Abstract
Several studies show that pedestrians do not simply take the shortest route to their destination. In this paper, we address the question, which other factors influence their route decisions. We present a landmark based pedestrian navigation system that guides users through indoor and outdoor areas and forms the foundation of our research regarding route preferences. To investigate the issue which basic preferences exist, a qualitative pre-study was conducted \((\mathrm{N} = 21).\) In the main study we examined if routes chosen by participants in realistic scenarios deviate from the shortest possible route. With this, we explored if preferences, found in the pre-study, really influence the selection of routes \((\mathrm{N} = 121).\) In the pre-study most participants stated that they want to take the shortest route. In addition to that, it was frequently mentioned that entities along the route, like escalators, elevators, crowded areas, or unsafe areas should be preferred or avoided. The main study revealed that the participants, which were all familiar with the surroundings, take detours in indoor parts compared to the shortest route. Moreover, the participants avoided elevators and routes that lead through cafeterias and lecture halls.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agrawal AW, Schlossberg M, Irvin K (2008) How far, by which route and why? A spatial analysis of pedestrian preference. J Urban Des 13(1):81–98
Armeni I, Chorianopoulos K (2013) Pedestrian navigation and shortest path: preference versus distance. In: Intelligent environments (workshops), pp 647–652
Carlson LA, Hölscher C, Shipley TF, Dalton RC (2010) Getting lost in buildings. Current Direct Psychol Sci 19(5):284–289
Fallah N, Apostolopoulos I, Bekris K, Folmer E (2013) Indoor human navigation systems: a survey. Interact Comput (2013)
Golledge RG (1999) Human wayfinding and cognitive maps. In: Wayfinding behavior: cognitive mapping and other spatial processes, pp 5–45
Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat, 65–70
Hölscher C, Meilinger T, Vrachliotis G, Brösamle M, Knauff M (2006) Up the down staircase: wayfinding strategies in multi-level buildings. J Environ Psychol 26(4):284–299
Millonig A, Schechtner K (2007) Pedestrian and evacuation dynamics 2005, chap. In: Decision loads and route qualities for pedestrians—key requirements for the design of pedestrian navigation services. Springer, Berlin, pp 109–118
Moeser SD (1988) Cognitive mapping in a complex building. Environ Behav 20(1):21–49
Müller M, Ohm C, Ludwig B (2014) Path network modeling of public buildings. In: International workshop on interfacing indoor and outdoor spaces at GIScience
Ohm C, Mueller M, Ludwig B (2015) Displaying landmarks and the users surroundings in indoor pedestrian navigation systems. J Ambient Intell Smart Environ 7(5):635–657
Quercia D, Schifanella R, Aiello LM (2014) The shortest path to happiness: recommending beautiful, quiet, and happy routes in the city. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM conference on hypertext and social media, HT ’14. ACM, New York, pp 116–125
Zhu S, Levinson D (2015) Do people use the shortest path? An empirical test of wardrops first principle. PloS One 10(8)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Müller, M., Ohm, C., Schwappach, F. et al. The path of least resistance. Künstl Intell 31, 125–134 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-016-0472-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-016-0472-6