Behavioral mapping is the technique of choice when you want to find out how people (or animals) use their habitat. You can see where they go, the circumstances under which they move, and how much time they spend in each place.
However, it is also demanding on the researcher who must be there to observe the behavior, or at least have an alternative electronic means such as transmitters or cameras to record behavior. If all you want to know is how people spend their day without being concerned about their use of space, it would be easier to ask them to keep a journal of their activities, or use a contact system in which they are reminded at specified times to record their activity (see Experience Sampling Method)
Individual-centered mapping can be both tiring and intrusive. It is difficult to be inconspicuous when following someone and keeping track of their behavior. It may also be difficult to combine information from several individuals. Individual-centered maps tend to involve ony a few individuals (because of the effort involved). The behavior of the individuals chosen to be tracked may not be typical of others, and therefore may be of limited external validity (generalizability).
Place-centered mapping can also be intrusive. Place-centered mapping tells a lot about the location, but little about people's behavior in other settings. For example, people behave very differently when visiting a hospital compared with attending a sporting event.
Although it is easier to combine data from multiple individuals, it may be difficult to interpret the aggregate (combined) map. In the Envirosell example where resarchers mapped shoppers, the combined map might show 26 men in the shoe department, but the map does not show whether these are 26 different people. Some of the same individuals may have come back repeatedly and inflated the count.
Although the selectivity and distortion of cognitive maps is often what makes them informative, it also limits their validity. Sometimes cognitive maps reflect little more than stereotypes about a location rather than an individual's personal feeling. For example, a cognitive map of Yosemite may contain Half Dome (the mountain) because it is so often featured in photographs and travel information; San Francisco might elicit drawings of the Golden Gate.
As with other observational data, behavioral and cognitive maps do not provide much information about why particular choices are made, or why some features of the environment are more meaningful to the individual than others. Combining mapping with other research methods (such as observation or interviews) will increase the validity of the findings.
On to Summary