Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Amidst major urbanization and technologization processes, scholars have been seeking innovative concepts and methods for studying urban environments and settings. Behavioral mapping was developed in the 1970s by environmental psychologists. However, despite its potential to address new challenges, the method remains relatively underdeveloped in the field of urban planning. This paper juxtaposes the new objectives of urban planning with the qualities of behavioral mapping to discuss the method’s relevance for studying dynamic urban environments. Drawing on case studies of complex urban settings of different scales (a community park and a hospital), we offer a systematic analysis of applying behavioral mapping in urban planning and conclude about the use of the methods and its potential to address contemporary challenges faced by urban planners.

Keywords

behavioral mapping urban planning socio-spatial relations methods planners’ objectives

Introduction

Worldwide urbanization trends have transformed cities and urban forms both physically and conceptually. These transformations include growing migration and the diversity of space and people (Sandercock, 2000; Shilon & Eizenberg, 2020; Vertovec, 2007), new urban forms (Drozdz et al., 2017), environmental disasters and climate changes (Short & Farmer, 2021), and the growing technologization of cities (e.g., smart cities and E-planning) with respect to development and function (Gaffney & Robertson, 2018). Today’s planning is required, thusly, to plan with and for numerus actors who share the urban environment and are tied in complex relations and networks. This type of planning includes novel, inclusive approaches (Heylighen et al., 2017). These global transformations posing epistemological and conceptual challenges for urban scholars and practitioners, who are required to systematically learn, analyze, and present their findings regarding the urban environment they analyze/plan. Therefore, more adequate methods that facilitate systematic study of contemporary urban environments and their diverse users, and are effective for the translation to end-users and policymakers are required for researchers and practitioners. We propose behavioral mapping as a tool that answers this requirement and is suitable for systematically studying socio-spatial relations in diverse urban settings. Behavioral mapping enables to attend to multiple and diverse needs and interests during data collection processes (e.g., in public participation and civic engagement) and when representing, communicating, and disseminating results.

Behavioral mapping has been proposed as a useful method for addressing socio-spatial relations through the study of people’s use of a particular place (Cosco et al., 2010, p. 34). In 1970, Ittelson et al., a group of environmental psychologists developed the tool of behavioral mapping. However, since then, it seems that the tool and its qualities have been taken for granted. In-depth examination of the method of behavioral mapping, its interface with urban planners’ needs and requirements (e.g., present-day cities’ diversity and superdiversity), and its possible benefits for the study of contemporary socio-spatial relations amidst urban transformations remains lacking in the literature.

The need to better address the relations between human behavior and physical settings is acknowledged for several decades outside of the discipline of environmental psychology (Preiser, 1983). This paper reconsiders the qualities of behavioral mapping vis-à-vis the needs and requirements of urban planners, specifically in light of recent transformations in cities and urban planning. Using multiple experiments with behavioral mapping in in- and outdoor urban environments, the goal was to evaluate the tool’s congruency with the needs of urban planners. Focusing on the urban arena, it is important to note at this point that urban planning is perceived in this work as a complementary approach for the constitution of urban settings. We adhere to the rudimentary need to better correspond to the different ways in which socio-spatial relations are formed and to the need of urban planners to better study these relations in research and practice.

Literature Review

Developed by Ittelson et al. (1970), behavioral mapping has been considered an innovative tool to address people–space relations, particularly in the study of socio-spatial interactions on-site and in real time (Bahillo et al., 2015). Behavioral mapping is explained as ‘…an unobtrusive, objective, observational method for measuring actual use of space’ (Moore & Cosco, 2010, p. 34).¹ Following Cosco et al. (2010), we understand behavioral mapping as a method to study the intricacies of people–place relations and interactions. We view behavioral mapping as a method, since it enables the systematic study of urban environments and settings that produces rich, multifaceted, and nuanced data on the uses of these environments.

Behavioral mapping consists of two main concepts: behavioral settings and affordances (Cosco et al., 2010). First developed by Roger Barker (1963), the theory of behavioral setting addresses the environment as shaping human behavior. Behavioral settings consist of humans and more-than-humans, that is, individuals and objects located in a particular time and space. The interactions between the individuals and the objects of the setting represent the core of the concept (Blanchard, 2004). These interactions follow specific patterns (i.e., ‘standing patterns of behavior’) that create a functional, conceptual, and physical behavioral setting. While certain participants in a behavioral setting may feel more obligated (and able) than others to maintain the setting, a behavioral setting is open to external impacts that may change it (Blanchard, 2004).

In 1986, James J. Gibson transformed the verb ‘afford’ into the noun ‘affordance’. While the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ‘afford’ as ‘to make available, give forth, or provide naturally or inevitably’, Gibson (1986) understands affordances as the give-and-take between individuals and the environment, that is, relations based on people’s awareness and interpretation of possible functions derived from the environment (Fjørtoft, 2001). As such, affordances are considered located between the subjective and objective. An affordance ‘…points both ways, to the environment and to the observer’ (Gibson, 1986, p. 129). The relations between the individual and the environment can be divided into four levels of functionality: potential, perceived, utilized and shaped affordances (Kyttä, 2002). The method of behavioral mapping is based on the two concepts of behavioral setting and affordances: ‘the concept of affordance can be used to analyze similarities and differences among behavior settings by describing physical attributes or qualities of behavior setting components that offer specific behavioral responses’ (Cosco et al., 2010, p. 514). Traditionally, behavioral mapping consisted of five main phases: recording all observed behaviors; identifying relevant behaviors for observation; constructing an observation layout and conducting observations; conducting and recording the observations; and analyzing and representing the data (see also Ittelson et al., 1970). Nowadays, it is common to integrate to the process of producing a behavioral map different devices and technologies such as the tools of GPS or GIS (Ng, 2016).

Global urbanization patterns and the resulting transformations in the urban arena have caused urban scholars to search for innovative thinking tools that facilitate investigating new socio-spatial formations both theoretically and empirically (Brenner & Schmid, 2011, 2015; Eizenberg & Shilon, 2016; Issar, 2018; Shilon & Eizenberg, 2021). However, the search for new epistemologies and methods for investigating the complex socio-spatial relations of the contemporary urban arena remains incomplete. While the increasing recognition of mixed-method approaches as relevant to the study of socio-spatial phenomena (Fielding, 2012) is promising, applications and experiments with mixed methods in the urban planning literature remain limited and embryotic (Berta et al., 2018).

Here, we describe the first potential application of behavioral mapping, which was already proposed in the 1970s as consisting of both qualitative and quantitative attributes (Ittelson et al., 1970). Therefore, we propose that behavioral mapping may serve as valuable means to address that deficiency in urban research and therefore contribute to meeting contemporary scholars and practitioners’ needs. Although planners acknowledge behavioral mapping as an important research tool (Cash et al., 2017; Marušić, 2011; Reza Shirazi, 2019), to the best of my knowledge, a systematic approach for using the tool, particularly in planning research and practice, has not been developed, thus leaving much room for theoretical discussion and empirical application of the method for planners.

Based on multiple research experiments with behavioral mapping, we have determined five main characteristics that make behavioral mapping a particularly significant tool for urban planning. First, it is relatively open-ended and flexible. Behavioral mapping may be used alone or beneficially combined with other tools. Second, it is located between the subjective and objective perception of socio-spatial relations. Third, it can simultaneously account for multiple factors of an urban environment. Fourth, it produces both qualitative and quantitative data. Fifth, it can be applied under changing conditions in varied urban settings. In this paper, we develop the discussion on the applicability of behavioral mapping and its specific contribution to urban planning research by juxtaposing it with urban scholars and practitioners needs, focusing on its benefits for data collection as well as results representation and communication. Such an analysis enables us to argue in favor of applying behavioral mapping in research and practice and thus to enhance the study of contemporary socio-spatial formations and interactions. To discuss the benefits of behavioral mapping for urban planners, we will first present the case studies and three-phase model we used to apply behavioral mapping in diverse settings. Then, we will address contemporary urban planners needs and juxtapose them with behavioral mapping qualities by providing examples from two case studies. The conclusion will discuss the benefits of behavioral mapping to planning research and practice.

Methodology

To exemplify the applicability of behavioral mapping in line with the needs of planners, two case studies representing different types of settings, of different scale and focus (one indoor and one outdoor) were selected. The case studies are drawn from research conducted in a large neighborhood park and at the ophthalmology departments and emergency rooms of two hospitals in Israel – Rambam and Meir – in 2017–2019 in the spring and summer of 2017.² In the hospital research, the research focused on the waiting rooms and adjacent corridors, with an interest in the flow of movement, congestion spots, and the interaction between patients, their escorts and staff. The indoor setting of the hospital waiting room allows a more micro-analyses of people-environment relations and more nuanced understanding of the potentialities of the tool. The outdoor research focused on a 20-dunam park – The Butterfly Community Park – located in Ramat Hanasi, Haifa. The park was opened in 2016 and is named for its butterfly shape. It includes varied seating areas, as well as interactive amenities such as an amphitheater, green play areas, and a climbing wall. The park is public and many residents from Ramat Hanasi neighborhood and the city of Haifa regularly visit it. Considering the various qualities of behavioral mapping and their potential to enhance urban planning research and practice, particularly the production of more nuanced, sensitive, sustainable, user-oriented and inclusive processes and products, the research team followed three sequential phases procedure for conducting behavioral maps in two case studies. Phases 1 and 3 were added to the more traditional behavioral mapping procedure to better correspond with the needs of urban planners. Examples for the use and benefits of these phases in the case studies will be addressed in the discussion.

Phase 1: Understanding the Rationale of Space

To get to know a place, both spatially and socially, and understand its designation and uses, practitioners initially learn about stakeholder agendas, the general vision, ideas that are to be reflected in the designed space, obstacles that might occur, and the final physical form compared to the outline plan. This first phase represents a meticulous and comprehensive approach to understanding the site from multiple dimensions. It involves engaging with stakeholders, exploring ideas, identifying obstacles, analyzing the physical layout, and consulting with experts. This groundwork ensures that the subsequent phases in this suggested procedure are well-informed, contextually relevant, and responsive to the needs and aspirations of the community and the site itself.

When discussing and engaging with experts, important themes to address are: What is the main purpose of the site? How would you describe its performance on a daily basis? Who is actively participating in decision-making regarding the place and how? What are the main problems you encounter in the operation of the place? According to these (and other) questions, the expert provides a description of the forest, so to speak, rather than of the single trees.

Phase 2: Observing and Mapping

In this phase we draw on established elements of behavioral mapping (Ittelson et al., 1970) but place a special focus on planners’ interests. The research team followed five steps, which include recording all observed behaviors; identifying relevant behaviors for observation – identifying the dominant behaviors in the setting and among other behaviors that are pertinent to the research goal; constructing an observation layout and conducting observations; conducting and recording the observations: following the observation plan on-site, digitalizing the maps, and creating a data set; and analyzing and representing the data by grouping observed behaviors into analytical categories and representing them by superpositioned maps, graphs and tables (see, e.g., Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Visualizing complex data and settings with behavioral mapping.

Phase 3: Reflecting on the Gathered Data

The third phase’s main purpose is to integrate reflectivity into the planning process in general and into the production of behavioral maps in particular. This phase not only includes a ‘dialogue’ of the scholar/practitioner with their own actions and concepts but also engaged reflectivity and a dialogue of them with stakeholders and users as a means to reflect together on the gathered information and the forms of its representation. To facilitate these dialogues and engaged practices we suggest using a follow-up focus group with selected users as a means for planners to discuss their data and findings, the data collection process, the individuals who collected the data, the different interpretations of the data, and the relations of different agencies to the data presented on the map.

Discussion: Juxtaposing Urban Planning Needs with Behavioral Mapping Qualities

Working in Diverse Environments and Settings

Contemporary urban arenas include multiple actors, considerations, and structural forces (Yiftachel, 2016) as well as diversity in term of space and people (Shilon & Eizenberg, 2020). As a result, a rudimentary need of urban scholars and practitioners is to be able to adapt to different urban contexts to plan them effectively (Healey, 2006). The variety of urban environments not only includes different urban units, such as the state, towns and cities, and metropolitan areas, but also indoor and outdoor urban settings, large to small-scale, and smart and corporeal environments. Different urban settings integrate different subjects, objects and other ecological units – each with its own needs and interests. Working in diverse urban settings, planners face different challenges, ranging from environmental considerations to resource management and public engagement.

Planning urban settings is a dynamic process that binds together multiple emotions, affects, procedures, data, regulations, and knowledge (Berta et al., 2018; Hillier, 2008). Considering their multiple attributes, planning processes require a dynamic, adjustable and inclusive vision of the urban arena. The study of complex, dynamic settings require similarly flexible methods that can yield multifaceted data from which to extract effective observations of and insights into problems and potentials on the path to adequate solutions.

Behavioral mapping is a flexible method that can be adapted to different urban settings. It can be applied to indoor and outdoor urban settings (or both) on varying scales to study individuals, groups, and diverse populations and in combination with various complementary tools. For example, rather than drawing on traditional observations to produce a behavioral map, in large-scale urban areas (e.g., a street network), Hill (1984) argues for the benefits of questionnaires. To scrutinize particular, small-scale user groups (e.g., families), behavioral mapping in the form of behavioral tracking can be advantageous (Moore & Cosco, 2007). Applied in different settings and combined with different methods, behavioral mapping produces a variety of information and insights regarding people-place interactions in the urban environment as well as a multiscale analysis.

The benefit of behavioral mapping to conduct research in diverse settings is exemplified by the two different settings that were used as case studies. The hospital setting represents an indoor setting with a relatively intense atmosphere in terms of its time and space, which combine peak versus off-peak hours, long waits as well as rapid flow and movement, diverse emotional state of users (especially patients), complex relationships between people, and between people and space. In the hospital case, observations included shadowing as well as stationary observations. Drawing on behavioral mapping in these complex settings, it became possible to observe and analyze multiple uses at once, as well as diverse situations ranging from people who flow through several locations (e.g., workers that move around the hospitals’ rooms and departments, as well as many queues and stationary locations (e.g., patients who wait in long queues). In the hospital study, we compiled a behavioral map that represents the overloaded spots, another map focused on the distribution of passive and active patients, and a third map that indicated the points of interaction between patients, visitors and staff.

The Butterfly Community Park case represents a common recreation outdoor urban setting. Users of the park stroll around it (e.g., for dog walking), play (freely or with designated elements), or seating idly. The park serves as a setting for recreation or social interaction, and usually involves a tranquil atmosphere. Observing the park involves more stationary observations, and mapping of uses of diverse elements in the space, rather than the routes users take, as well as the general attendance to the park across seasons, rather than peak versus off-peak hours. However, due to its relatively large-scale settings (of 20 dunams), the research combined the methods of survey and in-depth interviews with behavioral mapping. Finally, in this research, the activities map was translated into a graph that showed load levels throughout the afternoon hours and a chart that indicated the popularity of types of use (see Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 2.

Number of visitors per hour, the butterfly community park.

Figure 3.

Visitors’ activities, the butterfly community park.

Although these settings highly differ in their uses, form, and function, the flexibility of behavioral mapping enabled a nuanced and multifaceted investigation of the settings. In both locations the research team could follow the particularity of the socio-spatial relations, observing multiple uses, situations, users, and interactions (between people or between people, objects, and space) all at once.

Challenge of Inclusivity in Planning Processes

Working with rather than for people has become a significant objective in planning processes, one that requires supportive methods (Fenster, 2009). However, working with ‘the public’ in the conventional manner in for example, participatory planning is insufficient. Since diversity has become a common attribute of cities (Sandercock, 2000), there is an increasing need to plan with diverse communities practicing inclusive approaches (Heylighen et al., 2017; Shilon, 2023; Thompson, 2003). Additionally, superdiversity, which characterizes contemporary large urban centers and major cities, has been acknowledged to have dramatic impacts on urban planning (Pemberton, 2017). Present-day planning requires, therefore, a highly aware approach that not only understands users but also the differences between them.

Since behavioral mapping is centered on observation of multiple behaviors and uses that produces a systematic understanding of socio-spatial relations, it represents a particularly fruitful means to address the challenges of planning in a diverse environment consisting of different people. To begin with, it helps overcome language barriers between scholars and practitioners and users in research and practice while remaining ‘close to the field’ and directly learning behaviors in the place in which they occur. In addition, in line with the strong emphasis on greater public participation and engaged practice in planning processes, the visual output that is integral to the tool is highly valuable in overcoming communication gaps between scholars and practitioners and the public, not only linguistic gaps but also the gaps between emic and etic viewpoints. Presenting a more communicative output to users in public participation sessions creates shared grounds, may foster inclusivity and more nuanced feedback and insights in general and can assist in capturing the differences in perception among different users and their differential use of a space. As such, behavioral mapping encourages inclusivity in planning processes by incorporating both the researcher and the informants’ perceptions of a particular space. For example, in the hospital research, we created a presentation for the planning team and researchers we worked with, policymakers and professionals, which visualizes the results while incorporating multifaceted aspects including multiple users’ behaviors, diverse needs of users (especially patients and staff), and the researcher/observers’ understandings of the space. Although the presentation contains complex data, it is highly accessible to diverse audience (see e.g., Figure 3). In addition, the gathered data was used by the planning team to build a computer simulation of people-space flow in the examined wards. The simulation is used as an accessible visual deliverable to discuss flow problems and possible impact of design changes on the flow and function of the space.

Furthermore, the literature suggests that a major flaw of participatory planning is the dominance of the more powerful stakeholders and market interests that are involved in the process (McCann, 2001; Sager, 2011). In such a dynamic, planners are left with a highly limited capacity to effectively include more situated social and cultural inputs, which are typically more scattered. Behavioral mapping produces multiple outputs, such as maps and graphs, postulated from observed behaviors. With these outputs, planners can present to decision makers a more tangible and easily apprehended user-oriented picture of public needs and interests (supported by systematic research on uses and perceptions).

For example, in the park research, our surveys revealed that 78% of users were Israeli Jews, while only 21% were Palestinians. Traditional civic engagement may prioritize the voices of community representatives and those in positions of power, who have easier access to data and communication channels with planners. Behavioral mapping can address this issue by representing space users regardless of their socio-economic status and demographic attributes, and irrespective of their ability to express needs or their gained cultural capital. Accordingly, it highlights uses of space in practice, offering a more inclusive representation of diverse community needs.

Studying Humans and More-than-humans that Use and Produce the Urban Environment

As part of a planning process in Eagleby, Queensland, which targeted health issues, Sarkissian (2005) included the question ‘what do the parks want?’ (p. 107). Environmental concerns are part of urban planning, and scholars have gradually acknowledged the significance of more-than-human agencies as shaping cities, urban forms and atmospheres (see, e.g., Apfelback et al., 2019; Hinchliffe in Anderson & Harrison, 2010; Simpson, 2013).

The inclusion of more-than-human agencies in urban investigations is mostly driven by relational approaches that are more tolerant towards the active roles of different actors in shaping our socio-spatial reality (e.g., Farías & Bender, 2010; Rydin, 2013). Nonrepresentational theories, for example, has shed new light on the affective aspects of socio-spatial relations, particularly on ‘affective atmospheres’, that is, nonrepresentational collective experiences that shape engagements of (human and more-than-human) bodies with space. These atmospheres reflect ‘…how life is organized outside of strictly representational registers and structures of meaning’ and can illuminate the conditions for the cognitive and conscious production of meaning (Anderson & Ash, 2015, p. 34). Calls for drawing on nonrepresentational theories and the relational notions of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari for the reconceptualization and theorization of urban planning – an important turn that will increase the relevancy of planning for current multiple, dynamic realities – are gaining momentum in planning literature (see e.g., Buser, 2014; Hillier, 2008; Shilon & Eizenberg, 2021).

Tracing associations between human and more-than-human actors requires a method that facilitates broader conceptions of urban planning. In addition, scholars argue that studies on affective atmospheres require elaborating and substantively developing pertinent research methods (Adey et al., 2013; Shilon, 2023). We propose that behavioral mapping is oriented towards the engagement between human and more-than-human actors. It is directed towards the different behaviors that engage with objects, which are, in turn, included in the analysis. Thus, along with inventing new tools that can effectively study affective atmospheres and the more-than-human aspects of urban planning, we may find benefit in developing and bringing up to date the established tool of behavioral mapping. Behavioral mapping can produce shared experience of affective atmospheres as it entails the co-presence of researchers and informants in specific atmospheres and settings. Therefore, the researcher and informants can share the sensations, ambience, and general experience a certain urban area produces. In response to these important queries and efforts to embrace relational approaches in planning research, behavioral mapping can serve as a useful tool that delivers an in-depth, nuanced examinations of the relations between individuals, objects, and affects in different urban forms.

In both studies, the role of the environment, objects, and other more-than-human entities (e.g., trees and animals) was surfaced and integrated into the analysis. In the hospital research, the focus on the use (or under use) of objects raised questions regarding the general comprehension of the space and its atmosphere. For example, our behavioral maps showed that there are massive groups of standing patients in one of the corridors in the Ophthalmology Department, although there were many empty seats nearby. Drawing on the analysis, the taken-for-granted objects ‘chairs’ were in question in terms of their requirement and use in these settings. In the park research, the examination of object usage in space revealed a relatively small difference between users who utilized designated seating objects and those who used random objects for sitting purposes (21% and 16%, respectively). These findings underscore an important gap between how planners perceive the needs of the space and design it, and how users utilize the space and its affordances.

Drawing on Technology for Planning

Present-day urban planning involves increasing use of technology (Kitchin, 2014), and there are multiple uses of technological tools in planning processes. E-Planning, for example, involves using Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to gather urban data and other information for planning processes. Albeit the obstacles it presents due to the limited use of marginalized communities in ICT (Ertiö, 2015), it can serve as a tool for advancing participatory planning by enabling users to report about problems in the urban environment they inhabit (Jones et al., 2015). E-Planning aims to improve urban planning processes while assisting scholars, practitioners and stakeholders by making complex data more accessible (Wang et al., 2007).

The idea of ‘smart’ cities evolved in response to the increasing reliance on ICT and addresses the computation and digitalization of city regulation and management to improve efficiency and coordination between user services. The term also refers to initiatives of ‘smart’ people for the economic development of cities (i.e., innovation and entrepreneurship), including studies on the ways in which technologies influence residents (Kitchin, 2014). In this research strand, both city users and practitioners draw on technology to benefit the urban arena in matters such as its use, form, management, and development.

Several researchers have begun tracing the links between behavioral mapping and technological tools. Already in the 1980s, technologies such as photography and video recording were used in behavioral mapping (Hill, 1984). More recent studies address the advantages of incorporating the data produced by behavioral mapping in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) (Marušić, 2011) and using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) in behavioral maps. Larson et al. (2005) used RFID in the production of behavioral maps with the goal of tracing the flow and movement of individuals. Combining technology and the behavioral mapping tool enabled them to collect data unobtrusively and to ‘shadow’ many individuals at once. However, the potential of technological tools for behavioral maps has not been fully realized in planning theory and practice. Behavioral mapping represents a particularly apt means to incorporate diverse technology (see also Shilon, 2023) and shared practice which will produce inclusive results that better engage with diverse communities’ perceptions, uses, experiences, and understanding of places, and in turn improve urban planning research and practice by extending the scope of the study of socio-spatial relations.

Observation and mapping (phase two) invite drawing on different technologies, from simple tablet computers for recording behavior, to GIS (by incorporating data into GIS to produce indirect insights regarding the use of a place by certain groups of people (Marušić, 2011)), GPS information derived from users, and RFIDs attached to objects (Larson et al., 2005). Therefore, behavioral mapping also represents an opportunity to increase and refine the integration of technology into planning processes and research. The integration of technology into the production of a behavioral map results in a process that is inclusive regarding differences between populations, nuanced, and one which enables better E-planning by making data gathered accessible for both the public and stakeholders. In the hospital research, the utilization of technology such as CAD, BIM, Autodesk Revit and Autodesk 3DS Max, to model the space and animated users provided different kinds of simulation outputs. These simulations make an accessible representation of data in order to generate a better discussion between planners and uses, but moreover they allow for experimentation and evaluation of possible modifications of space as part of the planning process.

Becoming a Reflective Practitioner

With the increasing diversity in cities, conflicts between different groups can easily occur. Rather than striving to resolve conflicts, it is suggested that present-day planning complexities require including these conflicts as part of planning processes (McAndrews & Hansberry, 2018; Pløger, 2004). To this end, urban planners must become more reflective regarding their actions, particularly in working with users. Different from being ‘a reflective practitioner’ (Schön, 2017) who reflects on his or her actions subjectively (De Leo & Forester, 2017), reflexivity involves ‘…the critical examination of our pattern of personal norms and taken-for-granted assumptions, [which] translates something from being used for thinking to being that which we think about […]. Therefore, reflexivity is reflective, but it is also recursive’ (Hibbert, 2013, p. 805). Thus, reflexivity in planning assists in shaping and reshaping actions and interactions in practice.

Reflexivity in planning processes is highly complex and challenging since in many situations urban practitioners represent the state and its power. This circumstance is particularly relevant in cases in which planners who represent state institutions plan for the marginalized, underprivileged and oppressed (Umemoto, 2005). Practitioners are often required to plan in the presence of conflicts and rivalry between subgroups and between the different communities with which they plan (Pløger, 2004). Being reflective in these situations creates an awareness of power dynamics and the need to address them, yet without necessarily striving for consensus.

The application of behavioral mapping parallels the recursive aspect of reflexivity. Data collection in behavioral mapping proceeds in several steps, each consisting of several intervals. From these multiple iterations, a map is compiled. In addition, the repeated presence of the planner-researcher on-site enables face-to-face interaction with its users. Thus, reflexivity in real time – by discussing the gathered data with the space users – is also encouraged. The iterative mode of producing a behavioral map not only provides opportunities for reflexivity during the process but also, as mentioned earlier, at the end of the process regarding the final product. This latter form of reflexivity can be achieved by presenting the final, compiled map to users of a certain urban environment for them to evaluate with respect to whether the map accurately captures the materialization of diverse socio-spatial relations and multiple needs in the environment.

Interactively discussing behavioral maps with users by conducting a focus group, integrates reflectivity into the planning process in general and into the production of behavioral maps in particular. Whereas there are many opportunities for reflectivity in general in behavioral mapping, integrating the dialogical phase into practice brings reflectivity to the fore. For example, when studying an outdoor environment, such as a community park, to better understand the routes that visitors prefer, a blank map of the park can be presented to the group participants followed by a request to mark their preferable routes on it. Later, this map can be compared to the map compiled during phase two.

Conclusion

Present-day cities constantly transform. Recent transformations include climate change, growing diversity, and technologization of cities and their planning. Present-day planners are required to accommodate multiple and diverse needs and interests during data collection processes as well as in the representation, communication, and dissemination of results. This article argues that behavioral mapping can serve as a tool that will assist urban planning and planners to face these ongoing transformations and challenges by utilizing behavioral mapping in planning processes. In particular, we discussed planners needs to work in diverse environments and settings; include diverse actors and needs in planning processes; studying the relationships between humans and more-then-humans in the urban environment; drawing on technology; and be highly reflective toward the planning process, data collection, findings, and data representation. Although behavioral mapping is a well-established tool for studying socio-spatial relations in particular settings, it seems to be overlooked by urban planners. The paper examines behavioral mapping as a pertinent method for urban planning by describing its qualities vis-à-vis contemporary needs and challenges in research and practice.

Working with behavioral mapping in urban planning facilitates a close engagement with the challenges planners face in research and practice. For instance, in our study on hospital corridors the research team learned the floor plans of the wards that served as case studies, and added to them common objects that are part of the setting in the real world but are usually not presented as part of plans (e.g., waiting chairs). In addition, following behavioral mapping’s procedure, the research team conducted follow-up meetings with stakeholders, managers, and hospital workers to reassess the behaviors, affordances and analytical categories that were addressed in the study and the general observational findings of the research. These meetings have helped to reconsider the data that were collected as well as the best ways to represent and communicate it and the studies’ results.

Overall, behavioral mapping meets different planners’ present-day needs and as such may help scholars and practitioners become more familiar with the environments they plan while considering diverse actors – humans and more-than-humans – to advance more sustainable planning outcomes. An important aspect in conducting behavioral mapping, which advances inclusivity and flexibility in urban planning is the possibility to engage in an ongoing reflection. Whether planners are interviewing individuals with respect to engaging with the studied environment, iteratively conducting intervals during observations, or discussing the outputs of the behavioral map with different stakeholders and users in a focus group, behavioral mapping recursively provides ‘stations’ at which planners can stop to reconsider their actions, means, and concepts.

Thus, while the method of behavioral mapping addresses many of the challenges faced by contemporary planners and helps them manage them better, there are also several outstanding qualities that make this method valuable for researchers in general. Most notably, the data are gathered in a way that makes them easily translatable into different modes of representation. In addition, the method is well suited for incorporating more-than-human agencies and new technologies. Finally, it integrates the researcher’s and the informant’s perceptions and experiences of the studied settings, thus creating inclusivity in research and the production of richer, more nuanced information and planning that is more attentive to multiple, diverse needs, accordingly.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

We are thankful for Dalia Arussy and Elad Harel for their assistance in collecting segments of the empirical data.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Israel Science Foundation, (2026046).

ORCID iD

Mor Shilon

Notes

References

Adey

Brayer

Masson

Murphy

Simpson

Tixier

(2013). ‘Pour votre tranquillité’: Ambiance, atmosphere, and surveillance. Geoforum, 49, 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.028

Anderson

Ash

(2015). Atmospheric methods. In Vannini

(Ed.), Non-representational methodologies: Re-envisioning research (pp. 34–41). Routledge.

Apfelbeck

Jakoby

Hanusch

Steffani

E. B.

Hauck

T. E.

Weisser

W. W.

(2019). A conceptual framework for choosing target species for wildlife-inclusive urban design. Sustainability, 11(24), 6972. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246972

Bahillo

Marušić

B. G.

Perallos

(2015). A mobile application as an unobtrusive tool for behavioural mapping in public spaces. In International conference on ubiquitous computing and ambient intelligence (pp. 13–25). Springer.

Barker

R. G.

(1963). Kurt Lewin memorial award address-1963: On the nature of the environment. Journal of Social Issues, 19(4), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1963.tb00456.x

Berta

Bottero

Ferretti

(2018). A mixed methods approach for the integration of urban design and economic evaluation: Industrial heritage and urban regeneration in China. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 45(2), 208–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516669139

Blanchard

(2004). Virtual behavior settings: An application of behavior setting theories to virtual communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00285.x

Brenner

Schmid

(2011). Planetary urbanization. In Gandy

(Ed.), Urban constellation (pp. 10–13). Jovis Verlag.

Brenner

Schmid

(2015). Towards a new epistemology of the urban? City, 19(2-3), 151–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2015.1014712

10.

Buser

(2014). Thinking through non-representational and affective atmospheres in planning theory and practice. Planning Theory, 13(3), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095213491744

11.

Cash

P. J.

Hartlev

C. G.

Durazo

C. B.

(2017). Behavioural design: A process for integrating behaviour change and design. Design Studies, 48, 96–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.10.001

12.

Cosco

N. G.

Moore

R. C.

Islam

M. Z.

(2010). Behavior mapping: A method for linking preschool physical activity and outdoor design. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 42(3), 513–519. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181cea27a

13.

De Leo

Forester

(2017). Reimagining planning: Moving from reflective practice to deliberative practice-a first exploration in the Italian context. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(2), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2017.1284254

14.

Drozdz

Appert

Harris

(2017). High-rise urbanism in contemporary Europe. Built Environment, 43(4), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.43.4.469

15.

Eizenberg

Shilon

(2016). Pedagogy for the new planner: Refining the qualitative toolbox. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(6), 1118–1135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813515604477

16.

Ertiö

T. P.

(2015). Participatory apps for urban planning—space for improvement. Planning Practice and Research, 30(3), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1052942

17.

Farías

Bender

(Eds.). (2010). Urban assemblages: How actor-network theory changes urban studies. Routledge.

18.

Fenster

(2009). Cognitive temporal mapping: The three steps method in urban Planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 10(4), 479–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350903417266

19.

Fielding

N. G.

(2012). Triangulation and mixed methods designs: Data integration with new research technologies, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124–136, https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437101

20.

Fjørtoft

(2001). The natural environment as a playground for children: The impact of outdoor play activities in pre-primary school children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(2), 111–117.

21.

Gaffney

Robertson

(2018). Smarter than smart: Rio de Janeiro's flawed emergence as a smart city. Journal of Urban Technology, 25(3), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2015.1102423

22.

Gibson

(1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press.

23.

Healey

(2006). Transforming governance: Challengaes of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space. European Planning Studies, 14(3), 299–320.

24.

Heylighen

Van der Linden

Van Steenwinkel

(2017). Ten questions concerning inclusive design of the built environment. Building and Environment, 114, 507–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.008

25.

Hibbert

(2013). Approaching reflexivity through reflection: Issues for critical management education. Journal of Management Education, 37(6), 803–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562912467757

26.

Hill

M. R.

(1984). Stalking the urban pedestrian: A comparison of questionnaire and tracking methodologies for behavioral mapping in large-scale environments, Environment and Behavior, 16(5), 539–550, https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916584165001

27.

Hillier

(2008). Plan (e) speaking: A multiplanar theory of spatial planning. Planning Theory, 7(1), 24–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207085664

28.

Hinchliffe

(2010). Working with multiples: A non-representational approach to environmental issues. In Anderson

Harrison

(Eds.), Taking-Place: Non-Representational theories and geography (pp. 303–320). Farnham: Ashgate.

29.

Issar

(2018). Editorial: We have never been urban. City, 22(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2018.1443594

30.

Ittelson

W. H.

Rivlin

L. G.

Proshansky

H. M.

(1970) The use of behavioral maps in environmental psychology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

31.

Jones

Layard

Speed

Lorne

(2015). MapLocal: Use of smartphones for crowdsourced planning. Planning Practice and Research, 30(3), 322–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1052940

32.

Kitchin

(2014). The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal, 79, 1–14.

33.

Kyttä

(2002). Affordances of children's environments in the context of cities, small towns, suburbs and rural villages in Finland and Belarus, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1-2), 109-123, https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0249

34.

Larson

J. S.

Bradlow

E. T.

Fader

P. S.

(2005). An exploratory look at supermarket shopping Paths. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(4), 395–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2005.09.005

35.

Marušić

B. G.

(2011). Analysis of patterns of spatial occupancy in urban open space using behaviour maps and GIS. Urban Design International, 16(1), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2010.20

36.

McAndrews

Hansberry

(2018). Facilitation and dialogue as methods of reflective practice in professional education. Planning Practice and Research, 33(1), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2017.1419653

37.

McCann

E. J.

(2001). Collaborative visioning or urban planning as therapy? The politics of public- private policy making. The Professional Geographer, 53(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00280

38.

Moore

R. C.

Cosco

N. G.

(2007). What makes a park inclusive and universally designed? A multi-method approach. In Thompson

C. W.

Travlou

(Eds.), Open space: People space (pp. 85–110). Taylor & Francis.

39.

C. F.

(2016). Behavioral mapping and tracking. In Gifford

(Ed.), Research methods for environmental psychology (pp. 29–51). Wiley & Sons.

40.

Pemberton

(2017). Urban planning and the challenge of super-diversity. Policy & Politics, 45(4), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557316x14755958613727

41.

Pløger

(2004). Strife: Urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095204042318

42.

Preiser

W. F.

(1983). The habitability framework: A conceptual approach towards linking human behaviour and physical environment. Design Studies, 4(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694x(83)90038-8

43.

Reza Shirazi

(2019). Mapping neighbourhood outdoor activities: Space, time, gender and age. Journal of Urban Design, 24(5), 715–737. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.1458607

44.

Rydin

(2013). Using Actor–Network Theory to understand planning practice: Exploring relationships between actants in regulating low-carbon commercial development. Planning Theory, 12(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212455494

45.

Sager

(2011). Neo-liberal urban planning policies: A literature survey 1990–2010. Progress in Planning, 76(4), 147–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2011.09.001

46.

Sandercock

(2000). Cities of (in)difference and the challenge for planning. disP-The Planning Review, 36(140), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2000.10556728

47.

Sarkissian

(2005). Stories in a park: Giving voice to the voiceless in Eagleby, Australia. Planning Theory & Practice, 6(1), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000334994

48.

Schön

D. A.

(2017). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge.

49.

Shilon

(2023). Effective methodologies to study affects: New tools for engaging with socio-spatial relations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231173780

50.

Shilon

(2023). Technology-oriented community-engaged learning in urban planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 24(4), 528–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2023.2264833

51.

Shilon

Eizenberg

(2020). Critical pedagogy for the new planner: Mastering an inclusive perception of ‘The Other’. Cities, 97, Article 102500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102500

52.

Shilon

Eizenberg

(2021). Experiencing vertical living: Affects, atmospheres, and technology. Planning Theory, 20(2), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220939993

53.

Short

J. R.

Farmer

(2021). Cities and climate change. Earth, 2(4), 1038–1045. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth2040061

54.

Simpson

(2013). Ecologies of experience: Materiality, sociality, and the embodied experience of (street) performing. Environment and Planning A, 45(1), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4566

55.

Thompson

(2003). Planning and multiculturalism: A reflection on Australian local practice. Planning Theory & Practice, 4(3), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935032000118643

56.

Umemoto

(2005). Walking in another’s shoes: Epistemological challenges in participatory planning. In Stiftel

Watson

Acselrad

(Eds.), Dialogues in urban and regional planning 2 (pp. 180–208). Routledge.

57.

Vertovec

(2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599465

58.

Wang

Song

Hamilton

Curwell

(2007). Urban information integration for advanced e-Planning in Europe. Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 736–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2007.04.002

59.

Yiftachel

(2016). The Aleph—Jerusalem as critical learning. City, 20(3), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2016.1166702

Advancing Behavioral Mapping a Step Forward: Meeting Urban Planning’s Objectives

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Methodology

Phase 1: Understanding the Rationale of Space

Phase 2: Observing and Mapping

Phase 3: Reflecting on the Gathered Data

Discussion: Juxtaposing Urban Planning Needs with Behavioral Mapping Qualities

Working in Diverse Environments and Settings

Challenge of Inclusivity in Planning Processes

Studying Humans and More-than-humans that Use and Produce the Urban Environment

Drawing on Technology for Planning

Becoming a Reflective Practitioner

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

References