Quantitative evaluation of passenger terminal orientation

Abstract

When passenger terminal layout is being decided, one of the important aspects to consider is how the passenger orients himself during his visit to the terminal and his movements through it, i.e. terminal orientation. Among other things, this terminal characteristic results from visibility, or the visual connectivity between elements and spaces. The paper proposes an amendment and modification to the known method for the quantitative evaluation of terminal orientation which uses an oriented network to describe the connectivity of elements (terminal orientation). The amendment and modification of the method consists of proposing that during evaluation only visual connections that have functional meaning should be considered, rather than all visual connections. A further modification is the introduction of different weights for different connections. The example presented in the paper considers an airport terminal building.

Measuring airport service quality: A multidimensional approach

“…Bennets, Hawkins, McGinity, O´Leary, & Ashford, 1975;Mumayiz & Ashford, 1986;Omer & Khan, 1988;Tosic & Babic, 1984). Later, in the 1990´s, some studies focused on understanding passengers' needs and their perceptions regarding elements of the passenger terminal and airport-related processes (e.g.…”

Quantifying and validating measures of airport terminal wayfinding

“…Tosic and Babic (1984) modified the index to account for the fact that a sight line between all points is not necessary due to the sequential nature of activities in a terminal. The relevance matrix proposed accounts for the fact that once passengers have checked in they have no further need for check-in information but do have need for their next task, e.g.…”

“…The connection of two activity centres is thus accommodated through the use of virtual representation by signs, with a modification of the connectivity matrix C. The method modifies the connectivity matrix by setting c ij to unity if direct visual connection exists with no level changes, and to k ij if no direct visual connection exists, but the connectivity is obtained by signs. Lam et al (2003) performed side-by-side comparisons of three versions of the VI-the simple VI measurement proposed by Braaksma and Cook (1980), the relevance matrix proposed by Tosic and Babic (1984) and the weighted importance matrix proposed by Tosic and Babic (1984), with data from Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA). Generally, the VI obtained was lowest with the single VI framework and highest with the weighted importance framework.…”

“…Braaksma and Cook (1980) introduced a quantitative measure of the ease of orientation-the visibility index (VI)-considering the number of sightlines and of activity centres. 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.…”

A review of evaluation methods of Visual Guiding Signage’s layout in Integrated Transportation Hub

“…However, not all the facilities are relevant and there is no need to see the preceding node from the succeeding one, Tosic and Babic (1984) modified the model from two aspects: first, by introducing a relevant connection , all the facilities in the hub were divided into mutually relevant and mutually irrelevant, thus, they ruled out the impact of sight lines between irrelevant facilities on visual index; second, Tosic and Babic also proposed that an importance score should be assigned to each of the facilities to acknowledge that some facilities need to be located by passengers quickly, high scores should be assigned to those important facilities. Based on these two points, Tosic and Babic obtained the following formula:…”