Keywords

1 Introduction

In today’s modern public transportation environment, the lack of a systematic and standardized public information guidance system is not only an obstacle to cognitive communication, but also an obstacle to life behavior, or a psychological and spiritual obstacle. It could lead to the weakening and loss of function of public transportation facilities.

The common elements of the wayfinding systems are divided into two categories: public information guiding elements and safety information elements. Since the publication of the first national standard GB 3818-1983 “Public Information Graphic Symbol” in 1983, after more than 20 years of research, promotion, publicity and implementation, the national standard system of public information guidance system has been initially established. It has played a guiding role in the construction of Chinese public information wayfinding systems [1].

Now, the National Standardization Technical Committee on Graphical Symbols (SAC/TC59) has basically completed the national standard system of public information wayfinding systems in China through more than 20 years of efforts. The GB/T 15566 “Public Information Guidance Systems- Setting Principles and Requirements” series of standards is the basis for implementation [2], and the GB/T 20501 “Public Information Guidance Systems - Design Principles and Requirements for Elements” is the implementation method [3], GB/T 10001 “Public Information Graphical Symbols” is the basis [4]. China has established a perfect national standardization system for public information guidance systems. The system has played a guiding role in the establishment of Chinese guidance system standard system by standardizing the corresponding guiding elements, clarifying the requirements of elements, system design and setting.

Internationally, ISO/TC 145, the technical committee specializing in the standardization of graphical symbols in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), has begun to focus on the development of international standards related to public information wayfinding systems. The specific work is undertaken by the Working Group ISO/TC 145/SC 1/WG 5 “Public Information Guidance Systems”. The working group was convened by the Chinese expert, and in November 2010, the first international standard for public information guidance systems, ISO 28564-1, “Public information guidance systems - Part 1: Design principles and element requirements for location plans, maps and diagrams” was officially released [5]. In addition, other countries in the world pay more attention to the research and establishment of urban wayfinding systems, such as the Philadelphia wayfinding project launched by Philadelphia in the United States in 1992.

Although most public information wayfinding systems are built on the basis of national standards, in practical applications, there are still problems such as disjointed planning and operation, user complaints, and media exposure. The reason is mainly including: planners’ different understandings of national standards, user’s different hard conditions (such as vision, height, physical activity and other physical conditions) and soft conditions (such as cultural education background, understanding ability, etc.), and, poor management. The research on the evaluation method of planning, design, construction and operation and maintenance level of public information guidance system is still a blank, and it has become an urgent problem to be solved. It requires us to pay attention on its importance with a scientific and systematic vision.

Ji et al. established fairness structural equation of public transportation system, and the questionnaires were collected by Kunming public transportation as an example. The main parameters of the structural equation model were programmed and evaluated by LISREL software [6]. Zhang et al. combined the characteristics of urban subway to establish a post-evaluation index system for urban subway construction projects. Based on this, an empirical study was carried out on the evaluation model using structural equations [7]. Chen et al. constructed a structural equation model of urban subway passenger satisfaction group, constructed a multiple-group analysis model of urban subway passenger satisfaction, quantitatively analyzed the path coefficient between each latent variable, and finally based on the sample characteristics did group research [8].

Although the national standards and subway wayfinding system in line with national standards have been established, the systematic evaluation of subway signs has rarely been studied at home and abroad. Therefore, our thinking is to construct a scientific r subway sign evaluation system, and further improve the basis for the scientific, standardized, rational, and humanized subway signs.

2 Objects and Methods

2.1 Objects

The study was conducted in July 2016 and selected 8 subway lines in Beijing for field investigation. The participants were randomly selected from those 8 subway lines. In the selection of subway lines, taking into account the new subway lines and old lines, and considering the location of the selected points, For example east, west, north and south in Beijing. Based on the above considerations, it was determined that 10 subway stations were selected for testing. 30–50 copies of the questionnaire were distributed at each station. The questionnaires were randomly distributed and then collected on the spot. 470 questionnaires were distributed, and 468 questionnaires were returned, with a recovery rate of 99%. In the survey sample, there were 247 males and 221 females. The average age of the participants was 26.79 years old. The average number of subway rides per week was 6.45.

2.2 Tools

From national standards, industry standards, local standards and various related regulations and documents, the factors affecting the construction level of public transport passenger wayfinding system were selected, experts’ opinion surveys and public surveys were conducted, and opinions and suggestions from different stakeholders were collected to form a subway sign assessment questionnaire.

The assessment questionnaire consists of three dimensions: the continuity and rationality of the safety signs, the wayfinding signs and the public information signs. The safety signs were divided into two sub-dimensions: emergency signs and common safety signs. The wayfinding signs were divided into four sub-dimensions: traffic route maps, toilet direction signs, block guide maps, and station space diagrams. The continuity and rationality are divided into two dimensions: the continuity of the direction signs and the rationality of setting. The meaning of each dimension of the questionnaire is as follows (Table 1):

Table 1. Dimensions of subway wayfinding system evaluation and their meanings.
Full size table

The conceptual model of the confirmatory factor analysis of “Subway passenger wayfinding systems questionnaire” is as follows. The dimension of each question is in line with the exploratory factor analysis result. The standardized path diagram of the model is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Second-order confirmatory factor analysis model for subway passenger wayfinding systems questionnaire

Full size image

The fitting test of subway passenger wayfinding system model is shown in Table 2. There are many measurement criteria for determining the overall goodness of the fit of the model. Commonly used indexes are: gauge fitting index (NFI), comparison fitting index (CFI), incremental fitting index (IFI), goodness of fit index (GFl), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFl)), relative fit index (RFl), root mean square residual (RMR), approximate root mean square residual (RMSEA), and so on. It is generally accepted in the academic community that in large sample cases, NFI, CFI, IFI, GFI, AG-FI, RFI are greater than 0.9, RMR is less than 0.05, and RM-SEA value is less than 0.08, indicating that the model and data fit well. The model fit index for this study was CFI = 0.950 > 0.90, IFI = 0.950 > 0.90, TLI = 0.926, RM-SEA = 0.091. The display model has a good overall fit and can fit the sample data very well.

Table 2. Goodness of fit test of subway passenger wayfinding system
Full size table

3 Beijing Subway Passenger Wayfinding System Index Weight Assignment

The three dimensions of the subway passenger wayfinding systems and the weight of each sub-dimension index are the first considerations when conducting comprehensive evaluation. Weight determination generally has two methods, e.g. Delphi method and AHP method. It is a common method for Delphi to obtain the weight of evaluation index. The AHP method calculates the total evaluation value by combining the evaluation of both experts and respondents. In this test, the structural equation method is used to determine the weight of the satisfaction index in the evaluation of subway passenger wayfinding system. The structural equation model is a comprehensive statistical method. It is based on many traditional statistical methods and is a comprehensive application and improvement of statistical methods such as multivariate homogeneity, principal component analysis, path analysis and simultaneous equations. The structural equation model enables researchers to process measurement errors in the analysis and analyze the structural relationships between latent variables. It is obtained by summarizing the weighted values of each sub-indicator in the questionnaire. Its calculation formula is as follows:

$$ {\text{Subway wayfinding }} = {\text{T}}_{\text{i}} \left( {\sum\nolimits_{\text{I}}^{ 4} {\left( {{\text{W}}_{\text{i}} \times {\text{O}}_{\text{i}} } \right)} + \sum\nolimits_{\text{I}}^{2} {\left( {{\text{Y}}_{\text{i}} \times {\text{P}}_{\text{i}} } \right)} + \sum\nolimits_{\text{I}}^{2} {\left( {{\text{Z}}_{\text{i}} \times {\text{Q}}_{\text{i}} } \right)} } \right) $$
(1)

Wi identifies the weight of each test dimension i index of “wayfinding signs” index. The scores are derived from the normalized estimates of the structural equations (see Table 3).

Table 3. Subway wayfinding systems scoring weight
Full size table

  • Oi is the initial score for each test dimension of “wayfinding signs” index.

  • Yi identifies the weight of each test dimension for “safety signs”.

  • Pi identifies the initial score for each test dimension for “safety signs”.

  • Zi identifies the weight of each test dimension for “public information signs”.

  • Qi identifies the initial scores for each test dimension for “public information signs”.

Ti is the weight of the total score of subway wayfinding systems in the three dimensions of safety signs, wayfinding signs, and public information signs. The weighting factors of each dimension and sub-dimension are shown in Table 3.

4 Research Result

According to the weight coefficient, the data is summarized, and the overall situation of Beijing subway wayfinding systems is obtained. The total score is: 91.13 ± 14.62.

The evaluation scores of those Subway Passenger Wayfinding Systems fell into three different categories. The high level included subway Line 1, Line 9, Line 10 and Line 15. The medium level included Line 5, Line 7 and Line 13, while the low-level included Line 2 and Line 8. This trend and discipline were reflected in all 8 dimensions.

In the overall evaluation of Beijing subway wayfinding system, subway Lines 9, 10 and 15 are among the best, which is closely related to the overall construction planning of Beijing subway. Beijing subway Line 15 was put into use in 2016, and the southern section of subway Line 9 (except Fengtai East Street) was put into use on December 31, 2011. The northern section (except the Military Museum) was put into use on December 30, 2012. Most of the second phase of subway Line 10 (Bagou Station - Xizhan Raiway Station, Shou Jingmao Station - Jinsong Station) was put into use on December 30, 2012 (Jiaomen East Station was temporarily suspended), until December 1, 2017, the line 10 was put into loop operation. Compared with other lines, subway Lines 9, 10 and 15 are new, and the planning and design is more reasonable. The overall evaluation of Beijing subway wayfinding systems is among the best, and it is also reasonable. Subway Line 1 is the earliest one in Beijing and also the earliest subway line in China.

What are the differences between the continuity and rationality of safety signs, wayfinding signs, and public information signs for each line of Beijing subway wayfinding systems? The specific indexes are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Differences between the continuity and rationality of safety signs, wayfinding signs, and public information signs
Full size table

Table 4 shows that different subway lines in Beijing vary in the three dimensions of wayfinding signs, safety signs, and public information signs. However, those three dimensions show the same change rules and trends. Table 4 shows: Lines 1, 15, and 9 score higher on the three dimensions. Subway Lines 2 and 8 have lower scores in the three dimensions, and their scores are in the bottom of the score valley. Also, the peaks and valleys of each line have the same trend. Therefore, it can reflect the basic situation of the subway wayfinding system (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.
figure 2

Scores trend of different subway lines

Full size image

Taking the total score of subway wayfinding systems as the dependent variable, the subway line as the grouping variable, the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) results are as follows: on the total score of subway wayfinding systems, F (8, 460) = 2.172, p = 0.028 < 0.05, showing a significant difference between the evaluation total scores of subway lines. Further multiple comparisons found that the total score of subway Line 2 was significantly lower than that of Line 1 (p = 0.009 < 0.05), and the total score of Line 2 was significantly lower than that of Line 9 (P = 0.018 < 0.05), Line 10 (P = 0.002 < 0.05), and Line 15 (P = 0.003 < 0.05). The total score of subway Line 8 is significantly lower compared with Line 15 (P = 0.026 < 0.05).

Taking “public information signs” as the dependent variable and subway lines as a grouping variable, the results of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) are as follows: Line 10, Line 15 and Line 1 score higher, showing Line 10, Lines 15 and 1 are better at the location of the signs, the font and height of texts, and the suitability of the signs. The “Rationality” score of the subway Line 2 is low indicating that the sign of Line 2 is unreasonable. Rationality score of Line 2 is significantly lower than that of Line 1 (p = 0.018 < 0.05), and Rationality score of Line 2 is significantly lower than that of Line 10 (P = 0.016 < 0.05), and Line 15 (P = 0.017 < 0.05).

Taking “Wayfinding signs” as the dependent variable and the subway line as the grouping variable, the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) results are as follows: on the “Wayfinding signs” score, F (8,460) = 2.09, p = 0.035 < 0.05, it shows a significant difference between the lines on this index. Further multiple comparisons found that “Wayfinding signs” scores of Line 2 were significantly lower than Line 1 (p = 0.024 < 0.05), and “Wayfinding signs” scores of Line 2 were significantly lower than Line 9 (p = 0.01 < 0.05), Line 10 (P = 0.008 < 0.05), Line 15 (P = 0.002 < 0.05). “Wayfinding signs” of Line 15 were significantly higher than Line 8 (P = 0.026 < 0.05).

“Safety signs” is used as the dependent variable, and the subway line is used as the grouping variable. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) results are as follows: on “Wayfinding signs”, F(8,460) = 1.628, p = 114 > 0.05. Further multiple comparisons found that “Wayfinding signs” scores of Line 2 were significantly lower than Line 1 (p = 0.025 < 0.05), and “Wayfinding signs” scores of Line 2 were significantly lower than Line 5 (p = 0.024 < 0.05), Line 10 (P = 0.003 < 0.05), and Line 15 (P = 0.015 < 0.05).

5 General Conclusion

The scores of passenger wayfinding system for each subway lines can be divided into three levels. The high level included Line 1, Line 9, Line 10 and Line 15. Line 5, Line 7, and Line 13 were located in the middle level. Line 2 and Line 8 were at the low level. This trend is reflected in several dimensions of “Safety signs”, “Wayfinding signs” and “Public information signs”.

6 Analysis and Discussion

6.1 Time of Design and Use for Wayfinding Systems

According to the results, the score of subway Line 2 fell into low lever. This is basically consistent with researcher’s theoretical expectation. Line 2 is a loop-line. It is the first loop line in China. Due to the long operation time of Line 2, the wayfinding system is out of date and cannot meet the requirements of the modern subway transportation. Therefore, it got a low score, not only in total score, but also in all 8 sub-dimensions. Therefore, when the subway line renovation project is costly and difficult, the upgrade of the wayfinding system of Line 2 can be done and done well, which is helpful for improving passenger satisfaction. Line 1 is the earliest subway line in Beijing and also the earliest subway line in China. This time, it is also in the forefront of the overall evaluation of Beijing rail transit signs. It is also a subway line with a long planning and long operation history. Line 1 is among the high level, which may be related to the characteristics of the line. Line 1 is East-West line and Line 2 is a loop line. The passengers’ requirements for loop line are clearer and more accurate, while East-West line is relatively easy. This may be the reason why Line 1 scored higher in this evaluation.

6.2 Improve the Design of Wayfinding Systems

In order to host the 29th Beijing Olympic Games in 2008, the first phase of the Olympic branch of Line 8 was built in advance, and there were 5 interchange stations, which were transferred to Changping Line, Line 13, Line 10, Line 2 and Line 6. This branch Line 8 extended the central axis Line running through Beijing’s north and south again. As a project of the Beijing Olympics, Line 8 is impeccable in terms of construction quality. However, the evaluation score of the Line 8 Subway Passenger Wayfinding Systems shows that the 7 dimensions of line 8 fell into low level among8 dimensions, i.e., safety sign, traffic route map, emergency sign, direction sign of toilet, location map, internal space map of the station, and the continuity of direction signs. The score of the rationality of signs’ setting, including the location of signs, font, installation height and applicability, was acceptable.

6.3 Insufficient of Study and Future Prospects

In this study, the “Subway Passenger Wayfinding System Questionnaire” was compiled and the dimensions of the wayfinding system were established. The structural equation modeling method established the weight of each dimension and was a methodological innovation for the evaluation of subway passenger wayfinding system. It has certain practical and theoretical significance. At the same time, there are some shortcomings in this study. First, the sample size should be further expanded. In this assessment, the average sample size per subway line is 35, which constitutes a small sample. Further scientific assessments also need to expand the sample size. Second, the selection of subway stations requires further clarification of sampling rules. The staff intensity on site and whether it is a transfer site will have an impact on the assessment. In the future, further research should be carried out to further verify the way in which structural equation modeling is established, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the rail transit passenger marking system.