Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Islamic Azad University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
2 PhD Student of Urban Design, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Islamic Azad University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract
Familiarity with the destination environment plays an important role in tourism, and the more frequent tourists’ visits to the area, the greater their knowledge of the environment and, consequently, the easier for them to navigate around the place. Those unfamiliar with the environment should make sure that there are sufficient wayfinding aids, and that it will be clear for them how to reach their target sights by following the aids without getting lost. Use of various wayfinding tools can allow visitors to realize the overall spatial layout of the environment and the relationships between them. It is dependent on the user’s characteristics what types of tools are utilized in wayfinding. If tourists are confused at a part of a destination about how to find their way, they will lose incentives to visit it. The easier for tourists to identify the ways to their target sights in the environment, the more attractive the place to them, motivating them to be there in the environment. This study aimed to identify tourists’ specific wayfinding tools in the Paeen Khiaban neighborhood in the city of Mashhad, Iran. Tourists could have different levels of familiarity with the destination addressed in the case study, which could be categorized as an applied survey. The data were collected through field observations, questionnaires, and site visits. The sample size appropriate for a population of 359 people was calculated using Cochran’s formula. The statistical analyses were made using methods including one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), dependent t-test, and the K2 test, used to prioritize the variables, and the significance levels of the indicators were analyzed using Duncan’s test. The results demonstrated that tourists more familiar with the destination used spatial orientation and representation, whereas those who were less familiar with the environment utilized the landmark strategy through recognition of the elements and identification of the location for wayfinding via points. The former group identified their direction through coordinates in a more general situation, while the latter group identified landmark points and followed them to the target place in smaller areas and through the points and the connections between the landmark and the situation. The tourists were interested in using visual guidelines for wayfinding, analyzing, learning, encoding, and processing them in their minds, and then selected the optimal route. Familiarity was effective in the selection of the type of wayfinding strategy and the use of a variety of wayfinding guidelines. Furthermore, the tourists considered the attractions in their choice of destinations, the walls and familiarity with the environment were the next most significant factors, and the signs and patterns on the route were also effective in the selection. The signs were very important to the tourists because the number of signs, locations, distances, designs, fonts and backgrounds, sizes, and heights affected readability. The guidelines and distinctive signs or visual cues at decision points along routes can help improve wayfinding.
Keywords
Main Subjects
Agovino.M.(2017). Tourism and disability in Italy. Limits and opportunities. Tourism Management Perspectives 23 (2017) 58–67.
De Marchi.M.(2015) TransitTrace: Facilitating Urban Wayfinding via an Ambient Display Visualization. POLITECNICO DI MILANO Corso di Laurea Magistrale in Ingegneria Informatica Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria.
Denis, M., Pazzaglia, F., Cornoldi, C. & Bertolo, L. (1999). Spatial discourse and navigation: Ananalysis of route directions in the city of Venice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 145‐174.
Darken, Rudolph. 1996. "Wayfinding in Large-Scale Virtual Worlds." Dissertation, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Darken, R. P., & Peterson, B. (2002). Spatial orientation, wayfinding, and representation. In K. M. Stanney (Ed.), Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications (pp. 493–518). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Publishers.
Estupiñán, N., & Rodríguez, D. A. (2008). The relationship between urban form and station boardings for Bogotá’s BRT. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42 , 296–306. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2007.10.006 .
Eslami Afrooz A; Hanaee T; Parolin BP, (2012), 'Wayfinding Performance of Visually Impaired Pedestrians in an Urban Area', inProceedings REALCORP 2012 Tagungsband, REALCORP 2012 17th International Conference on Urban Planning and Regonal Development in the Information Society, Schwechat, Austria, pp. 1081-1091, presented at REALCORP 17th International Conference on Urban Planning and Regonal Development in the Information Society, Schwechat, Austria, 14 - 16 May.
Giles-Corti, B. (2006). People or places: What should be the target? Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 9 , 357–366.
Golledge, R. G. (1999). Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gärling, T., Lindberg, E. & Mäntylä, T. (1983). Orientation in buildings: Effects of familiarity, visuall access, and orientation aids. Journal of Appplied Psychology, 68, 177‐186.
Golledge, R. G., Dougherty, V. & Bell, S. (1995) Acquiring spatial knowledge: Survey versus route-based knowledge in unfamiliar environments, Annuals of the Association of American Geographers, 85(1).
Gluck (1991) Making Sense of Human Wayfinding: Review of Cognitive and Linguistic Knowledge for Personal Navigation with a New Research Direction. in: D. Mark and A. Frank (Eds.), Cognitive and Linguistic Aspects of Geographic Space. Series D: Behavioural and Social Sciences 63, pp. 117-135, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Hund, A. M. & Minarik, J. L. (2006) Getting from here to there: Spatial anxiety, wayfinding strategies, direction type, and wayfinding efficiency. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 6(3), pp. 179–201.
Helvacıoğlu, E.,(2007), “Colour contribution to children’s wayfnding in school environments”, Unpublished Master Thesis, Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design, Bilkent University, Ankara,Turkey.
Hirtle, S. C. & Hudson, J. (1991) Acquisition of spatial knowledge for routes, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(4), pp. 335–345.
Klippel, A., Winter, S., (2005). Structural Salience of Landmarks for Route Directions. In: Cohn, A., Mark, D. (Eds.), Spatial Information Theory. International Conference, COSIT 2005, Ellicottville, NY, USA, September 14-18, 2005. Proceedings. Vol. 3693 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidleberg, pp. 347–362.
Kozlowski, L. T.&Bryant, K. J. (1977) Sense of direction, spatial orientation, and cognitive maps, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(4).
Kirasic, K. C. (2000) Age differences in adults’ spatial abilities, learning environmental layout, and wayfinding behavior, Spatial Cognition and Computation, 2(4), pp. 117–134.
Lawton, C. A. (1994) Gender differences in wayfinding strategies: Relationship to spatial ability and spatial anxiety, Sex Roles, 30(11/12).
Lawton, C. A. (1996) Strategies for indoor wayfinding: The role of orientation, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(2), pp. 137–145.
Li, L. and Rashid,B. and Tahir,S. (2018), An Overview of Moderating Effect of Familiarity on Tourism Resources and Future Behavioural Intentions: A Study on Domestic Tourists Visiting Ningxia, China, International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, Vol:-6 No-06.
Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Makri.A.(2015). Indoor Signposting and Wayfinding through an Adaptation of the Dutch cyclist Junction Network System. Master thesis. Delft University of Technology.A.Makri@student.tudelft.nl.
Montello, D. (1998). A New Framework for Understanding the Acquisition of Spatial Knowledge in Large-Scale Environments. In Egenhofer, M., Golledge, R. (Eds), Spatial and Temporal Reasoning in Geographic Information Systems, New York: Oxford University Press, pp 143-154.
Moeser, S. D. (1988). Cognitive mapping in a complex building. Environment and Behavior, 20, 21–49.
Montello, D. R., (2005.) Navigation. In: Miyake, A., Shah, P. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 257–294.
Montello, D. R., & Sas, C. (2006). Human factors of wayfinding in navigation. In W.Karwowski (Ed.), International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors (2nded., pp. 2003–2008). London: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
McKercher, B.&Lau, G. (2008) Movement patterns of tourists within a destination,Tourism Geographies, 10(3), pp. 355–374.an
Montello, D. R. & Pick, H. L. (1993) Integrating knowledge of vertically-aligned large-scale spaces, Environment and Behavior, 25(3), pp. 457–484.
Passini, R. (1984) Spatial representations, a wayfinding perspective, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 7(1), pp. 44–60.
Pazzaglia, F. & DeBeni, R. (2001) Strategies of processing spatial information in survey and landmark centered individuals, European Journal of Psychology, 13(4), pp. 493–508.
Jansen-Osmann, P. (2002) Using desktop virtual environments to investigate the role of landmarks, Computers in Human Behavior, 18(4), pp. 427–436.
Passini, R., Proulx, G., & Rainville, C. (1990). The spatio-cognitive abilities of the visually impaired population. Environment and Behavior, 22 (1).
Rovine, M. J. & Weisman, G. D. (1989) Sketch-map variables as predictors of way-finding performance, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9(3).
Siegel, A. W., & White, S. H. (1975). The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in Child Development and Behaviour,(Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press.
Thorndyke, P.W. & Hayes‐Roth, B. (1982). Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cognitive Psychology, 14.
Tan, W. K., & Chang, Y. G. (2016). Place Familiarity and Attachment: Moderators of the Relationship between Readers’ Credibility Assessment of a Travel Blog and Review Acceptance. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33(4).
Phillips, J., Walford, N., Hockey, A., Foreman, N., & Lewis, M. (2013). Older people and outdoor environments: Pedestrian anxieties and barriers in the use of familiar and unfamiliar spaces. Geoforum, 47 , 113–124. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.002 .
Walmsley, D. J. & Jenkins, K. M. (1991) Mental maps, locus of control and activity: A study of business tourism in Coffs Harbour, Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), pp. 36–42.
Ward Thompson, C. (2013). Activity, exercise and the planning and design of outdoor spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34.
Xia, J., Arrowsmith, C., Jackson, M. & Cartwright, W. (2008) The wayfinding process relationships between decision‐making and landmark utility. Tourism Management 29 (3): pp. 445‐457
)