Spatiotemporal Analysis of Rambling Activities: Approach to Inferring Visitor Satisfaction
1. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 1
Spatiotemporal Analysis of
Rambling Activities:
Approach to Inferring Visitor Satisfaction
Masakatsu Ohtaa
Yuta Watanabeb
Toshiaki Miyazakib
a
NTT Network Innovation Laboratories,
NTT Corporation, Japan
b
School of Computer Science and Engineering,
The University of Aizu, Japan
3. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 3
Agenda
1. Introduction
2. Approach
– Spatiotemporal analysis
1. Case Study
– Campus festival
1. Conclusions
4. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 4
Planning with ICT
• Make practical plans under time & budget constraints
5. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 5
Rambling Activities
stop by
stop by
original
• Trajectory deviates from efficient route
actual
6. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 6
Encounter the Unexpected
what?
Interesting!
bicycle?
clog?
man?
7. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 7
Independent Choices
where to go next?
after determining
vs.
Expectation increases
content about
choice
8. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 8
Rambling Activities
and Visitor Satisfaction
• Rambling activities meet following
conditions:
– Encounter the unexpected
– Independent Choices
Person rambling in area is likely attracted to it
9. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 9
Sustainable Development
induce
rambling
urban planners
event organizers …
10. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 10
Goal
• Contributes to check phase
‒ Visitors were rambling in area?
‒ Area is attractive to them?
11. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 11
Agenda
1. Introduction
2. Approach
– Spatiotemporal analysis
1. Case Study
– Campus festival
1. Conclusions
12. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 12
Prominent Attributes
• Spatiotemporal Dispersal of Visits
– Many visited spots
– Various dwell times at various spots
• Unplanned “Stopping by”
– Not efficient route
– Many intersections in trajectory
13. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 13
Spatiotemporal Analysis
3D curve:
locations of visited spotsx
y
z dwell times at visited spots
more rambling
Y
X
Z
Y
X
Z
14. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 14
Knot Theory
unknot 3.1 4.1 5.1 5.2
6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 7.2
7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7
distinct knots (examples)
equivalent knots
unknot
15. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 15
Creating Knot
3D curve3D curve
ClosingClosing
SimplificationSimplification
start end
dwell time
trajectory
deform to
equivalent knots
3D curve
springspring
start
beadbead
spot spot
spot
end
16. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 16
Examples
Dispersal &
Unplanned
Dispersal &
Unplanned
Spatially biasedSpatially biased
Temporally biasedTemporally biased
Well scheduledWell scheduled
simplify
knot
unknot
unknot
unknot
dwell time length
transform
17. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 17
Determination of Rambling
knot
unknot
dwell time length
transform
Rambling
NOT Rambling
trajectory
18. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 18
Agenda
1. Introduction
2. Approach
– Spatiotemporal analysis
1. Case Study
– Campus festival
1. Conclusions
19. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 19
Campus Festival
Similar to towns
• Open to public
• Various spots and events
food stands, concerts, lectures…
Restricted space
• Controlled experiment
• Many trajectories at a time
Date: Oct. 12th and 13th, 2013
Location: The University of Aizu
Visitors: 5,200
Date: Oct. 12th and 13th, 2013
Location: The University of Aizu
Visitors: 5,200
20. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 20
Experiment Design
Indoor
Outdoor
100 m
beacon reader
( spot )
beacon venue
Date: Oct. 13th, 2013
Number of spots: 21
Participants: 135 groups
Regular visitors: 77%
Date: Oct. 13th, 2013
Number of spots: 21
Participants: 135 groups
Regular visitors: 77%
21. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 21
Evaluations
1. Inferring visitor satisfaction
– Were participants who rambled
satisfied?
1. Regular and non-regular difference
– Did non-regular visitors go around
venue much more?
22. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 22
Satisfaction Measure
• Difficult to understand visitor’s true impressions
• New measure:
• If overspending > 1.25:
more satisfied than expected
from 0.75 to 1.25: stayed on scheduled
(estimated error in planning: 0.25)
overspending =
actual spending time
planned spending time
23. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 23
1) Visitor Satisfaction
• Significant differences
(Fisher’s Exact Test: p=0.008)
• Finding
‒ Detecting rambling activities
‒ Inferring visitor satisfaction
• Significant differences
(Fisher’s Exact Test: p=0.008)
• Finding
‒ Detecting rambling activities
‒ Inferring visitor satisfaction
more satisfied with festival
than originally expected
more satisfied with festival
than originally expected
24. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 24
2) Regular and non-Regular Visitors
• NO significant differences
(Fisher’s Exact Test: p=0.51)
• Finding
‒ Influence of Social Validation:
Imitate others’ opinions and
behaviors
• NO significant differences
(Fisher’s Exact Test: p=0.51)
• Finding
‒ Influence of Social Validation:
Imitate others’ opinions and
behaviors
*regular visitors: 77%
25. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 25
Conclusions
• Detected trajectories caused by rambling activities
• Inferred visitor satisfaction
Future work:
Compare rambling activities between different environments
City A City B
27. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 27
Spot 1Spot 1 Spot 2Spot 2 Spot 3Spot 3 Spot 4Spot 4 Spot 5Spot 5
Adjusted Dwell Time
real dwell time
adjusted dwell time
order of length
10 120 1030 60
1 4 12 3
1L 4L 1L2L 3L
trajectory
• Emphasize variation in length of dwell time
*L: parameter
28. ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 28
Conventional Method
overspending time rateoverspending time rate
Difficult to infer participant satisfaction by
“trajectory length” and “spending-time at venue”
more satisfied with festival
than originally expected