Development of a New Orientation Index for Airport Terminals

Abstract

Some people have difficulty locating their destinations in airport terminals in spite of the availability of signs. The reasons for this wayfinding problem are numerous, and they include the complexity of the terminals as well as the wayfinding aids within them. An improved quantitative measure of human orientation called the visibility index (VI) is investigated. The effects of the number of signs or decision points and the number of level changes on visual access were investigated in an experiment in a complex building at The University of Calgary. A relationship between the slowness in reaching a destination, the number of decision points, and the number of level changes was developed. A survey of 32 common terminal activity centers was conducted. The ranks and weights of these activity centers were determined based on responses of airport users at three airports. The weight and the slowness factor were incorporated into the VI model, which was tested at Vancouver International Airport.

Quantifying and validating measures of airport terminal wayfinding

“…Dada and Wirasinghe (1999) developed this theme by using surveys at three airports to determine the relative importance of the various primary and secondary activity centres based on personal response rather than observed use. They went on to propose a new orientation index VI (new) for a terminal, as well as a new orientation index for each activity centre i given by VI i (new), incorporating the connectivity matrix, the physical visual access, the weight of the activity centres based on stated preference, and the number of activity centres:…”

“…A factor for visual access, k ij , was developed by Dada and Wirasinghe (1999) by assessing how the number of signs and level changes affect the tardity, or lateness, of experienced versus unfamiliar travellers. By evaluating several different routes of varying lengths, level changes and number of signs in a facility similar to a small terminal, they were able to determine the relative effect of the number of signs and level changes on tardity.…”

“…Tosic and Babic (1984) expanded the model by consideration of the relevance of routes and the importance of secondary activity centres. Dada and Wirasinghe (1999) developed a new VI model that includes visual access, weight of activity centres and physical factors such as the number of signs and level changes. While the quantification of the ease of wayfinding through the calculation of VI allows comparisons between different terminal designs, the human element is still not considered.…”

Spatial Ability Skills: A correlation between Augmented Reality (AR) and conventional way on wayfinding system

“…When a way-seeker fails to either find the necessary cues (Braaksma and Cook, 1980;Dada and Wirasinghe, 1999; on the viewability of cues), or comprehend conveyed information from a cue, the often consequent behavioral response is to seek help, where available, from information desks or others (Freundschuh et al, 1990;Allen, Miller and Ondracek, 1997;Denis et al, 1999).…”

“…This graphical construct gives identity to six wayfinding variables, considered at the node, node-pair and route levels (Braaksma and Jordan, 1980;O'Neill, 1991;Denis, Pazzaglia, Cornoldi and Bertolo, 1999;Dada and Wirasinghe 1999;Allen, 2000). The six wayfinding variables are; § The number of exit paths § The Confirmation of informational sign in destination § Spatial viewability § Imaginary viewability § Length in distance § Length of segments…”