ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Original Research

Authors

Hanaee   T. (*1)






(*1) Department of Urbanism, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran

Correspondence

Address: Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Arts and Architecture, Islamic Azad University, Ostad Yusofi Street, Emamieh Boulevard, Mashhad, Iran. Postal Code: 9187147578
Phone: +98 (51) 38832927
Fax: +98 (51) 38832927
toktamhanaee@yahoo.com

Article History

Received:  January  20, 2020
Accepted:  March 19, 2020
ePublished:  March 19, 2020

BRIEF TEXT


Various criteria, including navigation ease, using urban landmarks, influence tourists' choice of destination. Such factors may lead to the formation of a positive image of the destination and the ignorance of problems.

Golledge et al. (1998) define navigation as a purposeful, efficient, and motivating approach that begins in the starting point and ends in the final destination and involves different choices and tracking various routes. Baloglu (2001) is the first researcher who expresses the multidimensionality of the travelers' familiarity and believes it is a combination of the previous experiences and a certain amount of used information. Different types of familiarity with tourism can be classified as following: informational familiarity, experiential familiarity, cultural proximity familiarity (nationality) [Kastenholz, 2010; Prentice, 2004], self-learning (self-evaluation) familiarity, educational familiarity, self-assured familiarity [Lepp & Gibson, 2003; Prentice, 2004], expected familiarity [Hannam & Knox, 2010; Prentice, 2004]. Landmarks in urban areas are of great importance; abundant and various landmarks might help travelers to navigate [Denis, 1997; Garling & Lindberg, 1984; Nothergger et al., 2004]. Siegel & White (1975) believe that recognizing such landmarks is the first and foremost step to receive information from the environment.

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between landmarks and travelers' familiarity with the environment.

This is an applied survey.

This research is carried out in 2018 (from March to August) in the Paeeinkhiaban neighborhood in Mashhad and on the travelers visiting this city.

The statistical sample size was determined 359 people using the Cochran formula, and the samples were gathered through purposeful non-random sampling.

The information on travelers' navigating, getting more familiar with the environment and landmarks at the macro level was gathered through theoretical studies. Field study, questionnaire, and cognitive maps were also used for gathering more information. For drawing the cognitive maps, travelers were asked to draw rough sketches to represent their mental image of the environment. Travelers' mental connections were extracted through overlaying of the cognitive maps. All the information was analyzed using qualitative methods.

The importance of landmarks in travelers' navigation in the environment, considering the theoretical model of the research and landmarks features in terms of different types of familiarity with the environment, is given in Table 3.In Table 4, travelers' cognitive maps' landmarks are analyzed in terms of navigation guidelines in urban areas. Imam Reza's holy shrine is the most outstanding landmark in people's navigation in the Paeenkhiaban neighborhood, repeated in cognitive maps. The holy shrine, located southwest of the neighborhood, works on both urban and metropolitan scales in Paeenkhiaban. People are highly familiar with the holy shrine, which is visually and physically attached to the Paeenkhiaban neighborhood.Table 5 shows how familiar landmarks are in travelers' cognitive maps and the type of familiarity with landmarks. Nadir Shah Afshar museum in Shirazi Avenue (Balakhiaban) is located adjacent to the Shohada intersection. Nadir statue as an outstanding feature and its visual access in nearby green space, easily grab people's attention. Tavakoli house in Navab Safavi Street dates back to the Qajar era and is located near the Paeenkhiaban neighborhood but is not very familiar for the travelers because it is not introduced very well by tourism organization. Arman complex can be named one of the most important landmarks in travelers' minds located in Navab Safavi Avenue and provides service in both urban and metropolitan scales. The building's façade and interior design are the factors making the complex one of the important components of travelers' cognitive maps. A few people mentioned the Amin complex, located in Navab Safavi Street, in their cognitive maps due to its unpleasant, low visual and physical quality and overcrowding. Hayat complex in Navab Safavi Street as a commercial complex plays an important role in drawing cognitive maps. People have moderate familiarity with this complex. Daroughe house can be mentioned as one of the repeated components in the maps, while just a few people mentioned Vahdat Park in their cognitive maps. Despite covering a large area, the park is not very familiar for travelers since it is not attached to the Paeenkhiaban neighborhood, is almost far from the studied neighborhood, and its front route is usually very crowded.Various factors influence the choice of the route, travelers' behavior, and making final decisions. According to the Paeenkhiaban neighborhood surveys, travelers mentioned a couple of Razavi holy shrine features, which made it lively, including outstanding lighting and tight security due to various jobs nearby working 24 hours. Being exciting and mysterious are of great importance for travelers. Moreover, the sense of belonging plays an important role in travelers' and city dwellers' navigation and behavioral pattern. The holy shrine is a very suitable place for cultural and religious rituals. Quality of curiosity is among the main suggested qualities in urban environments. The spaces which make the environment more mysterious and stimulate people's curiosity are very significant in travelers' navigation. From travelers' point of view, environmental attraction quality can be analyzed from different aspects and at both macro and micro levels. The communicative meaning of landmarks is given in Table 6. Nadir Shah Afshar museum and tomb is well combined with green space and is a lively place with high environmental quality and a sense of belonging. The open space around the building is suitable for different uses and is usually used for a book shop. Nadir Shah Statue and memorial made the place far more interesting. The majority of travelers mentioned the Pir Palandouz tomb since it is located in 2nd Navab Safavi Street, is connected to the holy shrine, and is near Amin complex. This complex's façade makes the environment very interesting because of its color and the vegetation decorating it. Great lighting at night and high environmental quality, and the cleanness of the environment make the place very lively. Gonbad Kheshti (adobe dome), located in Tabarsi Street, is a historical component near Razavi holy shrine which dates back to the Safavi era, is the tomb of Shahzade Mohammad. Daroughe house is a good guide for travelers. Abbas Gholi Khan Shamloo School, near Navab Safavi Street, plays a religious role but is not very familiar for people since it is not physically accessible.

The findings of the current research on the difference between travelers' experiences and everyday life are the same as Urry's findings (2002), especially about the importance of mysterious experiences for travelers who are not familiar with the environment. Mckercher & Lau (2008) believe that different amounts of people's familiarity with the environment may lead to different space behavior, which is consistent with this research's findings. This research approves the classification of environmental familiarity by Kastenholz (2010), Prentice (2004), and Hanam & Knox (2010); unfamiliar travelers have informational, educational, and self-assured familiarity, while familiar ones have experiential, cultural proximity, self-evaluation, and expected familiarity. Lynch (1960), Sorrows & Hirtile (1999), and Winter et al. (2005) mention the importance of environmental familiarity, visual access, physical features, and personal differences in the process of navigation, which are mentioned in this research, too.

There is no suggestion reported.

There is no limitation reported.

Unfamiliar travelers have become familiar with the environment through information, education, and self-assurance. Being mysterious, exciting, and abundant is important for unfamiliar travelers to make sure they chose the right route. Landmarks in unfamiliar travelers' minds are not connected, and curiosity and flexibility have been important in their selection. On the other hand, familiarity is more experienced in familiar travelers through experience, self-evaluation, and expectance. The abundance of the landmark and their visual access from a distance are important for familiar travelers. Furthermore, such travelers pay more attention to the mental meaning of landmarks, especially their homogenous structure. Both familiar and unfamiliar groups stress the importance of quality, belonging, being lively, and an especial activity with social features.

We thank the Islamic Azad University of Mashhad for their support.

None

None

This paper is extracted from a research project.

TABLES and CHARTS

Show attach file


CITIATION LINKS

[1]Baloglu S, McCleary KW (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research. 26 (4):868-897.
[2]Beerli A, Martin JD (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research. 31(3):657-681.
[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.
[4]Baloglu S (2001). Image variations of Turkey by familiarity index: Informational and experiential dimensions. Tourism Management. 22(2):127‐133.
[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.
[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.
[7]Chen CF, Tsai D (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioural intentions? Tourism Management. 28(4):1115-1122.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[12]Echtner CM, Brent Ritchie JR (1993). The measurement of destination image: An empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research. 31(4):3-13.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[19]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.
[20]Hannam K, Knox D (2010). Understanding tourism – A Critical Introduction. 1st ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
[21]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.
[22]Kitchin R, Freundschuh S, editors (2000). Cognitive mapping: Past, present and future. 1st ed. London: Routledge.
[23]Kerstetter D, Cho MH (2004). Prior knowledge, credibility and information search. Annals of Tourism Research. 31(4):961‐985.
[24]Kastenholz E (2010). Cultural proximity’ as a determinant of destination image. Journal of Vacation Marketing. 16(4):313‐322.
[25]Lynch K (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[26]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.
[27]Lepp A, Gibson H (2003). Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 30(3):606‐624.
[28]McKay K, Fesenmaier DR (1997). Pictoral element of destination in image formation. Annals of Tourism Research. 24(3):537‐565.
[29]McKercher B, Lau G (2008). Movement patterns of tourists within a destination. Tourism Geographies. 10(3): 355‐374.
[30]Nothegger C, Winter S, Raubal M (2004). Selection of salient features for route directions. Spatial cognition and computation. 4(2):113-136.
[31]O’Neill M J (1991). Effects of signage and floor plan configuration on wayfinding accuracy. Environment and Behavior. 23(5):553–574.
[32]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.
[33]Passini R (1981). Wayfinding: A conceptual framework. Urban Ecology. 5(1):17-31.
[34]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.
[35]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.
[36]Prentice R (2004). Tourism familiarity and imagery. Annals of Tourism Research. 31(4):923‐945.
[37]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]
[38]Siegel AW, White SH (1975). The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. Advances in child development and behavior. 10:9-55.
[39]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.
[40]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.
[41]Urry J (2002). The Tourist Gaze. 2nd ed. London: SAGE.
[42]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.
[43]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.
[44]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.