See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343510443

Behavior Mapping to Support the Development of Youth-Friendly

Public Outdoor Spaces

Chapter · July 2020

CITATIONS READS

3 1,075

3 authors:

Janet Loebach Adina Cox

Cornell University University of Kentucky
24 PUBLICATIONS   398 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   54 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sarah Little
University of Oklahoma
9 PUBLICATIONS   63 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Janet Loebach on 07 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 19
Behavior Mapping to Support the
Development of Youth-Friendly
Public Outdoor Spaces
Janet Loebach, Adina Cox, and Sarah Little

Introduction
One of the primary keys to the development of public spaces which are more welcoming of youth,
and supportive of their preferred activities, is to better understand how young people actually use
or claim these public environments. Researchers, designers, and public space managers can design
and operate more inclusive spaces when they have a better idea of the environmental features and
conditions that support the interests and needs of young people. One effective way to assess use and
build this understanding is to observe children and youth interacting in local environments such as
public parks, playgrounds, plazas, skate parks, and other public settings where young people may
congregate. Despite the increased understanding of youth needs such approaches can provide,
observational techniques remain an underutilized tool in both research and planning practice.
Designers, planners, and city administrators often cite a lack of knowledge around effective research
tools as a barrier to examining or integrating the public space needs of young people (Osborne,
Baldwin, Thomsen, & Woolcock, 2017). Yet developing public spaces which are designed with
youth in mind, and which welcome them as legitimate users, is becoming even more important as
greater numbers of children and youth are living in higher density urban areas (Corkery & Bishop,
Chapter 10; UNICEF, 2012). The goal of this chapter is to introduce an observational tool known
as Behavior Mapping, which is well suited to examining the behaviors and environmental inter-
actions of youth in public places. While Behavior Mapping can be used to observe youth behaviors
in both interior and exterior environments, this chapter focuses on techniques for observing their
activity in public outdoor settings.
Behavior Mapping is one of the few research tools which captures in-situ behavior, simultan-
eously and systematically recording both observed behaviors and their specific environmental loca-
tion. It was specifically developed to recognize the reciprocal nature of human behavior and the
environment, aiming to objectively record the actual use of a space, while also denoting how the
environment is supporting or influencing that use. Behavior Mapping is also a valuable tool for
recording environmental behaviors because it does not rely on the self-report of users, who may
not accurately remember or even be fully conscious of their activities and interactions within a
space (Ng, 2016). For this same reason, this tool is also valuable for capturing the environmental
behaviors of children and youth, who may have more difficulties articulating their perceptions of a
space or recalling their past activities, and with whom tools such as questionnaires and interviews
may be less effective (Sommer & Sommer, 2002; Ng, 2016; Cox, Loebach, & Little, 2018).

308 Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute

 Behavior Mapping for Youth-Friendly Places

Behavior Mapping does not rely on the perceptual or communication skills of the users in order to
effectively capture their environmental activities.
Behavior Mapping itself is not a new research tool. Environmental psychologists began experi-
menting with intensive observational techniques to capture people’s behavior in a particular
environment in the late 1960s (Ng, 2016; Bechtel & Zeisel, 1987), and Behavior Mapping was
more formally introduced as a research tool to the field of environmental psychology in 1970 by
Ittelson, Rivlin, and Proshansky of the City University of New York. Early adopters of the tool
used it to study the behavior of adult patients in psychiatric wards (Ittelson, Rivlin & Proshansky,
1970), the behavior of visitors through museums (Bechtel, 1967; Winkel & Sasanoff, 1966), and
the movements of pedestrians in and through urban public spaces (Whyte, 1980). Early researchers
also recognized the value of Behavior Mapping for capturing children’s behavior in their local
neighborhoods and playgrounds (Sanoff & Coates, 1971; Björklid, 1982; van Andel, 1984; Moore
& Wong, 1997), classroom settings (Rivlin & Rothenberg, 1976), and hospital wards (Rivlin &
Wolfe, 1972). While there is not a large body of scholarship using Behavior Mapping to study the
outdoor environments of young people, numerous studies in subsequent decades have successfully
employed it to examine young people’s environmental behavior, particularly in play and learning
environments (Cox et al., 2018; Drown & Christensen, 2014; Bozkurt & Woolley, 2017; Cosco,
Moore, & Islam, 2010; Fjørtoft, Kristoffersen, & Sageie, 2009) or to study behavior in public spaces
(Hampton, Livio, & Goulet, 2010; Zacharias, Stathopoulos, & Wu, 2004). These studies, particu-
larly in concert with recent advances in digital hardware and software that can assist with data col-
lection and analysis, demonstrate the value of utilizing Behavior Mapping to inform the design of
youth-inclusive public spaces.
As researchers gained more experience using Behavior Mapping techniques, Sommer and
Sommer (1991, 2002) further delineated the approach into two different types: person-centered
mapping and place-centered mapping. Person-centered mapping, which has also been called Behavior
Tracking (Ng, 2016), maps the behaviors of a single individual or group in one or more environ-
mental settings over time. Person-centered mapping is especially useful for learning about the
spatial activities of a specific person or group, or for understanding how they use or behave in a
given space (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). For example, observers could track the behavior and
interactions of a child with environmental sensitivities as they navigate their way through a public
park, or the behavior of a group of teens as they travel through public corridors in their neighbor-
hood. While there is significant value in a person-centered approach, this chapter will focus on
place-centered mapping as a tool for capturing and understanding how youth behave in specific public
spaces. The goal of a place-centered approach is to understand how (or if) a given environment
supports a diverse range of uses and behaviors, for the full range of users of the space. The choice
of approach will depend on the specific goals of the research, and in some cases it may be appro-
priate to utilize a combination of person- and place-centered mapping to answer different research
questions, or to develop a more nuanced understanding of place-based behavior. For the purposes
of this chapter, we outline a protocol for a place-centered approach to capturing young people’s
behavior in public outdoor spaces in order to assess or improve its youth-inclusiveness. The remain-
der of this chapter describes the key steps and considerations for undertaking a youth-centered
Behavior Mapping project, followed by an illustrative example of how Behavior Mapping was
employed to evaluate how well a public outdoor space is supporting the play activities of young
children.

Using Geographic Information System (GIS) Technology to Support Behavior

Mapping
Before outlining the key steps in involved in Behavior Mapping, it is valuable to first speak to
the role of GIS in contemporary approaches to this methodology. Advances in the capacity and

Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute 309

Janet Loebach et al.

functionality of GIS, such as the commercially available ArcGIS or the freeware program QGIS,
have been valuable developments for Behavior Mapping research. A GIS, software which allows
for the recording, organizing, and analysis of geographically located data, is a powerful program
which provides for more efficient and accurate analysis and communication of Behavior Mapping
data. It also allows observation data to be considered in much more complex ways than would be
possible otherwise. Prior to the use of GIS for Behavior Mapping, analyses tended to be simpler
comparisons across just a few data attributes, such as gender differences in the use of public parks,
or the locations of physically intensive activities, but it was difficult to consider the interaction of a
greater set of data variables. Multiple characteristics of both observed activities and the environment
can now easily be stored, sorted, cross-analyzed, and displayed together in GIS, allowing for more
complex analyses and the development of larger datasets. While it is possible to analyze some
Behavior Mapping data without such a program, working within GIS is highly recommended.
Utilizing GIS in either the collection and/or the analysis of Behavior Mapping data will require
some expertise in the program and its setup; if this knowledge is not available within the project
team, there are often GIS specialists available through local universities or government agencies.

Key Steps to Preparing for Behavior Mapping

Preparing to carry out Behavior Mapping at a project site typically involves the following five steps:
(1) procuring or developing a base map of the site to be observed; (2) deciding on the data collec-
tion approach and tools to use in the field; (3) deciding on a set of observable data variables to
collect which address the objectives of the research; (4) setting up a systematic protocol for collect-
ing data, including among multiple observers; and (5) establishing a strategy for data analysis. See
Cox et al. (2018) for additional details on preparing for and conducting Behavior Mapping, par-
ticularly in outdoor and natural play spaces.

Preparing a Base Map of the Observation Site

Finding or developing a scale base map of the site to be observed is key to successful mapping of
the behavior observed in a given environment. The base map not only provides detail about the
existing site, such as its topography or the location of existing structures or vegetation, but it also
allows observers to accurately locate the behavior being observed. The detailed to-scale base map
is particularly necessary when the observation site is small in scale, such as a small outdoor play
space or a pocket park, where it is important to be able to denote the exact location of the activity
within the small space. The value of Behavior Mapping lies in its ability to tie observed behavior
to specific environmental conditions present; an accurate, scaled base map allows observers to
capture information about the context in which behavior is taking place, including the location and
layout of existing amenities such as seating or pathways, and the proximity of behavior to objects
or other settings in the space. Spaces, particularly outdoor, public spaces, are also constantly chang-
ing; a properly prepared base map helps to preserve the conditions of the environment at the time
of observation.
Before data collection begins, the base map should be divided into smaller observation zones
that can reasonably be covered by a single observer (see more details in the fourth section of this
chapter). If one or multiple observers systematically rotate their time through the observation
zones, the entire site can be observed thoroughly and consistently. The size and number of obser-
vation zones established will vary by site and depend on several factors including the number of
simultaneous observers, the visibility of various settings, and user density within specific settings.
For example, a large grassy area with few trees or other obstructions may allow an observer to view
a larger space from a given observation point (keeping in mind that the observer must still be close
enough to see and even hear the behavior taking place, and to accurately record the spatial location

310 Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute

 Behavior Mapping for Youth-Friendly Places

of the observed event). A well-used public plaza with many amenities or settings, or with structures
that obscure views, may be divided into a number of smaller observation zones to capture the
diversity of activity, and to provide observers unobstructed views. Naturally occurring boundaries
such as pathways, fences, vegetation, or buildings, are useful for establishing clear, visible bound-
aries of observation zones.
Utilizing GIS such as ArcGIS or QGIS both to generate a base map and to collect and analyze
data will support more efficient as well as more complex analyses (see the next section of this
chapter), however, base maps can also be prepared from scaled topographical maps, architectural/
landscape plans, or satellite/aerial images.

Selecting the Data Collection Approach and Tools

Conducting Behavior Mapping, regardless of the type of site, requires two main tools: a scaled base
map as well as a datasheet for recording characteristics of the activities observed. A key advantage
of Behavior Mapping is that it is a flexible tool which can support the collection of a broad range
of data, including characteristics of the person being observed, the activities in which they are
engaging, and the environment where these activities are taking place. For example, a Behavior
Mapping protocol for capturing children’s play activity in a public park could record demographic
data about the child observed (e.g., observable characteristics such as gender, age group), data about
the play interaction being observed (e.g., play type, physical activity level, social interaction, level
of engagement), and environmental data about the activity space (e.g., ground surface, topography,
or the presence of shade or loose parts). These observable characteristics are recorded on a datasheet
template, while the physical location of the play event is recorded as a correspondingly numbered
point on the base map. These demographic, behavioral, and environmental data can later be ana-
lyzed simultaneously.
There are three options currently available for collecting Behavior Mapping data in the field:
(1) a fully paper-based method, (2) a fully digital method, or (3) a paper–digital hybrid. Each of
these field collection systems has advantages and disadvantages; observers can select the system
which best matches the resources, equipment, budget, and expertise available for a given project.
A strictly paper-based approach is the most economical method and requires the least amount of
observer training. Field data is collected on both a paper base map as well as a paper-based datash-
eet. For each activity observed in the field, the observer records the location by placing a symbol,
such as a dot or circle, on the paper map, and numbering it. Details about the activity are then
recorded on a row of the datasheet labeled with the corresponding number. This approach requires
few resources, and does not require digital expertise, making it suitable for fairly simple projects or
where more highly trained observers are not available. However, for proper and efficient analysis,
these data should eventually be entered into a GIS program (see below).
Developments in both software and digital devices have made a fully digital approach much more
feasible and economical. A completely digital system involves taking a computer tablet (or in some
cases a mobile phone would be sufficient) into the field to collect data on both the location (on a
digital version of the base map) and characteristics of observed activities (on a digital datasheet).
This approach is typically the most expensive option, involves more training for observers, and
requires someone with expertise in both the software and the hardware utilized. However, enter-
ing data digitally in the field eliminates the need for manual data entry, which can save significant
time and can help to minimize data entry errors. The most important consideration is selecting a
software program or application which very accurately records the location of observed activities,
particularly when you are mapping behavior in small-scale places or when environmental amenities
are located in close proximity to one another. A digital tablet or cell phone may have GPS cap-
abilities to record a geographical coordinate, but these GPS-derived locations may not be accurate
enough for the objectives of the project. For example, in a public play space it may be important

Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute 311

Janet Loebach et al.

to be able to discern whether a child is playing on a play structure versus near the play structure.
Typical GPS-enabled smartphones or tablets may be accurate to within a 3 meter (9 feet) radius
under open sky, however if the data collector (with their digital device) is standing near buildings,
trees, or other objects which can interfere with the device’s communication with satellites, the
accuracy of the corresponding GPS-derived spatial coordinates can be much lower. Accuracy of
location data collected with a GPS-enabled device may be increased with higher grade survey
equipment, but that comes at a much higher cost and is therefore not feasible in all studies. When
location accuracy is critical, GIS programs or applications such as ArcCollector can be switched to
an offline mode (i.e., with the automatic GPS locator disabled) which will allow the data collector
to manually locate observation points on the base map. Digital devices should also be suitable for
use in outdoor environments including bright sunlight or damp conditions; rugged cases and non-
glare screens or screen protectors are recommended.
The final option is a hybrid approach which combines digital and paper-based tools to collect
observation data. Typically, a digital device is used to record behavioral and environmental data in
a digital database in combination with a paper-based map to record the locations of observed activ-
ities. This combined approach still has the advantage of digitally entering observational data in the
field and then transferring it directly to a GIS or other analysis programs, without the potential
difficulties associated with setting up a digital map that can accurately record locations in the field.
Digital databases can also be pre-programmed with common variable options (e.g., through pre-
selected codes or pull-down menus) to speed up data recording in the field. Drawbacks to this
option include the awkwardness of juggling the two different systems in the field, and the need to
eventually manually enter the paper-based map data to GIS.

Establishing a Set of Observable Variables to be Collected

Another of the key advantages of a Behavior Mapping methodology is the incredible flexibility
inherent in its tools. Behavior Mapping can be tailored to collect data on the specific behavioral or
environmental characteristics which are best suited to answering the research questions at hand. For
example, if the objective is simply to understand the type and range of users of a public plaza and
which features are most often used, can be employed to record the gender and age range of users,
solo versus group activity, while mapping the locations of all plaza activities. If the objective is to
understand how a public park is supporting physical activity, in addition to demographic data, the
type and intensity of physical activity observed can be documented. For more complex environ-
ments, such as public play spaces, a broad range of play, learning, and social interaction data can be
collected.
In addition to a full range of demographic information which could be collected about an
observed person or group, there are also numerous existing tools or scales which are designed to
categorize a given behavior or interaction and can therefore be incorporated into a Behavior
Mapping protocol. The only condition is that you must be collecting information which is observ-
able, or discernable by watching and/or listening to an activity taking place. For example, you can
document the type and level of physical activity in which a person is engaging, but you cannot
collect information about their motivation for engaging in physical activity, or the frequency with
which they do it, solely from behavioral observation. The ethnicity or cultural background of a
person is also difficult to discern from observation alone. Observational data can provide a rich
picture of the activities taking place in the public realm, but there are limits to the type of data it
can provide. Fortunately, Behavior Mapping pairs very well with other forms of data collection,
such as surveys, interviews, photographs, and video, which, when analyzed together, can help to
answer a broader range of research questions.
It is usually valuable to collect basic demographic information about the targets of observation,
such as gender, age, or age group (see Cox et al., 2018 for more details about collecting demographic

312 Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute

 Behavior Mapping for Youth-Friendly Places

data in the field). Depending on the objectives of the observation, the following is a list of potential
variables, including references to existing categorical tools or scales, which could be easily integ-
rated into a Behavior Mapping project particularly focusing on young people’s behavior in outdoor,
public spaces:

• Group size
• Group composition
(see for example Observational System for Recording Physical Activity in Children-Preschool
(OSRAC-P), Brown et al., 2006)
• Play type
(see Cox et al., 2018; Rubin, 2008; Fjortoft, 2004; Smilansky, 1968)
• Playfulness
(see Bandura, 2005; Lieberman, 1977)
• Mode of play (e.g., solo, parallel, cooperative)
(see Cox et al., 2018; Parten, 1932)
• Activity type/physical activity type (e.g., custom or established set of activity types or verbs)
(see Cosco, 2007; OSRAC-P, Brown et al., 2006; System for Observing Play And Recreation
in Communities (SOPARC), McKenzie, Cohen, Sehgal, Williamson, & Golinelli, 2006;
System for Observing Play and Leisure Activity in Youth (SOPLAY), McKenzie, 2002)
• Activity intensity/mobility level
(see Children’s Activity Rating Scale (CARS), Puhl, Greaves, Hoyt, & Baranowski, 1990;
SOPARC, McKenzie et al., 2006; SOPLAY, McKenzie, 2002)
• Initiator of activity
(see OSRAC-P, Brown et al., 2006)
• Use of mobility aid (e.g., wheelchair, walker, crutches, cane, other)
• Level of engagement
(see Individual Child Engagement Record-Revised, Kishida, Kemp, & Carter, 2008)
• Social interaction (including peer interaction, or child–adult interaction)
(see Kishida et al., 2008; Parten, 1932)
• Adult intervention/interaction
• Communication
• Environmental interaction (e.g., activity involves interaction with natural versus manufactured, and/or
fixed versus loose, and/or high structured versus low structured)
(see Cox et al., 2018; Cosco, 2007; Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2000)
• Risk-taking behavior
(see Little, 2010)
• Wildlife interaction
(see Cox et al., 2018).

It should be noted that to evaluate the degree to which a public place is inclusive of youth, Behav-
ior Mapping could also focus on the behaviors of adults in the space, and/or the interaction between
young people and adults. Additional variables can be embedded in the protocol as needed to
capture adult behavior.
Data can also be collected on a range of relevant environmental conditions, which can be
customized to reflect the public outdoor space being observed including:

• Ground surface (e.g., asphalt/concrete, grass, gravel, compacted soil, mulch, rubber, sand, etc.)
• Topography (e.g., flat ground, rolling surface, hill/berm, ditch, creek)
• Shade (Yes/No/Partial)
• Setting diversity (see for example Cosco, 2007)

Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute 313

Janet Loebach et al.

• Condition/suitability of space for play or activity (see for example SOPLAY tool, McKenzie,
2002)
• Weather conditions
• Accessibility conditions.

It should be noted as well, that many of these variables, with their pre-determined and fixed set of
options, are examples of ‘static coding.’ When finalizing your set of attributes to capture during
field observation, consider including an opportunity for ‘open coding,’ an unstructured component
(such as a large text field) that allows the observer to briefly describe the salient or rich aspects of
the behavior being observed. Open coding not only helps to provide a fuller picture of the behav-
ior witnessed but can be used after data collection is complete to ensure that all other variables were
coded correctly and coherently.
It is important to carefully consider which characteristics or attributes (such as user demo-
graphics, human interactions, and environmental conditions) will be collected in the field. While
more variables associated with the observed behavior can yield a richer picture of the activity, each
additional data variable means more time spent in the field on each observed event, and the fewer
total observations that will be possible in a given data collection period.

Setting Up a Systematic Protocol for Collecting Data

Many Behavior Mapping projects will involve multiple observers collecting data simultaneously. In
order to improve the accuracy and consistency of data collected in the field by multiple observers,
a protocol should be established to finalize the number of simultaneous observers, the length of
each observation round, as well as the scanning method to be used to observe youth behaviors.
The number of observers who will engage in collecting field data will depend on the size of the
space to be observed, as well as the availability of trained observers. If possible, it is valuable to have
the same number of observers as delineated observation zones so that you can have an observer in
all zones at all times during the field collection. Human resources and project budgets don’t always
stretch to this, but project facilitators should aim to have as many observers as possible in the space,
particularly during peak times. As a minimum, it is useful to engage one observer for every two
observation zones; this ensures that each zone is being observed at least every other observation
round as observers rotate around the study site.
It is also critical that these observers be well trained in the methodology and the behavior/
environmental variables to be coded, so allow ample time for training. When you are using mul-
tiple observers, it is also imperative that all coding is consistent across observers. In addition to
substantial test coding in the field, your protocol should also incorporate occasional reliability rounds.
During a reliability round, rather than observing different behaviors across a study site, all observers
code the behavior of the same individual at the same time. Once each has independently coded the
observed activity, the data of each observer is compared. This comparison will help to reveal incon-
sistencies in coding across observers, which may require the refining of variables or the develop-
ment of additional coding options and will generally improve the accuracy of the overall dataset.
The reliability of observations between coders can also be formally analyzed using the kappa coeffi-
cient (k) (Cohen, 1960). A k value falling between 0.61 and 0.80 indicates substantial agreement
between coders; a k value between 0.81 and 1.00 indicates extremely high to perfect agreement
(Landis & Koch, 1977).
Prior to commencing field data collection, the length of the observation rounds and a designated
observation point must also be established. This ensures that the Behavior Mapping is conducted
systematically by all observers, and that the protocol is repeatable. The time period for each obser-
vation round can vary depending on the size of the observation zones and the degree of activity
taking place in the space. For the observation of youth in public spaces, the authors recommend a

314 Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute

 Behavior Mapping for Youth-Friendly Places

rotating schedule of 15-minute observation periods, each of which can be broken down into three
5-minute scanning periods (see below for scanning procedures).
There are two main types of observation zones: (1) a block zone, such as the area around a play
structure or the seating area of a plaza, which can be viewed in its entirety from a single observation
point (see Figure 19.1), and (ii) a linear zone, such as the area along a path or trail, which cannot be
viewed from a single, static point (see Figure 19.2). A single public space may include several of

Figure 19.1 Example of a block zone. During a block zone scan, the observer stands at the desig­
nated observation point, and rotates visually around the site, recording any child
observed along scan lines. The observation point does not need to be centered in the
space; ideally the observation point maximizes visibility of the space but allows the
observer to be as unobtrusive as possible.

Figure 19.2 Example of a trail/pathway zone. In a trail zone scan the observer walks along the
pathway and visually scans back and forth across the path as they walk along the
path, recording the behavior of any child observed along the scan lines.

Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute 315

Janet Loebach et al.

each type of zone. Both types of areas can be observed in a systematic way (see Cox et al., 2018 for
additional details on scanning techniques for each type of observation zone). In a block zone, a
designated observation point should be established which allows the observer to see and hear most,
if not all, of the activity happening in the space; observers should be able to see the behavior of the
young person but also be close enough to pick up vocal cues that enhance the understanding of the
youth’s behavior or interaction. For a linear zone, the observation point moves along the path as
the observer advances through the space, observing behavior taking place within a short distance
ahead.
Regardless of the type of zone, it is also critical that the observation point allows the observer
to remain as unobtrusive as possible. Bechtel, one of the earliest users of Behavior Mapping tech-
niques, found that there could be unintended ‘observer effects’ on a person’s behavior if they
become aware that they are being observed; Bechtel concluded that the observer must therefore be
unobtrusive in order to avoid influencing the behavior of those being observed (Bechtel, 1967; Ng,
2016). In a public space, an observer can be less obtrusive if they position themselves beside or
slightly behind a barrier, such as a tree, a small building, or other feature. The observer may also be
less visible if they themselves are sitting in the space, such as on a bench, step, or berm. For linear
zones, observers should look for key stopping points where they can observe from a partially
shielded position or from a space slightly removed from the path.
Typically, each scanning period involves scanning the observation zone until you visually
encounter a young person in the space. The behavior of the youth is observed for a short period of
time, about 15 seconds, and then the details of that behavior, and its environmental context, are
recorded on the base map and datasheet. When recording is complete, the observer continues scan-
ning the area, this time picking up from the location of the last recorded behavior, until another
young person is encountered. This continues for the full 5-minute period; if the zone has not been
completely scanned by the end of the 5-minute period, the observer should continue to scan
through the zone in the same fashion for the one to two 5-minute periods as needed. If the full
zone has been scanned within the first 5-minute period, then the observer should not begin again
until the 5 minutes have expired and then begin scanning again from the initial observation point
once the next block of 5 minutes begin. This continues until the 15-minute period is up, at which
point all observers should rotate, in order, to the next observation zone. Ideally, one full round of
observation concludes when a single observer has rotated through all observation zones. However,
to optimize the attentional capacity of the observers, it is recommended that observers do not
collect data for more than 60 to 90 minutes at a time without a break.
Note too that it is possible that an observer may encounter the same young person at different
points within the same observation interval, or in other observation zones. For place-centered
Behavior Mapping, the goal is to record the diversity of behaviors happening within or supported
by the space, and therefore it is not problematic if the same young person is recorded multiple times
during the observation of the site. Typically, data collection is also extensive enough that the
impact of idiosyncratic behaviors is minimized.

Establishing a Strategy for Data Analysis

Data analysis for a Behavior Mapping project is rarely a straightforward activity. As data are col-
lected, sorted, and visualized, new research questions and ideas may come to mind based on emerg-
ing patterns. Data analysis of Behavior Mapping data is often an iterative activity that requires a
thorough exploration of the data within GIS. There are some patterns or outcomes that are immedi-
ately visible once the data are displayed in GIS, such as the locations of the behavioral observations.
Patterns of use can quickly be seen, including where the majority of behaviors are as well as areas
that are underused. A ‘heat map’ may be generated which will provide a strong graphic representa-
tion of site use (see Figure 19.3); density of data points is represented by a color gradient that is

316 Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute

 Behavior Mapping for Youth-Friendly Places

Figure 19.3 This heat map example shows the location and density of observations recorded
within an outdoor, natural play space. The darker the color, the higher the density of
observations. This analysis is easily conducted in GIS, and graphically demonstrates
the most and least used areas of the study zone.
Source: Illustrative Map: Adina Cox.

overlaid on the map typically with red and orange areas indicating highest number of data points,
and cooler yellow and green colors depicting lower numbers of data points. In the example shown
here, darker areas represent the settings with higher numbers of observed play activity.
GIS programs also allow the user to sort and display data in many ways, for example based on
demographic attributes of the users. Displaying data sorted by gender or by age groups may reveal
distinctive site use patterns. Data can also be displayed based on other variables observed, such as
physical activity level. After sorting data by high to low levels of physical activity, it may be possible
to visually observe patterns in the location of intense versus more sedentary activity on the site. For
instance, pathways, hills, and open fields may be conducive to higher levels of physical activity
among children. Researchers should expect to spend some time manipulating the data in different
ways in order to visualize potential patterns of use that may have not been expected or noticed
through traditional quantitative analysis.
The goal of analysis is to develop a composite picture of the diverse ways that young people use
public space, as well as to investigate patterns in usage and behavior. Analyses can also zero in on a
specific part of the space, or a particular environmental condition, across time to understand the
diverse environmental behavior it affords. For example, one could look at how the presence of shade
impacts the use of a public seating area, or when and how different age groups utilize a skate park.
Data from Behavior Mapping allows for a broad range of analyses. Sanoff (1971) claimed that
Behavior Mapping can reveal environmental usage data such as the density or frequency of use

Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute 317

Janet Loebach et al.

of a space or feature, the frequency and location of certain types of behavior, and the diversity of
behaviors supported by a single setting or feature. When considered across time, Behavior
Mapping can also reveal peak times of usage, which behaviors may be less affected by changing
environmental conditions, and the role of adjacent spaces in influencing behavior in a given
setting (Ng, 2016; Ittleson et al., 1970). While these kinds of analyses were possibly before the
advent of GIS, this program has significantly increased researchers’ capacity for even more
complex analyses, including the ability to simultaneously consider the impacts of multiple data
variables on environmental behavior both within a space and across time. Most analyses will be
tailored to answer specific research questions; however, the iterative, visual exploration of behav-
ior maps can be helpful for revealing new patterns and insights which may not emerge from
other analyses.

Behavior Mapping Case Study: Public Play Space in Waterloo, Canada

The best way to demonstrate the utility of Behavior Mapping for exploring the use of public spaces
by young people is to share the results from a project which has utilized the protocol. One of the
authors (Loebach) led a project in 2016–2017 to evaluate the use of a public play space located at
an elementary school in the Waterloo, Ontario region of Canada. While children attending the
school utilized the space during the day, the play space is open to the local community on evenings
and weekends. The outdoor play space was significantly renovated in 2016 to integrate more
natural features including trees, plantings, and natural loose parts (such as tree stumps, logs and
mulch), to provide more amenities for play and social interaction, as well as to provide more
opportunities for physically active play. The renovation included expanding the play space to
include a previously unused portion of the yard (see Figure 19.4). The designers and the staff of the
school wanted to evaluate the impacts of the renovation on the behavior and activities of youth in

Figure 19.4 Layouts and amenities of the natural play space both before and after the
renovation.

318 Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute

 Behavior Mapping for Youth-Friendly Places

the space. The results shared here will highlight one component of the evaluation which took
place, the mapping of the behavior of young children (aged 4 to 5 years old) in the space. The
research protocol utilized Behavior Mapping as the foundation of the evaluation, but supplemented
its findings with results from staff ‘walkalong’ interviews and focus groups, a sun/shade study, as
well as an audit of the physical environment using a modified version of the Preschool Outdoor
Environment Measurement Scale (Hestenes, DeBord, Moore, Cosco, & McGuinnis, 2005). While
these results focus on the behaviors of younger children, the overall protocol (with a different
environmental audit tool) is also suitable for observing older children or adolescents in public
places.
To analyze the impacts of the renovation, Behavior Mapping was carried out both before and
after the renovation. This ‘pre–post’ scenario is ideal for understanding how an environmental
change has impacted the use or utility of a space; however, Behavior Mapping is still extremely
valuable for examining the use of an existing space. At both times, observations of the play space
were carried out over 12 hours by two trained observers across 3 weekdays during the children’s
outdoor free time; pre- and post-renovation observations took place under similar weather con-
ditions and with the same group of children. The post-renovation data were collected approxi-
mately 6 months after the completion of the renovation, so the novelty of the new environment
would have faded for the observed children. During observations the space was being used by
approximately 70 young children engaged in unstructured play activities. A total of 228 and 212
observations were collected during pre- and post-renovation mapping respectively.
In addition to common demographic data, data variables were selected for Behavior Mapping
which supported the specific research questions of the designers and administrators including, for
example,

• Did the renovation improve the diversity of play opportunities for young children?
• Did the renovation change or improve children’s physically active play?
• To what degree do loose parts support or influence young children’s play activities?

Variables selected for Behavior Mapping then included: play type, physical activity intensity (using
the CARS scale [Puhl et al., 1990]), loose parts availability, and loose parts interaction. Analysis of
these variables revealed key insights about the impacts of the renovation and the children’s behavior
and overall use of the space.

Diversity of play opportunities

To understand the different types of playful interactions taking place across the space, each observed
play activity was categorized by up to three different play types. The categorization of play types
was based on modified versions of scales developed by Smilansky (1968) and Rubin (1989, 2008).
Play type categories included:

• Functional — repetitive or physically active play (e.g., climbing, running).

• Constructive or Exploratory — where the child manipulates the environment for the purposes
of building, creating, or exploring (e.g., building a sand castle, experimenting with the fall rates
of leaves).
• Symbolic — fantasy, dramatic, or pretend play, role play or performance activities (e.g., playing
wizards, playing house).
• Games with Rules — where a group of children plays a game by following or creating a shared
set of rules (e.g., hide and seek, baseball).
• Social Conversation — play where the primary component is conversation with peers.
• Other — play that does not fall into one of the above categories.

Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute 319

Janet Loebach et al.

Analyses revealed that while all six play types were present, Functional and Constructive/
Exploratory were the two most prevalent play types in the space both before and after the renova-
tion (see Figure 19.5). However, the number of observations of each play type increased
post-renovation; this increase highlights that play events were more likely to be coded by more
than one play type after the renovation, suggesting that children’s post-renovation play was more
complex in nature.

Figure 19.5 Pre- and post-renovation behavior maps showing the difference in the locations and
types of play observed among the children.

320 Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute

 Behavior Mapping for Youth-Friendly Places

Equally telling was the change in the location of the various play types. Prior to the renovation,
Functional play was primarily clustered around the play structure and other manufactured activity
elements such as the sports ball pole, and the baseball field. After the renovation, Behavior Mapping
revealed that the space provided additional and more dispersed support for Functional play; the play
structure and field still drew Functional play activities, but new elements such as jumping stumps,
a log bridge, and a grassy slope were also attracting children’s active and gross motor play. Con-
structive/Exploratory play, centered around the small sand area pre-renovation, was substantially
better supported by a larger and relocated sand area, as well as new amenities such as the art fence,
the chalkboard, and the spaces under the newly accessible tree clusters. Cross-referencing play types
with Loose Parts Interaction revealed that loose parts were involved in a high percentage of Con-
structive/Exploratory play activities, and that the location of Constructive/Exploratory play was
heavily tied to those locations with high availability of loose parts.
Symbolic play activities were observed throughout the play space prior to the intervention, but
clusters were found particularly around mobile kitchen units, and the play structure and its surround-
ing sandy area; post-renovation, the largest clusters of Symbolic play were seen in and around the
treed areas, and involved heavy use of natural loose parts such as tree cookies, tree stumps, sand, and
mulch as part of pretend play activities. Before renovations, Games with Rules were observed prim-
arily in the open grassy and gravel areas around the baseball diamond; post-renovation we see these
games spread into the newly accessible open grass and treed areas at the north end of the yard.
A detailed analysis of the locations and environmental conditions involved in each type of play
(including loose and fixed features, topography, ground surface, and shade conditions) also pro-
vided significant insight into the environments which support each of the key play types. For
example, analyses showed that Functional play was particularly supported by flat, open expanses of
grass or gravel, topographical variations such as slopes and hills, hard-surface pathways, and features
that support climbing, jumping, hanging, and balancing. On the other hand, Symbolic play was
often found in areas that supported the establishment of ‘houses’ or ‘forts,’ such as nooks under
trees, building alcoves, or collections of boulders or tree stumps. Kitchen stations (whether tempo-
rary or permanent), and associated cooking pots and utensils, significantly prompted Symbolic play,
particularly in combination with natural loose materials such as sand, dirt, mud, leaves, and water.

Physically Active Play

It was hypothesized by the designers and school administrators, based on previous research, that the
naturalization of the play space would prompt more physically active play among child users. Prior
to the renovation, 37% of the observed play activities were of moderate to vigorous physical
intensity (MVPA); 50% of this MVPA activity took place on and around the play structure, and
another 30% was observed in the open grass/gravel area around the baseball diamond. Contrary to
expectations, the overall proportion of play that was physically intensive remained the same after
the renovation; however, the location of physically active play shifted significantly (see Figure
19.6). Post-renovation, MVPA activity is much more widely distributed across play settings, with
almost 50% taking place in the newly accessible naturalized area. The play structure and its sur-
rounding area only made up 20% of post-renovation active play. The overall use of fixed manu-
factured elements in MVPA play fell from 68% to 24% post-intervention. While fixed manufactured
elements remained important contributors to MVPA, the naturalization decreased the children’s
reliance on them for active play opportunities. Mapping revealed that approximately 25% of post-
renovation MVPA involved fixed natural elements, and MVPA play was often concentrated around
trees and tree clusters; even when not directly involved in the active play, these natural elements
served as anchor locations for children’s activities. Dispersion of active play also translated to less
congestion around the play structure and other manufactured elements, which reduced the chances
of conflict and injury.

Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute 321

Janet Loebach et al.

Figure 19.6 These behavior maps help to depict the changes in the location and intensity of chil­
dren’s physically active play both before and after the play space renovation.

Again, cross-referencing MVPA play activity with other environmental variables revealed a
surprising finding; natural and manufactured loose parts were involved in approximately 70% of all
moderately physical play activities and 36% of all vigorously physical play activities. Natural loose
parts made up almost two-thirds of the loose parts interaction during MVPA play, an increase of
more than 20% after the renovation.

322 Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute

 Behavior Mapping for Youth-Friendly Places

Detailed analysis of environmental conditions highlighted that both manufactured elements and
natural features can be valuable for supporting physically active play. Supportive natural affordances
included hills, berms, and slopes; climbable features such as trees and posts; hard surface areas and
pathways; moderately heavy loose parts that can be lifted or moved such as stumps, crates, logs, and
tables; as well as loose parts that can be thrown, kicked, lifted, moved, or which otherwise prompt
movement such as tree cookies, sports balls, pylons, and buckets.

Loose Parts Use

Each of the previous analyses also revealed key findings around the use and integration of loose
parts within the play space. While some manufactured loose parts (such as pails, shovels, toy trucks,
and kitchen pots and utensils) were available in the space beforehand, the renovation introduced
about an equal quantity of natural loose parts (such as tree cookies, birch logs, tree stumps, mulch,
and a greater quantity of sand). The availability of additional loose parts corresponded with a 13%
increase in their use in post-renovation play (see Figure 19.7); however, more of this increase is
attributable to play with natural loose parts which saw a 10% increase, versus play involving manu-
factured loose parts, which decreased by almost 30% after the renovation. Despite the increase in
the availability of both natural and manufactured loose parts, there was more observed uptake of
loose natural elements during play activities, suggesting children may be more attracted to natural
parts for creative and active play. Natural loose parts also played the largest role in supporting Con-
structive/Exploratory and Symbolic play activities. More than 75% of both pre- and post-renovation
Constructive/Exploratory activities involved natural loose parts (10–20% more than manufactured
loose parts), and Symbolic play activities involving natural loose parts increased from 44% to 63%
after renovation. These analyses suggest that an increase in the availability of loose parts, particularly
natural elements, will result in increased uptake in loose parts integration, and can particularly
support or prompt creative, exploratory, and pretend play among young children.
These insights, gleaned from analyses of the Behavior Mapping data, are a snapshot of the find-
ings provided by the pre–post-renovation evaluation of the public play space. When combined
with staff walkalong interviews and environmental audits, the full analyses revealed not only usage
of the space, and remaining problematic environmental conditions, but staff and administrator per-
ceptions of the space and the opportunities it is providing for play and learning. Additional Behav-
ior Mapping activities, observing older children during school hours, as well as community members
during evenings and weekends, will provide an even more holistic picture of who is using the
space, how they are using it, and the behaviors and interactions it supports (or does not support).
Observations recorded in other seasons (not yet completed) would help illustrate whether differing
seasonal conditions change the play environment as well as the play behaviors themselves. These
findings are being used by the school and the designers in continuing efforts to improve the design
of this public play space. Behavior Mapping is serving as a key tool in increasing their under-
standing of the play opportunities afforded by the space and informing future refinements of its
design.

Conclusion
This chapter sought to demonstrate the value of Behavior Mapping as a flexible and effective obser-
vation tool which can be used to inform the development of more supportive public outdoor
spaces for youth. Even without the assistance of digital devices for data collection, the ability of
Behavior Mapping to capture patterns in the behaviors of young people in public spaces and to
understand how the physical environment is supporting or hindering their activities makes it
invaluable in our quest to understand how to develop supportive settings for young people. As an
observational tool, it is particularly useful for understanding the public space interactions for

Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute 323

Janet Loebach et al.

Figure 19.7 Pre- and post-renovation behavior maps depict changes in the usage and location of
loose parts during outdoor play activities.

sub-groups of children who may not be as vocal about their public space needs because of their age,
language skills, or social status.
The Behavior Mapping protocol outlined in this chapter can be used by researchers, designers/
planners, and city or community administrators in a number of capacities to help create youth
inclusive public spaces. For example, Behavior Mapping can help us to understand:

324 Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute

 Behavior Mapping for Youth-Friendly Places

• How young people utilize an existing public space which is slated to be redesigned or
renovated;
• How specific environmental features or conditions of public spaces support (or don’t) the
interests and needs of youth;
• Whether a designed public space is meeting its intention to be inclusive and welcoming of
youth;
• If a public environment is adequately supporting youth programming taking place;
• How public space use by youth is changing over time, including as a result of environmental
or policy changes.

In addition to providing valuable information about how youth utilize their public spaces, research
and planning processes themselves can be made more youth inclusive by discussing the findings
from Behavior Mapping analyses with young people to confirm that the results reflect their experi-
ence of the space, and reveal remaining gaps in the results or in the study environment itself. Youth
can even be trained to serve as observers themselves, bringing their own experience and insights to
the process, and increasing the likelihood that findings will be relevant for local youth.
By virtue of our own experience seeking to understand children’s needs and interests with
respect to the public realm, we believe both the tool and the process of Behavior Mapping can
support the development of youth-inclusive public spaces.

References
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds
in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bechtel, R. (1967). The study of man: Human movement and architecture. Transaction, 16, 53–56.
Bechtel, R., & Zeisel, J. (1987). Observation: The world under a glass. In R. B. Bechtel, R. W. Marans, &
W. Michelson (Eds.), Methods in environmental and behavioral research (pp. 11–40). New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Björklid, P. (1982). Children’s outdoor environment: A study of children’s outdoor activities on two housing estates from
the perspective of environmental and developmental psychology (Vol. 11). Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup.
Bowman, B., Donovan, M., & Burns, S. (Eds.). (2000). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Bozkurt, M., & Woolley, H. (2017). An ecological approach to behaviour mapping: Developing new
behaviour mapping tool to understand children’s experiences of urban water features. In I. Koleva, U.
Duman Yuksel, & L. Benaabidate (Eds.), Ecology, planning & design (pp. 237–244). Sofia, Bulgaria: St.
Kliment Ohridski University Press.
Brown, W. H., Pfeiffer, K. A., McIver, K. L., Dowda, M., Almeida, M. J., & Pate, R. R. (2006). Observa-
tional system for recording physical activity in children: Preschool version. Research Quarterly for Exercise &
Sport, 77, 167–176.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
20(1), 37–46.
Cosco, N. (2007). Motivation to move: Physical activity affordances in preschool play areas (Dissertation). School of
Landscape Architecture, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh (Scotland).
Cosco, N., 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.
Cox, A., Loebach, J., & Little, S. (2018). Understanding the nature play milieu: Using behavior mapping to
investigate children’s activities in outdoor play spaces. Children, Youth and Environment, 28(2), 232–261.
Hestenes, L., DeBord, K., Moore, R., Cosco, N., & McGuinnis, J. (2005). Preschool outdoor environments
measurement scale. Kaplan Early Learning Company, Lewisville, NC.
Drown, K. K. C., & Christensen, K. M. (2014). Dramatic play affordances of natural and manufactured
outdoor settings for preschool-aged children. Children Youth and Environments, 24(2), 53–77.
Fjørtoft, I., Kristoffersen, B., & Sageie, J. (2009). Children in schoolyards: Tracking movement patterns and
physical activity in schoolyards using global positioning system and heart rate monitoring. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 93, 210–217.
Hampton, K. N., Livio, O., & Goulet, L. S. (2010). The social life of wireless urban spaces: Internet use, social
networks, and the public realm. Journal of Communication, 60, 701–722.

Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute 325

Janet Loebach et al.

Ittelson, W. H., Rivlin, L. G., & Proshansky, H. M. (1970). The use of behavioral maps in environmental
psychology. In H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, & L. G. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental psychology: People
and their physical setting (2nd ed., pp. 340–351). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kishida, Y., Kemp, C., & Carter, M. (2008). Revision and validation of the Individual Child Engagement
Record: A practitioner-friendly measure of learning opportunities for children with disabilities in early
childhood settings. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 33, 158–170. doi: 10.1080/136682
50802088085.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics,
33(1), 159–174.
Lieberman, J. N. (1977). Playfulness: Its relationship to imagination and creativity. New York: Academic Press.
Little, H. (2010). Relationship between parents’ beliefs and their responses to children’s risk-taking behaviour
during outdoor play. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8(3), 315–330.
McKenzie, T. L. (2002). System for observing play and leisure activity in youth (SOPLAY). San Diego, CA: San
Diego State University.
McKenzie, T., Cohen, D., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., & Golinelli, D. (2006). System for observing play and
recreation in communities (SOPARC): Reliability and feasibility measures. Journal of Physical Activity and
Health, 3(Supp. 1), S208–S222.
Moore, R. C., & Wong, H. H. (1997). Natural learning: The life of an environmental schoolyard. Creating environ­
ments for rediscovering nature’s way of teaching. Berkeley, CA: MIG Communications.
Ng, C. (2016). Behavioral mapping and tracking. In R. Gifford (Ed.), Research methods for environmental psych­
ology (pp. 29–52). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Osborne, C., Baldwin, C., Thomsen, D., & Woolcock, G. (2017). The unheard voices of youth in urban
planning: Using social capital as a theoretical lens in Sunshine Coast, Australia. Children’s Geographies,
15(3), 349–361.
Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 27,
243–269.
Puhl, J., Greaves, K., Hoyt, M., & Baranowski, T. (1990). Children’s activity rating scale (CARS): Descrip-
tion and calibration. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61(1), 26–36.
Rivlin, L. G., & Rothenberg, M. (1976). The use of space in open classrooms. In H. M. Proshansky, W. H.
Ittelson, & L. G. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental psychology: People and their physical setting (2nd ed., pp. 479–489).
New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Rivlin, L. G., & Wolfe, M. (1972). The early history of a psychiatric hospital for children: Expectations and
reality. In H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, & L. G. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental psychology: People and
their physical setting (2nd ed., pp. 459–479). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Rubin, K. H. (1989). The play observation scale (POS). Waterloo, Canada: University of Waterloo.
Rubin, K. H. (2008). The play observation scale (POS). Center for Children, Relationships, and Culture,
University of Maryland, Baltimore.
Sanoff, H. (1971). Behavior settings in residential environments: A research strategy for determining what
happens in the designed environment. Journal of Architectural Education, 15, 95–97.
Sanoff, H., & Coates, G. (1971). Behavioral mapping: An ecological analysis of activities in a residential
setting. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 2(1–4), 227–235.
Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children. New York: Wiley.
Sommer, B., & Sommer, R. (1991). A practical guide to behavioral research: Tools and techniques. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Sommer, R., & Sommer, B. (2002). Mapping and trace measures. In R. Sommer & B Sommer (Eds.), A prac­
tical guide to behavioral research: Tools and techniques (5th ed., pp. 63–81). New York: Oxford University
Press.
UNICEF. (2012). The state of the world’s children 2012: Children in an urban world. UN, New York. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.18356/ce5f1517-en.
van Andel, J. (1984). Effects on children’s behavior of physical changes in a Leiden neighborhood. Children’s
Environments Quarterly, 1(4), 46–54.
Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. New York: Conservation Foundation.
Winkel, G., & Sasanoff, R. (1966). An approach to an objective analysis of behavior in architectural space. In
H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, & L. G. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental psychology: People and their physical
setting (2nd ed., pp. 351–363). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Zacharias, J., Stathopoulos, T., & Wu, H. (2004). Spatial behavior in San Francisco’s plazas: The effects of
microclimate, other people, and environmental design. Environment and Behavior, 36, 638–658.

326 Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute

 Behavior Mapping for Youth-Friendly Places

Chapter Takeaways

Key Talking Points

• Researchers, designers, and public space managers can design and operate more inclusive
spaces when they have a full understanding of the environmental features and conditions that
support the interests and needs of young people.
• Behavior Mapping is an observational tool that captures in- situ behavior simultaneously and
systematically recording observed behaviors and their specific location, enabling a thorough
understanding of who is using a space and how they are using the space.
• Behavior Mapping, originally developed by environmental psychologists, recognizes the
reciprocal nature of human behavior and the environment, objectively recording the use of
space and denoting how the environment affords that use.
• Data collected with Behavior Mapping can be customized to fit the research questions.
• Observational methods, such as Behavior Mapping, are effective with children and youth who
may have more difficulties articulating their perceptions of activities and space use.

Summary of Steps
• Prepare a base map of the observation site.
• Select the data collection approach and tools.
• Establish a set of observable variables to be collected.
• Set up a systematic protocol for collecting data.
• Establish a strategy for data analysis.

Tips for Youth Inclusion

• Choose variables to be collected carefully to balance the time spent collecting data with the
usefulness of information that is collected.
• Acquire ethical clearance from an appropriate source.
• Allow ample time for training data collectors.
• Partner with a university or an organization with GIS resources and skills.
• Allow for qualitative, open coded data collection in order to broaden the understanding of
how activities of children and youth use their environments.
• Conduct a pilot study to test the protocol, ensure agreement between data collectors, and to
finalize data variables to be collected.

Recommendations
• Evaluate spaces in the public realm objectively and systematically, with a tool such as Behavior
Mapping, in order to guide the re-design or programming of public spaces.
• Consider conducting pre- and post- construction/renovation (or programming) studies in
order to benchmark the effectiveness of design (or programming) solutions.

Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute 327

 Janet Loebach et al.

Successful Examples
• Public Play Space in Waterloo, Canada (this chapter).
• Cosco, N. G., Moore, R. C., & Isla, M. Z. (2010). Behavior mapping: A method for linking
preschool physical activity and outdoor design. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 42(3),
513–519.

Supportive Resources
Cox, A., Loebach, J., & Little, S. (2018). Understanding the nature play milieu: Using behavior mapping to
investigate children’s activities in outdoor play spaces. Children, Youth and Environments, 28(2), 232–261.
doi: 10.7721/chilyoutenvi.28.2.0232.
Moore, R. C., & Cosco, N. G. (2010). Using behavior mapping to investigate healthy outdoor environments
for children and families: Conceptual framework, procedures and applications. In C. Ward Thompson, P.
Aspinall, & S. Bell (Eds.), Innovative approaches to research excellence in landscape and health (pp. 33–72). London:
Routledge.

328 Review copy for Janet Loebach—Unlawful to distribute

View publication stats