Zooming In–Zooming Out Hierarchies in Place Descriptions

  • Daniela Richter
  • Maria Vasardani
  • Lesley Stirlng
  • Kai-Florian Richter
  • Stephan Winter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


Hierarchical place descriptions are a common means for people to communicate about place. Within them hierarchically ordered elements are linked by explicit or implicit relationships. This study analyses place descriptions collected in a mobile game, investigating hierarchies based on a classification of spatial granularity. The main findings show a dominance of hierarchical structures in place descriptions, but also a considerable number of deviations. Deviations are explained by principles other than spatial granularity, such as the presence of salient features and other construction principles. We conclude the need for and significance of more flexible models of hierarchies in the interaction with users of location-based services.


Place descriptions Hierarchies Granularity Salience 



The authors acknowledge support by the Australian Research Council (LP100200199), and wish to thank anonymous reviewers for comments that helped to improve the chapter.


  1. Couclelis H, Golledge RG, Gale N, Tobler W (1987) Exploring the anchor-point hypothesis of spatial cognition. J Environ Psychol 7(2):99–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cunningham H (2002) Gate, a general architecture for text engineering. Comput Humanit 36(2):223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dale R, Geldof S, Prost J-P (2005) Using natural language generation in automatic route description. J Res Practice Inf Technol 37(1):89–105Google Scholar
  4. Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL (eds) Speech acts, vol 2. Academic, New York, pp 41–58Google Scholar
  5. Hansen S, Richter K-F, Klippel A (2006) Landmarks in openls: a data structure for cognitive ergonomic route directions. In: Raubal M, Miller HJ, Frank AU, Goodchild MF (eds) Geographic information science, vol 4197. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 128–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hirtle SC, Jonides J (1985) Evidence of hierarchies in cognitive maps. Memory and cognition 13(3):208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ishikawa T, Montello DR (2006) Spatial knowledge acquisition from direct experience in the environment: individual differences in the development of metric knowledge and the integration of separately learned places. Cogn Psychol 52(2):93–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kelleher J, Kruijff G-JM (2006) Incremental generation of spatial referring expressions in situated dialog. In: 21st international conference on computational linguistics, Association for computational linguistics. Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  9. Montello D (1993) Scale and multiple psychologies of space. In: Frank A, Campari I (eds) Spatial information theory a theoretical basis for gis, vol 716. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 312–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Plumert JM, Spalding TL, Nichols-Whitehead P (2001) Preferences for ascending and descending hierarchical organization in spatial communication. Mem Cogn 29(2):274–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Raubal M, Winter S (2002) Enriching wayfinding instructions with local landmarks. In: Egenhofer M, Mark D (eds) Geographic information science, vol 2478. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Richter K-F, Winter S (2011) Hierarchical representation of indoor spaces. Environ Plann B 38(6):1052–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sadalla EK, Burroughs WJ, Staplin LJ (1980) Reference points in spatial cognition. J Exp Psychol: Hum Learn Mem 6(5):516–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schegloff EA (1972) Notes on a conversational practice: formulating place. In: Sudnow D (ed) Studies in social interaction, Vol 75. MacMillan, New York, pp 75–119Google Scholar
  15. Shanon B (1979) Where questions. In: 17th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, ACLGoogle Scholar
  16. Siegel AW, White SH (1975) The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. In: Reese HW (ed) Advances in child development and behaviour, vol 10. Academic, New York, pp 9–55Google Scholar
  17. Sorrows ME, Hirtle SC (1999) The Nature of landmarks for real and electronic spaces. In: Freksa C, Mark DM (eds) Spatial information theory, vol 1661. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 37–50Google Scholar
  18. Stevens A, Coupe P (1978) Distortions in judged spatial relations. Cogn Psychol 10(4):422–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Talmy L (1983) How language structures space. In: Pick H, Acredolo L (eds) Spatial orientation: theory, research, and application. Plenum Press, New York, pp 225–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Taylor HA, Tversky B (1992) Descriptions and depictions of environments. Mem Cogn 20(5):483–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tenbrink T, Winter S (2009) Variable granularity in route directions. Spat Cogn Comput 9(1):64–93Google Scholar
  22. Timpf S, Volta GS, Pollock DW, Frank AU, Egenhofer MJ (1992) A conceptual model of wayfinding using multiple levels of abstraction. In: Frank AU, Campari I, Formentini U (eds) Theories and methods of spatio-temporal reasoning in geographic space, vol 639. Springer, Berlin, pp 348–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tomko M, Winter S (2009) Pragmatic construction of destination descriptions for urban environments. Spat Cogn Comput 9(1):1–29Google Scholar
  24. Tomko M, Winter S, Claramunt C (2008) Experiential hierarchies of streets. Comput Environ Urban Syst 32(1):41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Winter S, Richter KF, Baldwin T, Cavedon L, Stirling L, Duckham M, Kealy A, Rajabifard A (2011) Location-based mobile games for spatial knowledge acquisition. In: cognitive engineering for mobile GIS. Belfast ME. Workshop at COSIT 2011Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela Richter
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maria Vasardani
    • 2
  • Lesley Stirlng
    • 3
  • Kai-Florian Richter
    • 2
  • Stephan Winter
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote SensingKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Department of Infrastructure EngineeringThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.School of Languages and LinguisticsThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations