Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2015, volume 42, pages 95-109

doi:10.1068/b130016p

Developing visibility analysis for a retail store: a pilot

study in a bookstore

Y iL u
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong,
Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong; e-mail: Yi.LU@cityu.edu.hk
H yu n -B o SeoU
Department of Architecture, University of Seoul, 163 Seoulsiripdaero (90 Jeonnong-dong),
Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-743 Korea; e-mail: hyunbo.seo@uos.ac.kr
Received 4 February 2013; in revised form 10 October 2013;
published online 17 November 2014

Abstract. Recent studies have confirmed that store layout influences a shopper’s movement,
purchasing behavior, and preference. However, the systematic and quantitative description
of the layout o f retail stores has been discussed in few studies. The analytic method for
describing a layout presented in this study, with other refined analysis capabilities, is
based on a prespecified set o f visual targets rather than each occupiable location such as a
room. The systematic visibility description o f a layout enables quantitative comparison of
multiple locations within one layout and across multiple physical layouts. An observation
exercise took place in a bookstore and the target-based systematic analysis showed, while
nontarget-based systematic analysis did not show, that a product with high visibility
from major paths, where shoppers tended to have more visual contact, had more product
engagement. The research not only confirmed the impact o f store layout but also showed
how the layout affected shoppers’ behavior.

Keywords: visibility analysis, store layout, shopping behavior, space syntax

1 Introduction
Studies in environmental psychology and marketing have found that the physical layout of a
store was associated with shoppers’ pleasurable experiences and improved price acceptability
(Baker et al, 1994; Simonson, 1999). In fact, the role of layout is closely tied to the visibility
and exposure it creates, and this study proposes systematic visibility analysis of layouts.
Using this analysis the researchers confirmed the role of layout. Systematic analysis brings
the significant methodological contribution of quantifying the visibility of different layouts
and different locations within a layout. Quantification allows association with other variables
such as behavior data and comparison between layouts.
1.1 Store layout
Store layout refers to the allocation of floor spaces and products, and product grouping in the
store environment (Turley and Milliman, 2000). For example, impressive design features,
such as multilevel atriums and curved escalators, have a consistent effect on excitement
and the desire to stay longer (Wakefield and Baker, 1998). The quality of mystery of mall
layout (ie, the degree to which one can gain more visual information by proceeding into
the scene) was found to have a positive influence on the user’s preference for a shopping
mall (Kent, 1989). The spaciousness of a store also attracted task-oriented shoppers based
on their responses to video displays (van Rompay et al, in press). As a result of positive

Corrresponding author
96 Yi Lu, Hyun-Bo Seo

physiological responses or affective responses, customers may have wanted to stay longer,
purchased more, and preferred the store or service [see review in Ng (2003)].
Arguably, in contrast to nontangible ambient factors, such as color and lighting, spatial
layout directly affected in-store traffic patterns, shopping atmosphere, shopping behavior, and
operational efficiency (Turley and Milliman, 2000; Vrechopoulos e tal, 2004; Wineman
and Peponis, 2010). Despite the importance o f store layout, surprisingly few studies have
systematically studied the effects o f layout on shopping behavior (Turley and Milliman, 2000).
Some laboratory research provided insight on how the spatial arrangement o f products
on a microscale influences people’s evaluation o f these products. For instance, end-of-aisle
displays had strong effects on brand sales (Bemmaor and Mouchoux, 1991). A laboratory
experiment with eye-tracking technology found that the number o f faces o f one product
exposed to the aisle had a strong impact on product evaluation (Chandon et al, 2009).
However, more empirical studies about spatial arrangement o f products on the scale o f the
whole store are needed to understand fully how spatial layout works.
1.2 Space syntax
Studies on the topics called space syntax and isovists have identified the relationship
between spatial layout and user’s behavior (Penn, 2005; Wineman and Peponis, 2010):
(1) the products were not evenly distributed in space, and this uneven distribution could make
some products more easily seen than others; (2) the spatial layout influenced the movement
pattern in the network o f routes— it would create unequal flow in different route segments in a
shopping environment depending on the structure o f the network in a specific segment; (3) the
spatial layout also influenced the spatial cognition o f the space and goods, therefore, it affected
how people searched for commodities in a specific location. All these factors, geographic,
network, and cognitive, contributed to the effect of spatial layout on shopping (Penn, 2005).
Taken together, the research literature supported the notion that store layout influenced
shopper’s experience, purchasing behavior, and preference. However, the lack o f an analytic
description o f store layout limited understanding on how store layout worked. This research
addressed the gap by introducing the concepts and techniques for the analytic description of
store layout as a configuration.
1.3 Quantitative description of layout
Systematic and quantitative description o f spatial layout is not a new idea in the field
o f architecture. The idea can be traced back to studies o f space syntax and isovists
[see a comprehensive review in Turner (2003)]. Methods from space syntax focused on the
relationships o f sightlines or directional changes within spaces in a large system, rather than
metric distance. In space syntax, a space is more connected if it can be seen from more spaces
or reached from more spaces without directional changes. A space is more integrated if it can
be seen or reached easily from another space with few changes in sightlines or movement
direction (turns) respectively.
Previous research has demonstrated the relationship of spatial configurations and behavior
patterns in both buildings and urban settings, such as movement patterns (Hillier and Iida,
2005; Hillier et al, 1993; Turner and Penn, 2002), interactions (Choi, 1999; Peatross, 2001;
Peponis et al, 2007), wayfinding (Dalton, 2003; Peponis et al, 1990), and spatial cognition
(Haq and Zimring, 2003; Kim and Penn, 2004; Penn, 2003).
In retail settings, one study showed that spatial configuration also related to product
purchasing (Penn, 2005). The researcher showed that the number o f stopping people was
directly correlated with amount o f product sold, and was a function o f movement and linear
meters of goods on display. In other words, a space with more moving people and more
products on display tended to be more successful in terms o f sales. However, the linear
meter length o f products on display was only the measure for the amount o f product placed
Developing visibility analysis for a retail store 97

but not necessarily for how much was seen. In fact, linear length o f display could not fully
reflect how many products were exposed to people because moving people would view the
products from different angles. It seemed that developing a precise measurement o f the visual
information o f products, especially from the perspective o f moving people, was key to the
systematic investigation o f the effect o f store layouts on behavior.
A growing number o f empirical studies have established that patterns o f visibility of
selected objects or building components influenced different kinds o f cognitive processes
and behavior. There were also some developments in systematic methods to address such
issues. These studies suggested that the visibility o f displays in museums affected visitor’s
movement, engagement, and experience (Peponis et al, 2004; Psarra, 2009; Stavroulaki and
Peponis, 2003; Tzortzi, 2004), the visibility o f people walking around from office work
stations increased interactions (H illierand Penn, 1991; Markhede and Koch, 2007; Penn et al,
1999; Peponis e ta l, 2007), and the visibility o f building elements, landmarks, or corridor
intersections affected wayfinding behaviors (Braaksma and Cook, 1980; Churchill e tal,
2008; Lam et al, 2003; Omer and Goldblatt, 2007). For example, Peponis and his colleagues
investigated the effect o f covisibility o f individual exhibits on visitor’s behavior in open-plan
science exhibitions (Peponis et al, 2004). They found exhibits that are visible from other
exhibits attract more active engagement by visitors.
1.4 Targeted visibility analysis
Recently, a growing body o f empirical studies has established that the patterns o f visibility
o f selected objects or building components— as systematically analyzed and quantified—
influence different kinds o f cognitive processes and behaviors; some o f these studies will be
reviewed later. For example, the visibility o f displays in museums affects visitor’s movement,
engagement, and experience (Peponis et al, 2004; Psarra, 2009; Stavroulaki and Peponis,
2003; Tzortzi, 2004); the visibility o f people moving from work stations in offices affects
interactions (Hillier and Penn, 1991; Markhede and Koch, 2007; Penn et al, 1999; Peponis
et al, 2007); the visibility o f building elements, landmarks, or corridor intersections affects
wayfmding behaviors (Braaksma and Cook, 1980; Churchill et al, 2008; Haq and Zimring,
2003; Lam et al, 2003; Omer and Goldblatt, 2007). The studies mentioned above suggest that
some objects have more significance than others in certain types of building in which the users
visually attended to those objects o f interest, such as displays in a gallery. However, in most
systematic methods o f visibility analysis in architecture, which were based on information
about entire occupiable spaces where the objects o f interest were located, visibility analysis
did not target those specific objects but considered the entire occupiable space, such as a room.
Recently, a refined visibility analysis, named targeted visibility analysis, was developed to
address the issue. It focused on prespecified visual targets and asked how many became
visible within each occupiable location (Lu et al, 2009). The empirical studies showed
that this visibility analysis was useful for evaluating the design o f nursing units (Lu, 2010;
Seo et al, 2011) and to explain the phenomenon that the spatial positions o f critical-care staff
are tuned to the visibility o f patients in the unit (Lu and Zimring, 2012).

2 Methods
Systematic visibility analysis was used for quantitative analysis o f store layouts. Techniques
forthe visibility analysis are described in this section. Recent development o f visibility analysis
techniques such as targeted visibility analysis was used. In addition, as a methodological
extension visual fields were restricted to certain angles to reflect the viewing angles o f humans.
All the technical developments o f the analysis are programmed as an ArcGIS extension (Esri
Inc). As a pilot study for the methods, one author observed a convenient sample o f thirty-
seven customers in a bookstore.
98 Yi Lu, Hyun-Bo Seo

2.1 Methodological extensions of visibility analysis for customers

The development in visibility analysis is encouraging. However some studies found that the
impact of visual structure becomes clearer when certain restrictions are applied. For example,
Stavroulaki and Peponis (2003) reported on the location and facing direction of sculptures
in the Castelvecchio museum. They constructed the overlapping of limited viewsheds of
an approximately 30° field of view while considering the orientation of each sculpture.
Similarly, Stavroulaki and Peponis (2005) utilized two angles of view: a 60° cone of vision
that encompassed the icons under study, and a 180° horizon of view when the icon was the
focus of attention. They also proposed three kinds of radials at varying distances: near, far,
and interim. Peponis et al (2004) reported that the recorded interaction between visitors and
exhibits was associated with the covisibility of individual exhibits, which represented the
number of exhibits that are directly in line of sight to a particular exhibit, fully or partially.
The covisibility was established empirically with consideration of the orientation of people
engaging the exhibits.
In most systematic methods of visibility analysis, all occupiable and visible points in a
setting were taken into equal account as potential origins and destinations of lines of sight. It
was also impossible to specify the orientation and angle restriction of the visual fields in the
standard software, such as the Depthmap computer program that was developed at University
College London. These restrictions needed to be overcome in order to understand what a
person could see when he or she moved around in a retail environment.
Furthermore, in a retail environment, it is useful to understand the probability that
a product on display can be seen from all occupiable space, as well as the ability to see
multiple products on display from a given space. Two terms, visual exposure and visual
access, are borrowed from Archea’s study (Archea, 1977). Visual access of a location was
measured as the number of products on display that could be seen from the location. Visual
exposure of a product on display was measured as the number of spaces from which the
product could be seen.
Therefore, we address those gaps by implementing restrictions on the standard analysis
of visual fields and by introducing the concept of visual access and visual exposure. All
developments were programmed as an ArcGIS extension. In essence, the restrictions included
the azimuth (angle of the view), the radius, and the object’s angular size (figure 1).
Azimuth specifies horizontal angle limits when identifying targets visible from each
observation point. This was implemented because humans do not have a full 360° viewing
field. The actual azimuth is related to the orientation of the viewer and the angle of view.
Users of the method can specify two azimuth values as the range of the permitted visual fields.
With the azimuth restrictions, it was possible to apply visual analysis to moving people
if we knew their location, orientation (O in degrees), and field of view (F in degrees). The
two azimuth values should be O —FI2, O + FI2. Thus, we could analyze the visual fields of
moving participants with accuracy. As shown in the following sections, this refined visibility
analysis proved to be more powerful in predicting behavioral outcomes.
Radius limited the search distance when identifying targets visible from each observation
point. Again, users can specify a radius distance as the range of search distance. Any targets
beyond the radius search distance were excluded from the analysis. According to Hall’s
(1966) theory of proxemics, the quality of visual awareness was believed to be a function
of distance. Hall’s classification of distance might not be applied directly in other studies;
nevertheless, it was proposed that a combination of directed visibility and different distance
radii could be used to identify the thresholds that apply for various kinds of relevant awareness
(eg, recognizing faces, examining paintings). It should be noted that it was also possible to
specify a distance radius restriction in the Depthmap program.
Developing visibility analysis for a retail store 99

X Observation point O Invisible target

Scanning area 0 Visible target

Figure 1. [In color online.] The examples of directed visibility analysis with the various restrictions,
(a) No restrictions; (b) azimuth specifies horizontal angle limns; (c) radius limits the search distance;
(d) angular size limits the horizontal apparent size of an object.

An object’s angular size is the horizontal angle the viewed object subtends at the eye.
It limits the apparent size o f an object when identifying visible targets in the analysis. The
angular size combines both the distance to an object and its actual size. For two round objects
c f the same size, the angular size o f the closer object is larger than that o f the other. For two
round objects o f different sizes placed at the same distance from an observer, the angular size
c f the larger object is larger than that o f the other. Users could specify one angular size. Any
targets smaller than the specified angular size were excluded from the analysis.
2.2 Visual access and visual exposure
Visual access was used to define how many products could be seen from a space. Visual
exposure was used to define the number o f spaces from which people could see a specific
product. Visual exposure and visual access were reciprocally defined in terms o f calculation.
Their values were influenced by the scope o f both originating spaces (represented by nodes)
and targets (represented by polylines). In the example shown in figure 2, there were three
products in the system A, B, and C. From point PI [figure 2(a)], with the given restriction
on the field o f view, one could see A and B. Visual access o f P I, the total number o f visual
products on display, was two (A and B). From point P2 [figure 2(b)], one could see B and C.
In sum, visual exposure o f A, the total number o f points from which it is possible to see A,
was one (PI only), and visual exposure o f B was two (PI and P2).
Imagine PI and P2 are two points from a movement trace; the value obtained could be
regarded as a visual access and visual exposure value from a path. If we want to calculate
the visual access and visual exposure values from all occupiable space, we need a regular
grid o f points (equal distance) as the base o f the analysis (such as that shown in figure 4 in
section 3). For a movement path, a set o f equidistant points along the path was obtained,
100 Yi Lu, Hyun-Bo Seo

Figure 2. [In color online.] The visual access and visual exposure describe the degree of potential
product-customer interaction, (a) Visual access to one location measures the number of products on
display that could be seen from the location, (b) Visual exposure of one product on display measures
the number of spaces that could see the product.

and the orientation o f each point was based on the movement direction at the location. A
field-of-view restriction was also implemented. The calculation o f visual access and visual
exposure was essentially the same for both a path and all the space. It can be defined in the
formula:
N M

^access z Vi, where K = Z , C„,

' i
where Vaceess is the visual access value o f a path or all the spaces, and V is the visual access
value for node i o f a path or all the space, which is defined as the total number o f targets
visible from node i. N is the total number o f nodes, M is the total number o f targets in the
system, and
_J l, if target j is visible from node i;
iJ [0, otherwise.
c is the visual exposure value for target j,
/V

f exposure ; = £ Q .
V

It measures the total number o f nodes in the system which can see target j.
The concepts o f visual access and visual exposure are important for retail settings. The
visual access from a location establishes the purchasing opportunities available from product
engagement. The visual exposure for a product on display establishes the opportunities of
it being seen by the customers. They determine the degree o f potential customer-product
interaction. The information can be used to identify premier locations for primary products and
potentially to increase sales. The following case study will demonstrate how the improved
analytic techniques can better predict shopper’s behavior in a bookstore.

3 Pilot study
A bookstore was examined to identify the effects o f visibility on shopping behavior. The case
study explored how, in carrying out movement and product engagement, shoppers took into
account patterns o f visibility o f products when they explored the environment.
A bookstore was an appropriate setting for three reasons: (1) most books and bookshelves
were standardized in size and shape, thus we could focus on the effect o f visual structure
arising from the spatial layout, (2) many people come to a bookstore with no clear intention to
buy a particular book. They might be attracted to some books on display and are open to the
Developing visibility analysis for a retail store 101

effect of the visual structure, and, (3) people’s interest in a book could be demonstrated by
the behavior of examining or reading, which could be observed and recorded easily by the
researcher.
In the bookstore as shown in figure 3, we focused on the customers’ walking traces and
book engagement behavior when they were exploring the relatively new environment. We
tested the proposition that the impact of spatial organization becomes clearer when we can
analyze the visibility patterns from the movement paths of people. Therefore, we tested the
following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1. A shopper with more visual access will engage (touch) more books.
Hypothesis 2. Books that are more visually exposed will attract more shoppers.

Figure 3. The floor plan of a bookstore, which is the setting for behavioral observation in this study.
A: entrance/exit; B: gift card area; C: customer service.
The setting was a local bookstore in Atlanta, GA, with 9300 ft2 for books. It also had
a coffee bar, and an area for gifts and gift cards. The layout was a rectangular arrangement
of displays and bookshelves that generally ran parallel to each other. There were several
entrances/exits for this book zone. A major corridor ran through the center and two minor
corridors ran around the perimeter, and combined with paths between the bookshelves, these
offered a path network with many spatial choices.
3.1 Observational data
Thirty-seven customers were observed in a period of two weeks. Observation occurred during
daytime on weekdays. The data were collected using a behavior-mapping technique. It is a
well-validated, nonintrusive approach to objective data collection on human activity in a real
setting and situation.
Behavior mapping was implemented as follows. A researcher was standing on the second
floor of this bookstore and recorded a new customer when he or she came into the bookstore.
Customers who came in groups were excluded from the observation since the interactions
among them may have influenced their movement and product engagement. The consumer’s
walking trace and book engagement activities were coded as a set of symbols and recorded
on a floor plan of the bookstore. The observation ended when the consumer left the store.
One observation took from 5-30 minutes. The observation was conducted during two
windows of time, 10:00-12:00 in the morning and 2:00^1:00 in the afternoon, from Monday
to Friday during the two week period.
102 Yi Lu, Hyun-Bo Seo

Since a bookstore has relatively low movement flow, crowding, which might alter
people’s behavior, was not a concern. The aggregated data showed 104 book-touching events
(engagements). Later, all the data were entered into ArcGIS for further analysis.
Since one long bookshelf was divided into several small horizontal compartments of
similar size (5.5 ft wide and 1.8 ft deep), we used these compartments (called ‘bookshelf’ in
the analysis) as the unit of analysis. Book engagement was represented as a point on the floor
plan, and the total count of engagements for each bookshelf was computed as a dependent
variable. The movement trace was represented as a continuous polyline with many segments.
3.2 Data analysis and results
3.2.1 Analysis fo r individuals
In this analysis the dependent variable is the number of book engagements by individuals,
and the independent variables are the total angle of directional changes on the path, total path
length, and visual exposure from the path.
The visual exposure was calculated using the method we introduced earlier: (1) representing
the path with a set of equidistant points (2 ft in this study) along the path; (2) each point had a
120° field of view along the direction of path; (3) we used a 5° restriction in the angular size,
thus any bookshelf with a smaller angular size is excluded from the analysis; (4) for each point,
we calculated the number of visible bookshelves; and (5) then summed all visible bookshelves
for the whole path (even if a bookshelf was partially visible, it was counted as visible).
The result is shown in figures 4(c) and (d) while typical analysis with the Depthmap
program is shown in figures 4(a) and (b). Analysis in figures 4(a) and (b) does not reflect the
object of interest and the actual walking path of individuals, respectively; instead it treats all
space and objects throughout the bookstore as identical. In figure 4(a), the central area shows
highest visibility (darkest color) even though fewer books are present there while figure 4(c)
reflects the visibility of books that are the object of interest. In figure 4(b) accessibility and
potential exposure are only determined by the physical form of the layout, while actual
traffic of customers and objects of interest determine those in figure 4(d). For example, in
figure 4(d), the left-hand side shows less customer traffic than the right-hand side.
The correlation analysis showed that the number of book engagements for the individual
shopper was correlated with all variables: directional change, path length, and visual access
from that path (table 1). A multiple regression analysis was used to test if the directional
change, path length, and path visual access significantly predicted the number of book
engagements of our participants. The results of the regression indicated that three predictors
explained a significant amount of the variance [F(3,33) = 8.16,/? < 0.01,7?2= 42.6%]. It was
found that path visual access significantly predicted book engagements (J3 = 1.01, p < 0.05),
as did path directional change (/?= 1.4, p < 0.05), and path length (y? = 0.99, < 0.01). The
result suggests that a person who walked further, made more turns, and saw more books also
engaged more books.
Furthermore, the covisibility among individual bookshelves strongly influenced the
pattern of book engagements of our subjects. After engaging a book, 16 out of 37 (43.2%)
subjects engaged a second book within visible access of that location. We think that after
a person had browsed a book, he or she was more likely to search adjacent books that were
within their line of sight from the original location. Thus it was important to put related
products together. The result echoed the pattern of visitor engagement with free-standing
exhibits on an open-plan floor (Peponis et al, 2004). It was found that visibility of individual
exhibits from other individual exhibits had a strong effect on decisions to engage with a
particular exhibit.
 larger area

smaller area

lower MD

□ higher MD

higher VA

lower VA

higher VE
------ lower VE

Figure 4. The visual represenzations o: the settings from Depthmap: ia) layout shaded by area of
visible polygon/iscvist; (b) layout shaded by the mean depth, "he visibility structure of products in
the setting with the visibility analysis: (e) the visual access and visual exposure from all space. The
layout is shaded with visual access value, and the bookshelf is outlined with visual exposure value;
(d) shopper’s paths anc the visual exposure value from shopper’s path. T ne bookshelf is outlined with
visual exposure value.
104 Yi Lu, Hyun-Bo Seo

Table 1. The Pearson correlation matrix of spatial factors and book engagement for individual shoppers.

Directional Path length Path visual Book

changes access engagements

Directional changes 1 0.782** 0.646** 0.558"

0.000 0.000 0.000
Path length 0.782** 1 0.946" 0.351*
0.000 0.000 0.033
Path visual access 0.646** 0.946** 1.000 0.352*
0.000 0.000 0.033
Book engagements 0.558** 0.351* 0.352* 1.000
0.000 0.033 0.033
* Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); ** Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

3.2.2 Analysis fo r products

In this analysis, the unit of analysis was the individual bookshelf. The dependent variable was
the number of book engagements for each bookshelf. The independent variables were the
visual exposure value from all spaces and all paths. We wanted to test whether a product was
visually more exposed from common paths or if all floor spaces attracted more product
engagements from shoppers.
The correlation analysis showed that the number of product engagements of an individual
bookshelf was positively correlated with visual exposure from all paths (r = 0.45,/) < 0.01),
as well as visual exposure from all spaces (r = 0.19,/) < 0.05). A multiple regression analysis
was used to test if the visual exposure significantly predicted the number of book engagements
for individual bookshelves. The results of the regression indicated that the combination of
two predictors explained 20.7% of the variance [F(2, 122)= 15.88, p < 0.01, /?2=20.7%],
It was found that visual exposure from paths significantly predicted book engagements
(f = 0.43, p < 0.01), but visual exposure from all spaces did not (p = not significant). The
finding supported the second hypothesis.
In a comparison, analysis of a visual polygon or mean depth, which treat overall space as
identical, were not significantly correlated with the number of product engagements. Thus,
if a product was seen more frequently from common paths, it was more likely to be engaged
by the shoppers.

4 Discussion and conclusion

The notion that store layout influenced a shopper’s movement, purchasing behavior, and
preference had been confirmed in this study, as it had by a number of other recent studies. The
contribution of our research to this issue lies in the introduction of concepts and techniques
for the analytic description of store layout as a configuration. The existing literature, for
example, might point to the fact that store layout has a consistent effect on excitement and
therefore customers want to stay longer and purchase more (Ng, 2003; Wakefield and Baker,
1998), that task-oriented customers prefer a spacious layout (van Rompay etal, in press),
and that the number of products on display and the positioning of products on the shelf
affect brand evaluation (Chandon et al, 2009). Such findings constitute firm evidence that
layout affects shoppers in various ways and that the layout must be taken into account when
designing and setting up a retail environment.
Developing visibility analysis for a retail store 105

4.1 Contribution and limitation

The introduction o f new analytic descriptive methods in this study contributes to further
understanding o f how the layout works as a whole. Furthermore, insofar as the analysis
generates parametric variables, it has the potential to compare different layouts that cannot
be reduced to basic layout types such as a grid or freeform. It is also, in principle, possible
to compare multiple locations within one layout with obvious differences in visibility and
shoppers’ behavior, which is rarely done. Thus, our study helps to make a transition from
studies which confirmed that store layout mattered to studies that try to explain or show how
the layout actually affected shoppers’ behavior.
Nevertheless, our study only concentrated on a particular type o f layout, a grid layout,
on a relatively small scale. More studies o f other types o f store layouts are needed, using
similar techniques. We had a limited number o f samples in only one layout. A larger study
sample with various layouts would allow more sophisticated analysis and refined results, for
example, using regression analysis. In addition, due to methodological limitations, we did
not verify whether the interest o f the shopper or the inherent quality o f the books themselves
played a role in the shopper’s behavior.
Broadly, our findings underscored the effect o f visual patterns o f specific targets on
various behaviors. Previous studies had shown that patterns o f communication in offices,
patterns o f viewing and learning in exhibition spaces, and patterns o f wayfmding in hospitals
were all affected systematically by the structure of the visual fields. It seemed it was important
to understand that visual information arises from the manner in which buildings frame the
view that is potentially available to an observer.
The analytic method in this study was based on the prespecified set o f visual targets
rather than each occupiable location such as a room. Parametric restrictions concerning
the direction in which a subject faced and the viewing angle sustained by the target object
were also taken into consideration. By implementing these restrictions, it was also possible
to synthesize visibility patterns from the viewpoint o f movement. It was a preliminary but
refined way to describe sensory-m otor experiences. The analytic method combined aspects
o f both spatial structure and the analysis structure o f the program. The method led to more
precise insights regarding how building users tune their behavior to certain elements o f the
environment and how, in turn, the environment impacts their behavior.
4.2 Visibility of products in stores
Our pilot-study results show that the proposed techniques for visibility analysis were effective
in the retail setting o f the study. First, our results underscored the difference between looking
at layouts in terms o f the distribution o f occupiable space and in terms o f the distribution
o f selling the products on display. Analyzing layouts in terms o f distribution o f space
deserves attention on its own right for studies aimed at, for example, understanding spatial
movement and spatial cognition. Flowever, in the shopping environment, where the primary
visual foci were the products on display and people were actively searching for products, the
effects o f layout on shoppers became more apparent when looking at layouts in terms of
the distribution o f selling the products. In this study, we have developed a refined description
o f visibility patterns arising from this perspective by using the concept o f visual access and
visual exposure.
In essence, visual access from a set o f spaces identified the total number o f products
which could be seen from the set. Visual exposure for a product, identified the total number
o f spaces from which people could see the product. The information o f visual access and
visual exposure were important in understanding how the layout worked. At least partially,
it determined the degree o f potential customer and product interaction. The results showed
about 25% o f variance o f product engagement was associated with the probability o f it been
106 Yi Lu, Hyun-Bo Seo

seen from major paths. Therefore, a product highly visible from major paths tended to have
more visual contact, and thus more product engagement.
4.3 Shoppers' movements
Our results brought out the complicated relationships between layout, movement, and
product engagement. Since product engagement was closely related to visual contact through
movement traces o f shoppers, the next question was how the spatial layouts influenced
shoppers’ movements. Some previous research noted that people relied on a set o f major
paths to explore a new environment or navigate familiar environments [as summarized in
Wineman and Peponis (2010)]. Experienced people frequently used a set o f major paths
(often called ‘skeletons’ in the cognitive map) to access neighborhood areas (Kuipers et al,
2003). Those major paths were the ones most accessible from other paths or destinations.
In fact, those paths were similar to paths that would be identified in syntax analysis as the
most integrated or more connected. Visitors who were asked to freely explore a large-scale
building, were found to quickly understand the global structure o f the path network and
to use routes that were more accessible to multiple destinations (Peponis e tal, 1990). The
same search patterns appeared to be true for visitors exploring museums or hospitals. They
rapidly began to follow a skeleton o f major paths that linked to multiple destinations (Choi,
1999; Haq and Zimring, 2003). In syntax analysis the major paths can be defined as the more
integrated path o f higher access and visibility value, such as the darker area in figure 4.
The participants in our study showed the same pattern. They tended to use the more
connected or most integrated spaces more than others. About 52% o f shoppers’ movement
traces were located in the zone o f visual mean depth <2, which accounted for only 31% o f
total occupiable space. The y } test showed the shoppers’ movements are statistically biased
towards the integrated spaces (%2= 666, d f = 1, p < 0.001).
4.4 Product engagement
Interestingly the product engagement was not directly predicted by the proximity to the highly
integrated or more connected space. The product engagement was determined by the degree
o f visual contact from the spaces with heavy traffic. This finding resonated with the finding
from Choi’s (1999) museum study. It was reported that the spatial properties o f a space did not
predict the number o f visitors occupying it. However, visitors tended to stop in a space where
they could see more people. Thus, people stopped in a space visually connected to the more
integrated spaces o f the museum, since these integrated spaces were heavily used by moving
visitors. Also, a recent study showed that when people in offices interacted with others, they
tended to locate themselves in a space highly visible to other people (Rashid et al, 2006).
People’s activity in the built environment could be characterized as people’s movement
through space on a global scale, and people’s static occupation o f space (eg, stopping at
exhibit elements, interacting with colleagues, or engaging a product) (Wineman and Peponis,
2010). It seemed that these two types o f activity tended to use different spaces. People’s
movement was more likely to use space that was highly connected to multiple destinations
(ie, highly integrated spaces at the global scale). On the other hand, people’s static occupation
o f space in various forms, was more likely to use spaces that were visually connected than
the more integrated spaces that were used more often for people’s movement. In this way
people who were static could easily shift to the people’s movement mode if they wanted to;
the shift was very economic in terms o f effort since those spaces were visually connected.
At the same time, they could also avoid disturbance from heavy traffic in the more integrated
spaces. In short, the spatial layout affected patterns o f exploration or navigation in shops and
other types o f building. The spatial layout also affected the product engagement which was
mediated by the visibility patterns o f products arising from major paths. Again, more studies
are needed to confirm this finding.
Developing visibility analysis for a retail store 107

4.5 Design implications

There were design implications for the shopping environment. Our findings suggested that
the manner in which independent products were arranged in space created the possibility of
some movement patterns that were more likely to bring shoppers into visual contact with
the products and thus favor potential engagement and purchase o f some products more
than others. This finding enriched Underhill’s (2008) notion, based on his twenty years o f
research on shopping environments, that visual exposure o f products could increase product
engagement: “a good store is by definition one that exposes the greatest portion o f its goods
to the greatest number o f its shoppers for the longest period o f time— the store, in other
words, that puts its merchandise in our path and our field o f vision in a way that invites
consideration” (page 75).
If this particular spatial information is to be properly understood, future shop designers
should create a layout that could prolong a shopper’s stay, and design a hierarchy o f products
to ensure that the primary elements have higher potential for visual contact and engagement.
Shop designers should ensure that the store layout and organization o f space have intrinsic
behavioral functions in order to support retailing intentions.
4.6 Future directions
Finally, there are some suggestions for future studies. First, we have not directly pursued
issues o f shopper’s cognition or actual product-purchasing behavior. In this study, we only
focused on its overt and explicit behavioral dimensions. We have also ignored the differences
in the shopper’s intention, such as task-oriented or recreational shopping goals (van Rompay
et al, in press). Future work can address the following questions. How does the spatial layout
influence a shopper’s cognition and purchasing behavior? What is the relationship between
visual contact, product engagement, and purchasing? Does the shopper’s intention interact
with the spatial effects?
Perhaps the most immediate useful extension o f this study needs to address the manner in
which visibility o f space and visibility o f product is affected by the systematic variation o f the
underlying topology as well as the exact geometry o f designs. Having established the impact
o f patterns o f visibility on shoppers’ behavior, this study sets the ground for asking: how are
these patterns affected by major design decisions (generative design principles) and by the
subsequent elaboration o f designs (metric adjustments)? Answering these questions will help
to bridge the gap between research aimed at understanding how store layouts provide visual
information and the application o f research to shop design.
References
Archea J, 1977, “Place of architectural factors in behavioral theories of privacy"Journal o f Social
Issues 33 116-137
Baker J, Grewal D, Parasuraman A, 1994, “The influence of store environment on quality inferences
and store image” Journal o f the Academy o f Marketing Science 22 328-339
Bemmaor A C, Mouchoux D, 1991, “Measuring the short-term effect of in-store promotion and retail
advertising on brand sales: a factorial experiment” Journal o f Marketing Research 28 202-214
Braaksma J, Cook W, 1980, “Human orientation in transportation terminals” Transportation
106 189-203
Chandon P, Hutchinson J W, Bradlow E T, Young S H, 2009, “Does in-store marketing work? Effects
of the number and position of shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the point of
purchase” Journal o f Marketing 73 1-17
Choi Y K, 1999, “The morphology of exploration and encounter in museum layouts” Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design 26 241-250
Churchill A, Dada E, Debarros A, Wirasinghe S, 2008, “Quantifying and validating measures of
airport terminal wayfinding” Journal o f Air Transport Management 14 151-158
108 Yi Lu, Hyun-Bo Seo

Dalton R C, 2003, “The secret is to follow your nose—route path selection and angularity”
Environment and Behavior 35 107-131
Hall E, 1966 The Hidden Dimension (Doubleday, New York)
Haq S, Zimring C, 2003, “Just down the road a piece: the development of topological knowledge of
building layouts” Environment and Behavior 35 132-160
Hillier B, Iida S, 2005, “Network and psychological effects in urban movement” Spatial Information
Theory, Proceedings 3693 475-490
Hillier B, Penn A, 1991, “Visible colleges: structure and randomness in the place of discovery”
Science in Context 4 23-50
Hillier B, Penn A, Hanson J, Grajewski T, Xu J, 1993, “Natural movement—or, configuration and
attraction in urban pedestrian movement” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design
20 29-66
Kent R L, 1989, “The role of mystery in preferences for shopping malls” Landscape Journal
8 28-35
Kim Y O, Penn A, 2004, “Linking the spatial syntax of cognitive maps to the spatial syntax of the
environment” Environment and Behavior 36 483-504
Kuipers B, Tecuci D G, Stankiewicz B J, 2003, “The skeleton in the cognitive map” Environment
and Behavior 35 81-106
Lam W H K, Tam M L, Wong S C, Wirasinghe S C, 2003, “Wayfinding in the passenger terminal of
Hong Kong International Airport” Journal o f Air Transport Management 9 73-81
Lu Y, 2010, “Measuring the structure of visual fields in nursing units” Health Environments
Research and Design Journal 3 48-59
Lu Y, Zimring C, 2 0 1 2 , “Can intensive care staff see their patients? An improved visibility analysis
methodology” Environment and Behavior 44 8 6 1 - 8 7 6
Lu Y, Peponis J, Zimring C, 2 0 0 9 , “Targeted visibility analysis in buildings—correlating targeted
visibility analysis with distribution of people and their interactions within an intensive care
unit”, in Proceedings o f the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium Stockholm,
h t t p : / /w w w . s s s 7 o r g / P r o c e e d in g s /0 4 % 2 0 B u ild in g % 2 0 M o r p h o lo g y % 2 0 E m e r g e n t% 2 0
P e r fo rm a tiv ity / 0 6 8 _ L u _ P e p o n is _ Z im rin g .p d f
Markhede H, Koch D, 2 0 0 7 , “Positioning analysis: social structures in configurative modelling”,
paper presented at the 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul,
h t t p : / /w w w .s p a c e s s y n ta x is ta n b u l.itu .e d u .tr / p a p e r s % 5 C lo n g p a p e r s % 5 C 0 6 9 % 2 0 - % 2 0
M a rk h e d e % 2 0 K o c h _ p d f
Ng C F, 2003, “Satisfying shoppers’ psychological needs: from public market to cyber-mall” Journal
o f Environmental Psychology 23 439—455
Omer I, Goldblatt R, 2007, “The implications of inter-visibility between landmarks on wayfinding
performance: an investigation using a virtual urban environment” Computers, Environment and
Urban Systems 31 520-534
Peatross F D, 2001, “A syntactic study of control in restrictive settings: innovations in isovist
methods” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28 529—544
Penn A, 2003, “Space syntax and spatial cognition—or why the axial line?” Environment and
Behavior 35 30-65
Penn A, 2 0 0 5 , “The complexity of the elementary interface: shopping space”, in Proceedings at the
5th International Space Syntax Symposium Delft, pp 2 5 —4 3 ,
h ttp ://w w w .s p a c e s y n ta x .tu d e lft.n I//m e d ia /L o n g % 2 0 p a p e r s % 2 0 1 /a la n % 2 0 p e n n .p d f
Penn A, Desyllas J, Vaughan L, 1 9 9 9 , “The space of innovation: interaction and communication in
the work environment” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26 1 9 3 - 2 1 8
Peponis J, Zimring C, Choi Y K, 1 9 9 0 , “Finding the building in wayfinding” Environment and
Behavior 22 5 5 5 - 5 9 0
Peponis J, Dalton R C, Wineman J, Dalton N, 2004, “Measuring the effects of layout upon visitors’
spatial behaviors in open plan exhibition settings” Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design 31 453—473
Peponis J, Bafna S, Bajaj R, Bromberg J, Congdon C, Rashid M, Warmels S, Zhang Y, Zimring C,
2007, “Designing space to support knowledge work” Environment and Behavior 39 815-840
Developing visibility analysis for a retail store 109

Psarra S, 2009 Architecture and Narrative: The Formation o f Space and Cultural Meaning
(Routledge, London)
Rashid M, Kampschroer K, Wineman J, Zimring C, 2006, “Spatial layout and face-to-face
interaction in offices? A study of the mechanisms of spatial effects on face-to-face interaction”
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 33 825—844
Seo H B, Choi Y S, Zimring C, 2011, “Impact of hospital unit design for patient-centered care on
nurses’ behavior” Environment and Behavior 43 443^168
Simonson I, 1999, “The effect of product assortment on buyer preferences” Journal o f Retailing
75 347-370
Stavroulaki G, Peponis J, 2 0 0 3 , “The spatial construction of seeing at Castelvecchio”, in Proceedings
o f the 4th International Space Syntax Symposium University College London, Ed. J Hanson,
pp 6 6 . 6 1 - 6 6 .1 4 , h ttp ://2 l7 1 5 5 .6 5 .9 3 :8 1 /s y m p o s ia /S S S 4 /fu llp a p e r s /6 6 S ta v r o u la k i- P e p o n is .p d f
Stavroulaki G, Peponis J, 2 0 0 5 , “Seen in a different light: icons in Byzantine museums and
churches”, in Proceedings o f the 5th International Space Syntax Symposium Delft University of
Technology, Ed. A Ness, pp 251-263,
h ttp ://w w w .s p a c e s y n ta x .tu d e lft.n l/m e d ia /lo n g p a p e r s 2 /g ia n n a s tr a v r o u la k i.p d f
Turley L W, Milliman R E, 2000, “Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: A review of the
experimental evidence” Journal o f Business Research 49 193-211
Turner A, 2003, “Analysing the visual dynamics of spatial morphology” Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design 30 657-676
Turner A, Penn A, 2002, “Encoding natural movement as an agent-based system: an investigation
into human pedestrian behaviour in the built environment” Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design 29 473^190
Tzortzi K, 2004, “Building and exhibition layout: Sainsbury Wing compared with Castelvecchio”
Architectural Research Quarterly 8 128-140
Underhill P, 2008 Why We Buy: The Science o f Shopping (Simon and Schuster, New York)
van Rompay T J L, Tanja-Dijkstra K, Verhoeven J W M, van Es A F, in press, “On store design
and consumer motivation: spatial control and arousal in the retail context” Environment and
Behavior
Vrechopoulos A P, O’Keefe R M, Doukidis G I, Siomkos G J, 2004, “Virtual store layout:
an experimental comparison in the context of grocery retail” Journal o f Retailing 80 13-22
Wakefield K L, Baker J, 1998, “Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects on shopping
response” Journal o f Retailing 74 515-539
Wineman J D, Peponis J, 2010, “Constructing spatial meaning” Environment and Behavior
42 86-109

P © 2014 Pion and its Licensors

Copyright of Environment & Planning B: Planning & Design is the property of Pion Ltd. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.