Investigating Wayfinding Using Virtual Environments
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INVESTIGATING WAYFINDING USING VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Ebru Cubukcu, B.C. P. (Hons.), M.C.R.P. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2003 Approved by Dissertation Committee: Professor Jack L. Nasar, Adviser Adviser Professor Steven I. Gordon Graduate Program in Professor Kenneth Pearlman City and Regional Planning Program ABSTRACT Wayfinding is the spatial knowledge about one’s current location, destination, and the spatial relation between them. Wayfinding problems threaten people’s sense of well-being, and cause loss of time and money. Designers and planners can improve wayfinding when they understand how physical environmental factors affect people’s wayfinding performance. This study explores the effect of personal and physical environmental characteristics on wayfinding performance. The personal characteristics include gender, age, and familiarity. The physical environmental characteristics include plan layout complexity, physical differentiation and its components vertical and horizontal differentiation. The experiment had eighteen (2 x 3 x 3) simulated environments, with two plan layouts (complex and simple), three kinds of vertical differentiation (no differentiation, object landmarks, and building landmarks) and three kinds of horizontal differentiation (no differentiation, road width variation, road pavement variation), and it also had four different question orders. ii 166 volunteers (98 male, 68 female) were tested individually. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the question orders and to one of the simulated environments with the constraint that there would be equal number of people in survey types, in plan layout conditions, in vertical differentiation conditions, and in horizontal differentiation conditions. The experiment had a learning phase and a test phase. In the learning phase, participants actively explored one of the simulated environments at their leisure up to four minutes. In the test phase the participants completed three spatial knowledge tasks (a direction estimation task, a navigation task, and a sketching task) and a survey which had questions on gender, age, frequency of playing computer game, realism of the simulated environment judgement and wayfinding strategies used in the navigation task. As expected, the Simple layouts, Higher Physical Differentiation, Vertical or Horizontal differentiation yielded better wayfinding performance than Complex layouts, Lower Physical differentiation, and No Vertical or Horizontal differentiation. Males performed better than Females, and performance improved with Familiarity. iii DEDICATION To my parents and my husband iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my adviser, Professor Jack L. Nasar, for his expert and timely advice, guidance, inspirations, and encouragement throughout the research. I thank Professors Steven I. Gordon and Kenneth Pearlman for serving on the advisory committee and providing their helpful insights and comments. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Harry Heft for his helpful comments on the early draft of this dissertation. I thank Dr. Peter Hecht for allowing me to involve in wayfinding projects, which I truly enjoyed and benefited, towards the end of this dissertation. I would like to thank Dokuz Eylul University for the scholarship, and Selin Koroglu and Filiz Dincyigit for handling all the administrative work in Turkey regarding this scholarship. I also thank the Center for Mapping for the assistantship. I am also grateful to Jenny Klein, from the Office of Residence Life, who was very helpful in providing the site to conduct the surveys, and to people who participated as respondents in this study. I also extend my gratitude to Misun Hur, v In-Young Yeo, and my other fellow Doctoral students in the Department of City and Regional Planning for their positive reinforcement; to students in the Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design (ACCAD) for their help to discover the simulation tool in this dissertation; and to friends I met in Columbus for their friendship. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Fulden and Ziya Demirayak, my brother, my sisters-in-law and my niece, Yasemin, for being everlasting supporters of my studies and believing in my capabilities. My special thanks go to my husband, Mert, for everything. vi VITA February 24, 1974.………………….Born – Antalya, Turkey 1997…………………………………B.C.P. (Hons.), City Planning School of Architecture Middle East Technical University Ankara, Turkey. 2001…………………………………M.C.R.P., City and Regional Planning Austin E. Knowlton School of Architecture The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A. 1998-present………………………...Graduate Research Associate Dokuz Eylul University Izmir, Turkey. 2002-present...………………………Graduate Research Associate The Center For Mapping The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: City and Regional Planning Minor Field: Environmental Psychology vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ......................................................................................................................ii Dedication .................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgments...................................................................................................... v Vita...........................................................................................................................vii List of Tables............................................................................................................xii List of Figures .......................................................................................................xviii Chapters 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 2 Literature Review.................................................................................................... 5 2.1 The Concepts Related to Wayfinding............................................................... 6 2.2 Significance of the Wayfinding Research......................................................... 9 2.3 The Physical Environmental and Personal Characteristics Affecting Wayfinding Behavior ...................................................................................... 10 2.3.1 The Plan Layout........................................................................................ 11 2.3.2 The Level of Physical Differentiation ...................................................... 12 2.3.3 The Vertical Differentiation ..................................................................... 13 2.3.4 The Horizontal Differentiation ................................................................. 15 2.3.5 Age............................................................................................................ 15 2.3.6 Gender ...................................................................................................... 18 viii 2.3.7 Familiarity (Experience)........................................................................... 21 2.3.8 Summary of Factors Effecting Wayfinding Performance ........................ 21 2.4 Tools to Simulate Environment ...................................................................... 22 2.4.1 Use of Photographs and Simulation Booth............................................... 23 2.4.2 Full Scale Models ..................................................................................... 25 2.4.3 Small Scale Models .................................................................................. 26 2.4.4 Computer Models (Virtual Environments)............................................... 28 2.4.5 Summary of Tools for Studying Wayfinding........................................... 30 2.5 Measures of Wayfinding Performance ........................................................... 31 2.5.1 Self Report Tests ...................................................................................... 31 2.5.2 Memory Tests........................................................................................... 32 2.5.3 Recognition Tests ..................................................................................... 33 2.5.4 Spatial Orientation Tests .......................................................................... 34 2.5.5 Navigation Tests....................................................................................... 39 2.5.6 Summary of Wayfinding Measures.......................................................... 41 3 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 43 3.1 General Procedures and Equipment................................................................ 43 3.1.1 Introductory Procedures ........................................................................... 43 3.1.2 Equipment and Setting.............................................................................. 44 3.2 Virtual Environments...................................................................................... 44 3.2.1 Software.................................................................................................... 44 3.2.2 Physical Environmental Characteristics ................................................... 45 3.2.3