Investigating cultural uniqueness in theme parks through finding relationships between visual integration of visitor traffics and capacity of service facilities
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2016
Investigating cultural uniqueness in theme parks through finding relationships between visual integration of visitor traffics and capacity of service facilities
The goal of the article is to find the relationships between theme park visitor traffics and service facility location along with their capacities. To do that, we analyzed four Disneylands situated in Paris, Tokyo, and the United States (Florida and California). By analyzing the visual integration of visitor traffics at each Disneyland and calculating the capacities of service facilities such as the attractions, shops, and restaurants, we ran through a linear and a geographically weighted regression analysis. Our results indicate that there is a unique relationship between the service facility placements and the amount of predicted traffic flows for each Disneyland.
AntonClavé S.The global theme park industry. Wallingford: CABI, 2007.
2.
NorcliffeG.Canada in a global economy. Can Geogr/Le Gographe Canadien2001; 45(1): 14–30.
3.
TobinJJ.Re-made in Japan: everyday life and consumer taste in a changing society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992.
4.
Van MaanenJ. Displacing Disney: some notes on the flow of culture. Qual Sociol1992; 15(1): 5–35.
5.
FungALeeM.Localizing a global amusement park: Hong Kong Disneyland. Continuum: J Media Cu2009; 23(2): 197–208.
6.
HoltDBSchorJ.Introduction: do Americans consume too much? In: SchorJBHoltDB (eds) The consumer society reader. New York: The New Press, 2000, pp. vii–xxiii.
7.
HyunKHMinAKimSJ. Finding relationships between visitor traffics around major attractions and the surrounding environments in theme parks. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference of the association for computer-aided architectural design research in Asia, Daegu, South Korea, 20–22 May 2015.
8.
AhmadiRH.Managing capacity and flow at theme parks. Oper Res1997; 45(1): 1–13.
9.
TsaiCYChungSH.A personalized route recommendation service for theme parks using RFID information and tourist behavior. Decis Support Syst2012; 52(2): 514–527.
10.
ItoM.The secrets of themepark to gather people. Tokyo, Japan: Nikkei Shinbun, 1995.
11.
LeaskA.Progress in visitor attraction research: towards more effective management. Tourism Manage2010; 31(2): 155–166.
12.
MaJGaoJScottN. Customer delight from theme park experiences: the antecedents of delight based on cognitive appraisal theory. Ann Tourism Res2013; 42: 359–381.
13.
McClungGW.Theme park selection: factors influencing attendance. Tourism Manage1991; 12(2): 132–140.
14.
TurnerAPennA.Making isovists syntactic: isovist integration analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on space syntax, Brasilia, Brazil, 29 March–3 April 1999.
15.
HillierBHansonJ.The social logic of space. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1984.
16.
TurnerADoxaMO’sullivanD. From isovists to visibility graphs: a methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environ Plann B2001; 28(1): 103–121.
17.
TurnerA.Depthmap 4: a researcher’s handbook. London: Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London, 2004.
18.
MachleitKAKellarisJJErogluSA.Human versus spatial dimensions of crowding perceptions in retail environments: a note on their measurement and effect on shopper satisfaction. Market Lett1994; 5(2): 183–194.
19.
StokolsD.On the distinction between density and crowding: some implications for future research. Psychol Rev1972; 79(3): 275–277.
20.
KooMFishbachA.A silver lining of standing in line: queuing increases value of products. J Marketing Res2010; 47(4): 713–724.
