This is a large question, but we can certainly boil it down. You need several levels of requisite knowledge. I'll break it down as so:
- Relevance of Delta v for propellent budget
- Conversion between gravitational potential and its corresponding velocity
- The basic physics of Hohmann transfers
- Non-ideal factors going from surface to orbit
Not all of these are fully necessary, so other people will take a different route to explaining it. This sequence of points just reflects my own intuition.
Propellent budget
The idea of a Delta-v map would be useless if it was not additive. Think about it. That's the entire point of a map. If I can't add segments to calculate the total distance, then it's not a "map". But there is an interesting criticism of this point - that the "distance" on this map doesn't scale linearly with fuel needed.
We tend to think of fuel as proportional to distance driven. But this is actually incorrect. As your gas tank is full it cases more rolling friction with the road, so your car is more efficient with a nearly empty gas tank. You and I neglect this because our energetic budget is small compared to the weight of the car in gas. In rocketry, it matters to the extreme. BUT, the calculation for the delta-v is still linear. In that way, it is a strong mathematical analogy to distance traveled by car.
Rocket equation:
$$ \Delta v = v_\text{e} \ln \frac {m_0} {m_1} $$
In the delta-v maps, you are counting $\Delta v$, and they faithfully add linearly.
Gravitational potential
From physics you should be familiar with the concept of "potential" as $GM/r$. This has units of $m^2/s^2$. In this form, you can apply energy balance. If you think about energy conservation manifested in an equation, divide that equation by the mass of your test mass. This is then the governing energy balance in a stationary reference frame.
If we had a perfect reference frame, then we would apply all the energy balance equations with the naive gravitational potential above. In other words, that quantity would be additive. But it's not because we care much more about the rocket's reference frame than the Earth's or the sun's.
In the rocket's frame, units of $m/s$ make a heck of a lot more sense. Consider the situation:
A rocket lies at rest relative to the Earth in the upper atmosphere. It fires its rockets toward the center of Earth, the burn finishes quickly, and imparts just enough momentum to get out of Earth's gravity well.
For this case, the problem is answerable with relative ease.
energy balance:
$$ \frac{1}{2} m v^2 = \frac{GM_E m}{R_E+(200 km)} $$
divide by m.
$$ \frac{1}{2} v^2 = \frac{GM_E }{R_E+(200 km)} $$
Here is the actual calculation
$$ \Delta v = \sqrt{\frac{2 GM_E}{R_E+(200 km)}} = 10,925 \frac{m}{s} $$
That is an escape velocity calculation, and it is a very simple example of a delta v segment.
Hohmann transfers
In real life, of course we need to take the most efficient route possible. It looks like this:
- You start in a circular orbit
- You burn to go into a elliptical transfer orbit
- Once you reach the desired orbit, you burn again to make your path circular
It never makes sense to "stop along the way", and doing so will always cost you more propellant. That might seem a little confusing to you considering the diagram, with many stop-points. But those are basically transfer orbits, as in the above diagram, and then moving from one scale to another.
Given that a Hohlmann transfer has two burns, you have to expressions for the Delta v. Here they are with notation consistent with the above image.
$$
\Delta v = \sqrt{\frac{GM}{R}} \left( \sqrt{\frac{2 R'}{R+R'}} - 1 \right),$$
$$ \Delta v' = \sqrt{\frac{GM}{R'}} \left( 1 - \sqrt{\frac{2 R}{R+R'}}\,\! \right) , $$
These account for a large fraction of the numbers you see in the image. These add together to get the ultimate requirement on your rocketry, so it makes sense to put them in a "map". For increase orbit from LEO to GEO, for instance, you could have 3 dots, and two segments, where first dot is LEO, second is the transfer orbit, and 3rd is GEO. I think they didn't put this on the map (although they could have) because no one cares too much about LEO-to-GEO transfer orbit.
Non-ideal factors
Going from the surface of Earth to low Earth orbit includes other factors:
- gravity drag
- air resistance
- some additional minimum increase in elevation to avoid quick orbit decay
These explain why going to LEO is about 10 km/s, instead of the literal speed of LEO which is more like 7.9 km/s. Gravity drag and elevation increase each contribute on the order of 1 km/s, so the final answer isn't surprising. Not all bodies will have these same factors. This is just an example of special considerations for that map.
I also realize this answer isn't comprehensive. It explains maybe half of the graph.