r g a n i z a t i o n .  P o c o c k ' s c l o s e a n a l y s i s o f m e n t a l maps o f  that  ( o r i e n t a t i o n ) of  a strong  ( 1 9 7 6 , p.  the  and  Pocock, 1976a).  structure i s also very  The  The  Yet,  i n t r o d u c t i o n to h i s work I  things.  e x p e r i e n t i a l l y derived.  1970;  accompanies  a l s o images t h r o u g h a c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e  s t u d i e s w h i c h show t h a t  (Appleyard,  as  mechanisms of  information  been reviewed.  m e n t a l map  the  a symbol, i t does not  act or object.  A f t e r a short  and jis_ a c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e o f  of space are  the  a t o o l of  accommodation which  i n t e g r a t i n g the  t o p r o d u c e s c h e m a s and  d e a l of  enable  meaning.''  appear l a t e r .  views of  "itself,  or symbol i n the p r o c e s s of knowing.  concludes a b r i e f review of P i a g e t ,  will  things  the  e s s e n t i a l r o l e as  p r o d u c t o f a s s i m i l a t i o n , w h i c h , by  This  s i n c e i t i s not  a by-product of  the meaning of  thereby provides  i m a g e c a n n o t , by  a c t i o n i s necessary to i t s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n .  image p l a y s  "signified",  the  object,  image i s j u s t a " s i g n i f i e r "  r e c o n s t i t u t i o n of while  be made c l e a r t h a t  the  arrangement  experiential basis  510).  The  usual  e n v i r o n m e n t a l frame of  entry  the  e l i c i t e d mental  i n t i m a t e l y l i n k e d to the view from route  reference.  i n the place  Carr  and  becomes t h e  S c h i s s l e r (1969)  the  focus also  map  34 c o n c l u d e d t h a t p e o p l e ' s Images o f p a r t i c u l a r t r i p s a f u n c t i o n of the p h y s i c a l conditions and  a r t i c u l a t i o n s of the road  the  dominant elements along  or  their  correlate very  strongly.  separated: and  o f t h e memory.  looked  according  cognition only  the ideas  of a c t i v i t y ,  t o mental mapping  i n t a x i d r i v e r s and a i r p l a n e  at taxi drivers with varying  l i t e r a t u r e on d i s t a n c e  Staplin incorporated  Pailhous  image and a c t i v i t y  depend on t h e t y p e and e x t e n t  Rand c o m p a r e d t h e s e a b i l i t i e s  Pailhous  Finally,  I t i s c l e a r t h a t : t h e s e two v a r i a b l e s c a n n o t b e  t h e s t r a t e g i e s o f movement i n t u r n , v a r y  while  Interruptions  ( f o r t h e i r prominence i n the enrionment  (1969) d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t  m e n t a l mapping a b i l i t i e s  abilities.  the  of the experience i t s e l f .  time i n view) form the s k e l e t o n (1971) and Rand  arebasically  (known f o r o b v i o u s o r i e n t a t i o n p u r p o s e s ) a n d  the road  (1970), Mercer  i n the c i t y  degrees of experience.  the recent  of Piaget.  pilots In  work o f S a d a l l a and  They s a i d :  We assume t h a t when a s u b j e c t i s a s k e d t o make a d i s t a n c e e s t i m a t i o n , t h e s u b j e c t m e n t a l l y r e t r a v e r s e s t h e pathway i n an attempt t o r e c o n s t r u c t cues f o r d i s t a n c e . This a s s u m p t i o n was s u p p o r t e d by s t a t e m e n t s made b y many s u b j e c t s who w e r e a s k e d , "What d i d y o u t h i n k a b o u t when y o u w e r e t r y i n g t o e s t i m a t e how f a r y o u h a d w a l k e d ? " D u r i n g t h i s p r o c e s s , e a c h r e m e m b e r e d r o u t e a t t r i b u t e may s e r v e a s a c u e ( 1 9 8 0 a , p. 1 8 1 ) .  Piaget's and only day  work d e a l t m o s t l y w i t h  fundamental space  ( t h e space o f o b j e c t s  m i c r o e n v i r o n m e n t s ) , n o t t h e macro space o f t h e s e l a t t e r  studies.  In  one c a s e h a s he e x t e n d e d h i s w o r k t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n ' s l a r g e - s c a l e environment  (Piaget, Inhelder  a n d S z e m i n s k a , 1 9 6 0 , c h . 1)  a l t h o u g h h i s experiments on model environments a r e q u i t e r e l e v a n t space.  Also, Piaget  situations,  often  extended h i s remarks t o i n c l u d e  giving the impression  two l e v e l s o f a n a l y s i s .  Since  that  there  i s no g r e a t  the l i t e r a t u r e  Before concluding  this  t o macro  everyday  life  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e  dealing with  of macro s p a c e c o g n i t i o n i s a l m o s t n o n - e x i s t e n t , making comparisons.  every  one s h o u l d  t h e mechanisms be c a r e f u l i n  s e c t i o n , a few a d d i t i o n a l  issues  35 relating  s p e c i f i c a l l y to large s c a l e environmental c o g n i t i o n w i l l  Certainly,  t h e most i n t e r e s t i n g  simplifies  a l l the  Reality  m a t e r i a l h e r e d e a l s w i t h how  information  is simplified  that surrounds  i n v a r i o u s ways.  little  information  t o make s e n s e o u t  in  the  environment  (especially  little  information  i n going  importance of e x p e c t a t i o n s with  the environment.  what t o e x p e c t  We  from the  road  and  daily  know o u r way  The  our  in  the p r a c t i c a l business  knowledge of a s u c c e s s i o n  needs  great  need f o r  information  very  redundancy relatively  rounds account f o r the  great  i n our  dealings  around our h a b i t u a l a c t i o n space,  r o u t i n e a c t i o n s o f a n o r m a l day.  B r o w n ( 1 9 3 2 ) s u g g e s t e d t h a t we  individual  individual  environment.  previously stored  W.  guides us.  the  e n v i r o n m e n t s ) and  about our  the  raised.  him.  First,  of the  be  h a v e no  The  need f o r a d e t a i l e d  of moving about our  daily  o f movements a p p r o p r i a t e  and  experiments spatial  activities. to recognized  of  image  Rather, visual  the cues,  H i s ? e x p e r i m e n t s showed t h a t s p a t i a l k n o w l e d g e e n h a n c e s , b u t  is  g not  necessary,  for spatial  skill.  (1969) d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t s u b j e c t s of images of f a m i l i a r necessarily attentive  rely  routes.  The  experiments of Carr  d i d not  This  surroundings,  as  Schissler  a u t o m a t i c a l l y have a b e t t e r  confirms  Brown's p o i n t  on m e n t a l i m a g e s t o move a r o u n d , and  to t h e i r  and  previous  do  experience  store  t h a t p e o p l e do  not  n e e d t o be  not  too  t e a c h e s them w h a t  to  expect. People are very Appleyard  and  as  t o what they p e r c e i v e  (1969) p r o p o s e d t h a t b u i l d i n g s a r e  distinctiveness use,  selective  (imageability),  their  cultural  concluded that p h y s i c a l features individuation  along  or of t h a t c i t y  (e.g.  in particular).  of the  and  a road  from the background, t h e i r  of the v i e w e r s e x p e c t a t i o n s .  that features  Carr  from the Schissler  are  road, (1969)  remembered f o r  t i m e i n v i e w , and  typical  w h a t t h e y remember.  g e n e r a l l y known f o r t h e i r  their visibility  significance.  and  their  element of c i t i e s  Finally, Harrison  c i t y w e r e remembered f o r t h e i r  and  Howard  location  in  their  visual role  or  similarly their reflections general,  (1972) i n the  found urban  36 s t r u c t u r e and t h e i r with  the f e a t u r e  function.  P h y s i c a l appearance  (deeper meaning) were not i m p o r t a n t c r i t e r i a .  g e n e r a l l y remembered f o r f a c t o r s c l o s e l y space.  On  related  landscape i t s e l f ,  b u t t h e human e x p e r i e n c e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h ( J a k l e , Brunn  " s e l f " as t h e c e n t r e .  i n a l l m e n t a l map  studies  (a d i v e r s i t y  t e c h n i q u e s u s e d ) i s o n l y one People s i m p l i f y  a n d Roseman, 1 9 7 6 , We  !  in' a uniform, regular  patterns are regulated i n that  fashion.  De  (90°  and  180°)  fashion.  intersect Jonge  features  found that people favour  when e s t i m a t i n g d i r e c t i o n s ;  and T r o w b r i d g e  f o u n d t h a t t h e c a r d i n a l d i r e c t i o n s w e r e commonly u s e d . memorization of  found  (1962)  B e c k a n d Wood  ( 1 9 7 6 ) n o t e d t h a t t h e i r s u b j e c t s a r e more p r e c i s e i n l o c a t i n g  angles  p.86).  the standard  r e c t a n g u l a r and most s t r e e t s  P e t e r s o n (1916)  that  phenomenon.  s i m p l e p a t t e r n t e n d s t o be e m p h a s i z e d .  a n g l e s o f 45 a n d 90 d e g r e e s .  the  a l l perceive  of response  o f t e n p a r t l y h i d d e n by  representing i t  S i n c e our s t r e e t g r i d s are t y p i c a l l y  observed that c i t y  great d i v e r s i t y  i n d i c a t i o n of t h i s  r e a l i t y by  at right-angles, t h i s  The  " I t i s not  the landscape  reason, e n v i r o n m e n t a l knowledge i s v e r y p e r s o n a l .  the w o r l d w i t h  are  and s t r o n g  seem q u i t e u n i m p o r t a n t i n p e o p l e ' s m i n d .  g e n e r a t e s s p a c e and p l a c e m e a n i n g s . "  Things  to the a c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e of  t h e o t h e r hand, components o f p h y s i c a l appearance  p e r s o n a l attachment  For t h i s  and p e r s o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n  (1913)  at right also  T u a n commented on  the  routes:  A person seems p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y d i s p o s e d t o d i s c o u n t t h e a n g u l a r d e p a r t u r e s a n d t o a c c e p t a l l f o r w a r d movements a s movements toward h i s g o a l . Hence, when he t r i e s t o r e p r o d u c e h i s r o u t e i n a d r a w i n g he i s l i k e l y t o s i m p l i f y t h e r o u t e a n d o m i t o r m i n i m i z e . t h e a n g u l a r i t y o f the t u r n s - u n l e s s he happens t o remember a p a r t i c u l a r b e n d , i n w h i c h c a s e he may w e l l e x a g g e r a t e its angularity. (Tuan, 1977, p.73)  I n c o g n i t i v e m a p p i n g a number o f d e v i c e s a r e u s e d organize environmental information. w e r e c o n s t r u c t e d i n two  different  Lynch has  ways:  to help s i m p l i f y  remarked  and  t h a t h i s m e n t a l maps  37 (1)  Some w e r e b u i l t  as a "motion p i c t u r e " sequence over time,  o f o r g a n i z a t i o n w h i c h r e f l e c t s more d i r e c t l y of (2)  O t h e r maps w e r e o r g a n i z e d  For  (landmarks o r nodes) o r used t o f i l l  outline,  or s e t of adjacent  would be added a l o n g paths), o r other canals, the  as " s t a t i c h i e r a r c h i e s " where elements o f  i n s t a n c e , s e c o n d a r y components w o u l d be added a r o u n d a few  defined  to the p a r t i c u l a r ,  Sometimes  line  t o t h e n o t so e a s i l y  elements  (or g r i d of  i n t h e environment, Proceeding  incrementally,  remembered d e t a i l s  o f t h e image,  lines  C a n t e r and Tagg's s t u d i e s ) .  f o r t h e d i s t o r t i o n o f space  r e l a t i o n to other  and they  could  ( r e f . S t e a ' s and  space, f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f s i m p l i f i c a t i o n . t o put things  t h a t a r e more o r l e s s m e a n i n g f u l , t h i n g s o r a r e j u d g e d t o be s i m i l a r .  expands because d e t a i l s  9  Ontario.  A l s o , a t t e n t i o n w i l l be p a i d t o t h e manner i n  People c a t e g o r i z e knowledge, they tend  to belong together  lines of  and p o l i t i c a l b o u n d a r i e s which o u t l i n e E a s t e r n  become r e a l b a r r i e r s r e s p o n s i b l e  things  this  1970) •  a r e c r u c i a l e l e m e n t s o f image o r g a n i z a t i o n  which people subdivide  from  a more a b s t r a c t a n d g e n e r a l i z e d k n o w l e d g e o f s p a c e .  I i n t e n d t o pay p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e r e f e r e n c e  region, the rivers  (e.g.rivers,  f r o m t h e most o b v i o u s s t r u c t u r i n g  (1960, p.88; see a l s o A p p l e y a r d ,  groups —  i n a well  and outward from, a f a m i l i a r p a t h  type of reference  process r e f l e c t s  study  regions.  r a i l w a y s , p a r t i c u l a r edges).  general  device  Such l e g i b l e  experience  i m p o r t a n c e t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l a r e drawn i n s u c c e s s i o n .  familiar points  the  the subject's  space  different  In this  a form  c a n be a b s t r a c t e d  categories o r parts  r e f e r r e d t o as " r e c o d i n g "  i n t o c l a s s e s o r subt h a t n a t u r a l l y seem  T h i s way, o u r memory  u n d e r one c a t e g o r y ,  o f t h e image.  This  of i n f o r m a t i o n by p s y c h o l o g i s t s  capacity  meaningful i n  process,  often  (e.g. M i l l e r , 1 9 5 6 ) .  i s a w e l l known mnemonic d e v i c e .  I t i s a b a s i c mechanism f o r t h e s i m p l i f i c a t i o n  and  The c o n c e p t h a s b e e n l a r g e l y u s e d i n g e o g r a p h y ,  organization of information.  s t a r t i n g w i t h t h e p r e o c c u p a t i o n o f F r e n c h geographers w i t h t h e p e r c e i v e d and lived  r e g i o n s o f F r a n c e , t h e " p a y s " o f F r a n c e , a n d t h e more r e c e n t " q u a r t i e r  rural" the  o f F r a n c e ( B r u n e t , 1968,1969')'.  "district",  the "neighbourhood"  More f a m i l i a r a r e Lynch's n o t i o n o f o f t h e u r b a n g e o g r a p h e r s , dr.: t h e  "schemas o f s p a c e " i n t h e p e r c e p t i o n s t u d i e s o f L e e ( 1 9 6 4 , 6 8 , 6 9 , 7 0 ) , L o r d (1941),  •  R a n d ( 1 9 6 9 ) , Cox a n d Z a n n a r a s  (1973), and Rapnport  (1976).  They d e f i n e s c h e m a s o f s p a c e a s c o m p a r t m e n t s o f s p a c e , s i g n i f i c a n t a n d distinctive  to the individual"^.'  They o b t a i n t h e i r  dimensions  Schemas a r e m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l  (affective,  social,  physical,  spatial, etc)  f r o m man's e x p e r i e n c e o f s p a c e , a n d become o r g a n i z e d w h o l e s w h i c h may t a k e a p a r t i c u l a r m e a n i n g .  entities.  or "gestalts"  L e e d e f i n e s t h e s p a t i a l schema a s a  s y n t h e s i s o f p h y s i c a l o b j e c t s , s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and space: " . . . t h e space i s a f f e c t e d by what f i l l s by  i t , the s o c i a l relationships  t h e space and t h e p h y s i c a l o b j e c t s a r e c l o s e l y  who l i v e  i n them o r make u s e o f them.  are influenced  identified with  the people  T h i s complex i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e  i n a m e n t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t f u n c t i o n s as a u n i t ; "  results  (Lee, 1968, p.249).  Cox  a n d • Z a n n a r a s t h i n k o f schemas a s some s o r t o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f p l a c e s i n • b o t h l o c a t i o n a l and n o n - l o c a t i o n a l  terms w h i c h a r i s e  o r d e r i n g , e l i m i n a t i n g and a d d i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n , words l e a r n i n g they would  about  the environment  from experience  comparing  (1973, p.163).  —  places, or i n other  Schemas a r e i n c l u s i v e ,  t e n d t o b e s e p a r a t e d b y c e r t a i n g a p s w h i c h may b e t h e p r o d u c t o f  effective barriers Lynch speaks  (political,  p h y s i c a l and c u l t u r a l ) o r s i m p l y i g n o r a n c e .  of a l lt h e elements  o f t h e u r b a n image a s o p e r a t i n g t o g e t h e r i n  i n t e r m e d i a t e "wholes" o r "complexes" (1960, p.85). arrangement.  s e p a r a t e d by " p s y c h o l o g i c a l  distances"  Schemas c a n b e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d b y s c a l e o r h i e r a r c h i c a l A r a n g e o f schemas c a n b e c o n c e i v e d w h i c h a p p l y t o m i c r o - s p a c e s  ( n e i g h b o u r h o o d s , downtown, home a r e a ) up t o t h e macro'.spaces provinces, states,  countries.  of wider  Schemas may r e f e r t o v e r y s p e c i f i c  more g e n e r a l , a p p l y i n g t o a v a r i e t y o f a r e a s f r o m t h e t y p i c a l  regions,  a r e a s o r be  concentric  39 zones of the c i t y but  cannot Cox  t o the vague areas  "out  t h e r e " , w h i c h most p e o p l e  know,  delimit.  and  perceptions  Z a n n a r a s e m p h a s i z e t h a t schemas c a n be b a s e d on of places  (like  location,  topography, s o c i a l  designative  content)  or  a p p r a i s i v e p e r c e p t i o n s , w h i c h h a v e a much s t r o n g e r e v a l u a t i v e a n d  affective  content.  internal  P l a c e s may  characteristics  get  grouped i n regions  (dominant f u n c t i o n , d i s t i n c t  on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r s p a t i a l p r o x i m i t y . on  the s i m i l a r i t y  and  f e a t u r e of the a r e a ) , or  The  cohesion  p o i n t s of our  places are attached  identified  and  spatial  schema depends on regions  centre or the other.  The  v a r i o u s s e c t i o n s of t h e i r  cohesion  t h e w e s t , t h e s o u t h , New n a t i o n s development.  The  of such a  point.  Most Americans see  country.  O t h e r schemas s i m p l y  rooted  of s o c i a l  schemas. be  The  Finally,  v i e w and  of  their divisions  regions  individual's  types  use  experience take  of d i f f e r e n t areas  groups share  o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t , and  c u l t u r a l areas  f i n d French b o r n out  t h a t d i s c r i m i n a t e b e t w e e n p l a c e s and  Different  the  some  certain  are l i k e l y and  by groups  sensory  to develop  similar  English populations,  of c o l l e c t i v e opinions  and  people.  o f schemas h a v e v a r i o u s e x p r e s s i o n s .  T h e y may  the  (midwest,  i n t e r r e l a t i o n s between the v a r i o u s  I n E a s t e r n O n t a r i o w h e r e we  able to i d e n t i f y  attitudes  use  o r i g i n a t e i n the e x i s t i n g  Individuals within identifiable  and/or v e r b a l experiences  may  forces.  group i s o f t e n a f u n c t i o n of the  i n presence.  they  mushroom p i c k i n g a r e a , r e l a t i v e ' s a r e a ) w h i l e o t h e r s  s h a p e as a r e s u l t any  centre-dominated  i n the h i s t o r y  r e f l e c t p e r s o n a l i d i o s y n c r a c i e s ( a r e a s known t h r o u g h e.g.  place  r e a l d i f f e r e n c e s between  of s p a c e , most'commonly, t h e p o l i t i c a l b o u n d a r i e s .  of space —  order  Many o f o u r w e l l known  regional stereotypes  England) are f i r m l y  Lower  area, locating a smaller  the s t r e n g t h of the anchoring  o r i g i n a t e i n the past.  primary  t o more p r o m i n e n t p o i n t s .  t a l k of the Ottawa r e g i o n , the M o n t r e a l  a s c l o s e r t o one  Very o f t e n ,  representations.  in relation  simply  o f s u c h schemas d e p e n d s  p r o x i m i t y o f p l a c e s w i t h i n them.  p l a c e s a c t as a n c h o r i n g  People  on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r  have a  I  40 p i c t o r i a l n a t u r e : say "square", " t r i a n g l e " , t h i n k s of a p a r t i c u l a r p.258).  shape,  Language symbolism  "Africa"  and a u n i q u e e n t i t y  and  i s p r o b a b l y t h e m o s t common way  ( t h e a r e a up t h e G a t i n e a u H i l l s  industrial section, etc.). to  m i n d may  of r e f e r r i n g  to  features of the area are  When t h i n k i n g o f a r e g i o n , t h e f i r s t  a definite  1974,  or the "French" area, the  be i t s meaning t o the i n d i v i d u a l —  s t e r e o t y p e d , but always  immediately  ( S a n d e r s and P o r t e r ,  p a r t i c u l a r a r e a s : when a name i s n o t ' u s e d d e s c r i p t i v e substituted  the mind  thing  t o come  happy or s a d , v e r y p e r s o n a l o r  i m p r e s s i o n based  on e a r l i e r e x p e r i e n c e a n d  hearsay. The  c o n c e p t o f t h e schema o f s p a c e r e t u r n s a g a i n a n d a g a i n i n t h e  as "chunks in  o f i n f o r m a t i o n " i n p e r c e p t i o n theory"'"''", a s " c l u s t e r s o f  d e v e l o p m e n t a l t h e o r y , and  literature  elements"  as s c h e m a s o r r e g i o n s i n t h e m o d e l s o f  space  cognition.  3.2  Developmental The  development  Theory of knowledge of the environment  and q u a l i t a t i v e changes. time, people also d i f f e r Knowledge i s s t r u c t u r e d  i s a matter of  W h i l e t h e amount o f k n o w l e d g e i t s e l f and  quantitative  changes  c h a n g e i n t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n o f w h a t t h e y know.  i n d i f f e r e n t ways t h r o u g h d e v e l o p m e n t .  The  organizing  s t r u c t u r e s o f s p a c e d e t e r m i n e what i s a t t e n d e d t o o r i g n o r e d , as t h e y s e l e c t and of  over  order s p e c i f i c aspects of experience.  The  study of the  precede,  evolution  t h o s e s t r u c t u r e s s h o u l d h e l p us u n d e r s t a n d t h e i r m a t u r e f o r m s , o r man's  v a r i o u s ways o f o r g a n i z i n g s p a c e a n d likely  to encounter d i f f e r e n t  s c a l e s of s t u d y and following  t h e o r y , and  l e v e l s of o r g a n i z a t i o n at d i f f e r e n t  for different  section w i l l  of a c c o u n t i n g f o r s e p a r a t i o n .  t h e v i e w s o f a few g e o g r a p h e r s  are  spatial  l e v e l s of a c t i v e knowledge of space.  r e v i e w b r i e f l y W e r n e r ' s and P i a g e t ' s s p a c e  be p r e s e n t e d w i t h e m p h a s i s  We  The  developmental  and e n v i r o n m e n t a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s  on M o o r e ' s w o r k .  W e r n e r ' s " o r g a n i s m i c d e v e l o p m e n t a l " t h e o r y o f s p a c e e l a b o r a t e s on a \  will  p r o g r e s s i o n from r e l a t i v e g l o b a l i t y differentiation, 1973,  pp.  a r t i c u l a t i o n and  253-57).  and  hierarchical  Development p r o g r e s s e s  w o r l d t o a b s t r a c t knowledge.  aspects of Werner's theory As  As  o f i t s own  self-object  f r o m means and  (3)  a shift  of  reality.  The  three levels  the  Important  differentiated  space s l o w l y takes  f r o m t h e s u b j e c t ' s own  d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o c c u r s , ends get  an  body.  differentiated  t h e s u b j e c t becomes more a c t i v e i n h i s e n v i r o n m e n t .  occurs  t h i n g s are found  t o l e a d t o t h e same e n d s ,  from p a s s i v e acceptance  c h i l d becomes a b l e t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e  that of o t h e r s , thus perspectivism.  with  of space c o g n i t i o n  conceptions-about-space.  the surrounding  distinct  A l t e r n a t e ways o f d o i n g and  and  Moore,  acquaintance  t h e s e l f becomes i n c r e a s i n g l y  f r o m t h e e n v i r o n m e n t and  (2)  from c o n c r e t e  ( H a r t and  are:  development occurs  identity  integration  Werner r e c o g n i z e d  action-in-space, perception-of-space  (1)  l a c k of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n to i n c r e a s i n g  The  i n i t i a t i n g the s h i f t  to a c t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n  i t s own  viewpoint  from  from egocentrism  to  s p a c e - o f - a c t i o n , bound t o the s u b j e c t ' s  body, s l o w l y develops  into a  own  c o o r d i n a t e d a b s t r a c t space which  a l l o w s c o n s i d e r a t i o n f r o m many p e r s p e c t i v e s . (4)  Finally,  the c h i l d ' s  develops  into  s p a c e - o f - a c t i o n o n c e c o n c r e t e and  t h e a b s t r a c t and  ( H a r t and M o o r e , 1 9 7 3 , differentiated  p.256).  symbolic  (a space of i n t e r r e l a t e d p a r t s ) ,  s p a c e i n d e p e n d e n t o f any  particular  very f l e x i b l e  intelligence,  ( h i s m a t e r i a l on  pages, i s j u s t  one  major p e r i o d s i n the  space i s  now  reversible (conception  c u e s , or, a r r a n g e m e n t o f  Most of P i a g e t ' s work d e a l t w i t h the s t a g e s  aspect  space-of-contemplation  This conceptual  ( o r i e n t a t i o n a l w a y s p o s s i b l e ) , and  personal,  of the development  of  objects).  of  the development of space c o g n i t i o n , over  of t h i s  important work).  development of  intelligence:  He  distinguished four  1200  42 (1)  Sensori-motor evolves  intelligence  ( 0 - 2 y e a r s ) , where t h e i n f a n t  from a s t a t e o f u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  relatively  coherent  reflex  organization of sensori-motor  o r g a n i z a t i o n however, i s e n t i r e l y  actions.  "concrete", involving  more t h a n p e r c e p t u a l a n d m o t o r a d j u s t m e n t s (2)  actions to a  crude  concludes thought  symbolizations of the sensori-motor  with the beginning  o f formal thought.  makes i t s a p p e a r a n c e a t t h i s  nothing  t o the environment.  Preoperational representations ( 2 - 7 y e a r s ) , begins first  This  with the  p e r i o d and Representational  stage, but i s s t i l l  very  egocentric. (3)  The c o n c r e t e o p e r a t i o n s p e r i o d ( 7 - 1 1 y e a r s )  o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t become i n c r e a s i n g l y  s t a b l e and  coherent.  and r e v e r s i b l e  This i s the beginning  operations.  Formal operations of i n t e l l i g e n c e ; but  ( 1 1 - 15 y e a r s ) the adolescent  involves the f i n a l reorganization  can deal w i t h r e a l i t y before him,  the f i r s t  permanent ( o b j e c t s s t i l l cognition evolves  and a b s t r a c t  exist  of s p a t i a l organization, p a r a l l e l to  l e v e l , sensori-motor  space,  o b j e c t s become  e v e n when o u t o f v i e w o r t o u c h ) .  from m u l t i p l e spaces,  needs ( e . g . b u c c a l space,  a l l distinct  t a c t i l e space,  the i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of sensori-motor  independent of a c t u a l behaviour.  v i s u a l space), to a single  2 6 2 . - 63) r e f l e c t  coordinated  I t culminates  schemas ^ ( - . c r e a t i o n o f i m a g e ) ,  The n e x t  three l e v e l s , preoperational  c o n c r e t e o p e r a t i o n a l space and f o r m a l o p e r a t i o n a l space pp.  Spatial  and centered on p e r s o n a l  space where o b j e c t s a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d and p o s s i b l y r e p r e s e n t e d . in  statements  1 9 6 3 , p p . 86 - . 8 7 ) .  Piaget distinguished four levels At  thought  coordinate v a r i o u s p o i n t s of view.  a l s o w i t h the w o r l d o f pure p o s s i b i l i t y  (Flavell,  these periods.  of l o g i c a l  T h e c h i l d no l o n g e r f u s e s h i s own p o i n t o f v i e w w i t h  t h a t o f o t h e r s , b u t c a n now* (4)  sees the conceptual  space,  ( H a r t and Moore, 1973,  developments o f t h e s p a t i a l image i t s e l f .  The v e r y  43 concrete evolves  image ( r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s to higher  of manipulated or perceived  l e v e l s of a b s t r a c t i o n (coordinated  objects  only)  ; space independent o f  what i t c o n t a i n s ) , e g o c e n t r i s m i s r e p l a c e d b y p e r s p e c t i v i s m ,  and t h e s t a t i c ,  non-reversible  and r e v e r s i b l e  structure.  representation develops i n t o a f u l l y  These developments a r e s i m i l a r  however, P i a g e t  to those described  by Werner,  goes f u r t h e r i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g t h e l e v e l s o f s p a t i a l  ships people can e s t a b l i s h . involving  flexible  Topological  r e l a t i o n s of surrounding,  space i s a s u b j e c t i v e , e l a s t i c  Such r e l a t i o n s e x p r e s s t h e s i m p l e s t  possible  action, like  f o l l o w i n g an o u t l i n e step by s t e p .  They e x i s t b e t w e e n  of a single object  space  openness o r c l o s u r e , and p r o x i m i t y and  separation.  parts  relation-  o r between an o b j e c t  coordinations of neighbouring  and i t s immediate environment.  S p a c e i s a c o n t i n u o u s c o l l e c t i o n o f e l e m e n t s w h i c h may b e e x p a n d e d o r contracted objects  at w i l l .  or distinct  For the c h i l d , patterns.  there  a r e a s many s p a c e s a s t h e r e a r e  The e l a b o r a t i o n o f a s i n g l e  coordinated  space  s t a r t s w i t h p r o j e c t i v e space. While t o p o l o g i c a l concepts a r e constructed by  step  ( i . e . "de p r o c h e e n p r o c h e " o n a s i n g l e f i g u r e ) a n d w i t h o u t  system, p r o j e c t i v e concepts operate w i t h P r o j e c t i v e space accounts f o r i n t e r n a l but  reference  to particular  a  ( t othe object), topological relations,  As t h e i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n s t o c o o r d i n a t e  view ( b u i l d p r o j e c t i v e r e l a t i o n s ) he s l o w l y (build Euclidean conception  relations).  reference  viewpoints.  a l s o , f o r t h e r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s of t h e s p a t i a l elements from a  point of view.  step  Euclidean  learns to  specific  different points of coordinate  distances  s p a c e i s t h e most advanced and o b j e c t i v e  o f s p a c e , b a s e d on an a b s t r a c t system d e t a c h e d from t h e a c t u a l  components o f space and t h e i n d i v i d u a l s p o i n t  of view.  t h i n k s o f space i n terms o f a s t a b l e frame o f r e f e r e n c e made up o f v e r t i c a l  and h o r i z o n t a l axes.  as w e l l a s s t r a i g h t l i n e s , p a r a l l e l s when s p a c e i s c o n s i d e r e d locations of objects  Euclidean  and a n g l e s .  The i n d i v i d u a l now or  coordinate  space conserves  system  distances  T h i s becomes p o s s i b l e  only  as a " c o n t a i n e r "  independent of i t s content  —  fixed  a r e now ^ c o o r d i n a t e d  and n o t t h e m o b i l e o b j e c t s  themselves.  44 Shemyakin (1962) d i s c u s s e s specific unintegrated  pieces  arrangement of the p i e c e s egocentric,  i tillustrates  elements of space  of information,  t o survey mapping, t h e  i n a coherent whole.  The r o u t e map  the i n d i v i d u a l ' s concrete  (usually along  h a n d , show some l e v e l  t h e passage from r o u t e mapping, a s e t o f  p a t h of movement).  a certain "feel"  t h e m e n t a l map Pocock  (1976).  acquaintances with  of the place.  studies of Appleyard  dispersed  S u r v e y maps, o n t h e o t h e r  of o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e elements of space.  an a b s t r a c t , c o h e r e n t w h o l e , t h e s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s has  i s totally  show t h a t  Presented  the i n d i v i d u a l  Similar observations  h a v e b e e n made i n  (1970),  Ladd  Rand  (1969),  as  (1970),  and  I t has been found t h a t r o u t e mapping i s n o t u n i q u e t o c h i l d r e n .  Tuan b e l i e v e s t h a t p l a c e  c o g n i t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l to space c o g n i t i o n .  is  t h e p r o d u c t o f p l a c e , more p r e c i s e l y t h e p r o d u c t o f movement b e t w e e n  of  s e p a r a t i o n o r r e l a t i o n s between p l a c e s .  anchor p o i n t s o r b u i l d i n g b l o c k s  Initially,  places  Space places,  a c t as o b j e c t s ,  o f s p a c e , d e f i n i n g i t and g i v i n g i t a  geometric p e r s o n a l i t y :  N e i t h e r t h e n e w b o r n i n f a n t n o r t h e man who g a i n s s i g h t a f t e r a l i f e t i m e of blindness can immediately recognize a geometric shape such as a t r i a n g l e . The t r i a n g l e i s a t f i r s t " s p a c e " , a b l u r r e d image. R e c o g n i z i n g t h e t r i a n g l e r e q u i r e s t h e p r i o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of corners - that i s , places. A neighbourhood i s a t f i r s t a c o n f u s i o n o f i m a g e s t o t h e new r e s i d e n t ; i t i s b l u r r e d space "out there". L e a r n i n g t o know t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d r e q u i r e s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s i g n i f i c a n t l o c a l i t i e s , such as s t r e e t c o r n e r s and a r c h i t e c t u r a l landmarks, w i t h i n t h e neighbourhood space. ( T u a n , 1 9 7 7 , p p . 17 - 1 8 ) .  However, i f f r o m p l a c e s is  we o b t a i n s p a c e , t h a t s p a c e  r e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o place, as i t acquires  a f e e l i n g f o r t h e "whole":  t o u s , i t h a s become p l a c e . " places  d e f i n i t i o n and m e a n i n g , as one  . . .  When s p a c e f e e l s t h o r o u g h l y  ( T u a n , 1 9 7 7 , p p . 72 - 7 3 ) .  From a  space develops i n t o an i n t e g r a t e d , organized  comparable t o the o r i g i n a l  gets  "What b e g i n s a s u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d s p a c e e n d s a s a  single o b j e c t - s i t u a t i o n or place  of separate  (or portions of i t )  "places" of the f i r s t  familiar  collection whole,  stage only as i t forms a  45 unique e n t i t y .  Tuan and  of Werner and P i a g e t .  ^Shemyakin h a v e come up w i t h s i m i l a r  Space c o g n i t i o n e v o l v e s  ideas t o those  from s t a t e s o f u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d ,  concrete and p e r s o n a l i z e d knowledge t o s t a t e s o f a b s t r a c t o r g a n i z a t i o n and 12 i n t e g r a t i o n , and h i g h e r l e v e l s o f knowledge and meaning. G.Moore s u m m a r i z e s t h i s levels  developmental  literature  i n three hypothetical  o f m a c r o s p a c e c o g n i t i o n ( 1 9 7 6 , p p . 150 - 1 5 5 ) . 13  His observations are  b a s e d p r i m a r i l y o n P i a g e t ' s w o r k a n d h i s own s t u d i e s o f t h e a d o l e s c e n t s understanding, of the urban environment 3:"1,  3.'2, a n d 313 i l l u s t r a t e  at the three At  (Moore, 1973a, 1973b, 1975a).  schematically the p o s s i b i l i t i e s  Figures  of representation  levels.  l e v e l 1.. t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f s p a c e i s c o n c r e t e , e g o c e n t r i c a n d  undifferentiated.  The e l e m e n t s o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ( i . e . p a r t i c u l a r  towns  i f v i e w e d f r o m a r e g i o n a l s t a n d p o i n t ) may h a v e some p e r s o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e a s they a r e r e l a t e d  t o one's a c t i o n s i n space.  a s s i m i l a t e d t o t h e s u b j e c t ' s own v i e w p o i n t not  recognized at t h i s stage.  topologically  i n some s i m p l e  F i g u r e 3.1 i l l u s t r a t e s  However, a l l i n f o r m a t i o n i s and d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e content a r e  Elements a r e g e n e r a l l y unorganized ordered  sequence r e l a t e d  or organized  to personal  experience.  t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e new r e s i d e n t l i v i n g a t  l o c a t i o n A, a s i m p l e s e q u e n c e o f e l e m e n t s  (physical "acquaintances"  —  places,  l a n d m a r k s ) a l o n g t h e t r a v e l l e d p a t h w i t h some k n o w n p l a c e s w h i c h c a n n o t b e i n t e g r a t e d i n t h e sequence. At  stage  2 t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and p a r t i a l l y  coordinated.  D i f f e r e n c e s a r e r e c o g n i z e d between elements of t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , b u t they a r e not y e t i n t e g r a t e d i n t o an o v e r a l l s t r u c t u r e . the presence  o f one o r m o r e c l u s t e r s  to d i f f e r e n t  cognized  of p r e v i o u s  section).  areas  i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  o r subgroups o f elements  of the environment  E a c h one o f t h o s e  vantage point o r journey  This stage  corresponding  ( i . e . "schemas" o f i n f o r m a t i o n  i s constructed with a particular  i n mind, b u t the person  c a n n o t y e t • c o o r d i n a t e one  p r i v i l e g e d vantage point o r journey w i t h the next.  Thus, t h e r e l a t i o n s  among  46  •  element  (place)  relation  between  ments  Figure  (link)  3.1 - I l l u s t r a t i o n o f M o o r e ' s f i r s t l e v e l o f s p a t i a l c o g n i t i o n : U n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d e g o c e n t r i c r e f e r e n c e system (by t h e a u t h o r )  element within  Figure  ele-  3.2 - M o o r e ' s s e c o n d l e v e l o f s p a t i a l c o g n i t i o n : p a r t i a l l y c o o r d i n a t e d i n t o f i x e d subgroups  (place) schema  relation  between  schema  schema  boundary  relation  D i f f e r e n t i a t e d and (by t h e a u t h o r )  47  Figure  3.3 - M o o r e ' s t h i r d l e v e l o f s p a t i a l c o g n i t i o n : O p e r a t i o n a l l y n a t e d and h i e r a r c h i c a l l y i n t e g r a t e d (by t h e a u t h o r )  e l e m e n t s o f a p a r t i c u l a r c l u s t e r may b e a t a h i g h e r ( p r o j e c t i v e o r even m e t r i c )  coordi-  level of organization  than t h e r e l a t i o n s between t h e v a r i o u s  clusters  14 (which a r e unexistent  or topological).  a r e a s have formed around o u r s u b j e c t ' s (major a c t i o n space) i s organized organization  decentred  from v a r i o u s  perspectives).  and  the " l i n e a r  route"  and  concrete  activity  i n a euclidean  from s u b j e c t ' s The o t h e r  f i x e d reference  R e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n these l a t t e r  In Figure  3.2 t h r e e  space.  T h e home b a s e  or metric  own v i e w p o i n t  are  fashion  and showing  area  (abstract  coordination  two a r e a s a r e t h e " p o i n t - a n d - r a d i a l " s t r u c t u r e s , which a r e also very  clusters s t i l l  show s i g n s  common.  of egocentrism  structuring.  Stage 3 i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an o r g a n i z a t i o n based on a abstracted  significant  reference  coordinated  and  system, i n w h i c h d i f f e r e n t elements o f t h e environmemt  r e l a t e d and s u b o r d i n a t e d .  Coordination  no l o n g e r  h i n g e s on t h e s u b j e c t ' s  48 a c t i o n s o r on but  rather  a fixed reference  i s subordinated  ( F i g u r e 3.3),  system  to a comprehensive reference  a geometric-like  l i n e s of  c l u s t e r s of  are  that  incorporated.  ,  M o o r e comments on  tend  the  B e c k and  case  elements  or  Wood ( 1 9 7 6 ) h a v e shown  t o merge t o g e t h e r  system's  routes),  from e x i s t e n t  e n v i r o n m e n t ) t o w h i c h new  c l u s t e r s from the e a r l i e r p e r i o d  organization.  i n t o the  larger  flexibility:  T h i s comprehensive c o n f i g u r a t i o n of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s between e l e m e n t s and c l u s t e r s i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t p e r m i t s systematic c o g n i t i v e o p e r a t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y the o p e r a t i o n s of composition ( a l l p a r t s are p a r t s of the w h o l e ) , i d e n t i f y ((elements r e t a i n t h e i r i d e n t i t y despite transformations), a s s o c i a t i v i t y (reaching i n t h o u g h t any p a r t by a v a r i e t y o f r o u t e s ) , and r e v e r s i b i l i t y ( i m a g i n i n g a r o u t e i n t h e r e v e r s e d i r e c t i o n ) . ( M o o r e , 1976, pp. 151 - 2)  Elements of  the  system are  r e l a t i v e distances most l o n g outside  a r e w e l l known.  term r e s i d e n t s would n a t u r a l l y develop i n t o such a s t r u c t u r e ,  but  t h a t domain t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n of lowest  l e v e l s of  thesis.  The  "living  domain" ( c i t y  s p a c e becomes l e s s and  less  rigorous  development changes a r e v e r y  relevant  organization.  on o n t o g e n e t i c  developments which occur over the  occur over short periods  of time,  e n v i r o n m e n t s c a n n o t be  interact  The  geometrically; of  These o b s e r v a t i o n s to t h i s  r e l a t e d b o t h p r o t e c t i v e l y and  or region)  r e t u r n i n g to the  All  the  or  system, i n t h i s  structure (possibly abstracted  boundaries or reference information  ( l i k e p a r t i c u l a r places  everywhere at  the  once the  perceived  i n the  same l e v e l .  life  i n d i v i d u a l has same way  c y c l e may  also  reached.maturity.  s i n c e man  does  not  Moore found:  That a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n e x i s t s between "degree of f a m i l i a r i t y and d e v e l o p m e n t a l l e v e l o f s k e t c h - m a p r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ( a n d t h a t ) a s i g n i f i c a n t . r e l a t i o n a l s o e x i s t s b e t w e e n f a m i l i a r i t y and s u c c e s s v e r s u s f a i l u r e on t h e w a y - f i n d i n g t a s k s a t t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d s c a l e . T h u s , t h e s e r e s u l t s on v a r i a t i o n w i t h i n individuals indicated that subjects vary developmentally d e p e n d i n g on t h e demands o f d i f f e r e n t e n v i r o n m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n s , and t h a t f o r t h e most p a r t s u b j e c t s r e p r e s e n t f a m i l i a r a r e a s i n a l e v e l I I I , o p e r a t i o n a l l y c o o r d i n a t e d manner, whereas they r e p r e s e n t l e s s f a m i l i a r areas i n a l e v e l .'II, p a r t i a l l y c o o r d i n a t e d manner. ( 1 9 7 6 , pp. 160 - 61)  49 I b e l i e v e these observations in  general  cognition,  apply  t o the development o f s p a t i a l  as w e l l as t o t h e development o f s p a t i a l i n particular.  My s u b j e c t s  relations or distance  (young a d u l t s )  a r e a t a mature  of development on t h e o n t o g e n e t i c  s c a l e , but they w i l l  forms o f o r g a n i z a t i o n  r e l a t i o n s , d e p e n d i n g on t h e i r  and s p a t i a l  with  the area of study.  3.3  Models o f Space The  The  likely  manifest  discussed.  c o v e r e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same m a t e r i a l i n a d i f f e r e n t  Many w r i t e r s h a v e p r e s e n t e d s t a t i c ,  convincing  These models d e s c r i b e  s t r u c t u r a l models o f space  the s p a t i a l  image and a r e g e n e r a l l y n o t v e r y  s i n c e they a r e n e i t h e r s u p p o r t e d by e m p i r i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n s  theoretical basis.  This  review w i l l  work on t h e t a x i d r i v e r s o f P a r i s . q u i t e r e v e a l i n g as i t looks Pailhous  lower  familiarity  p r o c e s s a n d e v o l u t i o n o f s p a t i a l c o g n i t i o n h a s now b e e n  cognition.  stage  Cognition  following section w i l l  light.  organization  thus be l i m i t e d t o P a i l h o u s ' s  of the urban network.  at both actions  and  representation.  t h e i r n o r m a l t r a v e l s t r a t e g i e s and t h e i r  On t h e b a s i s  exceptional  H i s study, l a r g e l y i n s p i r e d by P i a g e t , i s  ( 1 9 7 0 ) c o n d u c t e d , a number o f e x p e r i m e n t s on n o v i c e  taxi drivers to discover  n o r any  and e x p e r i e n c e d representation  o f those e x p e r i m e n t s he found t h e road  s y s t e m c a n b e d i v i d e d i n t o two p a r t s : (1)  t h e p r i m a r y n e t w o r k , w e l l known t o e v e r y o n e a n d c o n s i s t i n g of major axes and i n t e r s e c t i o n s ,  (2)  t h e s e c o n d a r y n e t w o r k , a l m o s t unknown a s s u c h a n d c o n s i s t i n g of t h e m a j o r i t y  of the roads  (Figure 3:4).  The  p r i m a r y n e t w o r k i s u s e d a s much a s p o s s i b l e .  and  w e l l organized  suggesting space. network.  image o f i t . L o c a t i o n s  t h a t eucli'dean  On t h e o t h e r  Most d r i v e r s have a c l e a r  and d i s t a n c e s  are well  estimated,  r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e o b s e r v e d on t h a t " p r i v i l e g e d "  hand, d r i v e r s r e a c t q u i t e d i f f e r e n t l y  The t r a v e l s t r a t e g y  consists simply  t o the secondary  i n returning to the primary  50 n e t w o r k as  s o o n as  they " f i n d "  possible.  t h e i r way  b a c k by  toward t h e i r d e s t i n a t i o n . d r i v e r s p r o c e e d by t o g u i d e them.  O l d e r d r i v e r s a r e more e f f i c i e n t using  Movement on  recognizable  Pailhous  indexed to reference  a s h o r t e r and  s u b - g o a l s as  i n t o subareas i d e n t i f i a b l e  areas vary  according  drivers  g a i n more e x p e r i e n c e  p o i n t s and a r e a s and  point  that only  s u b j e c t i v e importance of the t h e s i z e o f some a r e a s and  always i n reference  topological relationships hold  s h i p s between p o i n t s  Figure  3.4  on  located., (because r e l a t i v e  i s known), but  overall  to p a r t i c u l a r points.  m u l t i p l e i n d e x a t i o n o f some p o i n t s then e a s i l y  route  representation  secondary network i s attached  the  The  or  network,  s i z e of  reference  these  point.  t h e number o f  indexed areas increase, thus p e r m i t t i n g simple  points are fixed  t h e y h a v e no  this,  improvised,  ( u s u a l l y i n t e r s e c t i o n s ) of the primary  developing  to the  o f t e n more o b l i q u e  that network i s l a r g e l y  found that the  points  i n doing  As  reference  i n d e x a t i o n of  most  secondary network.  Such  l o c a t i o n t o more t h a n  one  to the primary network i n d i c a t i n g  f o r most of t h e u r b a n s p a c e .  o f t h e s e c o n d a r y n e t w o r k c a n n o t u s u a l l y be  Relation-  established.  - I l l u s t r a t i o n of P a i l h o u s ' s model of the s p a t i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t a x i d r i v e r s i n P a r i s (by t h e a u t h o r )  51 Pailhous's  e x p e r i m e n t s show t h a t t h e  a c t i o n and  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n are very  image i s v e r y  closely  t h e s u b a r e a s o r schemas o f t h e p r e v i o u s  levels  of s p a t i a l  related.  Various all  s t r e s s e d the  Devlin,  r e l a t i o n s h i p s d e p e n d i n g on  1976;  Stea,  1969,  and  Stea  and  schema t o t h i s m o d e l . i n t e r l i n k i n g paths. theory.  known, and "Proceeding ordinate."  1976:; K a p l a n , places  As  up  behind  1976).  the b a s i s of  the survey  and  spatial  e t a l . , 1976;  Places  a r e known  first;  r e l a t i o n s h i p s become  Downs (19.70) h a v e a d d e d t h e  Briggs  (1973),  concept of r e g i o n  or  d e f i n e d as p a r t i c u l a r s e t s o f n o d e s and  distance increases  only  are i d e n t i f i e d  important  centres  are l i k e l y  to  their  Each h i g h e r  order  node r e p r e s e n t s  Hudson's model thus i n c o r p o r a t e s  d o m i n a t e d s c h e m a as  be  i n r e l a t i o n t o l a r g e r ones:  the h i e r a r c h y , each l o c a t i o n i s r e l a t e d t o i t s immediate  (1969, p.261).  Focus of  of  of  Hudson's "Model of S p a t i a l R e l a t i o n s " b o r r o w s from c e n t r a l  smaller places  center  The  'Golledge  are experienced  h i e r a r c h y of nodes depending upon the  3.4  familiarity  t h e s e c o n d a r y n e t w o r k and  ( B r i g g s , 1973;  Schemas a r e  nodes i n i t s v i c i n i t y .  of the  the  T h i s b a s i c s t r u c t u r e grows g r a d u a l l y i n d e t a i l .  (1969)  place  note the e x i s t e n c e  i m p o r t a n c e o f a n o d e / p a t h s t r u c t u r e as  when t h e p a t h s b e t w e e n t h o s e  Stea  feature  have suggested s i m i l a r models o f c o g n i t i v e space  c o g n i t i v e mapping  established.  we  recognize  primary).  researchers  l e a r n i n g and  the o r g a n i z i n g  h e r e ) , and  s u b j e c t s w i t h t h e n e t w o r k ( r o u t e m a p p i n g on m a p p i n g on t h e  I n h i s m o d e l , we  s e c t i o n s , as  o f s p a c e ( d o m i n a t e d by w e l l known c e n t r e s various  p r a c t i c a l or f u n c t i o n a l ;  the  the  i d e a of  i n c r e a s e o f knowledge"'""'  a simplifying  and  less  and  superimportant  a  the  concept  o r g a n i z i n g -feature o f  space.  Research  theory  of s p a t i a l  distance  cognition.  active process.  c o g n i t i o n has As  Piaget  helped  us  understand the  processes  showed, s p a t i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s a  Thus c o g n i t i v e d i s t a n c e s a r e m e n t a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s  of  very  52 previous saw  how  theory  trips,  p r i m a r i l y r e l a t e d to people's experience  people s i m p l i f y showed t h a t n o t  and  organize  macro space i n f o r m a t i o n .  only  does t h e  amount o f k n o w l e d g e i n c r e a s e as  i n t e r a c t s w i t h h i s environment, but e v o l v e s , as  does h i s a b i l i t y  hypothesized  these  of s e p a r a t i o n .  a l s o t h e way  he  organizes  Developmental  d e v e l o p m e n t s c o u l d be  It  and  " b i a s " of h i s a c t i o n space.  network confirmed  those  ideas.  c o g n i t i v e mapping a b i l i t i e s How are is  felt  particular  ( i . e . not  really  transformed  Regional  a r e n u m e r o u s , o n l y some w i l l be  known as  s c a l e I e x p e c t more t h a n one  f a m i l i a r a r e a s m i g h t be  experientially  as w e l l known as  conceived  space" of the  knowledge. Regional  reasons w h i l e  Here, the  t o be  p a r t s of the  knowledge.  E a c h s c h e m a c o u l d be  The  individual's a c t i v i t y  l e v e l of d i s t a n c e  experience).  the  conceived  objects regional  while space i s well  i n the surface  of  relevant. corresponding  space or c a t e g o r i e s of h i s  at a d i f f e r e n t l e v e l , but p o s s i b l e at the  regional scale.  point of  S i n c e no m e a s u r e m e n t i s p o s s i b l e a t t h i s  spatial  I doubt  c o g n i t i o n ( t o p o l o g i c a l ) corresponds to i n d i v i d u a l ' s own  of  region  Regional  i n t o s u b a r e a s o r schemas  r e l a t i o n s of p r o x i m i t y , e s t a b l i s h e d from the ( h i s own  At  some a r e a s w i l l b e  remain "holes"  c o o r d i n a t i o n b e t w e e n a l l schemas e v e r b e lowest  impressions  Most of the  at the e u c l i d e a n l e v e l .  others w i l l  to d i s t i n c t  overall  and  t o p o l o g i c a l or p r o j e c t i v e l e v e l s  organized  here.  d e r i v e d ; macro space  c o n c e p t o f schemas o f s p a c e becomes v e r y  space i s l i k e l y  urban  and  exploited  individual.  t h u s an e l a s t i c s p a c e , o n l y p a r t i a l l y - c o o r d i n a t e d ; known f o r v a r i o u s  of the  the space of p e r c e i v e d  l e v e l of space c o g n i t i o n .  at e i t h e r the  the  have seen t h a t c o g n i t i v e d i s t a n c e s  d e p e n d i n g on p e o p l e ' s f a m i l i a r i t y  space i s not  conceived  We  f a c t ) and  (Piaget) or even the wider "personal  s h o u l d be  e m p i r i c a l study  to  l i n k s between d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n  i s r e g i o n a l space conceived?  definitely  places.  The  Pailhous's  was  o b s e r v e d a t any  time s i n c e s p a t i a l knowledge v a r i e s around the i n d i v i d u a l a c c o r d i n g extent  man  information  to e s t a b l i s h s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  ontogenetic  We  stage,  simple  view drastic  53 transformations  of space take p l a c e .  r e l a t i o n s o f p r o x i m i t y can be  At  the intermediate  level (projective)  e s t a b l i s h e d from v a r i o u s p o i n t s of view a l l o w i n g  f o r the c o n s e r v a t i o n of the order of r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n s . p o s s i b l e as  t h e i n d i v i d u a l compares a n d  reference object  (index d i s t . ,  Measurement i s  g a u g e s d i s t a n c e s o n some o u t s i d e  c i t y b l o c k o r w h a t e v e r ) ( P i a g e t , 1960,  This l e v e l of r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l  now  l i k e l y be  adopted at the  ch.  2).  regional scale.  P i a g e t ' s o n l y e x p e r i m e n t on m a c r o 'space ( s c h o o l - h o m e a r e a ) s h o w e d t h a t h i s s u b j e c t s ' r e f e r e n c e s y s t e m was being The  "the  rank-order  highest  l e v e l of  of o b j e c t s along  partially  of s t a t i o n a r y s i t e s  two  coordinate  (1960, p.22).  o c c u r s when s p a c e i s a  reference points.  S p a c e i s now  fully  an a b s t r a c t  r e l a t i o n s are expressed  ( P i a g e t , 1960,  v a r i o u s schemas o f s p a c e  ch.  3).  The  two-dimensional  between p l a c e s are symmetrical, they i s interposed.  a r e now  At  this  coordinate conserved  o f m a c r o " s p a c e c o u l d be  conceived  somewhere b e t w e e n t h e t o t a l l y  •coordinated Euclidean space, although  i n terms are  Distances  intermediate  l e v e l measurement by  i t e r a t i o n of  at the E u c l i d e a n l e v e l . elastic  system.  con-  whatever  u n i t m e a s u r e ( i . e . m i l e ) becomes p o s s i b l e ( P i a g e t , 1 9 6 0 ,  fall  axes"  independent of i t s content;  i n t e g r a t e d , i n l i n e w i t h the  object or b a r r i e r  the  the b a s i c r e l a t i o n s h i p e s t a b l i s h e d  coordination (Euclidean)  ..coordinated system of f i x e d tainer  "qualitative",  ch.  2).  Regional  t o p o l o g i c a l s p a c e and  s p e c i f i c areas  V e r y few  could f a l l  space  the  a areas  will  fixed  i n either  extreme. Why  w o u l d macro-'space r e m a i n somewhat e l a s t i c ,  organized? if  s u b j e c t i v e and  only  partially  I n P i a g e t ' s system, normal c o g n i t i v e development i s o n l y p o s s i b l e  the s u b j e c t - o b j e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p  reaches a n a t u r a l balance,  e q u i l i b r i u m between a s s i m i l a t i o n and  i f there i s  accommodation:  . . . e q u i l i b r i u m . . . connotes a k i n d of balance, a f u n c t i o n a l s t a t e i n w h i c h p o t e n t i a l l y s l a v i s h and n a i v e l y r e a l i s t i c ( i n the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l sense) accommodations t o r e a l i t y a r e e f f e c t i v e l y h e l d i n c h e c k by a n a s s i m i l a t o r y p r o c e s s w h i c h c a n o r g a n i z e a n d d i r e c t a c c o m m o d a t i o n s , and  54 i n which a s s i m i l a t i o n i s kept from being r i o t o u s l y a u t i s t i c by a s u f f i c i e n c y o f c o n t i n u i n g a c c o m m o d a t o r y a d j u s t m e n t s to the r e a l w o r l d . . . Through t h i s f i n e b a l a n c e , a b o t h r e a l i s t i c (accommodation) and m e a n i n g f u l ( a s s i m i l a t i o n ) r a p p o r t b e t w e e n s u b j e c t and o b j e c t i s s e c u r e d . ( F l a v e l l , 1963, p.65)  M a c r o s p a c e r s r e m o t e : i t i s o n l y s p a r s e l y and  s e l e c t i v e l y known b e c a u s e i t c a n -  not  be  C o n s e q u e n t l y , such an  not  immediate enough t o p e r m i t  a p p r e h e n d e d a l l a t o n c e by  modation i s subordinated subject "takes "play"  e q u i l i b r i u m of i n t e l l i g e n t In the  the e l u s i v e o b j e c t . T h i s I n the  f u n c t i o n i n g , and  acco-  s u b j e c t - o b j e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p the  results  i . e . a one-one c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h t h e  image i s d i s t o r t e d , e g o c e n t r i c a n d  areas,  "object" i s  i n Piaget's  concept  of  case of the adopted image, " i m i t a t i o n aims  m e d i a t e a c c o m m o d a t i o n ( P i a g e t , 1962, liar  senses.  to a s s i m i l a t i o n .  (1962, p a r t two).  exactness, the  over"  the  t h i s makes i t v e r y h a r d  object s i g n i f i e d . "  s u b j e c t i v e as  In  at  "play",  i t i s d i s s o c i a t e d from  pp.164-65). With the  exception  f o r macro space t o r e a c h  of very  the h i g h e r  imfami-  levels  of o r g a n i z a t i o n . This they  t h e s i s i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h how  transform  s p a c e t h e way  they  do.  p e o p l e t h i n k a b o u t s e p a r a t i o n and First,  m e t r i c o f s p a c e i s s u e . W h i c h m e t r i c do can  they  e s t a b l i s h ? Does t h e m e t r i c  known? The  purpose here i s to get  Next, I w i l l controlling involved)  look at the e f f e c t for personal  f a c t o r s , the  and  pay  some a t t e n t i o n t o  schemas o r p l a c e s become p o o r l y  a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' own  o f v a r i o u s f a c t o r s on  study w i l l  (sampling  concentrate  places,  (word of mouth, media) i m p r e s s i o n s  on  sense of  l o c a t i o n s and the  The The  and  reference  ( 2 ) t h e e x p e r i e n t i a l and  importance of the  "impressions"  of the  distances  (1)  people's  second hand places the  and,  role  of  environment.  a c t i v e knowledge f a c t o r has  developed of the p l a c e s w i l l  real  influence of:  they have developped of those  lines  distance.  distance cognition. After  (3) t h e i r m e n t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f s p a t i a l k n o w l e d g e , p a r t i c u l a r l y schemas, b a r r i e r s ,  the  p e o p l e f a v o r ? What l e v e l o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s  c h a n g e as  locational  a c t i v e knowledge of surrounding  I will  why  be  a l r e a d y been  s t u d i e d as  discussed.  a second f a c t o r  55 because t h i s  aspect i s not separable  t o know a p l a c e that place. and  from t h e knowledge d i m e n s i o n . As p e o p l e g e t  they develop personal  Beck (1967) s t r e s s e d  function of objects  ideas,  impressions,  and p r e f e r e n c e s  t h a t s p a t i a l meaning i s supplemented by t h e use  ( i . e . p l a c e s ) . As k n o w l e d g e i n c r e a s e s  g e t more a n d more d i v e r s e  about  and space gets d i f f e r e n t i a t e d (Beck,  spatial  meanings  1967; B u r g e s s ,  16 1974,  1978).  sists  they a r e i n d i s s o c i a b l e i n r e a l l i f e ,  a l l human  I n h i s discussion, Piaget  s e p a r a t e s a f f e c t and c o g n i t i o n b u t i n both being  necessarily involved i n  adaptation: Affective l i f e , l i k e i n t e l l e c t u a l l i f e , i s a continual adaptation, and t h e two a r e n o t o n l y p a r a l l e l b u t i n t e r d e p e n d e n t , s i n c e f e e l i n g s e x p r e s s t h e i n t e r e s t and v a l u e g i v e n t o a c t i o n s o f which i n t e l l i gence p r o v i d e s t h e s t r u c t u r e . . . . p e r s o n a l schemas, l i k e a l l o t h e r s , a r e b o t h i n t e l l e c t u a l and a f f e c t i v e . ( P i a g e t , 1962, pp. 205-07)  In t h i s  t h e s i s , k n o w l e d g e and meaning a r e b o t h t a k e n t o be e x p r e s s i o n s  experience of places. the next chapter. light  The m e a s u r e m e n t o f t h e s e a t t r i b u t e s w i l l  The s u b j e c t s '  of t h e i r mental organization  ce as w e l l as t h e " r e a l " Will  distance  distance  estimates  will  of people's  be d i s c u s s e d i n  be i n t e r p r e t e d i n t h e  o f s p a c e . P e o p l e ' s own c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f s p a -  (political)  categories  of space w i l l  be i n v e s t i g a t e d .  c o g n i t i o n c h a n g e a s t h e s c h e m a s become i n c r e a s i n g l y c o a r s e o r l e s s  familiar  (homogenization of distance  distance  c o g n i t i o n w i t h i n t h e same s c h e m a b e more u n i f o r m t h a n i t i s b e t w e e n  schemas, e v e r y t h i n g  else being  estimates  equal? F i n a l l y ,  t o d i s t a n t , vague schemas)?  the influence of reference  (major r i v e r s ) on t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and d i s t o r t i o n o f t h e r e g i o n a l s p a c e , be  studied.  Will  lines will  CHAPTER I V Methodology  This chapter  i n t r o d u c e s t h e s t u d y r e g i o n and  d i s c u s s e s t h e c h o i c e o f s t i m u l i p o i n t s and are  sample.  i t s inhabitants; i t The  operational variables  then d e f i n e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a d i s c u s s i o n of the format  of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  Finally,  the q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s are  4.1  Region of The  area  i n Quebec and  problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  reviewed.  study area  political  r e g i o n i s w e l l c i r c u m s c r i b e d by two  i s E a s t e r n O n t a r i o , however, the  t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s has  t h e e f f e c t s o f p h y s i c a l and  been c o n s i d e r e d  i n order  the Ottawa and  S t . Lawrence r i v e r s ,  l a r g e c e n t r e s a t b o t h ends - Ottawa and M o n t r e a l . ( o n w h a t u s e d t o be  Champlain Sea),  the area i s q u i t e f l a t .  the topography of  s e d i m e n t s d e p o s i t e d by  in  and  S a n d and  the supporting s e r v i c e s c o n s t i t u t e the major t o w n s s m a l l i n d u s t r i e s may  towns a r e d i s p e r s e d t h r o u g h o u t  (2,802,485), Ottawa-Hull Hawkesbury  (11,306),  Kemptville  (2,544),  (1,568),  the bottom of  observe This and  is  As the clay  t h e sea have p r o d u c e d a good a r e a f o r a g r i c u l t u r e .  the r e g i o n ; i n the l a r g e r  a few  adjacent  to  b a r r i e r s on s p a c e c o g n i t i o n .  p a r t of the S t . Lawrence lowlands  Dairy farming  application  Study  core of the  d o m i n a t e d by  t h e m a j o r s t e p s and  and  (793,288);  Rockland  the area: (2)  a g r e a t number o f h a m l e t s a n d  T r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n t h e r e g i o n c e n t r e s on  56  (3)  (46,121). villages:  (1,245), Vankleek  (1,325), A l f r e d  unincorporated  Quite  Montreal  Cornwall  (3,930), A l e x a n d r i a (3,498);  Chesterville  found.  cities:  s m a l l towns:  Embrun ( 1 , 7 6 3 ) , W i n c h e s t e r  Casselman (1,422),  (1)  be  occupation  settlements  the automobile;  Hill  (1,105)^ (MAP  and  1).  public transporta-  MP  1 - Region  of  study  ( c o m p i l e d by  the  author)  58 tion i s limited  to railway  travel  ( V i a R a i l ) between Ottawa or T o r o n t o ,  M o n t r e a l , w i t h a f e w s t o p s a l o n g t h e way. c o n n e c t e d w i t h two m u l t i l a n e h i g h w a y s the c e n t e r ) which of m o s t l y paved  few y e a r s .  road network  roads complete  the network  (MAP  a local  f o r i n s t a n c e , commonly d e a l s w i t h n o t be t h e s c a l e o f  and e v e n d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s  personalized  f o r i n c r e a s i n g numbers o f commuters,  trips,  I n a d d i t i o n , most p e o p l e ' s "awareness  networks.  Ontario, with i t s clear physical, p o l i t i c a l  The  moved i n t o P r e s c o t t C o u n t y c o u n t i e s o f V a u d r e u i l and  Early  i n the 19th century French  through L'Orignal' the M o n t r e a l area.  (MAP  arrived  I n 1847,  from France.  s u c c e s s o r , A r c h b i s h o p Duhamel (1874-1910), who  poured  own  language would  have p r i o r i t y .  was  the p a r i s h e s of  the  entrusted to  Under h i m and h i s  the thousands  C a r t w r i g h t (1977)  of French  d e s c r i b e s how  Canadians  Prescott  (Diocese of Kingston)  much more d i s p e r s e d , r e p l a c i n g t h e B r i t i s h f a r m e r s who westward.  their  t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e Quebec c h u r c h ,  t h e F r e n c h p e n e t r a t i o n o f G l e n g a r r y and Stormont  l a n d a n d moved  at  Canadians  i n t o t h e r e g i o n were a s s u r e d o f p a r i s h e s and s c h o o l s i n w h i c h  and R u s s e l l c o u n t i e s d e v e l o p e d under while  arrived  2 ) , from the overpopulated  O t t a w a V a l l e y w e r e d e t a c h e d f r o m t h e D i o c e s e o f K i n g s t o n and B i s h o p G u i g u e s , an O b l a t e n e w l y  barriers,  imagery.  s e t t l e r s o f t h e a r e a w e r e L o y a l i s t s , who  the turn of the 18th century.  T.V.,  s e t t i n g of Eastern  and p o s s i b l e c u l t u r a l  i n t e r e s t i n g f o r the study of mental  shopping  space" extends to the  s u r r o u n d i n g a r e a s a s i t i s i n f l u e n c e d by t h e r e g i o n a l m e d i a ( r a d i o , p a p e r s ) and word-of-mouth communication  the  o f many p e o p l e o c c u r a t t h e  (e.g. work t r i p s  Among t h e f i r s t  network  1).  regional scale  is particularly  through  has been p u t on t h e r e g i o n a l s c a l e o f s t u d y i n t h e  W h i l e t h e r e g i o n may  a c t i o n space, the weekly  i s highly  ( 4 0 1 a l o n g S t . L a w r e n c e a n d 417  P e r c e p t i o n geography,  urban environment.  etc.).  though  l i n k w i t h a number o f s e c o n d a r y h i g h w a y s ;  F a r l e s s emphasis last  The  and  vacated  their  59 Today, the r e g i o n i s s t i l l cultural 26% is  groups:  i f French  referred  (1971 mother t o n g u e s t a t i s t i c ) .  i n the n o r t h e a s t e r n h a l f  t o as t h e  Rockland  and  Ottawa-Hull  two  distinct  and  Glengarry  French  population  44%;  R u s s e l l county  i s 84%  Casselman, Plantagenet,  French  Hawkesbury  Embrun and  A l e x a n d r i a around 65%,  ( s e e MAP  2 f o r 1971  distribution  g r o u p s o f t h e r e g i o n and  surrounding  areas).  This r e l a t i v e  French  i t s survival  found  around 30%  g r o u p has  assured  a significant  factors  to the present  day.  o f two  legal  Ray's  s e r v i c e s ) and  o f two  distinct  15% o f the p o p u l a t i o n w i t h F r e n c h m a t e r n a l Canada C e n s u s ) .  much h i g h e r . ( F r e n c h and  The  (1967)  cultural  Outside  parentage  g r o u p s may 15%  unilingual  n o t be  (Ottawa,  Cornwall)  approaching  mixed  h i g h s c h o o l s of  the l a r g e urban  t h e a s s i m i l a t o r y f o r c e s become e v e n more  Montreal: is  80%  slowly populated  Forest Park,  English speaking.  a new  the students.  centers prominent.  social  identity.  residential  Le  "petit  E n g l i s h urban d w e l l e r s from Ottawa a r e a between C a s s e l m a n and  I t t h u s becomes h a r d e r  w i t h i n the French m i n o r i t y . and  by  -  is typically  A l s o , s i n c e the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the "417", the f o r m e r l y q u i e t , r u r a l , Quebec" i s b e i n g  so  i n 1971  r e g i o n , E n g l i s h i s t h e " l a n g u a g e o f t h e c o r r i d o r s " f o r most F r e n c h B e y o n d t h e p e t i t Q u e b e c a r e a , and  Cultural  were u s i n g E n g l i s h a t  t h e home, t h e p e r c e n t a g e  even the F r e n c h  study  optical).  young g e n e r a t i o n i s e s p e c i a l l y a f f e c t e d ; i n t h e  E n g l i s h ) and  the  intermediate  higher-order services (dental,  A s s i m i l a t i o n f o r E a s t e r n O n t a r i o as a w h o l e r e a c h e d  home ( 1 9 7 1  cultural  c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e i n consumer t r a v e l b e h a v i o r .  however, the presence  clear.  Cornwall  i s o l a t i o n of  i n f l u e n c e e a c h g r o u p ' s a c t i o n s p a c e when i t comes t o  ( m e d i c a l and Today  a r e a r o u n d 90% F r e n c h ,  The  and  o f the r e g i o n i n what i s o f t e n  " p e t i t Quebec" o f O n t a r i o .  s p e a k i n g , P r e s c o t t 81%, and  b y w h a t seems t o be  67% o f E a s t e r n O n t a r i o ' s p o p u l a t i o n i s E n g l i s h s p e a k i n g  speaking  concentrated  occupied  to f i n d group  " p e t i t Quebec" i s s l o w l y l o s i n g  and  Embrun,  solidarity i t s spatial  LegendQ  French  ( 8 0 percent  Q  Mostly  trench  O  M i x e d ( 5 0 - 6 5 percent  for  Q  Mostly  english  English  ( 8 0 percent a n d  derived  language  zones o f area of study  ( 6 5 - 8 0 percent)  H  (Zones  MAP 2 - C u l t u r a l  and  ( c o m p i l e d by t h e a u t h o r )  from  spoken  at  either  group)  ( 6 5 - 8 0 percent)  1971 home  more)  CANADA for  CENSUS  census  statistic  subdivisions  and  on towns)  4.2  Stimuli Points Stimulus  study use  point  i s t h e common name g i v e n  f o r w h i c h one i s a s k i n g d i s t a n c e e s t i m a t e s  of such d i s c r e t e e n t i t i e s  c o g n i t i v e space, should space.  to  concern,  evaluations.  Towns a r e commonly r e f e r r e d t o f o r o r i e n t i n g , i n d e s c r i p t i o n s  and meaning.  Unless  a place  a r e t h e r e p o s i t o r i e s o f knowi s w e l l known p e o p l e w o u l d  L y n c h ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f a "node" i s a p p r o p r i a t e h e r e  scale withstanding): enter, a conceptual  a node i s a s t r a t e g i c f o c u s  The  tend  (Burgess, 1974,  (the  different  i n t o which people can  anchor p o i n t , a c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f a c t i v i t y ,  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , and f i n a l l y , organized  The  a r e t h e most r e l e v a n t b u i l d i n g  h a v e a g l o b a l i m a g e o f i t , w h i c h c a n t u r n i n t o -a s t e r e o t y p e  1978).  be  and o t h e r  of the area of  a l l o w us t o g e t a t t h e d e s i r e d c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f  t h e r e g i o n , e t c e t e r a , and t h e r e f o r e , t h e y  ledge,  places  or "elements", which c o n s t i t u t e t h e basis of  A t t h e r e g i o n a l s c a l e towns o r p l a c e s  blocks o f space. of  t o those  a break i n  a n e l e m e n t o f s p a c e a r o u n d w h i c h l a r g e a r e a s may  (1960, pp. 72-78). stimuli points of this  replicate the "real world"  study  (MAP 3) w e r e c h o s e n e x p r e s s l y t o  of the r e g i o n a l environment:  (1) P o i n t s w e r e c h o s e n t o c o v e r outside the r e g i o n a l borders  the whole area  of study;  i n Quebec and t h e U n i t e d  were i n c l u d e d t o t e s t t h e e f f e c t o f v a r i o u s (2) P o i n t s w e r e c h o s e n f o r t h e i r p r o b a b i l i t y (although  points States  barriers.  of being  known  g o o d k n o w l e d g e was n o t n e c e s s a r y ) .  (3) They w e r e c h o s e n f o r t h e i r v a r i o u s s i z e s (TABLE 4 . 1 ) , (4) And t h e i r v a r i o u s p o l i t i c a l  and c u l t u r a l  Twenty-one s t i m u l i p o i n t s were used i n k e e p i n g 2 mxnutes.  identities.  with a questionnaire  o f 35-45  62  Maniwaki  MAP 3 - S t i m u l i  points  TABLE Characteristics  4.1 of stimuli  Language Places  (prov.)  Montreal  2.  Ottawa-Hull  3.  Cornwall  (Quebec)  5.  (Ont./Que)  (Que.)  Brockville  (Ont.)  6. M a s s e n a  (N.Y.)  7. L a c h u t e  (Que.)  8. B u c k i n g h a m 9.  Smiths  2,802,485  (Ontario)  4. V a l l e y f i e l d  '  68  19  13  31  63  6  31  67  2  5  0  35,920  95 1 (N.A.  97 but mostly  15,042  80  19  14,328  74  26  13,327  1  (N.Y.)  11.  Hawkesbury  (Ont.)  11,306  85  14  12.  Arnprior  (Ont.)  10,662  1  98  13.  Maniwaki  (Que.)  5,969  90  10  14.  Rockland  (Ont.)  3,930  86  14  15.  Alexandria  (Ont.)  '3,498  62  38  (Ont.)  Kemptville Rigaud  (Que.)  18.  Embrun  (Ont.)  19.  Vankleek  20.  Casselman  21.  Plantagenet  22.  (sample p o i n t  H i l l  Avonmore  (Ont.)  (Ont.)  Chesterville Lancaster  13,000  a  but mostly  2,544  1  98  2,203  97  3  1,763  68  31  1,568  53  47  1,422  94  6  920  88  12  2  98  (Ont.)  3  English)  towns) (Ont.)  1,325  (Ont.) (Ont.)  540 (N.A. very  Source:  (N.A.  2 English)  99  Ogdensburg  16.  (%)  Others  46,121  15,300  (Ont.)  English  10.  17.  a t home  693,288  26,883  (Que.)  Falls  spoken  Population French  1.  i  points  24  but  (N.A.  74 but mostly  English)  small!  1 9 7 6 Canada Census (Metropolitan a n d O t t a w a ) , 1 9 7 0 U.S.A. C e n s u s , Statistic not available  areas i n the case of Montreal 1 9 7 1language s t a t i s t i c s  4.3 S a m p l e My s a m p l e students  c o n s i s t e d o f F r e n c h and E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g s e n i o r h i g h  (17 - 18 y e a r s o l d ) f r o m t e n l o c a l i t i e s i n E a s t e r n O n t a r i o  A l a r g e sample  allowed a s t a t i s t i c a l analysis  s c h o o l , as w e l l as h e l p i n g The  even a t t h e l e v e l  school  (MAP 4 ) .  of each  to attenuate the e f f e c t of u n c o n t r o l l e d  variables.  c o l l a b o r a t i o n o f 12 h i g h s c h o o l s f r o m t h e c e n t e r o f t h e r e g i o n p r o d u c e d a  64 sample without  MAP  The  4 - Sampling  students  (MAP  A).  points  came f r o m t h e p a r t i c u l a r  r u r a l areas. way,  spatial bias  Groups of respondents r e c e i v e d s t a n d a r d i z e d  t h e c h a n c e s o f b i a s i n t r o d u c e d by  least place.  t o w n s as w e l l a s f r o m t h e  the  r e s e a r c h e r were m i n i m i z e d  a l l s c h o o l s a p p r o a c h e d showed i n t e r e s t  i n c l u d e s a l m o s t t h e e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n o f g r a d e 13 p l a c e s w h e r e g r a d e 13's to p a r t i c i p a t e as  instructions.  c o n t r o l l e d , s i n c e t h e same i n s t r u c t i o n s w e r e r e p e a t e d As  were i n s u f f i c i e n t  (TABLE 4 . 3 . 1 . ) .  t h e i r c u l t u r a l breakdown a r e  The  i n t h e p r o j e c t , my students  at to  sample  i n the r e g i o n .  i n n u m b e r s , g r a d e 12's  i n T A B L E 4.2  This  or  from p l a c e  number o f r e s p o n d e n t s p e r  listed  surrounding  were  In  invited  s c h o o l as w e l l  G e n e r a l l y , the  response  65 was v e r y g o o d ; h o w e v e r , some q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w h i c h showed s i g n s o f n e g l i g e n c e were n o t accepted.  TABLE 4.2 Sampling  (School)  1.Williamstown 2.Avonmore  (Charlan)  (Tagwi)  3.Casselman 4.Hawkesbury 5 .Embrun 6.Alexandria  (Glengarry)  7.Chesterville 8.Vankleek  (North Dundas)  Hill  9.Plantagenet 10.Cornwall  CULTURAL IDENTITY  TOTAL  TOTAL  LOCATION  points  FRENCH  1  1  BOTH  OTHER  RESPONSE  ACCEPTED  ENGLISH  40  39  25  3  11  -  62  59  36  9  11  3  118  94  -  81  12  1  55  49  11  29  9  -  . 47  41  -  32  9  -  59  58  32  17  9  -  32  32  30  -  1  1  43  39  19  17  3  -  38  35  9  17  9  -  133  98  41  40  14  3  627  544  203  245  88  8  (La C i t a d e l l e St.Laurent General Vanier)  !  TOTAL  a  C a t e g o r i e s t o be e x p l a i n e d i n ' q u e s t i o n n a i r e ' s e c t i o n  The m a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s a m p l e a r e shown i n T a b l e 4.3. s u b j e c t s w e r e 17 - 18 y e a r s o l d ; G o u l d  ( 1 9 7 4 , 1 9 7 5 ( b ) , 1 9 7 6 ) h a s shown  s p a t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n tends t o l e v e l o f f around t h a t age. pertaining to adults. f i v e years mobility rides  to this  g r o u p may n o t b e t h a t d i f f e r e n t  The m a j o r i t y o f t h e s u b j e c t s have l i v e d ( T A B L E 4.3.5, 4 . 3 . 6 ) .  than adults  (74%) ( o n l y  Therefore,  from o b s e r v a t i o n s  Most that  observations pertaining  i nthe region f o r a t least  S t u d e n t s p r o b a b l y have a lower l e v e l o f  (TABLE 4 . 3 . 7 ) :  m o s t u s e d someone  15%possessed cars).  e l s e ' s c a r o r they got  T h e l a r g e m a j o r i t y o f them h o w e v e r ,  a d m i t t o a f a i r amount o f t r a v e l i n g  i n the region.  TABLE 4.3 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e sample  3.1  GRADE  3 4  %  3 .6  5.8 10.5 , 17.3 66.4  PREVIOU^ ADDRESS  %  No change Change i n r e g i o n Out-Ontario Out-Quebec N Out-Quebec E Far out  57 .9 28 .3 4 .7 0 .2 7 .3 1 .6  15.2 27.7 36.8 2.2 4.1 9.1 4.1 0.7  For whether t h e s t u d e n t i s t a k i n g k  27.4 72.6  %  MOBILITY My c a r Others' c a r Ride w i t h somebody P u b l i c mode My c a r - r i d e Others' c a r - r i d e Little travel Other  %  3  Yes No  LENGTH OF RESIDENCE (YRS)  3.7  45.7 54 .3  GEO STUDENT  6.8 42.2 48.3 2.4 0.4  0-1 2-4 5-9 10 - 20  %  M F  %  AGE 16 17 18 19 20  3.5  SEX  0.4 36.6 63.0  11 12 13  3.3  3 2  %  geography o r n o t  'Out-Ontario' i s f o r respondents who came t o t h e r e g i o n from somewhere e l s e i n O n t a r i o ; 'Out-Quebec N' i s f o r respondents coming from Quebec north o f the r e g i o n , e t c . v  4.4 T h e E x p e r i m e n t 4.4.1 O p e r a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s The c h o i c e experiment design.  of operational variables i s largely A questionnaire  t h a t would  dependent  be f i l l e d  out e a s i l y and  r a t h e r q u i c k l y , r e q u i r i n g m i n i m a l i n s t r u c t i o n s , was a p p r o p r i a t e sample  chosen.  on t h e  to the large  Of c o u r s e , t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r m s e r i o u s l y l i m i t s  the choice  67 of o p e r a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . TABLE 4.4 concerns  lists  t h e o p e r a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s by  (see q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n Appendix 1 f o r the exact  variable). on age,  The  sex,  school grade, and  address,  l e n g t h o f r e s i d e n c e and  l e v e l of m o b i l i t y .  C o n t r o l was  g e o g r a p h y w h e r e t h e e x p o s u r e t o r e g i o n a l maps may f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t h e r e g i o n and for  example, i n the  was  i n c l u d e d b e c a u s e many i n d i v i d u a l s  r e f u s e to i d e n t i f y In  cultural  i t s people  identity  themselves  the r e g i o n i n t h r e e d i f f e r e n t ways: ratio  e s t i m a t e , by m i l e a g e ,  e s t i m a t e , I d i d not thereby Very  and  by  s c h o o l to the f i x e d by time  o f them t h o u g h t t h e q u e s t i o n was  the c h o i c e t o use  students opted to  O t t a w a was  be  estimated.  My  As  estimates.  questions:  "both  of  them"  "bilingual"  and  asked  21 s t i m u l i p o i n t s o f  I n the case  the crow f l i e s " t h e i r own  vague.  The  suggested  of the  t o be  estimate,  sense of d i s t a n c e s .  The  t h i n k i n terms of percentages  standard  I gave  index; only  two  (1976),  of the range of r e a l  s i m p l e r a t i o s and i f they d e s i r e .  ( i . e . where e s t i m a t e s  most  Williamstown  i n Cadwallader  d i s t a n c e was  was  t h e b e s t known and  the  assigned  i t enables  the  distance  distances  T h i s makes f o r a much b e t t e r " i n d e x " v a l u e a g a i n s t w h i c h compared.  or  ratio  d i s t a n c e to Ottawa  I n A l e x a n d r i a and  a l w a y s somewhere i n t h e m i d d l e  i t i s easy to d i v i d e i n t o  index  own  the popular s u b j e c t i v e magnitude  e i t h e r O t t a w a o r M o n t r e a l as  f o r Montreal.  d i s t a n c e s c a n be  a line  formulate the  taking  or E n g l i s h .  f r e e to express  t r a v e l l e d d i s t a n c e f o r a l l samples.  as  have been h i g h e r .  c o n s i d e r themselves  c h o s e n as t h e i n d e x d i s t a n c e b e c a u s e t h i s p r o v e d  students  done f o r s t u d e n t s  h e l p e d me  s p e c i f y a r o u t e o r a "as  l e a v i n g the students  few  address,  order to e x p l o r e the m e t r i c of space i s s u e , s u b j e c t s were  estimate the d i s t a n c e from t h e i r  each  questions  previous  q u e s t i o n , the category  as F r e n c h  study's  f o r m u l a t i o n of  f r o n t page of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n t a i n e d p e r s o n a l  cultural identity  to  c a t e g o r i e s of the  to  other  the value  100  the s u b j e c t s to  A number i n d e x was  a r e m a r k e d on a s t a n d a r d  preferred to  l i n e ) , being  a  68 much m o r e f l e x i b l e s y s t e m and a l l o w i n g  f o r a more i n d e p e n d e n t j u d g m e n t .  TABLE  4.4  L i s t of o p e r a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s  OPERATIONAL VARIABLES ( v a r i a b l e name)  INTEREST  1. Personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of respondents  a b c d e f gh i.  2. How people t h i n k about d i s t a n c e s - what t r a n s formations of space they do  grade (GRADE) age (AGE) sex (SEX) t a k i n g geography or not (GEO) home address length of residence (LTRES)* previous address i f a p p l i c a b l e c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y (CULTURE) l e v e l o f m o b i l i t y (MOBILE)  4. People's impressions places (MEANING)  of  3  3  a. 3 d i s t a n c e  (PREADD) Front Page  estimates:  - s u b j e c t i v e magnitude estimate - mile estimate (SUBMILE) - time estimate (SUBTIME) b. d i r e c t i o n estimate  3. People's a c t i v e knowledge of space  QUESTIONNAIRE (page)  (SUBMAG)  2 3 3  (SUBDIR)  4  a. s c a l e e v a l u a t i o n of knowledge (KNOWL) b. s c a l e e v a l u a t i o n of amount of v i s i t s f o r meeting r e l a t i v e s or f r i e n d s (VISIT 1) c. frequency o f road usage (VISIT 2) a. b. c. d.  scale scale scale scale  evaluation evaluation evaluation evaluation  of of of of  meaning (MEANIN) s i z e (SIZE) value (EVALUA) language used (LANGAG)  6  Map  10 Exercise 8 11 9 7  C  5. People's mental o r g a n i z a t i o n of space a) people's own c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f space  a. grouping of p l a c e s according to t h e i r s i m i l a r i t i e s (SURGRO) b. s u b d i v i s i o n of region i n t o subareas (MAPGRO) d  d  b) i n f l u e n c e of p o l i t i c a l and p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s  Map  5 Exercise  a. use o f p o l i t i c a l c a t e g o r i e s of region of study ( i . e . Ontario-Quebec-USA) (POLBAR) b. c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of r e g i o n according t o p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r s ( i . e . places along r i v e r s , i n l a n d p l a c e s ) (PHYSBAR) 1  a Please  r e f e r t o copy of  q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n Appendix 1.  '  *^  b LTRES recoded t o RLTRES on the b a s i s of four c a t e g o r i e s o f time of residence (1: 1 year or l e s s ; 2: 2 t o 4 years; 3: 5 to 9; 4: 10 to 20) c LANGAG was recoded to LAGREE, a language agreement v a r i a b l e which i n d i c a t e s t o which degree the LANGAG judgment corresponds to the s u b j e c t ' s own c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y on a s c a l e 1 to 7, where 1 i s f o r when the languages agree and 7 i s f o r when they d i s a g r e e . SURGRO and MAPGRO were recoded as the dichotomous v a r i a b l e s RSURGRO and RMAPGRO which simply account f o r the home and f o r e i g n schemas ( i . e . a l l non-home schemas recoded here as one f o r e i g n schema). d  In order to reconstruct  t h e t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l m e n t a l s p a c e o f my  I asked f o r a diagram showing d i r e c t i o n s  t o t h e same s e t o f s t i m u l i  P r e v i o u s s t u d i e s h a v e shown t h a t s u c h e s t i m a t e s l a r g e l y  i n f l u e n c e d by r e f e r e n c e l i n e s  points.  depend on p e o p l e ' s  e x p e r i e n c e o f s p a c e ( P o c o c k , 1976a, pp. 510-512; P e t e r s o n , 1 9 1 6 ) . estimates are also  subjects,  Direction  i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t and by  69 people's a b i l i t y t h i s study,  to simplify reality  students  (Trowbridge,  the  In  diagrams;  t a k i n g good c a r e o f t h e 0° -  break.  P e o p l e ' s a c t i v e k n o w l e d g e o f s p a c e was m e a s u r e d i n t h r e e ways:  1916).  were g e n e r a l l y a s k e d t o i n d i c a t e n o r t h on t h e i r  d i r e c t i o n s were coded i n degrees from t h e n o r t h 360° a n g l e  1913; P e t e r s o n ,  first,  different  o n a s c a l e o f 1 t o 7, s u b j e c t s w e r e a s k e d how w e l l t h e y  21 s t i m u l i p o i n t s  knew  ( p . 6 o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) , a n d how o f t e n t h e y v i s i t e d  those  3 places the  f o r meeting r e l a t i v e s o r f r i e n d s (p. 1 0 ) .  I n t h e map e x e r c i s e a t  e n d o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , s u b j e c t s w e r e a s k e d how o f t e n t h e y  the d i f f e r e n t roads i n t h e l a s t year  o r s o , a n d how much t h e y  had used  enjoyed  those  4 roads.  T h a t i n f o r m a t i o n was a l s o c o d e d i n r e l a t i o n People's impressions  of those  t o t h e 21 p l a c e s  p l a c e s were t e n t a t i v e l y measured on a  s c a l e of 1 t o 7 w i t h f o u r v a r i a b l e s , chosen t o represent a f f e c t i v e component o f m e a n i n g . measurement o f meaning w i t h  and (3)  semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e s r e g u l a r l y produced  activity  scale evaluations representing size  (large - small).  of p l a c e s .  Then, s t u d e n t s  place links,  as a p l a c e  potency  ( q u i c k n e s s , warmth, a g i t a t i o n ) .  two o f t h e s e  dimensions, value  w e r e a s k e d how " F r e n c h "  on space t r a n s f o r m a t i o n .  (stimuli points)  e v a l u a t i o n , (2)  Finally,  students  t o them.  general  or associated with strong  I tried  impressions  places  cultural  t o go d i r e c t l y  I n the i n s t r u c t i o n s I described a place  impressions  or " E n g l i s h " those  how p e r s o n a l l y m e a n i n g f u l w e r e  t h a t seemed " d i f f e r e n t " ,  I used  (good - bad) and  t o check f o r the i n f l u e n c e of p e r c e i v e d  i s s u e o f meaning by a s k i n g places  (1)  Students were always asked f o r t h e i r  seemed t o t h e m , i n o r d e r barriers  the appraisive or  O s g o o d e t a l . ( 1 9 5 7 ) h a v e shown t h a t t h e  three dimensions out of f a c t o r a n a l y s i s : (power o r s i z e ) ,  studied.  at the these a meaningful  t o w h i c h one h a d p e r s o n a l  (ex. from p e r s o n a l  experiences).  The s u b j e c t s ' own c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o r o r g a n i z a t i o n o f s p a c e was m e a s u r e d i n two w a y s .  On p a g e 5 o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e  students  were asked t o regroup  70 t h e 21 p l a c e s t h a t they asked  i n t o a n y number o f g r o u p s a c c o r d i n g t o s i m i l a r i t y .  should group p l a c e s a c c o r d i n g t o p e r s o n a l reasons.  to indicate b r i e f l y  the reasons  for their  e x e r c i s e , s t u d e n t s were s i m i l a r l y  asked  r e g i o n s as they  the s i m i l a r i t y  desired.  e a c h s t i m u l u s p o i n t was The " r e a l " classifying region  I n both  coded f o r i t s  successful.  t o d i v i d e t h e map  presence  Students  classification.  Z a n n a r a s ( 1 9 7 3 ) h a v e shown t h i s m e t h o d t o be v e r y  grouping  I emphasized were  Cox and I n t h e map  i n t o a s many s u b a n d t h e map e x e r c i s e s ,  i n a particular  group o r s u b r e g i o n .  c a t e g o r i e s and f e a t u r e s o f s p a c e w e r e e a s i l y r e p r e s e n t e d  the s t i m u l i p o i n t s according to the p o l i t i c a l  d i v i s i o n s of the  ( O n t a r i o , Quebec, U.S.A.), and t h e i r p r o x i m i t y t o " i m a g e a b l e "  (Ottawa and S t . Lawrence r i v e r s ) . effect of the p o l i t i c a l  With  by  lines  these o b j e c t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s the  and p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s were t e s t e d .  The l a s t v a r i a b l e s t o be i n t r o d u c e d a r e t h e o b j e c t i v e d i s t a n c e m e a s u r e s . All  d i s t a n c e s w e r e m e a s u r e d w i t h a p l a n i m e t e r , o n a 1/50,000 t o p o g r a p h i c a l  map  of the region.  The r e l i a b i l i t y o f many o f t h o s e m e a s u r e m e n t s was  i n my own t r a v e l s t h r o u g h  the region.  S t r a i g h t l i n e d i s t a n c e s were simple t o  measure (see r e a l d i s t a n c e m a t r i c e s  i n Appendix 2).  "Most p r o b a b l e  w e r e e s t a b l i s h e d o n t h e b a s i s o f my  own e x p e r i e n c e .  L o c a l roads  were c o n s i d e r e d o n l y i n t h e case likely  of l o c a l  trips,  s i n c e i t was  of those routes. d e r i v e d f r o m my  The mean experience  chance o f b e i n g used, I took  roads  ferries  In  cases  the average d i s t a n c e  speeds used t o c a l c u l a t e p r o b a b l e o f t r a v e l on t h o s e  and  routes"  considered  t h a t s u b j e c t s w o u l d know them a n d u s e them t o s a v e t i m e .  w h e r e two r o u t e s h a d a n e q u a l  verified  t r a v e l times  were  (see c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of  speeds i n Appendix 2 ) .  4.4.2  Questionnaire  : format  and  application  The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was j u d g e d  t o be a n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r m o f i n q u i r y f o r  71 approaching the c e n t r a l issue of t h i s  t h e s i s : d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n , a form of  perception which i s r e a d i l y q u a n t i f i a b l e .  Because o f time l i m i t a t i o n s ,  meant t h e r e s t o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n I n e e d e d w o u l d b e g a t h e r e d The be  q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d e s i g n e d c l e a r and s i m p l e ,  i n t h e same way.  f o r a p p l i c a t i o n i n the classroom,  r e q u i r e m i n i m a l i n s t r u c t i o n s and l a s t  this  i t had t o  the duration of a  t y p i c a l c l a s s p e r i o d , 40 - 45 m i n u t e s . A pilot to  40 f i r s t  year  q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d e s i g n e d students  a dozen graduate students This p i l o t  run revealed  a t UBC (same a g e g r o u p a s O n t a r i o ' s  that the f i r s t  first.  grade 13).  went t h r o u g h t h e e x e r c i s e and p r o v i d e d  comments.  the questions  Some c h a n g e s i n t h e c o n t e n t  w i t h t h e most  f o r e x a m p l e , was f o u n d t o b e more h e l p f u l t h a n t h e l i n e  in  estimate.  lists  w e r e made f o r e a c h p a g e , a n d f i v e  v e r s i o n s o f each page were compiled,  a l l orderings  having  T h e 24 x 14 i n c h b a s e map p r o v i d e d  ( A p p e n d i x 1) i s a c o p y o f t h e 1/500,000' was  index  To a v o i d p r o b l e m s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e o r d e r i n g o f t h e  stimuli points different  random-number t a b l e s .  crucial  w e r e a l s o made - t h e  number i n d e x the ratio  Also,  v e r s i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was t o o  s h o r t , and s u g g e s t e d t h e need t o r e o r d e r material placed  f o r t h e Vancouver r e g i o n and g i v e n  j u d g e d t o be t h e most u n b i a s e d  adequate format f o r students  different  been d e t e r m i n e d by f o r t h e map  exercise  t o p o g r a p h i c a l map o f t h e r e g i o n .  It  a n d " o b j e c t i v e " map a v a i l a b l e i n a n  t o draw and u s e symbols on i t .  The E n g l i s h  v e r s i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was t r a n s l a t e d i n t o F r e n c h b y m y s e l f a n d two others.  We w e r e c a r e f u l t o c o n v e y t h e same m e a n i n g s i n F r e n c h a n d E n g l i s h . The  a p p l i c a t i o n of the questionnaire  first  consisted i nv i s i t i n g the  principals  of the schools  t o e x p l a i n my p r o j e c t a n d g e t p e r m i s s i o n  students.  E v e r y o n e was q u i t e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e r e s e a r c h b e c a u s e i t d e a l t  t h e r e g i o n a n d was d o n e b y somebody f r o m t h e r e g i o n .  Students were a l s o  c o o p e r a t i v e , b e c o m i n g e v e n more i n t e r e s t e d a s t h e y p r o g r e s s e d exercise.  t o see the  through the  with very  72 When I p r e s e n t e d  t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e I s a i d as l i t t l e  on t h e p u r p o s e s a n d e x p e c t a t i o n s students'  judgment.  I n s t r u c t i o n s were g i v e n  r e q u i r e d and c o n s i s t e d mostly page and r e a d i n g interested  o f t h e s t u d y -to a v o i d  i n going  t h r o u g h t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e page by I e m p h a s i z e d t h a t I was  i n t h e i r own i m m e d i a t e r e s p o n s e s a n d t h a t t h e y  when p r o b l e m s a r o s e .  I n d i v i d u a l questions  Most s t u d e n t s  should  from t h e students  i n the region, during  T h i s t a s k t o o k t h e m a b o u t 10 m i n u t e s .  I n two s c h o o l s  t o b r i n g t h e i r map e x e r c i s e home f o r l a c k o f t i m e t o f i n i s h 12 s c h o o l s  completed  4.4.3  their  the last  year  students had  i n class.  I  t h r o u g h o u t t h e r e g i o n i n s i x w e e k s , r e c e i v i n g o v e r 600  questionnaires.  Analysis The  q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s was d o n e i n two s t a g e s .  t i o n o f one s c h o o l completed.  eleven This  (Williamstown)  and the coding  with various techniques  scheme r e v i s e d .  s c h o o l s was c o d e d a n d a n a l y z e d study  First,  the informa-  was c o d e d a n d a p i l t o t a n a l y s i s o f t h i s  Most o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n  at t h i s stage other  were answered  t h e map e x e r c i s e w h i c h r e q u i r e d  t h o u g h t s about a c t i v i t y p a t t e r n s and t r a v e l  visited  do t h e  answered t h e main p a r t o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e  i n 30 - 35 m i n u t e s ; t h e n t h e y w e r e g i v e n  or so.  influencingthe  i n e i t h e r o r both languages as  t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s t o each q u e s t i o n .  exercise quite quickly.  as p o s s i b l e  data  was d o n e  Then, t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o f t h e i n detail.  o f d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n has looked  a t people's  error  o f e s t i m a t i o n w i t h t h e d i f f e r e n t m e t r i c s , and i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h seem t o i n f l u e n c e t h o s e  estimates  producing  t h e minimum e r r o r .  The f i r s t  step o f t h e a n a l y s i s d e a l t w i t h t h e m e t r i c o f space i s s u e and c o n s i s t e d i n c o m p a r i n g my s u b j e c t s ' v a r i o u s e s t i m a t e s appropriate  "real"  t o each m e t r i c  ( r a t i o , m i l e , time) w i t h the  d i s t a n c e s , t o produce d i s t a n c e e r r o r measures  (TABLE 4.5).  The r a t i o  estimate  particular  (SUBMAG) was c o n v e r t e d  to a  TABLE 4.5 Comparison o f m e t r i c s  ERROR MEASURE  ESTIMATED DISTANCE  1.  SUBMAG ( s u b j e c t i v e magn i t u d e or r a t i o estimate where m e t r i c i s t h e i n d e x d i s t a n c e 100 t o Ottawa)  1.1  CROWMAG (mile) CROWMAG = SUBMAG x (CROWDIST to Ott/100)  REAL DISTANCE  -CROWDIST (mile) (as the crow f l i e s distance)  (in m i l e s )  3  MCRQWER ( - s t r a i g h t e r r o r ) MCROWER = CROWMA3-CROWDIST ABMCROWER ZMCRQWER ( - r e l a t i v e e r r o r ) ZMCROWER = MCROWER/CROWDIST ZAMCROWER b  b  1.2  ROUTEMAG (mile) ROUTEMAG = SUBMAG x (ROUTEDIST t o Ott/100)  -ROUTEDIST (mile) (as t h e route goes distance)  MROUTER ( - s t r a i g h t e r r o r ) MROUTER = ROUTEMAG - ROUTEDIST ABMROUTER + ZMRQUTER ( - r e l a t i v e e r r o r ) ZMROUTER = MROUTER/ROUTEDIST ZAMR0UTER  1.3  TIMEMAG (minutes) TIMEMAG = SUBMAG X (TIMEDIST t o Ottawa/100)  -TIMEDIST (mins.) (as the route goes distance)  MTIMER ( - s t r a i g h t e r r o r ) MTIMER = TIMEMAG - TIMEDIST ABMTIMER ZMTIMER ( - r e l a t i v e e r r o r ) ZMTIMER = MTIMER/TIMEDIST ZAMTIMER  2.  SUBMILE (estimate i n miles)  -CROWDIST (mile)  CRQWER ( - s t r a i g h t e r r o r ) CR0WER = SUBMILE - CROWDIST ABCROWER ZCROWER ( - r e l a t i v e e r r o r ) ZCROWER = CROWER/CROWDIST ZACROWER  'ROUTEDIST  ROUTER ( - s t r a i g h t e r r o r ) ROUTER = SUBMILE - ROUTEDIST ABROUTER ZROUTER ( - r e l a t i v e e r r o r ) ZROUTER = ROUTER/ROUTEDIST ZAROUTER  3.  3  SUBTIME (estimate i n minutes)  (mile)  -TIMEDIST (min)  TIMER ( - s t r a i g h t e r r o r ) TIMER = SUBTIME - TIMEDIST ABTIMER ZTIMER ( - r e l a t i v e e r r o r ) ZTIMER = TIMER/TIMEDIST ZATIMER  A l l e r r o r measures converted t o standard m i l e m e t r i c f o r purposes o f comparison : c o n v e r s i o n f a c t o r o f 0.96 m i l e = 1 minute o b t a i n e d from mean SUBMILE and SUBTIME e s t i m a t e s (see TABLE 5.1) Absolute v a l u e o f above measure  straight  line  (CROWMAG), a s h o r t e s t r o u t e  (ROUTEMAG), a n d  a time  estimate f o r comparison w i t h the r e l e v a n t r e a l d i s t a n c e s . those  c o n v e r s i o n s , as  e s t i m a t e by  indicated  i n TABLE 4.5,  e s t i m a t e was  measures were d e r i v e d .  A signed straight  straight  Once t h e  e r r o r m e a s u r e was  e r r o r was  A signed r e l a t i v e  m e a s u r e a c c o u n t i n g f o r d i s t a n c e ( i . e . a n e r r o r o f 10 m i l e s o v e r d i s t a n c e i s b i g g e r than  t h e same e r r o r o v e r  a b s o l u t e v a l u e of t h i s r e l a t i v e  e r r o r was  (TABLE 4 . 5 ) .  as w e l l as "by  m i l e e s t i m a t e was  driving  route"  of a d r i v i n g metrics  route.  The  ratio  ( h e r e t h e s u b j e c t had  This whole procedure  was  followed i n order  l i n e s , o r had  their  they  taken  T - t e s t s on  standard  Had  they  i n t o account  f o r an  i f t h e y had  h i s own  thought  a metric) people  n e c e s s a r i l y account p o s s i b l y do  f o r d i s t a n c e s by  a particular reality,  i t c o u l d be  their  time  F-itests  t h e minimum measure o f  : i f their  do  error.  but  not they  estimates are closer  w i t h which they  on  ( i f there i s  People  t h e "most a c c u r a t e way",  t h e one  different  of d i s t a n c e i n s t r a i g h t  t h i n k of d i s t a n c e s .  so f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s  The  sense of d i s t a n c e s ) .  t h e mean e r r o r s f o r e a c h s t i m u l u s p o i n t a n d  u s e when t h e y  estimation  system w i t h a m i l e or  d e v i a t i o n s w e r e made t o d e t e r m i n e  line  done i n terms  T h i s a p p r o a c h does not n e c e s s a r i l y r e v e a l w h i c h m e t r i c such  the  done s o ) .  to f i n d which " r e a l i t y "  the road  mile  (SUBTIME)  compared t o the t h r e e  been f r e e to express  e s t i m a t e s most c l o s e l y matched.  estimate?  time  i t w o u l d h a v e t o be  e s t i m a t e was  a 25  compared t o the s t r a i g h t  ( I wanted t o see  e s t i m a t e d i d n o t pose t h a t p r o b l e m as  error  Similar error  t h e r o u t e d i s t a n c e e v e n when t h e q u e s t i o n a s k e d  the most d i r e c t  time  The  (SUBMILE) and  simple  absolute  m i l e d i s t a n c e ) , and  then obtained.  measures were d e r i v e d from the d i r e c t m i l e estimates  a 200  error  o b t a i n e d by  estimated d i s t a n c e ; the  a l s o computed.  the  transformations  c o m p a r e d t o t h e r e a l d i s t a n c e s and  s u b t r a c t i o n of the r e a l d i s t a n c e from the v a l u e of t h i s  a r i t h m e t i c of  simply involved weighting  the a p p r o p r i a t e r e a l d i s t a n c e to Ottawa.  were done t h e r a t i o  The  (TIMEMAG)  f u n c t i o n most  may to of  75 t h e t i m e , t h e one w i t h w h i c h having  t h e y have more e x p e r i e n c e and p e r s p e c t i v e f o r  compared and c o n f r o n t e d i t w i t h numerous s i t u a t i o n s and p e o p l e .  From  a n e x p e r i e n t i a l a n d a n " e f f e c t i v e n e s s " p o i n t o f v i e w , man's c o n c e p t i o n o f s e p a r a t i o n may t e n d t o r e p l i c a t e a p a r t i c u l a r r e a l i t y . "accuracy  approach"  subjective metric The  second  taken here might a t l e a s t p r o v i d e an i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e used. step of the analysis  c o n s i s t e d i n u s i n g t h i s minimum  d i s t a n c e e r r o r measure ( t h e assumed a d o p t e d variable i n a multi-variate analysis. particular The  Therefore, the  factors while controlling  problems i n v o l v e d were handled  m e t r i c o f space) as dependent  This analysis  examined t h e e f f e c t o f  f o r a s many o t h e r v a r i a b l e s a s p o s s i b l e .  with:  (1) a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e w i t h  r e p e a t e d measures and (2) a n a l y s e s o f c o v a r i a n c e  (UBC ANOVAR  programs).  S i n g l e and m u l t i - f a c t o r a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e w i t h r e p e a t e d measures factor of  o r treatments were t h e s t i m u l i p o i n t s ) were used t o l o o k a t t h e e f f e c t  v a r i o u s p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s and c o g n i t i v e f a c t o r s ,  political barriers of and  (trial  and p e o p l e ' s  such as t h e p h y s i c a l and  c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of space.  The g r e a t  t h i s a n a l y s i s i s t h a t i t takes c a r e o f t h e v a r i a t i o n between thus analyzes v a r i a n c e a t t h e l e v e l of each respondent.  advantage  individuals,  Winner e x p l a i n s :  Because o f l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x p e r i e n c e and b a c k g r o u n d , t h e r e s p o n s e s o f p e o p l e t o t h e same e x p e r i m e n t a l t r e a t m e n t may show r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e v a r i a b i l i t y . I n many c a s e s , much of t h i s v a r i a b i l i t y i s due t o d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n p e o p l e e x i s t i n g p r i o r t o the experiment. I f t h i s l a t t e r source of v a r i a b i l i t y c a n be s e p a r a t e d from t r e a t m e n t e f f e c t s and e x p e r i m e n t a l e r r o r , t h e n t h e s e n s i t i v i t y o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t may b e i n c r e a s e d . I f t h i s s o u r c e o f v a r i a b i l i t y cannot be e s t i m a t e d i t remains p a r t o f t h e uncont r o l l e d sources o f v a r i a b i l i t y and i s thus a u t o m a t i c a l l y part of the experimental error. (1971, p. 361)  In  a repeated measures d e s i g n t h e e f f e c t s o f a f a c t o r on s u b j e c t i a r e  measured r e l a t i v e  t o t h e mean r e s p o n s e  o f i on a l l t r e a t m e n t s .  Each s u b j e c t  s e r v e s a s h i s own c o n t r o l a n d t h e v a r i a t i o n d u e t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e mean  76 responsiveness of  the  The  biases  subjects'  own  s e p a r a t e d from the the  (best  a s s u r e d an  e f f e c t of the  at the  two-way a n a l y s e s  the  by  subjects'  of  covariance  meaning v a r i a b l e s .  "subjects".  than the  the  In the  interpreted with  conducted f o r each s u b j e c t ,  I n summary, .'the a n a l y s i s t e l l s (1)  whether the other,  assumed t h a t their  their  random  This  the  the a n a l y s i s i s c a r r i e d  way,  differences  t h e v a r i a t i o n due  Relationships  t h e n be  not  are  to  investigated  average w i t h i n - c l a s s  p e r f o r m e d to see  I f i t does n o t ,  same c o n f i d e n c e . was  the  c o v a r i a t i o n s about the i n d i v i d u a l  g r a n d means.  but  and  A d j u s t m e n t s a r e made f o r  S l o p e t e s t s can  the  experiments,  one-way a n a l y s e s  r e s u l t s are pooled, p r o v i d i n g  coefficients.  are  were used to l o o k a t  Thus, here a g a i n ,  r e l a t i o n s h i p holds f o r each s u b j e c t .  c a n n o t be be  and  questions  I n my  I t was  error.  independence.  differences i s controlled for.  f o r each subject least-squares  factor studied.  m e a s u r i n g v a r i a t i o n s and  c a t e g o r y means r a t h e r  answering the  treatments.  l e v e l of each i n d i v i d u a l .  among s u b j e c t s  the  as  experimental  a p p r o x i m a t i o n o f a random c h o i c e )  k n o w l e d g e and  c o n t r o l f a c t o r was  the  adequate l e v e l of  One-way a n d  from the  i n i n t e r p r e t i n g and  s t i m u l i p o i n t s were c o n s i d e r e d  ordering  the  i s eliminated  a c t u a l e f f e c t of  d i v e r s i f i e d nature  out  subject  pooled r e s u l t s  Separate analyses  d o n e h e r e due  whether  should  then  to time c o n s t r a i n t s .  us:  subjects'  estimates  c o n t r o l l i n g f o r the  are  d i f f e r e n t from  c o v a r i a t e or  each  covariates  (ex.  assuming equal- knowledge), (2)  whether the for  c o v a r i a t e has  subjects'  (3) w h e t h e r t h i s  a significant  d i f f e r e n c e s and e f f e c t i s the  Some r e l a t i o n s h i p s w e r e a l s o t e s t e d a n a l y s i s of  covariance,  s t i m u l i p o i n t s , w i t h no  where the  effect controlling  p o s s i b l y other  same f r o m s u b j e c t i n the  to  subject.  framework of a  c o n t r o l f a c t o r s were the  interaction.  covariates,  two-way  subjects  T h i s model c o n t r o l s f o r the  and  the  differences  between s u b j e c t s and  those between s t i m u l i p o i n t s .  I t has  the e f f e c t  of  b r i n g i n g the a n a l y s i s a t the l e v e l of each s t i m u l u s p o i n t t o see whether r e l a t i o n s h i p observed  over a l l places a l s o holds  T h i s t e s t i s much s t r o n g e r a s  a l l stimuli points.  The  t o the t r u e i n f l u e n c e of the c o v a r i a t e .  linear approximation  will  be n o n - z e r o t o o .  M o r e d e t a i l s on t h e s e a n a l y s e s w i l l  d e a l i n g w i t h the Two  more t e c h n i q u e s  judged  used to represent  as a mapping d e v i c e .  ( S S A - 1 ) was  chosen  preceding  analyses  of  ( q u e s t i o n 1 2 ) , and  neighbour,  The  techniques  the  given i n the next  t h e e s t i m a t e d and  chapter  of the real  data. con-  technique  Guttman-Lingoes non-metric  algorithm  Bloombaum, 1970;  Guttman, 1968).  were used to compile  data  of c l u s t e r i n g were used  SINGLE o r n e a r e s t n e i g h b o u r , the d e f i n i t i o n of the  and  (map  data  e x e r c i s e ) of  each  (COMPLETE o r f u r t h e s t  SIMPLE o r t h e a v e r a g e  groups.^  Finally,  the s u b j e c t i v e  the " s i m i l a r i t i e s "  t h e " s u b - d i v i s i o n o f t h e map"  three techniques  countercheck  the  variance  I used t h i s  c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s o f space as o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h  The  be  t o each s c h o o l . ^  ( L i n g o e s , 1972;  hierarchical clustering  school.  adequate  that i f i t i s non-zero  were used to l o o k a t o t h e r a s p e c t s  f i g u r a t i o n s of points p a r t i c u l a r basically  linear  results.  S m a l l e s t s p a c e a n a l y s i s was  to  The  T h i s was  c o v a r i a n c e w e r e a l s o d o n e on t h e d i r e c t i o n e s t i m a t e s p r o v i d e d by  subjects.  of  Note that i n a l l  ordinal scale provides a  as the t r u e i n f l u e n c e i s monotone, w h i c h a s s u r e s  and  level  of c o v a r i a n c e o n l y o r d i n a l s c a l e c o v a r i a t e s were used  ( v a r i a b l e s m e a s u r e d on s c a l e o f 1 t o 7 ) . approximation  place i n particular.  t h e r e i s much l e s s v a r i a t i o n a t t h e  each s t i m u l u s p o i n t than t h e r e i s over these analyses  f o r any  a  technique)  CHAPTER V R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n  This chapter w i l l  present  the results of the q u a n t i t a t i v e analysis i n three  main s e c t i o n s : (1) t h e m e t r i c o f space a n a l y s i s , factors ly,  influencing  d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n ( t h e major p a r t o f t h e a n a l y s i s ) , and f i n a l -  (3) t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e d i r e c t i o n estimates  sults w i l l  (2) t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e v a r i o u s  a l s o be b r i e f l y  and t h e two-dimensional  discussed i n the light  maps. R e -  o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e and t h e theory  e x p o s e d i n CHAPTER I I I .  5.1 M e t r i c o f S p a c e A n a l y s i s The estimate  three estimates  (SUBMAG) g o t t h e b e s t  t i o n s . The n e x t response. In  of distance vary response,  two s e t s o f e s t i m a t e s  Response l e v e l s v a r i e d v e r y  i n d i f f e r e n t w a y s (TABLE 5 . 1 ) . T h e r a t i o being  the f i r s t  i nthe series of evalua-  ( S U B M I L E , SUBTIME) s u b s e q u e n t l y l i t t l e between t h e d i f f e r e n t  got less  cultural  g e n e r a l , t h e mean r a t i o e s t i m a t e i s h i g h e r t h a n a n y o t h e r e s t i m a t e . T h i s  confirms  the fact  t h a t t h e m e t r i c used i n t h a t case  D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s f o r each d i s t a n c e estimatea l l sample and c u l t u r a l groups  X  s  resp.  a  X  s  Other  Both  French  English  All  resp.  X  s  resp.  X  s  resp.  X  s  resp.  113.6  95.6  74%  95 1  66.3  72%  127 4  108.9  75%  116 2  105.6  75%  120 .5  84.0  77%  SUBMILE  61.5  46.9  70%  60 2  40.6  70%  67 6  51.9  70%  61 9  46.9  74%  57 .9  42.1  66%  SUBTIME  64.0  41.3  67%  62. 7  36.9  67%  63 3  42.9  66%  68 7  45.5  72%  66 .6  43.4  65%  SUBMAG  p e r c e n t a g e of estimations done  78  simply  ( i n d e x o f 100 t o O t t a w a ) was  5.1  TABLE  groups.  79 an o v e r s t a t e m e n t overall,  o f t h e a c t u a l d i s t a n c e t o O t t a w a . The  the time m e t r i c has  t h e SUBMILE/SUBTIME r a t i o terms of a t r a v e l i n g (reasonable The  French  been judged  and  longer than  i s 0.96:1. Thus, s u b j e c t s e s t i m a t e d  speed of s l i g h t l y  speed on r e g i o n a l r o a d  cultural  the m i l e m e t r i c ;  time  l e s s t h a n 60 m i l e s / h o u r  distances i n  (57.6  miles/hour)  s y s t e m — s e e A p p e n d i x 2, T r a v e l T i m e M a t r i x ) .  g r o u p seems t o h a v e made r e l a t i v e l y h i g h e r e s t i m a t e s  comparison to the E n g l i s h group little  as s l i g h t l y  means a l s o i n d i c a t e t h a t ,  (mean o f  d i f f e r e n c e s are observed  127.4  compared t o 95.1).  i n t h e means o f t h e  time e s t i m a t e s . A look at the standard  o n SUBMAG, i n However, v e r y  conventional mile  d e v i a t i o n s , ( s ) a l s o i n d i c a t e a much  l a r g e r v a r i a t i o n w i t h i n t h e SUBMAG s c o r e s , a n d  i n a l l cases w i t h e x c e p t i o n of  "Other"  d e v i a t i o n . These p r e l i m i n a r y o b s e r -  g r o u p , SUBTIME h a s  v a t i o n s suggest ible  way  b e e n i n t e r p r e t e d i n a much more  t h a n t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l m e t r i c s , w h i c h o b v i o u s l y g i v e more g u i d a n c e have g i v e n t h e s u b j e c t more l i b e r t y  o f d i s t a n c e . H o w e v e r , one T h e r e seems t o be  response  standard  t h a t t h e r e l a t i v e m e t r i c has  j u d g m e n t . SUBMAG may  response:  the lowest  more e l e m e n t s h o u l d be  to express  considered  a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the standard  in this  d e v i a t i o n and  i n c l u d e s more " u n c e r t a i n " e s t i m a t e s  p a t i o n o f more " b a d "  estimators, leading inevitably  t i m a t e . C u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s c a n a l s o be the three e s t i m a t e s , but  again, mostly  observed  i n g e n e r a l , and  f o r SUBMAG, t h e " F r e n c h "  sense  interpretation. the l e v e l  the  t o more v a r i a t i o n  on t h e s t a n d a r d  flexfor  h i s own  t h e h i g h e r t h e r e s p o n s e , t h e h i g h e r t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n . The likely  the  of  higher partici-  i n the  es-  deviation: for  and  "Both"  groups  a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a much l a r g e r p o r t i o n o f t h e v a r i a t i o n t h a n a r e t h e " E n g l i s h " and and both  "Other" Both  groups.  I am  not  s u r p r i s e d t o see  g r o u p s as m o s t s t u d e n t s who  c u l t u r e s ) come f r o m F r e n c h  differences  i n the analyses  TABLE 5.2  presents  t h a t s i m i l a r i t y between the  c o n s i d e r themselves  f a m i l i e s . We  will  (as p a r t  the consequences of  of  these  t o come.  t h e mean l e v e l o f r e s p o n s e  p o i n t . T h i s g i v e s an e a r l y  see  "bilingual"  French  i n d i c a t i o n o f how  on SUBMAG f o r e a c h  w e l l p l a c e s w e r e known as  stimulus subjects  80 TABLE  5.2  L e v e l of response on the r a t i o estimate (SUBMAG) f o r each stimulus  (low  55  64  58  Buckingham  Ogdensburg  (%)  (high response)  response)  40  —t-  point  68  Arnprior  Mani'waki  71  1  74  83  86  97  90  100  -t  Rockland  Kemptville;  •  Mas'senaj  Casselman  Rigaud  78  Cornwall-Alexandria  Plant'agenet : > I Embrun Smiths F a l l s 1 Valleyfield  ;  Vankleek H i l l - L a c h u t e Hawkesburyj Brockville Montreal n.b.  Ottawa-Hull not  were requested  i n c l u d e d s i n c e i t was  n o t t o make e s t i m a t e s  used as the index d i s t a n c e f o r SUBMAG.  f o r places  completely  unknown t o them.  o v e r a l l r e s p o n s e o f 74% i s i n d i c a t i v e o f a h i g h a n d a d e q u a t e l e v e l G e n e r a l l y , t h e l e s s w e l l known t o w n s a r e e i t h e r r e m o t e  (Ogdensburg,  Maniwaki, A r n p r i o r , Kemptville) or r a t h e r s m a l l (Rigaud, The b e t t e r known p l a c e s a r e l a r g e a n d / o r i m p o r t a n t Valleyfield,  Smiths F a l l s ,  Vankleek H i l l , The  Buckingham, Plantagenet).  located  Lachute,  (Hawkesbury,  A l e x a n d r i a , Embrun) i n t h e r e g i o n .  u r e s f o r each m e t r i c  on g e n e r a t i n g  (CHAPTER I V ) , a n d i n c o m p a r i n g t h e s e  appropriate s t a t i s t i c a l  t e s t s o n t h e means a n d s t a n d a r d  mulus p o i n t . A one-sample they were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  sis  of knowledge.  (Montreal, B r o c k v i l l e ,  Cornwall, Massena), or c e n t r a l l y  m e t r i c of space a n a l y s i s focused  respectively  Casselman,  The  t t e s t was  different  t h e mean a n d s t a n d a r d  first  t h e v a r i o u s e r r o r mease r r o r measures w i t h d e v i a t i o n s f o r each  the sti-  p e r f o r m e d o n t h e mean e r r o r s t o s e e i f  f r o m 0: t =  Xi , Ho: / l i = 0 w h e r e X i and S i a r e Si/VN-1 d e v i a t i o n of s t i m u l u s p o i n t i ; the n u l l hypothe-  i s t h a t t h e p o p u l a t i o n mean o f t h e e r r o r m e a s u r e  i s not d i f f e r e n t  f r o m 0.  On  81 TABLE  5.3  ABMROUTER  ABMTIMER  ABCROWER  ABROUTER  12 .5  10.3  17.5  20 .3  20.6  26.0  22 .0  21 .2  8154 299  1  Maniwaki  -11.2  -42.9  -57 .4  .28.3  -14 .8  -32.5  35.5  56 .6  66.8  49.9  57 .0  54 .7  2  Arnprior  -20.0  -22 .2  -23 .1  1.6  -10 .2  -  28.9  32 .5  32.9  25.8  29 .6  30 .5  3.0  3.4  3 .4  14.5  8 .0  6.3  10.2  11 .3  12.2  15.3  11 .1  12 .2  3. Ottawa-Hull  6.0  349 (Index)  4 . Buck ingham  20.8  1.3  -5 .4  33.5  7 .2  6.7  24.8  21 _J_ 24.4  34.6  24  23^5  294  5. Smiths F a l l s  10.1  6.9  -3 .3  49.1  34 .2  16.7  27.4  31 .1  34.4  53.8  48 .5  37 .4  426  6. Kemptville  5.8  4.2  -3 .3  24.7  15 .7  10.8  17.1  19 .2  21.7  27.6  23 .9  22 .5  364  7. B r o c k v i l l e  5.4  2.7  3 .7  34.0  20 .7  15.6  26.2  29 .0  31.1  41.5  36 .1  30 .5  491  8. Ogdensburg  4.6  -0.4  -4 .2  30.7  18 .4  13.5  24.9  29 .2  30.9  38.6  35 .2  31 .5  220  9. Embrun  1.4  0.1  -3 .2  12.1  6 .3  4.2  9.6  11 .3  11.7  14.3  12 .0  11 .5  419  10. Casselman  2.9  1.7  0 .6  13.3  7 .6  7.4  8.8  10 .5  10.6  14.7  11 .3  11 .0  370  11.  5.7  1.8  -5 .4  17.4  8 .6  5.9  11.9  13 .2  13.6  18.8  13 .6  15 .5  400  Rockland  12. Plantagenet  5.8  3.5  -1 .1  16.9  10 .0  8.6  11.3  12 .2  12.4  17.5  13 .0  13 .4  386  13. Massena  15.6  10.3  2.8  27.7  16 .1  15.9  19.1  19_l£  19.6  28.4  20_._3  22 .8  408  13 .3  436  14. Cornwall  6.1  3.9  1 .5  14.5  8 .3  9.2  10.5  11 .1  10.8  15.0  10  15. Alexandria  4.0  1.9  0 3  13.4  7 .3  9.4  10.0  10 .8  10.8  14.4  10 .2 12 .7  446  16. Vankleek  1.1  -0.2  -1 2  11.1  5 .6  8.4  9.6  11 .4  11.9  13.1  10_  13 .0  454  Hill  17. Hawkesbury  1.3  0.8  -1 2  15.5  10 .2  10.3  10.0  12 4  12.0  17.1  14 .9  14 .8  462  18. Lachute  10.7  7.6  4 3  29.6  19 .2  15.2  16.5  18 1  17.7  30.9  24 .4  21 .4  451  19. Rigaud  17.4  17.9  18 0  30.3  24 9  24.4  22.0  24 1  23.7  30.7  26 .5  26 .2  378  G.5  9.1  10 3  33.7  25 2  20.8  18.1  22 4  20.3  34.7  28 1  25 .3  13.7  10.7  11 4  27.7  17 7  21.5  21.9  23 8  23.6  29.4  23 4  26 0  20. Montreal 21. V a l l e y f i e l d  Underlined values proven the s m a l l e s t  all  the tests  sis  was  very  N (on submag)  ABMCROWER  22.6  ABTIMER  TIMER  -1 .4  ROUTER  1.8  CROWER  MTIMER  5.5  MROUTER  All  MCROWER  Means of s t r a i g h t e r r o r measures (T-Test r e s u l t s on absolute e r r o r s )  f o r both  rejected  528 432  |error| measures a t l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e of 0.05.  the s t r a i g h t and r e l a t i v e e r r o r measures, t h e n u l l  a t t h e 0.05  significance level,  s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m 0. My  distances  1  1  w e r e n o t known l i t e r a l l y .  subjects  Distance  hypothe-  a n d t h e means w e r e shown  t o be  have d e f i n i t e l y produced  error,  cognition  i s o f t h e domain o f "im-  pressions" . A two-sample t t e s t , matched p a i r s different lar:  mean e r r o r s  t = X^^-JUL^^  each p a i r  then performed  f o r t h e whole sample and f o r each s t i m u l u s  , Ho: >Ur)£ 0 w h e r e X ^ , Al^^,  mean, t h e p o p u l a t i o n of  d e s i g n , was  =  stimulus  point  and S ^ a r e r e s p e c t i v e l y  mean, a n d t h e s a m p l e s t a n d a r d  o f means f o r e a c h  t o compare t h e  point  deviation  i n particu-  t h e sample  of the difference  i . The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s  i s that  (D)  the  82  TABLE  5.4  ZROUTER  ZTIMER  ZAMCROWER  ZAMROUTER  ZAMTIMER  ZACROWER  ZAROUTER  ZATIMER  0.69  0. 44  0.41  8154  0 33  -0. 11 -0. 21  0_ 40  0 43  0.44  0 57  0. 44  0.36  299  0 03  -0. 11 -0 05  0 38  0 37  0.36  0 35  0. 34  0.34  0. 16  0 12  0_ 26  0_ 26  0.25  0 35  0 .23  0.23  1 09  0. 18  0 12  0 84  0 41  0.34  1 12  0 .47  0.38  294  0 86  0. 52  0 23  0 45  0 43  0.37  0 93  0. 69  0.45  426  0 67  0. 37  0 23  0 44  0 41  0.35  0 73  0. 52  0.41  364  0 07  0 57  0. 30  0 24  0 42  0 40  0.39  0 67  0 48  0.41  491  -0 03  0 75  0 37  0 24  0 52  0_ 47  0.45  0 91  0 64  0.50  220  0 21  0 13  0 40  0 37  0.35  0 59  0 38  0.33  419  ZCROWER  0.37  ZMTIMER  0. 41  ZMROUTER  0 47  ZMCROWER  0. 25  0. 09  0 01  0 63  -0. 12  -0. 33  -0 38  -0. 25  -0. 25  -0 25  3. Ottawa-Hull  0.08  0. 08  0 08  0 33  4. Buckingham  0 74  0 .08  -0 07  5. Smith  0 18  0 12  -0 01  6. Kemptville  0 17  0 11  -0 03  7. B r o c k v i l l e  0 01  0 06  8. Ogdensburg  0 13  0 03  1. Maniwaki 2 . Arnprior  Falls  0 06  -0 .01  -0 11  0 51  0 14  0 05  0 0  0 69  0 30  0 26  0 42  0 39  0.36  0 74  0 42  0.39  370  11. Rockland  0 25  0 06  -0 10  0.64  0 24  0 15  0 45  0 35  0.29  0 68  0 36  0.34  400  12. Plantagenet  0 27  0 11  -0 02  0 .74  0 33  0 27  0 49  0 39  0.35  0 76  0 42  0.39  386  13. Massena  0 63  0 32  0 02  1 .12  0 42  0 32  0 81  0 59  0.45  1 16  0 60  0.49  408  14. Cornwall  0 19  0 10  0 .01  0 .53  0 24  0 .26  0 .39  0 35  0.30  0 55  p_ 33  0.37  436  15. A l e x a n d r i a  0 .20  0 09  0 .0  0 .64  0 29  0 .32  0 .48  0 41  0.37  0 .69  0 39  0.43  446  16. Vankleek H i l l  0 .08  0 03  -0 .12  0 .49  0 22  0 .31  0_• 40  0 • 39  0.38  0 .55  0_ 37  0.44  454  17. Hawkesbury  0 .05  0 .05  -0 .02  0 .48  0 27  0 .28  0 .34  0 .36  0.31  0 .52  0 39  0.39  467  0.42  451  18. Lachute  0 .29 0 .52  19. Rigaud  0 .16 0 .46  0 .07 0 .46  0 .79  0 41  0.46  0 .39  0.34  0 .83  0.62  0 .93  0_ 68  0.70  378  0 63  0 .66  0 .68  0 .63  0 .28  0 .28  0_• 31 0.28  0 .53  0 .37  0.35  528  0 .48  0 .59  0 .52  0 .79  0_• 51  0.57  432  20. Montreal  0 .11  0 .14  0 .15  0 .51  21. V a l l e y f i e l d  0 .38  0 .28  0 .29  0 .74  0 .40  population  0 .30  0 52  0 .92  0 33  N.B.  Underlined values proven the s m a l l e s t  lerrorl  measures a t l e v e l  0.51  of s i g n i f i c a n c e o f 0.  mean o f t h o s e d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s i s n o t d i f f e r e n t f r o m 0, o r t h a t mean  1 i s n o t d i f f e r e n t f r o m mean e r r o r  2. T h e t e s t s w e r e p e r f o r m e d o n t h e a b s o -  l u t e v a l u e s of t h e s t r a i g h t e r r o r measures ures  (TABLE 5.3) a n d t h e r e l a t i v e e r r o r meas-  (TABLE 5 . 4 ) . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e s m a l l e s t  e r r o r m e a s u r e f o r M a n i w a k i i s ABMCR0WER  (TABLE 5 . 3 ) , a n d t h i s e r r o r m e a s u r e p r o v e d t o b e s i g n i f i c a n t l y the  o t h e r e r r o r m e a s u r e s a t t h e l e v e l o f 0.05 ( i t i s t h e o n l y  m e a n ) . The t e s t s f o r A r n p r i o r ,  o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , show t h a t  d i f f e r e n t from a l l underlined  the smallest  ABCR0WER, i s n o t d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e mean e r r o r o f ABMCR0WER ( t h u s l e s t " mean e r r o r s a r e u n d e r l i n e d ) . ABMCROWER li  349 (index)  10. Casselman  9. Embrun  error  0. 29  0. 20  All  N (on submag)  Means of r e l a t i v e e r r o r measures (T-Test r e s u l t s on absolute e r r o r s )  points  mean e r r o r ,  t h e two " s m a l -  The r e s u l t s o f t h o s e t e s t s a r e q u i t e  was p r o v e n t o b e t h e s m a l l e s t  "smallest"  conclusive:  s t r a i g h t e r r o r measure f o r a l l s t i m u -  e x c e p t B u c k i n g h a m (TABLE 5 . 3 ) ; ZAMTIMER  was p r o v e n t o b e t h e s m a l l e s t  83 r e l a t i v e e r r o r measure f o r a l l s t i m u l i p o i n t s c o n c e n s u s was ror of  highest  (ZAMTIMER) was the  this  "smallest  latter  f o r the  not  as  distinctively  case, the  look  at  the  al..information higher  the  point states  s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of  about the  the  the  i . The that  highest the  two  the  s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n i s u s e d as standard deviations  signed  (TABLE 5 . 5 ) .  The  F tests results generally  points  the  lowest standard d e v i a t i o n of  i n most c a s e s . Here a g a i n ,  t i m e e s t i m a t e as Two  i t i s f o r the  major conclusions  show, w i t h o u t any  doubt, that  S u b j e c t s gave a b e t t e r w e l l known d i s t a n c e ponds t o t h e  can  be the  crow  that  the  e r r o r . Secondly, the  distances  w e r e e s t i m a t e d as  for  null  the  S2i  hypothesis tests  relative errors observed  for a l l s t i -  lowest v a r i a t i o n of important  the for  estimate.  intermediate The  First,  the  produced the  previous least  where the m e t r i c  sophisticated mile  and  the  tests  error.  was  l e v e l of measurement  a l w a y s p r o d u c i n g m o r e e r r o r and  t e s t s on  sta-  stimulus  trends previously  as  the  devia-  d i f f e r e n t . Those  consensus i s not  r e l a t i v e e s t i m a t e of d i s t a n c e  p r o j e c t i v e space of P i a g e t .  standard  straight errors  r a t i o e s t i m a t e has  have been used w i t h more d i f f i c u l t y , t i o n of the  not  drawn a t t h i s p o i n t .  t o Ottawa.''' T h i s  the  s t r a i g h t and  the  addition-  e r r o r , both  n u m e r a t o r . The  confirm  us  S l i = S 2 i w h e r e S l i and  e x c e p t R i g a u d ; ZMTIMER p r o v e s t o h a v e t h e  relative errors the  v a l u e s of both the  give  e r r o r m e a s u r e 2,  compared a r e  the  —MCROWER h a s  real  would expect that  standard d e v i a t i o n of that  o f e r r o r m e a s u r e 1 and  (+/-)  position  ZATIMER. E v e n i n  e r r o r measures c o u l d  e r r o r m e a s u r e s w e r e d o n e : F = ( S l m a x . i \ ^ , Ho:  standard deviations  relative er-  produces l e s s e r r o r than the  q u a l i t y o f p e o p l e ' s j u d g m e n t s . One  w e r e done on  muli  especially with  r e f l e c t i n g a l e s s c e r t a i n j u d g m e n t . S i m p l e F t e s t s on  t i o n s of are  and  The  21.  t h e mean e r r o r , t h e h i g h e r  tistics  (ABMCROWER) w h e r e a s t h e  time r a t i o estimate s t i l l of  (TABLE 5 . 4 ) .  d i f f e r e n t . ZAMTIMER s h a r e s t h e  e r r o r " i n more i n s t a n c e s ,  time e s t i m a t e i n 9 cases out A  straight error  except Maniwaki  the  corres-  time  metrics  more v a r i a -  straight error clearly indicate  straight lines,  i n a more a b s t r a c t  fashion.  84  TABLE 5.5  MROUTER  MTIMER  CROWER  ROUTER  TIMER  ZMROUTER  ZMTIMER  ZCROWER  ZROUTER  ZTIMER  N (on submag)  (F-Test r e s u l t s )  MCROWER  Standard d e v i a t i o n s of s t r a i g h t and r e l a t i v e e r r o r measures  All  27.5  31. 9  33.9  39. 2  39. 1  33. 5  0. 70  0.62  0.57  0. 91  0. 70  0.59  8154  1. Maniwaki  44.5  48 7  50 4  74. 8  74. 6  60. 9  0. 50  0.36  0.32  0. 84  0 .58  0.40  299  2. Arn>prior  28.7  32 7  33 6  34. 4  34. 7  40. 3  0. 21  0.38  0.37  0. 47  0. 41  0.46  3. Ottawa-Hull  13.0  15 _1  15 5  18 5  18 5  17 5  0. 33  0.33  0.33  0. 46  0. 42  0.36  4. Buckingham  26.7  30 3  30 7  33 1  39. 0  35 7  1. 0  0.66  0.45  1. 36  0. 77  0.55  294  0.73  426  5. Smiths F a l l s  40.7 24.2  6. Kemptville 7. B r o c k v i l l e 8. Ogdensburg  36.1 37.5  48 2 28 3 41 2 41 _8  48 3 29 1  77 5 37 3  78 4 37 5  1 e s  0. 69  57 7  349 (index  0.64  0.56  1. 45  1. 22  1. 16  0. 92  0.63  364 491  32 1  0. 65  0.58  0.50  0.53  0.55  0.93  0. 74  0.53  54 6  54 1  38 9  0 58  46 0  59 7  58 6  42 2_  0 74  0.63  0.63  1 65  1. 22  0.73  220  20 9  18 6  0 59  0.53  0.49  0 81  0 62  0.50  419  42 7  14.6  17 1  17 3  21 0  13.6  16 1  16 4  15 4  15 0  16 2  0 59  0.56  0.53  0 75  0_ _53  0.54  370  11. Rockland  15.4  18 3  18 6  18 4  18 2  24 9  0 59  0.46  0.38  0 63  0 45  0.49  400  12. Plantagenet  14.9  17 6  17 9  17 .2_  17 4  21 .2  0 60  0.52  0.47  0 64  0_ 51  0.59  386  13. Massena  29.3  31  .£  33 .4  43 .9  42 2  39 4  1 13  0.91  0.70  o 48  1 03  0.75  408  14. Cornwall  16.9  18 .6  20 .3  15 ._9_  15  19 2  0 54  0.52  0.48  0 50  0_ 43  0.51  436  15. A l e x a n d r i a  14.5  15 .8  16 .6  ii.  13  18 .0  0 67  0.59  0.54  0 61  0_ 49  0.59  446  0_ 52  0.59  454  9. Embrun 10. Casselman  16. Vankleek  Hill  17. Hawkesbury  13.4 13.9  15 .7 17 .0  16 .6 17 .2  .7^  15 .5  •3•A  15 .3  18 .2  0_• 56  0.53  0.53  0 .64  0.46  0 .58  0_• 50  0.55  467 451  22 .4  22 .5  20 .1  0 .50  0.52  30 .0  0 .55  0.49  0 .46  0 .87  0 .71  0.56  18. Lachute  21.0  24 .2  25 .4  37 .5  37 .4  19. Rigaud  40.4  44 .5  44.7  37 .4  37 .2  30 ^5_  1 .11  1.04  1.04  0 .89  q_• 75  0.77 '  378  20. Montreal  27.9  33 .8  34 .5  45 .6  45 .1  33 .3  0. • 42  0.45  0.45  0 .60  0 .53  0.43  528  21. V a l l e y f i e l d  28.2  31 .9  33 .2  33 .4  32 .6  37 .6  0 .73  0.70  0.71  0 .79  0.65  0.72  432  N.B.  Underlined values proven the s m a l l e s t standard d e v i a t i o n s of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of 0.05  /_ e r r o r measures at  However, when this error i s examined i n r e l a t i o n to the actual distances i n v o l ved, the time dimension becomes very s i g n i f i c a n t . Time has given more perspective to the subjects' judgments. Although time produces more error, this error i s more r a t i o n a l l y distributed according to distances involved. The  straight  l i n e estimate allows error even for nearby places, while the time estimate  pro-  2  duces error s t r i c t l y as distance increases.  Thus, the time dimension added  "realism" to the r e l a t i v e judgment, allowing the subject to picture places more accurately i n their relations to one another. Several other observations should be made. As discussed i n the l i t e r a t u r e , the signed (+/-) means of TABLE 5.3 and TABLE 5.4 indicate that students gener-  85 a l l y ; overestimated prior,  relatively  which generates  t h e d i s t a n c e s t o most p l a c e s  isolated  t o w n s , and  (except  f o r the time v e r s i o n of the r a t i o  more u n d e r e s t i m a t i o n s ) . A t p r e s e n t  c y t o o v e r e s t i m a t e . As  p r e d i c t e d , t h e "as  t h e r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e m i l e and c l e a r s i n c e I asked  (TABLES 5.3,  d i s t a n c e s were 5.4,  time estimates  and  Arnestimate  I cannot e x p l a i n t h i s  t h e crow f l i e s "  t e d more a c c u r a t e l y w i t h t h e r a t i o e s t i m a t e  d i s t a n c e s i s not  f o r M a n i w a k i and  5.5);  tendenestimahowever,  i n accounting  for route  f o r the s h o r t e s t route d i s t a n c e i n ques3  t i o n s 9 and  10. N o t  ous  show t h a t t h e m e t r i c u s e d was  results  surprisingly  r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r n i t i o n has  been observed,  formed at t h i s The these  familiarity  i s what I g o t .  Finally,  previ-  quite consistant for a l l stimuli points,  o r l o c a t i o n . T h u s , o n l y one  most l i k e l y  the  due  l e v e l of s p a t i a l  same c o m p a r a t i v e  to the very g e n e r a l i z e d a n a l y s i s per-  t e s t s w e r e made f o r e a c h s c h o o l  (where N=30), but  c a s e s , no m e t r i c r e a l l y s t o o d o u t a s b e i n g more a c c u r a t e . S i g n i f i c a n t  of freedom  i n the data but  at the l e v e l of the whole sample because of the h i g h  ( l a r g e N).  Evidence  i s not very  strong.  I n summary, s i g n i f i c a n t thought  cog-  stage.  f e r e n c e s were observed grees  then, t h i s  in difde-  o f an a d o p t e d m e t r i c o f s p a c e i s p r e s e n t  distortions  o f s p a c e w e r e made b y  the s u b j e c t s  who  o f d i s t a n c e i n a n a b s t r a c t f a s h i o n , somewhat r e m o t e f r o m t h e d e t a i l s  the r o u t e network, but at making e s t i m a t e s  still  relative  they produced a s t r a i g h t ... e s t i m a t e p r o v e d  t i n t e d by  the time dimension.  t o a w e l l known d i s t a n c e ( r a t i o  estimate),  l i n e e s t i m a t e q u i t e c o n s i s t a n t l y . However, t h i s  t o be m o r e " r a t i o n a l l y "  the context of the time  S u b j e c t s were  dimension.  related  of  best and relative  t o s p a c e when i n t e r p r e t e d i n  T i m e seems t o h a v e p r o v i d e d more p e r s p e c t i v e  for distance estimation. In the a n a l y s i s to f o l l o w , m a t e (MCROWER), and variables.  I will  the time  thus  use  the e r r o r s of both  r a t i o estimate  the estimates  the s t r a i g h t  (MTIMER), w i l l b e  showing the  line ratio  u s e d as  lowest v a r i a t i o n  esti-  dependent levels.  86 The  r e s u l t s presented i n this  tions of themetric aggregate l e v e l . ploring  s e c t i o n c a n o n l y be i n t e r p r e t e d as g e n e r a l  o f space used s i n c e a n a l y s i s  For instance,  further the question  this unrefined  of various  could  only be performed a t t h e  a p p r o a c h was n o t s u i t a b l e f o r e x -  l e v e l s o f s p a t i a l c o g n i t i o n . A more s o -  phisticated analysis of the factors influencing distance the  next  cognition  follows i n  section.  5.2 I n f l u e n c e 5.2.1  indica-  of Factors  Personal Single  on D i s t a n c e  Estimates  factors  and m u l t i - f a c t o r a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e  with  r e p e a t e d measures were  made o n t h e f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l a n d h i s l o c a t i o n i n t h e r e g i o n a l s p a c e . TABLE 5.6 s u m m a r i z e s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e a n a l y s e s . ven  Only t h e smallest  e r r o r measures from t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n were a n a l y s e d  (MCROWER f o r t h e  s t r a i g h t e r r o r a n d ZMTIMER f o r t h e r e l a t i v e e r r o r ) . B o t h t h e s i g n e d the  absolute  pro-  v a l u e s o f t h e s e e r r o r s were examined as they r e v e a l  (+/-) a n d  different as-  p e c t s o f d i s t o r t i o n o f s p a c e . TABLE 5.6 s h o w s : ( 1 ) t h e d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m ( N ) , (2) e r  the F.iratio  ( F ) , (3) t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f g e t t i n g a F r a t i o  (prob)—critical  this  large or larg-  l e v e l c h o s e n i s 0 . 0 5 , a n d ( 4 ) t h e mean e r r o r l e f t  by t h e  model ( E ) . A single-factor analysis done w i t h are  repeated):  jects' This  the s t i m u l i points  factor  measures d e s i g n — w a s  Y=A+B+E w h e r e Y i s t h e e r r o r o f e s t i m a t i o n , and E i s t h e e r r o r  shows c l e a r l y t h a t b o t h s u b j e c t s  Each s u b j e c t  a very personalized  previous speculations.  first  ( t r e a t m e n t s over which measures A i s t h e random s u b (TABLE 5 . 6 , c o l u m n 1 ) .  and s t i m u l i p o i n t s  f a c t o r s . I n t h e subsequent analyses t h e i r e f f e c t w i l l  significant. has  as t r i a l  factor, B i s the s t i m u l i points,  analysis  ficant  of variance—repeated  The e s t i m a t e s t o each s t i m u l u s  space. This point  signi-  always remain very  has produced very d i f f e r e n t estimates;  a n d u n i q u e way o f p e r c e i v i n g  arevery  each  subject  l a r g e l y confirms  a r e also very  differ-  TABLE 5.6 Results of analysis of variance with repeated measures on the personal factors A= 538 ss/8203 obs. (N) F (MCROWER) n.b. A = subjects B - stimuli points  (prob)  A  4.6  (.0000)  B  49.7  (.0000)  B(A)  b  c  d  E  556  (ABMCROWER) A  3.0  (.0000)  A  B  60.5  (.0000)  B(A)  (ZMTIMER)  A  4.8  B  46.8  E  6  (ZAMTIMER)  CULTURE  MOBILE  LTRES  RLTRES  PREADB  538/8010  538/8005  538/8010  538/8203  538/7915  538/7979  538/7821  538/7265  (prob)  F  (prob)  F  (prob)  F  7.15 (.0004)  3.8  (.0518)  1.77  (.1839)  4.41  4.53  (.0000)  4. 54  ( .1)000) 4.57  (.0000)  49.13  (.0000)  52.6  (.0000)  49.2  4.13 (.0000)  2.14  530  567  5.01 (.0000)  1.18  3.02  (.0000)  2.98 (.0000) 57.57 (.0000)  C  62.2  (.0000)  AC  4.4  (.0000)  E  352  (prob)  F  (prob)  F  (prob)  F  (prob)  P  (prob)  1.4  (.0023)  (.2778)  (.1094)  380  (.0000)  5.7  (.0008)  1.18  (.3089)  2.18 (.0029)  1.11 (.3445)  1.41  (.2189)  (.0000)  4.53  (.0000)  4.47  4.66 (.0000)  4.79  (.0000)  50.22 (.0000)  48.46  (.0000)  0.87  (.8772)  1.31 (.1594)  2.53  568  550  0.82  (.0000)  568  (.0000)  50.19  (.0000)  1.15  (.0264)  554  49.6  (.0000)  45.93  (.0000)  0.91 (.6724)  1.19  (.0975)  553  536  (.3656)  4.26  (.0055)  0.99  (.4427)  1.66  (.0391)  1.19 (.3129)  0.86  (.5078)  2.98 (.0000)  2.99  (.0000)  2.97  (.0000)  2.99  (.0000)  .3.08 (.0000)  3.12  (.0000)  (.0000)  58.5  5.76  (.0000)  61.09  (.0000)  56.45  (.0000)  0.65  (.8775)  2.3  (.0000)  0.89  (.8338)  380  372  381  58.9 1.04  (.2907)  370  (.0000)  53.27 (.0000)  1.26 (.0854)  1.34  368  364  (.0143)  (.0000)  A  2.51 (.0008)  0.27  (.6035)  3.08 (.0798)  0.92  (.4309)  (.0000)  B(A)  1.43  (.1810)  2.37 (.0010)  1.65 (.1769)  1.38  (.2301)  4.9  (.0000)  4.7  (.0000)  4.67 (.0000)  4.86  (.0000)  C  4.67  (.0000)  4.58  4.85 (.0000)  4.85  (.0000)  49.4  (.0000)  AC E  GEO  a  AC  376  SEX  F A c  E  SCHOOL  .2382  E  4.18 (.0000) .2264  46.1 2.56  (.0000)  45.96  (.0000)  (.0000)  0.97  (.4963)  .2422  .2432  47.5 2.99  (.0000) (.0000)  .2346  45.82 (.0000) 1.08  47.16  (.2354)  1.11  .2424  (.0000) (.0000) (.0744)  .2375  46.9  (.0000)  1.0 (.4760) .2341  43.81  (.0000)  0.98 (.5376) .2341  A  2.7  (.0000)  A  1.74  (.0077)  0.33  (.5659)  1.08 (.2992)  B  1.67  (.1724)  2.19  (.0268)  18.6  (.0000)  2.27  (.0018)  B(A)  1.37 (.2511)  1.76  (.1194)  2.7  (.0000)  2.66  (.0000)  2.65  (.0000)  2.7  (.0000)  2.6  (.0000)  2.6  (.0000)  2.74 (.0000)  2.66  (.0000)  18.8  (.0000)  18.64  (.0000)  19.12  (.0000)  18.75 (.0000)  17.86  (.0000)  (.3671)  1.1  (.0936)  0.65 (.9834)  0.87  (.8171)  C  19.1  (.0000)  18.57  (.0000)  18.52  (.0000)  AC  2.3  (.0000)  1.61  (.0415)  0.79  (.7294)  E  .1513  n.b.  Underlined probability v a l u e s a l l under t h e c r i t i c a l l e v e l o f .05  E  .1488  J  .1530  3 ^ main f a c t o r subjects nested  .1533 C inA  d  j  2.14 .1500  (.0000)  1.03 .1537  .1495  .1480  .1516  stimuli points i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e main f a c t o r and s t i m u l i p o i n t s  oo  88 ent.  -This  distinct will  i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g , a s a w i d e v a r i e t y o f p l a c e s were chosen t o generate and v a r i e d r e a c t i o n s . The s u b j e c t and t h e s t i m u l u s p o i n t  continue  t o be accounted f o r i nthe subsequent  A s e r i e s o fm u l t i - f a c t o r analyses then performed using v a r i o u s grouping f a c t o r : Y=A+B(A)+C+AC+E ing  effects  analyses.  o fvariance with repeated  m e a s u r e s were::  f a c t o r s , and t h es t i m u l i p o i n t s as t r i a l  where Y i s t h e e r r o r o f e s t i m a t i o n , A i s t h e main group-  f a c t o r , B ( A ) i s t h e random s u b j e c t s n e s t e d  i n A, C i s t h e s t i m u l i  points,  AC i s t h e i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e m a i n f a c t o r a n d t h e s t i m u l i p o i n t s , a n d E i s t h e e r r o r (TABLE 5.6, 6 l a s t  c o l u m n s ) . The e f f e c t o f t h e main f a c t o r (A) i s ana-  l y s e d o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e v a r i a t i o n a l r e a d y known t o e x i s t b e t w e e n s u b j e c t s . The  nested  category  e f f e c t o f B i n A looks a t t h e v a r i a t i o n between s u b j e c t s w i t h i n each  o f A. F i n a l l y ,  t h e i n t e r a c t i o n element t e s t s i f t h e e f f e c t  stant from s t i m u l u s p o i n t t o s t i m u l u s The to  school  for cant  f a c t o r SCHOOL  first  point.  looks a t the v a r i a t i o n o f t h eestimates  (sample p o i n t t o sample p o i n t ) . T h i s  a l l e r r o r measures except too (theschool effect  f a c t o r i s found very  ZAMTIMER; t h e i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t  i s not constant  Means of e r r o r measures f o r each s c h o o l  ABMCROWER  MCROWER  ZMTIMER  Williamstown  17 0  3 3  .04  Avonmore  14 7  1 8  .01  Casselman  20 7  13 6  .11  Hawkesbury  16 1  2 3  - .09  Embrun  22 8  9 3  .01  Alexandria  16 8  5 8  .04  Chesterville  16 .6  1 8  .05  Vankleek  15 1  3 7  -.05  Plantagenet  20 0  5 .9  .03  Cornwa11  17 .6  2 3  - .02  ALL  17 .9  5 6  .02  Hill  from  school  significant  i s very  signifi-  from s t i m u l u s p o i n t t o s t i m u l u s  TABLE 5 . 7  SCHOOL  o f A i s conr  89 p o i n t ) . A look at  the  means o f  the  errors  C a s s e l m a n , and  Plantagenet generally  Vankleek H i l l ,  and  and  Chesterville  Vankleek H i l l ,  (TABLE 5.7)  made t h e  H a w k e s b u r y made t h e  (ZMTIMER o n l y ) made t h e  naire al  applications  Chesterville  or  socio-economic e f f e c t  positions and  on  the  different  sis  will The  effect ble  be  SEX  regional  forces  o r , most l i k e l y ,  the  action  done on  these aspects  later.  factor  n e v e r s t a n d s out  as  m a t t e r s but  explaining differ  the  i t s effect varies  Hawkesbury,  likely  here because a l l q u e s t i o n -  c o u l d be  i n p r e s e n c e of  a positional effect. c o n t e x t s of  space of  the  the  other students  ( G E O ) , and  a  cultur-  Different road  network  i n d i v i d u a l . More  s i g n i f i c a n t although the  e s t i m a t e s of  the  i s strong, i t i s very  analy-  interaction the  from s t i m u l u s p o i n t to s t i m u l u s  o v e r a l l n u l l e f f e c t . The  from those of  varia-  point,  g e o g r a p h y s t u d e n t s do  this i s consistent  not  over a l l stim-  points. The  CULTURE f a c t o r  significant  f o r the  i s s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the  relative error  different . i n the  stimuli points, case of  u n d e r s t o o d as ple  and  ed  at  one  the  and  r e l a t i v e time e r r o r .  5.2.3. F o r  between the  two  lish  standard deviation  error  effect  of  CULTURE v a r i e s  overall effect The  (MCROWER) b u t  interaction effect better  straight  main groups of  shows an  t h i s s t u d y , the  F r e n c h and  of  is  the  easily  known t o F r e n c h  e r r o r , TABLE 5.8  i s a v e r y good i n d i c a t o r  among  i s once a g a i n masked  places. This p a r t i c u l a r relationship  the  not  i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t , however,  w o u l d e x p e c t F r e n c h p l a c e s t o be  difference (the  the  t h e r e f o r e the  vice versa for English in section  straight  (ZMTIMER). The  i s a l w a y s s i g n i f i c a n t , w h i c h means t h a t  p  i s not  s t a n d a r d i z e d . We  on  Avonmore,  (MCROWER o n l y ) made  school effect  space produce d i f f e r e n t  playing  Embrun,  i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n a l l c a s e s e x c e p t ABMCROWER. T h i s means t h a t  SEX  uli  experimental effect were q u i t e  worst e r r o r s , while  most o v e r e s t i m a t i o n w h i l e  most r e l a t i v e u n d e r e s t i m a t i o n . A l t h o u g h t h e An  that  l e a s t ; C a s s e l m a n , E m b r u n (MCROWER o n l y )  C o r n w a l l , A v o n m o r e , and  hard to e x p l a i n .  indicates  will  peobe  look-  important the  this difference  Engand  90 TABLE 5.8 Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s of e r r o r measures f o r each c u l t u r e  MCROWER  ABMCROWER  CULTURE X  s  X  s  English  2.6  23 4  15.8  17 5  French  7.5  29 9  18.5  24 7  Both  6.2  28 3  18.3  22 4  Other  8.8  28 2  20.0  21 7  ALL  5.5  27 5  17.5  21 9  t h e means r e i n f o r c e t h i s t r e n d ) . T h e F r e n c h g r o u p made m o r e e r r o r a n d t e n d e d t o w a r d more o v e r e s t i m a t i o n t h a n t h e E n g l i s h g r o u p . i s v e r y c l o s e t o t h e French group w h i l e t h i s  Once a g a i n , t h e b i c u l t u r a l  t i m e , t h e O t h e r s ' g r o u p h a s made  t h e most e r r o r and t h e most o v e r e s t i m a t i o n . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f each p r o v i d e some e l e m e n t s  group  culture  of explanation:  (1) T h e m o b i l i t y  statistics  show t h a t t h e E n g l i s h g r o u p  than t h e French o r b i l i n g u a l groups  i s more m o b i l e  (which a r e q u i t e  similar):  12% more E n g l i s h s t u d e n t s h a v e c a r s w h i l e 1 1 % m o r e F r e n c h j u s t use r i d e s . A l a r g e p o r t i o n o f t h e Others  students  claim t onot t r a v e l  much i n t h e r e g i o n ( 1 2 . 5 % a s o p p o s e d t o 3% f o r t h e o t h e r g r o u p s ) . (2) The l e n g t h o f r e s i d e n c e a n d p r e v i o u s a d d r e s s  statistics  t h e F r e n c h have b e e n t h e most s t a b l e i n t h e r e g i o n : t h e F r e n c h group  have l i v e d  a t t h e i r present address  5 y e a r s , as opposed t o 19.1% o f t h e E n g l i s h , ral,  that  o n l y 11.2% o f f o r less  than  24.7% o f t h e b i c u l t u -  a n d 1 4 . 3 % o f t h e O t h e r s . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , 8 5 . 7 % o f t h e O t h e r s  have l i v e d posed  show  a t t h e i r present address  f o r more t h a n 10 y e a r s , a s o p -  t o 74.7% o f t h e F r e n c h , 59.3% o f t h e E n g l i s h , and 57.6% o f  91 the  "biculturals".  M o r e o f t h e E n g l i s h g r o u p h a v e moved f r o m  s i d e the r e g i o n , w h i l e the Previous and,  moved more w i t h i n  r e g i o n o r e v e n t h e same t o w n .  r e s e a r c h has  shown t h a t newcomers do  t h e most e x p l o r a t i o n o f t h e i r  a f t e r a s h o r t p e r i o d , know i t t h e b e s t . L o n g t e r m r e s i d e n t s e x p l o r e  "taken-for-granted" probably  region less,  and  role only  t h e m o b i l i t y f a c t o r MOBILE ( s e e  i n the  case of the  stant from s t i m u l u s  estimates  p o i n t t o s t i m u l u s p o i n t . The  t i m a t e s . The b u t was  while  t h o s e who  traveled least  variable  to category,  and  no  effect  i n the  s i d e r e d as a  see  c a r or use  the  r e g i o n , made t h e w o r s t  es-  significant  observed. F i n a l l y ,  c a t e g o r i e s i n TABLE 4.3)  was  not was  the found  not  con-  factor.  very  r e a c t i o n s . The  different  r e s u l t s and  l o c a t i o n of the  for,  once a g a i n ,  reasons d e a l i n g w i t h  gion  ( m o b i l i t y and  previous  t o i n t e r p r e t . The  the s t u d e n t s '  m o v i n g h a b i t s ) . The  relative  t i m e e r r o r . The  v a r i a b l e s sex,  to follow w i l l  i n the  f a c t o r was  significant  some o f t h e  proved  action  i n the in  geography, l e n g t h of  e i t h e r u n s i g n i f i c a n t or  clarify  stimu-  significant  l e v e l of a c t i v i t y  m o b i l i t y f a c t o r was  a d d r e s s w e r e shown t o be  analyses  cultural  each  sample p o i n t s  s i g n i f i c a n t , l i k e l y because of d i f f e r e n t b i a s e s  s p a c e o r b e c a u s e o f c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s . The  d e n c e , and  (RLTRES)  time of residence f l u c t u a t e s  B e c a u s e o f t h e u n i f o r m i t y i n s u b j e c t s ' a g e s , age  lus point generated d i f f e r e n t  case of the  i s con-*  o f c a r ) made  t r e n d c a n be  summarize, each s u b j e c t produced v e r y  t o be  a  c a t e g o r i e s o f MOBI-  ( L T R E S ) p r o v e d t o be v e r y  of the  general  PREADD ( p r e v i o u s a d d r e s s ,  significant.  To  means o f t h e  c o n c e p t u a l l y u n i n t e r p r e t a b l e . A s i m p l i f i e d v e r s i o n o f LTRES  t h e n p r o v e d n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t . The  t o be  groups.  c a t e g o r i e s TABLE 4.3.7) p l a y s  (those having  v a r i a b l e length of residence  from category  This  r e l a t i v e t i m e e r r o r (ZAMTIMER); t h e e f f e c t  show t h a t t h e m o s t m o b i l e s t u d e n t s  best  cultural  area  their  t h e i r knowledge a c t u a l l y decreases.  e x p l a i n s the d i f f e r e n c e s between the  Strangely,  LE  the b i c u l t u r a l group has  out-  re-  the resi-  difficult  influences  observed  92 here. 5.2.2 T h e s p a t i a l f a c t o r Previous  research  has been concerned w i t h  t e d and r e a l d i s t a n c e i n order be  observed i n other  spatial  true  distance,  t o avoid s p a t i a l a u t o c o r r e l a t i o n problems.  dependence o f t h e v a r i a b l e s s t u d i e d must b e m i n i m i z e d  measure t h e i r  i n order t o  effect.  A one-way a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e  was done o n t h e s t r a i g h t e r r o r (MCROWER,  ABMCROWER) t o d e t e r m i n e i t s r e l a t i o n t o t h e r e a l s t r a i g h t l i n e  distances:  Y=A+/CROWDIST, w h e r e Y i s t h e e r r o r a n d A i s t h e c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e SUBJECTS.  TABLE R e s u l t s of  5.9  o f one-way  c o v a r i a n c e  a n a l y s i s  w i t h  d i s t a n c e  COVARIATE  CROWDIST  CROWDIST  TIMEDIST  ERROR  MCROWER  ZMCROWER  ZMTIMER  (Y)  F  (.0000)  144.8  2.94  A  1067.8  F  a  =  3.08  r e s u l t s d i s t a n c e  v a l u e s  s h o u l d  b e  2.58  (.0000)  92.9  538  a l l under  0.7472  (.0000)  cannot  (.3917)  0.1582  s u b j e c t s c r i t i c a l  i n t e r p r e t e d  o b s e r v a t i o n s  (.0000)  -0.0001  0.2717  8159 o b s e r v a t i o n s ,  u n d e r l i n e d  ZAMTIMER  -0.0026  (.0000)  (.0000)  0.2618  ZAMCROWER  381.0  i  176.58  (.0000) 0.3860  (.0000)  (.0000)  -0.0025  -0.0053  0.3338  r e g . c o e f f.  (prob)  4.36  (.0000)  261.8  (.0000)  ABMCROWER  ( |Y| )  N  4.57  617.8  E  n.b.  a  F  (prob)  -0.1565  r e g . c o e f f. F  F  (prob)  4.15  A  ERROR  will  s t u d i e s may o r may n o t  f o r my d a t a , b u t i f t h e e r r o r o f e s t i m a t i o n i s r e l a t e d t o r e a l  c o n t r o l measures w i l l have t o be taken The  estima-  t o m o d e l c o g n i t i v e d i s t a n c e . My c o n c e r n h e r e  q u i t e d i f f e r e n t . The r e g u l a r i t i e s  hold  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between  as b e  l e v e l  o f  i n d i c a t i o n s c o n s i d e r e d  .05, b u t o n l y  s i n c e  i n d e p e n d e n t  s t a t i s t i c a l t h e  r e a l  o f each  o t h e r  93 In t h i s analysis, an  t h e v a r i a t i o n i s a n a l y z e d a t t h e l e v e l o f each i n d i v i d u a l and  average w i t h i n - c l a s s  coefficients  s l o p e i s c o m p u t e d . TABLE 5.9 shows t h a t  f o r MCROWER a n d ABMCROWER a r e  the regression  l a r g e l y s i g n i f i c a n t : the  more c r o w  4 distance  i n c r e a s e s the  more u n d e r e s t i m a t i o n o c c u r s ,  and the  more e r r o r  These t r e n d s have r e g u l a r l y been observed b e f o r e . N o t s u r p r i s i n g l y , l e s s known p l a c e s w e r e e s t i m a t e d w i t h trend  more d i f f i c u l t y  t h i s o c c u r s b e c a u s e man i s a c c u s t o m e d t o d e a l i n g  tances i n h i s everyday a c t i v i t i e s . lize  long distances,  tinct  finds  with  to explain.  small  i t difficult  range  p l a c e s "out  there"  aregenerally  s c h e m a , w h e r e a s schemas c l o s e r  part  dis-  t o conceptua-  a n d i n e v i t a b l y b r i n g s t h e m b a c k t o a more f a m i l i a r  A d d e d t o t h i s , we know t h a t undifferentiated  He t h e r e f o r e  distant,  (more e r r o r ) , h o w e v e r , t h e  t o w a r d u n d e r e s t i m a t i o n o f t h e i r d i s t a n c e s i s more d i f f i c u l t  Possibly,  arises.  scale.  o f a vague,  t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l are  more d i s -  a n d d i v e r s i f i e d . T h e schemas p r o v i d e a f r a m e o f r e f e r e n c e f o r d i s t a n c e e s -  timation; likely  the  more o b s c u r e t h e s c h e m a , t h e f u z z i e r t h e e s t i m a t e s a n d t h e  r e m o t e schemas w i l l b e a s s i m i l a t e d  I tried  to control  measures by d i s t a n c e  known o n e s .  f o r t h i s " s p a t i a l " e f f e c t by d i v i d i n g a l l s t r a i g h t  to obtain  t h e r e l a t i v e e r r o r measures. T h i s c o n t r o l  i s good o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t a n c e . The c o n t r o l ' s  to closer, better  more  thestraight errors  e f f i c i e n c y can be t e s t e d  arelinearly related  by redoing t h e a n a l y s i s  a n c e o n t h e s e r e l a t i v e e r r o r m e a s u r e s . TABLE 5.9 shows t h a t ,  error  measure to dis-  of covari-  only i n t h e case  o f ZAMTIMER was t h e s p a t i a l e f f e c t c o m p l e t e l y r e m o v e d . ZMCROWER a n d ZMTIMER a r e still  inversely  related  to real distance,  for  the straight errors.  has  l o s t a l o t o f i t s importance  hopefully, WER i s a l s o ler  Even though t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p (regression  i ss t i l l  c o e f f i c i e n t s are  t h e consequences f o r s p a t i a l a u t o c o r r e l a t i o n related negatively  the r e l a t i v e error.  ally"  indicating a curvilinear  t o distance,  T h i s shows t h a t  significant, i t much s m a l l e r ) , a n d  w i l l b e m i n i m a l . ZAMCRO-  t h e more d i s t a n c e  t h e crow d i s t a n c e  d i s t r i b u t e d o v e r s p a c e . The s t r a i g h t  relationship  increases t h e smal-  e r r o r was n o t " r a t i o n -  l i n e estimates produced a l o t o f  94 error and  even f o r nearby p l a c e s .  even the  F r a t i o , h a v e l o s t much o f  Spatial autocorrelation of  Once a g a i n h o w e v e r , t h e  meaning v a r i a b l e s  interpreted  problems are  t h o u g h as  always p o s s i b l e .  time distances  ( e x c e p t EVALUA) a r e  statistically  the  5.2.3  o b s e r v a t i o n s are  However, f o r the of v a r i a b l e s on  meaning are  purpose of  (Operational  distance  discover  variables  how  cannot  be  independent.)  The  a n a l y s e s t o come i n o r d e r t o  inseparable  mini-  e x p r e s s i o n s of s p a t i a l e x p e r i e n c e .  t h i s a n a l y s i s , they have been measured w i t h  variables,  ch.4)  which w i l l  those v a r i a b l e s were perceived  a c t u a l l y measured, I looked f i r s t  The  for a perfect  and  dimensions i n the (1)  first  now  be  tested  no  for  was  a number their  what  the tau-b  c h o s e n f o r t h i s purpose."' t o -1  for a  perfect  There are b a s i c a l l y  (TABLE 5 . 1 0 ) :  d i m e n s i o n i s r e p r e s e n t e d by 1 and,  and  t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s . The  association.  knowledge-meaning data  4  interrelated variables,  V I S I T 2, w h i c h o b v i o u s l y  a c t i v e knowledge of p l a c e s .  t h e MEANIN v a r i a b l e was  subjects,  positive association  zero indicates  KNOWL, MEANIN, V I S I T ple's  at  by  for ordinal-level variables  v a l u e r a n g e s f r o m +1  negative association, four  (This  knowledge  cognition.  measure of a s s o c i a t i o n Its  not  the  meaning  K n o w l e d g e and  To  shows t h a t  analysis  problem.  K n o w l e d g e and  effect  A one-way  r e l a t e d to distance.  r e l a t i v e e r r o r measures have been used i n the mize the  coefficient  t h e i r importance.  c o v a r i a n c e on b o t h s t r a i g h t l i n e and  and  regression  r e f e r to  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o see  interpreted  i n such a c t i v e  peo-  that  experiential  terms. (2)  People's evaluation  of  although i t i s s l i g h t l y with (3)  The  places  (EVALUA) comes as  l i n k e d to the  MEANIN. c u l t u r a l dimension  (LANGAG)  and,  first  a second  dimension,  dimension,  especially  95 (4) T h e S I Z E d i m e n s i o n come o u t v e r y  distinctly.  TABLE 5.10 Tau b s t a t i s t i c over 'knowledge' and 'meaning' v a r i a b l e s KNOWL  MEANIN', • EVALUA  LANG AG  SIZE  VISIT 1  VISIT 2  i. —  LANG AG  0.183  0.675  '•  0.457  0.141  0.576  0.51  —  0.171  •  0.126  0.021  0.138  0.114  '  0.509  0 .201  0.606  0.498  —  0.183  0.456  o.35i  0.173  0 .109  —  MEANIN  EVALUA ! 1  ;  l_  —  SIZE  VISIT 1  —  VISIT 2  The or  direction of theassociations 2 increases,  "good" p l a c e s thesized  i nthe f i r s t  0.525  —  d i m e n s i o n shows t h a t  as VISIT 1  s o d o e s KNOWL a n d MEANIN. T h e s e c o n d d i m e n s i o n r e v e a l s  a r ealso  earlier.  t h e most " m e a n i n g f u l "  ( a n d b e t t e r known) p l a c e s ,  that as hypo-  I n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t o f o l l o w , i t s h o u l d b e remembered t h a t  4 o f t h e 7 v a r i a b l e s a c t u a l l y m e a s u r e t h e same t h i n g o r a t m o s t , o n l y  slightly  d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s o f t h e same t h i n g , i . e . a c t i v e k n o w l e d g e o f s p a c e . To l o o k  a t t h ee f f e c t o f those v a r i a b l e s , t h e r e s u l t s o f 3 major  w i l l be p r e s e n t e d (1)  here:  those r e l a t i v e (A)  analyses  t o a one-way a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e  as c o n t r o l f a c t o r  with'subjects'  (Y=A+/KN0WL+MEANIN+VISITl+VISIT2+LAGREE+  96 EVALUA+SIZE+E, s e e TABLE (2) t h o s e r e l a t i v e  5.11),  t o a two-way a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e  with  "subjects"  (A) a n d " s t i m u l i p o i n t s " ( B ) a s c o n t r o l f a c t o r s (Y=A+B+/KNOWL+MEANIN+VISIT1+VTSIT2+LAGREE+EVALUA+SIZE+E, s e e TABLE 5.12) a n d , (3) t h e r e s u l t s  coming from a n a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e w i t h  TABLE R e s u l t s  N  =  o f one-way  5.11  a n a l y s i s  o f  c o v a r i a n c e  ZAMCROWER  ZMCROWER  465/6305 obs.  (.0000)  ( S u b j e c t s )  A  4.26  ( E r r o r )  E  0.3761  (.0000)  2.95  a  0.2599  10.11  0.0213  (prob)  F  ( r e g . c o e f f.)  (prob)  F  (reg.coeff.)  KNOWL  [prob)  F  (prob)  F  (.0017)  0.0153  7.57  (.0060)  (.3830)  0.0121  5.26  (.0207)  0.0056  0.77  0.0050  0.88  (.3519)  0.0036  0.64  (.4308)  2  0.0111  5.32  (.0200)  0.0075  3.46  (.0596)  b  0.0079  3.26  (.0674)  0.0015  0.17  (.6864)  EVALUA  -0.0156  6.01  (.0137)  -0.0104  3.89  (.0460)  SIZE  -0.0360  51.25  (.0000)  -0.0000  0.00  (.9442)  14.98  (.0000)  MEANIN VISIT V I S I T LAGREE  1  ALL  10.89  (.0000)  0.1569  0.2556  E  (prob)  F  (reg.coeff.)  (prob)  F  ( r e g . c o e f fO  0.0159  8.29  (.0041)  0.0087  4.01  (.0429)  -0.0009  0.03  (.8423)  0.0099  5.79  (.0154)  0.0065  3.56  (.0560)  KNOWL MEANIN  2.41  (.0000)  4.09  (prob)  F  (prob)  F  (.0000)  ZAMTIMER  ZMTIMER  A  V I S I T  1  0.0096  4.68  (.0288)  V I S I T  2  0.0041  1.05  (.3072)  0.0035  1.25  (.2619)  0.09  (.7632)  IAGREE  0.0062  2.96  (.0815)  -0.0008  EVALUA  -0.0130  6.13  (.0128)  -0.0093  5.07  (.0231)  172.81  (.0000)  0.0037  1.30  (.2529)  29.73  (.0000)  -0.0545  SIZE ALL  s i g n i f i c a n t Note  t h a t  LAGREE  a t  now  .05  r e p l a c e s  s e n s i t i v e  v a r i a b l e .  judgement  o f t h e language  own  c u l t u r a l  i d e n t i t y  repeated  10.31  a l m o s t LANGAG  I t measures o f a  a s  i  t h e degree  stimulus  s i g n i f i c a n t  ti s a  p o i n t  much  t o w h i c h  (.0000)  a t .05  more c r o s s - c u l t u r a l t h e s u b j e c t i v e  c o r r e s p o n d s  w i t h  t h e  s u b j e c t s  97 measures where t h e s c h o o l s s e r v e as g r o u p i n g s t i m u l i p o i n t s as t r i a l  factor  factor  (A) a n d t h e  ( C ) (Y=A+B(A)+C+AC+/KNOWL+MEANIN+  VISIT1+VISIT2+LAGREE+EVALUA+SIZE+E, where B i s s u b j e c t s n e s t e d i n A a n d AC i s t h e i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t , s e e TABLE TABLES 5 . 1 1 , 5 . 1 2 , a n d 5.13 i n d i c a t e i n t r o d u c e d i nt h e model,  the l e v e l of significance  TABLE R e s u l t s  =  465/6305  o f two-way  ( S t i m u l i p t s .)  B  ( E r r o r )  E  4.91  V I S I T  o f  c o v a r i a n c e  ZAMCROWER  42.61  3.16  (.0000)  (.0000)  21.95  (.0000)  0.2424  0.3292  F  (prob)  ( r e g . c o e f f.)  24.49  (.0000)  0.0167  9.19  (.0026)  (.3986)  0.0104  4.03  (.0422) (.7479)  0.0051 1  -0.0012  0.05  (.8020)  -0.0014  0.10  2  0.0008  0.03  (.8445)  -0.0035  0.75  (.3909)  (.0010)  0.0075  4.38  (.0343)  (.0564)  -0.0075  2.16  (•1376)  140.11  (.0000)  -0.0305  30.07  (.0000)  29.65  (.0000)  9.25  (.0000)  0.0140  EVALUA  -0.0113  11.26 3.55  -0.0766  SIZE ALL  ZAMTIMER  ZMTIMER  A B E  4.62 37.47  2.53  (.0000)  (.0000)  14.84  (.0000)  0.1498  0.2272  0.0253  LAGREE  1 2  F  (prob)  F  (prob)  22.56  (.0000)  0.0068  2.46  (.1127)  0.0112  7.62  (.0058)  1.06  0.0044  1.06  (.3047)  0.0033  0.89  (.3476)  0.0028  0.52  (.4762)  -0.0027  0.74  (.3931)  0.0061  3.12  (.0734)  0.0029  1.09  (.2962)  -0.0085  4.46  (.0329)  -0.0081  3.46  (.0597)  4.74  (.0000)  EVALUA  -0.0134  7.26  (.0070)  SIZE  -0.0621  133.27  (.0000)  29.29  (.0000)  ALL  ( r e g . c o e f f.)  (.3042)  0.0051  MEANIN  (prob)  (.0000)  (reg. coef f) KNOWL  F  (prob)  F  V I S I T  (prob)  F  0.0318  LAGREE  V I S I T  (prob)  F  0.73  MEANIN V I S I T  a n a l y s i s  (.0000)  (reg. c o e f f) KNOWL  5.12  (prob)  F A  f o r each c o v a r i a t e .  ZMCROWER  obs .  ( S u b j e c t s )  of the factor(s)  and p r o v i d e t h e p a r t i a l r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s , w i t h  a s s o c i a t e d F r a t i o s and l e v e l s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e ,  N  5.13).  The p a r t i a l  98 regression c o e f f i c i e n t s a r ethe slopes o f theleast-squares equations i n the dimension o f the a p p r o p r i a t e independent  variable, with a l lother  independent  v a r i a b l e s h e l d c o n s t a n t . They a r e an i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e n o n - s t a t i s t i c a l . o f t h e independent unit  variable's effect  change i n independent  variable).  R e s u l t s  ,N =  465/6305  o b s  o f r e p e a t e d  i n  o f  c o v a r i a n c e  ZAMCROWER (prob)  F  (prob)  4.27  (.0000)  3.86  (.0000)  B(A)  5.04  (.0000)  3.19  (.0000)  C  45.87  (.0000)  22.29  (.0000)  4.20  (.0000)  3.43  (.0000)  n e s t e d  s c h o o l s )  ( S t i m u l i  a n a l y s i s  ZMCROWER  )  A  ( S u b j e c t s  5.13  measures  F  ( S c h o o l s )  (change i n t h e e r r o r a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  On t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e F r a t i o  TABLE  p t s . )  ( I n t e r a c t i o n )  AC  0.2261  0.3005  E  ( E r r o r )  t e g . c o e f f)  F  (prob)  ( r e g . c o e f f)  F 12.33  (prob) (.0006)  KNOWL  0.0320  24.75  (.0000)  0.0196  MEANIN  0.0082  1.96  (.1576)  p.0132  6.70  (.0094)  0.00  (.9129)  VISIT  1  -0.0009  0.03  (.8364)  0.0002  VISIT  2  0.0006  0.02  (.8698)  0.0007  0.03  (.8456)  LAGREE  0.0071  2.52  (-1083)  0.0027  0.48  (.4942)  EVALUA  -0.0135  5.33  (.0200)  -0.0088  3.03  (.0779)  SIZE  -0.0732  130.58  (.0000)  -0.0299  29.02  (.0000)  25.60  (.0000)  9.86  (.0000)  ALL  ZAMTIMER  ZMTIMER  A B(A)  *  1.01  (.4313)  4.98  (.0000)  C  40.64  (.0000)  AC  3.60  (.0000)  E  F  (prob)  F  (prob)  1.25  (.2617)  2.60  (.0000)  14.71 2.29  (.0000) (.0000)  0.1443  0.2108 ( r e g . c o e f f)  F  (prob)  (reg.coef£  F 5.08  (prob) (.0230)  KNOWL  0.0280  27.04  (.0000)  0.0101  MEANIN  0.0093  3.57  (.0558)  0.0141  1.36  (.2413)  11.89  (.0007)  V I S I T  1  0.0025  0.35  (.5612)  0.0041  V I S I T  2  0.0030  0.52  (.4764)  0.0006  0.03  (.8310)  LAGREE  0.0061  2.68  (.0973)  0.0014  0.19  (.6642)  EVALUA  -0.0126  6.65  (.0097)  -0.0077  3.65  (.0531)  SIZE  -0.0594  122.70  (.0000)  -0.0105  5.60  (.0171)  7.13  (.0000)  ALL  26.97  importance  (.0000)  of the par-  99 tial  regression  c o e f f i c i e n t c a n be i n t e r p r e t e d  i n t h e same way a s a p a r t i a l  r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t . I t measures t h e s t r e n g t h  o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p , o r t h e amount  of v a r i a t i o n e x p l a i n e d b y one i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e all it  they could.  the  a f t e r t h e others have  T h i s way, t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e  brings additional  information  cor-  explained  i s s i g n i f i c a n t only i f  t o t h e model i . e . i f i t s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduces  sum o f s q u a r e s . TABLES 5.11 a n d 5.12 i n d i c a t e a s e x p e c t e d , a l l t h e i n t r o d u c e d c o n t r o l  tors  a r e very s i g n i f i c a n t , even a f t e r c o n t r o l l i n g f o r t h e c o v a r i a t e s .  5.13,  o n l y t h e g r o u p i n g f a c t o r SCHOOL l o s e s  but,  since  fac-  I n TABLE  i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the time  t h e i n t e r a c t i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t , t h e sample l o c a t i o n c a n s t i l l  error be a s -  sumed t o b e a v e r y i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r . S i n c e t i m e a l l o w e d f o r t h e b e s t r e l a t i v e judgment of  ( a j u d g m e n t more a t t u n e d t o r e a l d i s t a n c e ) i t i s i n e v i t a b l e t h a t  l o c a t i o n i n t h e perceived space, r e s u l t e d  stimuli points. all  Through c a n c e l l a t i o n  effects  i ndifferent estimates t o the  t h i s would have n u l l i f i e d  the over-  SCHOOL e f f e c t . If  we f i r s t  look at the signed error  (ZMCROWER, ZMTIMER), we f i n d t h a t t h e  4 dimensions o f t h e knowledge-meaning v a r i a b l e s ficant VISIT the  a change  a t t h e .05 l e v e l ,  i nthe3 analyses.  ( V I S I T 2 f o r t h e crow e r r o r  first  I n t h e one-way a n a l y s i s  and VISIT1 f o r t h e time e r r o r )  d i m e n s i o n , w h i l e i n t h e n e x t t w o more s t r u c t u r e d  d o e s . A l w a y s , KNOWL i s a v e r y s t r o n g sion  a r e s i g n i f i c a n t o r almost  factor  (high  F ratio).  KNOWL a n d  come o u t f o r  a n a l y s e s , o n l y KNOWL The l a n g u a g e dimen-  (LAGREE) i s n o t a l w a y s s i g n i f i c a n t a t . 0 5 , b u t i s v e r y c l o s e .  v e r y s t e a d y f a c t o r , a n d SIZE a p p e a r s a s t h e s t r o n g e s t a n d t h e most f a c t o r o f a l l . B a s i c a l l y no d i f f e r e n c e  signi-  EVALUA i s a important  e x i s t s between t h e crow and t h e t i m e e r -  rors . The d i f f e r e n c e s the  absolute error  3 variables  between t h e crow and t i m e e r r o r s  a r e again n e g l i g i b l e f o r  (ZAMCROWER, ZAMTIMER). I n t h e one-way a n a l y s i s  of thef i r s t  we f i n d  that  d i m e n s i o n a r e p r e s e n t : KNOWL, MEANIN, a n d a V I S I T i s  100 nearly  s i g n i f i c a n t t o o (VISIT2 f o r t h e crow e r r o r and V I S I T l  EVALUA i s t h e o n l y  o t h e r d i m e n s i o n p r e s e n t . I n t h e two-way a n a l y s i s  KNOWL a n d MEANIN s t i l l significant dimensions nificant  appear f o r t h e f i r s t  (although  EVALUA o n l y  KNOWL i s o n l y other  a t .14 l e v e l f o r ZAMCROWER), a n d LAGREE i s s i g -  and SIZE a r e s i g n i f i c a n t .  shows  that  A g a i n SIZE t a k e s a d i s -  i m p o r t a n c e i n t h e case o f t h e crow e r r o r . slope-tests  t o v e r i f y whether t h eaverage r e l a t i o n s h i p s ob-  served a r econstant across thecategories  of the control v a r i a b l e , could  d o n e i n t h e one-way a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e .  that  (although  f o r ZAMCROWER. S i m i l a r l y , t h e r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s a n a l y s i s  Unfortunately,  be  dimension  however,  a t .11 f o r ZAMTIMER); b u t t h i s t i m e EVALUA a n d S I Z E r e p r e s e n t  KNOWL, MEANIN, EVALUA ( a l m o s t ) , tinct  f o r t h e time e r r o r ) .  only  T h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s e t e s t s show  t h e V I S I T v a r i a b l e s a s w e l l a s EVALUA a n d S I Z E h a v e c o n s t a n t e f f e c t s f o r  each s u b j e c t . First,  The e f f e c t o f a l l o t h e r v a r i a b l e s v a r i e s  from subject  i n t h e case o f t h e measurement o f knowledge, t h i s  concrete variables VISITl therefore  and VISIT2 l e f t  suggests that  t h e more  l e s s room f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and  h a d a more d e f i n i t e e f f e c t a n d s e c o n d l y , t h a t  dimensions o f meaning a r e d e f i n i t e l y  t o subject.  t h e s i z e and e v a l u a t i o n  important factors playing  on distance  cognition. The by  three  thefour  p r e c e d i n g a n a l y s e s h a v e shown t h a t  dimensions present i nt h edata.  thesigned  The a b s o l u t e  error i s influenced  e r r o r tends t o react  more t o t h e " a c t i v e k n o w l e d g e " d i m e n s i o n , a l t h o u g h EVALUA a n d S I Z E s t i l l a role.  T h e s e n s e o f t h e e r r o r seems more a f f e c t e d b y i m p r e s s i o n s ,  amount o f e r r o r i s more a f f e c t e d b y a c t u a l k n o w l e d g e . and  t h e KNOWL v a r i a b l e a r e a l w a y s p r e s e n t a n d s t r o n g ;  The k n o w l e d g e  play  while the dimension  t h e EVALUA d i m e n s i o n i s  a l s o v e r y s t e a d y , b u t t h e SIZE dimension takes an unexpected  importance.  No m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e o b s e r v e d b e t w e e n t h e c r o w a n d t i m e e s t i m a t e s , a n d generally  thefactors studied  significant  through a l l three  proved t o be q u i t e analyses.  strong  as t h e i r e f f e c t  remained  101 The  r e l a t i o n s h i p s observed here g e n e r a l l y confirm  through the l i t e r a t u r e out  review  as a c r i t i c a l dimension:  and t h e t h e o r y  the expectations  chapter.  developed  A c t i v e k n o w l e d g e comes  t h e more p e o p l e know o r v i s i t  a p l a c e , t h e more  meaningful experiences  they have h a d i n t h a t p l a c e , t h e l e s s e r r o r and o v e r -  e s t i m a t i o n t h e y make.  Distances  tances  t o p o o r l y known p l a c e s  ularities  have been observed  much e x p l a n a t i o n : one  to best  known p l a c e s  seem l o n g e r before.  than they  t h e more one h a s made a p a r t i c u l a r  has t o produce a b e t t e r d i s t a n c e estimate.  l e s s o r i e n t a t i o n problems  trip his  trip,  a n d a n unknown t r i p . On s u c h a t r i p ,  references  The f o r m e r the subject along  T h e t a s k o f m o v i n g i s more u n i t a r y ( l e s s d i v i d e d ) a s t h e a t t e n t i o n i s d r a w n away f r o m t h e m a n i f e s t a t i o n s  g o a l and t h e r e f o r e , he tends t o u n d e r e s t i m a t e  h a n d a l e s s w e l l known t r i p few  cues t o o r i e n t h i m s e l f .  has  n o t s e e n them enough.  of f r i c t i o n .  Thus t h e t r i p  On t h e o t h e r  those  cues because he  i s l e s s s t i m u l a t i n g , more d i v i d e d ;  This  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i l l be p u t i n a  chapter.  from the e v a l u a t i o n dimension  i n the literature.  more e r r o r f o r t h e " b e t t e r " p l a c e s  My d a t a  (judged  (EVALUA) d i f f e r  shows t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s  greatly made  on t h e bad-good s c a l e ) , and a l s o  tended t o overestimate  distances  difficult  I can o n l y remark t h a t very  to explain.  towards  i s on t h e a c t u a l t a s k o f moving and t h e l e n g t h o f  wider perspective i n the concluding  reported  of progressing  i t s length.  He c a n n o t i d e n t i f y w i t h  that task i s generally overestimated.  results arising  Such a  i s more s t r e s s f u l s i n c e t h e i n d i v i d u a l h a s v e r y  the a t t e n t i o n o f t h e s u b j e c t  from those  reg-  i s more a c t i v e ( m e n t a l l y ) , d i v e r s i f i e d a n d  i s s t i m u l a t i n g ; the i n d i v i d u a l has the impression  The  t h e more  ( s t r e s s ) , he c a n i d e n t i f y w i t h more cues  t h e way, and g e n e r a l l y t h e t r i p  of t h e s u b j e c t  These  The s e c o n d r e l a t i o n s h i p r e f l e c t s  w o u l d u s u a l l y b e more i n t e r e s t i n g a n d e n j o y a b l e .  distracting.  actually are.  dis-  The f i r s t r e l a t i o n s h i p does n o t r e q u i r e  t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n a b e t t e r known t r i p  has  seem s h o r t e r w h i l e  t o such p l a c e s .  The f i r s t r e l a t i o n s h i p i s few p l a c e s were c a t e g o r i z e d  102 as " b a d " ( 9 % f o r t h e e x t r e m e p o s i t i o n o n t h e s c a l e ( 7 ) o r 2 6 % f o r p o s i t i o n s 5, 6, 7 ) ; t h o s e feelings,  exceptions  explaining the b e t t e r distance estimates  mation of distances to  may h a v e b e e n q u i t e w e l l known t o a r o u s e s u c h  to "better" places  a desired destination w i l l  reflects  find distances  negative  t h a t r e s u l t e d . The o v e r e s t i -  t h a t anybody i n a h u r r y  t o get  l o n g e r . When t h e m o t i v a t i o n o f t h e  subject  i s d i r e c t e d toward the goal r a t h e r than the t r i p ,  terest,  taking a l l the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  the t r i p  i s o f no i n -  o f a w a i t . The a t t e n t i o n o f t h e s u b j e c t  i s drawn t o t h e a c t u a l t a s k o f moving and t h e d i s t a n c e i s o v e r e s t i m a t e d . result  differs  from previous  " d e s i r a b i l i t y " , but here, lysis, vious  by c o n t r o l l i n g  f o r knowledge i n the m u l t i - v a r i a t e ana-  s t u d i e s the knowledge dimension might have i n d i r e c t l y  vations.  r e s u l t s of the important In a l l three analyses,  larger places. In the l a s t t h e s i z e o f any s t i m u l u s  SIZE d i m e n s i o n l a r g e l y  clearly,  people tend  two a n a l y s e s ,  / limits,  might s t i l l  point. This  to overestimate  is  the strongest  ty  of the t r i p "  more d i f f i c u l t .  The o v e r e s t i m a t i o n  associated with  increases  Also,  there  to large  and d i s t a n c e  places  resi-  estimation  to large  the importance of the  places  "complexi-  a r e more c o m p l e x a n d more  (note that i n t r a - u r b a n t r a v e l might  t r a v e l i n g jto t h e c i t y ) .  time consuming t r a v e l  as t r i p s  of distances  f a c t o r . T r i p s t o l a r g e urban centres i n the region  distances  especially to rural  t h e r e f o r e be l i m i t e d  r e g u l a r i t y of a l l ; i t confirms  s t r e s s f u l t h a n any o t h e r  obser-  p l a c e s . L a r g e p l a c e s h a v e vague  be t r a c e s o f "knowledge" i n t h e SIZE e f f e c t  T r i p s t o such p l a c e s w i l l  divided,  previous  l e a d i n g t o much v a r i a t i o n a n d e r r o r i n t h e e s t i m a t e s .  correspondingly  be  confirm  r e l a t i o n s h i p can be e x p l a i n e d , i n  (eg. M o n t r e a l ) a r e g e n e r a l l y complex and s t r e s s f u l , dents.  dominated the e v a l -  the error of estimation  p a r t , by t h e s u b j e c t ' s m e n t a l d e f i n i t i o n o f t h o s e •  In pre-  .dimension.  The  with  t h e v a r i a b l e s " a t t r a c t i v e n e s s " and  I think the true e f f e c t of the e v a l u a t i o n dimension i s revealed.  uation  to  results with  This  often  H i g h e r l a n d - u s e d e n s i t i e s make f o r  (more i n t e r s e c t i o n s , l i g h t s  and cues i n g e n e r a l ) .  103 The  i n d i v i d u a l ' s a t t e n t i o n i s centered  ser  network) and t h e r e f o r e , d i s t a n c e i s i n e v i t a b l y  amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n a l o n g  u p o n movement i t s e l f  (denser  overestimated.  t h e way m i g h t a d d t o t h e i l l u s i o n  traffic,  den-  Also, the  of a longer  trip,  as t h e i n d i v i d u a l remembers more a b o u t i t . The  cultural bias  behind  language agreement v a r i a b l e , el bles  d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n i s i n t e r e s t i n g . LAGREE, t h e  i s always c l o s e t o being  f o r the signed error ( s t i l l introduced i n those  nificant  quite acceptable  analyses). For the absolute  t h e more t h e l a n g u a g e s a g r e e  spaces e x i s t where people  quently, producing  students  better distance estimates  E n g l i s h s t u d e n t s . The r e s u l t s o n t h e s i g n e d language o f s u b j e c t and p l a c e agree, have thought o f French  ces; E n g l i s h students  In this  sig-  latter re-  t h e l e s s e r r o r i s made.  o f a common l a n g u a g e s u p p o r t  q u e n t p l a c e s o f t h a t l a n g u a g e . The F r e n c h  visit  t o those  French  and  Cul-  fre-  p l a c e s more  fre-  p l a c e s , and v i c e v e r s a f o r  e r r o r s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e more t h e  the l e s s o v e r e s t i m a t i o n there i s . French  p l a c e s as b e i n g  c l o s e r t o them t h a n E n g l i s h  pla-  r e s p o n d e d t h e . s a m e way f o r E n g l i s h p l a c e s .  These r e g u l a r i t i e s region.  e r r o r , LAGREE i s o n l y  ( t h e language of the respondent v s . h i s  e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e language of each s t i m u l u s p o i n t ) , tural activity  a t t h e .05 l e v -  c o n s i d e r i n g t h e number o f v a r i a -  f o r ZAMCROWER i n t h e two-way a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e .  lationship,  students  significant  confirm the existence of c u l t u r a l b a r r i e r s w i t h i n the  I examined t h e q u e s t i o n f u r t h e r by t e s t i n g  GREE a n d t h e c u l t u r a l g r o u p s  t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between LA-  ( C U L T U R E ) , a n d LAGREE a n d t h e s c h o o l s , u s i n g a h i e r -  a r c h i c a l a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e w i t h s l o p e t e s t s : Y=A+B(A)+/LAGREE, w h e r e A i s e i t h e r CULTURE o r SCHOOL a n d B ( A ) i s t h e s u b j e c t s n e s t e d s l o p e t e s t was s i g n i f i c a n t  f o r ZMTIMER ( . 0 0 0 0 ) , a n d a l m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t  CROWER ( . 0 6 7 1 ) . A n e x a m i n a t i o n that the r e l a t i o n s h i p  people  of the regression coefficients  i s more i m p o r t a n t  c i e n t s o f 0.0142 f o r F r e n c h  i n A. W i t h CULTURE, t h e  f o r the French  group  f o r ZAMCROWER shows (regression coeffi-  group and -0.0007 f o r t h e E n g l i s h g r o u p ) .  make e v e n l e s s e r r o r i n t h e c a s e o f F r e n c h  f o r ZAM-  towns, i n d i c a t i n g  French  that  their  104 a c t i o n space  i s l i k e l y more s e l e c t i v e  l i s h . group had  t h a n t h e E n g l i s h ' s a c t i o n s p a c e . The  a b e t t e r o v e r a l l knowledge of the r e g i o n , which  confirms  t h e y were b e t t e r e s t i m a t o r s t h a n t h e F r e n c h , as p r e v i o u s l y o b s e r v e d f e c t ) . The  regression coefficients  the E n g l i s h group F r e n c h ) . The  this  English  time  (0.0293 f o r the E n g l i s h  d i s t a n c e s t o E n g l i s h p l a c e s . T h i s may stronger impressions against French  language  group  and  -0.0098 f o r t h e  tended  to s l i g h t l y  i n d i c a t e t h a t the E n g l i s h have  The  at the o r i g i n of c u l t u r a l  i n t e r a c t i o n o f LAGREE w i t h SCHOOL was  results w i l l  n o t be p r e s e n t e d h e r e b u t  coefficients  f o r the v a r i o u s schools  ( 1 ) LAGREE h a s more e f f e c t errors  c u l t u r e . These  desire  barriers.  always very s i g n i f i c a n t .  i n g e n e r a l , the a n a l y s i s of the  Detailed regression  indicate: on b o t h t h e s i g n e d e r r o r s a n d  the absolute  agree)  o f w h a t seems t o be u n i l i n g u a l  (Embrun, P l a n t a g e n e t , W i l l i a m s t o w n , and A l e x a n d r i a and  w a l l which  2 ) . The  s u c h a r e a s seem t o h a v e a m o r e c u l t u r a l l y b i a s e d a c t i o n  (2) LAGREE h a s v e r y l i t t l e  effect  e r r o r s o f w h a t seems t o be H a w k e s b u r y ) and ple tion  on b o t h t h e s i g n e d and  t h e more b i l i n g u a l a r e a s  the very c e n t r a l areas  (Casselman,  pla-  Corn-  r e a c t l i k e u n i l i n g u a l E n g l i s h p l a c e s a l t h o u g h one  h a v e c a t e g o r i z e d t h e m as b e i n g more b i l i n g u a l , MAP of  the  "im-  ( i . e . e v e n l e s s e r r o r i s made and more u n d e r e s t i m a t i o n i s  made when t h e l a n g u a g e s ces  the  the French people of the r e g i o n  and a r e q u i t e o p e n t o t h e E n g l i s h  be  developed  towns ( e s p e c i a l l y Quebec towns) t h a n  towns. T y p i c a l l y ,  i s o l a t e one's group, might  French  underestimate  p r e s s i o n s " o f b e i n g c o m f o r t a b l e o r n o t w i t h t h e o t h e r c u l t u r e , and to  (CULTURE e f -  to overestimate distances to  p l a c e s w h i l e the French s t u d e n t s have a c t u a l l y  speak the second  that  f o r ZMTIMER i n d i c a t e a s t r o n g e r r e l a t i o n f o r  s t u d e n t s have tended  French have a g a i n s t E n g l i s h  Eng-  would  students space.  the a b s o l u t e (Vankleek  Avonmore); peo-  f r o m t h o s e a r e a s seem t o h a v e a more u n b i a s e d , g e n e r a l i z e d space.  Hill,  ac-  105 The a t t i t u d e s o f t h e two g r o u p s t o w a r d e a c h o t h e r , t h e i r p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n t e r a c t i o n , and t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e s c h o o l s areas, very  a r e a l l elements behind  c o u l d g i v e u s more i n s i g h t 5.2.4  ledge  i n t o these  questions.  of places  factors,  i n f l u e n c e d people's  s e c t i o n , t w o ways b y w h i c h p e o p l e  simplify  r e a l d i s t a n c e , knowd i s t o r t i o n s o f space.  and o r g a n i z e  their  factors w i l l  be t e s t e d w h i l e c o n t r o l l i n g  cant. Before  getting to the results  of these  analyses,  some comments  s h o u l d be  schemas o f s p a c e . T h e f i r s t  e x e r c i s e a s k e d them t o r e g r o u p t h e s t i m u l i p o i n t s a c c o r d i n g ( q u e s t i o n n a i r e , page 5 ) ; i t p r o v i d e d  signifi-  r e g i o n a l space.  Two e x e r c i s e s w e r e u s e d t o u n c o v e r t h e s t u d e n t s '  simply  o f these  f o r the f a c t o r s already proven  made o n t h e s u b j e c t s ' ways o f c o m p a r t m e n t a l i z i n g  to their  similari-  t h e b a s i s o f v a r i a b l e SURGRO w h i c h  i n d i c a t e s i n t o what group t h e p l a c e s  fall.  A s i m p l i f i e d v e r s i o n o f SURGRO  was a l s o c o m p u t e d s o t h a t a l l t h e f o r e i g n (non-home) to  environment  be s t u d i e d i n r e l a t i o n t o d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n — t h e r o l e o f t h e schemas o f  s p a c e a n d t h e r o l e o f t h e p h y s i c a l a n d p o l i t i c a l b a r r i e r s . The e f f e c t  ties  a r e however,  o f t h e a c t i o n s p a c e o f t h e two c u l t u r e s  s e c t i o n s h a v e shown how p e r s o n a l  and v a r i o u s i m p r e s s i o n s  this  will  study  cultural  O r g a n i z a t i o n o f knowledge The p r e v i o u s  In  i n relation to the various  t h e SCHOOL e f f e c t . T h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s  speculative; only a detailed  of verbal  schemas c o u l d b e r e g r o u p e d  f o r m t h e d i c h o t o m o u s v a r i a b l e RSURGRO ( H o m e / F o r e i g n s c h e m a s ) . W i t h SURGRO,  the next  step  consisted i nbuilding  i d e n t i f i e d by the students  a c o m p o s i t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e schemas  o f each s c h o o l . A s i m i l a r i t y  two p l a c e s w e r e r e g r o u p e d o n t h e number was this  of times  they  index  c o u l d have been regrouped)  d e r i v e d f o r each p a i r o f s t i m u l i p o i n t s . C l u s t e r a n a l y s e s index  t o d e t e r m i n e t h e a g g r e g a t e schemas  The n e a r e s t  neighbor,  f u r t h e s t neighbor,  (groups  (number o f t i m e s  were then  of places)  and average technique  done o n  f o r each  school.  of clustering  w e r e u s e d t o d e f i n e t h e s c h e m a s . T h e r e a s o n s why p l a c e s g o t r e g r o u p e d w e r e a l s o analysed.  F i g u r e 5.1 i s t h e c o m p o s i t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e schemas d e f i n e d b y  Figure  5.1  - Composite r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  o f t h e schemas i d e n t i f i e d  i n Casselman  (from s i m i l a r i t i e s  d a t a SURGRO)  o  as  107 the Casselman sample. The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f a l l o t h e r s c h o o l s a r e i n A p p e n d i x 3 The;'second e x e r c i s e c o n s i s t e d i n a s k i n g t h e s t u d e n t s  t o subdivide the area  on t h e b a s e map  into "significant"  RMAPGRO came o u t o f t h i s  e x e r c i s e . MAPGRO was p r o c e s s e d  GRO t o p r o d u c e t h e a g g r e g a t e In the s i m i l a r i t y a s p a t i a l reasons. the groupings, erations typifies  subregions.  schemas f o r each s c h o o l  T h e v a r i a b l e s MAPGRO a n d i n t h e same way a s SURg  (Figure5.2).  e x e r c i s e , t h e s t i m u l i p o i n t s were regrouped  TABLE 5.14 shows t h a t s i z e  and knowledge account  f o r mostly f o r 60% o f  l a n g u a g e a n d c u l t u r e w e r e u s e d 8.5% o f t h e t i m e , p o l i t i c a l  7.1% o f t h e t i m e , a n d s p a t i a l r e a s o n s  only  shown  consid-  11.5% o f t h e t i m e . F i g u r e 5  t h e schemas t h a t w e r e e s t a b l i s h e d b y e a c h s a m p l e ( s e e A p p e n d i x 3 f o r  other examples).  The s i z e and knowledge dimensions  a r e always very  prominent,  w i t h g r a d a t i o n s f r o m l a r g e t o s m a l l , a n d w e l l known t o unknown p l a c e s . The lang-dimension  i s s o m e t i m e s p r e s e n t , a n d some s c h e m a s h a v e b e e n f o r m e d f o r s p a TABLE  5.14  Language  Spatial  Knowledge  Meaning  Function  Political  Character  Other  No Reason  Reasons why p l a c e s were grouped t o g e t h e r i n percentages f o r each s c h o o l and f o r a l l  Size  uage  Williamstown  32. 7  3.5  6.9  32.5  1.1  11.6  2.2  5.0  4. 1  0.4  Avonmore  19 .7  20.1  16.0  26.7  0.5  2.6  6.3  0.0  2. 7  5.3  Casselman  28. 0  11.0  7.1  23.6  2.0  8.7  7.8  1.1  1. 4  9.3  Hawkesbury  32. 8  2.4  16.0  36.2  0 .0  0.0  4.6  0.0  2. 5  5.5  '27. 9  10.3  3.9  34.7  2.0  3.5  4.7  0.7  4. 1  8.3  Alexandria  34. 5  1.8  10.7  27.7  1.2  1.5  12.6  2.4  2. 0  5.6  Chesterville  31. 8  13.5  13.2  39.4  0.7  0.0  0.3  0.7  0 3  0.0  Vankleek  35 0  10.2  9.6  17.3  0.7  0.3  14.8  0.5  7. 3  5.2  Plantagenet  28. 0  5.1  7.0  34.0  0.0  1.3  14.1  0.2  1. 2  9.0  Cornwall  34 3  7.2  24.2  17.2  1.4  4.1  3.2  4.9  0. 1. 3.4  All  30 5  8.5  11.5  28.9  1.0  3.4  7.1  1.6  2. 6  EmbruH  Hill  5 .2  108 tial the  or p o l i t i c a l  considerations.  c u l t u r a l and s p a t i a l  Nearby p l a c e s  and p l a c e s  I f we l o o k b e y o n d t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n h o w e v e r ,  dimensions are i m p l i c i t  i n many o f t h e  o f t h e same l a n g u a g e h a v e o f t e n b e e n b r o u g h t  I n most c a s e s t h e home schema ( s c h e m a i n c l u d i n g s c h o o l that are c u l t u r a l l y the East  "big  s i m i l a r and s p a t i a l l y  town) i n c l u d e s  c l o s e . Common s p a t i a l  ( Q u e b e c p l a c e s ) , t h e W e s t , Home a n d t h e U n i t e d  be m i x e d up o n l y cities"  f o r t h e "unknown" schemas  schemas where t h e c h o i c e  (with obvious reason),  i s limited.  a t t h a t s t a g e a n d many h a d d i f f i c u l t i e s  places are  tend t o  and f o r t h e  Otherwise the dimensions  I n t h e map e x e r c i s e t h e s t i m u l i p o i n t s w e r e o r d e r e d h o w e v e r was n o t a s s u c c e s s f u l l a s t h e p r e v i o u s  together.  regroupings  States. Places  knowledge, space, and language a r e q u i t e w e l l c o o r d i n a t e d  tired  regroupings.  size,  i n t h e schemas. spatially,  o n e . The s t u d e n t s understanding  the exercise  were g e n e r a l l y  what t o do. F i g u r e  9 5.2 t y p i f i e s  t h e schemas i d e n t i f i e d  o n t h e b a s e map.  p e n d e d l a r g e l y o n how o f t e n t h e a r e a s w e r e v i s i t e d , or i n g e n e r a l ,  knowledge of t h e areas  sons invoked  i n Figure  the a c t i v i t i e s pursued  ( s e e A p p e n d i x 1, E n g l i s h  C e n t e r - d o m i n a t e d schemas w e r e a l s o v e r y ingham r e g i o n s  The map s u b d i v i s i o n d e -  common ( e g . O t t a w a , M o n t r e a l ,  the c u l t u r a l , p o l i t i c a l ,  (vacationland  "outside"  5.2 w i t h  rea-  States, the Centre,  i n Q u e b e c ) . M o s t maps show c l e a r e v i d e n c e  of i n c r e a s i n g l e v e l s o f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n from t h e c e n t e r iphery (see F i g u r e  and Buck-  or physical divisions of  t h e map. T y p i c a l s u b r e g i o n s i d e n t i f i e d w e r e Q u e b e c , t h e U n i t e d the West, and t h e N o r t h  questionnaire).  5.2 a n d A p p e n d i x 1, F r e n c h q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) . O t h e r  h a d t o do w i t h  there,  i t s small d e t a i l e d center  of the area  t o the per-  schemas, and l a r g e g e n e r a l ,  schemas).  The t w o schema e x e r c i s e s h a v e g e n e r a t e d s l i g h t l y  d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s but they  b o t h r e v e a l t h a t t h e schemas w e r e e s t a b l i s h e d f o r ( 1 ) e x p e r i e n t i a l r e a s o n s , a n d (2)  reasons o f dominant c h a r a c t e r  the area  of the places  ( c e n t r a l p l a c e ) . Th t h e s i m i l a r i t y  dimensions were o f t e n i m p l i c i t ;  ( s i z e ) o r dominant f e a t u r e o f  e x e r c i s e t h e c u l t u r a l and s p a t i a l  i n t h e map e x e r c i s e " t y p i c a l  r e g i o n s " were f r e -  Figure  5.2  - C o m p o s i t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e schemas i d e n t i f i e d  i n C a s s e l m a n ( f r o m map  e x e r c i s e d a t a MAPGRO)  o sO  110 quently  i d e n t i f i e d , based on t h e o b j e c t i v e c a t e g o r i e s  both exercises  o f the environment. I n  i n c r e a s i n g l e v e l s o f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n were observed from t h e center  (home) t o t h e p e r i p h e r y  o r f r o m t h e w e l l known t o t h e unknown. T h u s , a h i e r a r c h y  o f s c h e m a s was e s t a b l i s h e d a s t h e i r  level of organization  The e f f e c t o f t h e schemas o n d i s t a n c e chical analysis of variance:  changes.  c o g n i t i o n was t e s t e d w i t h  Y=B+C(B)+A(BC)+E,  where B i s s u b j e c t s ,  a hierarC i s RSURGRO  ( R M A P G R O ) n e s t e d i n B , a n d A i s SURGRO ( M A P G R O ) w i t h i n RSURGRO ( R M A P G R O )  groups  nested i n B. Factor A ( B C ) hast h e n e t e f f e c t o f t e s t i n g f o r d i f f e r e n c e s between the  f o r e i g n g r o u p s o f SURGRO ( M A P G R O ) w h i l e  C ( B ) t e s t s f o r d i f f e r e n c e s between  t h e home schema a n d t h e a v e r a g e o f t h e o t h e r  s c h e m a s . T h e sum o f s q u a r e s o f t h o s e  two f a c t o r s may b e j o i n e d t o t e s t t h e e f f e c t o f a l l t h e schemas t o g e t h e r , ( A ( B ) effect in  o f RSURGRO o r R M A P G R O ) . S u c h f a c t o r s t e s t w h e t h e r t h e s t i m u l i p o i n t s  the designated  across  t h e groups, f o r each s u b j e c t .  formed w i t h SIZE+E. T h i s and tive  groups were p e r c e i v e d  a l l covariates  in:  more s i m i l a r l y  than the s t i m u l i  points  T h e same h i e r a r c h i c a l a n a l y s i s was t h e n  t h e schemas,  a b e t t e r t e s t o f t h e t r u e e f f e c t o f t h e schemas o n c o g n i -  distance. TABLE 5.15 ' Results of h i e r a r c h i c a l a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e on schema e f f e c t  F  (prob)  F  (prob)  ZAMTIMER  ZAMCROWER  ZMTIMER  ZMCROWER N = 518 subjects/6901 obs.  F  (prob)  F  (prob)  4.35  (.0000)  4.25  (.0000)  3.00  (.0000)  2.62  (RSURGRO nested i n B) C(B)  1.53  (.0000)  1.50  (.0000)  1.22  (.0017)  1.10  (-0779)  (Foreign nested i n B) A(BC)  1.45  (.0000)  1.47  (.0000)  1.53  (.0000)  1.43  (.0000)  1.48  (.0000)  1.48  (.0000)  1.40  (.0000)  1.29  (.0000)  (Subjects)  (SURGRO nested i n B) (Error)  B  A(B) E  N = 355 subjects/5288 obs. (Subjects)  B  (RMAPGRO nested i n B) C(B)  F  (prob)  F  (prob)  F  (prob)  (.0000)  3.73  (.0000)  2.67  (.0000)  2.23  (.0000)  0.96  (.6947)  0.93  (.7913)  0.78  (.9981)  0.67  (1.000)  (.8177)  0.84  (.9953)  0.80  (.9996)  (.8808)  0.82  (.9998)  0.75  (.9999)  0.88  (.9682)  (MAPGRO nested i n B)  0.91  (.9574)  0.94  E  F  3.84  (Foreign nested i n B) A(BC)  (Error)  (prob)  (.0000)  0.1316  0.2397  0.2293  0.3533  0.94  A(B)  per-  Y=B+C(B)+A(BC)-I-/KN0IAFL+MEANIN+VISIT1-I-LANGAG+EVALUA-I-  a n a l y s i s c o n t r o l s f o r most o f t h e d i m e n s i o n s u n d e r l y i n g  therefore, provides  with-  0.4172  0.2757  0.2919  0.1693  Ill The h i e r a r c h i c a l a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e  (TABLE 5.15) shows t h a t a l l t h e c a t e -  g o r i e s o f SURGRO ( C ( B ) , A ( B C ) , o r A ( B ) ) a r e s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h i n e a c h s u b j e c t the  c a t e g o r i e s o f MAPGRO a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t .  r i e s o f SURGRO a r e s t i l l  very  TABLE 5.16 shows t h a t t h e c a t e g o -  s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h i n e a c h s u b j e c t when  f o r t h e c o v a r i a t e s . The schemas e s t a b l i s h e d o n t h e b a s i s o f p l a c e seem t o h a v e a n e f f e c t o f t h e i r r o r . The d i s t a n c e e s t i m a t e those  t oplaces  plifying  role discussed  s c h e m a s . T h e schema p l a y s  experience  dominant f e a t u r e  o r journey  from  i nmind, o r i n  (eg. c e n t r a l place, reference  f e a t u r e ) o r dominant c h a r a c t e r  than  t h eo r g a n i z i n g and sim-  p r e v i o u s l y . Within-schema d i s t a n c e s were p e r c e i v e d  toa particular  physical orp o l i t i c a l  similarities  own o n b o t h t h e amount a n d t h e s e n s e o f t h e e r -  a s p e c i f i c point o f view, with a s p e c i f i c reference  controlling  e r r o r s t o p l a c e s w i t h i n schemas a r e more a l i k e  from d i f f e r e n t  while  line,  (eg. crowded, d i f f i c u l t  p l a c e t o go t o ) o f t h e p l a c e s . T h i s h a d t h e e f f e c t o f h o m o g e n i z i n g  perceptions  w i t h i n schemas.  TABLE 5.16 Results or h i e r a r c h i c a l a n a l y s i s of covariance on schema  N = 508 subjects/6196 obs.  F  (prob)  F  (prob)  F  (prob)  F  (prob)  B  4 .34  .0000)  4 .26  .0000)  3 .09  .0000)  2 .60  (.0000)  (RSURGRO nested i n B)  C(B)  1 49  .0000)  1 .37  .0000)  1 28  .0001)  1 .13  (.0387)  1 .24  (.0001) (.0001)  ( f o r e i g n nested i n B)  A(BC)  1 .32  .0000)  1 .26  .0001)  1 .36  .0000)  (SURGRO nested i n B)  A (B)  1 .39  .0000)  1 .31  .0000)  1 .33  .0000) • 1 .19  (error)  E  0 .3297  0 .2182  0 .2194  0 .1279  o n how t h e e r r o r v a r i e s w i t h t h e schemas t h e means a n d s t a n -  d e v i a t i o n s o f t h e e r r o r s o f each s u b j e c t  be done a t t h i s s t a g e . viations  ZAMTIMER  (subjects)  To g a i n i n s i g h t dard  ZAMCROWER  ZMTIMER  ZMCROWER  effect  However, a n a n a l y s i s o f  f o r RSURGRO i n d i c a t e s t h a t d i s t a n c e s  been b e t t e r e s t i m a t e d ,  although  underestimated  should be examined. This  could not  t h e o v e r a l l means a n d s t a n d a r d d e t o t h e home-schema  places  have  compared t o t h e f o r e i g n schema  112 places  (an e f f e c t t h a t  knowledge since  of  of the a c t i v e  f a c t o r ) . The means o f t h e SURGRO g r o u p s c a n n o t be e a s i l y i n t e r p r e t e d  t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e f o r e i g n SURGRO g r o u p s i s d i f f e r e n t f o r e a c h  and t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s are  I w o u l d i n t e r p r e t t o be s i m i l a r t o t h a t  generally  not comparable between  confirmed with  t h e home-schema, c o m p a r e d  differences  SURGRO ( l o w e s t to places  of the e r r o r between  P h y s i c a l and p o l i t i c a l of covariance,  subjects.  The  t r e n d s f o r RSURGRO  e r r o r and u n d e r e s t i m a t i o n t o  places  o f most o t h e r f o r e i g n schemas) b u t t h e  t h e f o r e i g n groups cannot be  b a r r i e r s were t e s t e d w i t h  r e p e a t e d measures  subject,  design,  with  interpreted.  a multi-factor  analysis  SCHOOL ( a n d i n a s e c o n d s t a g e CUL-  TURE) as t h e g r o u p i n g f a c t o r a n d t h e s t i m u l i p o i n t s  nested i n g e o - p o l i t i c a l  groups  g r o u p s POLBAR a n d t h o s e i n  ( i . e . s t i m u l i points  nested w i t h i n p o l i t i c a l  t u r n n e s t e d w i t h i n t h e p h y s i c a l g r o u p s PHYSBAR) a s a h i e r a r c h i c a l t r i a l The  complete model  factor.  i s : Y=A+B(A)+C+AC+D(C)+AD(C)+F(CD)+AF(CD)+/KN0WL+MEANIN+VISIT1+  VISIT2+LAGREE+EVALUA+SIZE+E, w h e r e A i s t h e g r o u p i n g f a c t o r SCHOOL ( o r CULTURE), B(A)  i s the subjects  n e s t e d i n A, C i s t h e p h y s i c a l g r o u p s  i n t e r a c t i o n o f PHYSBAR w i t h i n PHYSBAR, AD(C) the is  s t i m u l i points  sions  of the region:  (1) n o r t h  of Eastern  Ontario,  as t h o s e s t i m u l i p o i n t s region:  point  (1) O n t a r i o ,  falling  and  groups w i t h  SCHOOL, F ( C D ) i s  SCHOOL. PHYSBAR was  w i t h i n the four major p h y s i c a l  falling  w i t h i n the three (3) t h e U n i t e d  political States.  defined divi-  the s t i m u l i points.  ( C a n t e r and Tagg,  The  defined  d i v i s i o n s of the t e s t s w e r e made  groups would e x p l a i n the v a r i a t i o n a l The p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s w e r e  Reference l i n e s i n the environment have a l r e a d y cognition  (POLBAR) n e s t e d  ( 4 ) t h e S t - L a w r e n c e v a l l e y . POLBAR was  (2) Q u e b e c , a n d  ready observed between  distance  i s the  o f t h e O t t a w a v a l l e y , (2) t h e O t t a w a v a l l e y , ( 3 )  to see i f the p h y s i c a l and/or p o l i t i c a l  first.  groups  AC  n e s t e d i n POLBAR a n d PHYSBAR ( g e o - p o l i t i c a l g r o u p s ) , a n d A F ( C D )  the groups of s t i m u l i p o i n t s  center  i s the p o l i t i c a l  i s t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f t h e POLBAR g r o u p s w i t h  the i n t e r a c t i o n of those stimulus .as  the  SCHOOL, D(C)  (PHYSBAR),  1 9 7 5 ) . The  b e e n shown t o  examined influence  e f f e c t of the p o l i t i c a l  barriers  113 was  tested  cally  within  the physical  categories,  homogeneous O t t a w a v a l l e y  political  group  and St-Lawrence v a l l e y  as  points  do  are s t i l l  very  SIZE  loses  not appear  icant  their  (rivers)  do n o t a p p e a r  sions  analysis.^  interaction  effects  f o r the absolute  Political with  factor  SCHOOL. T h u s ,  and t h e stim-  SCHOOL i s a l m o s t e r r o r s and  The p h y s i c a l  with  barriers  SCHOOL i s o n l y  the reference cognition  lines  of the region  (I w i l l  look at the  On t h e o t h e r h a n d , p o l i t i c a l  role,  signif-  however, a r e s i g n i f i c a n t as i s  distance  t o be t o t a l l y c e r t a i n ) . an important  errors.  interaction  barriers,  t o have a f f e c t e d  seem t o h a v e p l a y e d  The s u b j e c t s  are s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the signed  t o be s i g n i f i c a n t and t h e i r  f o r the time e r r o r s .  interaction  the physi-  a r e a s w h e r e more t h a n o n e  s i g n i f i c a n t , and t h e grouping  i t ssignificance  (mostly)  my  of this  s i g n i f i c a n t . T h e same c o v a r i a t e s  only  within  are present.  TABLE 5.17 shows t h e r e s u l t s uli  o r more p r e c i s e l y ,  reflecting  divi-  the a c t i v i t y spaces o f  subjects.  T A B L E 5.17  Results of multi-factor analysis of covariance with repeated measures on stimuli points nested in geop o l i t i c a l groups  F  (prob)  A  4.68  B(A)  4.30  (0000) (0000) (9214) ( 7932) (0879) (0864) (0000) (0000) (0137) ( 2052) (.5777) ( 4703) (•0001) (•0168) (•0000) (•0000)  N = 456 subjects/6305 obs. (Schools) (Subjects)  C  0.16  AC  0.76  (PHYSBAR) (Interaction with A)  D(C)  2.67  (Interaction with A)  AD(C)  1.46  (Stimuli pts i n CD)  F(CD)  40.80  (Interaction with A)  AF(CD)  4.06  (POLBAR nested in C)  KNOWL  6.00  MEANIN  1.58  VISIT 1  0.32 0.54  VISIT 2  17.17  LAGREE  5.64  EVALUA SIZE  63.06  ALL  15.44  1  0.3011  ZAMCROWER  ZMTIMER  ZMCROWER F  (prob )  F  ZAMTIMER  (prob)  F  (prob)  1.08  (.3776)  4.58  (.0000)  1.62  (•i°5i>  4.55  (.0000)  2.92  (.0000)  2.54  (.0000)  1.15  (.3634),  0.24  (.8670)  1.07  (.3934)  1.50  (.0722)  0.82  (.7188)  1.96  (.0074)  8.15  (.0022)  4.54  (.0201)  1.60  (.0454)  1.40  (.1123)  2.63  (.0002)  (.0000)  5.74  (.0000)  19.40  (.0000)  15.73  11.35  (.0005)  3.09  (.0000)  3.32  (.0000)  1.63  (.0000)  9.66  (.0021)  5.11  (.0225)  3.70  (.0515)  2.17  (.1362)  7.14  (.0075)  3.46  (.0592)  0.34  (.5655)  3.13  (.0731)  1.35  (.2446)  0.40  (.5355)  0.43  (.5209)  0.04  (.8269)  17.45  (.0005)  8.83  (.0031)  5.17  (.0219)  5.95  (.0141)  3.44  (.0603)  4.21  (.0380)  107.69  (.0000)  1.80  (.1761)  1.50  (.2184)  23.12  (.0000)  8.63  (.0000)  0.2106  0.2265  11.49 0.1414  (.0000)  114 The s t u d e n t s h a v e g e n e r a l l y made l e s s e r r o r f o r t h e i r (TABLE 5 . 1 8 ) . I n t h e S t - L a w r e n c e v a l l e y ,  estimates  own p r o v i n c e ,  Ontario  t o U.S. p o i n t s a r e t h e w o r s t  followed by those  t o Quebec  are worst  The s i g n o f t h e e r r o r r e v e a l s t h a t O n t a r i o d i s t a n c e s a r e gen-  e r a l ^ badly  of a l l .  underestimated. overestimated,  wa v a l l e y , noted,  p o i n t s ; i nthe Ottawa v a l l e y ,  I n the St-Lawrence v a l l e y  f o l l o w e d by those  d i s t a n c e s t o Quebec  known p l a c e s o r a r e a s . ince,  Students  f o l l o w e d b y Quebec  estimates  d i s t a n c e s t o U.S. p l a c e s a r e  t o Quebec p l a c e s  (ZMCROWER); i n t h e O t t a -  places are again badly overestimated.  t h e h i g h e r t h e mean e r r o r ,  amount o f o v e r e s t i m a t i o n ; s u c h  t h e Quebec  the higher i s the standard  d e v i a t i o n and t h e  f i n d i n g s have always a r i s e n i nt h e case h a v e h a d t h e most e x p e r i e n c e  a n d t h e U.S., r e f l e c t i n g  As a l r e a d y  of poorly  i n t h e i r home  t h e power o f p o l i t i c a l  provbound-  a r i e s .' The i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n POLBAR a n d SCHOOL was a n a l y s e d school differed  t o s e e how e a c h  from t h e g e n e r a l t r e n d . These r e s u l t s a r e n o t always v e r y  TABLE  5.18  Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r POLBAR c a t e g o r i e s  ZMCROWER X  s  ZMTIMER  ZAMCROWER  ZAMTIMER  X  s  X  s  X  s  .27  .75  .11  .52  .50  .60  .39  .38  Quebec  .58  1.20  .54  1.13  .71  1.11  .67  1.04  Ontario  .04  .53  -.10  .42  .38  .38  .33  .28  (Ontario)  .19  .61  .01  .50  .44  .46  .36  .35  Quebec  .15  .56  .15  .56  .44  .45  .41  .45  Ontario  .09  .55  .00  .51  .41  .41  .38  .37  U.S.  .45  .96  -.01  .63  .68  .80  .45  .43  (Quebec) Ottawa V a l l e y :  St.Lawrence Valley:  clear  115 but  some g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s c a n be made. P o s i t i o n a l e f f e c t s w e r e o b s e r v e d  i n four  s c h o o l s : Embrun f o l l o w s t h e g e n e r a l t r e n d b e c a u s e i t i s l o c a t e d i n t h e of the r e g i o n ; c l o s e r w h i l e Hawkesbury and No  t o Quebec, V a n k l e e k Plantagenet  t r e n d ( b e t t e r U.S.  f a v o r e d Quebec o v e r  b e h a v e d i n t h e same way  p o s i t i o n a l e f f e c t s were observed  eral  Hill  f o r C o r n w a l l as  e s t i m a t e s were expected  mostly  E n g l i s h students  of Williamstown  and  Ontario,  w i t h e a s t e r n Quebec.  this  sample f o l l o w s the  because Cornwall  t e r n a t i o n a l b o r d e r ) . C u l t u r e i n f l u e n c e d the a c t i v i t y  i s on  A l e x a n d r i a made t h e w o r s t  o f C a s s e l m a n f a v o r e d Quebec i n t h e i r  c e n t e r o f O n t a r i o . A v o n m o r e and cultural effects. was  The  although  Dundas d i s p l a y e d no  success. Three schools  f u r t h e r r e m o v e d f r o m home. O t h e r w i s e ,  "reference l i n e s " hypothesis  (cities  along  done t o c l a r i f y  i n t e r r e l a t e d w i t h CULTURE. The  i n d i c a t o r s of the  own  activity  hypothesis  effect  evidence  and  nor  Dundas,  supporting  the  s h o u l d be b e t t e r e s -  repeated  after  the p o l i t i c a l  of these groups  groups frequent  regrouping  POLBAR w i t h t h e " s c h o o l g r o u p s "  TIMER. A l s o , a t e s t was  lost  the  multias  groups proved  to  (mostly viewed here  as  areas  t h e s c h o o l s by  u s e d as g r o u p i n g  First,  done w i t h CULTURE  s p a c e ) on d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n was  that c u l t u r a l  groups o f s c h o o l s " c o u l d be BAR  l o c a t e d i n the  (Hawkesbury, N o r t h  t h e SCHOOL e f f e c t .  c u l t u r e c o u l d n o t be p r o v e n s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h t h i s  a n a l y s i s was  French  clear positional  reference lines  f a c t o r . N e i t h e r the p h y s i c a l groups nor  t u r e s . The  estimates  SCHOOL on t h e t i m e e r r o r s  f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e w i t h r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s was  be  the  r e a l l y not c o n c l u s i v e .  F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s was  grouping  the i n -  showed p o s i t i o n a l e f f e c t s , w h e r e t h e e r r o r g o t w o r s e as t h e p h y s i -  c a l d i v i s i o n was  t i m a t e d ) was  estimates  i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n PHYSBAR and  a l s o checked, but w i t h l e s s  Plantagenet)  North  gen-  space i n three s c h o o l s :  f o r Quebec p l a c e s d e s p i t e t h e s c h o o l s ' p r o x i m i t y t o Quebec, w h i l e t h e students  center  constant  compatible  test.  Secondly,  c u l t u r e so t h a t  factor."'"''' The  across with the  cul-  their same  "cultural  i n t e r a c t i o n o f PHYS-  a l l s i g n i f i c a n c e except  made t o s e e w h e t h e r t h e d i f f e r e n c e s o b s e r v e d  f o r ZAMbetween  116 the the  SCHOOL a n d " s c h o o l g r o u p s " i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t , a n d i n d e e d , differences  l y that sitional  o f sum o f s q u a r e s w e r e a l w a y s p r o v e n s i g n i f i c a n t , s h o w i n g  t h e SCHOOL e f f e c t influence  involves  more t h a n c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s .  i s b e h i n d most o f t h i s  A last analysis  incorporating  clear-  I think  a po-  effect.  a l l factors  was done u s i n g t h e m u l t i - f a c t o r  analysis  o f c o v a r i a n c e w i t h repeated measures i n t r o d u c e d p r e v i o u s l y  physical  a n d p o l i t i c a l b a r r i e r s . T h i s t i m e t h e s c h e m a e f f e c t was i n c o r p o r a t e d  by ed  u s i n g RSURGRO a n d SURGRO a s a d d i t i o n a l  covariates.  t otest the  T h e SURGRO g r o u p s w e r e t e s t -  i n t w o s t a g e s : RSURGRO was i n t r o d u c e d a l o n e t o l o o k a t t h e h o m e - f o r e i g n  ma e f f e c t , t h e n RSURGRO a n d SURGRO w e r e i n t r o d u c e d t o g e t h e r i n a s e c o n d to  test  the effect  In t h e f i r s t  of theforeign  analysis,  very s i g n i f i c a n t factors  groups  analysis  themselves.  theschools, subjects,  and s t i m u l i points a r e s t i l l  (TABLE 5 . 1 9 ) . T h e PHYSBAR e f f e c t  h a v e n o t c h a n g e d . T h e POLBAR e f f e c t  and i t s  interaction  i s b a s i c a l l y t h e same ( e x c e p t f o r ZMCROWER  TABLE 5.19 Results of multi-factor analysis of covariance (with RSURGRO) with repeated measures on the stimuli points nested in geo-political groups ZMTIMER  ZMCROWER ,N = 442 subjects/5592 obs. (School) (Subjects)  A B(A)  F 4 25 4 21  (prob) (.0000) (.0000)  ZAMCROWER  ZAMTIMER  F  (prob)  F  (prob)  F  (prob)  0.79  (.6296)  4 51  ( 0000)  1.60  (.1108) (.0000)  4 52  (.0000)  2 93  ( 0000)  2.65  ( 8530)  0.77  (.5297)  1.81  (.0161)  6.63  (.0052)  C  0 18  (.9082)  1 05  (.4013)  0 26  AC  0 72  (.8377)  1 48  (.0790)  0 85  D(C)  2 04  (.1545)  6 04  (.0074)  3 47  ( 6790) ( 0452)  (Interaction with A)  AD(C)  1 44  (.0944)  1 31  (.1633)  1 19  ( 2582)  1.83  (.0146)  (Stimuli pts in CD)  F(CD)  41 60  (.0000)  20 31  (.0000)  17 08  ( 0000)  6.91  (.0000)  4 25  (.0000)  3 19  (.0000)  3 89  ( 0000)  2.07  (.0000)  KNOWL  2 11  (4*24)  5 37  (.0195)  2 14  ( 1390)  2.36  (42Q5)  MEANIN  1 40  (.2355)  0 98  (.3228)  6 71  ( 0094)  9.48  (.0023)  VISIT 1  0 83  (.3652)  6 13  (.0128)  0.82  ( 3674)  4.84  (.0263)  VISIT 2  1 74  (.1833)  0 49  (.4913)  2 18  ( 1357)  0.88  (.3506) (.0701)  (PHYSBAR) (Interaction with A) (POLBAR nested in C)  (Interaction with A) AF(CD)  LAGREE EVALUA SIZE RSURGRO ALL E  (.0000)  11 69  (.0008)  9 29  ( 0025)  3.20  6 92  (.0084)  7 26  (.0070)  3.22  ( 0690)  3.84  (.0473)  51 18  (.0000)  88.06  (.0000)  1 .43  ( 2302)  1.22  (.2690)  9 90  (.0018)  15 50  (.0001)  4.19  ( 0383)  3.15  (.0722)  14 .64  (.0000)  22 13  (.0000)  8.74  ( 0000)  11.02  (.0000)  19 51  0.2666  sche-  0 1823  0.1922  0.1153  117 w h e r e i t l o s t some s i g n i f i c a n c e ) , b u t i t s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h ficant  only  f o r ZMCROWER a n d ZAMTIMER. F o r t h e c o v a r i a t e s , we f i r s t n o t e  t h e n e w l y a d d e d f a c t o r RSURGRO i s a l w a y s v e r y  significant.  the  (lost  four  dimensions i d e n t i f i e d  earlier—KNOWL  EVALUA, a n d S I Z E , a r e p r e s e n t . absolute  significant.  for  there  (and  VISITl  information  regained  lost  still  its signifisignificance  f o r ZAMTIMER). T h e s e c o n d  the foreign categories  t o t h e two c a t e g o r i e s  LAGREE,  i s b a s i c a l l y no change f o r t h e  l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t ) , MEANIN, a n d EVALUA a r e  RSURGRO a n d SURGRO showed t h a t  significant  error,  a b i t of i t s effect),  m o s t l y t o g e o - p o l i t i c a l g r o u p s ) , w h i l e LAGREE r e g a i n e d errors  that  F o r the signed  The t r a d i t i o n a l dimension,SIZE,; however, f i n a l l y  both absolute  with  Similarly,  e r r o r . KNOWL ( s l i g h t l y  c a n c e (due  SCHOOL i s now s i g n i -  analysis  o f SURGRO d i d n o t a d d  o f RSURGRO. T h u s , m o s t o f t h e s c h e -  ma e f f e c t was a c c o u n t e d f o r b y t h e home a n d f o r e i g n g r o u p s ; t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e tween t h e  f o r e i g n schemas d i d n o t p r o v e t o b e s y s t e m a t i c .  m a r i z e s t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f most f a c t o r s s t u d i e d .  This  final  a n a l y s i s sum-  I w i l l be back t o these major  f i n d i n g s b u t f i r s t , I must p r e s e n t t h e i m p o r t a n t r e s u l t s o f t h e d i r e c t i o n e s t i mate e x e r c i s e . They p r o v i d e  i n t e r e s t i n g i n s i g h t on d i s t a n c e  c o g n i t i o n and more  g e n e r a l l y , t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n of space.  5.3  Direction Estimation  5.3.1  Generalities The  using the  direction estimation  points  on  distance  I t was s t r e s s e d  (questionnaire, estimation  SUBDIR was o n l y  standard  required  that  that  s t u d e n t s make a d i a g r a m ,  d i r e c t i o n and n o t d i s t a n c e  page 4 ) . S u b j e c t s  t o each o f estimates  found t h i s e x e r c i s e harder  e x e r c i s e s . The r e s p o n s e l e v e l  (% o f e s t i m a t i o n s  than  done)  5 9 % c o m p a r e d t o 7 4 % f o r SUBMAG, 7 0 % f o r SUBMILE a n d 6 7 % f o r  SUBTIME. T h e mean a b s o l u t e the  exercise  and arrows, t o i n d i c a t e t h e d i r e c t i o n from t h e s c h o o l  stimuli points.  were r e q u i r e d the  a n d T w o - d i m e n s i o n a l Maps  d i r e c t i o n error for a l l estimates  d e v i a t i o n , 32.2.  These f i g u r e s were v e r y  was 36 d e g r e e s , a n d  stable across  the cultural  118 groups. Most s t u d e n t s estimates  used arrows,  lines,  or just points to i l l u s t r a t e  ( A p p e n d i x 1 ) . However, a c a r e f u l e x a m i n a t i o n  that  86% o f t h e s t u d e n t s  (79.3%  than  direction estimates.  strong evidence,  Students  indicated the r e l a t i v e  as i f m a k i n g a map. O v e r 9% o f t h o s e of t h e r e g i o n  ly  ( F i g u r e 5.3).  f o l l o w e d i n s t r u c t i o n s and produced j u s t  t h i s exercise turned  evidence)  locations  d i d more  of the s t i -  lengths or locating  points  roads and highways, Only  political  14% o f t h e s t u d e n t s  d i r e c t i o n estimates.  lines  have  F o r most  d i d here.  d i d not have t o r e b u i l d  strictpeople  out t o be a c o g n i t i v e mapping e x e r c i s e . F o r d i s t a n c e  mation the subjects probably g i o n as t h e y  showed  d i a g r a m s show w e l l known r e f e r e n c e  (Ottawa and St-Lawrence r i v e r s ,  f r o n t i e r s ) as d i r e c t i o n guides  o f t h e diagrams  6.7% s l i g h t  m u l i p o i n t s by u s i n g l i n e s and arrows o f d i f f e r e n t  their  esti-  t h e w h o l e image o f t h e r e -  C e r t a i n l y , r e l a t i v e j u d g m e n t s w e r e made i n e s t i m a t i n g  tances, but only i n reference to neighboring  towns o r s p e c i f i c a r e a s  dis-  of the r e -  g i o n . T h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n l o o k s a t t h e f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e d c o g n i t i v e mapping. 12 5.3.2  Factors S i n g l e and m u l t i - f a c t o r analyses  done o n t h e a b s o l u t e BLE  e r r o r DIRER t o t e s t  5.20 s u m m a r i z e s t h o s e  s t i m u l i p o i n t s as t r i a l estimates differs  of variance with repeated  t h e i n f l u e n c e o f p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s . TA-  r e s u l t s . The s i n g l e - f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e  f a c t o r , shows a g a i n  ( A ) , and t h a t t h e e r r o r o f e s t i m a t i o n t o d i f f e r e n t  The m u l t i - f a c t o r a n a l y s e s  stimuli  unique  points  i n a l l subsequent  of v a r i a n c e used t h e grouping  shown i n TABLE 5.20. T h e s a m p l e l o c a t i o n  with  t h a t each s u b j e c t has produced  g r e a t l y ( B ) . These two f a c t o r s w i l l r e m a i n s i g n i f i c a n t  analyses.  measures were  f a c t o r s (A)  (SCHOOL) a g a i n h a s a l o t o f i n f l u e n c e  on t h e d i r e c t i o n e s t i m a t e s . A c h a n g e i n t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e p e r c e i v e d  space  generate  q u i t e d i f f e r e n t views of that space. Although  i s not  constant  from s t i m u l u s p o i n t t o s t i m u l u s p o i n t  t h e means o f e a c h s c h o o l b a s i c a l l y  t h e SCHOOL e f f e c t  ( i n t e r a c t i o n i s very  confirm the trends  observed  significant),  f o rthe distance  F i g u r e 5.3 - E x a m p l e s o f d i r e c t i o n e s t i m a t i o n e x e r c i s e w h e r e t h e r o a d n e t w o r k (a) and a r i v e r (b) w e r e used as r e f e r e n c e l i n e s  (a) D i r e c t i o n e s t i m a t e s  from  Cornwall  (b) D i r e c t i o n e s t i m a t e s  from Hawkesbury  TABLE 5.20 R e s u l t s o f a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e w i t h repeated measures on the p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s ( f o r DIRER)  SUBJECTS  A=  SCHOOL  N  505ss/6427 obs.  A  5.69  (.0000)  A  6.98  (.0000)  B(A)  F  B  a  505/6427  (prob)  F  C AC E  b  749  E  d  e  C  (prob)  CULTURE 505/6427  F  (prob)  MOBILE  SEX  GEO  505/6414  505/6427  F  (prob)  F  LTRES  505/6370  (prob)  F  RLTRES  505/6410  (prob)  F  (prob)  505/6295  F  (prob)  2.81  (.0032)  0.47  (.7033)  16.85  (.0000)  3.22  (.0733)  1.37  (.2071)  1.15  (.2969)  1.32  (.2671)  5.75  (.0000)  5.72  (.0000)  5.52  (.0000)  5.62  (.0000)  .5.82  (.0000)  5.67  (.0000)  5.68  (.0000)  7.28  (.0000)  6.99  (.0000)  6.97  (.0000)  6.99  (.0000)  7.11  (.0000)  7.02  (.0000)  6.88  (.0000)  2.46  (.0000)  1.07  (.3326)  1.41  (.1050)  1.35  (.1355)  1.84  (.0000)  1.06  (.2109)  1.20  (.1393)  718  748  749  C  s t i m u l i points mean e r r o r  748  728  749  6  s u b j e c t s nested i n A d  747  s t i m u l i points  i n t e r a c t i o n between main f  a  c  t  o  r  a  n  d  s  t  i  m  u  l  i  P°  i n  t  s  121 estimates:  generally, the schools  that did best  a t distance estimation did  at d i r e c t i o n e s t i m a t i o n and v i c e v e r s a . The l o c a t i o n a l e f f e c t stant  this  time.  estimates  CULTURE n o r i t s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h  SEX i s s i g n i f i c a n t than females  for females). it  i s t h u s q u i t e con-  b u t o n l y a more r e f i n e d a n a l y s i s w o u l d d e t e r m i n e w h a t l i e s b e h i n d  fect. Neither  and i t s e f f e c t  best  that e f -  the stimuli points are significant i s constant:  m a l e s h a v e made b e t t e r  (mean e r r o r o f 32.7 d e g r e e s f o r m a l e s a s o p p o s e d t o 39.3  S i m i l a r trends have been observed i n p r e v i o u s  studies. I nthis  case  i s c l e a r t h a t t h e y o u n g men a r e much more m o b i l e t h a n t h e y o u n g women ( 3 1 . 5 %  o f t h e m a l e s h a v e t h e i r own c a r w h i l e  o n l y 9.1% o f t h e f e m a l e s do s o ) a n d t h e r e -  f o r e i t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t t h e c o g n i t i v e m a p p i n g e x e r c i s e was e a s i e r f o r them. F i n a l l y , el  GEO, L T R E S , a n d RLTRES a r e s t i l l  ofmobility),  although  not s i g n i f i c a n t  n o t s i g n i f i c a n t b u t MOBILE  o v e r a l l , has a very  teraction effect with the s t i m u l i points. This main e f f e c t do  significant i n -  i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t m i g h t mask t h e  through c a n c e l l a t i o n s (even i f two persons a r e e q u a l l y m o b i l e  not n e c e s s a r i l y frequent  most m o b i l e s t u d e n t s the worst  (lev-  they  t h e same p l a c e s ) . T h e g e n e r a l means show t h a t t h e  produced t h e best  estimates, while  t h e l e a s t m o b i l e produced  estimates.  A one-way a n d two-way a n a l y s e s  o f c o v a r i a n c e w e r e done t o s e e i f t h e d i r e c -  t i o n e r r o r was r e l a t e d t o t h e d i s t a n c e e r r o r (ABMCROWER).TABLE 5.21 shows t h e TABLE 5.21 Results  o f analysis o f covariance  reg.  coeff.  the distance  A  2.04  (subjects)  (.0000)  0 .0302  (stimuli pts.)  F of r e g . c o e f f .  9.60  (.0021)  reg.  (slope t e s t )  1.22  (.0149)  F o f reg.  E  n.b.  error  ABMCROWER  ABMCROWER  COVARIATE =  (subjects)  with  378.3  N= 500 s u b j e c t s , 5642 o b s e r v a t i o n s  E  coeff. coeff  A B  2.32  (.0000)  36.32 (.0000) 0 .0309 11.14  (.0010)  332.6  122 r e s u l t s . With ed  t h e s u b j e c t s as c o n t r o l  f a c t o r , ABMCROWER i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y  t o DIRER b u t n o t c o n s t a n t l y a c r o s s t h e s u b j e c t s ( s l o p e t e s t  With  t h e s u b j e c t s and s t i m u l i p o i n t s as c o n t r o l  very s i g n i f i c a n t . particular, cises  i s significant).  factors the relationship  i n v o l v e the mental p o s i t i o n i n g of places i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e i r  DIRER i s n o t r e l a t e d  to real distance  i s 0.14 a n d s i g n i f i c a n t  points)  CROWDIST ( F v a l u e f r o m one-way a n a l y s i s a t t h e .7056 l e v e l )  (+/-) d i r e c t i o n  (schools) Will Avon  Cass  13  ; spatial  Haw  error matrix  Alex  Emb  Ches  Vank  Plan  Corn  Maniwaki  4  -7  -1  -1  -29  3  5  -30  11  17  Arnprior  23  31  24  18  -26  29  31  6  1  39  Ottawa-Hull  40  26  19  26  -4  22  33  14  29  28  Buckingham  67  3  18  33  -2  22  30  29  54  33  1  32  11  5  -23  26  27  30  20  33  Kemptville  17  38  15  27  -8  21  37  20  17  50  Brockville  10  32  22  11  2  23  37  3  30  33  Ogdensburg  12  11  14  16  -44  18  -22  -1  -72  -4  Embrun  49  28  37  21  38  39  25  7  42  Casselman  17  21  . 13  -3  Plantagenet  33  Massena  Smiths  Falls  32  22  32  29  29  8  15  6  17  79  -4  22  20  10  -3  45  38  14  8  10  29  23  -7  9  0  5  3  -1  35  -12  26  Cornwall  14  36  15  5  13  17  35  17  15  Alexandria  42  31  25  14  18  9  1  41  34  Vankleek  24  24  14  7  -1  18  15  29  41  Hawkesbury  30  33  14  5  17  13  -3  25  36  Lachute  45  32  14  -12  -11  24  33  -18  -27  46  Rigaud  62  36  23  -15  2  16  12  -3  10  20  Montreal  35  21  25  6  -3  25  10  4  -7  25  Valleyfield  13  21  27  -46  18  2  -1  -20  -12  22  Rockland  Hill  exer-  neighbors.  TABLE 5.22 Signed  (stimuli  i s still  Over a l l t h e s t i m u l i p o i n t s and, f o r each s t i m u l u s p o i n t i n  t h e d i r e c t i o n e r r o r increases w i t h t h e d i s t a n c e e r r o r . Both  of covariance  relat-  13 -24  autocorre-  123 lation will i n t o the eral,  not  be  a problem here. A c t u a l l y , a distance  DIRER m e a s u r e . The  m i s p l a c e m e n t , as  same a n g l e o f e r r o r a c c o u n t s f o r more and  the  stimulus  point  i s f u r t h e r away f r o m t h e  d e s t i n a t i o n . DIRER a c c o u n t s f o r s p a c e j u s t as sures did  ection • estimation, axes p l a y  that  previous studies  frequency t a b l e of the  5.22) of  the  lat-  e r r o r mea-  w a l l toward the The  places  Kemptville s o u t h , and  were d e f i n i t e l y rotated  were r o t a t e d  case of  north-south,  21%  of  dir-  east-west  this effect.  the  estimates  a c a r e f u l examination of point  rotated  toward the  by  each s c h o o l  toward a major  north  axis  (0-360  Valleyfield  d i r e c t i o n s c l e a r l y p l a y e d a r o l e i n the  the (TA-  axis degrees),  t o w a r d t h e w e s t a x i s , M a s s e n a and  L a c h u t e , R i g a u d , M o n t r e a l and  s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of  I n the  d a t a a l s o shows e v i d e n c e o f  the major axes. A l s o ,  c a s e s : B u c k i n g h a m was and  the  e r r o r made f o r e a c h s t i m u l u s  demonstrates that  Smiths F a l l s  east.  h a v e shown t h a t  d i r e c t i o n e s t i m a t e s shows t h a t  5 degrees of  sense ( d i r e c t i o n ) of the  i n 59%  more  o r i g i n of  r e l a t i v e distance  c o g n i t i v e mapping s i m p l i f i e s r e a l i t y .  a m a j o r g e n e r a l i z i n g r o l e . My  f a l l w i t h i n +/-  BLE  the  built  before.  Theory s t a t e s  The  decay c o n t r o l i s  Corn-  toward  the  locational  exercise. The  one-way a n a l y s i s  shows t h a t and  three  VISIT2 are  significant lysis  of  of  variables  covariance with  from the  d i m e n s i o n i s S I Z E . The subjects  5.23). These c o n t r o l f a c t o r s are MEANIN, o r V I S I T 2 i n c r e a s e ,  cial are  k n o w l e d g e and  meaning  same p a t t e r n and  still  t o l o c a t e i n r e l a t i o n t o one  t e r e s t i n g l y , none o f t h e  studied  as  as  the  confirms again that  another  more p l a c e s  SIZE of  that the  are v i s i t e d ,  as KNOWL,  stimuli  points  the  ana-  (TABLE  a c t i v e knowledge i s a  (more r e f e r e n c e  dimensions of p l a c e  see  other  two-way  control factors  v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t . We  f a c t o r b e h i n d s p a t i a l i m a g e r y . The  only  i s observed i n the  s t i m u l i points  DIRER d e c r e a s e s a n d  DIRER d e c r e a s e s . T h i s  variables  a c t i v e k n o w l e d g e d i m e n s i o n — K N O W L , MEANIN,  s i g n i f i c a n t o r a l m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t (TABLE 5 . 2 3 ) . The  covariance with  increases,  the  points cru-  easier  are known).  meaning are s i g n i f i c a n t  they In-  124  TABLE 5.23 R e s u l t s  o f one-way  439 s u b j e c t s / 5228 obs.  a n d two-way  a n a l y s i s  o f c o v a r i a n c e  o n  DIRER  DIRER  F (subjects)  A  5.36  (error)  i  714.9  (subjects)  (.0000)  (error)  1.09  10.63  A  5 .42  (.0000)  B  4.78  (.0000)  E  703 .8  (reg. coef f.)  (prob)  F  (reg . c o e f f J  (Prob)  F  (Prob)  (stimuli pts.)  KNOWL  DIRER  F  (prob)  ( .0013)  KNOWL  1.18  12 22  ( .0006)  MEANIN  0.54  2 98  ( _.08O7)  0.54  3.01  ( .0789)  VISIT 1  -0.21  0.70  ( .4092)  VISIT 1  -0.03  0 .01  ( .8712)  VISIT 2  0.43  3.45  ( .0601)  VISIT 2  0.59  6 .07  ( .0133)  LAGREE  -0.08  0.13  ( .7145)  LAGREE  -0.14  0 .42  ( .5234)  EVALUA  0.04  0.02  ( .8626)  EVALUA  0.03  0 .01  ( .8830)  0.75  4 .49  ( .0322)  10 .80  ( .0000)  MEANIN  15.87  ( .0001)  SIZE  14.50  ( .0000)  ALL  0 .93  SIZE ALL  here except  SIZE. T h i s e f f e c t  can be i n t e r p r e t e d i n terms o f " i m a g e a b i l i t y " . The  l a r g e r t h e s t i m u l u s p o i n t , t h e more i t s t a n d s and  thus  ples ofthis  the easier i t i s t olocate. Montreal i nthe study  area.  Such p r i m a r y  - i n reference t o which smaller places The  out, dominating  the perceived  and Ottawa a r e t h e best  space  exam-  nodes u s u a l l y occupy c l e a r p o s i t i o n s  can be located.  p h y s i c a l and p o l i t i c a l b a r r i e r s had i n t e r e s t i n g  effects  on the "cogni-  t i v e m a p p i n g " e x e r c i s e . The m u l t i - f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e w i t h  repeated  m e a s u r e s (TABLE 5.24) i n d i c a t e s , a s u s u a l , t h a t s c h o o l s , s u b j e c t s , a n d s t i m u l i points are very  significant.  c a n t . T h e means f o r PHYSBAR along  But t h i s  t i m e , PHYSBAR a n d POLBAR a r e b o t h  signifi-  (TABLE 5.25) d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t p o s i t i o n i n g o f p l a c e s  t h e v a l l e y s have been b e s t . The p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s have a c t e d a s e n v i r o n -  mental reference l i n e s against which places  c o u l d be e a s i l y  l o c a t e d . The g e n e r a l  125  TABLE 5 . 2 4 Results of m u l t i - f a c t o r analysis of covariance w i t h repeated measures on s t i m u l i p o i n t s nested i n g e o p o l i t i c a l groups- DIRER DIRER N = 430 subjects/5228 obs .  (schools)  A  (subjects) (PHYSBAR)  2.71  (.0046)  B (A)  5.25  (.0000)  C  3.89  (.0325)  ( i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h A)  AC  1.32  (.1571)  (POLBAR nested i n C)  D(C)  3.77  (.0357)  ( i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h A)  AD(C)  0.59  (.9432)  (stimuli pts.  F(CD)  2.56  (.0011)  AF  1.84  (.0000)  10.24  (.0016)  MEANIN  1.89  (.1659)  VISIT 1  0.83  (.3648)  VISIT 2  3.17  (.0715)  LAGREE  0.09  (.7573)  EVALUA  0.00  (.9245)  SIZE  1.64  (.1968)  ALL  7.42  (.0000)  i n CD)  ( i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h A)  (CD)  KNOWL  684.3  E  effect  of these "imageable"  l i n e s i s s i m i l a r a c r o s s t h e s c h o o l s ( i n t e r a c t i o n AC  o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t .1571), b u t c l e a r s c h o o l s most l i k e l y (eg..  Casselman,  to interact  positional  Hill,  t o t h e St-Lawrence  town, C o r n w a l l , A l e x a n d r i a ) , and c e n t r a l  fect  effects  along t h e Ottawa v a l l e y  Hawkesbury, Vankleek  good t o o ) , t h o s e c l o s e r  region  (PROB)  F  valley  barriers  be observed:  did best f o r that  and C h e s t e r v i l l e  f o r which  valley  center i s  d i d best there (eg. W i l l i a m s -  schools did best f o r the center of the  ( e g . Avonmore, a n d Embrun f o r w h i c h O t t a w a v a l l e y  of thep o l i t i c a l  may s t i l l  i sa l i t t l e  more t r i c k y .  gories  ( T A S L E 5.25) show t h a t a l l t h e e f f e c t  valley  area. There,  i s a l s o good).  The e f -  The means o f t h o s e c a t e -  o f POLBAR comes f r o m t h e S t - L a w r e n c e  O n t a r i o a n d t h e U.S. a r e q u i t e s i m i l a r w h i l e Quebec h a s a  126  TABLE  5.25  Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r PHYSBAR and POLBAR c a t e g o r i e s  Physical barriers Categories  x  36.2  Quebec North  39.5  36.2  Ottawa V a l l e y  33.4  29.3  Queb ec  33.9  30.7  Ontario  33.4  29.0  Ontario  37.6  31.9 27.9  o f Region  much l o w e r mean a n d s t a n d a r d and V a l l e y f i e l d  burg).  33.9  30.6  32.0  U.S.A.  36.0  32.1  POLBAR p r o b a b l y  reflects  d i v i s i o n i s composed  an " i m a g e a b i l i t y " e f f e c t  two s t i m u l i p o i n t s i s v e r y  one, augmenting these  I n t h i s way, SIZE h a s l o s t  important, which has  t h e POLBAR e f f e c t i s c o n s t a n t POLBAR r e f l e c t v a r i o u s a s p e c t s important the effect  cities'  imageability  over  ( C o r n w a l l , B r o c k v i l l e , Massena o r Ogdens-  i t seffect  two " k n o w l e d g e v a r i a b l e s " a r e s t i l l  Finally,  30.9 38.5  d e v i a t i o n . S i n c e t h i s Quebec  located along the v a l l e y  factor i s very  Quebec Ontario  at the t i p of the Eastern Ontario region ( t i p of the triangu-  shape) i s a d i s t i n c t i v e  other c i t i e s  31.9  on d i r e c t i o n e s t i m a t i o n o r c o g n i t i v e mapping. Second, t h e p o s i t i o n  o f t h e two c i t i e s lar  37.6  the s i z e of these  a clear effect  s  39.5  St. Lawrence V a l l e y  again. F i r s t ,  x  Categories  s  (POLBAR)  North o f Ottawa Valley  Centre  of Montreal  P o l i t i c a l barriers  (PHYSBAR)  (now m o s t l y  significant  c a r r i e d b y POLBAR) w h i l e  (KNOWL, V I S I T 2 ) .  across the schools. Therefore, both  We n o t e  PHYSBAR a n d  o f t h e r e g i o n ' s i m a g e a b i l i t y . We s e e t h a t  i n t h e c o g n i t i v e mapping  that  this  process.  o f SURGRO a n d MAPGRO was t e s t e d , b u t w i t h l i t t l e  suc-  c e s s . E v e n i n t h e s i m p l e s t m o d e l s MAPGRO showed no s i g n i f i c a n c e , w h i l e n e i t h e r SURGRO n o r RSURGRO h a d a n y e f f e c t when i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e m u l t i - f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e . The s i m p l i f i e d  c o g n i t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e r e g i o n was  done  127 mostly and  i n one  primary  played 5.3.3  block  (no s p a t i a l e f f e c t , no  p o i n t s had  a determining  RSURGRO e f f e c t ) w h e r e r e f e r e n c e  a major "anchoring"  e f f e c t and  lines  a c t i v e knowledge of  space  role.  T w o - d i m e n s i o n a l maps To  get  another  p e r s p e c t i v e on  the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s  representations of the displacement  of the s t i m u l i p o i n t s were b u i l t  s c h o o l . These " t r a n s f o r m a t i o n spaces" "real"  ( r o a d map)  odology;;,  SUBDIR e s t i m a t e s  f o r each  the d i f f e r e n c e s between  the  t h e s t u d e n t s ' : e s t i m a t e s . The  t h o s e maps i s q u i t e i n v o l v e d . F i r s t ,  t i o n s " w e r e d r a w n f r o m SUBMAG and mean SUBMAG and  illustrate  c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f p o i n t s and  behind  o f s p a c e done, a g g r e g a t e  SUBDIR e s t i m a t e s  the  "estimated  meth-  configura-  t o each s t i m u l u s p o i n t .  ( f o r each s c h o o l ) were used t o compute  the  s c h o o l ' s m a t r i x o f i n t e r d i s t a n c e s b e t w e e n a l l p a i r s o f p o i n t s . From t h e s e s trices,  two-dimensional  were o b t a i n e d Secondly,  through  the " r e a l "  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of the e s t i m a t e d smallest-space  c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f p o i n t s was  c o u l d be  compared t o the r e a l  c o n f i g u r a t i o n by  the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n space of Williamstown s p a c e s o f t h e o t h e r s c h o o l s ) . On mates, whereas the s t a r t  the estimated  inter-  configurations  s u p e r i m p o s i t i o n . F i g u r e 5.4  (Appendix 4 c o n t a i n s the  t h e s e maps t h e d o t s  i n d i c a t e the  of the arrows i n d i c a t e the " r e a l "  points  Guttman-Lingoes).  d r a w n f r o m t h e CROWDIST  d i s t a n c e s m a t r i x u s i n g t h e same m e t h o d s . T h i s way,  ma-  c o n f i g u r a t i o n s of  a n a l y s i s (SSA-1 p r o g r a m o f  The  shows  transformation location  esti-  l o c a t i o n s of the  same  places. The For  r e g u l a r i t y of the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s  9 schools  out  of  10,  i s striking  at t h i s l e v e l of a n a l y s i s .  the major t r e n d c o n s i s t s i n a c l o c k w i s e  r o t a t i o n of  the  s t i m u l i p o i n t s a r o u n d t h e o r i g i n o f e s t i m a t i o n . O n l y Embrun seems t o h a v e p r o d u c e d .' t o t a l l y  stochastic transformations  r e g u l a r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s which i s not estimates  h a v e b e e n made on a n  o t h e r ) . The  ( A p p e n d i x 4) . The too s u r p r i s i n g  o r d e r l y diagram  other schools  c o n s i d e r i n g the  show q u i t e direction  ( t h e y a r e q u i t e d e p e n d e n t on  emphasis i n the r o t a t i o n v a r i e s s l i g h t l y w i t h the s c h o o l ' s  each  perspec-  129 tlve:  east s i d e s c h o o l s have r o t a t e d mostly  Vankleek H i l l , A l e x a n d r i a ) ; southern northern  points  (Williamstown,  Cornwall, C h e s t e r v i l l e ) while Plantagenet, rotations;  a  c e n t r a l s c h o o l s have  nor-  rota-  p l a c e s a l l a r o u n d them ( A v o n m o r e , C a s s e l m a n ) . The mean d i r e c t i o n e r r o r s o f  TABLE 5.22 r e i n f o r c e t h e e v i d e n c e a r e p o s i t i v e and thus  represent  of clockwise rotation:  8 2 % o f t h e mean e r r o r s  c l o c k w i s e r o t a t i o n s . Embrun a n d V a n k l e e k  h a v e made m o s t o f t h e c o u n t e r c l o c k w i s e  s t i m u l i p o i n t s can be c o n s i d e r e d At  Only t h e f i r s t  n o t t o o w e l l known.  t h i s p o i n t , t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e and p o t e n t i a l meaning o f these  difficult  to establish.  Further  i n f o r m a t i o n was s o u g h t t o t e s t  o f t h e r o t a t i o n s b y c o n s t r u c t i n g a map o f t h e 9 5 % c o n f i d e n c e estimated  l o c a t i o n from W i l l i a m s t o w n  reliability  of the estimated  Hill  r o t a t i o n s , and i n g e n e r a l , most o f them  h a v e b e e n made f o r M a n i w a k i , O g d e n s b u r g , L a c h u t e a n d V a l l e y f i e l d . two  (Hawkesbury,  s c h o o l s have emphasized t h e r o t a t i o n of t h e  t h e r n s c h o o l , has emphasized t h e southern ted  western s t i m u l i points  (Figure 5.5).  trends are  the significance  zones around  each  These "zones" i l l u s t r a t e t h e  l o c a t i o n s ( t h e sample d i s t a n c e and d i r e c t i o n  esti-  14 mates).  F i g u r e 5.5 shows t h a t f o r 13 p o i n t s o u t o f 21 t h e d i r e c t i o n o f r o t a t i o n  would n o t be changed i n 95% o f t h e cases population would, at l e a s t , there i s a s l i g h t  assure  (95% of the l o c a t i o n estimates  t h e same c l o c k w i s e r o t a t i o n ) .  wise transformations  rotation. Therefore,  done i n W i l l i a m s t o w n  these  cases  there  isa  t h i s map shows t h a t t h e c l o c k -  are significant.  h e l d f o r o t h e r s c h o o l s . B u t what i s b e h i n d out  I n two  chance o f change i n t h e r o t a t i o n , and i n 6 cases  b e t t e r chance o f a r e v e r s e d  of the  This  assumption i s  transformations?  In 7 schools  o f 10 t h e r e i s a c l e a r t e n d e n c y t o p u s h Q u e b e c p l a c e s away b u t I d o u b t  this  i s a t t h e o r i g i n o f a l l t h e c l o c k w i s e r o t a t i o n s . The t r i a n g u l a r shape o f t h e r e g i o n c o u l d be s i g n i f i c a n t h e r e . ally  The " l e g i b l e  lines"  of t h e environment  (especi-  t h e O t t a w a v a l l e y ) may h a v e i n f l u e n c e d t h e s u b j e c t s t o make c i r c u l a r  formations.  At this  stage however, t h i s  i s only speculation.  trans-  CHAPTER  VI  Conclusion  This nature the  t h e s i s has  had  two  major o b j e c t i v e s .  o f d i s t a n c e c o g n i t i o n , i n v e s t i g a t i n g how  regional level.  I tried  which circumstances. a t i o n s of space.  An  Secondly, I t r i e d  together with  simplifies  influence distance cognition.  to  these  objectives w i l l  The  first  be v e r y  and  reviewed  distances  The  aspects  u s e d and  of that  conclusions a look at the  to surrounding  the type  places.  impressions  the m e t r i c of space.  an a b s t r a c t " s t r a i g h t l i n e "  network.  These judgments were  of s e p a r a t i o n r a t h e r than  estimates  This  o f d i s t a n c e when t h e y  a n a l y s i s the  r a t i o estimate  fashion which ignored  H o w e v e r , when i n t e r p r e t e d i n t h e  r a t i o estimate  limitations  o f j u d g m e n t made when  ;  in  relating  research.  discussed  s u b j e c t s made t h e b e s t  a d o p t e d as  of  experience  g a u g e t h e i r j u d g m e n t on. a w e l l known d i s t a n c e , t h i s ( o r t h e s e ) i n d e x being  in  i n f o r m a t i o n w e r e shown  f o l l o w e d by  for future  at  i n d i v i d u a l ' s transform-  m a j o r f i n d i n g s and first,  research  a p p r o x i m a t e , b a s e d on  knowledge.  the  Conclusions  part of t h i s  people estimate to  be  Various  environmental  The  some s u g g e s t i o n s  Major Findings  o f s p a c e was  to e x p l a i n the  cognition.  to  6.1  examined  abundant l i t e r a t u r e argued t h a t a c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e  t h e ways man  t h e s i s and  i t has  people perceive distances  t o d i s c o v e r what m e t r i c  space i s the b a s i s of s p a t i a l  of the  First,  light  the  of the  t h a n t h e c r o w v e r s i o n t o any  r a t i o estimate  has  factual could  distance(s)  conceptualized  details  of the  time dimension,  p r o v e d t o be much more s e n s i t i v e t o s p a c e .  time v e r s i o n of the  was  found  A l l through  road the my  r e a c t e d more s t r o n g l y  v a r i a b l e m e a s u r i n g a change o f p o s i t i o n i n s p a c e ,  o r a change o f t h e a c t u a l d i s t a n c e s  involved  (eg.  interaction with  SCHOOL,  132 the  e f f e c t o f POLBAR and  has  provided  more p e r s p e c t i v e  of e s t i m a t i o n increases  as  of e f f o r t ,  i t s interaction with  t o be  real distance  acquired  increases).  through the  study.  Units  experience  otherwise  over space  According  define  to Piaget's  i n d i v i d u a l ' s own  o f measurement has  error  ( i . e . the  error  a b s t r a c t and  T h u s , an e x p e r i e n t i a l simplified  the  representation  l e v e l o f s p a t i a l c o g n i t i o n a t my  classification this  known i n d e x  distance.  This  allowed  Euclidean  level  partly  f u l l y made.  s u b j e c t i v e ; the p o i n t s  partially  the  the  order  Thus, the are  still  of  present  not  into various  space or to d i s t i n c t  features  to d i s t i n c t  The  (places or character)  w i t h i n t h e i r b o u n d a r i e s , however, they d i d not  a n a l y s i s or to the  l e v e l of  cognition.  adopted,  independently  as  accommodatory  from  and their  P r o j e c t i v e space i s  r e g i o n was  simplified  into  individual's activity  of the environment.  seem t o mark c h a n g e s o f T h i s m i g h t be  approach to data  due  collecting  t i o n n a i r e w h e r e j u d g m e n t s w e r e made i n s e r i e s ) w h i c h b o t h f a v o r e d i n the  The  These  c o g n i t i o n (the d i s t o r t i o n s )  o f c o g n i t i o n ( o f a d o p t e d m e t r i c ) , as h y p o t h e s i z e d . type of g e n e r a l i z e d  not  be  remains d i s t o r t e d  s e c t i o n s of the  e f f e c t of homogenizing d i s t a n c e  to a w e l l  (known) f o r t h e  conceived  sub-spaces.  was  form  distances  Spaces").  representation  of  r e f l e c t more t h a n A more a b s t r a c t  time estimates)  of  level  r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n s to  "Transformation  sufficiently  m e a n i n g f u l schemas c o r r e s p o n d i n g  the  estimates  a b s t r a c t g r i d system of Euclidean" space.  coordinated  schemas had  the  o f m e a s u r e m e n t ( m i l e and  of c o g n i t i o n i s not  container,  intermediate  they were e s t a b l i s h e d i n r e f e r e n c e  ( s e e e v i d e n c e o f t h a t on  a d j u s t m e n t s t o be  scale  been used to e s t a b l i s h r e l a t i o n s between p l a c e s :  conserved  object  The  i s an  point of view ( t o p o l o g i c a l space).  were compared t o each o t h e r ,  the  dimension  of time convey a c l e a r sense  of space.  measurement, t y p i c a l of p r o j e c t i v e s p a c e .  the  time  separation. These o b s e r v a t i o n s  the  The  f o r r e l a t i v e judgment, a l l o w i n g f o r the  d i s t r i b u t e d more " r a t i o n a l l y "  element i s i n t e g r a t e d i n the of  SCHOOL).  level to (ques-  uniformity  133 Once t h e l e v e l o f c o g n i t i o n was d e t e r m i n e d I t r i e d v a r i a t i o n i n the estimates is  the very  Distance  at that l e v e l .  a c t i v e process of mentally  cognition involves  acquired of t h a t  h a s shown t h a t  reconstructing  objects  i n the reconstruction.  Not only  does t h e t y p e o f i n f o r m a t i o n  information  also explains  t h e d i s t o r t i o n s o f space.  t h e s e two f a c t o r s p r o v e d t o b e v e r y  found t h a t each s u b j e c t d i r e c t i o n estimates each s u b j e c t  here:  (knowledge), and t h e p a r t i c u l a r impressions  t i n a t i o n s people developed through that experience.  ience  become  through experience m a t t e r , b u t t h e s i m p l i f i c a t i o n and o r g a n i z a t i o n  t r a v e l experience  that  or ofthe  A l l a s p e c t s o f t h e e x p e r i e n c e may  Two a s p e c t s o f s p a t i a l e x p e r i e n c e w e r e c o n s i d e r e d  broadly,  imagery  and events.  the mental reconstruction of the t r i p  e x p e r i e n c e o f movement i n s p a c e . important"  Piaget  t o understand the  o f space  always d i f f e r e d from subject  Amidst t h e i d i o s y n c r a c i e s however, v a r i o u s  First,  and desquite  i t was  (distance and  to subject).  h a s h i s own way o f m a k i n g e s t i m a t e s  o f space i s unique t o each i n d i v i d u a l .  of trips  A l t h o u g h measured  significant.  had a unique perception  t h e amount o f  This  illustrates  and a l s o , t h a t  the exper-  Man i s t h e m e a s u r e o f s p a c e .  regularities  appeared.  A l l variables  m e a s u r i n g k n o w l e d g e o r i n t e r a c t i o n i n s p a c e , g e n e r a t e d t h e same r e s u l t : t a n c e s a n d d i r e c t i o n s t o b e t t e r known p l a c e s correctly.  more  T h o s e " a c t i v e k n o w l e d g e " v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e d KNOWL, MEANIN,  V I S I T 2 , LAGREE spaces),  o r areas were estimated  (defining the c u l t u r a l spaces),  POLBAR  POLBAR a n d  PHYSBAR, a n d RSURGRO a n d SURGRO ( d e f i n i n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l a c t i o n s p a c e s ) .  more m o b i l e ) , is  simple:  a n d CULTURE  Also,  t h e same i d e a i n t h e v a r i a b l e s MOBILE, SEX ( m a l e s  ( E n g l i s h more m o b i l e ) .  t h e more a d i s t a n c e  Of c o u r s e t h e r a t i o n a l e h e r e  i s e x p e r i e n c e d , t h e more c u e s a r e i d e n t i f i e d  t o p r o d u c e t h e r e l a t i v e j u d g m e n t a n d a l s o t h e more l i k e l y w i l l b e known f a c t u a l l y .  VISITl,  (defining the p o l i t i c a l  SCHOOL ( t h e p o s i t i o n i n s p a c e ) a n d i t s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h  the m o b i l i t y f a c t o r r e f l e c t s  dis-  the "real"  A l l the v a r i a b l e s measuring impressions  distance  of places,  134 as w e l l as some " k n o w l e d g e " v a r i a b l e s , w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t s i g n of the e r r o r .  Distances  t i v e t o t h e mean e r r o r , n o t systematically  these  (SIZE), distances to w e l l l i k e d  ( E V A L U A ) , and  c u l t u r e were underestimated All  t o w e l l known p l a c e s w e r e u n d e r e s t i m a t e d  effects  (rela-  z e r o ) , d i s t a n c e s to l a r g e r p l a c e s were q u i t e  overestimated  were o v e r e s t i m a t e d  i n e x p l a i n i n g the  (good)  d i s t a n c e s to p l a c e s a k i n to the  places  estimators  (LAGREE).  confirm previous  f i n d i n g s except  f o r the e f f e c t  o f EVALUA.  T h e y show t h a t t h e amount o f s p a c e d i s t o r t i o n d e p e n d s on p e o p l e ' s  experience  of space  direction  (except  f o r e f f e c t o f EVALUA w h i c h i s u n c l e a r ) w h i l e t h e  ( s i g n ) o f d i s t o r t i o n d e p e n d s much more on p e o p l e ' s ience.  (The  S I Z E and  LAGREE f a c t o r s w e r e n o t e d  impressions  for their  of t h a t  importance.)  on t h e s i g n e d e r r o r w e r e g e n e r a l l y i n t e r p r e t e d i n t e r m s o f v a r i o u s of the t r a v e l  experience:  the m o t i v a t i o n of the s u b j e c t , the  i n t e r e s t and where h i s a t t e n t i o n l i e s as  the  complexity  o f LAGREE c a n b e own  of the  trip  and  d u r i n g the t r i p ,  the u n i t y of the  The a wider  and  task of moving.  The (the  c o u l d p o s s i b l y be  F i g u r e 6.1 reversed  as  shows how  (probably  the e f f e c t s observed  the frequency largely  of v i s i t s  i n the t r i p  at a frequency  environmental  subject's  underestimated). the  itself  is minimal.  overestimated  As  becomes more i n t e r e s t i n g a n d  rewarding  and  i n this We  because the experienced  research saw  that  trip and  is  overall,  t h e p l a c e i s v i s i t e d more o f t e n  o f e v e r y m o n t h t o e v e r y week a t t h e  information rises rapidly  interpreted i n  increase.  u n c l e a r , more o r i e n t a t i o n p r o b l e m s m i g h t be  the i n t e r e s t  effect  t h e a t t i t u d e s b e t w e e n t h e two c u l t u r e s .  distances to u n f a m i l i a r places are unknown and  such  l i e w i t h the ease of communication,  i n f l u e n c e o f t h e a c t i v e k n o w l e d g e d i m e n s i o n can be context.  results  of h i s  i n v o l v i n g aspects  c u l t u r a l s p a c e i s v i s i t e d more o f t e n , t h e r e f o r e , d i s t a n c e s a r e  interrelations,  The  aspects  focus  i n t e r p r e t e d as a v a r i a n t o f t h e k n o w l e d g e e f f e c t  H o w e v e r , o t h e r r e l e v a n t e x p l a n a t i o n s may  exper-  thus minimal  regional scale)  e r r o r i s done.  as more c u e s o f i n t e r e s t  are  Travel  identified;  135  o  (never)  ( e v e r y month) Frequency of v i s i t  F i g u r e 6.1  - Frequency of v i s i t  the a t t e n t i o n of the distances  subject  the  d e c r e a s e when t a k e n  Figure  trips  trip  or r e j e c t  author)  t a s k o f m o v i n g , and however, would reach  s u b j e c t ' s a t t e n t i o n wOuld then' focus take  the  since environmental  f o r granted.  to confirm  (by t h e  generate overestimates  amount o f e r r o r m i g h t i n c r e a s e  frequent  The  t a s k of moving l i k e l y  c o n d i t i o n s would once a g a i n  to  curves  I n t e r e s t i n the  point of d i m i n i s h i n g r e t u r n s .  day)  (knowledge)  i s d r a w n away f r o m t h e  are underestimated.  d e s t i n a t i o n and  (every  More r e s e a r c h  character of a wait. and,  at t h i s  stage,  i n f o r m a t i o n has n e e d s t o be  the h y p o t h e t i c a l trends  inevitably a on  his  Such the  b e e n shown  done on  illustrated  very in  6.1.  P e o p l e ' s ways o f s i m p l i f y i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l estimates,  and  in particular,  information influenced  direction estimates.  The  similarity  data  distance schemas  136 (SURGRO) h a d  a major o r g a n i z i n g  meanings which have a s t r o n g SURGRO o n l y  lost  been c o n t r o l l e d .  and  i t i s only this  Therefore,  unfortunate  issue.  e f f e c t on  i t s e f f e c t i n the  had  on  The  last  this  thesis could  north-south,  not  g i v e any  The  estimates  east-west axes.  o r g a n i z a t i o n of the  representation  along  the  rence, because of t h e i r  d i s t i n c t i v e p o s i t i o n at the  school  could  most s u b j e c t s . and  other  full  by  the  it  6.2  of  does not  rely  image of t h e  greatest  of space  city  the  S t u d y and  the  (representation e x e r c i s e was  tri-  of  for  index  Suggestions for Future  distance the  relative  mostly  distance  influenced features, estimation  a c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e of  of the  space.  therefore,  environment.  Research  i n i t s l e v e l of  each  The  required  representational exercise,  lies  S t . Law-  region.  ( c a r d i n a l d i r e c t i o n s , imageable  research  lines and  t i p of the  i n r e l a t i o n to the  a s p e c t s of the  SIZE  reference  along  shape of the  s i m p l i f y i n g features  l i m i t a t i o n of t h i s  with  transformed spaces of  knowledge of space, w h i l e  the v a r i o u s  as much on  region  generaof  a m e n t a l mapping e x e r c i s e  this latter  i s a less involved  L i m i t a t i o n s of the The  t o be  were e s t i m a t e d  c o u r s e , by  m o s t l y i n f l u e n c e d by estimation  general  two  to n e i g h b o u r i n g towns, d i r e c t i o n estimates  features  s h a p e ) , and  the  out  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that  organizing  Distance  turned  While distances  r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the  general was  exercise  distances  locations).  r o t a t i o n a l e f f e c t i n the  a l s o h a v e b e e n c a u s e d by  d i r e c t i o n estimate  other  effect  sim-  POLBAR ( M o n t r e a l  l o c a t e d t h a n any  s i z e and  the  w e r e somewhat  V a l l e y f i e l d w e r e more a c c u r a t e l y  The  context,  detailed insight  Imageable f e a t u r e s  r i v e r s - w e r e e a s i l y l o c a t e d ) , and  angular-shaped region).  carry  In t h i s  were l a r g e l y i n f l u e n c e d - by  ( b i g c i t i e s w e r e e a s i l y l o c a t e d ) , PHYSBAR ( c i t i e s r e g i o n - the  Schemas  a n a l y s i s when b a s i c a l l y a l l " m e a n i n g s "  cognition.  s p a c e w e r e shown t o i n f l u e n c e t h e  of the  cognition.  spatial representation.  d i r e c t i o n estimates  i n terms of the  distance  s c h e m a s i n d e e d seem t o h a v e a s i g n i f i c a n t  that  p l i f y i n g mechanisms of s p a t i a l lized  e f f e c t on  analysis.  137 The  approach  (sample s i z e , method of d a t a c o l l e c t i o n ,  type of  produce very  generalized  r e s u l t s and  interpretations.  can  superficial  impressions  and  only  tap  example, a c t i v e knowledge of still  have l i t t l e  individual.  The  be m e a s u r e d a t however, o n l y the  knowledge of  the  l e v e l of  " p o o l e d " and  i s , at  subjects.  times,  difficult  the  s c h e m a and  confidence  or d e t a i l at t h i s  uniform r e s u l t s . the  First,  to see.  The  stage.  Also,  Secondly, t h i s distance  The  how  a t t e n t i o n of  the  How  does t h i s v a r y  interpreted with  the  a t how  specific  time,  saw  how on  r e v e a l how  indepenways  i t d i d not  the  much  fairly  measuring space.  I  really tested  schemas'  spatial  distortion.  spatial relations  The  c r e d i b l e , i t now  a n a l y s i s must be  a p p l i e d at the  during  the  situation:  trip the  has  of to  l e v e l of  the  d i r e c t i n s i g h t .into the'nature  i t v a r i e s from time to time.  subject  with  of  EVALUA e f f e c t s ,  b e e n shown t o be  g a t e w h i c h e l e m e n t s o f a t r i p make i t m o r e o r the  analysis)  cognition i s a s i m p l i f i e d mental reproduction  s p a c e has  i n v e s t i g a t e d i n more d e t a i l .  t h a t e x p e r i e n c e and  be  e f f e c t t h i s had  properly  e x p e r i e n c e o f movement i n s p a c e , p r o v i d i n g of  to  familiarity.  thesis that distance  one's a c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e of be  the  techniques d i d not with  and  s t i m u l i p o i n t s , and  o r g a n i z a t i o n v a r i e d through space w i t h  vary  not  c o g n i t i o n a t one  the  v a r i e d across  organizations  space  i n t e r p r e t e d because  study looked  how  and  of  data  the methodology encouraged  ways o f o r g a n i z i n g  such g e n e r a l i z e d  for metric  we  the  j u d g m e n t s made i n s e r i e s a l w a y s c a r r y r i s k f o r  space i n f l u e n c e d  But  space of  SCHOOL, CULTURE, and  investigate people's various the m e t r i c  For  s i g n i f i c a n c e of p a r t i c u l a r  r o t a t i o n a l e f f e c t s could  observations.  of o r g a n i z i n g  Consequently, the  survey  v a r i a b l e s , but  f o r v a r i a t i o n i n the  a v e r a g e d r e s u l t s c o u l d be  only  information.  a few  customary a c t i v i t y  each i n d i v i d u a l (except  as w e l l as  dence of  the  large scale  indefinite  measured w i t h  quantitative analysis provided  l a r g e number o f  results  s p a c e was  rather  The  data) could  We  need to  less interesting. (eg.  Carr  type of  and  trip,  investi-  Where i s  S c h i s s l e r , 1969)? t h e mode and  frequency  138 of t r a v e l ,  and  t h e s u b j e c t ' s mood?  (Those elements  but mostly not accounted  for i n this  s u b j e c t m o t i v a t e d toward  t h e g o a l and  thesis.)  w e r e i n c l u d e d i n TABLE  In which  i n which,  toward  t a s k o f m o v i n g i n s p a c e more d i v i d e d o r more c o m p l e x ? o t h e r s h a v e t o be The  o f e x p e r i e n c e s h o u l d be  We  need t o u n d e r s t a n d  e x p e r i e n c e of space 1970). bring  Finally, t o be  and how  this  both  relates  insights  The  studies,  approach  adopted  space  i n c l u d i n g t h o s e o f M.  differently.  T.  and generate.  I n g e n e r a l , methods  down a t t h e l e v e l o f  the  the extent of h i s  f o r m s o f a n a l y s i s s h o u l d be  i n this  i n s h a p i n g o u r k n o w l e d g e and  ( 1 9 7 6 ) h a v e shown how  they  t o h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of space  dimension  b u t s u c h a n i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c m o d e l o f man important  of space  the  (eg. P a i l h o u s ,  combined  to  to these questions.  the c u l t u r a l or s o c i a l  studied.  :What makes  A l l these aspects  t h e n a t u r e and  V a r i e d s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n and different  the t r i p ?  studied carefully.  o f o b s e r v a t i o n and e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n s h o u l d be b r o u g h t individual.  circumstances i s the  examined i n r e l a t i o n t o the d i s t o r t i o n s  time dimension  2.1  different  of space  t h e s i s was  cognition largely  mostly p s y c h o l o g i c a l  is restrictive.  S o c i a l forces are  o r g a n i z a t i o n of the world.  Webber ( 1 9 6 4 ) , P.  remains  Orleans  very  Numerous  ( 1 9 7 3 ) , a n d A.  Rapoport  c u l t u r a l g r o u p s p e r c e i v e and c o n c e p t u a l i z e  S h i b u t a n i e x p l a i n s one's p e r s p e c t i v e ,  i s an o r g a n i z e d v i e w o f one's w o r l d , what i s t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d a b o u t t h e a t t r i b u t e s o f o b j e c t s , o f e v e n t s , and o f human n a t u r e . The e n v i r o n m e n t i n w h i c h men l i v e i s a n o r d e r o f t h i n g s r e m e m b e r e d and e x p e c t e d a s w e l l as o f t h i n g s a c t u a l l y p e r c e i v e d . I t i n c l u d e s a s s u m p t i o n s o f what i s p l a u s i b l e and what i s p o s s i b l e . (1962, p.130) C u l t u r e i s t h a t p e r s p e c t i v e on t h e w o r l d s h a r e d b y people. tions,  a particular  Through the shared, taken f o r g r a n t e d w o r l d , the the shared  d e f i n i t i o n of a s i t u a t i o n ,  people are l i k e l y  What b r i n g s a c u l t u r e t o g e t h e r i s i t s  channels.  i n outlook a r i s e through  differential  a s s o c i a t i o n ; the maintenance of s o c i a l d i s t a n c e - through or simply reading d i f f e r e n t cultures"  (Shibutani,  1962,  expecta-  to perceive  and  communication contact  and  segregation, conflict,  l i t e r a t u r e - leads to the f o r m a t i o n of p.134).  of  shared set of  a c t i n a s i m i l a r way. "Variations  group  I f the groups speak d i f f e r e n t  distinctive languages  139  this  can o n l y a c c e n t u a t e  s o c i a l d i s t a n c e and  reinforce identity  t o one  distinct  group. This  research  distances  showed t h a t t h e  t o t h e same p l a c e s  showed t h e  c u l t u r a l groups of E a s t e r n  differently  (CULTURE e f f e c t ) , b u t  e x i s t e n c e of c u l t u r a l b a r r i e r s i n c o g n i t i v e space.  E n g l i s h C a n a d i a n s made t h e most d i s t o r t i o n o f t h e and  both pushed each other  f o r t h e E n g l i s h g r o u p and f o r m e r e f f e c t was To  groups.  m i n o r i t y , we and  away i n s p a c e .  further research  light  of the h i g h  need to i n v e s t i g a t e the  w h a t makes f o r t h e  c u l t u r e s ' a c t i o n s p a c e s , how  view each o t h e r  (attitudes)?  adequate i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the start and  to understand the  cognitive distance.  do  French  group's  the  two  and  stronger  u n i l i n g u a l p l a c e s , whereas the  unilingual  n e e d s t o be  done on  exist  ( i n c l u d i n g the  here).  How  groups i n t e r a c t  and  observed here.  t r u e r e l a t i o n between the  the  places. the  two French  two  groups  economic  e x c l u s i v e are  O n l y w i t h s u c h k n o w l e d g e c o u l d one trends  i t  territory,  l a t t e r e f f e c t was  r e a l d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s of the  d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t do  perceived  above a l l ,  a s s i m i l a t i o n l e v e l of the  d i f f e r e n c e s which have h a r d l y been considered two  other  f o r t h e F r e n c h group and  results,  In the  The  what were the m o s t l y  stronger  understand these  cultural  Ontario  how  do  give  Only then could  concepts of s o c i a l  the they  an one distance  140  Notes CHAPTER I ^ D e t a i l e d r e v i e w s and c r i t i c s o f t h a t r e s e a r c h h a v e b e e n p r o v i d e d by H.C. B r o o k f i e l d , "On t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a s P e r c e i v e d , " i n P r o g r e s s i n G e o g r a p h y , e d s . C. B o a r d e t a l . , v o l . 1 ( L o n d o n : E d w a r d A r n o l d , 1 9 6 9 ) , pp. 5 1 - 8 0 ; T. S a a r i n e n , P e r c e p t i o n o f t h e E n v i r o n m e n t , R e s o u r c e P a p e r No.5 ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : Commiss i o n on C o l l e g e G e o g r a p h y , AAG, 1 9 6 9 ) ; R. Downs, " G e o g r a p h i c S p a c e P e r c e p t i o n : P a s t A p p r o a c h e s a n d F u t u r e P r o s p e c t s , " i n P r o g r e s s i n G e o g r a p h y , e d s . C. B o a r d e t a l . , v o l . 2 ( L o n d o n : 1 9 7 0 ) , p p . 6 5 - 1 0 8 ; R.G. G o l l e d g e e t a l . , " B e h a v i o r a l A p p r o a c h e s i n G e o g r a p h y : A n O v e r v i e w , " The A u s t r a l i a n G e o g r a p h e r , 12 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 5 9 - 7 9 ; P . G o u l d , P e o p l e i n I n f o r m a t i o n . S p a c e : t h e M e n t a l Maps a n d I n f o r m a t i o n S u r f a c e s o f Sweden, L u n d S t u d i e s i n G e o g r a p h y : S e r i e s B ( L u n d , Sweden: R o y a l U n i v e r s i t y o f L u n d P r e s s , 1 9 7 5 ) ; R.M.Downs a n d D . S t e a , Maps i n M i n d s (New Y o r k : H a r p e r a n d Row, 1 9 7 7 ) ; R.M. Downs a n d J . T . M e y e r , " G e o g r a p h y a n d t h e M i n d , " A m e r i c a n B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n t i s t , 2 2 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 5 9 - 7 7 ; T . E . B u n t i n g a n d L . G u e l k e , "Beh a v i o r a l and P e r c e p t i o n Geography," AAAG,69(1979), 448-462. 2 For a few examples o f s u c h s t u d i e s s e e : J . W o l p e r t , " B e h a v i o r a l A s p e c t s of t h e D e c i s i o n t o M i g r a t e , " P a p e r s a n d P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n , 1 5 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 159-169; J . W o l p e r t , " D i s t a n c e and D i r e c t i o n a l B i a s i n I n t e r - U r b a n . M i g r a t o r y S t r e a m s , " AAAG, 5 7 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 6 0 5 - 6 1 5 ; L . B r o w n a n d D . L o n g b r a k e , " M i g r a t i o n F l o w s i n I n t r a - U r b a n S p a c e , " AAAG, 6 0 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 3 6 8 - 3 8 4 ; L. Brown and J.Holmes, " S e a r c h B e h a v i o r i n an I n t r a - U r b a n M i g r a t i o n C o n t e x t , " E n v i r o n m e n t a n d P l a n n i n g , 3 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 3 0 7 - 3 2 6 ; T . H a g e r s t r a n d , The P r o p a g a t i o n o f I n n o v a t i o n Waves , S t u d i e s i n G e o g r a p h y : S e r i e s B, No.4 ( L u n d , Sweden: L u n d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 5 2 ) ; L . A . B r o w n a n d K.R.Cox, " E m p i r i c a l R e g u l a r i t i e s i n t h e D i f f u s i o n o f I n f o r m a t i o n , " AAAG, 6 1 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 5 5 1 - 5 5 9 ; D . H u f f , "A T o p o g r a p h i c M o d e l o f Consumer S p a c e P r e f e r e n c e , " P a p e r s a n d P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n , 6 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 8 1 - 9 0 ; D . M a r b l e , "A T h e o r e t i c a l E x p l a n a t i o n o f I n d i v i d u a l T r a v e l B e h a v i o r , " i n Q u a n t i t a t i v e G e o g r a p h y , P a r t 1, E c o n o m i c a n d C u l t u r a l T o p i c s , e d s . W . G a r r i s o n and D . M a r b l e ( E v a n s t o n , i l l . : N o r t h w e s t e r n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1967), pp.33-53; G.Rushton, " A n a l y s i s of S p a t i a l B e h a v i o r by R e v e a l e d S p a c e P r e f e r e n c e , " AAAG, 5 9 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 3 9 1 - 4 0 0 ; R . G . G o l l e d g e , " C o n c e p t u a l i z i n g the Market D e c i s i o n P r o c e s s , " J o u r n a l of R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e , 7 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 2 3 9 - 2 5 8 ; J . W o l p e r t , "The D e c i s i o n P r o c e s s i n a S p a t i a l C o n t e x t , " AAAG, 5 4 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 5 3 6 - 5 5 8 ; R . G o l l e d g e a n d L . B r o w n , " S e a r c h , L e a r n i n g a n d t h e M a r k e t D e c i s i o n P r o c e s s , " G e o g r a f i s k a A n n a l e r , 49B(1967) , 34-49; P . B u r n e t t , "The D i m e n s i o n s o f A l t e r n a t i v e s i n S p a t i a l C h o i c e P r o c e s s e s , " G e o g r a p h i c a l A n a l y s i s , 5 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 179-204. 3 Note t h a t i n t h i s t h e s i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , image, m e n t a l o r c o g n i t i v e a r e u s e d i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y a l t h o u g h t h e f i r s t two e x p r e s s i o n s a r e p r e f e r r e d . 4 C o g n i t i v e mapping r e f e r s t o the i n d i v i d u a l ' s a b i l i t y to c o l l e c t , manip u l a t e , and o r g a n i z e i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e e n v i r o n m e n t , t h e a b i l i t y t o r e c r e a t e t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f s p a c e when n e e d e d .  map  ~* F o r e x a m p l e , G . W h i t e , C h o i c e o f A d j u s t m e n t t o F l o o d s , R e s e a r c h P a p e r No.93 ( C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o , D e p t . o f G e o g r a p h y , 1 9 6 4 ) ; I . B u r t o n a n d R . K a t e s , "The P e r c e p t i o n o f N a t u r a l H a z a r d s i n R e s o u r c e Managament." Nat u r a l Resources J o u r n a l , 3 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 412-441; T . S a a r i n e n , P e r c e p t i o n of the  141 D r o u g h t H a z a r d o n t h e G r e a t P l a i n s , R e s e a r c h P a p e r No.106 ( C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o , D e p t . o f G e o g r a p h y , 1 9 6 6 ) ; G . W h i t e , e d . , N a t u r a l H a z a r d s (New Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1974). F o r e x a m p l e , D . D e J o n g e , "Images o f U r b a n A r e a s , " J o u r n a l o f t h e A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e o f P l a n n e r s , 2 8 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 266-276; F.C.Ladd, " B l a c k Y o u t h s View t h e i r E n v i r o n m e n t , " E n v i r o n m e n t and B e h a v i o r , 2 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 74-99; D . M e r c e r , " D i s c r e t i o n a r y T r a v e l B e h a v i o r and t h e U r b a n M e n t a l Map," A u s t r a l i a n G e o g r a p h i c a l S t u d i e s , 9 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 1 3 3 - 1 4 3 ; D . P o c o c k , "Some C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f M e n t a l M a p s , " I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h G e o g r a p h e r s , T r a n s a c t i o n s , 6 5 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 4 9 3 - 5 1 2 ; D. P o c o c k , "A Comment on Images D e r i v e d f r o m I n v i t a t i o n - t o - M a p E x e r c i s e s , " The P r o f e s s i o n a l G e o g r a p h e r , 2 8 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 161-165. / F o r e x a m p l e , S . C a r r a n d D . S c h i s s l e r , "The C i t y a s a T r i p , " E n v i r o n m e n t a n d B e h a v i o r , 1 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 7-35; J . P . R o b i n s o n a n d R . H e f n e r , " P e r c e p t u a l Maps o f t h e W o r l d , " P u b l i c O p i n i o n Q u a t e r l y , 3 2 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 2 7 3 - 2 8 0 ; R.E. L l o y d , "A Compar i s o n o f C o g n i t i v e Representations of the States of the U n i t e d S t a t e s , " Proc e e d i n g s o f t h e AAG, 7 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 2 1 - 1 2 6 . -  g F o r e x a m p l e , P . G o u l d , On M e n t a l M a p s , M i c h i g a n I n t e r - U n i v e r s i t y Communit y o f M a t h e m a t i c a l G e o g r a p h e r s , D i s c u s s i o n P a p e r No.9 (Ann A r b o r : U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n , Dept. o f Geography, 1966); P.Gould, " A c q u i r i n g S p a t i a l I n f o r m a t i o n , " E c o n o m i c G e o g r a p h y , 5 1 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 8 7 - 9 9 ; P . G o u l d a n d R . W h i t e , M e n t a l Maps ( H a r m o n d s w o r t h : P e n g u i n , 1974). 9 two  N o t e t h a t t h i s more r e c e n t w o r k w i l l b e r e v i e w e d a t l e n g t h i n t h e n e x t c h a p t e r s ; a l l r e f e r e n c e s can be f o u n d t h e r e .  ^ I s a y " m i g h t i n f l u e n c e " b e c a u s e we s t i l l know v e r y l i t t l e on t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n m e n t a l i m a g e s a n d a c t u a l b e h a v i o r . As T . R . B u n t i n g and L . G u e l k e (1979) p o i n t o u t , v e r y l i t t l e r e s e a r c h has y e t a d d r e s s e d i t s e l f t o t h a t i s s u e ( s t r a n g e l y e n o u g h ) a n d a l l we r e a l l y h a v e a r e c l u e s o f a s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h i s t h e s i s p r o v i d e s no more t h a n " c l u e s " a g a i n , as i t l o o k s a t t h e r o l e o f b e h a v i o r o n i m a g e s , n o t t h e r o l e o f i m a g e s on b e h a v i o r .  CHAPTER I I ^ My m a i n i n t e r e s t h e r e , a s e l s e w h e r e , i s t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , m o s t w r i t e r s do n o t p r o v i d e many comments o r e x p l a n a t i o n s w i t h t h e i r r e s u l t s . T h e r e f o r e , a l l r e m a r k s a r e my own u n l e s s e x p l i c i t l y i n d i c a ted o t h e r w i s e . 2 E m o t i o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t i s . m e a s u r e d as empathy w i t h particular city.  important events i n a  3  What i s l i k e d t e n d s t o be w h a t i s known a n d v i c e v e r s a . B u r g e s s (1978) h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d i n h e r s t u d y o f H u l l , E n g l a n d t h a t t h e m o r e p e o p l e know t h e p l a c e t h e more t h e y have p o s i t i v e v i e w s o f i t . G o u l d ' s numerous s t u d i e s have confirmed these o b s e r v a t i o n s : people's space of p r e f e r e n c e s ( f o r r e s i d e n c e ) i s a l w a y s v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h e i r ' i n f o r m a t i o n s p a c e ' . T u a n ( 1 9 7 7 ) i n s i s t s on t h e f a c t t h a t k n o w l e d g e comes a s a r e s u l t o f e x p e r i e n c e a n d t h a t i t i s a compound o f b o t h t h o u g h t a n d e m o t i o n : " b o t h a r e ways o f k n o w i n g " ( 1 9 7 7 , p p . 8 - 1 0 ) . A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s v i e w k n o w l e d g e i s i n s e p a r a b l e f r o m e m o t i o n s . Many o t h e r w r i t e r s  142 support t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t m e a n i n g s o f p l a c e s ( i m p r e s s i o n s and f e e l i n g s a b o u t a p l a c e ) c a n o n l y be d e r i v e d t h r o u g h t h e a c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e p l a c e a n d i t s p e o p l e ( B e c k , 1967; J a k l e e t a l . , 1976; T u a n , 1 9 7 4 ) . How c o u l d one p o s s i b l y d i s s o c i a t e w h a t i s known and l e a r n e d f r o m w h a t i s f e l t , a s t h i s i s a l l a m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f t h e same e x p e r i e n c e . ^ L o r d ' s s t u d y on s c h o o l c h i l d r e n i n d i c a t e d t h e y h a d a l o c a l " d i r e c t e x p e r i e n c e " schema and b e y o n d t h a t o n l y a v a g u e s e c o n d h a n d k n o w l e d g e o f d i s t a n c e s to c e r t a i n c i t i e s . E x c e p t f o r C a d w a l l a d e r ( 1 9 7 6 ) , who u s e s m i l e , t i m e , a n d r a t i o m e t r i c s , B r i g g s ( 1 9 7 2 , 1976) who u s e s r a t i o and m i l e m e t r i c s , a n d Thompson ( 1 9 6 3 ) who u s e s m i l e and t i m e .  CHAPTER I I I ^ See  reviews  i n Moore (1976),  and  Hart  and  Moore  (1973).  2 T h r o u g h o u t t h i s t h e s i s ' P i a g e t ' w i l l r e f e r t o b o t h t h e man a n d h i s many c o l l a b o r a t o r s i n c l u d i n g B. I n h e l d e r i n t h e f i e l d o f s p a t i a l c o g n i t i o n . 3 See The L a n g u a g e and T h o u g h t i n t h e C h i l d ( 1 9 2 6 ) f o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e e f f e c t s of s o c i a l i z a t i o n . 4 W i t h t h e s e b a s i c m e c h a n i s m s c o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t i s a s s u r e d i n two d i f f e r e n t w a y s . F i r s t l y , a c c o m o d a t o r y a c t s i n h e r e n t l y e x t e n d t o new f e a t u r e s o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t . . As a new e l e m e n t i s a s s i m i l a t e d t o a n e x i s t i n g c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e , t h e e l e m e n t t e n d s t o c h a n g e t h a t s t r u c t u r e ( a c c o m m o d a t i o n ) and t h r o u g h t h i s c h a n g e , make f u r t h e r a c c o m m o d a t o r y e x t e n s i o n s p o s s i b l e . S e c o n d l y , e v e n w i t h o u t e x t e r i o r s t i m u l a t i o n , c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s are never s t a t i c : "systems of meanings a r e c o n s t a n t l y b e c o m i n g r e o r g a n i z e d i n t e r n a l l y , and i n t e g r a t e d w i t h o t h e r s y s tems" ( F l a v e l l , 1963, p p . 4 9 - 5 0 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s , c o g n i t i v e p r o g r e s s i s o n l y v e r y g r a d u a l because the organism can a s s i m i l a t e o n l y those t h i n g s w h i c h p a s t a s s i m i l a t i o n s h a v e made p o s s i b l e t o a s s i m i l a t e . T h e r e m u s t a l r e a d y be a s y s t e m o f m e a n i n g s , a n e x i s t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n , t o make t h e a s s i m i l a t i o n p o s s i b l e . T h u s , a s s i m i l a t i o n i s a c o n s e r v a t i v e p r o c e s s i n t h a t i t r e d u c e s t h e new t o t h e o l d . The s u b j e c t c a n i n c o r p o r a t e o n l y t h o s e c o m p o n e n t s o f r e a l i t y w h i c h i t s o n g o i n g c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e can a s s i m i l a t e w i t h o u t d r a s t i c change. ~* F o r P i a g e t s p a c e c o g n i t i o n ( w h a t he c a l l s t h e i n t u i t i o n o f s p a c e ) h a s a v e r y s p e c i a l s t a t u s . He c o m p a r e s t h e s p a t i o - t e m p o r a l o p e r a t i o n s ( a c t i o n s t h a t t a k e p l a c e i n i m a g i n a t i o n and d e a l i n g w i t h s p a c e ) t o t h e l o g i c o - a r i t h m e t i c a l o p e r a t i o n s ( i n t e r n a l i z e d a c t i o n s r e q u i r e d f o r l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g ) : the l a t t e r d e a l s w i t h t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n d i s c r e t e o b j e c t s w h i l e t h e f o r m e r d e a l s o n l y w i t h v a r i o u s p a r t s o f t h e same o b j e c t . T h e r e f o r e , s p a c e i s c o n c e i v e d as a u n i q u e s c h e m a ( s e q u e n c e o f m e n t a l a c t i o n s ) , c o m p r i s i n g , i n one b l o c k , a l l a d j o i n i n g elements regrouped i n terms of t h e i r p r o x i m i t y , w h i l e a l o g i c a l c l a s s c o n s i s t s of d i s c r e t e elements regrouped f o r t h e i r s i m i l a r i t i e s independently of t h e i r d i s t a n c e s i n space or time. I n the case of s p a t i a l i n t u i t i o n , t h e image i s a v e r y u s e f u l a u x i l i a r y t o t h o u g h t ; s p a c e i s t h i s u n i q u e o b j e c t , a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e i m a g e . I n t h e c a s e o f l o g i c a l o p e r a t i o n s , t h e i m a g e c a n o n l y r e p r e s e n t p a r t o f t h e w h o l e , and i s t h u s v e r y i n a d e q u a t e as a s y m b o l i c . d e v i c e . The s i g n s y s t e m s o f b o t h common and m a t h e m a t i c a l languages  143 a r e more h e l p f u l h e r e  ( P i a g e t and  Inhelder,  1956,  pp.456-459).  The f i r s t l e v e l o f s p a t i a l i n t u i t i o n r e q u i r e s o n l y t h e s i m p l e s t c o o r d i n a t i o n s o f a c t i o n s , l i k e f o l l o w i n g a c o n t o u r , s u r r o u n d i n g , s e p a r a t i n g , and s o on. O n l y s u c h t o p o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s as o p e n n e s s o r c l o s u r e , p r o x i m i t y and s e p a r a t i o n a r e a p p l i e d . W i t h s t a g e 2 ( p r o j e c t i v e ) , a c t i o n s o f e q u a l i z a t i o n , a s w e l l as t h e d i r e c t i o n o f movement, and t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n movements become i m p o r t a n t w a y s o f d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n s t r a i g h t and c u r v e d l i n e s , a n g l e s o f d i f f e r e n t s i z e s , p a r a l l e l s , and t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n e q u a l o r u n e q u a l l e n g t h s o r d i s t a n c e s . A t the e u c l i d e a n l e v e l , space i s organized i n t o a system of axes of r e f e r e n c e . The act of r e t u r n , t o a f i x e d p o i n t of r e f e r e n c e ( c h a r a c t e r i s t i c at t h a t l e v e l ) necess a r y f o r t h e r e c o g n i t i o n and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f s h a p e s and s p a c e i n g e n e r a l i s , once a g a i n , a c l e a r example of the c o n n e c t i o n between r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n , and c o o r d i n a t e d a c t i o n s ( P i a g e t and I n h e l d e r , 1956, p . 4 3 ) . ^ P i a g e t s e e s t h e s y m b o l i c i m a g e as a s i g n i f i e r b e t w e e n t h e i n d e x (aspect o f o b j e c t o r s i t u a t i o n w h i c h h e l p s s e n s o r i - m o t o r a d a p t a t i o n ) and t h e s i g n ( d i s t i n c t s i g n i f i e r of language system): The i m a g e i s t h e r e f o r e a s c h e m a w h i c h h a s a l r e a d y b e e n a c c o m m o d a t e d and i s now u s e d i n p r e s e n t a s s i m i l a t i o n s , w h i c h a r e a l s o i n t e r i o r i s e d , as " s i g n i f i e r " f o r t h e s e " s i g n i f i e d " . The i m a g e i s t h e r e f o r e a d i f f e r e n t i a t e d s i g n i f i e r , more s o t h a n t h e i n d e x s i n c e i t i s d e t a c h e d f r o m t h e p e r c e i v e d o b j e c t ( o n l y a n i m i t a t i o n ) , b u t l e s s so t h a n t h e s i g n , s i n c e i t i s s t i l l i m i t a t i o n o f t h e o b j e c t , and t h e r e f o r e i s a " m o t i v a t e d " s i g n , as d i s t i n c t from v e r b a l s i g n s w h i c h a r e " a r b i t r a r y " . M o r e o v e r , the image i s a s i g n i f i er which i s w i t h i n the scope of i n d i v i d u a l thought, w h i l e the pure s i g n i s a l w a y s s o c i a l ( P i a g e t , 1962, p . 1 6 3 ) ( p a r e n t h e s i s m i n e ) . g  F o r m o r e on  this  theme s e e  T u a n , "Images and  M e n t a l Maps,"  1975.  9 M i l g r a m ( 1 9 7 6 ) f o u n d t h a t t h e S e i n e was a m a j o r e l e m e n t o f t h e m e n t a l maps o f P a r i s and D e J o n g e ( 1 9 6 2 ) f o u n d t h a t A m s t e r d a m , w i t h i t s u n i q u e s t r u c t u r e ( i . e . r i v e r , c a n a l s and r a d i a l s t r e e t p a t t e r n ) , p r o d u c e d t h e s t r o n g e s t and c l e a r e s t i m a g e , e v e n i f i t was t h e f a r t h e s t o f a g r o u p o f n i n e D u t c h c i t i e s . ^ Not t o be larities exist.  confused with  t h e m e n t a l schemas o f P i a g e t  although  some s i m i -  ^ E v i d e n c e f r o m a u d i t o r y , t a s t e , and v i s i o n e x p e r i m e n t s showed t h a t t h e s p a n o f a b s o l u t e j u d g m e n t (amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n one c a n g i v e a b o u t t h e s t i m u l u s ) and t h e s p a n o f i m m e d i a t e memory a r e l i m i t e d t o a b o u t s e v e n p i e c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n ( M i l l e r , 1 9 5 6 ) . B u t man u s e s v a r i o u s t e c h n i q u e s t o i n c r e a s e h i s p e r c e p t u a l c a p a c i t i e s . One t e c h n i q u e i n v o l v e s o r g a n i z i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t o u n i t s o r c h u n k s w h i c h c o n t a i n and s t a n d f o r a c e r t a i n amount o f t h e o r i g i n a l . F o r i n s t a n c e , l e t t e r s a r e remembered i f g r o u p e d i n t o w o r d s , and w o r d s i n t o p h r a s e s . The l o c a t i o n o f d o t s i s e a s y t o remember i f p a t t e r n s c a n be r e c o g n i z e d . E x p e r i m e n t s on t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f c h e s s b o a r d a r r a n g e m e n t s a r e v e r y r e v e a l i n g : t h e n o v i c e s e e s t h e l a y o u t a s a l a r g e number o f i n d e p e n d e n t p i e c e s w h i l e t h e c h e s s m a s t e r s app e a r t o g r a s p the. s i t u a t i o n i n a n i n s t a n t : The m a s t e r ' s c h u n k s w e r e n o t o n l y p a t t e r n s o f a d j a c e n t p i e c e s : He s o m e t i m e s t r e a t e d as a s i n g l e u n i t c o n f i g u r a t i o n s o f c h e s s m e n t h a t w e r e r e l a t e d t o e a c h o t h e r o n l y b y t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y w e r e c o n v e r g i n g i n a t t a c k on some v u l n e r a b l e p i e c e . The m a s t e r ' s s u p e r i o r i t y d i s a p p e a r e d when a r r a n g e m e n t s o f c h e s s m e n on t h e s t i m u l u s b o a r d w e r e r a n d o m , and n o t a c t u a l c h e s s p o s i t i o n s . ( H o c h b e r g , 1968, p . 1 8 5 )  144 A l t h o u g h p e r c e p t i v e a n d memory c a p a c i t i e s a r e q u i t e s t a b l e (7 +/-2 p i e c e s of i n f o r m a t i o n ) , e n c o d i n g speed and chunk s i z e v a r y w i t h t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e s u b j e c t and h i s k n o w l e d g e o f t h e s i t u a t i o n . Word s y m b o l i s m and i m a g e r y a r e t h e m o s t common ways o f c h u n k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . T h u s , t h e p a r a l l e l s we c a n d r a w b e t w e e n c h u n k i n g t h e o r y a n d t h e d i s c u s s i o n on c o m p a r t m e n t a l i z a t i o n o f s p a c e a r e s t r i k i n g . 12  See  a l s o B e c k ( 1 9 6 7 ) f o r c o n f i r m i n g i d e a s on t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f  spatial  meaning. 13 M o s t l y h i s e x p e r i m e n t s on c h i l d r e n ' s k n o w l e d g e o f t h e e v e r y d a y l a r g e s c a l e e n v i r o n m e n t ( P i a g e t , I n h e l d e r a n d S z e m i n s k a , 1960, c h a p t e r 1 ) , and h i s e x p e r i m e n t s o n t h e m o d e l o f t h e v i l l a g e ( P i a g e t a n d I n h e l d e r , 1956, c h a p t e r 1 4 ) . 14 This d i s t i n c t i o n i s i l l u s t r a t e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t types of l i n e s i n F i g u r e s 2 and 3. See P i a g e t ' s e x a m p l e s o f how h i s c h i l d r e n s u b d i v i d e d t h e i r environment i n t o v a r i o u s s u b - a c t i o n s p a c e s , 1960, p p . 1 5 - 1 9 . G o l l e d g e e t a l . ( 1 9 7 6 ) , B r i g g s ( 1 9 7 3 ) and S t e a ( 1 9 6 9 , 1 9 7 6 ) a l s o s u p p o r t that position. 1 5  16 F o r a g e n e r a l d i s c u s s i o n of meaning o r sense of p l a c e see f o r i n s t a n c e : T u a n ( 1 9 7 4 , 1 9 7 7 ) , and R e l p h ( 1 9 7 6 ) ; f o r a n e m p i r i c a l s t u d y o f t h e r o l e o f mean i n g i n t h e i m a g e s e e H a r r i s o n and H o w a r d ( 1 9 7 2 ) .  CHAPTER I V ^ P o p u l a t i o n f i g u r e s from  1976  Canada Census.  2 was  Twenty-two s t i m u l i p o i n t s were used not a s t i m u l u s p o i n t .  1976;  i n the cases where the sample p o i n t  3  4  S i m i l a r procedures have proven q u i t e r e l i a b l e H a r r i s o n , 1976; B r a t f i s c h , 1 9 6 9 ) .  i n the past  (Golledge et a l . ,  The c a t e g o r i e s o f t h i s v a r i a b l e ( V I S I T 2) a r e : ( 1 ) a t l e a s t o n c e a weak, (2) a t l e a s t o n c e a m o n t h , ( 3 ) a t l e a s t o n c e a y e a r , (4) l i k e r o a d t o , (5) t y p e s (1) o r (2) r o a d s n e a r b y t h e s t i m u l i p o i n t s , ( 6 ) t y p e s (3) o r ( 4 ) n e a r b y , (7) no r e l a t i o n t o any o f t h o s e r o a d s ( i . e . n e v e r v i s i t e d ) . ^ T h o s e " r e a s o n s " w e r e c l a s s i f i e d a n d c o d e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way: ( 0 ) no r e a s o n s , ( 1 ) s i z e , ( 2 ) l a n g u a g e , ( 3 ) s p a t i a l (same a r e a o r d i s t a n c e ) , (4) k n o w l e d g e ( a c t i v i t y t h e r e ) , ( 5 ) m e a n i n g ( a p p r a i s i v e o r a f f e c t i v e r e a s o n s ) , ( 6 ) f u n c t i o n , (7) p o l i t i c a l , ( 8 ) c h a r a c t e r o f p l a c e , (9) o t h e r ( s p o r t t e a m s , t y p e o f p e o p l e , r i v a l r y between p l a c e s , e t c . ) . T h i s a n a l y s i s was c r i t i c i z e d f o r i m p o s i n g a s p a t i a l s t r u c t u r e on a s p a t i a l d a t a ( p r e f e r e n c e s , s i m i l a r i t i e s ) t o i n f e r c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t t h e m i n d (Harman and B e t a k , 1976; G o u l d , 1976; G o o d c h i l d , 1 9 7 6 ) . I l a r g e l y e s c a p e t h i s c r i t i c i s m as my d a t a i s o f a s p a t i a l n a t u r e ( d i s t a n c e e s t i m a t e s ) a n d t h e t e c h n i q u e was u s e d a s a mapping d e v i c e o n l y . F o r more d e t a i l s  on t h i s a n a l y s i s s e e A n d e r b e r g ,  1973,  and  Gower,  1976.  145 CHAPTER V Results for Ottawa show that subjects did just as well on any of the three estimates and that this c i t y produced the least error (mostly f o r r e l a tive e r r o r ) . This confirms the fact that the distance to Ottawa i s the best ' known distance of the region and should thus be used as index. 2 This i s confirmed i n section 5.2.2 where I look at the relationship between distance and error. 3 TABLES 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 show c l e a r l y that the mile estimate was done i n accordance with the route distance as required on the questionnaire. Also, a l though the r a t i o estimate i s always the most accurate, we can see that the means of the mile and time estimates are r e l a t i v e l y close to those of the r a t i o estimate and the standard deviations of the time estimate i n p a r t i c u l a r are very close to those of the time r a t i o estimate. Therefore, the mile and time estimates seem to express route distances i n a very adequate way. 4 Note that always I w i l l be talking of underestimation or overestimation r e l a t i v e to the mean signed error and not r e l a t i v e to an absolute zero. Since there i s a general tendency f o r true overestimation i n my data, an underestimation may actually mean a r e l a t i v e l y small overestimation i n comparison to the much larger ones of the end of the scale. 5 No s t a t i s t i c a l test of the relations could be used as both the tests of significance f o r tau b and chi-square f a i l e d to discriminate between the importance of the various relations (probably because of large N since these analyses cannot be done at i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l ) . F tests of the slopes of control factor A are non-significant f o r those variables: the F probability figures are, for VISIT 1 (.3160) f o r ZMCROWER, (.2883) for ZMTIMER, (.5900) for ZAMCROWER and (.5207) f o r ZAMTIMER, for VISIT2 i n the same order of errors, (.5059),(.5442), (.8358), (.9325), f o r EVALUA, (.5525), (.1784), (.9709), (v.9276), and f o r SIZE the e f f e c t i s constant only i n the case of the crow estimate, (.8962), (.0498), (.9918), (.0010) which shows that the more refined time estimate i s less l i k e l y to be regularly influenced by the SIZE factor. ^ Note that the point configurations of those representations come from smallest-space analyses (SSA-1 of Guttman-Lingoes) of the s i m i l a r i t y index whereas the actual regroupings i d e n t i f i e d come from the cluster analyses of the index. g  This time, the point configuration comes from the " r e a l " map of the region. 9  Note that the aggregate representations of the other schools are not i n cluded i n the thesis because they do not r e a l l y provide additional interesting information. ^ Note that f o r these last "all-encompassing" analyses the c r i t i c a l l e v e l has been r i s e n s l i g h t l y (approx. 0.10). Those tests are considered very conservative since so many control variables are introduced. ^  The following " c u l t u r a l groups" were established: (1) Williamstown and  146 N o r t h Dundas a s t h e E n g l i s h s c h o o l s , ( 2 ) C a s s e l m a n , Embrun a n d P l a n t a g e n e t a s the French s c h o o l s , (3) Vankleek H i l l and Hawkesbury as b i l i n g u a l s c h o o l s , and (4) C o r n w a l l a n d A l e x a n d r i a a s b i l i n g u a l s c h o o l s w h e r e t h e F r e n c h i s p r o b a b l y more t h r e a t e n e d . 12 In the f o l l o w i n g t e s t s t h e a b s o l u t e e r r o r o f d i r e c t i o n e s t i m a t i o n i s used as dependent v a r i a b l e . Because o f t h e format o f t h e e x e r c i s e t h e e s t i m a t e s of each s u b j e c t a r e n o t r e a l l y independent o f each o t h e r . T h i s problem i s p a r t l y t a k e n c a r e o f s i n c e t h e a n a l y s e s a r e done a t t h e l e v e l o f e a c h i n d i v i d u a l ; t h e d e v i a t i o n s f r o m t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s means a r e a n a l y s e d , n o t t h e d e v i a t i o n s f r o m a g r a n d mean. 13 T h i s s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d as an i n d i c a t i o n o n l y s i n c e t h e CROWDIST o b s e r v a t i o n s c a n n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d i n d e p e n d e n t o f e a c h o t h e r . 14 F o r e a c h p o i n t ( 1 ) t h e c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l o f t h e mean d i s t a n c e e s t i m a t e (d) was c a l c u l a t e d ( d + / - t ,*SEj w h e r e S E j i s t h e s t a n d a r d e r r o r o f d) a n d ( 2 ) n- i d d t h e c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l o f t h e mean d i r e c t i o n e s t i m a t e ( 9 ) was c a l c u l a t e d ( 9 +/t _ _ * S E ) . B o t h i n t e r v a l s w e r e e s t a b l i s h e d on t h e b a s i s o f a 2 - t a i l e d t t e s t a t i  1  5  a l e v e l o f .9746 s o t h a t c o m b i n e d t h e y w o u l d p r o d u c e t h e 9 5 % c o n f i d e n c e each l o c a t i o n .  zone o f  Bibliography  A n d e r b e r g , M.R. Cluster Analysis for Applications. P r e s s , 1973. A p p l e y a r d , D. "Why B u i l d i n g s A r e Known." ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 131-56.  New  Environment  York:  Academic  and B e h a v i o r , 1  " S t y l e s and Methods o f S t r u c t u r i n g a C i t y . " and B e h a v i o r , 2 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 100-17.  Environment  . "Notes on Urban P e r c e p t i o n and Knowledge." I n Image a n d Environment. E d . R.M. Downs a n d D. S t e a . C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 1 9 7 3 , pp. 1 0 9 - 1 4 . , K. L y n c h a n d J.R. M a s s . : MIT P r e s s , 1964. B e a r d , R.M. 1969. Beck,  Meyer.  The V i e w F r o m t h e R o a d .  P i a g e t ' s Developmental Psychology.  New  York:  Cambridge,  A Mentor  Book,  R. " S p a t i a l M e a n i n g and t h e P r o p e r t i e s o f t h e E n v i r o n m e n t . " In E n v i r o n m e n t a l P e r c e p t i o n a n d B e h a v i o r . Ed. D. L o w e n t h a l . Dept. of G e o g r a p h y R e s o u r c e P a p e r No. 109. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago P r e s s , 1 9 6 7 , pp. 1 8 - 4 1 . , a n d D. Wood. " C o g n i t i v e T r a n s f o r m a t i o n of I n f o r m a t i o n from Urban G e o g r a p h i c F i e l d s t o M e n t a l Maps." E n v i r o n m e n t and B e h a v i o r , 8 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 199-238. " C o m p a r a t i v e D e v e l o p m e n t a l A n a l y s i s o f I n d i v i d u a l and A g g r e g a t e d C o g n i t i v e Maps o f L o n d o n . " I n E n v i r o n m e n t a l K n o w i n g . Ed. G.T. M o o r e and R.G. G o l l e d g e . S t r o u d s b u r g , P e n n . : Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n a n d R o s s , 1 9 7 6 , pp. 1 7 3 - 1 8 4 .  B l a u t , J.M., G.F. M c C l e a r y and A.S. B l a u t . " E n v i r o n m e n t a l Mapping i n Young C h i l d r e n . " E n v i r o n m e n t and B e h a v i o r , 2 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 335-49. Bloombaum, M. "Doing S m a l l e s t Space A n a l y s i s . " R e s o l u t i o n , 1 4 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 409-16. B o u l d i n g , K.E.  The  Image.  The  J o u r n a l of  Conflict  Ann A r b o r : The U n i v . o f M i c h i g a n P r e s s ,  1956.  B r a t f i s c h , 0. "A F u r t h e r S t u d y o f t h e R e l a t i o n B e t w e e n S u b j e c t i v e D i s t a n c e and E m o t i o n a l I n v o l v e m e n t . " A c t a P s y c h o l o g i c a , 2 9 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 244-55.  148 B r e n n a n , T.  Midland  City.  London: Dobson,  1948.  B r i g g s , R. " C o g n i t i v e D i s t a n c e i n Urban Space." U n i v e r s i t y 1972.  Diss.  The  Ohio S t a t e  "On t h e R e l a t i o n s h i p B e t w e e n C o g n i t i v e a n d O b j e c t i v e D i s t a n c e . " In Environmental Design Research. E d . W.F.E. P r e i s e r . V o l . 2. S t r o u d s b u r g , P e n n . : Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and R o s s , 1 9 7 3 a , p p . 1 8 6 - 9 2 .  R.M.  • " U r b a n C o g n i t i v e D i s t a n c e . " I n Image and E n v i r o n m e n t . Downs a n d D. S t e a . C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 1 9 7 3 b , pp. 3 6 1 - 8 8 .  Ed.  " M e t h o d o l o g i e s f o r the Measurement of C o g n i t i v e D i s t a n c e . " I n E n v i r o n m e n t a l Knowing. E d . G.T. M o o r e and R.G. G o l l e d g e . Stroudsburg. P e n n . : Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n a n d R o s s , 1976, p p . 3 2 5 - 3 4 . B r o w n , W. " S p a t i a l I n t e g r a t i o n i n Human M a z e . " U n i v e r s i t y P u b l i c a t i o n s i n P s y c h o l o g y , 5 (1932), 123-34. B r u n e t , R. " L a N o t i o n de Q u a r t i e r R u r a l . " B u l l e t i n de Geographes F r a n c a i s . A p r i l 1968, 115-23.  of  California  l'Association  des  "Le Q u a r t i e r R u r a l , S t r u c t u r e R e g i o n a l e . " Revue G e o g r a p h i q u e d e s P y r e n e e s e t du S u d - O u e s t , Tome 4 0 , F a s c . 1 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 8 1 - 1 0 0 . Buckman, I . "The M e t r i c s o f P s y c h o l o g i c a l S p a c e : An B r o w n U n i v e r s i t y 1966.  Experiment."  Diss.  B u n t i n g , T.E. and L. G u e l k e . " B e h a v i o r a l and P e r c e p t i o n G e o g r a p h y : Critical Appraisal." AAAG, 69 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 4 4 8 - 6 2 . Burgess,  J.A.  " S t e r e o t y p e s and U r b a n Images."  Area,  A  6 (1974), 1 6 7 - 7 1 .  . Image and I d e n t i t y : A S t u d y o f U r b a n and R e g i o n a l P e r c e p t i o n w i t h P a r t i c u l a r R e f e r e n c e t o K i n g s t o n Upon H u l l . Dept. of Geography O c c a s i o n a l P a p e r s No. 23. H u l l , E n g l a n d : U n i v . o f H u l l , 1978. B u r n e t t , P. "The D i m e n s i o n s o f A l t e r n a t i v e s i n S p a t i a l C h o i c e G e o g r a p h i c a l A n a l y s i s , 5 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 179-204.  Processes."  T i m e C o g n i t i o n a n d i t s M o d e l l i n g and P o l i c y I m p l i c a t i o n s . Dept. of Geography P u b l i c a t i o n . A u s t i n : Univ. of Texas, 1974. " B e h a v i o r a l G e o g r a p h y and t h e P h i l o s o p h y o f M i n d . " In Spatial C h o i c e and S p a t i a l B e h a v i o r . E d . R.G. G o l l e d g e and G. R u s h t o n . Columbus: O h i o S t a t e U n i v . P r e s s , 1976, pp. 23-50. C a d w a l l a d e r , M.T. "A M e t h o d o l o g i c a l E x a m i n a t i o n o f C o g n i t i v e D i s t a n c e . " I n Environmental Design Research. Ed. W.F.E. P r e i s e r . V o l . 2. S t r o u d s b u r g , P e n n . : Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and R o s s , 1 9 7 3 , pp. 1 9 3 - 9 9 . . " C o g n i t i v e D i s t a n c e i n I n t r a u r b a n Space." In Environmental Knowing. Ed. G.T. M o o r e and R.G. G o l l e d g e . S t r o u d s b u r g , Penn.: Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and R o s s , 1 9 7 6 , pp. 3 1 6 - 2 4 .  149 C a n t e r , D. and S.K. T a g g . "Distance Estimation i n C i t i e s . " and B e h a v i o r , 7 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 59-80. C a r r , S. and D. 1 (1969),  Schissler. 7-35.  "The  C i t y as a T r i p . "  Environment  E n v i r o n m e n t and  Behavior,  C a r t w r i g h t , D.G. " I n s t i t u t i o n s on t h e F r o n t i e r : F r e n c h C a n a d i a n S e t t l e m e n t i n E a s t e r n O n t a r i o i n the Nineteenth Century." Canadian Geographer, 21 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1-21. Casamajor, J . "Le M y s t e r i e u x S e n s de ( 1 9 2 7 ) , 554-65. Cox,  De  l'Espace."  Revue S c i e n t i f i q u e ,  65  K.R. a n d G. Z a n n a r a s . " D e s i g n a t i v e P e r c e p t i o n s of Macro-Spaces: C o n c e p t s , a M e t h o d o l o g y , and A p p l i c a t i o n s : " I n Image and Environment. Ed. R.M. Downs a n d D. S t e a . C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 1 9 7 3 , pp. 1 6 2 - 7 8 .  J o n g e , D. "Images o f U r b a n A r e a s : T h e i r S t r u c t u r e and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Foundations." J o u r n a l o f t h e A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e o f P l a n n e r s , 28 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 266-72.  D e v l i n , A.S. "The ' S m a l l Town' C o g n i t i v e Map: A d j u s t i n g t o a New E n v i r o n ment." I n E n v i r o n m e n t a l Knowing. Ed. G.T. M o o r e and R.G. Golledge. S t r o u d s b u r g , P e n n . : Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and R o s s , 1 9 7 6 , p p . 5 8 - 6 6 . Downs, R.M. " C o g n i t i v e M a p p i n g and I n f o r m a t i o n P r o c e s s i n g : A Commentary." In Environmental Knowing. Ed. G.T. M o o r e and R.G. G o l l e d g e . Stroudsburg. P e n n . : Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and R o s s , 1 9 7 6 , pp. 6 7 - 7 0 . , and J.T. Meyer. " G e o g r a p h y and S c i e n t i s t , 22 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 5 9 - 7 7 .  the Mind."  American B e h a v i o r a l  , and D. S t e a . " C o g n i t i v e Maps and S p a t i a l B e h a v i o r : P r o c e s s and P r o d u c t s . " I n Image and E n v i r o n m e n t . Ed. R.M. Downs and D. S t e a . C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 1 9 7 3 , pp. 8-26. . Maps i n M i n d s : H a r p e r a n d Row, 1977.  R e f l e c t i o n s on C o g n i t i v e M a p p i n g .  New  York:  Ekman, G. a n d 0. B r a t f i s c h . " S u b j e c t i v e D i s t a n c e and E m o t i o n a l I n v o l v e m e n t : A P s y c h o l o g i c a l M e c h a n i s m . " A c t a P s y c h o l o g i c a , 24 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 430-37. E v e r i t t , J.C. 104-116.  "Community and  Propinquity i n a City."  F l a v e l l , J.H. The D e v e l o p m e n t a l D. V a n N o s t r a n d , 1963.  Psychology  AAAG, 66  of Jean P i a g e t .  (1976),  Toronto:  F r a i s s e , P. " P e r c e p t i o n e t E s t i m a t i o n d u Temps." I n T r a i t e de P s y c h o l o g i e Experimentale. Ed. P. F r a i s s e a n d J . P i a g e t . F a s c . 6. Paris: P r e s s e s U n i v e r s i t a i r e s de F r a n c e , 1 9 6 3 , pp. 6 7 - 1 1 2 .  150 F r a n c e s c a t o , D. and W. Mebane. "How C i t i z e n s V i e w Two G r e a t C i t i e s : M i l a n and Rome." I n Image and E n v i r o n m e n t . Ed. R.M. Downs and D. S t e a . C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 1 9 7 3 , pp. 1 3 1 - 4 7 . G e o r g e , D.L. "Frame D e p e n d e n c e i n D i r e c t i o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n . " In Environmental Design Research. Ed. W.F.E. P r e i s e r . V o l . 2. Stroudsburg, Penn.: Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and R o s s , 1 9 7 3 , pp. 2 0 7 - 1 3 . G i b s o n , E. "Understanding the S u b j e c t i v e Meaning of P l a c e s . " I n Humanistic Geography. Ed. D. L e y and M.S. Samuels. Chicago: Maaroufa P r e s s , 1 9 7 8 , pp. 1 3 8 - 1 5 4 . G o l l e d g e , R.G. "The G e o g r a p h i c a l R e l e v a n c e o f Some L e a r n i n g T h e o r i e s . " I n B e h a v i o r a l P r o b l e m s i n G e o g r a p h y : A Symposium. Ed. K.R. Cox and R.G. G o l l e d g e . Northwestern Univ. S t u d i e s i n Geography. Evanston: N o r t h w e s t e r n U n i v . P r e s s , 1969, pp. 1 0 1 - 4 5 . , " M e t h o d s and M e t h o d o l o g i c a l I s s u e s i n E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o g n i t i o n Research." I n Environmental Knowing. Ed. G.T. M o o r e and R.G. Golledge. S t r o u d s b u r g , P e n n . : Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and R o s s , 1 9 7 6 , pp. 3 0 0 - 1 4 . , R. B r i g g s a n d D. Demko. Intra-Urban Space." Proceedings  "The C o n f i g u r a t i o n o f D i s t a n c e s o f AAG, 1 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 6 0 - 6 5 .  in  , L.A. B r o w n and F. W i l l i a m s o n . " B e h a v i o u r a l Approaches i n G e o g r a p h y : An O v e r v i e w . " The A u s t r a l i a n G e o g r a p h e r , 12 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 5 9 - 7 9 . , V . L . R i v i z z i g n o a n d A. S p e c t o r . " L e a r n i n g About a C i t y A n a l y s i s by M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l S c a l i n g . " I n S p a t i a l C h o i c e and S p a t i a l Behavior. Ed. R.G. G o l l e d g e and G. R u s h t o n . Columbus: Ohio S t a t e U n i v . P r e s s , 1976, pp. 9 5 - 1 1 6 . , a n d G. Z a n n a r a s . " C o g n i t i v e Approaches to S p a t i a l Behavior." I n E n v i r o n m e n t and C o g n i t i o n . Ed. W.H. Ittelson. New Y o r k : S e m i n a r P r e s s , 1 9 7 3 , pp. 5 9 - 9 2 . G o o d c h i l d , M.F. " P e r c e p t i o n , P r e f e r e n c e , and Geometry: A Commentary." I n S p a t i a l C h o i c e and S p a t i a l B e h a v i o r . Ed. R.G. G o l l e d g e and G. R u s h t o n . C o l u m b u s : O h i o S t a t e U n i v . P r e s s , 1976, pp. 1 7 9 - 1 9 0 . G o u l d , P.R. and D.  "On M e n t a l M a p s . " I n Image a n d E n v i r o n m e n t . Stea. C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 1 9 7 3 , pp. 1 8 2 - 2 2 0 .  Ed.  R.M.  . "The B l a c k B o x e s o f J o n k o p i n g : S p a t i a l I n f o r m a t i o n and ence." I n Image and E n v i r o n m e n t . Ed. R.M. Downs and D. S t e a . C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 1 9 7 3 , pp. 2 3 5 - 4 5 .  51  "Acquiring Spatial Information." (1975a), 87-99.  Downs  Prefer-  Economic Geography,  . People i n I n f o r m a t i o n Space: The M e n t a l Maps and S u r f a c e s o f Sweden. L u n d S t u d i e s i n G e o g r a p h y : S e r i e s B. Sweden: R o y a l U n i v . o f L u n d P r e s s , 1 9 7 5 b .  Information Lund,  151 . " C u l t i v a t i n g t h e G a r d e n : A Commentary a n d C r i t i q u e o n Some Multidimensional Speculations." I n S p a t i a l Choice and S p a t i a l Behavior. E d . R.G. G o l l e d g e a n d G. R u s h t o n . Columbus: Ohio S t a t e U n i v . P r e s s , 1976, pp. 83-94.  and  , a n d N. L a f o n d . Ontario." Cahiers , a n d R. W h i t e .  " M e n t a l Maps a n d I n f o r m a t i o n S u r f a c e s i n Quebec d e G e o g r a p h i e d u Q u e b e c , 23 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 3 7 1 - 9 8 . M e n t a l Maps.  Harmondsworth, England: P e l i c a n ,  1974. Gower, J . C . "A C o m p a r i s o n o f Some M e t h o d s o f C l u s t e r A n a l y s i s . " Dec. 1 9 7 6 , 6 2 3 - 3 7 . G r i f f i n , D.R. "Topographical R.M. Downs a n d D. S t e a .  O r i e n t a t i o n . " I n Image a n d E n v i r o n m e n t . C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 1973, pp. 296-99.  G u l i k , J . "Images o f a n A r a b C i t y . " J o u r n a l of the American of Planners, 29 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 1 7 9 - 9 8 . G u l l i v e r , F.P. 55-58.  Biometrics,  " O r i e n t a t i o n o f Maps."  Ed.  Institute  The J o u r n a l o f G e o g r a p h y , 7  (1908),  G u t t m a n , L. "A G e n e r a l N o n m e t r i c T e c h n i q u e f o r F i n d i n g t h e S m a l l e s t C o o r d i n a t e S p a c e f o r a C o n f i g u r a t i o n o f P o i n t s . " P s y c h o m e t r i k a , 33 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 469-506. H a n d e l , S., C.B. D e S o t o a n d M. L o n d o n . "Reasoning and S p a t i a l R e p r e s e n t a tions." J o u r n a l o f V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , 7 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 351-57. H a n s o n , S. " S p a t i a l V a r i a t i o n i n t h e C o g n i t i v e L e v e l s o f U r b a n R e s i d e n t s . " I n S p a t i a l C h o i c e and S p a t i a l B e h a v i o r . E d . R.G. G o l l e d g e a n d G. R u s h t o n . Columbus: Ohio S t a t e U n i v . P r e s s , 1976, pp. 157-78. Harman, E . J . and J . F . B e t a k . " B e h a v i o r a l Geography, M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l S c a l i n g , and t h e Mind." I n S p a t i a l C h o i c e and S p a t i a l B e h a v i o r . R.G. G o l l e d g e a n d G. R u s h t o n . Columbus: Ohio S t a t e Univ. P r e s s , 1976, p p . 3-22.  Ed.  H a r r i s o n , J.D. a n d W.A. H o w a r d . "The R o l e o f M e a n i n g i n t h e U r b a n I m a g e . " Environment and B e h a v i o r , 4 (1972), 389-411. , a n d P. S a r r e . " P e r s o n a l C o n s t r u c t Theory i n t h e Measurement o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l Images: P r o b l e m s and M e t h o d s . " Environment and B e h a v i o r , 3 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 351-74. H a r t , R. A.  Children's Experience  of Place.  New Y o r k : I r v i n g t o n , 1 9 7 9 .  , a n d G.T. M o o r e . "The D e v e l o p m e n t o f S p a t i a l C o g n i t i o n : A Review." I n Image a n d E n v i r o n m e n t . E d . R.M. Downs a n d D. S t e a . C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 1973, pp. 246-88. Hochberg, J.E. P e r c e p t i o n .  Englewood C l i f f s :  P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1968.  H o w a r d , R.B., S.D. C h a s e a n d M. R o t h m a n . "An A n a l y s i s o f F o u r M e a s u r e s of C o g n i t i v e Maps." I n Environmental Design Research. V o l . 1. Ed. W.F.E. P r e i s e r . S t r o u d s b u r g , P e n n . : Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n a n d R o s s , 1973, pp. 254-264. H u d s o n , J . C . "A M o d e l o f S p a t i a l . R e l a t i o n s . " 1 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 260-71.  Geographical  Analysis,  I t t e l s o n , W.H. "Environment P e r c e p t i o n and Contemporary P e r c e p t u a l Theory I n E n v i r o n m e n t a n d C o g n i t i o n . E d . W.H. I t t e l s o n . New Y o r k : S e m i n a r P r e s s , 1 9 7 3 , p p . 1-20. , H.M. P r o s h a n s k y , L.G. R i v l i n a n d W i n k e l . An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Environmental Psychology. New Y o r k : H a l t , R i n e h a r t a n d W i n s t o n , 1 9 7 4 J a k l e , J . A . , S. B r u n n a n d C C . Roseman. Geography. N o r t h S c i t u a t e , Mass.: Joy, R . J . Languages i n C o n f l i c t .  Human S p a t i a l B e h a v i o r : A Duxbury P r e s s , 1976.  Social  T o r o n t o : M c C l e l l a n d and S t e w a r t , 1972.  K a p l a n , S. " K n o w i n g Man: T o w a r d s a Humane E n v i r o n m e n t . " F o r e s t S e r v i c e , USDA, s u p p l e m e n t n o . 3 1 , 1 9 7 2 .  T e c h n i c a l Report  . " C o g n i t i v e Maps i n P e r c e p t i o n arid T h o u g h t . " I n Image a n d Environment. E d . R.M. Downs a n d D. S t e a . Chicago: A l d i n e , 1973, pp. 6 3 - 7 8 . . " A d a p t a t i o n , S t r u c t u r e , and Knowledge." I n Environmental Knowing. E d . G.T. M o o r e a n d R.G. G o l l e d g e . S t r o u d s b u r g , Penn.: Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n a n d R o s s , 1 9 7 6 , p p . 3 2 - 4 5 . K u n n a p a s , T. " D i s t a n c e P e r c e p t i o n a s a F u n c t i o n o f A v a i l a b l e V i s u a l J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 77 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 5 2 3 - 2 9 . L a d d , F.C. " B l a c k Y o u t h s V i e w T h e i r E n v i r o n m e n t s : Environment and B e h a v i o r , 2 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 74-99.  Neighborhood  Cues.  Maps."  L e e , T. "On t h e R e l a t i o n B e t w e e n t h e S c h o o l J o u r n e y a n d S o c i a l a n d Emotional Adjustment i n R u r a l I n f a n t C h i l d r e n . " B r i t i s h Journal of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 27 ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 1 0 1 - 1 1 4 . " B r e n n a n ' s Law o f S h o p p i n g 1 1 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 662.' . Society,  Behavior."  " P s y c h o l o g y and L i v i n g Space." 2 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 11-36.  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports  Transactions of the Bartlett  . " U r b a n N e i g h b o u r h o o d a s a S o c i o - S p a t i a l Schema." R e l a t i o n s , 21 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 241-67. "The P s y c h o l o g y o f S p a t i a l O r i e n t a t i o n . " A s s o c i a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y , 7 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 11-15.  Human  Architectural  153 " P e r c e i v e d D i s t a n c e as a F u n c t i o n of D i r e c t i o n i n t h e E n v i r o n m e n t and B e h a v i o r , 2 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 40-51.  City."  L i n g o e s , J.G. "A G e n e r a l S u r v e y o f t h e G u t t m a n - L i n g o e s N o n m e t r i c P r o g r a m Series." I n M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l S c a l i n g : Theory and A p p l i c a t i o n s i n t h e Behavioral Sciences. V o l . 1. Ed. R.N. S h e p a r d , A. K i m b a l l Romney a n d S.B. N e r l o v e . New Y o r k : S e m i n a r P r e s s , 1 9 7 2 , pp. 4 9 - 6 8 . L l o y d , R.E. "A C o m p a r i s o n o f C o g n i t i v e R e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e S t a t e s t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . " P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e AAG, 7 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 2 1 - 2 6 . L o r d , F.E. "A S t u d y o f S p a t i a l O r i e n t a t i o n i n C h i l d r e n . " E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 34 ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 4 8 1 - 5 0 5 . L o w e n t h a l , D. "Geography, E x p e r i e n c e , and I m a g i n a t i o n : p h i c a l Epistemology." AAAG, 51 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 2 4 1 - 6 0 . , a n d M. R i e l . "The E n v i r o n m e n t and B e h a v i o r ,  N a t u r e o f P e r c e i v e d and 4 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 15-27.  L o w r e y , R.A. "Distance Concepts of Urban R e s i d e n t s . " B e h a v i o r , 2 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 52-73.  of  J o u r n a l of  Towards a Geogra-  Imagined  Environments."  Environment  and  . "A M e t h o d f o r A n a l y z i n g D i s t a n c e C o n c e p t s o f U r b a n R e s i d e n t s . " I n Image and E n v i r o n m e n t . . Ed. R.M. Downs and D. S t e a . Chicago: A l d i n e , 1 9 7 3 , pp. 3 3 8 - 6 0 . L u k a s h o k , A. a n d K. L y n c h . "Some C h i l d h o o d M e m o r i e s o f t h e C i t y . " o f t h e A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e o f P l a n n e r s , 22 ( 1 9 5 6 ) , 1 4 2 - 5 2 .  Journal  L u n d b e r g , U. " E m o t i o n a l and G e o g r a p h i c a l Phenomena i n P s y c h o - p h y s i c a l Research." I n Image a n d E n v i r o n m e n t . Ed. R.M. Downs and D. S t e a . C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 1 9 7 3 , pp. 3 2 2 - 3 7 . , 0. B r a t f i s c h and G. Ekman. " E m o t i o n a l I n v o l v e m e n t and S u b j e c t i v e D i s t a n c e : A Summary o f I n v e s t i g a t i o n s . " The J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 87 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 1 6 9 - 7 7 . L y n c h , K.  The  Image o f t h e C i t y .  , and M. 24-34. M a t o r e , G.  Rivkin.  C a m b r i d g e : MIT  "A W a l k A r o u n d t h e B l o c k . "  " E x i s t e n t i a l Space."  L a n d s c a p e , 15  M e r c e r , D. " D i s c r e t i o n a r y T r a v e l B e h a v i o u r and A u s t r a l i a n Geographical S t u d i e s , 9 (1971), Milgram, Ed.  S. W.H.  Press,  (1966),  1960. Landscape, 8  (1959),  5-6.  the Urban Mental 133-43.  " I n t r o d u c t i o n " t o C h a p t e r I I . I n E n v i r o n m e n t and Ittelson. New Y o r k : S e m i n a r P r e s s , 1973.  Map."  Cognition.  . " P s y c h o l o g i c a l Maps o f P a r i s . " In Environmental Psychology. Ed. H.M. P r o s h a n s k y , W.A. I t t e l s o n and L.G. R i v l i n . New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t a n d W i n s t o n , 1976, pp. 1 0 4 - 2 4 .  154 M i l l e r , G.A. "The M a g i c a l Number S e v e n , P l u s o r M i n u s Two: Some L i m i t s o n Our C a p a c i t y f o r P r o c e s s i n g I n f o r m a t i o n . " The P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , 63 (1956), 8 1 - 9 7 . M o o r e , G.T. " D e v e l o p m e n t a l V a r i a t i o n s B e t w e e n and W i t h i n I n d i v i d u a l s i n the C o g n i t i v e Representation of L a r g e - s c a l e S p a t i a l Environments." D i s s . C l a r k U n i v . 1973a. . "Developmental D i f f e r e n c e s i n Environmental C o g n i t i o n . " In Environmental Design Research. V o l . 2. Ed. W.F.E. P r e i s e r . Stroudsb u r g , P e n n . : Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and R o s s , 1 9 7 3 b , pp. 2 3 2 - 3 9 . . "The D e v e l o p m e n t o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l K n o w i n g : A n O v e r v i e w o f a n I n t e r a c t i o n a l - c o n s t r u c t i v i s t T h e o r y and Some D a t a o n W i t h i n - i n d i v i d u a l Developmental V a r i a t i o n s . " I n P s y c h o l o g y and t h e B u i l t Environment. Ed. D. C a n t e r and T.. L e e . L o n d o n : A r c h i t e c t u r a l P r e s s , 1 9 7 5 a , pp. 1 8 4 194. . " S p a t i a l R e l a t i o n s A b i l i t y and D e v e l o p m e n t a l L e v e l s o f U r b a n C o g n i t i v e M a p p i n g . " Man-Environment S y s t e m s , 5 ( 1 9 7 5 b ) , 247-48. . " T h e o r y a n d R e s e a r c h on t h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l Knowing." I n E n v i r o n m e n t a l Knowing. E d . G.T. M o o r e a n d R.G. Golledge. S t r o u d s b u r g , P e n n . : Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n a n d R o s s , 1 9 7 6 , pp. 1 3 8 - 6 4 . , a n d R.G. G o l l e d g e . " E n v i r o n m e n t a l K n o w i n g : C o n c e p t s and Theories." I n E n v i r o n m e n t a l Knowing. Ed. G.T. M o o r e and R.G. Golledge. S t r o u d s b u r g , P e n n . : Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and R o s s , 1 9 7 6 , pp. 1-24. M o r g a n , B.S. " S o c i a l D i s t a n c e and A r e a , 6 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 293-97.  S p a t i a l Distance: A Research  Note."  O r l e a n s , P. " D i f f e r e n t i a l C o g n i t i o n of Urban R e s i d e n t s : E f f e c t s of S o c i a l S c a l e on Mapping." I n Image a n d E n v i r o n m e n t . E d . R.M. Downs and D. S t e a . C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 1 9 7 3 , pp. 1 1 5 - 3 0 . O s g o o d , C.E., G . J . S u c i and P.H. Tannenbaum. U r b a n a : U n i v . o f I l l i n o i s P r e s s , 1957.  The  Measurement of Meaning.  P a c i o n e , M. " I n f o r m a t i o n and M o r p h o l o g y i n C o g n i t i v e Maps." T r a n s a c t i o n , New S e r i e s , I n s t i t u t e o f B r i t i s h G e o g r a p h e r s , 3 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 5 4 8 - 6 8 . P a i l h o u s , J . L a R e p r e s e n t a t i o n de l ' E s p a c e U r b a i n . U n i v e r s i t a i r e s de F r a n c e , 1970.  Paris:  Presses  P e t e r s , R. " C o g n i t i v e Maps i n W o l v e s and Men." In Environmental Design Research. V o l . 2 Ed. W.F.E. P r e i s e r . S t r o u d s b u r g , Penn.: Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and R o s s , 1 9 7 3 , pp. 2 4 7 - 5 3 . 1  Peterson, J. " I l l u s i o n s of D i r e c t i o n O r i e n t a t i o n . " The J o u r n a l o f P h i l o s o p h y , P s y c h o l o g y and S c i e n t i f i c M e t h o d s , 13 ( 1 9 1 6 ) , 2 2 5 - 3 6 . P i a g e t , J . The L a n g u a g e and T h o u g h t o f t h e C h i l d . New Y o r k : H a r c o u r t , B r a c e , 1926.  T r a n s . M.  Warden,  155 • The O r i g i n s o f I n t e l l i g e n c e i i i C h i l d r e n . Y o r k : N o r t o n , 1952.  T r a n s . M.  Cook.  . P l a y , Dreams and I m i t a t i o n i n C h i l d h o o d . a n d F.M. H o d g s o n . New Y o r k : N o r t o n , 1962.  T r a n s . C.  Gattegno  New  . The C h i l d ' s C o n c e p t i o n o f S p a c e . Trans. F . J . Langdon J.L. Lunzer. L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e a n d K e g a n P a u l , 1956. , a n d B. Paris: .  E.A.  Inhelder.  L a R e p r e s e n t a t i o n de l ' - E s p a c e c h e x  Presses Universitaires  de F r a n c e ,  L"Image M e n t a l e c h e z 1 ' E n f a n t .  and  1'Enfant.  1947. P a r i s : PUF,  1966.  , a n d A. S z e m i n s k a . The C h i l d ' s C o n c e p t i o n o f G e o m e t r y . Lunzer. New Y o r k : B a s i c B o o k s , 1960.  Trans.  P o c o c k , D.C.D. "Some C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f M e n t a l M a p s : A n E m p i r i c a l S t u d y . " I n s t i t u t e o f B r i t i s h G e o g r a p h e r s , T r a n s a c t i o n s , 65 ( 1 9 7 6 a ) , 4 9 3 - 5 1 2 .  The  . "A Comment o n Images D e r i v e d F r o m I n v i t a t i o n - t o - M a p E x e r c i s e s . " P r o f e s s i o n a l G e o g r a p h e r , 28 ( 1 9 7 6 b ) , 1 6 1 - 6 5 .  P o r t e o u s , J.D. E n v i r o n m e n t and B e h a v i o r , P l a n n i n g and E v e r y d a y U r b a n Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1977. R a n d , G.  " P r e - C o p e r n i c a n Views  of the C i t y . "  Forum, S e p t . 1969,  Life.  77-81.  R a p o p o r t , A. "Environmental Cognition i n Cross-Cultural Perspective." In E n v i r o n m e n t a l Knowing. Ed. G.T. M o o r e a n d R.G. G o l l e d g e . Stroudsburg, P e n n . : Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n a n d R o s s , 1 9 7 6 , pp. 2 2 0 - 3 4 . Ray,  D.M. " C u l t u r a l D i f f e r e n c e s i n Consumer T r a v e l B e h a v i o r i n E a s t e r n Ontario." C a n a d i a n G e o g r a p h e r , 11 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 1 4 3 - 5 6 .  R e l p h , E.C.  P l a c e and P l a c e l e s s n e s s .  London: P i o n ,  1976.  R o b i n s o n , J . P . a n d R. H e f n e r . " P e r c e p t u a l Maps o f t h e W o r l d . " O p i n i o n Q u a r t e r l y , 32 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 2 7 3 - 8 0 .  Public  R u s h t o n , G. " A n a l y s i s o f S p a t i a l B e h a v i o r by R e v e a l e d S p a c e P r e f e r e n c e . " AAAG, 59 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 3 9 1 - 4 0 0 .  AAG,  . " P r e f e r e n c e and C h o i c e i n D i f f e r e n t 2 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 146-50.  Environments." Proceedings,  R y a n , T.A. a n d M.S. R y a n . "Geographical Orientation." o f P s y c h o l o g y , 53 ( 1 9 4 0 ) , 2 0 4 - 2 1 5 .  American  Journal  S a a r i n e n , T.F. P e r c e p t i o n of Environment. AAG C o m m i s s i o n o n C o l l e d g e G e o g r a p h y , R e s o u r c e P a p e r No. 5 . W a s h i n g t o n , 1969.  156  R.M.  . "Student Views of the World." I n Image arid E n v i r o n m e n t . Downs and D. S t e a . C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 1973, pp. 148-61.  S a d a l l a , E.K. a n d L.G. S t a p l i n . "The Intersections." E n v i r o n m e n t and  Ed.  P e r c e p t i o n of Traversed Distance B e h a v i o r , 12 ( 1 9 8 0 a ) , 1 6 7 - 8 2 .  . "An I n f o r m a t i o n S t o r a g e M o d e l f o r D i s t a n c e C o g n i t i o n . " E n v i r o n m e n t and B e h a v i o r , 12 ( 1 9 8 0 b ) , 1 8 3 - 9 3 . S a m u e l s , M.S. " E x i s t e n t i a l i s m and Human G e o g r a p h y . " In Humanistic Geography. E d . D. L e y a n d M.S. S a m u e l s . Chicago: Maaroufa P r e s s , 1 9 7 8 , pp. 2 2 - 4 0 . S a n d e r s , R.A. and P.W. Porter. 64 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 2 5 8 - 6 7 .  "Shape i n R e v e a l e d M e n t a l Maps."  AAAG,  S h e m y a k i n , F.M. " O r i e n t a t i o n i n Space." In P s y c h o l o g i c a l Science i n the USSR. V o l . 1 Ed. B.G. A n a n y e v e t a l . W a s h i n g t o n : O f f i c e o f T e c h n i c a l S e r v i c e s , 1 9 6 2 , pp. 1 8 4 - 2 5 5 . S h e p a r d , R.N., A.K. Romney and S.B. N e r l o v e . M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l S c a l i n g Theory. V o l . 1. New Y o r k : S e m i n a r P r e s s , 1972.  -  S h i b u t a n i , T. " R e f e r e n c e Groups and S o c i a l C o n t r o l . " I n Human B e h a v i o r and S o c i a l P r o c e s s e s . Ed. A.M. R o s e . London: R o u t l e d g e and K e g a n P a u l , 1 9 6 2 , pp. 1 2 8 - 4 7 . S o p h e r , D.E. "The S t r u c t u r i n g o f S p a c e i n P l a c e Names and Words f o r P l a c e . " I n H u m a n i s t i c Geography. E d . D. L e y and M.S. S a m u e l s . Chicago: M a a r o u f a P r e s s , 1 9 7 8 , pp. 2 5 1 - 6 8 . S t a n l e y , G. " E m o t i o n a l I n v o l v e m e n t and G e o g r a p h i c o f S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 75 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 6 5 - 6 7 .  Distance."  . " E m o t i o n a l I n v o l v e m e n t and S u b j e c t i v e D i s t a n c e . " o f S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 84 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 3 0 9 - 1 0 .  The  Journal  The J o u r n a l  S t a p f , K.H. Untersuchunger zur S u b j e k t i v e n Landkarte. Diss. In Natural S c i e n c e , I n s t i t u t e of Technology, C a r o l o - W i l h e l m i n a zu Braunshweig, 1968. C i t e d i n U. L u r i d b e r g . " E m o t i o n a l a n d G e o g r a p h i c a l Phenomena i n Psychophysical Research." Im Image a n d E n v i r o n m e n t . Ed. R.M. Downs a n d D. S t e a . C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 1 9 7 3 , pp. 3 2 2 - 3 7 . S t e a , D. "The M e a s u r e m e n t o f M e n t a l M a p s : A n E x p e r i m e n t a l M o d e l f o r Studying Conceptual Spaces." I n B e h a v i o r a l Problems i n Geography. Ed. K.R. Cox and R.G. G o l l e d g e . Evanston: Northwestern Univ. P r e s s , 1 9 6 9 , pp. 2 2 8 - 5 3 . . "Program Notes on a S p a t i a l Fugue." I n E n v i r o n m e n t a l Knowing. Ed. G.T. M o o r e a n d R.G. G o l l e d g e . S t r o u d s b u r g , P e n n . : Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and R o s s , 1976, pp. 1 0 6 - 2 0 .  157 , and J.M. B l a u t . "Toward a D e v e l o p m e n t a l Learning." I n I m a g e and E n v i r o n m e n t . E d . R.M. C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 1 9 7 3 , pp. 5 1 - 6 2 ,  Theory of S p a t i a l Downs a n d D. S t e a .  , and R.M. Downs. "From t h e O u t s i d e L o o k i n g I n a t t h e I n s i d e L o o k i n g Out." E n v i r o n m e n t and B e h a v i o r , 2 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 3^12 T a y l o r , A. " J o u r n e y Time, P e r c e i v e d D i s t a n c e , and E l e c t o r a l T u r n o u t V i c t o r i a Ward, Swansea." A r e a , 5 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 59-62.  -  T a y l o r , D.M., J.N. B a s s i l i and F.E. A b o u d . "Dimensions of E t h n i c I d e n t i t y : A n E x a m p l e f r o m Q u e b e c . " The J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 89 ( 1 9 7 3 , 185-92. , L.M. S i m a r d a n d F.E. A b o u d . " E t h n i c I d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n Canada: A Cross-Cultural Investigation." Canadian J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r a l Science, 4 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 13-20. Thompson, D.L. "New C o n c e p t s : 39 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 1-6.  'Subjective Distance'."  T o b l e r , W. "Map T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s o f G e o g r a p h i c W a s h i n g t o n , 1961.  Space."  J o u r n a l of  Diss. Univ.  Retailing,  of  . "The G e o m e t r y o f M e n t a l M a p s . " I n S p a t i a l C h o i c e a n d S p a t i a l Behavior. Ed. R.G. G o l l e d g e a n d G. R u s h t o n . Columbus: Ohio S t a t e U n i v . P r e s s , 1 9 7 6 , pp. 6 9 - 8 2 . T o l m a n , E.C. E d . R.M.  " C o g n i t i v e Maps i n R a t s a n d Men." I n Image a n d Environment. Downs a n d D. S t e a . C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 1 9 7 3 , pp. 2 7 - 5 0 .  Trowbridge, C C . S c i e n c e , 38  "On F u n d a m e n t a l M e t h o d s o f O r i e n t i n g a n d ( 1 9 1 3 ) , 886-97.  'Imaginary  Maps'."  Tuan, Y i - F u . T o p o p h i l i a , A Study of Environmental P e r c e p t i o n , A t t i t u d e s , and V a l u e s . E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1974. .  " I m a g e s and M e n t a l M a p s . "  AAAG, 65  (1975),  205-13.  . S p a c e and P l a c e : The P e r s p e c t i v e o f E x p e r i e n c e . U n i v . o f M i n n e s o t a P r e s s , 1977.  Minneapolis:  U l l m a n , E.L. "Space a n d / o r Time: O p p o r t u n i t y f o r S u b s t i t u t i o n and Prediction." I n s t i t u t e o f B r i t i s h G e o g r a p h e r s , T r a n s a c t i o n s , 63 125-139.  (1974),  V u r p i l l o t , E. " L a P e r c e p t i o n de l ' E s p a c e . " I n T r a i t e de P s y c h o l o g i e Experimentale. F a s c . 6. Ed. P. F r a i s s e and J . P i a g e t . P a r i s : PUF, 1 9 6 3 , pp. 1 1 3 - 9 8 . W a l m s l e y , D.J. " E m o t i o n a l I n v o l v e m e n t and S u b j e c t i v e D i s t a n c e : A M o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e I n v e r s e S q u a r e R o o t Law." The J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 87 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 9-19.  158 "Stimulus Complexity i n Distance D i s t o r t i o n . " G e o g r a p h e r , 30 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 4 - 1 9 .  The P r o f e s s i o n a l  W e b e r , M.M. " C u l t u r e , T e r r i t o r i a l i t y and t h e E l a s t i c M i l e . " Papers and P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n , 13 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 5 9 - 6 9 . Winer, B.J. S t a t i s t i c a l M c G r a w - H i l l , 1971.  Principles  i n Experimental Design.  Toronto:  Z a n n a r a s , G. "The C o g n i t i v e S t r u c t u r e s o f U r b a n A r e a s . " I n Environmental Design Research. V o l . 2. E d . W.F.E. P r e i s e r . S t r o u d s b u r g , Penn.: Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n a n d R o s s , .1973, p p . 2 1 4 - 2 0 . . "The R e l a t i o n B e t w e e n C o g n i t i v e S t r u c t u r e and U r b a n F o r m . " In E n v i r o n m e n t a l Knowing. E d . G.T. M o o r e a n d R.G. G o l l e d g e . S t r o u d s b u r g , P e n n . : Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n a n d R o s s , 1 9 7 6 , p p . 3 3 6 - 5 0 .  Appendix 1  Example o f E n g l i s h and F r e n c h of q u e s t i o n n a i r e  n.b. O r i g i n a l  versions  used  sizes:  - q u e s t i o n n a i r e p a g e s ( 8 % x 14 - map  (24 x 14  inch)  inch)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2075 Wesbrook Mall Vanoouver, B.C., V6T  Canada  1W5  Department of Geography 1. Name 1 2. Grade:  H  3. Age: 4. Sex:  M F  •  5. Home address (complete):  How  long have you resided there:  ( i f applicable) What was your previous address:  6. To which cultural group do you identify yourself? ( 1 ) English Canadian (2) French Canadian ~ J (3) both of them  _]  (4) other ~}  Specify.  7. How do you usually travel within this region (the eastern Ontario region appro ximately delimited by the triangle Ottawa-Montreal^-Brockville)? ( 1 ) I drive my own oar (or motorcycle)  j_7j  ( 2 ) I usually drive somebody else's car  ~]  (3) I usually get a ride with someone  _  (4) I usually use the publio modes of transport (train or bus) ( 5 ) It varies. Specifyi  ~] ____________________________________  (6) I travel very seldom in this region  ~]  N.B. You only have 30 minutes to answer the rest of this questionnaire. Thus you can't afford  losing too much "precious" time on any one specific question.  Note that there is no "correct" answer to any one of these questions. What we want to get i s your own immediate responses, your personal judgments. 8. Note that a l l estimates you w i l l te asked to make in questions 8, 9, and 10 should be based on immediate, unsophisticated impressions. Do not answer i f a place (city or village) i s completely unknown to you.  Suppose the number "100" represents or indioates the distance from this school Use this standard as a comparative basis and rate the distances from here to the following places accordingly (for instance, i f you f e l t that one of .the following places was only half as far as the standard is you would assign i t the "relative number" 50 and i f you felt i t i s twice as far as the standard you would assign i t the number 200) s  from here to Casselman Plantagenet  Ottawa-Hull  SO  1,60  Smiths Falls  Maniwaki Alexandria  15  Lachute Valleyfield  15*6  Buckingham.  £5. ^0(D  Kock land 0  Massena Vankleek H i l l  "  Brockville  Kemptville Embrun  so  from here to Rigaud  Montreal Cornwall  _>EL—  Amprior Ogdensburg  mi  162 3. 9 . Write your estimation of the road distance in miles (or kilometers i f you prefer) by the most direct driving route from this school to the following places. Do not answer i f the place i s completely unknown to you. Alexandria  ^ f)  Valleyfield  m  or  km  iXQ. m  or  km  _ ~"5 [S o  Casselman Brockville Rigaud Ogdensburg  m  O  or  m  O  Lachute ,  Vankleek H i l l  r  o  r  M  .JciCL  Cornwall Massena  Si^Q  Rockland  {-[ ^  • • *® km  O R  o  m  r  or  (n 3 | t T) m  Maniwaki  an  km  or  m  Buckingham  ^ or  m  _SL£L  Plantagenet  o  m m  IluHluiiBUiu.';y  ^ km  T  m  m  o  r  m  o  r  or  ^  ^ km ^  or  m  ^  km  Arnprior  ) Q-~ 0 m  or  km  Smiths Falls  1 ^ 0  m  or  km  Ottawa-Hull Kemptville Montreal  m  or  km  Cj> f~) m  or  km  (n 5  or  km  m  Jp D * m  Embrun  or  Ion  10. Write your estimation of the travel time in hours and/or minutes using the most direct driving route from this school to the following places. Do not answer i f the place is completely unknown to you. Cornwall  1 W..  ,  Casselman Alexandria  j  Ottawa-Hull  U....  M ,'n  lachute  Brockville  .lk3Dm^  Ogdensburg  gk£_  Arnprior _ Plantagenet Valleyfield Buckingham Massena  W  WL  N  My? JJl£j3Qw If) . { ftlfV,—  _*jHLjDfl»l "0 >  Montroal  _L-hjCi  Maniwaki  ^ H^'  Rockland  I  Rigaud  Kemptville  ^ntjJV'30 '  Vankleek H i l l  Embrun  Smiths Falls  /  tf^v,  , ^  ;  ^Jj^r.,  ?  #£3P/n./»-  163  11.  Suppose you are asked the approximate d i r e c t i o n to each one o f the following 1 Q  places (Vfuikleoli H i l l - — jtoesgna, SnbrtST; Keapl-cLLle, SBTJrttiH—Fa-lls, &as=  s^Junan, •Haidiijitim'a-, Planxagenet, -O+Tawa-Hull, MarriTraki, Ogdensburg, 4±e*an-'drla, -Vrnprior  t  gigtmd, -eoTRwail,  taeirtfEe, -MoTTtrwai, V a l l e y f i e l d , Rockland,  Buckingham, B^a_Jry_ille) from here (where your present location i s indicated by an "X" i n the middle o f t h i s page). Using i d e n t i f i e d points and arrows make a diagram on t h i s sheet o f paper that w i l l indicate the d i r e c t i o n to each one o f those places from here ( i . e . a diagram that would o r i e n t a s t r a n ger towards those places). Note that you are asked to indicate d i r e c t i o n s to those places and not distances to those places. Be as precise as possible in your d i r e c t i o n estimations. Do not make an estimation to a completely unknovm place.  i  • UcvU/  y  • Y com^o.  12.  U s i n g y o u r own c r i t e r i a ,  r e g r o u p tho p l a c e s from the  many g r o u p s as y o u w i s h a c c o r d i n g t o no  correct  te  feelings  lar  they  other List  answer t o  this  their  similarities.  q u e s t i o n . We a r e  D e c i d e on t h e  places of  the  together  r e g i o n which are v e r y  significant  - Vankloolt  - Montroftl— 'Man rwflki  ,Bnrl;ingham Letch u l u r a  11  -Bi Group 1  that  there i s immedia-  (n.b.  t o you i f  valleyii&id  simi-  y o u can add y o u want) ^ ~~  —BlgauoT-  .—Maeciiina  ftfinnglimn  fl  -OuillWdll  riaiitagenct  Others s  ~Ke"npIville— SBTrtha  Group 2 —  Group  Falls 3  etc  $  a etc/'  ion  G{WOQ-/TU((  ^- a t  k  P  Po-f^  On \ .  3 Very b r i e f l y Placer,  indicate  on what c r i t e r i o n ( a ) y o u b a s e d y o u r r e g r o u p i n g o f  (why y o u d e c i d e d t o p u t  if-  d  as  i n your  •^gcrenstfurg  ^J-IIJLM^'•  into  a c c o r d i n g t o how  g r o u p s as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e ,  o f p l a c e s ; —Beck±and  ~-Qt.t. -- -n -| -[  Note  only interested  ao t o w h i c h p l a c e s s h o u l d be p u t  are.  following l i s t  s u c h and s u c h a p l a c e t o g e t h e r ? )  :  the  6. 13. In questions 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, *nd 18 we are interested i n your evaluation o f places on a scale ranging from 1 to 7. Each question asks f o r a d i f f e r e n t type o f evaluation. For instanoe, i n question 13 on t h i s page you have to indicate how well you know each place l i s t e d . I f you f e e l you know the place very w e l l you check box 1. At the other end o f the scale, i f you f e e l you don't know i t at a l l you oheck box 7. Place the oheok-nark i n the box which most o l o s e l y c o r r e s ponds to your immediate judgment. Question 14 has to do with how "frenoh" o r " e n g l i s h " those plaoes are to you, question 15 has to do with how meaningful each place i s to you, e t c ... Work at a f a i r l y high speed through t h i s exercise. On the other hand dc not be c a r e l e s s . The same i n s t r u c t i o n s apply f o r questions 14, 1 5 , 16, 17, and 18. very w e l l Known  Ottawa-Hull  "j  Vankleek H i l l  LJ  Maniwaki Rockland Brockville Embrun Ogdensburg  zaz:  Massena  ZZL  ZZL  Cornwall  Z  ZZL  7Z  Buckingham Plantagenet Arnprior  "Z  Casselman Montreal Alexandria  ZZL  Lachute Smiths F a l l s Kemptville Hawkesbury Valleyfield  2  Rigaud  (  )  Zl  not known  14.  Same i n s t r u c t i o n s a s f o r q u e s t i o n  Smiths P a l l s  13.  french speaking  english speaking  Ottawa-Hull  17  rzi  Valleyfield  Hawkesbury  Buckingham  ZZL 5 3  Casselman  Embrun  7ZL  Ogdensburg  Arnprior  Plantagenet  Montreal  Cornwall  Maaaena  Alexandria  Hill  J'emptville  Rigaud  Lcchuto  Rockland  Erockville  (  HZ ~221  Mar.iwaki  Vankleek  ZD  )  15.  3ame i n s t r u c t i o n s ae f o r question 13. Note that moaningful place that means a l o t " to you while meaningless  stands f o r  stands f o r " a p l a c e t  doesn't mean anything" to you.  Brockville Smiths  Falls  Rockland Ottawa-Hull Lachute Valleyfield  Rigaud  Hawkesbury  Kemptville Buckingham Vankleek  Hill  Casselman Alexandria Embrun Massena  Ogdensburg  Cornwall Arnprior Montreal Maniwaki Plantagenet  (  )  meaningful  I  j  meaningle;  168 16. Same i n s t r u c t i o n s  Montreal  as f o r q u e s t i o n 13.  good  bad  Maniwaki Valleyfield Rigaud Lachute Smiths  Falls  CasBelman  Embrun  Arnprior Ottawa-Hull  \rzL  Buckingham  WL  Rockland Plantagenet Hawkesbury Cornwall MapBena  O/jdensburg Brockville Alexandria Kemptville Vankleek  (  Hill  )  10.  17.  Same i n s t r u c t i o n s  as  for  question 13.  a p l a c e where Vankleek  Hill friends  Buckingham  n  not a place where I meet relatives or friends  zv :  Hawkesbury  Brockville  Montreal  Alexandria  Plantagenet  Smiths  Palls  Ogdensburg  Rigaud  Cornwall  I'5assena  Valleyfield  Kemptville  Laohute  Maniwaki  Embrun  Ottawa-Hull  Casselman  Arnprior  Rockland  xz;i  169  11.  ie. Same inatruotions as f o r q u e s t i o n  Embrun  large  Rockland Vankleek H i l l Massena Buckingham Arnprior  Ottawa-Hull Laohute  Kemptville Valleyfield Rigaud Hawkesbury Smiths Falls .Alexandria Casselman Plantagenet Cornwall Ogdensburg Brockville Maniwaki Montreal  (  )  13.  small  170  12.  Name: 1. On t h e accompanying hase map i n d i c a t e , u s i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e symbols, ( 1 ) the r o u t e s ( i n c l u d e s r a i l r o a d s ) t a k e n a t l e a s t onco a y e a r  (I I I II )  (2) the r o u t e s t a k e n a t l e a s t onco a month  (-ft—X—£•)  (3) t h e r o u t e s t a k e n a t l e a s t once a week (—©—6—9-)  2.  I s t h e r e any p a r t i c u l a r r o u t e ( s ) y o u r e a l l y e n j o y t r a v e l i n g on i n t h a t r e g i o n ? I f s o i n d i c a t e which w i t h t h i s symbol, your  c h o i c e (why do y o u l i k e Reason(s):  that  (—Q—Q—) and s t a t e  (those) r o u t e ( s ) ? )  ^fl_x^x^-J^v -_fe_fer-<ZI3^5\Aj^  the reason(s) o f  y -  3. How would y o u s u b d i v i d e t h e a r e a shown on t h i s map. Draw y o u r  s u b r e g i o n s on  the baso map and i n d i c a t e which o f t h o s e y o u c o n s i d e r t o be y_our r e g i o n . T e l l me why y o u s u b d i v i d e d t h e a r e a t h e way y o u d i d . Reasons o f s u b d i v i s i o n ;  THE  UHIVSKSITy OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  2075 Uesbrook H a l l Vancouver,  C.B. , Canada  V6T 1W5 Departement de  1. Nom: 2.  Anr.ee  €<-ccJhcwU  'j.  \~2  s col-lire;  3. Agei 4. Sexe.  Geographie  (Si  J  "~  / M 0  Q  £  Air-corse a c t u e l l e  Depuis  ''V~  (complete):  quand demeurez-vous a c e t t e adrosse;:  n e c e s s a i r e ) Indiquez v o t r e adresse  A q u e l groupe  c u l t u r e l vous  il.)  canadien f r a n c a i s  [Df  canadien anglais  Q Q  (3) l e s deux autres  preeedante:  identifiez-vous?  (2)  (4)  //  Q  Specifiez:  Habituellement, comment v o u s d e p l a c e z - v o u s dans l a r e g i o n ( r e g i o n do 1 e s t 1  de  1'Ontario a p p r o x i m a t i v e m e n t  contenue  dans l e t r i a n g l e  0ttava-Kon*real-  Brockville)? (1) J e c o n d u i s ma p r o p r e auto (2) U a b i t u e l l e m e n t je  (ou m o t o c y c l e t t e )  c o n d u i s l ' a u t o d'un  (3) U a b i t u e l l e m e n t j ' o b t i e n s un (4)  Q  p a r e n t ou d'un  t o u r avec quelqu'un  H a b i t u o l l o m e n t . j ' u t i l i s e l e t r a i n ou 1'autobus  (>) ^ a var.ic; beaucoup. Specifier,.-  (6) Je voyage r a r e m e n t  dans c e t t e r e - i o n  £j  [~J £~j  ami  \c^A  174 2. K.B.  Vous n ' a v e z il  que 30 minutes p o u r r^pondre  f a u t vous h a t e r .  Notez  q u ' i l n'y  sommes p l u t o t le  8.  Notez  Ne v o u s a t t a r d e z  interesses a votre  de ce q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,  pas s u r aucune q u e s t i o n en  a pas de r e p o n s e " e x a c t e " jugement  alors  particulier.  7i aucune de c e s q u e s t i o n s . Nous immediat,  votre  opinion personel-  s u r chacune de c e s q u e s t i o n s .  que t o u t e s  les estimations  e t r e b a s e e s s u r vos p r e m i e r e s endroit  ( v i l l e ou v i l l a g e )  dont v o u s n ' a v e z  Supposez que l e  jamais  chiffre  demandees aux q u e s t i o n s 8,  Utilisant  cette  t a n c e s de c e t t e  entendu  "100"  attriburez  alors  represente  d'ici  et  ou i n d i q u e  pas (un  suivants  l e nombre r e l a t i f  50)  d'ici  ~S ,-t-O  Montreal  s i vous e s t i m e z  Casselman  ____  "2*y-0  _____ *6C  "2 <TL>  Kemptville  7  Lachute  _L____  Smiths  Brockville  _______  Ottawa-Hull  ________  Hawkesbury  "b  TO  S'2>  Alexandria  _______  Valleyfield  vous  a Plantagenet  Buckingham  Cornwall  etalon  que l a  de l a d i s t a n c e e t a l o n ,  Arnprior  dis-  s i vous c r o y e z  Ogdensburg  Rockland  Maniwaki  les  ;  -Em In gun -  Massena  (par exemple,  200;  cette  .  l e d o u b l e de l a d i s t a n c e  que l a m o i t i e  a Rigaud  Vankleek H i l l  endroit  l a distance entre  (^)-lJfA.'^J C~  quelconque e s t  n'est  l e nombre r e l a t i f  doivent  parler).  e c o l e aux e n d r o i t s  a un a u t r e e n d r o i t  utiliserez  10  d i s t a n c e e t a l o n comme base de c o m p a r a i s o n , e v a l u e z  que l a d i s t a n c e a un e n d r o i t vous l u i  9» e t  i m p r e s s i o n s . E v i t e z de f a i r e un e s t i m e p o u r un  que vous ne c o n n a i s s e z v r a i m e n t  e c o l e ou nous sommes p r e s e n t e m e n t  tance  au r e s t e  <rf)  Falls___L___  /OO  "-Wo  dis-  175 3. 9. E c r i v e z votre estimation de l a distance r o u t i e r e en m i l l e s (ou kilometres s i vous preferez) par l e chemin l e plus court entre cette ecole ou nous sommes et l e s endroits suivants. E v i t e z de f a i r e un estime pour un endroit quo vous ne connaissez vraiment pas. Alexandria  7*r ~  Valleyfield  —  m  ou  km  m  ou  km  Casselman  m  ou  km  Brockville  m  ou  luii  Rigaud  m  ou  _ km  .7 If ?  Ogdensburg  m  ou  km  Lachute  m  OU  km  Hawkesbury  m  ou  km  s' m  ou  km  m  ou  km  m  ou  Ion  r s z m m  ou  km  ou  km  m  ou  1cm  m  ou  km  m  ou  km  m  ou  km  m  ou  km  Kemptville  m  ou  km  Montreal  m  ou  km  m  ou  km  Plantagenet  . y  Vankleek H i l l  ••  Buckingham Cornwall  «4T • V  _  Massena Maniwaki  ILS-Q  Rockland  _  O  ~7 O  Arnprior Smiths F a l l s  2  Ottawa-Hull  sr  10. Scrivez votre estimation du temps de parcours en heures et/ou minutes u t i l i sant l e chemin l e plus court entre cette ecole et l e s endroits suivants. E v i tez de f a i r e un estime pour un endroit que vous ne connaissez vraiment pas. Cornwall  Ottawa-Hull  Casselman  Lachute  Alexandria  Smiths F a l l s  Brockville  Kemptville  Ogdensburg Arnprior  Hawkesbury  ' /:  3D  Plantagenet Valleyfield  ' ; «<--.  Buckingham Massena  / : J»'C.  Vankleek H i l l Montreal Maniwaki Rockland Rigaud  .u /:  ,  ?0 yo  l  /y  176  li  , f.i_ppo::ez endroits  rju'on v o u s domande d ' e s t i m e r auivants  (Vankleek  C a s s e l m a n , Hawkesbury, andria,  Hill,  M a s s e n a , JSmtrrnn,  Plantagenet,  Ottawa—Hull,  a partir  d'ici  d i q u e e p a r un "X" au m i l i e u de c e t t e e t des f l e c h o s , c o n 3 t r u i s e z  page).  tions  ct  dans w a droit,  que  Notez  Valleyfield,  En u t i l i s a n t  (i.e.  des p o i n t s page q u i  pas.  est  in-  identi-  indiquerait  un e s t i m e  un  les'direc-  Soyez a u s s i p r e c i s que p o s s i b l e  e s t i m a t i o n s des d i r e c t i o n s . F A r i t e z de f a i r e vous ne c o n n a i 3 s e z v r a i m e n t  Rockland,  un diagramme q u i o r i e n t e r a i t  q u ' o n vous demande d ' e s t i m e r  non l e s d i s t a n c e s a c e s e n d r o i t s .  "Zp  Ogdensburg, A l e x -  localisation actuelle  un diagramme s u r c e t t e  l a d i r e c t i o n de c h a c u n de c e s e n d r o i t s s t r a n g e r v e r s ces e n d r o i t s ) .  (votre  des  Kemptville, Smiths F a l l s ,  Maniwaki,  Arnprior, Rigaud, Cornwall, Lachute, Montreal,  Buckingham, B r o c k v i l l e )  fies  l a d i r e c t i o n approximative  pour un e n -  177  12.  En  utilisant les criteres  a u t a n t de  groupes  que  de v o t r e  de  a vos  premieres impressions,  leurs similarites.  reponse "exaote" a c e t t e q u e s t i o n .  g r o u p e s S. e t a b l i r . He  a votre  m e t t e z pas  dos  tres  endroits; Rockland  1  temps a d e c i d e r  interesses  de  ces  d ' a u t r e s e n d r o i t s de  les  groupes. l a region  Embrun  Ogdensburg  Montreal  Valleyfield  Arnprior  Maniwaki  Rigaud  Buckingham  Alexandria  Massena  Casselman  Lachute  Cornwall  Hawkesbury  Flantagcnet  Autres:  Ottawa-Hull  Kemptville  Brockville  Smiths  Hill  Groupe 2  groupoments ( p o u r q u e l l e s r a i s o n s  Falls  Groupe  Indiquez bricvement sur q u e l ( s ) c r i t e r e ( s )  ensemble?) :  Notez q u ' i l  Nous sommes p l u t o t  signifioatifs)  Vankleek  Groupe  suivants  jugement p e r s o n n e l immediat s u r  t r o p de  s i vous d e s i r e z , vous pouvez a j o u t e r  q u i vous s o n t Liste  regroupez l e s e n d r o i t s  vous d e s i r e z s e l o n  a pas  (n.b.  choix  3  etc  r e p o s e ( n t ) l e c h c i x de  avez-vous r e g r o u p e t o l s  ou  tels  ces  re-  endroits  en n'y  13. Aux questions 13,  14* 15,  16*  17>  et 16 nous eommes int£ress£s en votre pro-  pre -valuation de'divers endroits sur une eobelle de 1 a 7. Chaque question r e q u i e r t une Evaluation diff£rente. Far exemple, a l a question 13 sur cette page vous ave- a indiquer Jusqu'a quel point vous oonnaissez  l e s endroits mentionnes. S i vous oonnaissez  tres  bien 1'endroit en question vous ooohez l a case 1. A 1'autre extremity de l'6onelle  f  s i vous ne oonnaissez pas set endroit du tout vous ooohez l a case  7. Coohez l a case qui oorrespond  l e mieux a votre jugement iminediat.  A l a question 14 on vous demande de juger de 1*identity c u l t u r e l l e des en- / d r o i t s en question (d apres vous, s ' a g i t - l l d e n d r o i t s tres f r a n c a i s ou 1  1  tres anglais ou plus ou moins b i l i n g u e s ? ) ; a l a question 15 on vous demands de juger de l a " s i g n i f i c a t i o n " de chaque endroit  pour vous, eto . ..  II vous faut repondre rapidement a oes questions. Toutefois, ne soyez pas negligent ou insouciant. Les meme8 i n s t r u c t i o n s s'appliquent aux  questions  14, 15, 16, 17, et 18. tres bien oonnu  Alexandria  pas oonnu  Embrun Valleyfield Montreal C ossein an Kemptville Brookville Ottawa-Hull Rigaud Smiths P a l l s Ogdensburg Arnprior Laohute Eookland Hawkesbury Maniwaki Plantagenet Massena  17  Vankleek H i l l Cornwall Buckingham  (  )  179 7. 14. Memes Instructions qu'a l a question 13.  Cornwall  11*°° **** franc alee  — i— j — —  I I 5 —5— ~  y  |  1  1-^1  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  1  I (X I  Montreal  I  I^ \  I  I  I  I  Lachute  | _/ \  \  |  |  |  | ~]  Ogdensburg  I  I  I  I  I  I  |  Smiths Falls  1  I  I  I  I  I  Valleyfield  |  |  \ </\  |  |  | ~|  Casselman  \  \  1  I  I  I  I  1  I  II  Maniwaki Brookville  E i  e  a u d  »  I  1  1  I  1  I  I  1  I  I I ~1  Hawkesbury  I  I  Alexandria  |  |  Buckingham  [ .—" | - - }  Plaatagenet  |  |  |c ^ |  |  |  Kemptville  |  |  I  I  I ts"\ \  Embrun  |  | L/~ I  Arnprior  I  I  I  I  I  I  Massena  I  I  I  I  I  I  Rockland  |  |  |s'\  Ottawa-Hull  |  |  |  | <s\  I  I  Vankleek H i l l  I  I  I  I  I  I ~"  |  1^1  | |  I  |  I  c  I  |  I  I ~1  |  I  I  I  I ~1  I  |  I  I  I  I | ~| I  1anglalse I  1  T  I  P  l a o  180 15. MSmes instructions qu'a l a question 13. Notez que par tres significatif nous entendons un endroit qui represente pu "veux dire" beaucoup pour vous, alors que par pas significatif  nous entendons un endroit qui ne represente ou ne  "veux absolument rien dire" pour vous. Vankleek H i l l  tres significatif  CA 7  Cornwall Ottawa-Hull  17  Maniwaki  17  Rockland Brockville Massena Montreal Arnprior  if  Lachute Embrun Ogdensburg Kemptville Smiths Falls Plantagenet Valleyfield Buckingham Casselman Alexandria Rigaud Hawkesbury  (  )  p a B  significatif  16. MSmes instructions qu'a l a question 13.  Montreal  ton  I  [ t^I 1  2  I  I  i  I  1 mauvais  I  *  *  t  ?  Maniwaki  „  I  I <_^T  I  I  1  I  I  „  Valleyfield  „  I  I  I  I  I  I  "I  „  I  I  I  I  I  1  I  I  I  1  1  I  Rigaud  I , [ -""f  Lachute  |  |  Smiths Falls  1  1  1  !  Casselman  1  1  1  ! < *T  1  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  Arnprior  [ •—^]  1  I  I  1  I  I  Ottawa-Hull  | iX|  |  |  |  |  Buckingham  |  |  |  I  I  I  I  I  Rockland  |  |  |  | cS |  |  |  |  Plantagenet  |  | <_/ 1  I  i  I  I  I  Hawkesbury  [  1  I  I  I  I  I  Cornwall  |  |  |  I  1  Massena  |  I  Ogdensburg  I  I  Brockville  I  Alexandria  Embrun  | ^\  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I^'\  I  I  I  I  I  IA>  I  I  I  I  I c-^T  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  Kemptville  I  I  I  I  I C^\~  I ~j  Vankleek H i l l  I  I  I  I  I  I  I "1~  <  I  I  I  I  I  I  I I  )  I  I  c  I  c  182 10. 17. Memes i n s t r u c t i o n s - q u ' a l a q u e s t i o n 13.  un e n d r o i t ou je r e n c o n t r e amis et parents tr&s souvent  Embrun  |  [ 7  Buckingham  Hawkesbury  "Z3  Brockville  Montreal .=3' Alexandria  ra-  Plantagenet  Smiths  rzr  Falls  Ogdensburg  Eigaud  3 :  Cornwall  Massena  TIES  Valleyfield  Kemptville  13"  Lachute  3 "  Maniwaki  Vankleek  Hill  I  i  Ottawa-Hull  Casselman  Arnprior  Rockland  (  i  )  1—J  i  i  —  L__L_T  A  p a s un e n d r o i t pour rencontrer amis e t p a rents  183 11. 18. MSmes instructions qu'a l a question 13.  Hawkesbury  petit  gros 77  Kemptville Smiths F a l l s  77,  Lachute Ottawa-Hull  3 IT  Higaud  17  Embrun Rockland  "HI  Maniwaki Montreal Vankleek H i l l Massena Buckingham  1ZL  Valleyfield Plantagenet Arnprior Ogdensburg Brockville Alexandria Casselman Cornwall  (  )  T7*  184 12. Mom:  ^MXLQtl  Bfin  ixCUJ^i^  1. Sur l a c a r t e de base q u i s u i t (1) l e s routes  l e s routes  au moins une  au moins une  (—X—Jr—&)  (ou chemins de f e r ) que vous u t i l i s e z  au moins une  (—8—6—&)  2. Y a - t - i l une (ou d e s ) r o u t e ( s ) emprunter dans c e t t e r e g i o n ? preeisez  appro-pries,  (til—I—)-)  f o i s p a r semaine  et  l e s symboles  (ou chemins de f e r ) que vous u t i l i s e z  f o i s p a r mois (3)  en u t i l i s a n t  (ou chemins de f e r ) que vous u t i l i s e z  f o i s p a r annee (2) l e s r o u t e s  indiquez,  (ou chemin de f e r ) que vous aimez v r a i m e n t  S i o u i , indiquez  l e s r a i s o n s de v o t r e c h o i x  avec ce symbole  (pourquoi  (-Q—B"")s  aimez-vous c e t t e  (ou c e s )  r o u t e ( s ) en p a r t i c u l i e r ? ) febccabA  Raison(s):  ^  Zi ^ ^  t ^ w .  3. Comment s u b d i v i s e r i e z - v o u s vos  sous-regions  comme e t a n t  l a region q u i apparait s u r cette c a r t e ? Dessinez  s u r l a c a r t e de base e t i n d i q u e z  "votre" region. Dites-moi  de c e t t e f a c o n  (pourquoi  Raison ( s ) :  u  ce que vous  considerez  p o u r q u o i vous avez s u b d i v i s e l a c a r t e  vous en e t e s venus a d e f i n i r ces s o u s - r e g i o n s ? ) .  (CANADA TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS - N«T«S« No.31S«W«, 31S»E«)  Appendix  2  Real distance matrices  187  2. Arnpr ior 3. Ot tawa-Hull 4. Buckingham 5. Smiths Falls 6. Kemptville 7. Brockville 8. Ogdensburg 9. North Dundas HS 10. Metcalfe 11. Embrun. 12. Casselman 13. Rockland 14. Plantagenet 15. Tagwi HS 16. Massena 17. Cornwall 18. Williamstown 19. Alexandria 20. Vankleek H i l l 21. Hawkesbury 22. Lachute 23. Rigaud 24. Montreal 25. Valleyfield  rH  vo  u  rH  lill  illeyfi  rH  m  mtrea]  n  a)  Lgaud  CN rH  T3  ichute  rH rH  CO •H  OS  X.  >  CN CN  CT) CN  CN  twkesbt  o  Llliams  H  o>  o  >rnwal]  OS  00  jcklanc  w  rH 0) CO CO CJ  e  tssena  igwi. HS  .antagene  c g  ibrun  B  >rth Di  aa  c  Metcalfe  in  m  u  jdensbi  aa  60  tnkleer  68  o  OJ rH  rockvi]  :tawa-l CO  CO  ;mptvi]  Amprioi CM  CQ rH  tilths I  2  fH  s «  Lexandi  1 . Maniwaki  miwakj  P  ick.ingt  iH  Miles  las HS  Straight Line Distances:  3  <  >  £  _a  CO  ON rH  o  rH CN  89 100 122 116  CN  in CN  68  60 102  95 124 119  94  78  83  81  63  74  93 111 107 107  99  85  86  31  47  40  45  67  68  59  47  56  63  53  68  75  83  88  92  86  85  87 100 103 134 111  19  38  27  56  50  29  16  23  32  22  35  41  51  55  58  55  53  56  69  70 100  80  57  41  70  62  35  25  23  25  6  21  37  52  52  51  43  37  39  53  55  85  68  21  27  30  38  35  45  54  58  66  57  56  64  73  74  80  85  98  94 123  97  29  24  19  17  25  34  40  48  37  38  45  53  53  60  65  78  73 102  77  12  40  46  52  59  69  75  56  46  56  68  72  83  89  99  92 118  90  29  37  42  47  60  63  43  34  44  55  60  70  76  88  80 106  78  14  13  19  32  34  19  23  28  35  35  43  49  60  55  84  58  9  20  24  31 27  35  39  44  41  45  50  62  60  90  66  10  19  23  19  31  32  35  32  35  40  52  50  81  56  16  12  28  27  28  22  26  31 43  40  71  47  14  32  47  46  45  36  31  34  47  48  78  62  25  42  37  34  24  17  19  32  34  65  47  17  14  17  17  27  34  44  37  65  39  10  22  29  43  49  57  47  73  43  11  20  35  41  48  38  62  34  11  26  32  37  27  52  24  14  21  28  20  49  25  17  17  47  31  13  17  47  34  12  36  30  30  17  19  6  29  188  S t r a i g h t L i n e D i s t a n c e s : Kilometres  •rH X (0  •5 c  rd  E  rH  S-l  "0 •rH u  a, c  rH '  <  iH 3  £  a  x:  m  c  3 •P o m  tr>  CO rH (0 EM  01  •rH X o 3  .c  •c  in  4J •rH E  CO  <u  rH •H >  •p OJ E <U  01 -rH > X u 0 Cu Q r-  u 3 _a tn c  0)  rC XI u 0 z  CO  m  1  c co  3 Q  TJ E? O  E  (0 o 4-> 0)  s  9 U &  o H  1. Maniwaki 2. Ar nprior 3. Ottawa-Hull 4. Buckingham 5. Smiths F a l l s 6. Kemptville 7 . Brockville 8. Ogdensburg 9. North Dundas HS 10. Metcalfe 11. Embrun 12. Casselman 13. Rockland 14. Plantagenet 15. Tagwi HS 16. Massena 17. Cornwall 18. Williamstown 19. Alexandria 20. Vankleek H i l l 21. Hawkesbury 22. Lachute 23. Rigaud 24. Montreal 25. V a l l e y f i e l d  c  4J  rd TJ c  0)  ul C O  C Oi  TJ  ID  IB  id  C  rH o  10  u  q a  CN  n  rH  s 0 4J  CD  C/l  CU -  •H  P*  it)  S  & ID  10 c  0) 10 (0  3 M  C  f-i  id  a  O O  in  CD  r~  ^H •H  io  •H TJ C  CD CD  rH •H  H  10  CO  io  io  6  •rl s  CO  U CO X CD  <  >  cn rH  O  >, u 3  a10  U  rH  ID  CD  •H  T3 3  ro .•J5  •H  ro  CN  CN  CN  3  U  X  cn  £  CM  ro >iID  0) u 4J c 0  ta M  +J 3  E  rH 10  >  in  CN  110 109 96 164 153 199 191 151 126 134 130 102 119 150 178 173 172 160 136 139 144 161 197 187 50 76  65  73 108 109  95  75  90 102  86 109 121 134 141 148 138 137 140 161 165 216 179  30  61  43  81  47  26  37  52  35  56  66  82  89  93  88  85  90 111 112 161 129  92  66 113 100  56  40  37  40  10  33  60  84  83  82  69  60  63  33  90  85  88 136 110  43  49  61  57  72  87  93 107  92  90 103 118 119 129 137 157 151 198 156  47  38  30  28  40  55  65  78  60  61  73  19  65  74  83  95 111 120  90  74  90 109 116 133 143 160 148 190 145  47  60  67  76  97 102  70  55  71  88  97 113 123 141 129 171 126  22  21  30  51  55  30  37  45  56  57  69  79  15  32  38  50  43  57  63  71  66  72  80 100  16  31  37  30  50  52  57  51  56  65  84  80 130  90  31  26  20  45  43  45  36  42  50  70  65 114  76  23  51  76  74  73  58  50  54  75  78 126 100  40  67  60  55  38  27  31  52  55 104  76  28  23  27  27  44  54  71  59 105  63  16  35  47  69  79  91  76 117  70  18  32  56  66  77  61 100  55  18  42  52  60  43  83  38  23  34  45  32  79  41  10  28  28  76  50  21  28  76  54  20  58  48  49  28  86  86  97 105 125 118 164 124  97  89 135  94  97 145 106  47  189  Most Probable Route D i s t a n c e s :  n.b. 3  Only r e g i o n a l roads and highways, f e r r i e s considered  Miles  except f o r some small roads f o r l o c a l  trips.  190  Most Probable Route Distances: Kilometres  ui  1 Maniwaki 2 Arnprior  \  -D  r-.  CO  CTl  O  fH  CM  CN  192 135 161 202 184 244 225 190 166 176 192 177 197 220 257 239 247 240 236 230 246 268 323 297 \  57  97 71  82 121 123 113 88 105 114  3 Ottawa-Hull  40 67  49 109  90  55  31  41  57  42  4. Buckingham  \  89 149 130  95  71  81  97  19 44* 125 162 144 138 115  38  5. Smiths Falls 6. Kemptville 7. Brockville  107  99 123 144 172 161 169 162 160 157 182 190 245 215 62  85 122 104 112 105 101  a  88  95 120 133 188 162 77  95 109 163 144  50  81  72  69  86 103 109 129 104 131 147 166 131 158 164 189 196 247 201  58  42  34  34  51  32  8. Ogdensburg 9. North Dundas HS 10. Metcalfe 11. Embrun 12. Casselman 13. Rockland 14. Plantagenet 15. Tagwi HS 16. Massena 17. Cornwall 18. Williamstown 19. Alexandria  68  92 112  66  90  95 101  78 92 109 126 151 171 100  82  98 117 140 168 178 203 175 198 152  62  55  75  99 122 149 160 185 157 180 134  83 100 117 132 152  85  30  30  45  97  81  32  79  58  67  17  34  73  71  61  98  82  89  17  52  54  40  84  64  72  45  37  30  69  49  57  24  65 112  92  50  88 46  93 120 131 156 130 195 149  59  86  97 122  82  78  89 114 110 164 139  65  61  72  97  93 147 122  50  46  57  82  78 132 107  87  78  67  56  81  86 141 135  68  63  54  37  34  59  64 119 111  26  35  27  54  65  90  64 126  80  20  44  67  94 105 130 102 125  79  24  47  74  96 158 112  85 110  82 105  59  22 50  61  86  59  89  41  27  38  63  37 104  57  11  36  30  85  65  32  20. Vankleek H i l l 21. hawkesbury  25  22. Lachute  2 7  23. Rigaud 24. Montreal  87  67  a 64  62  55  35 60  25. Valleyfield n.b.  Only regional roads and highways considered, except for some small roads for local trips ferries considered  a  191  Most Probable T r a v e l Times:  Minutes  1. Maniwaki  I-t  s rH rH  CO Cc  «  H  -cr  m  o  u  CN rH  CO rH  v  36  67  3. Ottawa-Hull 4. Buckingham  \  Falls  6. Kemptville 7. B r o c k v i l l e  54  63  92  99  86  67  72  72  68  51  37  75  74  42  24  26  35  32  8  68 103 104  73  54  51  61  45  38  56  55  53  66  79  83  36  37  26  26  39  52  70  25  49  58  69  44  57  68  23  2  8. Ogdensburg 9. North Dundas HS 10. Metcalfe 11. Embrun 12. Casselman  M  3 rH  CO  rH  cu  a)  B  3  <  >  1X  OO rH  av H  O CN  rH CN  0) 3 U  3  CM CM  *3 00  B  01 rH  a  X  >  CO CN  -cr  CO CN  CN  91 113 101 106 102 101 108 126 131 154 135  85  70  66  62  60  92  81 115 102  79 107  91 105  88  67  59  73  75 112  98  79  95  92 104  85  50  74  60  64  71  90 123  94  79 104 118  63  57  60  71  88 106 112 128 110 121  93  79 106 101  58  42  57  66  82  99 106 121 104 115  87  23  34  74  62  24  65  44  51  45  66  74  93  66  99  70  13  26  56  49  47  67  52  68  63  49  56  72  69 103  87  13  40  41  31  69  49  55  41  38  45  61  58  92  77  23  21  53  34  39  31  28  36  52  48  80  67  18  50  90  70  66  54  51  43  62  59  89  85  38  72  52  48  37  28  26  45  41  75  72  40  20  27  21  34  41  57  40  79  50  20  33  47  64  71  91  69  81  54  15  30  47  55  71  52  64  36  17  38  47  66  37  55  25  21  29  48  23  65  36  8  27  19  52  41  19  20  54  42  36  40  60  34  27  34  13. Rockland  47 a  53  64  14. Plantagenet 15. Tagwi HS 16. Massena 17. Cornwall 18. Williamstown 19. A l e x a n d r i a 20. Vankleek  rH  rH  vo rH  s  •H rH  ffield  U  rH rH  :real  CO  cd Ol  imstown  igenet  X iH  w  jbury  o  u  cdria  CJV  rH  ;ek HilJ  CO  a  cu  Mass  3  3  Loan  Dundas  iburg  vO  j= M Z  6  o ca  CD CM  Ogde  m  rille  t  <r  _c  0  \147 103 123 154 140 168 177 145 127 121 132 135 150 152 182 165 170 166 180 176 188 204 223 205  2. A r n p r i o r  5. Smiths  rille  t Falls  igham  o CO  i 4-1  rH  r* 4-1  t-i iH O CQ  Smit  s  1-1 O r-l  Amp  •H JS 10  i-Hull  CD X  Hill  21. Hawkesbury  a  82  65  99  100 121 125 144 135 155 126 92 100 119  22. Lachute 23. Rigaud 24. Montreal  37  25. V a l l e y f i e l d n.b.  3  Speeds used: (1) r e g i o n a l network (R) - 1.31 (3) mixed >H - 1.59 , (4) highway (H) - 1.64 borders). f e r r y - + 30 minutes  Km/m., (2) mixed >R - 1.45 , (+ 5 minutes f o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l  Appendix 3  Representations  o f t h e schemas f o r m e d  the l e v e l  of each  (from s i m i l a r i t y  n.b.  Place  school  data  SURGRO)  labels:  Montreal  - Mont  Ottawa-Hull  - OtHu  Cornwall - Corn Valleyfield Brockville Massena  -  Vail  - Brok  - Mass  Lachute - Lach Buckingham  -  Buck  Smiths F a l l s  -  SFal  Ogdensburg  - Ogde  Hawkesbury  - Hawk  A r n p r i o r - Arnp Maniwaki - Mani Rockland -  Rock  Alexandria -  Alex  K e m p t v i l l e - Kemp Rigaud -  Rigd  Embrun - Embr Vankleek H i l l  -  VHil  Casselman - Cass Plantagenet  - Plan  Lancaster  Lane  -  Avonmore Chesterville  Avon - Ches  Hawkesbury  Size  Corn  Otrfu  Mont  •Vail Mani •  kLach  Political knowl size Buck Rigd ho  o o Plantagenet  202  Appendix  4  T r a n s f o r m a t i o n spaces o f each  school  Mani  Avonmore  204  Mani  Hawkesbury  Mani Buck?  Alexandria  208  Mani Buck  Plantagenet  Buck  Cornwall  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095394/manifest

Comment

Related Items