Original Scientific Article
Pillars of City Spatial Sensitivity and Their Integration
into Sightseeing Routes
Melita Rozman Cafuta
University of Maribor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Transportation Engineering and
Architecture, Slovenia
melita.rozman-cafuta@um.si
Boštjan Brumen
University of Maribor, Faculty of Tourism, Slovenia
bostjan.brumen@um.si
Worldwide, many cities have appropriate and necessary conditions for the devel-
opment of urban tourism. Some locations, although considered important for local
tourist destinations as part of a standard repertoire, do not comply with modern
standards. For tourism organisations, it is very important to plan the best possible
sightseeing routes with the best sightseeing locations. Using the intuitive approach
only, is not enough in the modern tourism industry. The focus of the presented re-
search is an innovative approach to identify the most prosperous urban places that
should be included in urban tourist offers. Empirical research was conducted, based
on the analytical method of mental mapping. For the research location, Maribor city
(Slovenia, eu) has been chosen. A sample of 200 respondents was taken. They were
asked to draw a city map twice, once for the daytime city and once for the nighttime
city. Graphical results obtained reflect a subjective mental spatial idea of individual
thinkingmode. Some locations in the city seem to be particularly important and vis-
ible. They were named ‘Pillars of Spatial Sensitivity’ or, pss locations. pss locations
are extremely suitable to be integrated in a tourist offer as building blocks of sightsee-
ing routes.When processing the research results, 34 pss locations were more or less
frequently detected in Maribor city. 32 of them had different appearance frequency
between day and night. Based on these results, it is possible to conclude that mod-
ified spatial circumstances affect the perception and utilisation of urban space. The
research results make it obvious that spatial sensitivity of tourists depends on time.
It is possible to design sightseeing routes adapted to the time component.
Keywords: urban tourism, pillars of spatial sensitivity, mental map, sightseeing
location
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.13.157-166
Introduction
Urban tourism is ‘a complex phenomenon, which is
heavily involved in the local, regional and national en-
vironment’ (Rangus et al., 2017, p. 167). Nowadays, it
is rapidly expanding because people visit foreign cities
for many different reasons as long-stay or short-stay
tourists (Ashworth & Page, 2011). Planning appropri-
ate sightseeing routes has become a challenging task
for tourist guides as well as for individuals visiting un-
familiar urban destinations. The whole city represents
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 157
Melita Rozman Cafuta and Boštjan Brumen Pillars of City Spatial Sensitivity
the physical place in which the tourist’s desire is ac-
complished. Today, most cities aim to promote them-
selves as tourist destinations to increase their compet-
itiveness, while tourism is seldom studied as an intru-
sive activity because of its indisputable positive eco-
nomic effects (Fistola et al., 2019).
Visits to museums, galleries, and religious and ar-
chaeological sites are a usual part of the tourist’s rou-
tine in urban destinations. Points of Interests should
be narrowed down, and aligned with personal inter-
ests and trip constraints (Gavalas et al., 2016). How-
ever, field studies have revealed that tourists seek to
maximize the time spent wandering around an ur-
ban space, engaging all their body senses while ‘on the
move’ (Larsen, 2001; Shoval & Isaacson, 2007). They
appreciate observing everyday life activities and dis-
covering different scenic values as much as they care
about the cultural and architectural elements of a his-
torical district.
Tourists today have become increasingly depen-
dent on mobile city guides or tourist guide companies
to locate tourist services and retrieve informative con-
tent (opening hours, entrance fees, etc.) about nearby
points of interest. The main aim is planning the best
possible sightseeing routes with the best sightseeing
points. Ad hoc spatial decisions are no longer accept-
able. The humandimension in the formof scenic route
planning environmental perception sensitivity is not
included.
Previous research on tour planning problems is
broadly divided into several directions. Some stud-
ies are devoted to solving the mathematical program-
ming problems. Other studies are devoted to dynam-
ically planning an optimal itinerary which is related
to designing intelligent tour planning systems (Ha-
suike et al., 2014). There is also research on various
tour planning problems such as the tourist trip design
problem (Souffriau et al., 2008), and the tour planning
problem in a multimodal and time-scheduled urban
public transport network (Zografos &Androutsopou-
los, 2008). However, existingmathematicalmodels for
sightseeing do not include subjective perception val-
ues of sightseeing places. Mental mapping is a useful
method for revealing how visitors spatially perceive
tourism destinations. However, studies of this kind
are under-researched in the tourism field (Younghee
Lee et al., 2018).
The focus of the presented research is to reveal ur-
ban places with a great perception value and to iden-
tify themost favourable areas that should be integrated
into sightseeing routes. To ensure tourists’ well-being
and high environmental perception sensitivity are pri-
orities. We assumed that, if some places trigger posi-
tive emotions for dwellers, they have the same positive
impact on tourists. Althoughpublic preferences on en-
vironment are shaped by many different factors, such
as age, gender, social and economic status, etc., there
are also some common preferences on urban types,
especially for people with similar educational back-
ground and environmental viewpoints.
Today’s standard repertoire of sightseeing locations
may not comply with modern standards. Therefore,
it is essential to seek new locations to keep sightsee-
ing routes attractive. Locationswith high environmen-
tal perception sensitivity should be included. What is
seen and what is remembered? After a while, tourists
do not perceive every architectural and environmental
detail. But they perceive well-being as a combination
of environmental settings, people and service at the lo-
cation. Tourists’ spatial sensitivity changes over time.
Do the appropriate sightseeing locations change too?
In this context, the following is crucial: (a) to iden-
tify locations that have high spatial sensitivity and (b)
to know when these locations can be integrated into
sightseeing routes.
The research concentrates on a scientific approach
based on an analytical method of mental mapping as
an assessment tool. There is a tendency to answer all
raised questions using the following hypothesis:
h1 Spatial sensitivity of tourists depends on time.
h2 Based on the value of spatial sensitivity, it is pos-
sible to design sightseeing routes adapted to the
time component.
Tourists’ Cognitive Experience of the City
and Spatial Sensitivity
The structure of the city is not permanent. It changes
over time. Urban development is guided by social
progress and technological capabilities (Rozman Ca-
158 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020
Melita Rozman Cafuta and Boštjan Brumen Pillars of City Spatial Sensitivity
futa & Brumen, 2016). The city of tomorrow strikes
a balance among social, environmental and economic
needs (RozmanCafuta, 2015). Urban tourism can con-
tribute substantial economic benefits to certain city ar-
eas with a large and varied economic base. These gain
the most from tourism but are the least dependent
upon it (Ashworth & Page, 2011). The challenge comes
with lesser-known parts of the city with a low level of
tourist infrastructure. How to seek for opportunities
in such areas, especially if the economic base is weak?
How to define potential places that are appropriate to
be developed and integrated into sightseeing routes?
Generally, the environment should create a good
personal feeling. To ensure satisfied tourists, envi-
ronmental circumstances should be adjusted. To es-
tablish interaction between the urban environment
and its users (tourists), it is necessary to understand
how they perceive their surroundings. Spatial circum-
stances are not only material reality, but are also men-
tal structures that result in subjective perception. Spa-
tial sensitivity is always subjective because it relies on
individual response. It is dependent upon the individ-
ual’s gender, age, time, experience, and culture (Roz-
man Cafuta, 2015). Visual perception dominates over
hearing, smell, taste, and touch. Eyesight provides the
largest amount of information to explain what hap-
pens around us. We are supplied with a large amount
of information such as: distance, colours, shapes, tex-
tures, and contrasts (Gregory, 1998).
Environment defines a cognitive image of a spe-
cific location, like any human performance that in-
cludes physical and mental links between an observed
location and its surroundings (Canter, 1977). Using in-
formation obtained by different authors, a triangular
scheme was created using a method of inductive con-
clusion in order to determine what influences tourists’
spatial sensitivity (Figure 1). Tourists’ spatial sensation
depends on factors such as psychological, sociological,
and aesthetic-functional. All of them are equal and
connected. Tourists respond and act in accordance
with them.
The scheme represents the most important factors
and their indicators that must be taken into account
when planning and arranging sightseeing routes, such
as: sense of safety, orientation ability, path and loca-
Psychological
Factor
Aesthetic-
Functional
Factor
Sociological
Factor
In
te
gr
at
io
n
Sightseeing
Routes
Tourists’
Spatial Sensitivity
Figure 1 The Triangular Scheme of Tourists’ Spatial
Sensitivity Factors and Indicators
tion selection, way of movement, visual preferences
and general place arrangement. The quality of service
depends on it. Therefore, it is justified to explore how
the time component and physical surroundings affect
tourists’ environmental sensation.
Spatial Analysis by the Mental Mapping Method
As already mentioned, environmental sensation is a
complex process. Spatial sensitivity means recognis-
ing, collecting and organising received information.
Through this procedure it is possible to be aware of
our relative spatial position in relation to existing lim-
itations. According to Canter (1977), the concept of
space is based on individual cognitive experience and
designated by the composite conceptual system. We
are informed about a place through ‘what behaviour
is associated with, or is anticipated to be housed in
it, what physical parameters of the settings are, and
the description, or conceptions, which people hold of
their behaviour in that physical environment’ (p. 159).
A place is set with a specific physical location and ac-
tivities taking place in it. It is humans’ cognitive ex-
perience of the material world and offers a concrete
visual metaphor. The message of space ultimately de-
pends on individual interpretation decomposing and
recomposing its cryptic meanings (Šerman, 1997).
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 159
Melita Rozman Cafuta and Boštjan Brumen Pillars of City Spatial Sensitivity
Figure 2 Mental Map of Maribor City (Slovenia, Europe); First During the Daytime and Second During the Nighttime
(Graphical Output of Test Person)
In the sixties and seventies, urban theorists began
studying the relationship between the reality and the
idea of the space (Evans 1980; Liben et al., 1981; Lynch,
1960). Lynch’s (1960) and Golledge’s (1978) early stud-
ies have shown that our space perception can be artic-
ulated, evaluated and categorised. Tolman (1984) was
the first who introduced the idea of cognitive map-
ping. Later, Downs and Stea (1973) upgraded his be-
havioural approach as a process composed of psycho-
logical transformations strings by which an individual
acquires, codes, stores, recalls, and decodes informa-
tion about the relative location and its attributes.
Today, cognitivemapping is themental structuring
process leading to the formation of a cognitive map.
A cognitive map is a set of mental images. Environ-
mental sensing enables identification of objects or ar-
eas, and determination of the distance between vari-
ous points or patterns. Spatial visualization enables ev-
eryday movement, route planning, understanding the
route descriptions and map reading. In more general
terms, a cognitive map may be defined ‘as an overall
mental image or representation of the space and lay-
out of a setting’ (Arthur & Passini, 1992).
Cognitive maps are a spatial representation of the
outside world that is kept within the mind, until an
actual manifestation (a drawing) of this perceived
knowledge is generated, and amentalmap is put down
on paper. Cognitive mapping is the implicit, men-
tal mapping the explicit, part of the process. Mental
mapping has developed over the years. Today it has
theoretical and practical potential to understand hu-
man environmental exchange. It comprises a subjec-
tive awareness of the surroundings and provides an
insight into an individual’s spatial sensitivity.
Case Study: Maribor City
In the presented research we upgraded the already-
knownmental mappingmethod. In the previous prac-
tices, residents draw amap, frommemory, of their city
or some other research area. This allows the researcher
to get a sense of which parts of the city are more sub-
stantial or imaginable. Tourists quickly developed cog-
nitive images that are influenced by experience and
the time spent in the area (Walmsley & Jenkins, 1992).
Similar use of mental maps is also applied in the pre-
sented research in order to identify specific points of
interest that are sufficiently perceived andhave enough
potential to be included in sightseeing routes. Loca-
tions with high values of spatial sensitivity are gener-
ally the gathering sites of tourist spots. The research
focus relied on a spatial impression of the city. It was
attempted to give sensible form to themoods, feelings,
and rhythms of functional life.
The conducted experiment was based on a sample
of 200 respondents, 100 men and 100 women. All par-
ticipants were students at the University of Maribor
in Slovenia. The respondents can be equated as long-
term tourists (they do not live at the research loca-
160 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020
Melita Rozman Cafuta and Boštjan Brumen Pillars of City Spatial Sensitivity
Table 1 Occurrence Frequency of pss Locations
on Mental Maps
pss location Day Night χ2 p
f f f f
River Drava  .  . . .
Gosposka Street  .  . . .
Poštna Street  .  . . .
Koroška Street  .  . . .
L. Štukelj Square  .  . . .
Castle Square  .  . . .
Main Square  .  . . .
A. M. Slomšek
Square
 .  . . .
Lent, Old City  .  . . .
City Park  .  . . .
Ski slope Mari-
borsko Pohorje
 .  . . .
Hills  .  . . .
Footbridge  .  . . .
Old Bridge  .  . . .
Main Bridge  .  . . .
Koroška Bridge  .  . . .
University  .  . . .
Town Hall  .  . . .
Main Post Office  .  . . .
Town Market  .  . . .
Football Stadium  .  . . .
Shopping Centre
Europark
 .  . . .
Continued in the next column
tion, they come and go like visitors) or dwellers (while
studying, they live at the research location). For the re-
search locationMaribor city has been chosen.Maribor
is a vibrant, and the second largest, Slovenian city. It is
a centre of the Styrian region and a semi-important
tourist destination with medieval historical value.
The experiment was based on a memorised draw-
ing of a city map and elements within it during differ-
ent time sequences. Respondents were asked to imag-
ine the city and put down a map of it. They were en-
couraged to create two drawings, once for the day-
Table 1 Continued from the previous column
pss location Day Night χ2 p
f f f f
Medical Faculty  .  . . .
Shopping Centre
City
 .  . . .
Hall Štuk  .  . . .
Main Rail Station  .  . . .
Medical Centre  .  . . .
Movie Theatre
Kolosej
 .  . . .
Student Hostel  .  . . .
Monument nob  .  . . .
Plague Monument  .  . . .
Engineering Facul-
ties
 .  . . .
Franciscan Church  .  . . .
Theatre  .  . . .
time city and once for the nighttime city. They had 10
minutes to complete each drawing (20 minutes alto-
gether).
Results and Discussions
The obtained drawings were analysed according to
the included or excluded elements. Spatial sensitivity
is the respondents’ mental image reflection. Already,
every element that appears on a respondent’s map is
a spatial sensitivity carrier. When graphical outputs
were analysed, 36 elements,more or less frequently de-
tected, were exposed, such as: streets, squares, parks,
morphological features, architectural attractions, and
urban furniture. All exposed elements appear at least
10 times or more during daytime; the detected fre-
quency is at least 5 or more (Table 1). The results
show that the responders noticedmost of the locations
lying in the city centre, but only a few points in the
wider surroundings. Such location distribution con-
firms the assumption that locations in the city centre
are very noticeable andhave a high value of spatial sen-
sitivity. It is not surprising that most of the sightseeing
routes already take place in the city centre. However,
expanding the sightseeing routes on selected locations
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 161
Melita Rozman Cafuta and Boštjan Brumen Pillars of City Spatial Sensitivity
in the wider surroundings should also be considered.
In the second phase, obtained graphical data were
statistically processed and analysed using the spss
Windows computer program. Methods of descriptive
statistics (frequency and numerical analysis, the arith-
metic mean of the difference between the mean, and
standard deviation) and inferential statistics (t-test for
dependent samples, and Pearson’s correlation coeffi-
cient r) were used. The results in Table 1 show that al-
most all listed locations have different occurrence fre-
quency. All exposed locations have specific character-
istics that differentiate them from their surroundings.
Their common qualities are good visibility, good ac-
cessibility, transportation network involvement, high
usage frequency, high quality of spatial arrangement,
higher property and rental values, etc. These are spa-
tial qualities that are strictly necessary for tourist lo-
cations. In the presented research such locations are
named Pillars of Spatial Sensitivity (pss locations).
pss locations have high spatial sensitivity value. They
are spatial identity carriers and they stay in tourists’
minds for a long time. Occurrence frequency is a cri-
terion of importance.
During the day themost often noticed locations are
the River Drava (160 times), Old Bridge (133 times),
Main Bridge (92 times), A. M. Slomšek Square (92
times), Shopping Centre Europark (87 times), Main
Square (84 times) and so on.During the night themost
often noticed locations are the RiverDrava (147 times),
Old Bridge (115 times), Shopping Centre Europark
(87 times), Main Square (84 times), Main Bridge (84
times), and A. M. Slomšek Square (73 times). It can be
concluded that some locations are in the group of the
most often noticed ones in nearly everyone’s mind, re-
gardless of the time period. Such locations are suitable
to be a part of sightseeing routes.
Locations are less noticeable at night except for the
following locations: 7 (Leon Štukelj Square), 22 (The-
atre), 30 (Hall Štuk), 31 (Main Bus station), 34 (Movie
Theatre Kolosej), and 38 (Plague Monument). The re-
sults of the χ2-test confirm that spatial sensitivity de-
pends on time. In the majority of cases we reach a
statistically characteristic difference in the incidence
of elements between day and night at the statisti-
cally significant level p < 0.05. Hypothesis one is con-
firmed. Spatial sensitivity of tourists depends on time.
If we want to plan the best possible sightseeing
routes, it is necessary to identify the specific locations
thatmake the observed city distinctive. Locations with
a high noticed frequency should be part of a sightsee-
ing route. Obviously, they trigger positive emotions.
Locations with a low noticed frequency should be ex-
cluded. The emotions could be negative or simply not
strong enough. Sometimes a location is suitable just
for a specific time sequence. Generally, there are the
following possible scenarios:
1. The location has high spatial sensitivity value.
Noticed frequency is high regardless of time se-
quence. The location should be included in sight-
seeing routes.
2. The location has low spatial sensitivity value.
Noticed frequency is low regardless of time se-
quence. The location should be excluded from
sightseeing routes or it should undergo a com-
plete architectural renovation of the location to
be more functional.
3. The location has variable spatial sensitivity value.
Noticed frequency is low or high depending on
the time sequence. The location should be in-
cluded in sightseeing routes only at a certain
time.
By presenting possible scenarios hypothesis two is
also confirmed. Based on the value of spatial sensitiv-
ity, it is possible to design sightseeing routes adapted to
the time component. Application in practice is shown
in three cases in Maribor City.
Example 1: Location Gosposka Street
(Variable Spatial Sensitivity Value)
Gosposka Street is one of the oldest streets, shaped in
the 17th century. Today it is a part of a wider pedestrian
zone andwell-knownmarket street. Buildings’ ground
floors are occupied by shops or services, while upper
floors are residential flats. The street is well accessible
from various directions. At night, buildings’ verticals
are not visible. Illuminated shop windows are accen-
tuated. General street brightness is uneven.
The location belongs to the standard repertoire of
most existing sightseeing routes. It has high noticed
162 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020
Melita Rozman Cafuta and Boštjan Brumen Pillars of City Spatial Sensitivity
Figure 3 Gosposka Street During Daytime (left) and Gosposka Street During Nighttime (right)
Figure 4 Old City Lent During Daytime (left) and Old City Lent During Nighttime (right)
frequency at daytime, so it seems to be very appro-
priate for daytime routes. But the location is not ap-
propriate for organising nighttime sightseeing routes.
Noticed frequency is low. Shops are closed and the en-
vironment seems not to be inviting enough.
Example 2: Location Old City Lent
(Low Spatial Sensitivity Value)
It is situated on the edge of the medieval city next to
the river bank. The place is occupied by local streets
and a sidewalk. Buildings are various typologies and
ages. There are bars on ground floors and flats on up-
per floors. Illumination of the location is not sufficient;
some parts are completely dark. The lights are placed
on the sidewalk. The traffic area is minimally lighted.
Lack of illumination at night makes walking freely
more difficult. There are also several lights mounted
on the buildings’ walls. It is not sufficient because the
open space remains in darkness.
The location belongs to the standard repertoire of
most existing sightseeing routes. But the research re-
sults categorise the location as less attractive for inclu-
sion in sightseeing routes because noticed frequency
for day and night is low. The logical consequences
would be to replace the location with another one.
In this case such a recommendation is not the best
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 163
Melita Rozman Cafuta and Boštjan Brumen Pillars of City Spatial Sensitivity
Figure 5 Leon Štukelj Square During Daytime (left) and Leon Štukelj Square During Nighttime (right)
option. The location has historical value and architec-
tural renovation would be a better option.
Example 3: Location Leon Štukelj Square
(High Spatial Sensitivity Value)
The square is situated in the city pedestrian zone. Re-
designed, it was opened in 2011. The square is sur-
rounded by public buildings. The central part of the
square is devoted to public events and is therefore
only occasionally occupied. Trees, benches, and bins
are lined on both sides of the square. Hanging lamps
are stretched across the area. Floor lamps are installed
throughout the place. The square has a pleasant, un-
obtrusive illuminated atmosphere. At night, artificial
light colour is changing and creates different ambi-
ences. Hanging lamps illuminate the paved area. Fa-
cades are not illuminated.
The research results show high noticed frequency
for both daytime and nighttime. Obviously, tourists
noticed it and perceive a pleasant atmosphere during
both time sequences. Based on the results, the location
is very appropriate to be included in daytime as well as
nighttime sightseeing routes. The tourist can sit, rest
and enjoy the atmosphere.
Conclusions
Emerging tourism destinations can play a significant
role in championing the adoption of sustainable tour-
ism development (Sasidharan & Križaj, 2018). Goeld-
ner and Ritchie (2006) describe urban tourism as a
complex phenomenon and extremely difficult to be
described adequately. Any given location is primarily
characterised by its natural environment, architecture
and people. New opportunities must be sought in or-
der to keep or to make all city areas attractive. Nowa-
days, tourists seek to maximize their environment
with all the senses and appreciate observing everyday
life. Social innovation needs to be constantly in place.
This is even more important for occasionally visited
places than for well-known tourists spots. Nowadays
modern management companies and organisations
must incorporate a psychological approach into their
operations. It is a big challenge to satisfy tourists, be-
cause societal expectations are high. What do tourists
remember and take home? What makes them come
back and visit the same place again? Tourists certainly
do not remember every architectural detail and his-
torical fact. After a while, just a positive attitude and
well-being remain. Sightseeing locations should be
attractive, pleasant, safe, and should relax tourists at
the same time. It is very important to plan the best
possible sightseeing routes with the best sightseeing
locations.
After analytical research work it is confirmed that
modified spatial circumstances affect the perception
and utilisation of urban space. Spatial sensitivity is
subjective mental image reflection influenced by psy-
chological, sociological and aesthetic-functional fac-
164 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020
Melita Rozman Cafuta and Boštjan Brumen Pillars of City Spatial Sensitivity
tors. It provides an indication of a person’s ability to
perceive and remember visual information about a
certain environment. It depends on time and changes
as soon as spatial circumstances change, for example,
day and night. Spatial sensitivity value is not always
equal. The higher the value, the more important the
location, the more it is suitable for integration into
sightseeing routes. Summarising the graphical results
obtained by the mental mapping method, it can be
concluded that from the number of 34 exposed loca-
tions, 32 have different appearance frequency between
day and night. Based on the value of spatial sensitivity,
it is possible to design sightseeing routes adapted? to
the time component. Some locations, although con-
sidered as important local tourist destinations, are not
appropriate to be included in sightseeing routes. Only
locations with high spatial sensitivity value in certain
time sequences should become a part of sightseeing
routes.
Obtained research results: (1) new definition of Pil-
lars of Spatial Sensitivity (pss locations) set for the lo-
cations with high spatial sensitivity value, (2) the use
of the already-knownmethod ofmentalmapping for a
new purpose (to identify pss locations and their spa-
tial sensitivity value), and (3) hypothesis confirmation
are original scientific contributions presented in this
paper.
It is very important to plan the best possible sight-
seeing routes, but the proposed scientific approach
cannot help the tourist organisation to make a loca-
tionmore attractive. Obtained research results provide
insight into the spatial situation ofMaribor city (Slove-
nia, Europe) and could support tourism development
in a specific city area. The presented approach could
be integrated as good practice in any other city world-
wide. It supports identification of suitable sightseeing
locations that are memorable and can be inherited by
mobile city guides or used by tourist guides. Of course,
other fields, such as tourist infrastructure and service
quality, should also be considered.
References
Arthur, P., & Passini, R. (1992).Wayfinding:People, signs, and
architecture.Hill Ryerson.
Ashworth, G., & Page, S. J. (2011). Urban tourism research:
Recent progress and current paradoxes. Tourism Man-
agement, 32(1), 1–15.
Canter, D. (1977). The psychology of place. Architectural
Press.
Downs, R. M., & Stea, D. (1973). Image and environment:
Cognitive mapping and spatial behaviour. Aldine.
Evans,G.W. (1980). Environmental Cognition.Psychological
Bulletin, 88(2), 259–287.
Fistola, R., Gargiulo, C., Battarra, R., & La Rocca, L. A.
(2019). Sustainability of urban functions: Dealing with
tourism activity. Sustainability, 11(4), 1071.
Gavalas, D., Kasapakis, V., Konstantopoulos, C., Pantziou,
G., &Vathis,N. (2017). Scenic route planning for tourists.
Pers Ubiquit Comput, 21, 137–155.
Goeldner, C. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2006). Tourism: Princi-
ples, practices, philosophies.Wiley.
Golledge, R. G. (1978). Learning about urban environments.
In T. Carlstein, D. Parkes, & N. Thrift (Eds.), Timing
space and spacing time: Volume 1. Making sense of time
(pp. 76–98). Edward Arnold.
Gregory, R. L. (1998). Eye and brain, the psychology of seeing.
Oxford University Press.
Hasuike, T., Katagiri, H., Tsubaki, H., & Tsuda, H. (2014).
Sightseeing route planning responding various condi-
tions with fuzzy random satisfactions dependent on
tourist’s tiredness. In S. I. Ao, O. Castillo, C. Douglas,
D. D. Feng, & J.-A. Lee (Eds.), Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Multiconference of Engineers and Computer Scien-
tists 2014 (pp. 1232–1236). Newswood.
Larsen, J. (2001). Tourism mobilities and the travel glance:
Experiences of being on the move. Scandinavian Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism, 1(2), 80–98.
Liben, L. S., Patterson, A. H., & Newcombe, N. (1981). Spa-
tial representation and behavior across the life span. Aca-
demic Press.
Lynch, K. (1960). Image of the city. Institute of Technology.
Rangus, M., Brumen, B., & Potočnik Topler, J. (2017). Sus-
tainable tourism development in rural areas: The role of
stakeholders. Academica Turistica, 10(2), 167–173.
Rozman Cafuta, M. (2015). Open space evaluation method-
ology and three dimensions evaluation model as a base
for sustainable development tracking. Sustainability, 7
(10), 13690–13712.
Rozman Cafuta, M., & Brumen, B. (2016). The innovative
methodology of recognition the most appropriate places
with a great potential for tourist satisfaction. In D. F. Ko-
caoglu, (Ed.), picmet 2016: Technology management for
social innovation (pp. 1824–1829). Portland International
Center forManagement of Engineering and Technology.
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 165
Melita Rozman Cafuta and Boštjan Brumen Pillars of City Spatial Sensitivity
Sasidharan, V., & Križaj, D. (2018). Tourism ecolabels and
social sustainability: Challenges and innovations from
Slovene perspective. Academica Turistica, 11(1), 19–29.
Shoval, N., & Isaacson, M. (2007). Tracking tourists in the
digital age. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 141–159.
Souffriau, W., Vansteenwegen, P., Vertommen, J., Berghe, G.
V., & Oudheusden, D. V. (2008). A personalized tourist
trip design algorithm for mobile tourist guides. Applied
Artificial Intelligence, 22(10), 964–985.
Šerman, K. (1997). O bîti i prostoru – Behrens i Loos*.
Prostor: znanstveni časopis za arhitekturu i urbanizam,
5(2(14)), 201–238.
Tolman, E. C. (1984). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psy-
chological review, 55(4), 189–208.
Walmsley, D. J., & Jenkins, J. M. (1992). Tourism cognitive
mapping of unfamiliar environments.Annals of Tourism
research, 19(2), 268–286.
Younghee Lee,M., Hitchcock, M., &Wengsi, L. (2018).Men-
tal mapping and heritage visitors’ spatial perceptions.
Journal of Heritage Tourism, 13(4), 305–319.
Zografos, K. G., & Androutsopoulos, K. N. (2008). Algo-
rithms for itinerary planning in multimodal transporta-
tion networks. ieee Transactions on Intelligent Trans-
portation System, 9(1), 175–184.
166 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020