Airport_Terminal_Signage

TERMINAL SIGNAGE
by
Vairavan Ganesh
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Aviation Administration
Middle Tennessee State University
August 2016
Thesis Committee:
Dr. Wendy S. Beckman, Chair
Dr. Paul A. Craig

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to extend my sincerest thanks and appreciation to my professors Dr. Wendy
S. Beckman and Dr. Paul A. Craig who helped me accomplish this study.
ii
ABSTRACT
The goal of this study was to make passengers’ lives easier inside an airport
terminal, by examining passengers’ ability to understand the terminal signs at
international airports. The terminal signs currently in place were evaluated for their
effectiveness through an online survey of participants, and feedback was collected from
these participants on how to improve the navigation process inside an airport terminal.
The results portrayed the influence of culture and the frequency of visits on wayfinding
ability inside an airport terminal. The recommendations made based on the findings of
this study will be helpful in reducing the stress level of passengers, reducing the
overcrowding of airports, and potentially saving a substantial amount of time for airport
staff and passengers.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER I- INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
Review of Literature ........................................................................................................... 3
People Perspective .............................................................................................................. 7
Effects of Terminal Signs on Different Cultures ................................................................ 8
Financial Aspects .............................................................................................................. 13
Challenges Due to Erratic Signs Outside the Airport ....................................................... 16
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 20
CHAPTER II- METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 22
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 22
Instruments ........................................................................................................................ 23
Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER III- DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 26
Survey ............................................................................................................................... 26
Participants’ Perceived Effectiveness of Airport Terminal Signs .................................... 30
Participants’ Knowledge about Existing Signs ................................................................. 35
iv
CHAPTER IV- DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 44
Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 45
Limitations of Research .................................................................................................... 46
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 47
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 49
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 51
APPENDIX A: IRB Approval .......................................................................................... 51
APPENDIX B: Informed Consent Statement ................................................................... 53
APPENDIX C: The Email that Was Sent to Graduate Students ...................................... 54
APPENDIX D: Online Survey Questions......................................................................... 55
APPENDIX E: List of International Airports Mentioned by Participants ........................ 58
APPENDIX F: Original Comments of the Participants………………………………….61
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Highest Education Level of Participants Who Took Part in the Survey ........... 27
Figure 2: Number of Participants Who Had Traveled Internationally ............................. 28
Figure 3: Number of times the Participants Had Visited the Airport Overall .................. 29
Figure 4: Participants' Time of Arrival at the Airport before the Scheduled Departure
Time .......................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 5: Effectiveness of Airport Terminal Signs ........................................................... 31
Figure 6: Level of Confusion Inside the International Airport Terminal ......................... 32
Figure 7: Time of Arrival of Participants at the Airport before the Scheduled Departure
Time .......................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 8: Level of Difficulty to Decipher the Terminal Signs.......................................... 34
Figure 9: Level of Satisfaction with the Current Terminal Signs ..................................... 35
Figure 10: Identify the Correct Meaning of the Terminal Sign in the Survey
Question 14 ............................................................................................................... 36
Question 15 ............................................................................................................... 37
Question 16 ............................................................................................................... 38
Question 17 ............................................................................................................... 39
Question 18 ............................................................................................................... 40
vi
Figure 15: Comparison between Countries of Citizenship of the Participants and their
Responses.................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 16: Comparison between Frequency of Visits and Responses .............................. 43
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Welcome Sign ...................................................................................................... 18
Table 2 Column Alphabetical Information Sign ............................................................... 19
Table 3 Terminal Sign Board 1 ......................................................................................... 19
viii
1
CHAPTER I- INTRODUCTION
Airport terminals continue to evolve as technology and the needs of passengers
change. Historically, an airport terminal was just a shelter for passengers to switch
between transportation modes, but today terminals around the world provide a range of
services and high quality travel experiences for air travelers. They have become
multifunctional facilities. The evolution of airport terminals includes not only the size of
the building, but also the variety and complexity of mechanical and service systems
incorporated within the building. Also, terminal buildings have become a convenient
place to do business, including department stores, food and beverage services, and
specialty retailers. Commercial designers are showing more interest in the business
opportunities that are offered by airport terminal buildings. But, passengers are often
concerned about reaching their departure gate before their scheduled departure time, and
all of these extra services can complicate the navigation of the airport terminal.
The signs in an airport terminal are essential for passengers to locate their gate for
a departing flight. If the passengers fail to decipher the navigation signs displayed at the
terminal, it will be difficult for them to reach their respective destination within the
available time. The lack of proper translation signs for simplistic navigation can cause
difficulty among the non-native language speakers at a particular facility. In considering
the effectiveness of the navigation signs, it is crucial to consider three prime factors, the
first being the design. This should be in a way where anybody from any part of the world
can comprehend what it is saying. Second, the location where the signs are placed is
important to help passengers reach their destination swiftly. Third, the signs used should
2
be easy to identify, taking into consideration all the sectors of passengers from different
nations.
The level of congestion at an airport can be a good indicator of the effectiveness
of the signs within the terminal. As an impact of aircraft delays or due to an imbalance
between supply and demand, there can be an overfilling of the terminals with passengers,
resulting in congestion. The congestion may be inversely proportional to the effectiveness
of the terminal signs. Proper signage can help assist in relieving some of this congestion.
One of the airport administration’s main aims is to process passengers quickly in order to
avoid congestion at the airport. The foot traffic at the airport can cause unnecessary
delays for the airport staff as well as for the passengers. It is international passengers who
mostly experience challenges due to the terminal signs. Domestic passengers would
usually be familiar with the navigation signs at an airport terminal and with the language
in which they are presented, as they may travel very frequently through the same airport
and they are proficient with the language.
In the present situation, at a major international airport, travelers can feel they are
finding their way through a maze. Proper terminal signs and way finding facilities can
reduce the challenges that passengers face inside the airport terminal. Also, appropriate
signage improves the efficiency of passenger movement. Developing signs and way
finding facilities are an on-going challenge faced by the terminal design community.
Terminal design seeks to naturally enhance the way finding ability of the passengers
through the airport terminal building. But in the case of a bad terminal design, the signs
and way finding facilities may be the only two supporting factors to reduce passenger
foot traffic congestion. It is impossible to reconstruct an entire terminal, as it involves a

3
lot of capital and a loss of income to the airport due to terminal closures. So considering
the passengers’ best interest and determining a suitable terminal sign system may provide
the best solution for a bad terminal design.
Review of Literature
A study by Fuller (2002) focused on signs at airports. Airport sign language has
been defined as an interface for social relations between humans and machines, which
urge the traveler to ‘move on.’ According to Auge, “The link between individuals and
their surroundings in space of non-place is established through the mediation of words, or
even text,” (1995, p. 94).
Here the author states that the signs at the airport create a globalized navigation
system. The major functions of airport sign as stated in this study are:
 Direction and orientation
 Identification of locations
 Information: on arrival and departures; baggage delivery; government regulations;
connecting transport; and special services, such as car rental; tourism and
conventions.
The author differentiates the texts representing the airport signs by the Federal. Aviation
Administration (Guidelines for Airport Signing and Graphics) and by the British Airport
Authority (Signs Manual). The actual purpose of the study was to examine the quality of
airport terminal signs along with its drawbacks (Fuller, 2002).
Fuller describes that many airports in developed countries have improved their
semiotic way finding technologies with international standards. Besides explaining the
principles of signage at the terminal, the author also describes the problem of recognition
4
and understanding of terminal signs faced by the passengers travelling across the world.
From previous literature on terminal signs Fuller believed that airports are not always
travelled with aid of landmarks but through signs. Also, the same idea was previously
supported by Auge (1995); it is evident from his statement “The link between individuals
and their surroundings in the space of non-place is established through the mediation of
words or even text.” But after conducting the research on terminals at Sydney
International Airport and Anchorage Airport, Fuller determined that landmarks also play
a crucial part in aiding passengers through their voyage inside the airport terminal. He
stated that there was a huge bell frog in a café at the Sydney Airport and a stuffed polar
bear at the Anchorage Airport respectively, and those two items served as a landmark for
passengers travelling through those airports. For instance, in case a family member who
is uneducated regarding the airport layout went missing inside the terminal; he/she would
probably use such factors as these landmarks to reach their family members. Similarly,
the retail shops, stuffed koalas, and native arts aided passengers inside the terminal of the
Sydney International Airport and the Anchorage Airport.
The major problem with the Sydney International Airport was that signage
designers outlined the signs in a way so that it was accessible only for technology savvy
people. Thus, it was mandatory for the international passengers to update themselves to
the latest technology in order to access the system efficiently. This is often not practically
possible for the passenger community. The automated machines or any other technology
based route finder machines should be designed in a way that it is easily accessible and
comprehensible for the entire passenger community (Fuller, 2002).

5
The ultimate goal of a way finding system, as stated in a 2011 report by Harding,
is to improve passengers’ efficiency. The strategy for developing an effective way
finding system consists of:
 Continuity
 Connectivity
 Consistency- Designing elements for consistency:
 Terminology and message hierarchy
 Visibility and legibility
 Typography and symbology
 Format and color
 Placement
The chapter regarding the terminal design in the report written by Harding
describes that the design of the terminal will have to be evaluated from the passenger’s
perspective in order to rectify the way finding issue. The author of this book suggests
conducting surveys every year at the airport to understand and work on the issues. He
also states that the terminal should include informational desks, directories and digital
directories in the future to be an efficient airport. The combination of symbols and text is
suggested as the best way of conveying the path to the international passengers (Harding,
2011).
Prioritization of information to the passengers to prevent stress or confusion is
clearly explained in this chapter. According to Harding the sign messages are categorized
under three basic lists; primary, secondary and tertiary. The primary information includes
terminal, ticketing/check-in, baggage claim and gates. Secondary information includes

6
restrooms, parking concessions and telephones. Tertiary information includes warnings
and ‘NO SMOKING’ messages (Harding, 2011). Finally, the usage of universal symbols,
concentrating on the lights, space, and other features, would definitely aid the way
finding ability of international passengers. Considering the airport’s background and the
demographics of incoming passengers are important before designing terminal signs.
A 2014 study by Symonds found that airports from different parts of the world
provide unique way finding experiences. The major issues faced by passengers at the
airport terminal are due to lack of ability to understand the signs or due to physical
disability. These issues create a situation even worse at larger airports such as London’s
Heathrow Airport, Denver International Airport or Chicago O’Hare Airport.
The author states that way finding efficiently is not an easy matter; therefore, the
airport has to consider a wide range of socio-cultural groups to design the terminal
effectively. He also explains the fact that because airports have different owners, it
becomes difficult to follow standard signage patterns. This study explains how airports
worldwide do not follow a standard signage procedure, which causes difficulties for
passengers. For example, the FAA guidelines are only followed by U.S. Airports and not
worldwide. The solution for this issue, as stated in this study, is to obtain feedback from
the passengers facing problems and to implement a standard international sign system
(Symonds, 2014).
Symond’s study (2014) describes the latest way finding and terminal signage
techniques used at Hartsfield- Jackson Atlanta International Airport, which was opened in
2012. It consists of more than 8,000 signs in the terminal. The coordination between the
7
workers in designing the terminal was the reason behind their success, as it appears to
serve the passengers in an efficient way. The features introduced in the terminal were:
 Walk this way (lighting)
 Dynamic displays (displaying multiple language)
 Architectural approach
Hartsfield –Jackson is the world’s busiest airport. Hundreds of contractors were involved
in building the airport (Symonds, 2014). Coordination between the
administration/workers and a good relationship with the passengers definitely created a
world-class travel experience for air travelers.
People Perspective
The report of a workshop held by Building Research Board (BRB), in cooperation
with the Transportation Research Board (TRB), on the future of airport passenger
terminals suggested some of the key features that have to be considered by the airport
management when designing terminals (National Research Council, 1989). These
include:
 Markings and design of direction flow
 Location and sizing of passenger services and amenities
 Walking distances and adequate space
 Readily available and understandable information to help discuss departures and
arrivals
 Systems that aids mobility to be vital part of the terminal design

8
 Logical circulation patterns, reinforced by clear and consistent graphics and
information systems
Also, the participants of this study (National Research Council, 1989) suggested
that a forum that can bring the interests of airlines, airport operators, and passengers
together could potentially give an objective third-party review of terminal designs. These
above-mentioned features would help in reducing the stress level of passengers, reducing
the overcrowding of airports, and potentially saving a substantial amount of time for
airport staff and passengers. The conclusion of the study (National Research Council,
1989) suggests that, as the demands for air travel is continuously growing and
development of new aircraft and technologies are never ending, the airport designers
must learn how to make modifications in the terminal design to function effectively. The
participants of this study stated that there is need for more research to deal with the
problems of future airport terminal buildings.
Effects of Terminal Signs on Different Cultures
The bilingual signage system has become common in today’s airports. There are
two main reasons an airport planner may decide to go with bilingual signs at an airport.
The first reason would be due to the increase of foreign passenger traffic at that airport,
and the second being the changes in the population of the community in which the airport
is located. According to the United States Census Bureau (Castro, 2007) the second
largest population in the United States is Spanish. Due to the increase in Spanish
speaking travelers, it is not a surprise to see Spanish language in the airport sign systems
of the United States.

9
Castro (2007) conducted a study to determine the user perspective of modern
bilingual airport signage, and proposed a standard design to improve English-Spanish
signage systems. The main goal of Castro’s project was to develop a useful system for
travelers in the United States. The study involved data collected through 3 stages. The
first stage included a 15-question survey that was distributed to 45 individuals whose
primary language was Spanish. This stage was designed to get opinions about the
usefulness of the existing bilingual sign system. The second survey aided in collecting the
correct Spanish translation for the airport functions. The translation lists used in this part
of the study were taken from Miami International Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport, the Houston Airport Authority and the Port Authority for New
York and New Jersey. The last stage of the study was a design experiment followed by a
feedback session from the participants.
There were three hypotheses considered in this study (Castro, 2007). The first
hypothesis stated that the current bilingual (English-Spanish) system in the airport, from
the perspective of Spanish speakers, is considered as necessary, but the design and
content are not perceived to be satisfactory by the users. The second hypothesis specified
that the translations used for the airport functions were perceived to be outdated and not
really helpful to the users. A consolidated list of popularly used Spanish translations for
the airport functions could be collected and produced. The third hypothesis stated a case
for the existence of a better combination of signs and text, which could be considered to
be more favorable to the Spanish speakers over the existing combination.
Castro utilized three steps to collect the responses as discussed above. The first
phase tested hypothesis one, and consisted of 15-question survey set up online. The
10
survey was limited to Spanish-speaking airport users with Limited English Proficiency
(LEP), because travelers with a good level of English knowledge would prefer English
over Spanish signs and texts. The participants were recruited through a word of mouth
strategy and the survey was distributed via an email invitation. The survey was open to
collect responses for 60 days and was available to all Spanish-speaking airport users
across the United States and as well as other Spanish speaking countries (who travelled in
the United States for business or pleasure). The second phase of the methodology was to
prove or disprove the second hypothesis. The consolidated list of translations of airport
functions were collected from the 5 international airports mentioned earlier. An online
survey was developed using the Spanish translations as a guide, and this time the survey
was not limited to the Spanish speaking users with LEP, but understanding the airport
functions in English was a requirement of the participants. For the terminology that was
translated differently in each of the researched airports, multiple-choice questions were
developed and the Spanish speaking users were told to select the closest match. Since the
terminology had little difference from airport to airport, the participants were asked to
select agree or disagree with translated airport terminal function. The survey was
distributed via email similar to the first phase of the study and the same strategy was
utilized by Castro (2007) to recruit participants. It was open to collect responses for 45
days.
The objective of the third phase was to observe whether a set of graphical
standards exist such that the Spanish message on bilingual signs is more understandable
and legible for Spanish speaking users, thus proving or disproving the third hypothesis.
The participants of this study were bilingual (English- Spanish) with Spanish as their first
11
language, and differed by nationality, age, and gender. This was an experimental study
with 38 slides; participants were allowed to see each slide for about 7 seconds only and
they were told to write down in which direction they would choose to go if they were
trying to reach the airport function indicated by the researcher. The third phase was
conducted in groups in order to obtain maximum responses in a very short time. Also,
they were encouraged to give feedback regarding the background color, placement, font,
and size.
In the Castro study, hypothesis one was proven true. After analyzing the results
from phase one, it became evident that the Spanish-speaking airport users felt the existing
bilingual signs were not very useful but necessary. Some of the areas where improvement
was needed, as identified by the participants, were in the translations, font size,
placement of the message, grammatical errors, and Anglicism. The inconsistencies in the
translation of airport terminology into Spanish became obvious after looking at the results
of the second phase of this study (Castro, 2007). A consolidated list of translations of
airport functions in Spanish was considered possibly a better solution to ease the lack of
standards in the existing airport terminology in Spanish. The results from the second
phase supported the second hypothesis of the study (Castro, 2007). Analysis of the results
from the third experiment supported the third hypothesis. It was apparent that Spanish-
speaking users favor a bilingual signage layout in which the Spanish translation is placed
in proximity to the primary message and the international symbol. They also favor
Spanish translations that have the same height as the primary message but are
distinguished from the rest of the text by the use of background color (Castro, 2007).
12
A 2012 study (Leib, Dillman, Petrin, and Young) was conducted to develop
knowledge on the effects of terminal signs at an airport on two different cultures. The
authors of this study stated that processing the passengers quickly and effectively were
the target of all airport administrators. The author also broke the way finding down into
three types, recreational way finding (least urgent), resolute way finding (the efficient
route), and emergency way finding. This study evaluated the way finding abilities of the
passengers from two different cultures, American and Chinese.
The method used to collect the data was by a computer simulation that included
20 participants consisting of Americans, Chinese, and Taiwanese. Participants were
formed into two groups: Group one represented participants from the American culture
and group two was participants from Chinese or Taiwanese culture. The computer
simulation presented ten rounds of sign paths, each round using three different styles of
signs: 1) only symbols, 2) only text, 3) combination of both. The time taken for each
participant to reach the destination was collected in each scenario. The statistical
analyzing tool ANOVA was used to determine the performance of both the groups in
aggregate scale (Leib et al., 2012).
The analyses of data according to Leib et al. (2012) showed that the Chinese
group made 61.56% more errors than the American group. All 20 participants who
participated in the study responded better to the style that was composed of a
combination of sign and text. Looking at the results from the data collected, the American
group appeared to respond more efficiently to the signage compared to the Chinese
group. It was found that there was a statistical difference in speed between the groups,
13
and their priorities were clearly different. The difference among the cultures was clearly
influencing the passenger’s way finding abilities.
Financial Aspects
Airports are highly capital-intensive infrastructure businesses that require major
support from the federal, state, city, and local governments in order to be successful. The
aviation industry influences the nation’s economy, it is evident from the following
statement (Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], 2015, p. 1) “In 2012, U.S. civil
aviation-related economic activity generated $1.5 trillion and supported 11.8 million jobs
with $ 459.4 billion in earnings. Civil aviation accounted for 5.4 percent of U.S. Gross
Domestic Product (GDP).” Currently, the air transportation industry is growing rapidly;
people all around the world have started showing more interest towards air travel (FAA,
2015). The aviation industry in the United States is constantly growing. It is the duty of
airport management to analyze the demand for the future and expand, renovate, and
maintain the airport facilities. The airlines and other airport users contribute to the airport
development through rents and service/facility charges. Sometimes, they also take part in
decision-making processes of the airport projects (Moores, Kuhn, & Govindasamy,
2009).
There is no standard device to measure the services provided at an airport. It is
difficult for anybody (passengers and airport users) to come to a conclusion about the
effectiveness of the design and operating characteristics of a terminal building. As an
impact of aircraft delays or due to an imbalance between supply and demand, there can
be an overfilling of the terminals with passengers resulting in congestion.

14
It is very important to improve, modify, and repair terminal buildings; however,
not every airport has the capital to continuously develop. There are various factors that
hinder the growth of the airport such as regulations (state, federal, and city), airport
neighbors, and financial health of the airport (National Research Council (U.S.), 1989).
Airport management may struggle to keep their airport strong against future traffic, low
commercial profits, and low credit. An economic downturn or a recession period not only
affects the airline companies but also the airports. Statistics from a study conducted by
Moores, Kuhn, and Govindasamy (2009) shows that in 2007, 13 of the top 100 ranked
airports faced traffic declines, while in 2008 the number experiencing declines increased
to 53. During a downturn, as airlines struggles for survival, it can become impossible for
the airports and airlines to have a conversation or make a deal to resolve the terminal
issue, as airport facilities are often based upon several air carriers (Moores, Kuhn, &
Govindasamy, 2009).
The most important factor of airport planning is to secure financing, but many
airports fail to do this and even if they do, they end up struggling to complete the project
due to unplanned expenses. Long term planning is also not always successful, which is
explained clearly in the statement of Jean Michel Vernes, “The challenge is we are not
building for 5 to 10 years we are building for 30 years. We are having to take decisions in
a context, which is not very well defined” (Moores, Kuhn, & Govindasamy, 2009, p. 50).
The economic downturns in a nation can lead to situations such as reduced traffic, limited
access to capital, and threatened future demand. In this situation some airports might
postpone or withdraw their capital projects in order to sustain the situation. Thus, the
airport would be forced to reduce their fees to the airlines, but this action can spoil the
15
essential future projects of the airports (Moores, Kuhn, & Govindasamy, 2009). Airport
management often puts a lot of effort into reducing their charges, but there are some
arguments supporting the airlines; “Airport cost in isolation, not including air traffic fees,
are very small in terms of economic costs of an airline; they don’t have a dramatic
impact. It is a matter of principle for airlines to say it is too much and that they must be
reduced,” (Moores, Kuhn, & Govindasamy, 2009, p. 50). Chief executive Sani Sener
explains in the study (Moores, Kuhn, & Govindasamy, 2009) that in order to be
successful there has to be co-operation between the airline and airport, but the reality is
that airlines are trying to maximize their revenue, whereas the airports are trying to
reduce their fees to the airlines during economic downturns. So clearly there can be a lack
of cooperation between the airport and airlines; it is competition. If there is a
disagreement with taxes or charges, airlines have the ability to choose their markets,
while airports cannot just roll up an existing facility and relocate it elsewhere. Glitten
explains the situation very well by his statement “airports are stuck, they can’t go and
find a more attractive market; they have to make their market more attractive to airlines
and to passengers” (Moores, Kuhn, & Govindasamy, 2009, p. 51).
Consolidation has reduced the number of airlines and led to the evolution of
bigger airlines with greater negotiating strength. But airports feel they are suffering a
hangover from their state owned utility days, when airlines needed to be protected from a
monopoly supplier. The charges at the airport must be fully transparent, unlike air carrier
fares. Airlines protect themselves by merging, while airports such as the British Airport
Authority (BAA) were told to sell some of its facilities during recession. The statement
16
by Neil Pakey explains this situation very well “people need to stop seeing airports as a
monopoly and a cash cow,” (Moores, Kuhn, & Govindasamy, 2009, p. 51).
Airlines are showing more interest in dealing with privately owned airports, as
privatized airports will be more eager to share their risks. Norwegian chief operating
office Daniel Skjeldam supports privatization by his statement “Dealing with private
airport groups is something we like,” (Moores, Kuhn, & Govindasamy, 2009, p. 51).
Challenges can emerge overnight at an airport, threatening traffic flows. The best
example would be the swine flu epidemic during the period 2002-2003 at Malaysian
airport. These challenges were successfully managed only through a partnership, airport
and airline. A good relationship between airports and airlines is always important for the
success of air transportation industry, Malaysian airports managing director Bashir
Ahmad indicates this with his statement, “we realize the seriousness of the situation and
the importance of good airport-airline relationship,” (Moores, Kuhn, & Govindasamy,
2009, p. 52).
Looking at capital needs, United States airports support their infrastructure costs
by collecting a passenger facility fee of up to $4.50, which is much less than the fee
required to save for the new projects. This situation was clearly indicated in the statement
by Prinicipato “The money that we are collecting now is for old projects and projects
which are already underway. There is nothing for new projects and many airports have
their PFC pledged out over 20-40 years," (Moores, Kuhn, & Govindasamy, 2009, p. 52).
Challenges Due to Erratic Signs Outside the Airport
Air travelers not only have problems in determining their destinations inside the
airports, but also getting to the airports. This was evident from an article (Finally, 2010)
17
about Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Sometimes, it can be a challenge
for the passengers to drive into the right terminal of the airport. Minneapolis St. Paul
International Airport MSP.
MSP is an airport that has two terminals, three miles apart from each other
(Finally, 2010). Passengers driving into this airport have challenges starting from the
federal highway I-494 itself. Historically, due to the poor signage system towards the
airport terminal, many passengers took the wrong exit and missed their flights. The two
terminals at MSP were named after famous aviators Charles Lindbergh and Vice
President Hubert H. Humphrey. Until the year 2000, Humphrey was a little used charter
terminal (Finally, 2010). The signs were changed after Humphrey added scheduled air
services. Slowly major air carriers moved into the Humphrey terminal. This created a big
confusion for the passengers; they were confused in figuring out their departure terminal.
The signboard with the names Lindbergh and Humphrey made no sense to the passengers
travelling into MSP. After almost ten years of struggle, the airport management was able
to resolve this significant customer service issue. The reason it took so long for the
airport management to react is that they could not get approval for the project initially
due to the state and federal regulations. This prevented the installation of a sign listing
airline names, as officials worried this change could cause accidents and the traffic to
slow down at the highway (Finally, 2010).
The study “Airport Terminal Signs” conducted by Kichhanagari, Motley, Fisher,
and Duffy in (2001) had the potential solution to resolve the issues with terminal signs, as
implementing the results of this study could reduce confusion along the roadways to and
from the airport. This study was conducted to prove that an advanced information sign
18
system will aid passengers in finding the right terminal and also reduce the search time
by as much as 50 percent. The terminals were each assigned with a letter.
In this study (Kichhanagari et al., 2001) the column followed an alphabetical
format in which the airlines were listed alphabetically across the columns of each
terminal signs as well as within the terminal sign. The terminal letter was mentioned after
each airline name. The experiment consisted of four terminal signs in total. The
participants of this study were graduate and undergraduate students from University of
Massachusetts, Amherst. It was a paper and pencil experiment, conducted under two
conditions (Column alphabetical condition and standard condition) with 12 trials in each
condition. In one condition (standard) the first page contained the target airline and was
then followed by the welcome sign with a terminal letter (refer table 1). The third and
fourth page had the four terminal sign boards (refer table 3-6); each terminal sign had
nine airline names arranged in three columns alphabetically. Three separated flaps were
taped to each column, which covered the names in each column. In the second condition
(column alphabetical), as in the first condition the target airline appeared in the first page.
However, the standard welcoming sign was followed by column alphabetical information
sign (refer table 2). Four terminal signs then followed this. Participants used 4 terminal
signs on each trial; 48 signs were used for 12 trials.
Table 1 Welcome Sign
Welcome to Logan International Airport
A B C D
Match Your Airline with Your Terminal Letter

19
Table 2 Column Alphabetical Information sign
Airlines Listed Alphabetically in Columns
Identify Your Column
Iberia Lanchile Reno Air
Kuwait Quantas World
Table 3 Terminal Sign Board 1
Iberia – D Lanchile – C Reno Air – B
Iceland Air – B Lufthansa – D Royal Cambodian – C
Impulse – A Lux air – A Royal Dutch – A
Indian – D Malaysian – A Singapore – B
Indonesian – C Midway – C Southwest – D
JAT Yugoslav – B Nepal – C Swiss Air – B
Jet Airways – A Northwest – C Thai Air – B
Jet Blue – B O’ Connor – D Turkish – A
Kenya – D Olympic – C Uganda – C

20
Kitty Hawk – C Oneida – A Virgin – C
KLM – D Pakistan – B WestJet – D
Kuwait – B Quantas – A World – C
The results (Kichhanagari et al., 2001) showed that participants performed better
in column alphabetical conditions. As airports are continuously expanding and becoming
more congested, integrating these elements in the ground signage system would help
passengers choose the right terminal and direction with less effort and time involved. The
advance information sign system can be used in a number of locations and not just for
airports.
Statement of the Problem
This study examines passengers’ ability to understand the terminal signs at
international airports. Positive and negative feedback regarding the terminal signs will be
collected through an online survey. Difficulties faced by passengers will be analyzed and
suggestions for change will be developed through this survey. This will be helpful in
reducing the stress level of passengers, reducing the overcrowding of airports, and
potentially saving a substantial amount of time for airport staff and passengers. The
results of this study will not only help in improving the terminal signs but will also
contribute to signage simplicity for airport navigation worldwide. The challenge of
processing the passengers belonging to a variety of cultures is a difficult task, but this
21
study proposes to identify the issues in it. The research questions that will be addressed in
this study are:
1. How effective are the signs at the international airport terminals experienced by
travelers in the last year, as measured by:
a) How difficult was it for the passengers to determine their destination gate?
b) Were the passengers able to reach the destination gate without any confusion?
c) Was it easy for the participants to decipher the signs?
d) Were the signs placed in the appropriate places of the airport terminal?
2. How can terminal signs at an airport be further improved to make the navigation
process simpler for the passengers?
3. What other facilities can be brought into the airport terminal to aid the passengers
in finding their way to the destination gate?
To design a successful signage system, a thorough understanding of airport
circulation pattern and functional relationship is required. Also, evaluating the existing
signage system is a must, with more concentration towards the color used, content and
hierarchy, and functionality and maintenance. There cannot be a single standard that can
be used at the airports around the world, as proper signage depends upon each location
and the populations of communities near the airport. However, the content and
approach/concept in which the design has to be developed will be the same. A set of
recommendations will be developed and proposed from the results of this study, which
will be helpful for designers in developing an effective sign system for future terminals.
22
CHAPTER II- METHODOLOGY
A survey research methodology was utilized in this study. This method was
appropriate for the study because it allows generalization of the results from a sample to a
larger population. The survey was set up online using the tool Survey Monkey. The
online survey was convenient for this research because conducting surveys in person with
the passengers at an international airport would be a tedious job. Most of the time
passengers would be in a hurry to reach their gate before the scheduled departure time
and even if they happened to take the survey, the true responses from them might be
comparatively low. Conducting the survey online was time effective and led to a higher
response rate. By not asking for the name of any participant, anonymity was provided for
the participants. The survey was intended to provide the opinion and attitude of the
airline passenger community towards the terminal sign system at an international airport.
This survey consisted of straightforward questions, with both open-ended and Likert
scale data generated. This study was approved by Middle Tennessee State University’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB), Approval # 16-1161. The approval letter can be seen
in Appendix A, and the informed consent statement can be seen in Appendix B.
Participants
The participants of this study were graduate students at Middle Tennessee State
University (MTSU). The link to the survey was sent to these graduate students via email
from the MTSU College of Graduate Studies. The email that was sent to the graduate
students can be seen in Appendix C.
The number of MTSU graduate students in the spring 2016 semester was
approximately 2,200, and the Dean of Graduate Studies sent the email containing the link
23
to the survey to each of these students. However, the survey was designed in a way such
that participants who have not travelled internationally in the last year were automatically
taken to the last page of the survey. In other words, their comments were not considered
in the data analysis section. This study needed opinions only from the participants who
travelled internationally, because passengers’ airports in their native country would be
familiar with the local language, and it is non-native passengers who struggle to
understand airport signs. The lack of proper translation signs for simplistic navigation can
cause difficulty among the non-native language speakers at a particular facility.
Instruments
The instrument utilized for this study included the online survey and statistical
tools with which to analyze the collected data. All of these instruments were used in a
way to ensure that the data collected would provide the correct information needed to
draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of terminal sign system at airports. The
questions were designed to be straightforward and accurately derive the desired
information. The questions were presented to the thesis committee for input and advice.
Alterations were then made according to the input received. The final survey included 19
questions. The survey in its entire can be found in Appendix D.
The first few questions inquired about the participant’s demographic information
such as country of citizenship and education level. This was followed by questions to
determine if the participant had travelled internationally. Again, the survey was designed
in such a way that if a participant answered that he/she had not travelled internationally,
they were automatically taken to the last page of the survey. These responses were
considered as incomplete and were not taken into account for further analysis. If a
24
participant answer yes to the first question, stating that he/she had travelled
internationally, they were allowed to answer the rest of the questions in the survey.
Participants were then asked about their attitude and opinion towards the terminal sign
system at the international airport that they had visited recently. Questions 8 to 13
determined the difficulty level, misperception, and experience that the participants had
been through inside an airport terminal. These questions were designed to answer the first
research question, which determines the effectiveness of the signs at the international
airport terminals in the last year. Some of the actual signs obtained from the current
aviation symbol standards section in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory
Circular No: 150/5360-12F were placed in the survey for questions 13 to 18, and the
respondents were asked to determine the appropriate meaning of the signs. Non-language
signs were added to make the survey more impactful and determine how well participants
would understand its purpose inside an airport terminal. Part of research question one,
which determines if it was easy for the passengers to decipher the signs at the airport
terminal, was determined from the survey questions, which included non-language signs.
The last question in the survey was a comment-based question, where participants were
given an opportunity to type in their thoughts about how to improve terminal signs and
make the process of finding their way simpler. Research questions 2 and 3, which
identifies the improvements in signs and facilities that can be brought inside the airport
terminal, were based upon participants’ answers to the last question in the survey.
Procedure
An email with a brief introduction about the research study including the link to
the survey was sent to the students via email from the MTSU College of Graduate
25
Studies. Once the participants clicked on the link, they were taken to the survey and
asked for consent. There were no time limits set for any questions in the survey;
participants were allowed to take sufficient time to answer the questions. The survey was
active for four weeks and no follow-up reminders were sent to the students.
The collected data was transferred from Survey Monkey to Microsoft Excel
spreadsheets. It was organized in a manner that allowed comparisons of the responses for
each question. The responses from the participants were measured in the Likert-scale,
which made the data analysis process simpler. Likert -Scale questions pair best with the
Chi-Square calculation, as this will work irrespective of the number of responses.

26
CHAPTER III- DATA ANALYSIS
The data analysis method employed varied by type of survey question that was
presented. The demographic questions asked on the survey question 2-8 are descriptively
reported below and represented in bar graphs. The reported ability of the participants to
understand airport signs was analyzed using Chi square two-tailed test. In addition, the
participants’ perceived effectiveness of airport terminal signs, as collected by the survey
questions 9-13, was also analyzed using a Chi square test
Chi square test are used to determine if a relationship exist between two or more
categorical variables. Chi-square tests were performed for the Likert-Scale questions, and
based on the P value obtained the null hypothesis was either accepted or rejected. The
null hypothesis of this study for all questions was that there is no difference between the
responses of the participants; meaning the effectiveness of the terminal signs at the
airport is neutral, or that they do not need to be improved nor is it substandard.
Survey
Question 2 on the survey determined the highest education level of the
participants. As seen in Figure 1, a large majority of the participants (42 students) had a
master’s degree, 27 participants had an undergraduate degree, and 3 participants had a
doctorate degree
27
Doctorate
Type of degree
Graduate
Undergraduate
High School
0 10 20 30 40 50
Percentage
Figure 1: Highest Education Level of Participants Who Took Part in the Survey
Question 3 determined the country of citizenship of the participants. The
respondents were predominantly from the United States, India, Germany, and Nigeria.
Question 4 determined if the participant had travelled internationally. This question
followed a loop; if a participant answered no to question 4 then he or she was taken out of
the survey. Participants who had no international travel experience would not be able to
answer the survey questions precisely, as the questions in the survey were based upon
experience at international airports. Out of the total of 72 participants, 58 of them
answered that they had travelled internationally (refer to Figure 2).

28
Traveled internationally
No
Yes
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Percentage
Figure 2: Number of Participants Who Had Traveled Internationally
Question 5 collected the names of the international airports that the participants
had been to in the last year, and they were told to answer the following survey questions
based on this named airport. The answers included Nashville International Airport
(BNA), London Heathrow Airport (LHR), Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International
Airport (ATL), and several others. A complete list of the airports mentioned by the
participants can be seen in Appendix E. Questions 6 and 7 collected the respondents’ year
of visit and number of visits to the international airport answered in question 5. The data
collected from the respondents for question 7 is represented below in Figure 3. The
majority of the participants had travelled more than 5 times through the same
international airport.
29
Question 8 determined the time of arrival of the participants at the international
airport before their scheduled departure time. The responses of the participants are
represented below in Figure 4. The data shows that majority of the participants arrived at
the airport 2 to 3 hours prior to their scheduled departure time.
Five
Four
Frequency
Three
Two
one
0 5 10 15 20
Percentage
Figure 3: Number of Times the Participants Had Visited the Airport Overall
30
Five
Hours before departure Four
Three
Two
One
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Percentage
Figure 4: Participants’ Time of Arrival at the Airport before the Scheduled
Departure Time
Participants’ Perceived Effectiveness of Airport Terminal Signs
The total number of responses to question 9, which questioned the effectiveness
of the terminal signs at the airport, was 50 (refer to Figure 5). Again, the null hypothesis
of this study predicts that there was no difference in the responses between each
category. In the Chi-square calculation the null is what is called the Expected Frequency.
So the answers in the expected column is represented as 10 for each category, since there
were 5 responses possible (see Figure 5). The Observed Frequency is what the people
who answered the question responded. The observed data for question 9 was imported
from Survey Monkey. Chi square is calculated by comparing the observed frequency
with the expected frequency. In the case of this question, Chi squared is 51.800 with 4
degrees of freedom. The two-tailed P value is 7.3E-11, which is less than 0.0001. By
conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant.

31
A small P value is evidence that the data is different than the distribution expected. In this
case, the null hypothesis would be rejected. It is clearly evident from the responses that
the participants feel the current terminal signs system at international airports are
effective.
Very ineffective
Current sign effectiveness
Not effective
Neutral
Effective
Very effective
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Percentage
Figure 5: Effectiveness of Airport Terminal Signs
The number of responses for question 10, which determined how frequently the
participants were confused inside an airport terminal, was 51 (refer to Figure 6). So the
expected frequency was represented as 10.2 for each category. Chi squared for this
question is 43.01 with 4 degrees of freedom. The two-tailed P value is 4.9E-9, which is
less than 0.0001. By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be extremely
statistically significant. The null hypothesis is rejected due to the small P value. The
responses from participants clearly implies that they were rarely confused inside an
airport terminal.
32
Never
Confusion level
Rarely
Occasionally
Frequently
Very frequently
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Percentage
Figure 6: Level of Confusion Inside the International Airport Terminal
The number of responses for question 11, which determined the time of arrival of
the participants at the airport, was 51 (refer to Figure 7). So, the expected frequency was
represented as 10.2 for each category. Chi squared is 117.5 with 4 degrees of freedom.
The two-tailed P value is 8.8E-25, which is less than 0.0001. By conventional criteria,
this difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant, thereby it rejects the
null hypothesis. The participants arrived well in advance at their terminal gate.
33
Behind Schedule
Last-minute
Arrival time
On-time
Just before
Well in advance
0 10 20 30 40 50
Percentage
Figure 7: Time of Arrival of Participants at the Airport before the Scheduled
Departure Time
The number of responses for question 12, which determined the difficulty level of
participants in finding the right terminal gate, was 51 (refer to Figure 8). So, the expected
frequency was represented as 10.2 for each category. Chi squared is 34.9 with 4 degrees
of freedom. The two-tailed P value is 2.2E-7, which is less than 0.0001. By conventional
criteria, this difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant. The
participants found the terminal signs to be easy to decipher and it easy to find their way
inside the airport, which again rejects the null hypothesis.

34
Very easy
Difficulty level
Easy
Neutral
difficult
Very difficult
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Percentage
Figure 8: Level of Difficulty to Decipher the Terminal Signs
The number of responses for question 13, which determined the satisfaction level
of the participants with the current standard terminal sign system, was 50 (refer to Figure
9). So, the expected frequency was represented as 10 for each category. Chi squared is
33.8 with 4 degrees of freedom. The two-tailed P value is 3.8E-7, which is less than
0.0001. By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be extremely statistically
significant. The small P value makes it evident that the expected frequency generated
through theory is wrong and rejects the null hypothesis. Participants seem to be
somewhat to very satisfied with the current standard of terminal signs.

35
Very dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Satisfaction level
Neutral
Somewhat satisfied
Very satisfied
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percentage
Figure 9: Level of Satisfaction with the Current Terminal Signs
Participants’ Knowledge about Existing Signs
The questions from 14-18 requested the participants to identify the meaning of the
terminal signs displayed. Each question had three options to choose from. The number of
responses for question 14, which determined the ability of the participants to identify the
meaning of the current standard sign, was 51 (refer to Figure 10). So the expected
frequency was represented as 17 for each category. For this question Chi squared is 11.4,
with 2 degrees of freedom. The two-tailed P value is 0.0033. By conventional criteria,
this difference is considered to be very statistically significant. This rejects the null
hypothesis. Most of the participants incorrectly identified the meaning of the sign shown
in question 14; the right answer was “immigration” and only 14 out of 51 participants
answered it correctly.
36
Security
Immigration (Correct answer)

Choices
Customs
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Percentage
Question 14
The number of responses for question 15, which determined the participants’
ability to decipher the standard sign that was displayed, was 51 (refer to Figure 11). So
the expected frequency was represented as 17 for each category. Chi squared is 19.1 with
2 degrees of freedom. The two-tailed P value is 3.4E-5, which is less than 0.0001. By
The null hypothesis is rejected due to the small P value, and again most of the
participants incorrectly identified the meaning of the sign shown in question 15. The
correct answer was “cross walk” and only 20 out of 51 participants answered it correctly.
37
Choices Sidewalk
Cross walk (correct answer)
Moving walkway
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Percentage
Question 15
The number of responses for question 16, which determined the ability of the
participant to decipher the standard sign depicted, was 50 (refer to Figure 12). So the
expected frequency was represented as 16.67 for each category. Chi squared is 72.2 with
2 degrees of freedom. The two-tailed P value is 1.1E-16, which is less than 0.0001. By
A large number of participants identified the correct meaning of the sign shown in
question 16. The correct answer was “ticket purchase”.

38
Choices Immigration
Ticket Purchase (correct

answer)
Meeter/Greeter
0 10 20 30 40 50
Percentage
Question 16
The number of responses for question 17, which determined the ability of the
participant to identify the meaning of the current standard sign displayed, was 51 (refer to
Figure 13). So the expected frequency was represented as 17 for each category. Chi
squared is 74.2 with 2 degrees of freedom. The two-tailed P value is 3.7E-17, which is
statistically significant. Again, most of the participants identified the correct answer for
the sign shown in question 17. The correct answer was “lost and found”.
39
Lost and found (correct answer)

Choices
Symbol for rainy day
Shop umbrella
0 10 20 30 40 50
Percentage
Question 17
The number of responses for question 18, which determined the participants’
ability to identify the meaning of current standard terminal sign displayed, was 49 (refer
to Figure 14). So the expected frequency was represented as 16.3 for each category. Chi
squared is 53.9 with 2 degrees of freedom. The two-tailed P value is 9.7E-13, which is
statistically significant. Most of the participants got the answer correct by identifying the
appropriate meaning for the sign shown in question 18. The correct answer was “flight
information”.
40
Flight information (correct

Choices answer)
Hotel information
Information desk
0 10 20 30 40 50
Percentage
Question 18
On further examination of the data, out of the 58 participants who had traveled
internationally, approximately 30-40 answered that the current terminal sign system at
international airports are effective, easy to decipher, and not confusing. Out of these 30-
40 participants only one participant identified the meaning of all five signs in the survey
correctly, others had one or two answers wrong. The one participant who identified the
meaning of all five signs correctly mentioned in the survey that he or she has travelled
through Nashville International Airport in the United States, and has travelled there more
than five times overall. The most recent visit, as mentioned by that one participant, was
two months ago.
Question 19 requested the participants to comment on how the terminal signs can
be improved or modified to make the way finding process simpler inside an airport. The
41
participants made several comments; all of these comments were grouped based upon
their similarity. The original comments from all the participants are attached under
Appendix F.
Suggestions summarized from survey question 19 are:
 Publish a legend or sign key of each symbol of the sign system and have it
available for viewing at several locations within the airport or attach it to the
ticket. A total of four responses fell in this category.
 Develop universal symbols and color codes for signs, which a layman could
understand. Four responses supported this suggestion. Four other responses from
the participants supported this suggestion.
 Develop a smart phone application similar to a map application, so that
passengers can put in their destination terminal and route. One participant
suggested this solution.
 Provide approximate distance or time taken to reach the terminal while printing
the tickets at the counter. One participant suggested this solution.
 Include short description of the signs in the English language. Four responses
supported this suggestion.
 Appoint more staff (multi-linguistic talent preferred) to work at the terminal and
help confused passengers to determine their way. One participant suggested this
solution.
To obtain additional perspectives, the countries of citizenship of the participants and
their ability to identify the meaning of the sign displayed in the question was compared
and averages were taken (refer to Figure 15). It was evident that the United States citizens
42
(native students) had more knowledge about the signs and their definitions than other
citizens (international students), as native students were able to identify 4 out of 5
questions correctly.
India
Country of citizenship
Multiple citizenship
United States
Nigeria
0 1 2 3 4 5
Average
Figure 15: Comparison between Countries of Citizenship of the Participants and
their Responses
When comparing the frequency of visits to the airport reported by the participants
with their ability to identify the definition of the presented signs, it was found that
participants who traveled three or more times identified most of the sign’s definitions
correctly (see Figure 16). However, there was not a significant difference seen between
the groups.
43
One
Freqency of flights
Two
Three
Four
Five or more
0 1 2 3 4
Average
Figure 16: Comparison between Frequency of Visits and Responses

44
CHAPTER IV- DISCUSSION
This study was designed to determine the effectiveness of the current airport
terminal sign system through the investigation of the three research questions:
effectiveness of terminal signs at an international airport in the last year, how can the
terminal signs be improved to make the navigation process simpler, and what other
facilities can be brought into the airport terminal to aid the passengers in finding their
way. After the data collection and analysis, it was determined that there was a significant
relationship between the country of citizenship of the participants and their ability to
identify the meaning of the signs. This relationship shows that citizens from developing
countries such as Nigeria and India are finding it a bit difficult to understand the signs
when compared to citizens of developed countries such as, in this case, the United States.
Also, the relationship between the frequency of visits to the airport and the capability of
identifying the meaning of the signs was established, but no significant difference was
found between the groups. The reason may be due to a low sample size.
The participants, perceived effectiveness was positive, as most of them indicated
that the sign system that is currently in place is very effective for allowing them to find
their way inside an airport terminal. Therefore, the answer to the first research question
“How effective are the signs at the international airport terminals experienced by
travelers in the last year?” is yes, they are effective. The sub questions under first
research questions, which queried regarding the difficulty level, misperceptions, and
experiences that the participants had been through inside an airport terminal, also had a
majority of positive responses from the participants. Hence, the answers to these
questions was yes, the signs were not perceived to be confusing and yes, it was easy for
45
the participants to find the way to their destination gate. However, out of all the
participants who mentioned that the signs seem to be effective and non-confusing, only
one was able to identify the meaning of all the five signs presented during the survey
correctly. This implies that participants have a wrong perspective about their
understanding of the current sign standards and there is likely a need for these to be
improved and made simpler for passengers to decipher. So, the answer to the sub
question “Was it easy for the participants to decipher the signs?” is no.
The next research questions in this study are “How can terminal signs at an airport
be further improved to make the navigation process simpler for the passengers?” and
“What other facilities can be brought into the airport terminal to aid the passengers in
finding their way to the destination gate?” Comments based responses from the
participants were collected, analyzed, and grouped based upon their similarity to answer
these two research questions.
Recommendations
This study found that participants were likely having a wrong perspective about
how effective the current sign system is. But, they did tend to find their way to their
destination gate by following the English translations of the signs. However, this is not
going to be the case at all airports around the world. Different languages are spoken in
different countries, and not all airports would mandatorily have English translations for
the signs. It seems likely that the participants in this study would have been confused
without the English translations at some of the international airports they visited. So, it
would be better to develop standard non-language signs that are easy to interpret. This
information can be widely circulated in the form of books or web based applications, or
46
printed behind the boarding pass tickets with definitions for each symbol in different
languages widely spoken by the traffic passing through a particular airport terminal.
There could also be more wayfinding facilities brought into the airport terminal,
such as an automated way teller machine with a simple and appealing user interface. The
terminal would have had to be built in a way to minimize confusion and complex designs.
Also, new terminal designs can be used to naturally enhance the way finding ability of
the passengers; it is better to follow simple, standard, pier-type, or linear terminal
configurations during the design phase.
The challenge of processing the passengers belonging to a variety of cultures is a
difficult task, but this study has identified some key issues related to signs and
wayfinding inside the airport terminal. The suggestions developed through this study, if
implemented, would be helpful in reducing the stress level of passengers, reducing the
overcrowding of airports, and potentially saving a substantial amount of time for airport
staff and passengers.
Limitations of Research
It is important to note that although some significant relationships were found, it
does not provide strong evidence of cause and effect. This study is not concluding that
the current sign system and wayfinding facilities in the international airports are bad, but
rather concludes that it might be improved and made simpler for the air travelers around
the world to interpret in less time.
The population used in the study does not represent a large cross-section of
demographics, particularly when it comes to age. Age can play a major role in
wayfinding inside the airport terminal; for example, adults under 50 would be likely
47
familiar with the latest technologies, and might use their smart phone or iPad or other
facilities inside the airport terminal to determine their destination gate. Even though they
may not be familiar with the new technologies integrated into an airport terminal, they
can likely manage to play with it and find their destination gate. But, it may not be the
same case with adults over 50, as they sometimes require help from someone else to get
familiarized with new technologies.
The education level of the participants who took part in this study was also not
consistent with the general population, as 42 students had a master’s degree, 27 students
had an undergraduate degree, and 3 students had a doctorate degree. So, the results would
not have been the same if the same study had been conducted with the general public.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study has opened up the potential for an array of future studies to further
investigate the topic matter. This study considered the country of citizenship and
education level of the participants; a future study should be conducted by examining
different elements, such as age, gender, and how many languages are known. This may
yield different perspectives about the wayfinding process for different demographic
groups.
The data collected in this study was through an online survey; collecting data by
conducting in person interviews with the passengers at the airport would yield more
genuine responses. The timeline of this study was so short, it was impractical to obtain
permission from the airport managers to conduct interviews at the airport. It would be
important to choose an appropriate place to conduct interviews with the passengers,
because most of the time passengers would be in a hurry to reach their gate before the
48
scheduled departure time, and even if they happened to take the survey the true responses
from them might be comparatively low. Conducting interviews at the gate an hour or two
before the scheduled departure time would be a better idea, as passengers who have
arrived early would be willing to share their wayfinding experience at that particular
airport.
In addition, a future study on terminal signage, if at all possible, should be
conducted as an experimental study in a workstation by utilizing graphic and simulation
modeling technologies to effectively represent a three-dimensional environment of the
airport. These technologies would allow the researcher to test different concepts or logics
under various scenarios and determine participants’ responses, which can lead to a
holistic understanding of how the public will experience the facilities. New symbols and
signs that might be developed in the future can also be tested by experimental methods
before integrating these into airport terminals. Conducting experiments with proposed
signs will give an opportunity for the terminal designer to test their effectiveness before
implementation, to be sure passengers can decipher their meaning correctly.

49
REFERENCES
Augé, M. (1995). Non-places: An introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity.
London, England: Verso.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2015). The economic impact of civil aviation on the
U.S. economy. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved
from https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/2015-economic-impact-
report.pdf
Finally, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport installing roadway signs directing
travelers to correct terminal. (2010, April 6). Finance and Commerce. Retrieved
from
https://ezproxy.mtsu.edu/login?url=http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.mtsu.edu/ps/
i.do?id=GALE%7CA223698728&v=2.1&u=tel_middleten&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=
w&asid=fe4dd6c9f7462ea24bcfc991d6d909d3
Fuller, G. (2002). The arrow--directional semiotics: Wayfinding in transit. Social
Semiotics, 12(3), 231-244. doi: 10.1080/1035033022000082290
Garcia-Castro, A. (2007). A user-perspective approach for the design of modern bilingual
airport signage. Retrieved from https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle
/1853/16182/garcia castro_alejandra_200708_mast.pdf?sequence=1
Harding, J. R. (2011). Wayfinding and signing guidelines for airport terminals and
landside (Vol. 52). Washington, D.C: Transportation Research Board.
Kichhanagari, R., Motley, R. D., Duffy, S. A., & Fisher, D. L. (2001). Airport terminal
signs: Use of advance guide signs to speed search times. Transportation Research
Record, 1788, 26-32.

50
Leib, S., Dillman, B., Petrin, D., & Young, J. P. (2012). A comparison of the effect of
variations to US airport terminal signage on the successful wayfinding of Chinese
and American cultural groups. Journal of Aviation Technology and
Engineering, 1(2), 6.
Moores, V., Kuhn, M., & Govindasamy, S. (2009). Terminal illness. Airline
Business, 25(6), 50-52,54,56. Retrieved from
https://ezproxy.mtsu.edu:3443/login?url= http://
search.proquest.com/docview/20405 9336?accountid=4886
Symonds, P. (2014). The complexities of human wayfinding in airports. Retrieved from:
https://www.academia.edu/5681423/The_Complexities_of_Human_Wayfinding_i
n_Airports via @academia.
National Research Council (U. S.). (1989). Workshop on future airport passenger
terminals. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/ebookviewer/ ebook/
bmxlYmtfXzEyMTM4NF9fQU41?sid=c05d49e1-5193-4d15-950b 1fe9d59a8601
@sessionmgr4002&vid=5&format=EB&rid=2
51
APPENDICES
52
APPENDIX A
IRB Approval
53
APPENDIX B
Informed Consent Statement
You are being asked to take part in a research study, which evaluates the
effectiveness of the terminal signs at international airports. The purpose of this study is to
determine how well the terminal signs supports airline passengers in reaching their
destination before their scheduled departure time, and how signs can be improved to
make the way finding process simpler. Taking part in this study is completely voluntary.
You may skip any questions that you do not want to answer. If you decide to take part,
you are free to withdraw at any time. If you agree to be part of the research study, you
will complete an online survey. The survey includes questions inquiring about your
educational level, country of citizenship, and your experience at an airport terminal. The
online survey will take about 10 minutes to complete. If you should have any questions
about this research study please feel free to contact Vairavan Ganesh at
vg2t@mtmail.mtsu.edu, my Faculty Advisor Dr. Wendy Sue Beckman at
wendy.beckman@mtsu.edu, or the MTSU office of compliance at 615-494-8918.
54
APPENDIX C
The Email that Was Sent to Graduate Students
Hello,
I’m Vairavan Ganesh, a master’s degree student in the MTSU Aerospace Department. I
am conducting my thesis research on airport terminal signs. The goal of my research is to
determine the effectiveness of the terminal signs inside an airport and the role it plays in
aiding the airline passengers to reach their destination gate inside the airport before the
scheduled departure time. The research will consist of a short 19-question survey that
should not take more than 10 minutes to complete. If you have traveled internationally,
please consider participating in this survey.
The survey is completely anonymous and no identifying information will be collected in
order to minimize the risk of participation. If you would like to participate, please click
on the link below to go to the survey.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CWQBTXL
Many thanks!
Vairavan Ganesh
55
APPENDIX D
Online Survey Questions
1. Do you agree to take part in this survey?
 Yes  No
2. Highest educational level
 High school  Graduate
 Undergraduate  Doctorate
3. Country of citizenship
4. Have you ever traveled internationally?
 Yes  No
5. Please name the International Airport which you most recently traveled to, and please base
your answers to the following questions on that experience.
6. How recently did you visit this airport?
7. How many times have you visited the airport overall?
 One  Four
 Two  Five or more
 Three
8. How early did you get to the airport? (Indicate in hours before the scheduled departure
time)
 One  Four
 Two  Five or more
 Three
56
9. How effective were the terminal signs at the airport in determining the way to your
destination?
 Very effective  Neutral  Very ineffective
 Effective  Not effective
10. How many times did you end up being confused or lost at the airport terminal?
 Very frequently  Occasionally  Never
 Frequently  Rarely
11. How quickly did you reach the destination gate before the scheduled departure time with
the aid of terminal signs at the airport terminal?
 Well in advance  On-time  Behind schedule
 Just before  Last minute
12. Please mention how difficult it was to determine the way to the destination gate with the
help of the terminal signs at the airport?
 Very difficult  Neutral  Very easy
 Difficult  Easy
13. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the terminal signs at the airport?
 Very satisfied  Neutral  Very dissatisfied
 Somewhat Somewhat
satisfied  Dissatisfied
14. What does this airport terminal sign mean?
 Customs  Immigration  Security Check

57
 Moving walkway
 Crosswalk
 Sidewalk
 Meeter/Greeter
 Ticket purchase
 Immigration
 Lost and found  Shop umbrellas and  Symbol for rainy
gloves day
 Information desk
 Hotel information
 Flight information
19. In a short phrase, please mention how can the terminal signs be improved or modified to
make the way finding process simpler?

58
APPENDIX E
List of International Airports Mentioned by the Participants
 Dominican  CUN - Cancun,
Republic Mexico
 Atlanta  Dallas/Ft Worth
 PUNTA CANA  Nashville
 London Heathrow  Toussaint L'Ouverture
Airport International Airport
 CUN  Rome, Athens
 Newark airport  Jorge Chaves international
 Okinawa airport
 Newark airport  London Heathrow
 Atlanta  Ben Gurion International
 PORT Airport
HARCOURT  Newark Liberty International
 Chūbu Centrair International Airport
Airport  Atlanta
 Nashville  Jamaica, Montego
International Bay
Airport  Nashville (BNA)
 GUA  Kempegowda International
 Dusseldorf Airport
59
 Charles De Gualle  Frankfort
 Nashville BNA  Philadelphia
 Charles de Gaulle  GVA
 London Heathrow International  JFK, O'R Thambo,
Airport  Nnamdi Azikiwe,
 MIA  Murtala International Airport
 Nashville  Gold Coast,
International Australia
Airport  Miami International
 Frankfurt Airport
International  Nashville
Airport International
 Abuja Airport
 Amsterdam  San Jose, Costa
 Miami International Rica
Airport  London Heathrow
 Toronto  BNA
International (YYZ)  Dubai
 Heathrow
60
APPENDIX F
Original Comments of the Participants
 Include short descriptions in
English.
 perhaps with words rather than
the signs
 WORDS 
 don't recall many of these, had to guess...if guess wasn't right, they need
clarifying
 Provide a sign key detailing what all the symbols mean.
 A key or symbol explanation on
tickets
 Use symbols, signs and words
 Add words haha. 
 universal symbols
 Motion symbols, color images, universal
sign shapes
 I had no idea what these signs meant, but I think that typical signage to get to
gates is easy
 Not sure since I've guessed at the meanings
 Additional symbols on the paperwork to distinguish them from
other paperwork.
61
 Creating new signs as I have seen some here, the signs must be so clear that a
child at age of 12 can also understand and can follow the airport locations without
any confusion.nice research all the best.
 Larger and more frequent
 Well some of these signs I have never seen before. So I think to improve them
would be to add one word or short phrase?
 Include text 
 No idea, I mainly pay attention to written signs not
symboled
 Smartphone app similar to map apps. GPS your location, put in you destination
terminal and route.
 Specific the final destination and layover
locations
 The only time I've been lost is finding my vehicle in the Parking areas; ha-ha.
I don't think there is a whole lot to improve going IN to the airport. getting out,
or between gates: I've run into problems there.
 Color coding 
 perhaps a pamphlet or phone app that decodes symbols in appropriate
language
 terminal sign should be bold and
clear.
62
 More signs and better directionality
(arrows, etc)
 Provide approximate DISTANCE to each (or set of) gates - e.g. 200 yards
(5 minutes walking) to Gate C15 Perhaps publish a legend of each symbol and
have it available for viewing at several locations within the airport.
 No comments
 I am not sure. 
 More detailed symbols.
 Question 15 & 18 were guesses, because the images didn't load. I think that the
signs could be improves with a key or a little lable next to each one so that
travelers know what they mean.
 Improved visibility
 Signs should be electronic.
 Clarity and helpful staff
 By using some rainbow-like color combinations, meaning different colors can be
maintained from a terminal nor the other.
 Include an English translation of
the sign
 Words! 
 It would be great if there were a legend in the back of your
passport.
 Yes 
63
 Write what they mean next to
the signs
 The only problem I've really had in the airport was accidentally exiting the secure
passenger boarding area and having to go back through security. Except at LAX,
which is the armpit of the world! No signs there mean anything because the place
is under construction!
 Not sure 
 I think they are fine

Airport_Terminal_Signage

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Airport_Terminal_Signage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Airport_Terminal_Signage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TERMINAL SIGNAGE

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in Aviation Administration

Middle Tennessee State University

Dr. Wendy S. Beckman, Chair

Dr. Paul A. Craig

terminal, by examining passengers’ ability to understand the terminal signs at

staff and passengers.

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER I- INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1

Review of Literature ........................................................................................................... 3

People Perspective .............................................................................................................. 7

Effects of Terminal Signs on Different Cultures ................................................................ 8

Financial Aspects .............................................................................................................. 13

Challenges Due to Erratic Signs Outside the Airport ....................................................... 16

Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 20

CHAPTER II- METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 22

CHAPTER III- DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 26

Participants’ Perceived Effectiveness of Airport Terminal Signs .................................... 30

Participants’ Knowledge about Existing Signs ................................................................. 35

Limitations of Research .................................................................................................... 46

Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 47

APPENDIX A: IRB Approval .......................................................................................... 51

APPENDIX B: Informed Consent Statement ................................................................... 53

APPENDIX C: The Email that Was Sent to Graduate Students ...................................... 54

APPENDIX D: Online Survey Questions......................................................................... 55

APPENDIX E: List of International Airports Mentioned by Participants ........................ 58

APPENDIX F: Original Comments of the Participants………………………………….61

Figure 2: Number of Participants Who Had Traveled Internationally ............................. 28

Figure 5: Effectiveness of Airport Terminal Signs ........................................................... 31

Figure 6: Level of Confusion Inside the International Airport Terminal ......................... 32

Figure 8: Level of Difficulty to Decipher the Terminal Signs.......................................... 34

Figure 9: Level of Satisfaction with the Current Terminal Signs ..................................... 35

Figure 16: Comparison between Frequency of Visits and Responses .............................. 43

Table 1 Welcome Sign ...................................................................................................... 18

Table 2 Column Alphabetical Information Sign ............................................................... 19

Table 3 Terminal Sign Board 1 ......................................................................................... 19

Table 4 Terminal Sign Board 2 ......................................................................................... 19

Table 5 Terminal Sign Board 3 ......................................................................................... 19

Table 6 Terminal Sign Board 4 ......................................................................................... 20

Airport terminals continue to evolve as technology and the needs of passengers

difficulty among the non-native language speakers at a particular facility. In considering

The level of congestion at an airport can be a good indicator of the effectiveness

resulting in congestion. The congestion may be inversely proportional to the effectiveness

and they are proficient with the language.

foot traffic congestion. It is impossible to reconstruct an entire terminal, as it involves a

the best solution for a bad terminal design.

their surroundings in space of non-place is established through the mediation of words, or

even text,” (1995, p. 94).

 Direction and orientation

 Information: on arrival and departures; baggage delivery; government regulations;

airport terminal signs along with its drawbacks (Fuller, 2002).

Sydney International Airport and the Anchorage Airport.

comprehensible for the entire passenger community (Fuller, 2002).

is to improve passengers’ efficiency. The strategy for developing an effective way

finding system consists of: