Mental Map

The term mental map is used synonymously with cognitive map and sometimes referred to as spatial mental representation. Mental map refers to the spatially located knowledge that each of us gains about the world around us. This knowledge is acquired either through direct experience, such as wayfinding, or secondary sources. Secondary sources are responsible for the majority of information that we possess about our environments and range from simple communications such as verbal route directions to travel itineraries, paper maps, and digital resources. Geographic information systems (GIS) are among the most prominent of the digital resources and offer access to spatial knowledge in manifold ways.

The way knowledge is presented and made accessible is a major influencer of how we think and understand spatial environments, and it is therefore pertinent to keep in mind the effects a specific GIS design has on the spatial representations created on this basis. Vice versa, it is necessary to understand cognitive processes of knowledge acquisition so as to integrate human factors into the design of information systems.

Despite manifold criticisms on the use of the map metaphor, mental map as a term is still commonly used. The roots of this term date back to 1948, when Tolman used it to characterize the mental spatial representation that rats acquire through interactions with their environment.

Two characteristics are central for the characterization of mental maps: (1) the distinction between different kinds of knowledge encoded in a mental map and (2) the elements that structure spatial knowledge. The classic characterization of knowledge goes back to Siegel and White, who distinguished landmark knowledge, route knowledge, and survey knowledge. Often, these types of knowledge are related to the question of how we acquire spatial knowledge, and, for a long time, a dominant school of thought postulated exactly this order. That means, when exposed to an unfamiliar environment, we first get to know salient objects, or landmarks, and, after a while, we [Page 278]get to know routes between these objects. At the stage at which we are able to connect routes, we are said to possess survey knowledge. This tripartition has been challenged by psychologists and in its traditional form is now outdated. As a means to differentiate kinds of spatial knowledge, however, it is still in use.

The elements that characterize spatial knowledge, especially urban knowledge, were first systematically analyzed first by Lynch, in 1960. In his seminal book, The Image of the City, he distinguished five major elements that structure city knowledge: paths, nodes, districts, barriers, and landmarks. His work is currently undergoing a renaissance, and several modern approaches to characterize spatial knowledge relevant for GIS applications, for example, mobile navigation systems, build on Lynch's past work. The topic of landmarks has been especially actively discussed, and recent papers focused on this topic are numerous. Consensus has, however, been reached: Basically, all five elements are potentially landmarks, as they can in one way or another be used to structure spatial knowledge and generate route directions.

An important aspect to keep in mind is the fact that human beings have evolved in a spatial environment and that our evolutionary adaptation has equipped us with the ability to outsource knowledge to the environment. The often reported distortions of mental maps are a result of this process. We do not need to know everything up front, as many aspects reveal themselves through interacting with an environment.

...