Behavioral geography is an approach to human geography that examines human behavior by separating it into different parts. In addition, behavioral geography is an ideology/approach in human geography that makes use of the methods and assumptions of behaviorism to determine the cognitive processes involved in an individual's perception of or response and reaction to their environment. Behavioral geographers focus on the cognitive processes underlying spatial reasoning, decision making, and behavior.
Behavioral geography is the branch of human science which deals with the study of cognitive processes with its response to its environment through behaviorism.
Issues
Because of the name it is often assumed to have its roots in behaviorism. While some behavioral geographers clearly have roots in behaviorism[1][2] due to the emphasis on cognition, most can be seen as cognitively oriented. Indeed, it seems that behaviorism interest is more recent[3] and growing.[1] This is particularly true in the area of human landscaping.
Behavioral geography draws from early behaviorist works such as Tolman's concepts of "cognitive maps". More cognitively oriented, behavioral geographers focus on the cognitive processes underlying spatial reasoning, decision making, and behavior. More behaviorally oriented geographers are materialists and look at the role of basic learning processes and how they influence the landscape patterns or even group identity.[4]
The cognitive processes include environmental perception and cognition, wayfinding, the construction of cognitive maps, place attachment, the development of attitudes about space and place, decisions and behavior based on imperfect knowledge of one's environs, and numerous other topics.
The approach adopted in behavioral geography is closely related to that of psychology, but draws on research findings from a multitude of other disciplines including economics, sociology, anthropology, transportation planning, and many others.
The Social Construction of Nature
Nature is the world which surrounds us, including all life (plants, animals, organisms, humans, etc.) and physical features. Social Construction is the way that human beings process the world around us in our minds. According to Plato's 'Classical Theory of Categorization', humans create categories of what they see through experience and imagination.[5] Social constructionism, therefore, is this characterization that makes language and semantics possible.[5] If these experiences and imageries are not placed into categories, then the human ability to think about it becomes limited.[5]
The social construction of nature looks to question different truths and understandings for how people treat nature, based on when and where someone lives. In academic circles, researchers look at how truths exist (ontology) and how truths are justified (epistemology).[5] Construction is both a process and an outcome, where people's understandings of the word nature can be both literal and metaphorical,[6] such as through giving it a human quality (Mother Nature).[7] It can also be used to discredit science or philosophy.[6]
There are many ways of understanding and interpreting nature.[7] According to Raymond Williams, there are three ways to give meaning to (or define) nature:
Nature as a quality, character or process[7] (e.g. human nature)
Nature as the material world[7] (e.g. the physical environment)
According to Raymond Williams, language plays a role in how we understand, interpret, and give meaning to nature.[7] This is how multiple truths can be valid at the same time.[5][7]
The Role of Mental Maps
Humans have the ability to create images of their environments through experiences in their mind.[14] These experiences allow us to create mental maps where we can create memories associated to space.[14] It is a two-way process where the environment provides suggestions for what should be seen, and then the observer gives meaning with those suggestions.[14]
According to Kevin Lynch, the environmental images (or mental maps) that we make can either be weak or strong, where the process is ongoing and never stops.[14]
The Role of Science
Science occurs at many dimensions and scales that do not consider culture, but can be motivated by politics, economics and ethics.[15] Scientific knowledge consists of concepts and analysis, and is a way to represent nature.[11]
According to Michel Foucault, a truth does not have to be close to reality for it to be worth something or have power.[15] For Carolyn Merchant, science can only be given power if a truth is interpreted as having worth.[15]
Schools of Thought
Relativism is important in the social construction of nature, as all truths are relative to the perspective they are coming from. There are two schools of thought on how the social construction of nature is relative:
Critical realists reject the idea of relativism and rely more on natural sciences.[11] Pragmatists have no set opinion on the matter and rely on social science and ethics, instead.[11]
According to Richard Rorty, relativism is relevant to pragmatism in three ways:
The physical dimension is limited to the human body, where the brain is responsible for creating and selecting thoughts.[5] The mental dimension is used to understand the physical dimension and is limited to human logic.[5] The social dimension needs moral and social order and is used to give meaning to both what is physically present and what is culturally constructed.[5] All three dimensions must be present and linked to be able to socially construct nature.[5]
Criticism on the Social Construction of Nature
The social construction of nature has room for improvement in four main areas:
By giving more importance to how realities are culturally constructed through social interactions[6]
By acknowledging that all science should be analyzed by the same standard[6]
By gaining a better understanding of the role language plays in constructionism[6]
By giving more importance to how truths exist and how they are justified, using Actor-Network Theory[6]
^ abNorton, William (22 September 2001). "Initiating an affair: human geography and behavior analysis". The Behavior Analyst Today. 2 (4): 283–290. doi:10.1037/h0099947. GaleA170112831.
^Norton, William (22 March 2002). "Explaining landscape change: group identity and behavior". The Behavior Analyst Today. 3 (2): 155–161. doi:10.1037/h0099974. GaleA170020699.
^Glass, John E. (22 September 2007). "Behavior analytic grounding of sociological social constructionism". The Behavior Analyst Today. 8 (4): 426–434. doi:10.1037/h0100631. GaleA214102519.
^Norton, William (1 July 1997). "Human geography and behavior analysis: An application of behavior analysis to the explanation of the evolution of human landscapes". The Psychological Record. 47 (3): 439–460. doi:10.1007/BF03395237. S2CID141975291.
^ abcdefDemeritt, David (1 December 2002). "What is the 'social construction of nature'? A typology and sympathetic critique". Progress in Human Geography. 26 (6): 767–790. doi:10.1191/0309132502ph402oa. S2CID143479948.
^ abcdefghWilliams, R. (1983). Keyword: A vocabulary of culture and society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.[page needed]
^ abcdefMerchant, C. (2003). Reinventing Eden: The Fate of Nature in Western Culture. New York, NY: Routledge.[page needed]
^ abShiva, V. (1988). Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development (1st ed.). London, UK: Zed Books Ltd.[page needed]
^ abcdefghijklmnopqProctor, James D. (September 1998). "The Social Construction of Nature: Relativist Accusations, Pragmatist and Critical Realist Responses". Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 88 (3): 352–376. doi:10.1111/0004-5608.00105.
^Cronon, W. (1995). "The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature". Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co. pp. 69–90.
^ abcdefgLynch, D. (1960). The Image of the City. MA: Harvard University Press.[page needed]
^ abcPedynowski, Dena (1 December 2003). "Science(s) which, when and whose? Probing the metanarrative of scientific knowledge in the social construction of nature". Progress in Human Geography. 27 (6): 735–752. doi:10.1191/0309132503ph459oa. S2CID144588735.
^ abcdefghiLowenthal, D. (1990). "Awareness of Human Impacts: Changing Attitudes and Emphases". In Turner, B.L. (ed.). The earth as transformed by human action: global and regional changes in the biosphere over the past 300 years. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. pp. 121–135.
^ abcdPeterson, Anna (1999). "Environmental Ethics and the Social Construction of Nature". Environmental Ethics. 21 (4): 339–357. doi:10.5840/enviroethics19992142.