Introduction
The formation of cognitive maps occurs through a process in which an individual encodes, stores, retrieves, and decodes information about the physical environment. In this regard, factors such as building design, organization of pedestrian and vehicular pathways, spatial scale, urban structural networks, and the system of mass and space in cities are examined. One of the most well-known studies on this topic is by Lynch, who identifies five key elements of cognitive maps: paths, nodes, edges, landmarks, and districts. However, in some cities and developed areas, a lack of legibility in the urban fabric is evident. For instance, in the northern parts of Qazvin, specifically the “Minoodar” and “Kosar” neighborhoods, which represent the city’s recent development, the initial studies and user experiences indicate a lack of spatial legibility. This has led to issues in spatial orientation and navigation, leaving residents confused and feeling insecure. Therefore, this research aims to answer several key questions: to what extent does the studied area provide legibility for its residents? How accurate and precise are the residents' cognitive maps? Which element of the cognitive maps receives the most emphasis, and what individual factors influence this? What are the strengths and weaknesses of spatial legibility in the studied area, and how can it be improved?
Methodology
Following Lynch’s approach, where user-drawn sketches were analyzed to identify key physical elements, each participant in this study was asked to draw a sketch of their living environment. The sketches were analyzed based on the five physical elements (paths, nodes, edges, landmarks, and districts) to assess their effective definition. The sketches were also compared to actual maps to evaluate accuracy and analyzed for precision across different social groups. A total of 380 participants from four clusters of the studied area were selected through a stratified random sampling method. In each cluster 95 participants were participated. The results were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively in two main phases. At the first, precision of the sketches were analyzed considering different five elements paths, nodes, edges, landmarks, and districts and the rate of using them in different sociodemographic groups. At second step, the accuracy of the sketches were investigated based on the real maps to explore the legibility and users’ mental maps.
Results and discussion
Analysis using SPSS software showed that gender and marital status did not significantly correlate with the accuracy of the sketches. Additionally, while cognitive maps of long-term residents were more detailed, the relationship between residency duration and sketch accuracy was not statistically significant. The sketches of educated participants were more accurate. Regarding employment, self-employed individuals and retirees showed greater attention to the environment. In terms of frequency, the five elements of Lynch's model were mentioned in the following order: landmarks, nodes, paths, districts (5%), and edges (2%), with landmarks being the most and edges the least frequently mentioned. Errors in the sketches included issues with geometry, orientation, and the position of elements. Among these, geometric errors (misidentifying the shape of paths) were the most common, while directional errors (incorrect orientation) were the least. The overall accuracy score of the sketches was 61.36%, while precision was 55%, indicating a lack of precision details and accuracy. In addition, curve geometry of the paths were the reason for lack of sense of orientation among users and they focused on the nodes than paths in drawing their sketches. It indicates that although the paths are the weakness of the neighborhood design in term of legibility and the nodes were the strength in this regard.
Conclusion
The findings indicate that participants' cognitive maps do not align well with the actual maps of the city in terms of orientation, geometry, and access hierarchy. The most notable insight was that participants' spatial knowledge relied more on urban nodes and their relative positions and sequences rather than on access hierarchies or sequential paths. A direct observation of the studied area revealed several reasons for the lack of legibility: similarity of urban pathways and structural forms, absence of distinctive landmarks or key elements, curved pathways lacking clear geometry, disrupting spatial orientation, poor access hierarchies, lack of building identity and monotonous facades due to low-cost cooperative housing, and undefined edges and boundaries of neighborhoods. None of the participants have mentioned the edges and boundaries between the two neighborhoods of Minodar and Kosar in their sketches, which shows that one of the problems of poor legibility in these areas is because the borders and edges of these two neighborhoods are not clear.So, Improving legibility requires addressing these weaknesses through thoughtful design and urban planning to clarify different elements and form clear mental image from their living area.