wayfinding performance in the built environment · wayfinding is a basic activity that people do...

Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, 19 (2), 1-17 (2014) (Regular Paper)

1

WAYFINDING PERFORMANCE IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Hoda A. S. Al-Alwan and Ahmed M. H. Al-Azzawi

Architectural Engineering Department – Baghdad University Baghdad 10001 - Iraq

(Received October 2013 and Accepted February 2014) خر. فهي آ لىإن عملية (ايجاد الطريق) هي فعالية اساسية يقوم بها الناس خالل حياتهم كلها عندما يتنقلون من مكان إ

سلوك متمثل بالحركة الهادفة والدافعة لالنتقال من نقطة بداية معينة الى نقطة الهدف المعينة سلفا في ذهن االفراد -الذي يريد ايجاد طريقه نحو هدفه -تشمل هذه العملية تفاعل الفرد والتي اليمكن ادراكها حسيا بصورة مباشرة. و

مع البيئة المعمارية المبنية. هناك جانبان اساسيان من المعرفة يتوجب توفرهما في انجاز هذه العملية يتمثالن ة الموجودة في ذهن بالمعرفة (المعلومات) في البيئة المبنية المحيطة بالفرد (المعرفة في البيئة المحيطة) والمعرف

الفرد (المعرفة في العقل).لقد شكل النقص المعرفي في الدراسات السابقة حول درجة استخدام جانبي المعرفة عند اداء مهام ايجاد الطريق في البيئة المبنية مشكلة البحث. وعلى ضوء ذلك تحدد هدف البحث في بناء اطار نظري لعملية ايجاد الطريق في البيئة

ية يعتمد على درجة استخدام كل من المعرفة في البيئة المبنية و المعرفة في العقل والذي على ضوئه طرحت المبنفرضية البحث, ومن ثم تطبيق االطار النظري على بيئة معمارية منتخبة بهدف اختبار صحة الفرضية. وأخيرا

استخالص مبادئ وآليات عملية ايجاد الطريق في البيئة المبنية.أفرزت النتائج التي خلص اليها البحث في جزئيه النظري والتطبيقي، أهمية العالقة بين درجة األلفة وأدائية وقد

المهام االدراكية الذهنية (مهام ايجاد الطريق): فالتعامل األكثر فاعلية مع البيئة المحيطة يؤدي الى درجة أعلى من تنظيم المعلومات في ذهن الفرد حول بيئته المبنية.

Wayfinding is a basic activity that people do throughout their entire lives as they navigate from one place to another. Wayfinding behavior is the purposeful and motivated movement from an origin to a specific distant destination that cannot be directly perceived by the traveler. It involves interaction between the wayfinder and the architectural built environment. Two aspects of knowledge are essential in our daily wayfinding performance: knowledge in the surrounding environment (knowledge in the world) and knowledge treated inside the person (knowledge in the head). The lack of information in previous studies concerning the degree of trade-offs between both aspects of knowledge when performing wayfinding tasks in the built environment constitutes the main research problem. The aim of the present research is: Arriving at the establishment of a theoretical model for the process of wayfinding in the built environment depending on degrees of trade-offs between knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world. This requires the building of the theoretical framework in the light of which the main research hypothesis is presented. The framework is then applied to a selected architectural environment in order to test the validity of the hypothesis and eventually to extract the principles and mechanism of wayfinding phenomenon in the built environment. The results of the research, in both its theoretical and practical aspects, showed significant relations between the degree of familiarity and performance on the cognitive tasks (wayfinding missions); the more frequent transactions with the environment, the higher the degree of organization of knowledge in the mind.

1. INTRODUCTION Historically, wayfinding is an ancient science employed by sailors to locate themselves and navigate on the open seas. More recently, wayfinding has become the science that studies how people locate themselves and navigate in the physical space of the real world, including office buildings, college campuses and historic districts. Lynch's original definition of wayfinding was "a consistent use and organization of definite sensory cues from the external environment"[1]. In this definition Lynch stresses the importance of our senses

to the act of wayfinding, thus including the concept of environment-perception or cognition. Figure 1. shows particular emphasis of various wayfinding definitions, however, the primary importance of the input of our senses (our perception and cognition of the environment through which we navigate) is evident from the number of definitions of wayfinding which concentrate upon this aspect. The terms “knowledge in the world” and “knowledge in the head” were introduced by Norman in his book “The Design of Every Day Things” (1988), and referred to external and internal information for wayfinding. He argued that much of the knowledge

Hoda Al-Alwan and Ahmed Al-Azzawi

2 Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol. 19, No.2, 2014

people need to operate things and do certain tasks lies in the world and therefore we are not required to learn everything and store it as internal knowledge or knowledge in the head for later use. Norman's main argument is that putting the required knowledge in the world has the effect of reducing people's mental load and leads therefore to easier usability of things [2,3]. Arthur and Passini formulated a final definition of wayfinding terms. This definition states that wayfinding is "finding one's way to a destination through spatial problem solving comprising three interdependent processes: decision making, decision executing and information processing." In this definition, they not only combined the act of traveling (from origin to destination under uncertainty) with the need for spatial problem solving, but in addition the perceptual and cognitive aspects were partially covered by the phrase "information processing" [4]. The current research considers the definition introduced by Arthur and Passini the most appropriate one (considering the act of traveling as well as the perception-cognition of the environment) and the definition introduced by Norman the most inclusive one (coupling the knowledge in the head with the knowledge in the world in the act of wayfinding). Previous recent research on human wayfinding has focused primarily on two aspects of the process: the first is the internal information aspect depending on the knowledge acquired and stored in the head, while the second is the external information aspect depending on the knowledge that lies in the world. Although the major research work in the field has attempted to investigate the role of both aspects in accomplishing wayfinding missions, yet the degree of each of the two aspects (knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world ) on which wayfinding performing tasks depend still needs to be established. Accordingly, the research problem could be defined as follows:

Research Problem: (Lack of information in previous studies concerning the degree of trade-offs between knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world when performing wayfinding tasks in the built environment.).

Research Aim: (Arriving at the establishment of a theoretical model for the process of wayfinding in the built environment depending on trade-offs between knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world)

Research Hypothesis: (The performance of different tasks concerning wayfinding requires different trade-offs between knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world according to the degree of familiarity with the environment).

Research Methodology: Arriving at the aforementioned aim requires the application of a research methodology including the following steps: 1- Provision of the theoretical information

concerning (knowledge in the head) required in the wayfinding process.

2- Provision of the theoretical information concerning (knowledge in the world) required in the process of wayfinding.

3- Building the theoretical framework concerning the process of wayfinding (in respect to both aspects of the above mentioned knowledge) in the light of which the main research hypothesis is presented.

4- Application of the framework to selected architectural environments in order to test the validity of the hypothesis, with data analysis and discussion of the practical study.

5- Presentation of conclusions and future recommendations.

2. KNOWLEDGE IN THE HEAD In order to represent people’s processes of wayfinding, it is necessary to understand how people immediately make sense of environmental affordances through the exploration of cognitive representations or what is called “knowledge in the head”. The basic processes involved in the interaction between people and their environment are shown in (Fig. 2.). Information about the environment is obtained through perceptual processes that are guided by schemata motivated by needs. These schemata are partially innate and partially learned. They form the linkage between perception and cognition. They guide not only the perceptual process but also emotional response (affect) and actions (spatial behavior), which in turn affect the schemata as the outcomes of behavior are discerned. The fundamental process of human behavior includes the following: 2.1. Perception: The origin of the term is from the Latin word (percipere) that means (feel) and (comprehend). The suitable definition of the term is “the consciousness and awareness through the senses” or “the awareness of here and now” [5]. Perception is the process of obtaining information from and about one’s surroundings. It is active and purposeful. It is where cognition and reality meet (Neisser 1977). Perception is the recognition by the brain of a pattern out of multiple sensations [7].

wayfinding performance in the built environment

Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol. 19, No.2, 2014 3

Figure 1. Particular Emphasis of Various Wayfinding Definitions (The researchers)

Lynch, 1960

Gibson J., 1979

Arthur and Passini, 1992

Downs and Stea, 1973

Raubal, 1998

Golledge, 1995

Conroy, 2006

Importance of the Senses to the act of wayfinding

Consistent use and organization of sensory cues

Continuous visual perception of the environment

Spatial problem solving

Orientation Initial Route choice

Route monitoring

Recognizing the target

Information processing

Relation between Navigation and Vision

Importance of vision to Navigation and vice versa

Wayfinding as a basic activity and natural skill

The use of common-sense knowledge of geographical space

Wayfinding as a continuous recursive process

Making route choice

Evaluating previous spatial

Constant cognition of the environment

Wayfinding four stages

Sequential optical information

Decision Execution

Decision making

Author Particular Emphasis Application

Norman, 1988

Knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world

Putting the required knowledge in the world to reduce people’s mental load.

Gibson D., 2011

Psychological and Physiological processes

Cognitive and behavioral strategies to reach a destination

Wayfinding Definitions



Figure 2. Fundamental Processes of Human Behavior [6]

2.2. Cognition: The term is derived from the Latin meaning “Getting to know”, that refers to the process of knowledge acquisition as well as the product of the process “the thing known” [4]. Cognitive psychology deals with the acquisition, organization, and storage of knowledge. It focuses on issues of thinking, learning, remembering, feeling, and mental development. Affect deals with emotion and is concerned with likes and dislikes. It involves an understanding of values and attitude-formation. This kind of processing of information about the environment enables us to make sense of the environment [8]. Accordingly, Cognition is a complicated process including all intellectual activities that could be summarized as follows: “Learning and memory”, “Categorization and generalization” and “Meaning and affect”.

2.3. Schemata: Schemata provide us with algorithms for perceiving and learning. We do not know what a schemata is like in biological term. We assume its existence to explain much about learning and behavior [9]. The conjectural nature of a schema is clear from Ulrich Neisser's definition: “A schema is internal to the perceiver, modifiable by experience, and somehow specific to what is perceived. The schema accepts information and is changed by this information… it directs movement and exploratory activities that make information available, by which it is further modified” [10]. Schemata is associated with other terms widely spread in the field of Cognitive Psychology, the most important are the (cognitive maps). A cognitive map is a mental construct that directs the selection of

immediately available information in the environment[10]. Cognitive mapping is the process whereby people acquire, code, store, recall, and decode information about the relative location and attributes of the physical environment [11]. A cognitive map cannot be observed directly. The researcher has to content himself with direct manifestations such as sketch maps, pictorial drawings, verbal descriptions, modeling, and other forms of spatial manipulations. Considering the process of acquiring spatial knowledge of an environment, the cognitive map may develop from a mental landmark map to a mental route map and should eventually result in a mental survey map. Accordingly, two types of maps have generally been recognized [12].

A) The route map: this map type is related to a person’s movement in space. The map is actually recreated by remembering what has been seen when walking through a given setting. This type of organization is called linear or sequential, and the map is referred to as a route map.

B) The survey map: this map type is composed without resorting to a specific position of the person, and his movement in the imagined setting. The environment is understood as a spatial entity. This type of organization is called spatial, and the ensuing map is referred to as being a survey map.

2.4. Spatial Behavior: There is a strong correlation between activity systems and the cognitive images people have of the physical environment. The overt spatial behavior of people is something that is directly observable, thus at a descriptive level it attempts to describe and explain the processes of perception and cognition [9].

2.5. Motivation and Needs: Motivation is the guiding force behind behavior. Behavior is directed toward the satisfaction of the needs. Therefore it is important for environmental design theory to be based on some concept of human needs [9]. The above axes discussed the basic processes involved in the interaction between people and their environment, by presenting a formal model of the (knowledge in the head) focusing on people’s perceptual and cognitive structure and mental representation of the built environment.

3. KNOWLEDGE IN THE WORLD The built environment is continuously transmitting messages to people. These messages convey cues for



behavior which people are able to read and understand. This axis focuses on the affordances of the environment which permit the knowledge in the world to be presented in many forms and at many cognitive levels. At a lowest level of awareness, this knowledge can be regarded as being implicit in the overall configuration and structure of the environment, whereas at a higher level of awareness the knowledge in the world is explicit in the forms of, for example, signage [13].

3.1. The Explicit Knowledge in the World: 3.1.1. Elements of Structure:

Structuralism is fundamentally a way of thinking about the world which is predominantly concerned with the perception and description of structures [14]. Lynch explored imageability in terms of physical qualities. Through mental mapping exercises, he aimed to identify aspects of the environment that left a strong image in observers’ minds. He derived five key physical elements [15]:

1. Paths: which are the channels of movement people regularly, occasionally, or may potentially, take. They may include paths, streets, walkways, bus or tram lines, canals, railways and so on.

2. Edges: for Lynch they are linear elements which people do not use as paths. They perceive them, rather, as linear breaks or boundaries of some kind. They may be physical boundaries such as walls, railway cuttings, canals, shoreline, or they may simply be boundaries between adjacent developments.

3. Districts: for Lynch districts are mediums to large sections of the city which people visualize as having two-dimensional extent. They are recognizable, as having some common, identifying character, which indeed may be so strong that one has a distinct, mental impression of entering inside of.

4. Nodes: are strategic points within the city to or from which the observer travels. They may be crossings or convergences of paths, junctions, places where one changes from one mode of transport to another. Or they may be concentrations of some kind, which are important because of their physical form: such as urban squares, street corners.

5. Landmarks: are reference-points but the observer does not actually use them. They consist, rather, of simply defined physical objects such as a building, a sign, a store or even a mountain. A landmark in this sense will be a physical object which, because of its form, may be singled out from the surrounding environment. Landmarks, with a clear form contrasting with their background and a prominent spatial location are more easily identified and likely to be significant to the observer.

The five elements previously mentioned are simply the raw material of the environmental image at the city scale. They must be patterned together to provide a satisfying form [1]. 3.1.2. Physical Attributes:

In making sense of the visual world we rely on a number of physical characteristics which define objects and their relationships in three dimensional spaces [16].

The physical attributes play an important role in creating a vivid image of our environment. Physical attributes could be classified into: Appearance Attributes (including size, shape, color, sign, light, contour, and age) and Location Attributes (including concepts of prominence and visual scope). 3.1.3. Signage and Maps:

The use of signs exists for the purpose of conveying information to people passing by, whether pedestrians or motorists. The signscape is an aggregation of symbols and letters as they appear on signs, billboards, storefronts, marquees, canopies and all other visual media located on buildings. An effective sign communicates a message. Signs supply information; therefore their location and size contribute to their communication capability. People need graphic information, such as maps, in order to make the wayfinding processes easier and clearer. Maps give a high level of abstraction for the built environments, and they give general information that help people in their spatial orientation.

3.2. The Implicit Knowledge in the World: 3.2.1. Meaning Attributes:

They are non-physical characteristics which may enhance the imageability of an element. These meanings have both instrumental (use) and symbolic significance [17].

A) Use significance:

It is concerned with the functional use and benefit of environmental elements. Most people consider different places as behavioral settings for specific activities. The singularity in use of elements or spaces could help in distinguishing the environmental elements regardless to their formal characteristics or visibility [6]..

B) Symbolic Significance:

A symbol is the result of a cognitive process whereby an object acquires a connotation beyond its instrumental use. These meanings are derived from what an observer imputes to an object. This may result from a psychological association, a social convention, even an accident [9].



The above axes dealt with the range of “knowledge in the world” from explicit to implicit, The Explicit Knowledge included the five elements of structure defined by Lynch as the main cues in the environment providing explicit environmental information. It also included the physical attributes classified into appearance attributes and location attributes. Signage and maps also resembled explicit cues including directional, identification and reassurance signs as well as graphic information maps.

The Implicit Knowledge included meaning attributes which were classified into use significance and symbolic significance.

This range of knowledge (knowledge in the world) conveys cues for human behavior in diverse forms, one of which is the process of wayfinding in the built environment.

4. WAYFINDING PROCESS This axis focuses on the process of wayfinding where the perceptive and cognitive abilities take place in the processing of environmental information (including both aspects of knowledge presented in the two previous axes: knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world) as well as the decision making and finally the decision execution. The conceptualization of wayfinding as spatial problem solving incorporates three important stages: information processing, decision making or planning, and decision execution. In order to describe these cognitive abilities, if only in general terms, it is indispensable to analyze actual wayfinding, that is, to observe what people do to reach destinations (Fig. 3.).

\\\\

Figure 3. Process of wayfinding

4.1. Processing Environmental Information: Environmental information plays a central role in the conceptualization of wayfinding. Indeed, environmental information is used in all phases of spatial problem solving; it contributes to the identification of a wayfinding problem and to the elaboration of the solution. Environmental information is fundamental in the making of decisions and decision plans as well as in their execution. Acquiring environmental information is a two-way process characterized by a direct impact of distinctive environmental features and also by an inverse action of search and selection in which the person looks for information.

In other words, environmental information is a product of both aspects of knowledge: knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world. In accordance with what have been previously mentioned, we can differentiate between environmental information that is dependent on direct sensory contact with a setting (sensory information) and environmental information evoked from past experience (memory information). It is understood that sensory information also involves memory and that memory information once went through the process of being directly perceived [18]. The important criterion separating the two is that at a given moment memory information can be obtained without or independent of sensory inputs from the setting, while sensory information cannot. Environmental information might further be obtained by inference. This may be achieved by any combination of sensory and memory information (Fig. 4.).

Figure 4. Inferred information

4.2. Decision making or planning: To develop a decision plan is to develop a solution for a wayfinding problem. To summarize the general aspects of decision making, it can be stated that the development of a decision plan is characterized by a task-generating activity that breaks down complex problems into manageable sub problems to be solved in semi-isolation and the solution of which, that is the decision plan, can be comfortably remembered [12]. Choice process is a process of elimination, from among a set of alternatives [5]. Choices relate directly to decision points in wayfinding. They are most apparent whenever a person has the opportunity to select among different paths. The use of choices as one measure for the complexity of wayfinding tasks in built environments is motivated by the fact that

Information Processing

Decision Making

Decision Execution

Sensory Information

Memory Information

Inferred Information

Analysis and Treatment

Knowledge in the

head

Knowledge in the

world



choices have a big impact on wayfinding complexity. The number of decision points directly influences the difficulty of performing a way-finding task. We distinguish between points where subjects have one obvious choice to continue the way-finding task and points where subjects have more than one choice to do so. One needs to distinguish between the choice acts (the outcomes of a decision-making process) and a preference (an activity within the decision-making process expressing what is desirable). 4.3. Executing decision plans: The execution of decisions and of plans can be seen as a matching-feedback process. Memory plays a crucial role in recording decision plans of routes taken and in the actual execution of decisions. The image inherent in each decision has to be remembered so that the matching process can take place. In order to understand decision execution, it is important to differentiate between recall and recognition. The capacity to recognize, that is to remember in the presence of the object, is far superior to recalling. The process of executing decisions is largely based on recognition. Some recall is necessary for the development of decisions in the first place. People also have the ability to mentally simulate way-finding. It is possible to imagine the completion of a way-finding task during which decision plans are elaborated and executed. In the simulation, a person has to rely on recall rather than recognition. As previously mentioned, there are two types of knowledge for wafinding: knowledge in the surrounding environment (knowledge in the world) and knowledge treated inside the person (knowledge in the head). Knowledge in the world acts as its own reminder. It can help us recover structures that we otherwise would forget. Knowledge in the world is easier to learn, but often more difficult to use, and it relies heavily upon the continued physical presence of the information. Once the environment is changed then the information available is also changed. Knowledge in the head is efficient: no search and interpretation of the environment is required. Knowledge in the head may be regarded as strategy, deliberate actions/decisions, and applications of past experience and memory. For wayfinding in unfamiliar environments knowledge in the world is an absolute necessity, because people do not have previously acquired knowledge in the head about the particular environment. While in familiar environment, a person has acquired enough knowledge and experienced the environment as knowledge in the head. From what has been mentioned above, we conclude a theoretical framework for the process of wayfinding including the three stages of the spatial problem

solving: information processing, decision making and decision execution in relation to the factor of familiarity of the built environment. This framework is clearly shown in (Fig. 5.) in the light of which the main research hypothesis could be presented.

Research Hypothesis:

(The performance of different tasks concerning wayfinding requires different trade-offs between knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world according to the degree of familiarity with the environment)

In other words: - In familiar environments, limited external

knowledge (knowledge in the world) is needed to perform wayfinding tasks depending on the previously acquired internal knowledge (knowledge in the head).

- In unfamiliar environments, much of the knowledge needed to do certain wayfinding tasks lies in the world (knowledge in the world), because of the limited stored internal knowledge (knowledge in the head) concerning unfamiliar environments.

The following axis deals with testing the validity of the hypothesis through the application of the framework to a selected architectural environment, represented by a university campus setting where wayfinding and spatial orientation are important criteria in post-occupancy evaluation and where the ability and ease to find one's way is a prerequisite for the satisfaction of higher level goals.

5. PRACTICAL STUDY The aim of the practical study is to test the validity of the hypothesis concerned with the contribution of both aspects of knowledge (knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world) in the process of wayfinding with special emphasis on the role of familiarity in the accomplishment of wayfinding tasks. 5.1. Choice of Setting The site chosen for the practical study is within the University of Baghdad Campus in Jadriyah. Fig. 6. shows the campus plan (designed by Gropius in 1960) which is divided into concentric zones. At the heart of the campus, a ring road surrounds an academic area that includes the College of Engineering and the College of Sciences.

The two colleges embrace a central plaza-the focus of the campus- around which are grouped buildings for shared faculty and students’ activities including the administrative tower, the library, the student center and the theatre. Outside the ring road are the facilities that support life in the campus including students



dormitories (three compounds: one in the north for women and two in the south for men), athletic facilities, mosque, maintenance and storage areas..etc.

The campus plan was subjected to many changes in its layout and use over the years. One of the most important changes is the cancelling of the on-campus

dormitory system and accordingly, the buildings were used for academic purposes. Nahrain University occupied the site of the north dormitory compound while the two south compounds were used by various colleges and institutes of Baghdad University.

Figure 5. Theoretical Framework

The Contribution of (Knowledge in the Head & Knowledge in the World) in the three-staged Process of Wayfinding in relation to Familiarity

Strong Relationship

Weak Relationship

Familiar Environment Unfamiliar

Environment

Spatial

Behavior

(Dynam

ic)

Mental

Planning

Mental

Image

(Static)

Knowledge in the Head Knowledge in the World

Wayfinding Process

Wayfinding and Spatial

Orientation

Decision Making

Decision Execution

Information Processing

Unfamiliar Environment

Familiar Environment



5.2. The Selected Sample: The subjects who participated in this segment of the research study were undergraduates and post-graduates of the Architectural Department (College of Engineering, Nahrain University), who varied in their experience and familiarity with the Baghdad University Campus.

The most experienced were (30) M.Sc. students who had made intensive use of the campus facilities (the central library, student center, different engineering departments especially the Architectural Department of Baghdad University).

The less experienced were (38) undergraduates in their first and second year with limited use and familiarity with the campus.

Thus, a total of 68 subjects (students) took part in this study on a voluntary basis. This sample was about equally divided among males and females. Table 1. shows the selected sample.

5.3. Procedure: Subjects (of the two samples) were asked to draw as detailed a diagram as possible of their trip from the gate of Nahrain University (starting point) to the Architectural Department, College of Engineering, University of Baghdad (destination) (Fig. 7.).

Table 1. The selected sample

Selected Sample Stage Number of

Subjects

Degree of Familiarity

First Sample

Post-graduates (M.Sc. students) 30 High

Second Sample

Undergraduates (first and second year students)

38 Low

Subjects were asked to enumerate every aspect of the site they would recall and define all the possible routes leading to the destination. The data obtained from the subjects (cognitive/sketch maps) were used to identify and analyze the environmental information obtained which could be specified in two categories:

1-Elements’ composition and Spatial characteristics 2- Accomplishing wayfinding tasks. 5.3.1. Elements Composition and spatial

characteristics:

Figures 8 and 9 show mental or cognitive maps (sketch maps) drawn by the subjects of the first sample (high familiarity with environment) and the second sample (low familiarity with the environment) respectively. To facilitate the classification procedure, the identified information from the cognitive maps was regrouped according to the five categories defined by Lynch. The number of paths, landmarks, nodes (paths intersection), edges and districts was determined for each map in each sample (Table 2) (Table 3). Cognitive maps of both samples (Fig. 8.) and (Fig. 9.) were categorized according to their spatial characteristics into Linear and Spatial maps. Linear maps were maps type related to a person’s movement in space. While, Spatial maps were composed without resorting to a specific position of the subject, and his movement in the imagined setting. The environment was understood as a spatial entity. RESULTS: The mean number of elements depicted for each sample is shown in (Tables 2 & 3). The number of landmarks did not change as a function of time. Paths, nodes, districts and edges significantly increased over time. Accordingly, the number of landmarks did not shift as a function of familiarity while paths, nodes, districts and edges significantly increased with environmental experience.

The results emphasize the role of landmarks in shaping cognitive maps. As a result, people rely heavily on initially encoded landmarks for subsequent environmental knowledge acquisition.

In other words, knowledge in the world is needed subsequently in less familiar environments, to be stored as knowledge in the head that increases with familiarity.



Figure 6. University of Baghdad Campus Plan and the Chosen Site for Practical Study

Figure 7. The chosen site for the practical study



Figure 8. Cognitive Maps of the First Sample

(M.Sc. students, high familiarity with environment)



Figure 9. Cognitive Maps of the Second Sample

(first and second year students, low familiarity with environment)



Table 2. Elements Composition and Spatial Characteristics of Cognitive Maps

(First Sample: Familiar Environment).

Subjects Number

Map Type

No. of Paths

No. of Edges

No. of Districts

No. of Nodes

No. of Landmarks

1 Spatial 5 2 2 4 6 2 Spatial 4 1 2 3 6 3 Linear 3 1 1 1 4 4 Spatial 3 2 2 2 3 5 Partial 2 0 1 1 6 6 Partial 3 1 2 2 7 7 Partial 2 3 2 1 7 8 Linear 2 1 0 1 2 9 Linear 1 0 1 1 5

10 Spatial 3 3 2 3 7 11 Spatial 3 3 1 3 4 12 Linear 2 2 1 1 4 13 Spatial 4 1 3 3 7 14 Partial 3 1 1 2 6 15 Linear 2 0 1 1 5 16 Spatial 3 2 1 1 5 17 Linear 3 1 0 1 5 18 Spatial 3 1 1 1 6 19 Partial 3 2 1 2 7 20 Spatial 3 3 3 3 7 21 Partial 2 1 0 1 5 22 Partial 2 0 1 1 4 23 Spatial 3 2 1 1 7 24 Linear 2 0 0 2 4 25 Spatial 2 1 2 1 6 26 Spatial 2 1 0 0 6 27 Spatial 3 1 3 4 6 28 Spatial 2 2 1 4 5 29 Spatial 3 3 1 2 5 30 Partial 3 1 1 1 5

Average

Spatial 50% Partial 26.7% Linear 23.3%

2.7

1.4

1.2

1.8

5.3

First Sample: Familiar Environment

Table 3. Elements Composition and Spatial Characteristics of Cognitive Maps

(Second Sample: Less Familiar Environment).

Subjects Number

Map Type

No. of Paths

No. of Edges

No. of Districts

No. of Nodes

No. of Landmarks

1 Spatial 4 2 1 1 6 2 Partial 4 1 0 1 5 3 Linear 3 0 0 0 6 4 Linear 3 1 0 0 6 5 Linear 2 0 1 0 6 6 Partial 2 1 0 1 6 7 Spatial 4 2 1 2 7 8 Linear 3 1 0 1 6 9 Linear 3 1 0 1 4

10 Linear 3 0 0 0 6 11 Spatial 4 1 1 1 7 12 Linear 2 2 0 0 4 13 Spatial 3 3 1 1 5 14 Linear 2 0 0 0 5 15 Linear 2 1 0 1 4 16 Spatial 3 1 1 2 5 17 Linear 2 0 0 0 5 18 Linear 2 0 0 0 5 19 Linear 2 0 0 0 5 20 Linear 2 0 0 0 5 21 Partial 2 1 0 1 6 22 Linear 2 0 0 0 4 23 Partial 2 1 0 1 6 24 Linear 2 2 0 1 5 25 Linear 2 1 0 1 5 26 Partial 3 2 1 1 5 27 Linear 3 0 0 0 3 28 Linear 2 1 0 0 5 29 Partial 2 1 0 1 5 30 Linear 1 0 0 0 2 31 Linear 1 1 0 0 2 32 Linear 1 0 0 0 2 33 Linear 1 2 1 0 4 34 Linear 1 0 0 0 2 35 Linear 1 2 0 0 3 36 Linear 1 1 0 0 4 37 Linear 1 0 0 0 4 38 Linear 2 0 0 0 4

Average Spatial 13.2% Partial 15.8% Linear 71%

2.2 0.8 0.2 0.4 4.7

Second Sample: Less Familiar Environment

5.3.2. Accomplishing wayfinding tasks: In the present experiment, three measures of the organization of knowledge were used. The first measure was the (Choice Degree) indicating the subject’s ability to find his way and reach the specified destination using different routes. This measure depended on the subject’s cognitive abilities and his familiarity with the environment.

𝐂𝐡𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞 =

𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐧 𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐬

× 𝟏𝟎𝟎%

The number of routes chosen to reach the destination was taken from the data extracted from the individual cognitive maps (figure 8) (figure 9). The number of



existing routes to destination was determined by the researcher as a result of a precise study and a self-survey of the site defining the main possible routes that could be used by the subjects. (Figure 10) A-D shows the possible chosen routes defined by the researcher.

Figures 10A to 10D below show the possible chosen routes to destination with the main prominent environmental elements.

Figure 10A. Route1/ The Main Prominent Environmental Elements

Figure 10B. Route2/ The Main Prominent Environmental Elements

Figure 10C. Route3/ The Main Prominent Environmental Elements

Figure 10D Route4/ The Main Prominent Environmental Elements.

The second measure was the (Selection Degree) indicating the subject’s ability to select perceptually elements from the surrounding environment within the chosen route.

𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞

=𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬

× 𝟏𝟎𝟎%



The number of selected environmental elements was taken from the data extracted from the cognitive maps (Figures 8 & 9). The number of existing environmental elements was determined by the researcher as a result of a self-survey of the site and the possible routes leading to the specified destination where the main dominant elements and features were defined (Fig. 10/ A-D).

The third measure was the (Success Degree) indicating the successful utilization of cognitive abilities and both aspects of knowledge (knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world) to accomplish the wayfinding task.

𝐒𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐃𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞

=𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬

× 𝟏𝟎𝟎%

The number of subjects who reached the destination was taken from the data extracted from cognitive maps, while the overall number of subjects included all subjects who participated in this practical study.

6. RESULTS: Tables 4 and 5 shows the results of the three measures:

• For the first sample (the familiar

environment)

- The Choice Degree was 55.83%

- The Selection Degree was 57.51%

- The Success Degree was 100%

• For the second sample (the less familiar

environment)

- The Choice Degree was 26.31%

- The Selection Degree was 43.74%

- The Success Degree was 76.31%

- The results characterize developmental variation in the cognitive behavior of the subjects in the first sample with respect to the organization of their knowledge. This finding is further supported by the evidence that performance on the selectivity of elements and the choice of routes were much approved as a function of familiarity.

- In other words, subjects of the first sample relied on stored and organized knowledge in their minds (knowledge in the head), while the second sample relied on accumulative primitive information from the environment (knowledge in the world) to accomplish the wayfinding task.

- These findings prove the validity of the research hypothesis that more frequent transactions with the environment (which is reflected in degree of subjective familiarity) would lead to a higher degree of organization of knowledge in the mind.

- In other words, there are significant relations between degree of familiarity and performance on the cognitive tasks.

Table 4. Results of Choice, Selection and Success Degrees

for the First Sample. First Sample: Familiar Environment:

Subj-ect’s No.

Choice Degree %

Chosen Routes*

Selection Degree for each Route%

Select-ion Degree

% Route 1

Route 2

Route 3

Route 4

1 100% 1, 2, 3, 4 60 62.5 64.28 66.66 63.36

2 100% 1,2, 3, 4 66.66 68.75 78.58 66.66 70.61

3 100% 1, 2, 3, 4 40 50 35.71 46.66 43.09

4 100% 1, 2, 3, 4 46.66 37.5 42.85 46.66 43.41

5 100% 1, 2, 3, 4 53.33 50 50 53.33 51.66

6 100% 1, 2, 3, 4 60 62.5 50 60 58.125

7 50% 1, 3 60 64.28 62.14

8 50% 1, 3 40 42.85 41.42

9 50% 1, 2 46.66 50 48.33

10 50% 2, 4 81.25 80 80.62

11 50% 1, 3 66.66 56.25 61.45

12 50% 1, 2 53.33 68.75 61.04

13 50% 1, 3 80 85.71 82.85

14 50% 1, 3 53.33 50 51.66

15 50% 2, 4 56.25 53.33 54.79

16 50% 2, 4 50 46.66 48.33

17 50% 1, 2 40 43.75 41.87

18 50% 2, 4 68.75 66.66 67.70

19 50% 2, 4 62.5 66.66 64.58

20 50% 1, 2 60 62.5 61.25

21 50% 1, 2 53.33 56.25 54.79

22 50% 1, 2 40 43.75 41.87

23 50% 2,4 62.5 73.33 67.91

24 50% 1, 2 40 37.5 38.75

25 50% 2, 4 56.25 53.33 54.79

26 25% 1 53.33 53.33

27 25% 2 68.75 68.75

28 25% 2 68.75 68.75

29 25% 2 68.75 68.75

30 25% 2 50 50

Aver-age

55.83% 53.33 57.81 56.40 53.84 57.51

Success Degree = 𝟑𝟎𝟑𝟎

× 𝟏𝟎𝟎 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎%

*The chosen routes by each subject were defined according to the data extracted from his cognitive map that lies within the routes determined by the researcher (Fig. 10/A-D).



Table 5. Results of Choice, Selection and Success Degrees

for the Second Sample. Second Sample: Less Familiar Environment:

Subj-ect’s number

Choice degree%

Chosen routes

Selection degree for each way Selec-tion degree% Route

1 Route 2

Route 3

Route 4

1 50% 1,3 53.33 50 51.66 2 50% 2,4 50 46.66 48.33 3 50% 1,4 40 46.66 43.33 4 50% 3,4 57.14 40 48.57 5 50% 2,4 43.75 53.33 48.54 6 50% 1,4 46.66 46.66 46.66 7 50% 2,4 62.5 60 61.1 8 50% 1,3 53.33 50 51.66 9 50% 1,3 40 42.85 41.42 10 50% 1,3 46.66 42.85 44.75 11 50% 2,4 62.5 53.33 57.91 12 25% 1 46.66 46.66 13 25% 1 60 60 14 25% 1 40 40 15 25% 1 40 40 16 25% 2 62.5 62.5 17 25% 4 46.66 46.66 18 25% 1 33.33 33.33 19 25% 3 50 50 20 25% 1 40 40 21 25% 2 62.5 62.5 22 25% 3 42.85 42.85 23 25% 2 62.5 62.5 24 25% 1 46.66 46.66 25 25% 4 46.66 46.66 26 25% 4 60 60 27 25% 1 26.66 26.66 28 25% 4 53.33 53.33 29 25% 3 64.28 64.28 30 0% 0 21.42 21.42 31 0% 0 21.42 21.42 32 0% 0 21.42 21.42 33 0% 0 40 40 34 0% 0 18.75 18.75 35 0% 0 28.57 28.57 36 0% 0 20 20 37 0% 0 26.66 26.66

38 0% 0 35.71 35.71 Aver-age 26.31 42.08 53.12 40.65 48.32 43.74

Success Degree = 𝟐𝟗𝟑𝟖

× 𝟏𝟎𝟎 = 𝟕𝟔.𝟑𝟐%

7. CONCLUSIONS: - There are two aspects contributing in the

wayfinding process: the first is the internal information aspect depending on the knowledge acquired and stored in the head. The second is the external information aspect depending on the knowledge that lies in the world.

- Knowledge in the head is presented by formal model of people’s perceptual and cognitive structure and mental representation of the built environment.

- The affordances of the environment permit the knowledge in the world to be presented in two forms: implicit and explicit. The first is in the overall configuration and structure

of the environment. The second is in the form of physical elements and attributes.

- The creation of the environmental image is a two way process between the observer and what is observed, and clear images of an environment contribute to person’s efficient functioning in particular to his wayfinding performance.

- Wayfinding is a spatial problem solving that incorporates three important stages: information processing, decision making or planning and decision execution.

The practical study results emphasized the following: - The relative saliency of items (Lynch’s five

elements) in the physical setting as initial cues in environmental learning, indicating the role of landmarks in shaping cognitive maps. The data generally supported the position that people rely heavily on initially encoded landmarks for subsequent environmental knowledge acquisition. These findings are consistent with Lynch and Appleyard’s hypotheses that landmarks are most critical as early learning cues in the macro-physical environment.

- The analysis confirmed that much of the information extracted from the cognitive maps of the two samples, filled into the five basic elements mentioned by Lynch.

- Environmental differentiation (unique landmarks) facilitated task performance for the second sample (less experienced subjects) indicating the role of (knowledge in the world) in accomplishing cognitive tasks in unfamiliar environment.

- The analysis of spatial characteristics of cognitive maps defined three essential structures and levels of organization of knowledge: linear, partial and spatial. The three levels characterized consistent differences between subjects in the representation of large scale spatial environments. The finding proved that subjects represented familiar areas in a relatively more organized and spatial manner than the less familiar areas (linearly or partially presented). These findings confirm that knowledge in the head increases with familiarity.

- The research findings proved that increased familiarity mitigated wayfinding problems. As a result, spatial orientation and wayfinding improved with repeated experience.

- There are significant relations between the degree of familiarity and performance on the cognitive tasks: the more frequent transactions with the environment, the higher the degree of organization of knowledge in



the mind. - Finally, the results of the practical study can

show designers how people construct their mental spatial memory in complex environments according to the degree of familiarity. This suggests a design strategy that depends on mental cues of the environment.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS - Studying wayfinding performance in more

complex, rich and varied environments (such as traditional organic urban settings) that have greater uniqueness and provide explicit and enhanced environmental information – clues and cues – or knowledge in the world, inducing a greater number and range of perceptions.

- Studying the acquisition of spatial information about a complex environment as related to experience time and investigating cognitive representation of spatial relationships as a mean of facilitating wayfinding performance.

- Studying the effect of dominance and sequential order of environmental elements on the construction of cognitive representation.

- Investigating the specific features of architectural environments that contribute to the attribution of spatial organization.

REFERENCES

1. Lynch, K. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT-Press.

2. Norman, D. 1988. The Design of Everyday Things. Doubleday, New York.

3. Raubal, M. and Egenhofer, M. 1998. Comparing the Complexity of Wayfinding Tasks in Built Environments. Environment & Planning B, 25 (6): 895-913. www.spatial.maine.edu/~max/wayfinding.pdf .

4. Arthur, P. and Passini, R. 1992. Wayfinding: People, Signs, & Architecture. McGraw-Hill, New York.

5. Rapoport, A. 1977. Human Aspects of Urban Form. John Wiley, New York.

6. AL-Alwan, H. A. S. 2001. Legibility of Architectural Environment. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Architecture, College of Engineering, University of Baghdad.

7. Mazumdar, S. 2000. People and the Built Environment. In Knox, P., and Ozolins, P. Design Professionals and the Built Environment. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, New York.

8. Downs, R. and Stea D. 2005. Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior. Chicago, U.S.A

9. Lang, J. 1987. Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.

10. Neisser, Ulrich 1977. Cognition and Reality. Freeman, San Francisco, U.S.A.

11. Moore, Gary T, and Reginald G. Golledge, eds. 1976. Environmental Knowing: Theories, Research and Methods. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, Pa.

12. Passini, R. 1992. Wayfinding in Architecture. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.

13. Uebelle, A. 2010. Signage Systems and Information Graphics: A Professional Sourcebook. New York.

14. Hawkes, T. 1977. Structuralism and Semiotics. Methuen & Co. Ltd, London.

15. Carmmona M., Heath T., Oc T. and Tiesdell S. 2003. Public Places-Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. Architectural Press, London.

16. Sanoff, H. 1991. Visual Method in Design. Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.

17. Berger, C. 2009. Designing and Implementing Graphic Navigational Systems. John Wiley, New York.

18. Mayer, D. and Baver, E. 2008. Orientation and Identity: Portraits of International Wayfinding Systems. Environment and Behavior 20(4): G5-91.

19. Downs, R.M. and Stea, D. 1973. Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior. Chicago, Aldine.

20. Gibson, J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston.

21. Golledge, R. 1995. Path Selection and Route Preference in Human Navigation: A Progress Report. In: A. Frank and W. Kuhn (Eds.), Spatial Information Theory-A Theoretical Basis for GIS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 988, pp. 207-222, Springer, Berlin- Heidelberg-New York.

22. Conroy, R. 2006. Spatial Navigation in Immersive Virtual Environment. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of the Built Environment, Department of Architecture, University College of London.

23. Gibson, D. 2011. The Wayfinding Handbook: Information Design for Public Spaces. Architectural Press, New York.

http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~max/wayfinding.pdf

http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~max/wayfinding.pdf

wayfinding performance in the built environment · wayfinding is a basic activity that people do...

Documents