Weighting the Effects of Spatial Cognition and Activity Anchors on Time–Space Activity

Abstract

Many elements are known to affect the decision-making procedures that underlie time–space activity patterns. Yet, knowledge regarding the relations between these elements is lacking. In this article, a hierarchical structure of external and cognitive time–space behavioral influences is proposed based on the results of a field experiment. The experiment relied on an in situ sampling of stated and overt behaviors of visitors to a touristic site in northern Israel, using questionnaires and Global Positioning System loggers. Two experimental treatments were simultaneously applied during sampling, dividing the sample into four groups: Each participant received on entry one of two maps, designed according to different cartographical–cognitive approaches; new activity stations were placed during half of the sampling days, meaning that each participant was exposed to one of two possible spatial layouts. The behavioral patterns recorded expose each treatment's distinct behavioral effect along with its relative weight within the decision-making process, thus pointing toward a hierarchical structure.

诸多因素被认识为影响支撑时空活动模式的决策过程, 但却缺乏有关这些元素间的关系之知识。本文根据田野实验的结果, 提出外在且认知的时空行为影响之阶层结构。该实验依赖以色列北方一处观光景点中宣称且明显的访客行为之原位抽样, 并运用问卷和全球定位系统记录器。抽样时同时运用两大实验方法, 并将样本分为四大群体: 各参与者在进入时获得根据不同製图认知方法设计的两张地图中的一张; 在抽样日期过半时置入新的活动站, 意味着各参与者暴露于两种可能空间安排的其中一种。本研究纪录的行为模式, 暴露出决策过程中, 各种方法随着其相对权重的特殊行为影响, 因此指向阶层化的结构。

Muchos son los elementos que se sabe afectan los procedimientos de toma de decisiones que subrayan los patrones de actividad tiempo–espacio. No obstante, el conocimiento sobre las relaciones entre estos elementos es insuficiente. En este artículo se propone una estructura jerárquica de las influencias conductuales externas y cognitivas del tiempo–espacio, con base en los resultados de un experimento de campo. El experimento dependió de un muestreo in situ de conductas declaradas y públicas de visitantes de un sitio turístico en el norte de Israel, usando cuestionarios y registros del Sistema de Posicionamiento Global. Durante el muestreo, se aplicaron simultáneamente dos tratamientos experimentales, dividiendo la muestra en cuatro grupos: Cada participante recibió de entrada uno de dos mapas, designado de acuerdo con diferentes enfoques cartográfico–cognitivos; se colocaron nuevas estaciones de actividad durante la mitad de los días de encuesta, lo cual significa que cada participante estuvo expuesto a uno de dos posibles planos espaciales. Los patrones de conducta registrados exponen cada efecto conductual distinto del tratamiento junto con su peso relativo dentro del proceso de toma de decisiones, apuntando así hacia una estructura jerárquica.

Key Words:

• activity anchors
• Global Positioning System
• spatial cognition
• time–space behavior
• tourist behavior

关键词:

• 活动定锚, 全球定位系统, 空间认知, 时空行为, 观光客行为。

Palabras clave:

• anclas de actividad, cognición espacial, conducta del tiempo–espacio, conducta del turista, Sistema de Posicionamiento Global

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the entire staff at Ramat Hanadiv, especially Liat Hadar, Gali Cohen, and Dr. Yael Navon, for their assistance in data collection efforts. The author extends his gratitude to Professor Noam Shoval for his assistance and guidance and to Professor Tim Schwanen for his insightful comments on an early draft of this article. In addition, the author thanks the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Notes

¹ The Baron was a key figure in the development of the modern Jewish settlement in Israel during the nineteenth century.

² The sampling was carried out during the secular part of the Passover vacation (known as Chol Hamoed) in which the mobility of more religious Jews is not constrained by religious traditions.

³ During this time of year, the blossoming vegetation within the gardens attracts many migrating butterflies.

⁴ In contrast with highly simplified maps that are more commonly used (e.g., Guo 2011).

⁵ I. Group and I. Time Budget were labeled true for values above 3; the cutoff value used for the I. Participation and I. Logger variables was 1.

⁶ This latter explanation can be supported by the fact that no significant influence on stated preferences was found for the event treatment (see Table 7).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

A. Yair Grinberger

A. YAIR GRINBERGER is a Postdoctoral Rresearcher at the GIScience Research Group in the Institute of Geography, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg 69120, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]. His research interests include human mobility, geographic data, and how the two interact to produce geographic information.