Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
ARSNET

Articles

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2023)

Exploring the dynamic reading of environment towards a multidimensional legibility

DOI
https://doi.org/10.7454/arsnet.v3i2.82
Published
2023-10-31
Article downloads
73
Submitted
2023-09-25
Accepted
2023-10-26

Abstract

This study investigates the understanding of legibility, defined as the coherency of built environment features. Legibility enables production of mental image that helps individuals with their spatial navigation. The current discussion positions legibility as an objective aspect in the process of making sense of the environment. The study argues that such a process has dynamics that reflect individuals' subjectivity, therefore further study is important to reconcile the objective and subjective reading of legibility.

This research qualitatively investigates legibility using a case study of an indoor environment of a shopping mall in East Jakarta. The analysis was conducted based on the objective and subjective aspects which construct individuals' cognitive map. The objective-based analysis examines the complex topological interconnection and good form principles, as well as the landmark potential based on visual, semantic, and structural saliency. Meanwhile, the subjective-based analysis focuses on examining the spatial knowledge represented through the cognitive map produced based on the respondents' experiences. The analysis shows the multidimensional nature of legibility derived from a dynamic process during the encounter between individuals and the environment. The reconciliation of the objective and subjective aspects of legibility integrates two- and three-dimensional spatial knowledge. The multidimensions of legibility demonstrate ways of revealing the complexity of the built environment, triggering various design approaches.

References

  1. Aginsky, V., Harris, C., Rensink, R., & Beusmans, J. (1997). Two strategies for learning a route in a driving simulator. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(4), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1997.0070 

  2. Askarizad, R., He, J., & Khotbehsara, E. M. (2022). The legibility efficacy of historical neighborhoods in creating a cognitive map for citizens. Sustainability 2022, 14(15), Article 9010. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159010

  3. Baskaya, A., Wilson, C., & Özcan, Y. Z. (2004). Wayfinding in an unfamiliar environment: Different spatial settings of two polyclinics. Environment and Behavior, 36(6), 839–867. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916504265445 

  4. Caduff, D., & Timpf, S. (2008). On the assessment of landmark salience for human navigation. Cognitive Processing, 9(4), 249–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10339-007-0199-2 

  5. Cherry, K. (2022, November 8). What is Gestalt psychology? Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-gestalt-psychology-2795808 

  6. Davis, R. L., Therrien, B. A., & West, B. T. (2008). Cue conditions and wayfinding in older and younger women. Research in Gerontological Nursing, 1(4), 252–263. https://doi.org/10.3928/19404921-20081001-06 

  7. Gärling, T., Book, A., & Lindberg, E. (1984). Cognitive mapping of large scale environments: The interrelationships of action plans. Acquisition and Orientation: Environment and Behavior, 16(1), 3–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916584161001 

  8. Herzog, T. R., & Leverich, O. L. (2003). Searching for legibility. Environment and Behavior, 35(4), 459–477. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503035004001 

  9. Hölscher, C., & Dalton, R. C. (2008). Comprehension of layout complexity: Effects of architectural expertise and mode of presentation. In J. S. Gero & A. K. Goel (Eds.), Design computing and cognition '08 (pp. 159–178). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8728-8_9 

  10. Iachini, T., Ruotolo, F., & Ruggiero, G. (2009). The effects of familiarity and gender on spatial representation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(2), 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.07.001 

  11. Jamshidi, S., Ensafi, M., & Pati, D. (2020). Wayfinding in interior environments: An integrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.549628 

  12. Kato, Y., & Takeuchi, Y. (2003). Individual differences in wayfinding strategies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00011-2 

  13. Kaplan, S. (1973). Cognitive maps, human needs and the designed environment. In W. F. E. Preiser (Ed.), Environmental design research (pp. 275–283). Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross. 

  14. Koseoglu, E., & Onder, D. E. (2011). Subjective and objective dimensions of spatial legibility. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1191–1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.231 

  15. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. MIT Press. 

  16. Millonig, A., & Schechtner, K. (2007). Developing landmark-based pedestrian-navigation systems. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 8(1), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2006.889439

  17. Montello, R. D. (2007). The contribution of space syntax to a comprehensive theory of environmental psychology. In A. S. Kubat, Ö. Ertekin, Y. I. Güney, & E. Eyübolou, (Eds.). Proceedings of the 6th international space syntax symposium (pp. iv-01–iv-12). ITU Faculty of Architecture. 

  18. O'Neill, M. J. (1991a). A biologically based model of spatial cognition and wayfinding. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(4), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80104-5 

  19. O'Neill, M. J. (1991b). Effects of signage and floor plan configuration on wayfinding accuracy. Environment and Behavior, 23(5), 553–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916591235002

  20. O'Neill, M. J. (1991c). Evaluation of a conceptual model of architectural legibility. Environment and Behavior, 23(3), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916591233001 

  21. Piccardi, L., Risetti, M., & Nori, R. (2011). Familiarity and environmental representations of a city: A self-report study. Psychological Reports, 109(1), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.2466/01.13.17.PR0.109.4.309-326

  22. Raubal, M. (2001). Human wayfinding in unfamiliar buildings: A simulation with a cognizing agent. Cognitive Processing, 2(2–3), 363–388. 

  23. Richter, K.-F., & Winter, S. (2014). Landmarks: GIscience for intelligent services. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05732-3

  24. Siegel, A. W., & White, S. H. (1975). The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 10, 9–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2407(08)60007-5 

  25. Slone, E., Burles, F., Robinson, K., Levy, R. M., & Iaria, G. (2015). Floor plan connectivity influences wayfinding performance in virtual environments. Environment and Behavior, 47(9), 1024–1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514533189 

  26. Shokouhi, M. (2017). Legibility of cities and the factors having impacts on it. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning, 27(1), 53–63. http://ijaup.iust.ac.ir/article-1-264-en.pdf

  27. Sorrows, M. E., & Hirtle, S. C. (1999). The nature of landmarks for real and electronic spaces. In C. Freksa & D. M. Mark (Eds.), International conference on spatial information theory: Cognitive and computational foundations of geographic information science (COSIT '99). Springer.

  28. Stankiewicz, B. J., & Kalia, A. A. (2007). Acquisition of structural versus object landmark knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(2), 378–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.2.378

  29. Viaene, P. (2018). Indoor landmarks: The study and implementation of wayfinding aids [Master's thesis, Ghent University]. UGent Academic Bibliography and Institutional Repository.

  30. Viaene, P., Vanclooster, A., Ooms, K., & Maeyer, P. D. (2014). Thinking aloud in search of landmark characteristics in an indoor environment. Ubiquitous Positioning Indoor Navigation and Location Based Service (UPINLBS), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1109/UPINLBS.2014.7033716

  31. Yoo, S.-Y. (1992). Architectural legibility of shopping centers: Simulation and evaluation of floor plan configurations. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsi-Milwaukee]. Milwaukee ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://www.proquest.com/openview/fea041e42d7101de68976a1ec94ed448/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

  32. Youngson, N. L., Vollebregt, M., & Sutton, J. E. (2019). Individual differences in cognitive map accuracy: Investigating the role of landmark familiarity. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 73(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000165

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.