Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 1951 2024-02-20 15:58:42 |
2 format change Meta information modification 1951 2024-02-21 02:22:35 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Chou, C.; Yoh, K.; Hirokawa, S.; Doi, K. Spatial Knowledge Acquisition in Large-Scale Environments. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 21 April 2024).
Chou C, Yoh K, Hirokawa S, Doi K. Spatial Knowledge Acquisition in Large-Scale Environments. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed April 21, 2024.
Chou, Chun-Chen, Kento Yoh, Shotaro Hirokawa, Kenji Doi. "Spatial Knowledge Acquisition in Large-Scale Environments" Encyclopedia, (accessed April 21, 2024).
Chou, C., Yoh, K., Hirokawa, S., & Doi, K. (2024, February 20). Spatial Knowledge Acquisition in Large-Scale Environments. In Encyclopedia.
Chou, Chun-Chen, et al. "Spatial Knowledge Acquisition in Large-Scale Environments." Encyclopedia. Web. 20 February, 2024.
Spatial Knowledge Acquisition in Large-Scale Environments

The research emphasizes the critical role of spatial cognition in understanding urban travel behaviors. It discusses how individuals' spatial experiences and cognitive maps shape their perception and interaction with their surroundings, influencing navigation, route planning, and travel decisions. The emergence of small electric vehicles (SEVs) is highlighted as a sustainable urban transport option, necessitating an understanding of spatial cognition for effective integration. Affordance and spatial learning stages are explored, elucidating how the physical environment and individual experiences contribute to spatial knowledge acquisition. The research explores the relationship between spatial experience and travel attitudes, emphasizing the influence of the cognitive built environment on travel motivations. It discusses the importance of spatial knowledge in trip planning and activity-travel patterns, especially in the context of SEVs and their constraints. Various techniques for investigating cognitive maps are reviewed, underscoring the significance of understanding spatial cognition for improving transportation modeling and enhancing urban mobility. Overall, the research provides a comprehensive overview of spatial cognition's impact on travel behaviors and its implications for urban transport planning.

sustainable mobility electric vehicle spatial cognition cognitive map environment

1. Introduction

Spatial cognition plays a crucial role in travel behaviors, encompassing aspects such as wayfinding, navigation, and route selection [1][2]. Individuals’ spatial cognition both influences and is influenced by their spatial experiences, collectively shaping how they perceive and interact with their environment. The majority of research in transportation studies has focused on car drivers, given the dominant role of automobiles in cities [3]. Comprehending the role of spatial cognition is vital for predicting urban traffic flow. Despite some attempts to integrate human cognitive factors into transportation modeling, the understanding of the impact of spatial experience and varying levels of spatial knowledge remains limited [4][5][6]. It is regarded that a more thorough comprehension of how mode experiences shape individual spatial cognition could improve transport modeling significantly by creating fundamentally different matrices of activity opportunities [3]. Moreover, studies have examined the impact of different transport modes on travelers’ spatial knowledge [7]. Integrating a comprehensive understanding of how mode experiences shape individuals’ “cognitive maps” can enhance transport modeling by generating distinct matrices of activity opportunities [3]. Cognitive maps, as mental representations of experienced external environments, shape how people interact with and navigate through their surroundings, making them essential in studying spatial cognition in travel behavior.
In recent years, the emergence of small electric vehicles (SEVs) has been facilitated by advancements in energy-charging services. An SEV offers an affordable and sustainable transport alternative that can contribute to urban sustainability, ecofriendly landscapes, and the mitigation of traffic congestion. It bridges the flexibility gap between private and public transportation modes, adapting to dynamic changes in demand and mobility preferences [8]. Urban administrators have encouraged the use of SEVs as an effective and a sustainable means of transport, providing a viable substitute for personal car trips [9].
SEV serves a role akin to active modes, fostering connectivity between travelers and their environment while promoting social and cultural cohesion [10]. Meanwhile, it offers the flexibility of a motorized vehicle for spatial exploration. Studies on user intentions toward new mobility services have explored functional/instrumental and experiential/hedonic values [11][12]. In certain developed urban contexts, an SEV is viewed more as entertainment than a significant transportation mode [13]. Although experiential/hedonic values are known to influence user adoption [14], the impact of spatial experiences on urban travel remains unclear.
Spatial abilities for navigation and wayfinding are particularly important for SEV users, especially with the emergence of battery-swapping solutions to address charging concerns and limited EV range [15][16]. The mechanism of battery sharing is expected to reshape EV users’ urban travel patterns, which are closely tied to their cognitive urban form and charging demand. Users’ spatial cognition affects their behaviors, including knowledge acquisition, route planning, and their perception of distance to manage residual power before reaching the next charging spot. Consequently, concerns about residual power may restrict users’ travel range despite the increased mobility provided by SEVs. It is worth noting that while technologies like GPS have improved city navigation, cognitive maps play a role in predicting access to potential opportunities when making travel decisions [2]. In other words, individuals’ decisions to travel or stay are influenced by their perception of distances to destinations [17].

2. Spatial Knowledge Acquisition

Cognitive mapping is closely intertwined with spatial knowledge acquisition. It refers to the mental process through which individuals acquire, store, recall, and manipulate information about the attributes and relative locations of their spatial environment [18]. As individuals interact with and receive information from their surroundings, they develop spatial knowledge by understanding the relationships and features of the environment [19]. There has been extensive research on spatial knowledge acquisition, including several review articles [20][21][22].
Previous research has focused on how people remember and represent medium-scale and large-scale environments (i.e., neighborhood and city scales) [19][23][24][25][26][27]. Lynch’s influential work identified five elements—nodes, paths, districts, landmarks, and edges—that shape individuals’ mental representation of a city [19], providing a framework for understanding the structure of cognitive maps. Appleyard examined the influence of social meanings on the cognitive representations of neighborhoods and cities, finding that visibility, personal use, and the significance of physical characteristics affect inhabitants’ perceptions [24][25]. He also addressed the role of symbolism in the environment, emphasizing the importance of environmental meaning and symbolism in human experience [28][29]. According to Moore (1979), developmental changes occur in perceiving large-scale environments, shifting from social and physical conceptions to symbolic ones [27].

2.1. Affordance and Cognitive Mapping

Physical environments exert a profound influence on human behavior through the concept of affordance, originally introduced by perception psychologist James J. Gibson [30][31]. Affordance refers to the opportunities and possibilities that the environment offers to individuals. Lazarus (1991) explored the link between an animal’s needs and the environment, highlighting the preconscious appraisal of affordance [32]. In the domain of architecture, affordance is a framework for understanding the relationship between environment and its occupants, particularly in terms of form and function [33]. Cognitive affordance plays a starring role in interaction design, particularly for users with limited experience, by supporting thinking and learning processes [34].
Marcus, Giusti, and Barthel (2016) extended the concept to urban design, suggesting its relevance to sustainable urbanism and emphasizing the constant interaction between individuals and their situated cognition [35]. The everyday environment was regarded as playing the role of the interface in which a person learns when personal abilities are enabled by situational opportunities (i.e., affordances). In the dynamic interaction between a person and the built environment, the designed features may have varying social meanings for different users. In the context of road environments, road users progressively develop spatial abilities to actualize the potential affordances of the environment through their everyday experiences. These potential affordances can be obtained from road space (e.g., traffic conditions, infrastructure design), surrounding architectural features, natural sights, etc.

2.2. Spatial Learning

The acquisition of spatial knowledge, named spatial learning, involves three stages: landmark, route, and survey [26][36]. Landmarks are prominent features of cognitive maps, providing basic location information. Route knowledge allows individuals to link locations during travel but lacks an overall understanding of spatial organization. At the survey level, individuals acquire a comprehensive understanding of the environment, recognizing relative directions and distances among multiple locations. Individual spatial experiences, particularly within their activity space, influence spatial knowledge. The anchor-point theory suggests that people have the most extensive knowledge of areas around their homes and workplaces [37]. To obtain comprehensive knowledge, the anchor points have active roles in organizing spatial relations in cognitive maps [38]. Spatial learning leads to the development of a survey map that recognizes relative directions and distances among multiple locations, resulting in both quantitative and qualitative improvements in spatial knowledge [22][39].

3. Spatial Experience and Urban Travels

The relationship between spatial experience and transport users’ attitudes has received limited attention in the literature. However, insights from architectural research suggest that the design of space, particularly in small-scale environments, conveys different social symbols and influences spatial behaviors [40][41]. For large-scale environments, studies have explored the effects of visual design and the presence of vegetation on spatial memory [42]. Furthermore, research has highlighted the connection between road users’ perception of the built environment and their travel motivations. Mirzaei et al. (2018) found that the characteristics of the built environment influenced utilitarian and hedonic walking, with pedestrians’ perceived value impacting their walking behaviors [43]. In the context of SEVs, which share similarities with active transport modes, understanding the hedonic motivations underlying mobility trips is crucial, as they may differ significantly from motivations associated with car driving. Additionally, in terms of travelers’ instrumental attitudes, having better spatial knowledge can support EV users in navigating charging spots and effectively managing battery power by accurately perceiving distances.
Planning a trip involves consulting cognitive maps of large-scale environments to facilitate movement and navigation, leading to trip plans that minimize travel time or utilize shortcuts and alternative routes [1][44]. Previous research has examined the influence of spatial knowledge on various aspects of trip planning, including trip purposes, routes’ complexity, and destination diversity. Spatial knowledge assists in considering route and activity choices, shaping the activity-travel level. Studies on cyclists have indicated the stabilization of spatial learning after multiple trips, which is related to activity patterns and route dynamics [45]. Comparative studies among car drivers, cyclists, and walkers have revealed differences in trip-chaining behaviors and daily activity patterns, highlighting the role of higher mobility and spatial knowledge in enabling individuals to plan and execute complex trips involving multiple destinations [46][47]. However, the specific trip-chaining behavior with SEVs is understudied. Investigating how SEV users engage in trip chaining, considering the sequence and purpose of multiple stops, is crucial for understanding their travel behaviors. Moreover, the trip-chaining behavior is influenced by the residual power of EVs, which imposes constraints on the duration and sequence of stops. Therefore, understanding the interaction between users’ spatial cognition and the constraints posed by EVs in trip chaining is vital for comprehending users’ activity-travel patterns.

4. Techniques for Investigating Cognitive Maps

Various methods have been employed to study human spatial knowledge, including traditional approaches such as sketch maps, route descriptions, and distance estimates [48][49]. In the field of cognitive psychology, multidimensional scaling (MDS) and Pathfinder networks have been widely applied to quantify similarity judgements [50][51], with MDS being particularly prevalent for distance or direction judgements [52][53][54].
Previous studies have evaluated the accuracy of MDS-derived maps compared to sketch maps [55][56][57], demonstrating that sketch maps can generate accurate representations of spatial relations similar to MDS in familiar environments. Sketch maps provide a flexible means for respondents to express their unique perspectives and knowledge of specific environments, encompassing landmarks, routes, and points of interest. In contrast, as a technique for generating coordinate spaces from distance data, MDS must assign a set of landmarks (i.e., reference points) to compare the accuracy of MDS-derived maps among individuals. However, as previously discussed, the assigned landmarks could have different social meanings among individuals, potentially influencing map accuracy [24][25].
Lynch’s (1960) key elements have been widely used when studying cognitive maps for structuring large-scale spaces [58][59][60]. Techniques have been developed to aid in accurately representing spatial properties in mental maps and enhancing the recall of spatial layouts [61][62]. Sketch maps can be analyzed qualitatively or quantitatively. A qualitative analysis involves identifying clusters of features or paths, interpreting the meanings of depicted features, and considering context to investigate whether there are shared meanings of symbols among the participants. Recent qualitative research has examined the relationship between socioeconomic status and the scale of sketch maps [63], the effects of transport modes and GPS usage on city images [64], and the utilization of location-based media (LBM) for spatial experience [65]. On the other hand, a quantitative analysis often employs statistical methods to examine spatial patterns and relationships, such as measuring distances between landmarks, calculating the landmark density, or identifying clusters of similar features [66][67][68]. However, a potential limitation arises in terms of the amount of information that respondents intend to present, making quantitative information incomparable between different periods and among individuals.


  1. Golledge, R.G.; Gärling, T. Cognitive maps and urban travel. In Handbook of Transport Geography and Spatial Systems; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bradford, UK, 2004; Volume 5, pp. 501–512.
  2. Mondschein, A.; Blumenberg, E.; Taylor, B.D. Cognitive mapping, travel behavior, and access to opportunity. Transp. Res. Rec. 2006, 1985, 266–272.
  3. Mondschein, A.; Blumenberg, E.; Taylor, B. Accessibility and cognition: The effect of transport mode on spatial knowledge. Urban Stud. 2010, 47, 845–866.
  4. Arentze, T.A.; Timmermans, H.J.P. Representing mental maps and cognitive learning in micro-simulation models of activity-travel choice dynamics. Transportation 2005, 32, 321–340.
  5. Arentze, T.A.; Timmermans, H.J.P. Information gain, novelty seeking and travel: A model of dynamic activity-travel behavior under conditions of uncertainty. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2005, 39, 125–145.
  6. Manley, E.; Cheng, T. Exploring the role of spatial cognition in predicting urban traffic flow through agent-based modelling. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 109, 14–23.
  7. Afrooz, A.; White, D.; Parolin, B. Effects of active and passive exploration of the built environment on memory during wayfinding. Appl. Geogr. 2018, 101, 68–74.
  8. Schwinger, F.; Tanriverdi, B.; Jarke, M. Comparing Micromobility with Public Transportation Trips in a Data-Driven Spatio-Temporal Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8247.
  9. Aman, J.J.; Zakhem, M.; Smith-Colin, J. Towards Equity in Micromobility: Spatial Analysis of Access to Bikes and Scooters amongst Disadvantaged Populations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11856.
  10. City of Lincoln. “Active Transportation and Micromobility”. City of Lincoln Nebraska. 2023. Available online: (accessed on 5 April 2023).
  11. Schuitema, G.; Anable, J.; Skippon, S.; Kinnear, N. The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2013, 48, 39–49.
  12. Putri, B.A.I.; Atha, F.; Rizka, F.; Amalia, R.; Husna, S. Factors Affecting E-Scooter Sharing Purchase Intention: An Analysis Using Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2). Int. J. Creat. Bus. Manag. 2021, 1, 58–73.
  13. Kopplin, C.S.; Brand, B.M.; Reichenberger, Y. Consumer acceptance of shared e-scooters for urban and short-distance mobility. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 91, 102680.
  14. Curtale, R.; Liao, F. User Acceptance and Preferences of Sharing Mobility Services. 2020. Available online: (accessed on 12 September 2022).
  15. Finke, S.; Schelte, N.; Severengiz, S.; Fortkort, M.; Kähler, F. Can battery swapping stations make micro-mobility more environmentally sustainable? E3S Web Conf. 2022, 349, 02007.
  16. Saur Energy. Here’s How Taiwan’s Gogoro Leads with Innovation in Electric Two-Wheeler Industry. 2022. Available online: (accessed on 23 September 2022).
  17. Cadwallader, M.T. Cognitive Distance in Intraurban Space. In Environmental Knowing; Moore, G.T., Golledge, R.G., Eds.; Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross: Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 1976; pp. 316–324.
  18. Downs, R.M.; Stea, D. (Eds.) Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior; Transaction Publishers: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017.
  19. Lynch, K. The Image of the City; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1960.
  20. Hart, R.A.; Moore, G.T. The Development of Spatial Cognition: A Review. In Image & Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior; Downs, R.M., Stea, D., Eds.; AldineTransaction: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1973; pp. 246–288.
  21. Evans, G.W. Environmental cognition. Psychol. Bull. 1980, 88, 259.
  22. Ahmadpoor, N.; Shahab, S. Spatial knowledge acquisition in the process of navigation: A review. Curr. Urban Stud. 2019, 7, 1–19.
  23. Palmer, S. Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In Cognition and Categorization; Rosch, E., Lloyd, B.B., Eds.; Erlbaum: Hilldale, NJ, USA, 1978.
  24. Appleyard, D. Why buildings are known: A predictive tool for architects and planners. Environ. Behav. 1969, 1, 131–156.
  25. Appleyard, D. Styles and methods of structuring a city. Environ. Behav. 1970, 2, 100–117.
  26. Siegel, A.W.; White, S.H. The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. Adv. Child Dev. Behav. 1975, 10, 9–55.
  27. Moore, G.T. Knowing about environmental knowing: The current state of theory and research on environmental cognition. Environ. Behav. 1979, 11, 33–70.
  28. Appleyard, D. The environment as a social symbol: Within a theory of environmental action and perception. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1979, 45, 143–153.
  29. Appleyard, D. Urban trees, urban forests: What do they mean. In Proceedings of the National Urban Forestry Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 13–16 November 1979; pp. 138–155.
  30. Gibson, J.J. The senses considered as perceptual systems. J. Mind Behav. 1966, 79, 145.
  31. Gibson, J.J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition; Psychology Press: London, UK, 1979.
  32. Lazarus, R.S. Cognition and motivation in emotion. Am. Psychol. 1991, 46, 352.
  33. Maier, J.R.; Fadel, G.M.; Battisto, D.G. An affordance-based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice. Des. Stud. 2009, 30, 393–414.
  34. Hartson, R. Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2003, 22, 315–338.
  35. Marcus, L.; Giusti, M.; Barthel, S. Cognitive affordances in sustainable urbanism: Contributions of space syntax and spatial cognition. J. Urban Des. 2016, 21, 439–452.
  36. Stern, E.; Leiser, D. Levels of spatial knowledge and urban travel modeling. Geogr. Anal. 1988, 20, 140–155.
  37. Golledge, R.G. Learning about urban environment. In Timing Space and Spacing Time, Making Sense of Time; Edward Arnold: London, UK, 1978; Volume 1, pp. 76–98.
  38. Couclelis, H.; Golledge, R.G.; Gale, N.; Tobler, W. Exploring the anchor-point hypothesis of spatial cognition. J. Environ. Psychol. 1987, 7, 99–122.
  39. Hazen, N.L. Spatial exploration and spatial knowledge: Individual and developmental differences in very young children. Child Dev. 1982, 53, 826–833.
  40. Vilnai-Yavetz, I.; Rafaeli, A. Workspace Integration and Sustainability: Linking the Symbolic and Social Affordances of the Workspace to Employee Wellbeing. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11985.
  41. Wineman, J.D.; Peponis, J. Constructing spatial meaning: Spatial affordances in museum design. Environ. Behav. 2010, 42, 86–109.
  42. Samarasekara, G.N.; Fukahori, K.; Kubota, Y. Effect of street trees on spatial cognition in residential areas: An investigation based on development perspective. J. Archit. Infrastruct. Environ. 2009, 7, 75–86. Available online: (accessed on 12 September 2022).
  43. Mirzaei, E.; Kheyroddin, R.; Behzadfar, M.; Mignot, D. Utilitarian and hedonic walking: Examining the impact of the built environment on walking behavior. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2018, 10, 20.
  44. Garling, T.; Book, A.; Lindberg, E. Cognitive mapping of large-scale environments: The interrelationship of action plans, acquisition, and orientation. Environ. Behav. 1984, 16, 3–34.
  45. Zomer, L.B. Unravelling Urban Wayfinding: Studies on the Development of Spatial Knowledge, Activity Patterns, and Route Dynamics of Cyclists. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2021.
  46. Schneider, F.; Ton, D.; Zomer, L.B.; Daamen, W.; Duives, D.; Hoogendoorn-Lanser, S.; Hoogendoorn, S. Trip chain complexity: A comparison among latent classes of daily mobility patterns. Transportation 2021, 48, 953–975.
  47. Schneider, F.; Daamen, W.; Hoogendoorn, S. Trip chaining of bicycle and car commuters: An empirical analysis of detours to secondary activities. Transp. A Transp. Sci. 2022, 18, 855–878.
  48. Foreman, N.; Gillett, R. (Eds.) A Handbook of Spatial Research Paradigms and Methodologies; Psychology Press: Hove, UK, 1997; Volume 2.
  49. Els, H.; Janssens, D.; Wets, G. Proximity is a state of mind: Exploring mental maps in daily activity travel behaviour. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Kyoto, Japan, 16–20 August 2006.
  50. Kruskal, J.B.; Wish, M. Multidimensional Scaling; Sage: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 1978; Volume 11.
  51. Shoben, E.J. Applications of multidimensional scaling in cognitive psychology. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1983, 7, 473–490.
  52. Allen, G.L.; Siegel, A.W.; Rosinski, R.R. The role of perceptual context in structuring spatial knowledge. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 1978, 4, 617.
  53. Regian, J.W.; Yadrick, R.M. Assessment of configurational knowledge of naturally-and artificially-acquired large-scale space. J. Environ. Psychol. 1994, 14, 211–223.
  54. Waller, D.; Haun, D.B. Scaling techniques for modeling directional knowledge. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 2003, 35, 285–293.
  55. MacKay, D.B. The effect of spatial stimuli on the estimation of cognitive maps. Geogr. Anal. 1976, 8, 439–452.
  56. Baird, J.C.; Merrill, A.A.; Tannenbaum, J. Studies of the cognitive representation of spatial relations: II. A familiar environment. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1979, 108, 92.
  57. Furlough, C.; Gillan, D.J. Assessing the Ability of Multidimensional Scaling and Pathfinder Networks to Measure Spatial Knowledge. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MA, USA, 3–8 October 2021; Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA; Volume 64, pp. 303–307.
  58. De Jonge, D. Images of urban areas their structure and psychological foundations. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1962, 28, 266–276.
  59. Gulick, J. Images of an Arab city. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1963, 29, 179–198.
  60. Matthews, M.H. The mental maps of children: Images of Coventry’s city centre. Geography 1980, 65, 169–179.
  61. Golledge, R.G. Multidimensional analysis in the study of environmental behavior and environmental design. In Human Behavior and Environment; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1977; Volume 2, pp. 1–42.
  62. Moore, G.T.; Golledge, R.G. Environmental Knowing: Theories, Research and Methods; Dowden: Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 1976.
  63. Banerjee, T.; Baer, W.C. Beyond the Neighborhood Unit: Residential Environments and Public Policy; Springer Science Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013.
  64. Minaei, N. Do modes of transportation and GPS affect cognitive maps of Londoners? Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2014, 70, 162–180.
  65. Iavarone, A.H.; Hasgül, E. The City Experience with Location-Based Media: An Examination through Cognitive Maps. ICONARP Int. J. Archit. Plan. 2021, 9, 363–380.
  66. Evans, G.W.; Marrero, D.G.; Butler, P.A. Environmental learning and cognitive mapping. Environ. Behav. 1981, 13, 83–104.
  67. Siegel, A.W.; Schadler, M. Young children’s cognitive maps of their classroom. Child Dev. 1977, 48, 88–94.
  68. Moore, G.T. Developmental differences in environmental cognition. In Environmental Design Research; Preisser, W., Ed.; Dowden, Hutchinson Ross: Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 1973.
Subjects: Transportation
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to : , , ,
View Times: 77
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 21 Feb 2024