Ilenia Falcinelli ^1* Chiara Fini ² Claudia Mazzuca ² Anna M. Borghi ²

• ¹ Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Sicily, Italy
• ² Department of Dynamic, Clinical Psychology and Health, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Lazio, Italy

Investigating how people represent the natural environment and abstract it into geographical (e.g., mountain) and geopolitical (e.g., city) categories is pivotal to comprehending how they move and interact with the places they inhabit. Yet, the conceptualization of geographical and geopolitical domains has received scant attention so far. To deal with that, we reviewed 50 articles tackling this topic. Most studies have focused on assessing the universality of these concepts-especially geographical ones-mainly using free-listing and ethnophysiographic methods. Current perspectives tend to favor a non-universalistic characterization of these kinds of concepts, emphasizing their high cross-linguistic and cross-cultural variability, especially when compared to other semantic domains. Since geographical and geopolitical features are not pre-segmented by nature, the role of categories imposed by humans is crucial for these concepts. Significantly, their variability does not only depend on "cross" differences: evidence suggests that the cognitive demand requested by the task, idiosyncratic characteristics of individuals such as expertise level, and the typology of inhabited environments are further factors impacting the conceptual flexibility of these domains. Exploring the factors influencing our understanding of geographical and geopolitical categories can provide valuable insights for instructing effective communication policies to enhance sustainable development and address ecological emergencies, taking into consideration diverse cultural backgrounds within different populations.