“Why do I feel scared in some environments, but not in others?”

For a while I thought the answer to this question was based entirely on events in that environment – say, a video-game shooting, an “ominous atmosphere” at a Church, or reckless drunks in the supermarket. However, it turns out that the sense of security we feel can in large part be determined by visibility and spatial layout of our environment, as well as subtle stressors for how an environment’s design affects interaction.

While most of us have never been on shows like Fort Boyard or The Crystal Maze, we’ve likely experienced that feeling of being ‘lost’. Maybe we were tourists and had no idea where to go, or perhaps we lost sight of any landmarks in our local city. Research into wayfinding (that is, how we navigate through environments) and how we develop cognitive maps is becoming increasingly important for not only applications such as urban planning and architecture, but also behavioural geography, psychology and crime patterns.

There is a fascinating talk on TED (which I would recommend checking out: link at the bottom) by Edi Rama, the mayor of Tirana, Albania. He found that by increasing the beauty of his town through bright colour schemes, demolishment of illegal building and planting of local horticulture, crime rates decreased and people felt ‘safe’. He found that beauty acted as a catalyst for a political movement: transforming how we view our environment equalled less corruption, higher willingness to pay a green tax, more activism from young people. “Reinventing the government by reinventing politics itself is the answer” – he exclaims to his listeners. Inviting us to stop treating politics as some law-enforcing rugby game in which the people are the audience, it’s a powerful talk on how our environment influences how we feel and subsequently act. You don’t drop litter at the Louvre, so why would you in a space that speaks “respect” to you?

In a paper researching crime hotspots using a topological algorithm (joining area ‘nodes’ by the criteria of similarity between geographical units), crime was found to be higher in “boundary” areas. For most crime offenders, target selection is a gradual process dependent on familiarity of moving through an area. Usually criminals will commit an offence within an area near their home or workspace, or along a pathway linking such locations. By mapping the similarity of small adjacent areas we form “neighbourhoods”. On the edges or borders of neighbourhoods crime is typically much higher where there is an area of sharp change in our visual information (e.g. a 10-storey block amidst 2-storey housing) – why in particular our cognitive map distinguishes “edge” areas rather than processing spaces we travel through as continuous experiences isn’t certain, but may relate to how negative or positive we see discontinuities. Adi Rama’s town improved and replaced broken concrete sidewalks: perhaps the lack of discontinuity equals an increased continuity of stable behaviour.

The formation of a cognitive map is a complex process. While the hypothalamus has the ability to encode a cognitive map by neurons such as place cells, the significant relation to orienteering suggests input from other neural sources. The importance for example of visual processing is enormous. It encompasses not only our identification of landmarks (which are an essential feature of wayfinding analysis) but the logical configuration of the space in our visual field. Studies show that we have more comprehensive navigation when space is consistently organized and the depth of visual range is extended. This isn’t surprising if we compare walking through New York’s street and walking through London: an increase in isolated regions/dead-ends is more confusing than an orthogonal system. We might relate this to how a maze will be difficult for us to traverse, but a grid is not: spatial configuration changes how accessible something seems to us.

Philip Ball investigated the use of topology for examining traffic flow in his book Critical Mass. The idea of optimized routes and how the movement of others close to us influences our choices is explored: his ideas aren’t far off in application to wayfinding. Yet unlike traffic flow, what is more fundamental to urban design is not necessarily optimization of pathways, but improvement in cognitive effect. This is an important distinction. We are less affected in the loss of time in “taking too many turns” or “walking a longer distance” than we are by the emotional result of the environment. That is, stress from disorientation, violence from disparate neighbourhood “edges”, as well as health consequences from how the environment causes us to interact.

One example of this is Julian Treasure’s talk on why architects need to use their ears. We’re all familiar with noise – whether it’s at home, in the office or at school, we’re generally bombarded by the sounds of people and city life. Certain places have less sound than others and these are a result of architectural design to minimise reverberation. Studies find that heart rate goes up with increasing sound – so if you’re constantly sitting in a working environment with something like 65 decibels (noise of a German classroom) you’ll be at increased risk for myocardial infarction. As well as this, it leads to people being less helpful, productive or getting enjoyment in their work.

A crucial point he makes – “ We have urban planners. Where are the urban sound planners? I don't know of one in the world, and the opportunity is there to transform our experience in our cities. The World Health Organization estimates that a quarter of Europe's population is having its sleep degraded by noise in cities. We can do better than that.”

Not only can – and should – we do better in sound planning, but architects should become better aware of the cognitive effects of their design. We must design to feel safe, to enfold continuous, systematic access that is visible and good to the ears. Then, we must make these spaces beautiful.

References:

TED: https://www.ted.com/talks/julian_treasure_why_architects_need_to_use_their_ears.html

https://www.ted.com/talks/edi_rama_take_back_your_city_with_paint.html

Arnold, A. E. G. F., Burles, F., Krivoruchko, T., Liu, I., Rey, C. D., Levy, R. M., & Iaria, G. (2013). Cognitive mapping in humans and its relationship to other orientation skills. Experimental brain research. Experimentelle Hirnforschung. Expérimentation cérébrale, 224(3), 359–72. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3316-0

Barton, K. R., Valtchanov, D., & Ellard, C. (2012). Seeing Beyond Your Visual Field: The Influence of Spatial Topology and Visual Field on Navigation Performance. Environment and Behavior. doi:10.1177/0013916512466094

Frank, R., Park, A. J., Brantingham, P. L., Clare, J., Wuschke, K., & Vajihollahi, M. (2010). Identifying High Risk Crime Areas using Topology, (2003), 13–18.

Haq, S., Hölscher, C., & Eds, S. T. (2008). Movement and Orientation in Built Environments : Evaluating Design Rationale and User Cognition, (015).

Li, R., & Klippel, A. (2010). Using Space Syntax to Understand Aquisition and Wayfinding in Indoor Environments. IEEE Int. Conf on Cognitive Informatics, 302–307.

Pasala, S. K., & Pammi, V. S. C. (2012). Cognitive science perspective of human performance in built environments. 2012 4th International Conference on Intelligent Human Computer Interaction (IHCI), 1–6. doi:10.1109/IHCI.2012.6481833