sustainability

Article
A Sustainable Evaluation Method for a Tourism
Public Wayfinding System: A Case Study of Shanghai
Disneyland Resort
Wenying Zhang 1 , Lian Zhu 1 , Zixuan Zhang 1 , Zhan Zhang 2, * and Linjun Lu 1
1 Transportation Research Center, Department of Transportation Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai 200240, China; [email protected] (W.Z.); [email protected] (L.Z.);
[email protected] (Z.Z.); [email protected] (L.L.)
2 School of Design, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-138-1845-8042




Received: 14 August 2020; Accepted: 30 September 2020; Published: 14 October 2020


Abstract: The traditional method of designing wayfinding systems has been used in tourism
management for decades. However, the absence of quantitative evaluations for the wayfinding system
at tourist resorts may affect information transmission and cause visitors to feel lost. This article proposes
a quantitative approach and applies it to the wayfinding system at the Shanghai Disneyland Resort
from 2017 to 2019, where the layouts and the contents of wayfinding signboards are systematically
evaluated. The analytic hierarchy process is used in conjunction with expert advice to rank 11 elements
of content design, and four reasonable indices are calculated to explore the spatial–topological
relationships at the tourism resort. According to both the field and expert investigation and tourists’
responses to designed questionnaires, the results show that this method containing content and
layout evaluation can enhance tourist satisfaction in certain aspects, thus helping to improve tourism
management by considering important indices in wayfinding signage design and modification.

Keywords: wayfinding system; analytic hierarchy process; topological layout

1. Introduction
Fuzzy information adversely affects the activities of tourists, so tourism managers have begun
realizing the importance of the wayfinding system design in recent years [1]. The public wayfinding
system is a standard instruction system for spatial environments in open areas that is meant to help
people find information on their destinations [2]. The wayfinding system design is an overall collection
formed by both the signboard contents and its layouts in a certain area, including different elements
such as the design of color, font, height, and size of a single signboard, and the location structure and
density control of a large amount of wayfinding signs.
Based on these premier studies, this article proposes a quantification evaluation method for
scoring both the content and layout of the wayfinding system at scenic spots. Eleven content indices
of three signboard types are calculated by an analytic hierarchy process, and the topological metrics
for the layout design is proposed, where the parameters and calculation formulae are preliminarily
defined. In addition, we investigate the effects in information conveyed by the signage on tourist
preferences and experts’ recommendations, and thus evaluate the specific Disneyland tourist site based
on quantitative analysis.
The core area of the Shanghai International Tourism Resort (Shanghai Disneyland) covers an area
of about seven square kilometers, of which the first phase spans 3.9 square kilometers. The core area
includes a theme park and hotel, retail catering and entertainment, transportation, and municipal

Sustainability 2020, 12, 8489; doi:10.3390/su12208489 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 8489 2 of 18

supporting facilities. Rail transit line 11 will service the area soon, and Rail transit line 2 will service
it in the long term. The two lines share a rail transit station in the area. The main construction
of Phase I of the core area includes amusement park facilities (theme park), the Central Lake and
Weicheng River, retail catering and entertainment, a themed hotel, public parking lot (tourist parking
lot), public transportation facilities, offices (management service center), and municipal facilities.
Our study selected working days and weekends as special days, and we then carried out the field and
questionnaire surveys.
The Shanghai Disneyland Resort had been open for a year before an improvement scheme was
implemented to it. The public information guidance system for tourists has played a crucial role in its
operations, and its shortcomings have gradually been realized with experience. During the construction
of the guidance system, there were significant differences in design methods and construction processes.
Multiple construction units can easily lead to a lack of continuity or inconsistency of informational
signage. According to our investigation, the park had 46 indication signs, 9 positioning maps, 7 wall
signs, 2 commercial signs, 7 bus station signs, 17 signs showing the names of roads, 2 braille maps,
and 6 summarizing signs for a total of 96 positioning sites. After getting feedback from tourists, the
optimization evaluation was adjusted locally. The field investigation yielded a complete record of
guiding signs within the scope of the wayfinding system of the Shanghai International Tourism Resort.
According to CAD (computer aided design) drawings provided by the Disneyland sponsors, we have
measured and evaluated the topological layout of signboards and coordinates.
Our work timeline is as follows. At the beginning of 2017, the method was determined, and experts
were invited to determine the coefficient and measurement standard. The preliminary survey was
conducted in June 2017, and later the calculation was completed, and the revised scheme was submitted
in December. In June 2019, a random survey was conducted in the Disneyland Park on tourists’
satisfaction with the guidance system adjusted according to the improved scheme. By comparison, the
values of indicators were rising, and the improvement scheme has achieved good results.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces research on guidance
systems in recent decades, and Section 3 details our proposed method. Section 4 introduces the
evaluation of the Shanghai Disneyland Resort and the comparison of tourist satisfaction before and
after modification. Section 5 contains the conclusions of this study.

2. Literature Review
According to the literature review, the past research on tourist wayfinding systems can be divided
into two parts—one is the discussion and design on the content elements, and another is the information
transmission achieved by the layout of the wayfinding system. The current research has been achieved
to select the sign evaluation factors, put forward the layout hierarchy, and establish the comprehensive
evaluation index as the representative of the system performance [3]. The researchers examined the
integrity and effectiveness of unique symbolic information by using the analytic hierarchy process,
and in this context, the spatial syntax [4], the design of route-finding navigation systems [5], and a
redefinition of spatial information [6] have also been conducted. As a component of urban planning,
guidance systems have attracted considerable research attention in the last century [7]. The isotype
system movement (International System of Typographic Picture Education) launched in the 1920s was
the first to emphasize the importance of creating a system of visual design [8]. In the 1960s, Lynch
proposed a systematic concept of the urban guidance system and discussed several solutions to relevant
problems [9]. Golledge proposed three levels of spatial knowledge and spatial knowledge acquisition,
where the foundation of spatial analysis has been formed [7]. Research by Michon, Denis, and Tom has
shown that people move around using landmarks on road signs [6]. Meilinger and Knauff investigated
human wayfinding and knowledge acquisition in urban environments [10]. The participants in their
study were required to retrace two routes learned either from route maps or from verbal directions.
Grabler, Agrawala, and Sumner discussed the automatic design of maps of tourist routes in his
work [11]. One study by Wiener, Büchner, and Hölscher has shown that knowledge of specific target
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8489 3 of 18

locations, paths, and the overall environment can help determine the behavior and cognitive strategies
that can be applied to perform road finding tasks [12]. Dai focused on the design of directional
information signs for passengers in an integrated transport hub using the concept of utility [13].
Kühl, Stebner, and Navratil examined the effects of different visualization models on the acquisition of
collateral routes and the surveyed knowledge during an assisted tour [14]. Schewering, Krukar, Li,
Anacta, and Fuest proposed a computer-based pathfinding method that supports user positioning
through a location-based pathfinding navigation system that uses spatial learning and cognitive
mapping [15]. Recent research has focused on guidance systems for pedestrians and vehicles. Studies
have been conducted on the objective factors influencing guidance indicators, the identification of the
guidance system by traffic, and the application of topological networks using route-related and spatial
relationships [16]. An effective navigation system can guide people to their destination and improve
tourist safety [17].
At the same time, several essential topological elements of public guidance systems have been
defined by referring to research on the topologies of traffic networks. Graph theory was first applied to
research on transportation in the 1960s by Bodino [18]. Chown, Kaplan, and Kortenkamp proposed a
wayfinding system with the fundamental goals of this work being to examine how the wayfinding
process is integrated into general cognition [19]. Topological relations refer to the spatial relationships
among elements, such as points and edges, in a topological graph, and include connectivity, inclusion,
and adjacency [20]. The topological structure of the guidance system is like the topological network
of urban traffic [21]. There are several bottlenecks in current research. Most studies have focused
on either the elements of identification or the overall layout [22]. Both system planning and the
design of the signage remains essential for a successful guidance system; thus, a good measurement
model should combine them [23]. Moreover, most research in this field has addressed specific cases,
because of which improvements to conventional methods have rarely been proposed. Software
or computer programming is mostly used to design the guidance system, and few scholars have
developed measurement indicators and calculation formulae. Past work in the area reveals a pyramid
structure of problems with guidance systems. At the top, the most significant problem in this context
is accidents caused by the guidance system, such as stampeding and improper evacuation of public
areas in case of emergency [24]. A deeper layer represents the tourists’ sense of loss, and an inability
to find their desired spots. The next layer features unreasonable information transmission, and the
deepest layer is constituted by the unreasonable design of the topological network and the elements of
signage, and the last is the fundamental problem requiring a solution. Quantitative models have been
widely used for evaluation and optimization [25], so we decided to provide a quantitative topological
method as an improvement method over the traditional design.

3. Methodology

3.1. Method to Evaluate Layout of Signage

We evaluated the contents of three types of signs in the park according to the opinions expressed
which can be seen in Figure 1 by subjects in the interviews and expert surveys. To assess the layout of
the signs, we calculated the values of six indicators according to the horizontal and vertical coordinates
of signs representing maps of the park [26]. The calculation process was as follows: (1) investigations
of signs in the map; (2) calculation of indicators according to the proposed formulae according to the
data provided by the park management personnel, thus we can get values of scenic spot popularity (cj )
and right of way (wk ). The value of radiation (lik ) was limited to 50–200 m according to the reasonable
sight distance standard [27]; (3) normalization of index values according to the standard index values
to obtain the quantification results [28].
 Indication signs are the most common form of signage in tourist areas. They show the directions
and distance to one or several destinations; positioning signs provide distance-related information
on all destinations within a specific range, and plane information signs provide the overall layout of
the given destination [29]. The research object of this project was the static guidance system of signs
Sustainability
for pedestrians2020, 12,
in8489
peripheral public areas, excluding signage for motor vehicles and dynamic4 of 18

electronic signs.

Figure
Figure1.1.AAgeneral
generalview
viewofofthe
thesignage
signagein
inShanghai
ShanghaiDisneyland
DisneylandResort,
Resort,and
andaapicture
picturefrom
fromour
ourfield
field
investigation.
investigation (a–d).

The average
The main guiding
degreeelements of the of
of attraction public information
indication guiding
guidance system
(AATT) areindicator
is an graphic signs, text signs,
that measures
plane
the sketch maps,
attractiveness to information boards,
tourists of scenic block
spots guidingbymaps,
indicated and portable
the signs. Tourists printed
are moremaps.
likelyGuidance
to go to
signage
more can beplaces,
popular divided into
and three
more categories
signs shouldaccording
be used totoguide
function:
themindication signs,
to such areas positioning signs,
[13]:
and information
Sustainability 2020, 12,plates. The REVIEW
x FOR PEER layout
∝ of guide signs in the study area is shown in Figure 2. 6 of 17
1
𝐴𝐴𝑇𝑇 = ∑ 𝑐𝑗 ⋅ 𝐹1 (1)
𝑁(𝑁 + 1)
𝑖,𝑗∈𝑁,𝑖≠𝑗

where 𝑐𝑗 is the degree of attraction of destination j, and is related to the flow of people and the
importance of the destination in planning as determined by the staff, and N is the number of
informational signs i. That is, an indication sign may have information on directions to one or more
areas. F represents whether directions for destination j are on the given sign. F = 0 or F = 1, and ∝1 is
the adjustment factor for calculation.
The average distance of indication guidance (ADIS), according to past research [12], is used to
measure whether the distance between the location of the sign and the destination indicated is
reasonable:
∝2 1
𝐴𝐷𝐼𝑆 = ∑∑ ⋅𝐹 (2)
𝑁(𝑁 + 1) 𝑑𝑖𝑗 2
𝑖 𝑗

Figure 2. Locations of signage in Shanghai Disneyland Resort.

Figure 2. Locations of signage in Shanghai Disneyland Resort.

3.2. Method to Evaluate

Indication Content
signs are of Signage
the most common form of signage in tourist areas. They show the directions
and distance
A system to identify tourist attractionspositioning
to one or several destinations; signsthe
usually offers provide distance-related
following information
kinds of identification:
on all destinations
location within
identification, a specific
guidance range, andplane
identification, planeschematic/block
information signs provideinformation
guidance, the overall board,
layout
portable printed matter, and safety-related guidance. For different identification types, the elements
for evaluation should be designed differently [31]. According to the qualitative description in the
national standard, we propose a measurement scheme consisting of four categories and 11 indicators
to determine the quantitative results of the design of the marking systems for convenience, secure
identification, continuity, and accuracy [4].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8489 5 of 18

of the given destination [29]. The research object of this project was the static guidance system of
signs for pedestrians in peripheral public areas, excluding signage for motor vehicles and dynamic
electronic signs.
The average degree of attraction of indication guidance (AATT) is an indicator that measures the
attractiveness to tourists of scenic spots indicated by the signs. Tourists are more likely to go to more
popular places, and more signs should be used to guide them to such areas [13]:
∝1 X
AATT = c j · F1 (1)
N (N + 1)
i,j∈N,i,j

where c j is the degree of attraction of destination j, and is related to the flow of people and the importance
of the destination in planning as determined by the staff, and N is the number of informational signs
i. That is, an indication sign may have information on directions to one or more areas. F represents
whether directions for destination j are on the given sign. F = 0 or F = 1, and ∝1 is the adjustment factor
for calculation.
The average distance of indication guidance (ADIS), according to past research [12], is used
to measure whether the distance between the location of the sign and the destination indicated is
reasonable:
∝ PP 1
ADIS = N(N2+1) dij · F2 (2)
i j

where dij is the Euler distance between sign i and destination j. N represents the number of informational
items on sign i. F represents whether destination j is on the given sign. F = 0 or F = 1, and ∝2 is the
adjustment factor for calculation.
The average density of indication of the road where a sign is located (ADEN) represents the degree
of reasonableness of the density of the signboard along the road as classified by the volume of traffic:
∝3 P
ADENSi ,Sp = M(M+1)
wk × F3 (3)
o,k∈G

where Si represents the indication signs, and Sp is the positioning signs. wk is the factor to assess traffic
volume on road k. M represents the number of indication or positioning signs. F represents whether
destination j is listed on this sign. F = 0 or F = 1, and ∝3 is the adjustment factor for calculation:

K = aK1 + bK2 (4)

where the coefficients a and b represent the proportions of the signboard occupied by the pointing and
positioning functions, respectively, in the entire scope of evaluation, that is, the overall layout is added
proportionally by the results of the indices of two separate arrangements.
The average informational coefficient of the indication sign network (AINT) evaluates the
reasonableness of the density of all signboards in the area by measuring the coverage of guidance
information across the entire region:
P P
∝4 i ( k lik ×wk )
AINFSi ,Sp = M(M+1)
(5)

where Si represents indication signs, and Sp is positioning signs. lik is the sum of the lengths of the range
of radiation of the sign on road k, which depends on the visual distance of human eyes. M represents
the number of informational items on indication sign i, and ∝4 is the adjustment factor for calculation.
The optimal solution obtained by using a single target may be less effective under another standard.
In practice, people are more willing to accept a plan that takes all perspectives into account, rather
than a one-sided optimal plan. Therefore, the design of indices of the guidance system should consider
an excellent guidance effect, a short distance, and a reasonable layout density on average [30].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8489 6 of 18

To simplify the calculation, the following preliminary assumptions were made for the study area:
(1) We assumed an exponential network (not a power law distribution), homogeneous nodes, smooth
roads, and homogeneous road sections excluding passenger flow. (2) Each type of sign had the same
format excluding its content. (3) Scenic spots, intersections, and entrances could be used as target
points in the formulae for indices but were calculated separately in practice to be refined and adjusted.
(4) When studying the topological relationship between the signboards and the target point, a directed
weighted graph was used; when considering the topological metrics, an undirected weighted graph
was used.

3.2. Method to Evaluate Content of Signage

A system to identify tourist attractions usually offers the following kinds of identification:
location identification, guidance identification, plane schematic/block guidance, information board,
portable printed matter, and safety-related guidance. For different identification types, the elements
for evaluation should be designed differently [31] According to the qualitative description in the
national standard, we propose a measurement scheme consisting of four categories and 11 indicators
to determine the quantitative results of the design of the marking systems for convenience, secure
identification, continuity, and accuracy [4].
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is as follows. Layer 1 is the content evaluation of the
guidance system (A), which is the goal of the entire AHP [32]. Layer 2 is the criterial layer consisting
of text content (B1), location-related text (B2), typesetting design (B3), and features for the disabled
(B4). These are used to assess the content of the signage on different criteria. Layer 3 features the
estimation of the 11 indicators (C1–C11), shown in Table 1, and Layer 4 is a schematic layer where four
design standards proposed by researchers are ranked in the guidance system: convenience (D1), ease
of recognition (D2), continuity (D3), and accuracy (D4).
For the specific value and importance of the value matrix in the analytic hierarchy process, we
consulted nearly 20 experts with over five years of experience in areas, who are related to Disney’s
operations management team, the corresponding government management department, regional
planning department, and road traffic management department in Shanghai. These experts are invited
to assign values according to the relative importance of each factor in each layer to form the judgment
matrix. After interviews and on-site scoring, the relative importance of each element in the judgment
matrix was determined by the expert opinion method (Delphi method), and the importance of each
index was scaled on Saaty’s 1–9 scale [33]. The Delphi method is mainly used to determine the
following values: (1) The initial level of each factor in AHP, using Saaty’s nine-level scaling method,
and determining the design of four levels framework. (2) According to the evaluation criteria of the
AHP method and topological coefficient method, 150% is the result of comparison with the benchmark
evaluation score. The benchmark evaluation score is determined by 20 experts with urban planning
and park design backgrounds after three rounds of scoring. The discussion results show that 100%
of the benchmark score is in line with the standard, and 1.5 times of the benchmark score or more is
preferred. (3) According to the statistics of the last five years, the coefficient of the spatial topological
index is determined, such as the heat of attraction, the height of right of way, and so on.
In the AHP evaluation index, WA(B) = (0.3937, 0.0752, 0.3937, 0.1374), the consistency ratio (C.R.)
factors of WB(C) and WC(D) were all less than 0.1, and the value of WA(D) = (0.246, 0.279, 0.183, 0.191).
By calculating the total rank consistency ratio C.R. < 0.1, the results were determined to be credible.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8489 7 of 18

Table 1. Elements of content selection and interpretation in the analytic hierarchy process.

Category 1 Assessment Elements Explanation

Information Accuracy (C1) Emphasis is placed on conveying accurate information on a single sign (in terms of direction, target, and distance).
Information Conciseness (C2) Emphasizes the simplicity of conveying information on a sign to ease the burden on tourists.
Text Content (B1)
Unified Standard (C3) The standard unification of naming in the public information guidance system is emphasized.
Categorization (C4) Emphasis is placed on the hierarchical ordering of information on signboards, prioritizing more critical information.
Sight Distance (C5) The visibility distance of a single sign should not exceed its maximum value.
Text Location (B2)
Height (C6) Height should be set-up to meet the standard requirements.
Color (C7) For items of information with different degrees of importance, we should consider the diversity of color/color contrast.
Typesetting Design (B3)
Size (C8) The size of the words, numbers, and symbols should be in line with the industry standard.
Distance Recognition (C9) For guiding signs only, the distance between signs presenting location information is emphasized.
Disabled Care (B4) Proportions (C10) The scale is checked to determine if it is appropriate for the plane sketch/block guidance map.
Humanistic Concern (C11) For the plane sketch/block guidance map, this shows whether there is braille in the picture.
1 The selection of elements in consultation with experts and government departments.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8489 8 of 18

In the schematic layer, the proportions of Layer D were as follows: convenience, 0.246; ease of
identification, 0.279; continuity, 0.183; and accuracy, 0.191.
Through the above AHP results in Tables 2 and 3, the preliminary conclusions drawn were as
follows:
1. The most important parts in the design of the sign system were the accuracy and size of the
information, respectively. Following them in importance was the color design of the information
board, which also belongs to the typesetting design part and accounted for more than 10%.
2. Distance identification (8.91%) and a unified standard (8.59%) should be attended to as well.
At present, directional signs cannot guarantee the accuracy of distance identification, and lack of
unified signs for a scenic spot, which leads to the differences of scenic spots in different places, the
phenomenon of inconsistent signs in the same area, and aggravates the sense of loss of tourists.
3. The calculations of the AHP showed that the most important factor was ease of identification,
followed by convenience. In planning identification systems, the person in charge is likely to pay
attention to the continuity and accuracy of complex information while ignoring the most critical
demands of tourists.

Table 2. The coefficients and the results of signage content in the analytic hierarchy process.

Results for Layers c and d: Judgment Matrix

Wcij(Di ) C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
D1 0.059 0.073 0.558 0.132 0.248 0.292
D2 0.254 0.560 0.249 0.216 0.531 0.506
D3 0.158 0.141 0.096 0.534 0.163 0.084
D4 0.529 0.226 0.096 0.119 0.059 0.118
Lamdama 4.073 4.131 4.043 4.270 4.285 4.284
C.R. < 0.1 0.025 0.045 0.015 0.094 0.099 0.099
Wcij(Di) C7 C8 C9 C10 C11
D1 0.058 0.545 0.076 0.222 0.478
D2 0.124 0.277 0.261 0.564 0.276
D3 0.038 0.099 0.513 0.082 0.144
D4 0.014 0.079 0.150 0.132 0.102
Lamdama 4.161 4.222 4.197 4.277 4.215
C.R. < 0.1 0.056 0.077 0.069 0.096 0.075

Table 3. The final attribute values of Layer C of the wayfinding system.

Index Layer Attribute Value

Information Accuracy C1 0.2312
Information Conciseness C2 0.0284
Categorization C3 0.0483
Unified Standard C4 0.0859
Sight Distance C5 0.0564
Height C6 0.0188
Color C7 0.1312
Size C8 0.2625
Distance Identification C9 0.0891
Proportional Size C10 0.0315
Humanistic Care C11 0.0168

4. Results

4.1. Results of Questionnaire on Tourist Satisfaction

We adjusted details according to the content and layout of the signboards. To prove the effectiveness
of the proposed method, we conducted a questionnaire survey of tourists to Disneyland before and after
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8489 9 of 18

this adjustment. We conducted the survey from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 12:00–20:00 on
weekends. A selective (age, gender) survey was carried out for tourists. The on-duty traffic police and
traffic service personnel (traffic manager, traffic guide) were also interviewed. A total of 300 tourists
were surveyed, where 294 responses were valid for an effective recovery rate of 97.7%. The statistical
results show that 80.2% of the respondents thought that the public information system was essential
or very important. The problems recognized by them were deficiencies in each element of the
wayfinding system, unreasonable spatial layout of the public information guidance system, and a
lack of information transmission between signage and resorts; for instance, there is no follow-up
identification information after half the journey.
Having experienced the resort guidance system, most tourists tend to think that it can meet their
requirements to a certain extent but has limitations. In 2017, 300 tourists were randomly chosen and
interviewed by members of this research team at the Shanghai Disneyland Resort. Ten to 15 questions
were asked to test the satisfaction index of the questionnaire survey, corresponding to the 11 evaluation
indices of the sign guidance system. The weight of each index was determined by the expert prediction
method [34]. The results enable a quantitative estimation in the absence of sufficient statistical data
and original data [35].
The scores of the 11 evaluation indicators in the questionnaire survey were as follows. Tourists feel
totally incomprehensible, very unsatisfied, very unreasonable, challenging to find, and ultimately not
meeting the requirements equal 2 points. Tourists feel incomprehensible, unsatisfactory, unreasonable,
and not meeting the requirements equal 4 points. Average feeling equals 6 points. The feeling of
understandable, satisfactory, reasonable, accurate, easy to find, and can meet the requirements equal
8 points. If they feel completely understandable, very satisfactory, very reasonable, and meets all
requirements then the question can get 10 points.
In the questionnaire survey shown in Table 4, the weights of the 11 evaluation indices for satisfaction
evaluation were determined by the expert estimation method based on quantitative and qualitative
analyses. The determined weights of the 11 evaluation indices were as follows: the readability takes 5%,
color and font of the sign takes 5%, density of the layout of the sign takes 5%, sight distance and height
takes 5%, oriented information density takes 5%, information accuracy takes 20%, convention of sign
layout takes 5%, continuity of guidance system takes 10%, indications for important destinations takes
20%, frequency of update of signage information takes 10%, and satisfaction with the guidance system
takes 10%.
The average score for tourist satisfaction was 75%, which shows that there were deficiencies in the
design of the guidance system for the park. The continuity of the guidance system and convenience of
the layout of the signage were found least satisfactory by the respondents.

4.2. Results of Evaluation of Signage Layout

4.2.1. Average Degree of Attractiveness of Indication Guidance (AATT)

The scoring standard and boundary of the expert survey method are introduced as follows. Based
on the discussion results of 20 experts introduced at Section 2, and taking the average score as the
benchmark score, the actual score of Shanghai Disneyland Park was calculated and compared:
The calculation method of contrast value is (actual score/benchmark score) * 100%.
It is concluded that at more than 150% of the value of the guidance system, the element performance
is excellent, between 120 and 150% is the space for modification and improvement of the factor, 100–120%
is in urgent need of modification, and if the score is less than 100%, it is necessary to redesign.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8489 10 of 18

Table 4. Questionnaire survey of tourists’ satisfaction with signage in Shanghai Disneyland.

Gender Satisfaction with Wayfinding System Layout

Male 122 41.5% Yes 178 60.54%
Female 172 58.5% No 116 39.46%
Age Satisfaction for content: icon and description
16–24 81 27.55% Yes 224 76.19%
25–34 138 46.94% No 70 23.81%
35–44 55 18.71% Satisfaction for content: font and color
45–54 13 4.42% Yes 189 64.29%
55–64 4 1.36% No 105 35.71%
over 65 3 1.02% Satisfaction for content: sight distance and height
Time to visit Disneyland Yes 201 68.37%
1 155 52.72% No 93 31.63%
2 69 23.47% Convenience of visitors at finding signage
3 20 6.80% Difficult 134 45.58%
4 10 3.40% Easy 160 54.42%
over 5 40 13.61% Your sense for information continuity
Prior knowledge of the wayfinding system Discontinuous 144 48.98%
No knowledge at all 92 31.29% Acceptable 150 51.02%
Have a bit of understanding 125 42.52%
Know the wayfinding system well 77 26.19% What features of the public information-oriented system services do you care most about in the resort?
Application scope of the wayfinding system
Have not used 21 7.14% Convenience of locating 54 18.37%
Only used on road 90 30.61% Easy to comprehend 68 23.13%
Only used in scenic spots 60 20.41% Information continuity 52 17.69%
Only used at traffic hubs 19 6.46% Wayfinding accuracy 107 36.39%
Used all the time 104 35.37% System concert and harmony 13 4.42%
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8489 11 of 18

The research objects were divided into three categories: signs indicating scenic spots only, signs
indicating service areas only, and signboards indicating entrances and exits. According to the field
investigation, the scoring results were as follows: (1) scenic spots takes 0.0305, and the normalized
results were 0.0142 with a percentage of 214.51%; (2) the scores of service area were 0.009, and the
normalized results were 0.006 with a percentage of 151.23%; (3) for entrances and exits, the scores
were 0.0179 and 0.0128, respectively, with a percentage of 139.25%; (4) the overall score was 0.0606, the
normalized result was 0.0337, and the percentage was 179.93%.
According to the evaluation standard, all the scores of AATT are above 150%, so the conclusion
is all three types of the signboards in Shanghai Disneyland perform well in the aspect of indicating
visitors to hot scenic spots, and there is almost no information left of popular attractions. That is, we
do not need to add other information and elements on the basis of the current sign information as a
whole, because this wayfinding system can transfer information perfectly.

4.2.2. Average Distance of Indication Guidance (ADIS)

The results for ADIS calculation were as follows. (1) The distance index for scenic spots was
0.7297, the normalized result was 0.64, and the percentage was 114.02%; (2) the score for the service
area was 0.9021, the normalized result was 0.79, and the percentage was 114.19%; (3) taking only the
entrances and exits indicated, the score for them was 0.5101, the normalized result was 0.5733, and the
percentage was 88.98%; (4) the overall score was 2.1419, the normalized result was 1.4633, and the
percentage was 146.37%.
We can find that the score of average distance is not so good, which indicates that the layout
distance between wayfinding signage and tourist attractions, service area, entrances and exits needs
to be improved. The reason for the low score of ADIS may be the lack of signboards on the way
to destinations, or the lack of related destination information on most of the signboards along the
routes [36]. The calculation result recommends that the park implement more intensive setting of
relevant destination signage on each indicated route.

4.2.3. Average Indication Density of Road Where Signs Were Located (ADEN)
The research objects can be divided into relationships between directional signs and roads only,
and those between sketch maps of the plane and the roads. (1) The score for the former was 0.0148,
with a standard value of 0.0086 and a percentage of 171.79%. (2) The score for the latter was 0.08, with
a standard value of 0.0357 and a percentage of 224.07%. According to the number ratio of the two
types of signs in Disneyland, the calculation coefficients were 0.8112 and 0.1888, respectively; thus, the
total score was 181.67%.
Combining the score of ADEN and ADIS, which refers, respectively, to the indicating distance
between signs and destinations, and the density of road signs, we can conclude that the low score of ADIS
and high score of ADEN indicates there is no need to put more signboards along main roads, but the
information along the road needs to be related more to destinations if we take economic considerations.

4.2.4. Average Information Coefficient of Indication Sign Network (AINT)

The result of the formula for road coverage by the information network was 6.3511, the normalized
result was 5.5006, and the percentage was 115.46%.
The calculation result informs the park management staff that the overall layout density of the
guide signs in the park is unqualified. Combining the calculation results of the other indicators above,
it can be analyzed that it is not due to the insufficient layout of the main roads, so it is more likely to be
marked on long roads [37]. This can easily lead to loss of people on non-main roads and unimportant
scenic spots whose feelings the designers need to take care of as well [38].
According to the objective data and matrix calculation, the overall identification was adequate
which can be found in Table 5, and the identification of guiding signs for the entrance and exit were
further strengthened. (1) The identification of popular scenic spots by directional signs was sufficient,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8489 12 of 18

whereas the identification of entrances and exits could be further strengthened. (2) The guiding distance
is the distance between the position of the directional signs and the scenic spots referred to on them.
(3) The reasonableness of the density of signs on roads as classified by right of way was generally
reasonable and did not need to be adjusted. (4) The density of spacing of guiding signs in this section
was adjusted accordingly. The number and density of duplicate signs needed to be reduced to reduce
the difficulty of identification for tourists. Additionally, some specific roads needed the addition of the
necessary signboards to prevent tourists from feeling lost.

Table 5. Results of calculation of the layout of signage of the Shanghai Disneyland wayfinding system.

Category Description Total Calculation Total Normalization Percentage Conclusion

AATT Spatial Attraction Index 0.0606 0.0337 179.93% Work well
ADIS Guidance Distance Index 2.1419 1.4633 146.37% Need improving
ADEN Signage Density Index - - 181.67% Work well
ADENSi Road Density of Indicating signs 0.0148 0.0086 171.79% Work well
ADENSp Road Density of Positioning signs 0.08 0.0357 224.07% Work well
AINT Information Network Index 6.3511 5.5006 115.46% Adjustment required

4.3. Evaluation of Signage Content

After calculating the topological indicators, we focused on improving and optimizing the design
content on each sign. The results were compared with the scores assigned by the 20 experts group,
mentioned at Section 2, of the Shanghai International Tourism Resort, for several types of signboards
specified in the standard at Section 3.2. After confirming and collecting the data, we found that the
safety signs, brochures, and tourist maps satisfied the tourists’ requirements [39]. The experts scored
and improved the locational signs, directional signs, and positioning signs according to their percentage
score results.
The conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis of signage content are as follows.
The informational content of the positioning signs needed to be standardized, and their height could
be further adjusted. The positioning signs did not meet the qualification conditions because of their
text content. Informational expression should be adjusted to be concise and accurate. The calculation
procedure was as follows.
Based on the evaluation results of Table 6, Table 7 and Figure 3, this study found that all the three
types of signs need optimizing the presentation of information. Some value is below the standard,
and that is the main task for wayfinding system designers to revise. Compared with the standard
score of 51.76, the total score at 58.09 was 112.23%, which is reasonable, but can be improved with
improvements in the layout design and unified standard of the text content. As for the self-attribute of
the guiding signs, the project evaluates from the four categories of text content, location evaluation,
typesetting design, personalization, and nine indicators are used to multiply the weight and score
to get the scores of each item. The total score (53.85) was 94.31% compared with the standard total
score (57.10), which was unreasonable. The guiding signs generally failed to meet the requirements in
the text content, so it needs to be improved. The total score of 56.78 was 103.89% compared with the
standard total score (54.66). The evaluation was more reasonable; however, the information conciseness
and personalized proportion of positioning signs did not meet the requirements. The results show that
the overall service level was appropriate, but in view of deficiencies in the wayfinding system, we
suggest improvements as well [40].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8489 13 of 18

Table 6. Results of the calculation of signage content of the Shanghai Disneyland wayfinding system.

Assessment Attribute Standard Evaluation Calculation Evaluation Calculation Evaluation Calculation

Category
Elements Value Value Value 1 Score 1 Value 2 Score 2 Value 3 Score 3
Information Accuracy (C1) 0.2312 13.87 50 11.56 80 18.49 60 13.87
Information Conciseness (C2) 0.0284 1.7 50 1.42 70 1.99 50 1.42
Text Content (B1)
Unified Standard (C3) 0.0483 2.9 70 3.38 50 2.41 70 3.38
Categorization (C4) 0.0859 5.15 50 4.29 80 6.87 80 6.87
Sustainability
Sight Distance2020,
(C5)12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
0.0564 3.39 60 3.39 60 13 of 17
3.39 60 3.39
Text Location (B2)
Height (C6) 0.0188 1.13 70 1.32 70 1.32 70 1.32
Color (C7) 0.1312 7.87 70 9.19 60 7.87 60 7.87
Typesetting Design (B3)
Size (C8)Table 7. The results0.2625
for the signage15.75 60
content of the Shanghai 15.75 wayfinding
Disneyland 60 system. 15.75 60 15.75
Distance Recognition (C9) 0.0891 5.34 40 3.56 \ \ \ \
Disabled Care (B4) ProportionsEvaluation
(C10) Results 0.0315 1: Indication Signs 2: Positioning
1.89 \ Signs\ 3: Plate Information
\ Signs\ 50 1.58
Humanistic Average
Concern Standard
(C11) Score0.0168 57.11.01 \ 54.66 \ 51.76
\ \ 80 1.34
Average Calculation Score
1 : Indication 2 53.85 3 58.09 56.78
Signs, : Positioning Signs, : Plate Information Signs.
Percentage 94.31% 112.23% 103.89%

Figure 3. Results for evaluation of signage content in Shanghai Disneyland.

Figure 3. Results for evaluation of signage content in Shanghai Disneyland.
Based on the evaluation results of Table 6, Table 7 and Figure 3, this study found that all the
three types of signs need optimizing the presentation of information. Some value is below the
standard, and that is the main task for wayfinding system designers to revise. Compared with the
standard score of 51.76, the total score at 58.09 was 112.23%, which is reasonable, but can be improved
with improvements in the layout design and unified standard of the text content. As for the self-
attribute of the guiding signs, the project evaluates from the four categories of text content, location
evaluation, typesetting design, personalization, and nine indicators are used to multiply the weight
and score to get the scores of each item. The total score (53.85) was 94.31% compared with the
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8489 14 of 18

Table 7. The results for the signage content of the Shanghai Disneyland wayfinding system.

Evaluation Results 1: Indication Signs 2: Positioning Signs 3: Plate Information Signs

Average Standard Score 57.1 54.66 51.76
Average Calculation Score 53.85 58.09 56.78
Percentage 94.31% 112.23% 103.89%

According to the specific scores of the content and layout of the guidance system, we went to the
field to find specific reasons based on the unreasonable scores and proposed the following improvement
suggestions for the reference and modification of Shanghai Disneyland.

1. The road name of Caiyun Avenue was not clear, which made it difficult to judge its boundary.
2. The lack of distance indication (such as, the number of kilometers to a specific scenic spot/service
area) caused tourists to feel tired and lost.
3. Some directional signs were too close to each other.
4. In the survey, there are three roundabout islands, and there are generally no signs for passers-by
to see (the name of the road is printed on the lane, which is dangerous to observe).
5. The lack of positioning signs (Class B) led to a loss of positioning.
6. A lack of bus stops and symptoms in advance of Xingyuan Park.
7. From Shendi West Road to Lantian Avenue and through Disneyland Avenue, there was no hint of
Disneyland Avenue.
8. The East, South, and West Shendi Roads were relatively long, and did not contain an appropriate
number of road signs.
9. The E7 bus station had a single station, and there was no matching station on the opposite side of
the road.
10. The street signs were covered by tree shade, barrier-free signs are blocked by road signs, and the
road signs themselves blocked one another.
11. The color, contrast, and text of the road signs were unsatisfactory (not uniform, and the English
was small and not easy to read).

5. Discussion
During a gradual improvement process from 2017 to 2019, we re-implemented a field survey
in Shanghai Disneyland Resort which is shown in Table 8. This time we participated in the survey
and randomly checked 50 tourists, which is the same as the 2017 questionnaire. After measuring the
content and layout of the guidance system of Disneyland Park, the tourism management department
modified and updated the contents of the corresponding signboards. For example, the contents of the
signboards generally indicate the distance to the indicated places, unify the font size and scenic spot
signs in all parts of the park, adjust the number of signs in the areas where the layout information is too
dense or too sparse, and sign letters of main roads and popular scenic spots of interest adjustment, etc.
The results of the questionnaire indicate that the reasonable planning based on the two-level model
of content and layout improves people’s awareness of the design of the guidance system, which is
more conducive to tourists to find their way smoothly. It is necessary to select projects with a better
foundation and better development prospects for investment and construction to avoid the waste
of resources caused by blind installation. Our research result in Figure 4 shows a clear growth of
tourist satisfaction is made in both signage content and wayfinding sign layout after this modification
task, which proves that through this quantification method, the managers and designers of tourist
attractions can improve wayfinding systems to be more scientific and reasonable without unsustainable
resource waste.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8489 15 of 18

Table 8. The questionnaire for tourist satisfaction of the Shanghai Disneyland wayfinding system (investigation in June 2017 and June 2019).

Occupation Ratio Specific Description Degree of Satisfaction 1 Score 1 Degree of Satisfaction 2 Score 2
0.05 Identity readability 0.78158 0.039079 0.8025 0.040125
0.05 Color and font of the signage 0.73512 0.036756 0.7825 0.039125
0.05 Layout density of the signage 0.7229 0.036145 0.8156 0.04078
0.05 Sight distance and height 0.75292 0.037646 0.8326 0.04163
0.05 Orientated information density 0.73588 0.036794 0.7854 0.03927
0.2 Information accuracy 0.75898 0.151796 0.7974 0.15948
0.05 Signage layout convenience 0.70718 0.035359 0.8025 0.040125
0.1 Guidance system continuity 0.70106 0.070106 0.9125 0.09125
0.2 Indications for important destinations 0.81564 0.163128 0.92 0.184
0.1 Signage information update frequency 0.7536 0.07536 0.8075 0.08075
0.1 Satisfaction to the guidance system 0.74536 0.074536 0.7812 0.07812
1 Total calculation - 0.756705 - 0.834655
1 investigation in June 2017, 2 : investigation in June 2019.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x:FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 17

Figure 4. Results for tourist satisfaction investigation in 2017 and 2019 in Shanghai Disneyland.
Figure 4. Results for tourist satisfaction investigation in 2017 and 2019 in Shanghai Disneyland.
6. Conclusions
Our research took the wayfinding system for Shanghai Disneyland tourist attractions between
the year 2017 to 2019 as the research object, and we proposed a quantification method to score both
the content and the layout indices to achieve targeted modification instead of traditional large-scale
replacement of signboards. The investigation results show that this method actually worked and has
improved tourist satisfaction, which means our index selection and measurement are meaningful,
and can be applied to other scenic spots as a reference. Through an analysis of its macroscopic
characteristics, calculation of elements of system network topology metrics, and the subjective
quantitative research on tourists, the information-oriented wayfinding system was developed
further. The understanding and factor analysis further proposed a complete quantitative model for
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8489 16 of 18

6. Conclusions
Our research took the wayfinding system for Shanghai Disneyland tourist attractions between
the year 2017 to 2019 as the research object, and we proposed a quantification method to score both
the content and the layout indices to achieve targeted modification instead of traditional large-scale
replacement of signboards. The investigation results show that this method actually worked and has
improved tourist satisfaction, which means our index selection and measurement are meaningful, and
can be applied to other scenic spots as a reference. Through an analysis of its macroscopic characteristics,
calculation of elements of system network topology metrics, and the subjective quantitative research
on tourists, the information-oriented wayfinding system was developed further. The understanding
and factor analysis further proposed a complete quantitative model for the wayfinding signage system
design, evaluation, and optimization of tourist attractions. We assessed the public information guidance
system in systematicity, integrity, attractiveness, clarity, distinguishability, accuracy, coordination,
rationality, safety of the guidance system, and the principle of people orientation. Through research on
the wayfinding signage system of scenic spots, the following research works can be concluded:
(1) We used a combination of objective evaluation and on-the-spot investigation for assessment.
The AHP method was used to calculate the content weight of 11 evaluation indices of 3 types of signs in
Shanghai Disneyland. Based on the assignment of scores by 20 experts, the qualitative and quantitative
evaluations were carried out.
(2) We summarized the macroscopic topological characteristics of the wayfinding system for the
given tourist resort. Based on the theoretical theory of topology, the information attraction degree, the
density of information, and the distance between signs and destinations, indicators that the labeling
system has drawn attention to managers and comparison was taken to demonstrate the flaws precisely.
We performed topological calculations and proposed studies on the signboard information.
(3) We have carried out on-the-spot investigations twice and made data collection for the case of
Shanghai Disneyland Resort, and according to research, influenced index methods to check whether
the preliminary design of the wayfinding system was reasonable, and which specific aspects can be
noticed and modified soon. Instead of traditional qualitative methods and fuzzy evaluation methods,
this method can be replicated and repeatedly implemented, thereby saving resources and creating
precise optimization sustainably.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, W.Z., L.L., and L.Z.; Methodology, W.Z. and Z.Z. (Zixuan Zhang);
Formal Analysis, W.Z. and L.Z.; Investigation, W.Z., L.Z., and Z.Z. (Zixuan Zhang); Writing, W.Z.; Funding
Acquisition, Z.Z. (Zhan Zhang). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The National Science Foundation of China partly supported this work (grant no. E080701/51508325).
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the management department of the Shanghai Disneyland Resort for
helping explore this subject in inviting experts from related areas and providing map data for signboard locations.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Setting Specifications for Public Information Guidance Systems in Tourist Attractions GB/T 31384-2015.
Available online: http://www.gb688.cn/bzgk/gb/newGbInfo?hcno=FA5720F5B9478A1ACF768BF857EE30D1
(accessed on 1 September 2019).
2. Lei, B.; Xu, J.; Li, M.; Li, H.; Li, J.; Cao, Z.; Hao, Y.; Zhang, Y. Enhancing role of guiding signs setting in metro
stations with incorporation of microscopic behavior of pedestrians. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6109. [CrossRef]
3. Lu, L.; Gu, Z. An evaluation framework for the public information guidance system. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2016,
21, 1919–1928. [CrossRef]
4. Ratti, C. Space Syntax: Some Inconsistencies. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2004, 31, 487–499. [CrossRef]
5. Denis, M.; Michon, P.E.; Tom, A. Applied Spatial Cognition: From Research to Cognitive Technology.
In Pedestian Wayfinding in Urban Settings: Why References to Landmarks are Crucial in Direction-Giving;
Psychology Press: London, UK, 2006; Chapter 2; pp. 25–52.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8489 17 of 18

6. Golledge, R.G. Wayfinding behavior–Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes. Psychology 1999, 10,
445–447.
7. Garvey, P.M.; Pietrucha, M.T.; Meeker, D.T. Effects of font and capitalization on legibility of guide signs.
Transp. Res. Rec. 1997, 1605, 73–79. [CrossRef]
8. Neurath, O. Basic by Isotype; K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd.: London, UK, 1937.
9. Lynch, K. The Image of the City; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1960.
10. Meilinger, T.; Knauff, M. Ask for directions or use a map: A field experiment on spatial orientation and
wayfinding in an urban environment. Surveyor 2008, 53, 13–23. [CrossRef]
11. Grabler, F.; Agrawala, M.; Sumner, R.W. Automatic generation of tourist maps. ACM 2008, 27, 1–11.
12. Wiener, J.M.; Büchner, S.J.; Hölscher, C. Taxonomy of human wayfinding tasks: A knowledge-based approach.
Spat. Cogn. Comput. 2009, 9, 152–165. [CrossRef]
13. Dai, X.; Tu, H.; Yu, H.; Liu, J. Design of information signs of multi-modal travel at the decision points in a
comprehensive transport hub. In Proceedings of the 14th COTA International Conference of Transportation
Professionals, Changsha, China, 4–7 July 2014; pp. 1216–1227.
14. Kühl, T.; Stebner, F.; Navratil, S.C. Text information and spatial abilities in learning with different visualizations
formats. J. Educ. Psychol. 2017, 10, 104–117. [CrossRef]
15. Schewering, A.; Krukar, J.; Li, R.; Anacta, V.J.; Fuest, S. Wayfinding through orientation. Spat. Cogn. Comput.
2017, 2, 2–28. [CrossRef]
16. Castillo, H.; Pitfield, D.E. ELASTIC–A methodological framework for identifying and selecting sustainable
transport indicators. Transport. Res. Part D Transport. Environ. 2010, 15, 179–188. [CrossRef]
17. Bae, Y.H.; Kim, Y.C.; Oh, R.S.; Son, J.Y.; Hong, W.H.; Choi, J.-H. Gaze point in the evacuation drills: Analysis
of eye movement at the indoor wayfinding. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2902. [CrossRef]
18. Bodiono, A. Economic application of the theory of graphs. SIAM Rev. 1963, 5, 171–172.
19. Chown, E.; Kaplan, S.; Kortenkamp, D. Prototypes, Location, and Associative Networks (PLAN): Towards a
Unified Theory of Cognitive Mapping. Cogn. Sci. 2010, 19, 1–51. [CrossRef]
20. Egenhofer, M.J.; Herring, R.A. Mathematical Framework for the Definition of Topological Relationships.
In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Zurich, Switzerland,
23–27 July 1990; pp. 803–813.
21. Fu, B.; Wu, J.; Chen, X. Research on space syntax application within the city transportation area. Urban Plan. Int.
2009, 24, 79–83.
22. Dobres, J.; Chahine, N.; Reimer, B. Effects of ambient illumination, contrast polarity, and letter size on text
legibility under glance-like reading. Appl. Ergon. 2017, 60, 68–73. [CrossRef]
23. Vilar, E.; Rebelo, F.; Noriega, P.; Duarte, E.; Mayhorn, C.B. Effects of competing environmental variables and
signage on route-choices in simulated everyday and emergency wayfinding situations. Ergonomics 2014, 57,
511–524. [CrossRef]
24. Mantovani, G.; Gamberini, L.; Martinelli, M.; Varotto, D. Exploring the suitability of virtual environments for
safety training: Signals, norms and ambiguity in a simulated emergency escape. Cogn. Technol. Work. 2001,
3, 33–41. [CrossRef]
25. Kansky, K.J. Structure of Transportation Networks: Relationships between Network Geometry and Regional
Characteristics; Chicago University: Chicago, IL, USA, 1963.
26. Dubey, R.K.; Thrash, T.; Kapadia, M. Information Theoretic Model to Simulate Agent-Signage Interaction for
Wayfinding. Cogn. Comput. 2019, 2, 1–18. [CrossRef]
27. Kinateder, M.; Warren, W.H.; Schloss, K.B. What color are emergency exit signs? Egress behavior differs
from verbal report. Appl. Ergon. 2019, 75, 155–160. [CrossRef]
28. Classification, Investigation, and Evaluation of Tourism Resources GB/T 18972-2017. Available online:
http://www.gb688.cn/bzgk/gb/newGbInfo?hcno=B8AFA5B524438117E00F3BC259B6831C (accessed on
29 December 2017).
29. Frank, H.; Kahn, R.E.; Kleinrock, L. Computer Communications Network Design: Experience with Theory
and Practice. Networks 2010, 2, 135–166. [CrossRef]
30. Huang, S.M. A study of reading time and viewers’ preferences for a variety of combinations of
character-background chromaticity for small traditional Chinese characters. Percept. Mot. Skills 2006, 103,
887–895. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8489 18 of 18

31. Saaty, T. The analytic network process: Decision making with dependence and feedback. International 2001,
95, 129–157.
32. Saaty, T.L. Models, Methods & Concepts, and Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process; Springer: Boston,
MA, USA, 2000.
33. Sudman, S. Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design for market research, political
polls, and social and health questionnaires. J. Mark. Res. 2004, 43, 703–704.
34. Sintonen, H.; Raitio, J.; Honkela, T. Quantifying the effect of meaning variation in survey analysis.
In International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014.
35. Gärling, T.; Böök, A.; Lindberg, E. Spatial orientation and wayfinding in the designed environment:
A conceptual analysis and some suggestions for post-occupancy evaluation. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 1986,
3, 55–64.
36. Xie, H.; Filippidis, L.; Galea, E.R.; Gwynne, S.; BlackShields, D.; Lawrence, P.J. Experimental study and
theoretical analysis of signage legibility distances as a function of observation angle. In Pedestrian and
Evacuation Dynamics 2005; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2007.
37. Andre, A.D.; Koonce, J.M. Spatial Orientation and Wayfinding in Airport Passenger Terminals: Implications
for Environmental Design. Proc. Hum. Factors. Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 1991, 35, 561–565. [CrossRef]
38. Shi, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, T.; Li, C.; Yuan, S. The effects of ambient illumination, color combination, sign
height, and observation angle on the legibility of wayfinding signs in metro stations. Sustainability 2020, 12,
4133. [CrossRef]
39. Li, Y.; Li, R.; Ruan, W.; Liu, C.-H. Research of the effect of tourism economic contact on the efficiency of the
tourism industry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5652. [CrossRef]
40. Zhou, F.; Zhao, F.; Xu, Q.; Yuan, Y.; Zhang, M. Evaluation and selection methods of tourism characteristic
town: The case of Liaoning Province, China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5372. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).