Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
Volume 35, Issue 1 (2020)
GeoRes 2020, 35(1): 1-10 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2020/01/20 | Accepted: 2020/03/19 | Published: 2020/03/19
Received: 2020/01/20 | Accepted: 2020/03/19 | Published: 2020/03/19
How to cite this article
Hanaee T. Recognition the Role of Urban Landmarks in the Process of Tourist Wayfinding with Different Familiarity with the Environment; Case Study of Paeeinkhiaban Neighborhood of Mashhad City, Iran. GeoRes 2020; 35 (1) :1-10
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-835-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-835-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Authors
Toktam Hanaee *
Department of Urbanism,Mashhad Branch,Islamic Azad University,Mashhad,Iran , Toktamhanaee@yahoo.com
Abstract (3107 Views)
Aims & Background: The destination image of tourism depends on many factors and is very significant in the choice of tourists. The ease of tourists navigating and searching for information in the environment is effective in forming a positive image of the destination. one of the effective factors on the wayfinding process is urban landmarks and, since the number of tourists familiarity differs from the environment, thus the signs are effective in the routing behavior of individuals. The purpose of this study is to analyze the role of urban cues in the route selection behavior of people with different familiarity with the environment.
Methodology: The research method is applied in terms of purpose and in terms of nature is survey. Field survey, questionnaire and cognitive map technique were used to collect data. The target group include tourists in the area and in order to answer the research purpose, statistical sample size was 359 people using Cochran formula which was done by purposeful non-random sampling. The analysis of the information has been carried out by compiling and comparing the cognitive maps of the tourists.
Findings: The findings of the study indicate that unfamiliar tourists often have limited knowledge through information familiarity, educational familiarity, and auto-familiarity. In the features of the signs, mystery, excitement and diversity at close range are important to ensure they are on the right track.
Conclusion: However, familiar tourists have more familiarity with experience, familiarity with proximity, self-esteem, and acquaintance. The multiplicity of signs and the ability to see from long distances are important to them, and people who are familiar need to follow signs from longer distances.
Methodology: The research method is applied in terms of purpose and in terms of nature is survey. Field survey, questionnaire and cognitive map technique were used to collect data. The target group include tourists in the area and in order to answer the research purpose, statistical sample size was 359 people using Cochran formula which was done by purposeful non-random sampling. The analysis of the information has been carried out by compiling and comparing the cognitive maps of the tourists.
Findings: The findings of the study indicate that unfamiliar tourists often have limited knowledge through information familiarity, educational familiarity, and auto-familiarity. In the features of the signs, mystery, excitement and diversity at close range are important to ensure they are on the right track.
Conclusion: However, familiar tourists have more familiarity with experience, familiarity with proximity, self-esteem, and acquaintance. The multiplicity of signs and the ability to see from long distances are important to them, and people who are familiar need to follow signs from longer distances.
Keywords:
English Expanded Abstract [HTML 25 KB] (65 Download)
References
1. Baloglu S, McCleary KW (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research. 26 (4):868-897. [DOI:10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00030-4]
2. Beerli A, Martin JD (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research. 31(3):657-681. [DOI:10.1016/j.annals.2004.01.010]
3. Basala SL, Klenosky DB (2001). Travel‐style preferences for visiting a novel destination: A conjoint investigation across the Novelty‐Familiarity Continuum. Journal of Travel Research. 40(2):172‐182. [DOI:10.1177/004728750104000208]
4. Baloglu S (2001). Image variations of Turkey by familiarity index: Informational and experiential dimensions. Tourism Management. 22(2):127‐133. [DOI:10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00049-2]
5. Couclelis H, Golledge RG, Gale N, Tobler W (1987). Exploring the anchor-point hypothesis of spatial cognition. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 7(2):99-122. [DOI:10.1016/S0272-4944(87)80020-8]
6. Cornell E H, Heth CD (2006). Home range and the development of children's wayfinding. Advances in Child Development and Behavior. 34:173-206. [DOI:10.1016/S0065-2407(06)80007-8]
7. Chen CF, Tsai D (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioural intentions? Tourism Management. 28(4):1115-1122. [DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.007]
8. Chi CG, Qu H (2008). Examining the structural relationship of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism management. 29(4):624-636. [DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.007]
9. Crompton JL (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and the influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of Travel Research. 17(4):18-23. [DOI:10.1177/004728757901700404]
10. Denis M (1997). The description of routes: A cognitive approach to the production of spatial discourse. Current Psychology of Cognition. 16(4):409-458.
11. Evans GW, Smith C, Pezdek K (1982). Cognitive maps and urban form. Journal of the American Planning Association. 48(2):232-244. [DOI:10.1080/01944368208976543]
12. Echtner CM, Brent Ritchie JR (1993). The measurement of destination image: An empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research. 31(4):3-13. [DOI:10.1177/004728759303100402]
13. Fakeye PC, Crompton JL (1991). Image differences between prospective, first time, and repeat visitors to the lower Rio Grande valley. Journal of Travel Research. 30(2):10-16. [DOI:10.1177/004728759103000202]
14. Garling T, Book A, Lindberg E (1984). Cognitive mapping of large-scale environments the interrelationship of action plans, acquisition, and orientation. Environment and Behavior. 16(1):3-34. [DOI:10.1177/0013916584161001]
15. Gibson J (1986). The ecological approach to perception. 1st Ed. New York: Psychology Press.
16. Golledge R, Jacobson RD, Kitchin R, Blades M (2000). Cognitive maps, spatial abilities, and human wayfinding. Geographical Review of Japan. 73(2):93-104. [DOI:10.4157/grj1984b.73.93]
17. Golledge RG (1998). Human wayfinding and cognitive maps. Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial Processes. 1st ed. Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press
18. GalLarza M, Irene GS, Garcı́a HC (2002). Destination image: Towards a conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research. 29(1):56-78. [DOI:10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00031-7]
19. Hunt JD (1975). Image as a factor in tourism development. Journal of Travel Research. 13(3):1-7. [DOI:10.1177/004728757501300301]
20. Hernandez - Lobato L, Magdalena M, Angel Moliner Tena M, Sánchez-García J (2006). Tourism destination image, satisfaction and loyalty: A study in Ixtapa-Zihuatanejo, Mexico. Tourism Geographies. 8(4):343-358. [DOI:10.1080/14616680600922039]
21. Hannam K, Knox D (2010). Understanding tourism - A Critical Introduction. 1st ed. London: SAGE Publications. [DOI:10.4324/9780203868782]
22. Kuipers B (2001). The skeleton in the cognitive map: A computational hypothesis. In Space Syntax: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. pp. 10.1-10.7.
23. Kitchin R, Freundschuh S, editors (2000). Cognitive mapping: Past, present and future. 1st ed. London: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781315812281-1]
24. Kerstetter D, Cho MH (2004). Prior knowledge, credibility and information search. Annals of Tourism Research. 31(4):961‐985. [DOI:10.1016/j.annals.2004.04.002]
25. Kastenholz E (2010). Cultural proximity' as a determinant of destination image. Journal of Vacation Marketing. 16(4):313‐322. [DOI:10.1177/1356766710380883]
26. Lynch K (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge: MIT Press.
27. Lee S, Busser J, Yang J (2015). Exploring the dimensional relationships among image formation agents, destination image, and place attachment from the perspectives of pop star fans. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. 32(6):730-746. [DOI:10.1080/10548408.2014.934947]
28. Lepp A, Gibson H (2003). Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 30(3):606‐624. [DOI:10.1016/S0160-7383(03)00024-0]
29. McKay K, Fesenmaier DR (1997). Pictoral element of destination in image formation. Annals of Tourism Research. 24(3):537‐565. [DOI:10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00011-X]
30. McKercher B, Lau G (2008). Movement patterns of tourists within a destination. Tourism Geographies. 10(3): 355‐374. [DOI:10.1080/14616680802236352]
31. Nothegger C, Winter S, Raubal M (2004). Selection of salient features for route directions. Spatial cognition and computation. 4(2):113-136. [DOI:10.1207/s15427633scc0402_1]
32. O'Neill M J (1991). Effects of signage and floor plan configuration on wayfinding accuracy. Environment and Behavior. 23(5):553-574. [DOI:10.1177/0013916591235002]
33. O' Leary S, Deegan J (2005). Ireland's image as a tourism destination in France: Attribute importance and performance. Journal of Travel Research. 43(3):247-256. [DOI:10.1177/0047287504272025]
34. Passini R (1981). Wayfinding: A conceptual framework. Urban Ecology. 5(1):17-31. [DOI:10.1016/0304-4009(81)90018-8]
35. Prayag G, Ryan C (2011). Antecedents of Tourists loyalty to Mauritius: The role and influence of destination image, place attachment, personal involvement and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research. 51(3):342-356. [DOI:10.1177/0047287511410321]
36. Prayag G, Hosany S, Muskat B, Del Chiappa G (2015). Understanding the relationships between tourists' emotional experiences, perceived overall image, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. Journal of Travel Research. 56(1):41-54. [DOI:10.1177/0047287515620567]
37. Prentice R (2004). Tourism familiarity and imagery. Annals of Tourism Research. 31(4):923‐945. [DOI:10.1016/j.annals.2004.02.008]
38. Sajasi Gheidari H, Sadeglu T (2016). Analyzing the role of environmental quality in tourist attraction to rural Touristic Destinations (Case Study: Touristic Rural of Small lavasan Rural District). Journal of Geographical Research. 31(2):32-49. [Persian]
39. Siegel AW, White SH (1975). The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. Advances in child development and behavior. 10:9-55. [DOI:10.1016/S0065-2407(08)60007-5]
40. Song D, Norman M (1993). Nonlinear interactive motion control techniques for virtual space navigation. Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium. 1993, 18-22 September: Seattle, WA, USA. pp. 111-117.
41. Tversky B, Franklin N, Taylor HA, Bryant DJ (1994). Spatial mental models from descriptions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45(9):656-668.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199410)45:9<656::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-1 [DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199410)45:93.0.CO;2-1]
42. Urry J (2002). The Tourist Gaze. 2nd ed. London: SAGE.
43. Winter S, Raubal M, Nothegger C (2005). Focalizing measures of salience for wayfinding. In: Meng L, Reichenbacher T, Zipf A, editors. Map-based mobile services-Theories, methods and design implementations, Berlin: Springer; pp. 127-142.
44. Wang C, Hsu MK (2010). The relationship of destination image, satisfaction and behaviour intentions: An integrated model. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. 27(8):829-843. [DOI:10.1080/10548408.2010.527249]
45. Xia W, Jie Z, Ghaolin G, Feng Z (2009). Examining antecedents and consequences of tourist satisfaction: A structural modelling approach. Tsingua Science and Technology. 14(3):397-406. [DOI:10.1016/S1007-0214(09)70057-4]