1. Perceptual mapping onto spatial cognition of the environment Las Navas 2010: Cognitive and Linguistic Aspects of Geographic Space July 4. – 8., 2010., Las Navas del Marques, Avila, Spain GIRTS BURGMANIS, Geography, University of Latvia / gjirts_rhv@inbox.lv ZAIGA KRISJANE, Geography, University of Latvia LINDA APSE, Linguistics, University of Latvia JURGIS SKILTERS, Cognitive sciences, University of Latvia NORMUNDS STRAUTMANIS, Geography, University of Latvia LAS NAVAS DEL MARQUES / 2010

2. Outline of the presentation Basic assumptionsBasic assumptions Theoretical backgroundTheoretical background MethodsMethods ResultsResults DiscussionDiscussion ConclusionsConclusions

3. The aim of the research To explore the perception of geographic environment (large-scale) and analyze the constraining mechanisms present in cognitive processing of spatial information in general.

4. Basic assumption I Constraining mechanisms of the geographic environment: geometric invariants of perception; functional knowledge; socio-cultural / socio-demographic knowledge.

5. Basic assumption II Basic assumption II The cognitive topology of geographic environment Two interacting geometric invariants: Place (determined by place depending on the role of the place, i.e., the focal or background role); Path; Functional knowledge of the subject and the situation determines path-place-structure (Coventry & Garrod, 2004, Zwart 2005, Herskovits 1986).

6. Theoretical background I Acquisition of spatial knowledge Spatial cognitive microgenesis (Siegel and White, 1975); Standpoint of humanistic geography – ‘fields of care’ (Tuan, 1977); Anchor point theory (Golledge, 1978); ‘Continuous’ framework (Montello, 1998).

7. Theoretical background II Acquisition of spatial knowledge People’s interaction with the environment (frequency, duration); Place and path (acquisition of metrical and non-metrical knowledge); Mentally organized system of places and environments – cognitive mapping

8. Theoretical background III Perceptually acquired image-schematic perceptual invariants (e.g., path, place; cp. Mandler, 1992); Functional knowledge about objects (Coventry & Garrod, 2004); A number of social, economic and demographic factors. Spatial perception based on three different resources:

9. The key data used in the research Research territory (6,5 km 2 ) situated close to the city center; Heterogeneous social and physical structure of research territory; Study sample – 115 children and adolescents aged 12 to 17 living in the research territory;

10. Methods Methods Methodological sequence I Surveying: –Reflecting variables of individuals’ level of interaction with the environment; –Socio-demographic variables; Social value mapping technique (Tyrvainen et al., 2007): –Place of residence; –Pleasant and unpleasant places; –Safe and unsafe places; –Places where children feel free from adult control;

11. Methods Methods Methodological sequence II Additive index of spatial knowledge: –5 variables; –Max 5 points; –Mean value of accumulated total points. Statistical analysis: –Kruskal – Wallis H test - fixing differences between variables; –Spearman Rank-Order Correlation coefficient – fixing relationship between spatial knowledge index and background variables

12. Research Data Research Data Tested variables Duration of living in the place of residence; Time spent for everyday traveling to school; Everyday mobility modes to school and other activities; Amount of leisure time spent near to the place of residence; Amount of leisure time spent in other parts of the city; Age; Gender; Level of education.

13. Results I Table 1. Mean score and standard deviation on the index for spatial knowledge according to three influencing variables. Score range from 0 to 1 point.

14. Results II Table 2. The relationship between spatial knowledge index and background variables: Spearman Rank-Order Correlation coefficient (r).

15. Discussion The level of spatial knowledge increases with the age of children (consistent with Matthews, 1987); The more time spent in the place of residence the higher the level of spatial knowledge (consistent with Golledge, 1978, Montello, 1998); The more frequent interaction with the particular environment the more qualitative and quantitative knowledge of it an individual obtains (consistent with Golledge, 1978; Golledge et.al., 1985, Rissotto & Tonucci, 2002, a.o.); Differences of spatial knowledge between genders not observed.

16. Conclusions I Evidence on how physical topology is mapped onto cognitive: –familiarity with the environment; –time spent in the area. Mental mapping from physical to cognitive topology is enhanced by the familiarity with the environment: –The more actively the environment is processed the richer representations are generated.

17. Conclusions II Structure of spatial cognition and environmental cognitive geometry is determined by: –functional knowledge (Coventry & Garrod 2004); –socio-economic, cultural a.o. factors; –their interaction.