=Paper= {{Paper |id=Vol-2412/paper1 |storemode=property |title=A Roadmap to Congestion Management in Museums from a Socio-Technical Perspective |pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2412/paper1.pdf |volume=Vol-2412 |authors=Athina Thanou,Eirini Eleni Tsiropoulou,Symeon Papavassiliou |dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/smap/ThanouTP19 }} ==A Roadmap to Congestion Management in Museums from a Socio-Technical Perspective== https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2412/paper1.pdf

A Roadmap to Congestion Management in
Museums from a Socio-Technical Perspective

Athina Thanou1[0000−0002−9182−7884] , Eirini Eleni
Tsiropoulou2[0000−0003−1322−1876] , and Symeon
Papavassiliou1[0000−0002−9459−318X]
1
Institute of Communication and Computer Systems, School of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou 15780,
Greece
athinathanou@central.ntua.gr, papavass@mail.ntua.gr
2
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, NM 87131 USA
eirini@unm.edu

Abstract. Cultural heritage spaces, and in particular museums, consti-
tute a special type of socio-physical systems, where the decision mak-
ing burden with respect to visitor touring choices, mainly lies on visi-
tor himself. Due to the inherent characteristics of such a system, that
embodies both human behaviors as well as physical or technical con-
straints and requirements, it becomes apparent that a socio-technical
perspective should be considered to treat the key problem of congestion
management, while improving visitor experience and satisfaction. In this
paper, we provide a roadmap to dealing with this issue, by suggesting a
realistic visitor behavior modeling approach and promoting alternative
and feasible congestion management solutions. Our considerations and
mechanisms are founded on and powered by the principles of Prospect
Theory and the Tragedy of the Commons, with respect to modeling and
capturing visitor behaviors and decision making under potential risks
and uncertainties, typically encountered by visitors during their visiting
experience. Based on this framework, initially a risk-based visitor time
management mechanism is provided, and then pricing is suggested as a
valid measure to reduce overcrowding in cultural heritage spaces. Finally,
the consequences of people’s tendency to overweight small probabilities
and underweight large ones, as well as the potential of adopting fram-
ing effects by museum curators, on visitor’s decision making process are
highlighted.

Keywords: Cultural Heritage Spaces · Museums · Visitor Experience ·
Congestion Management · Socio-Physical Systems · Prospect Theory.

Cultural Informatics 2019, June 9, 2019, Larnaca, Cyprus. Copyright held
by the author(s).
2 A. Thanou et al.

1 Introduction

The importance of cultural heritage is undeniable, as it reflects people’s values,
beliefs, knowledge and traditions. Linking the past, the present and the future,
cultural heritage embodies treasures inherited from the past that should be be-
queathed to future generations. Nowadays, cultural heritage has even more to
offer due to the modern way of life. Longer working hours, excessive use of social
media platforms, the availability of large numbers of activities and consumer
choices lead people to become socially isolated and disconnected from their her-
itage. As a result, visiting cultural heritage spaces (e.g. museums) can be nothing
but beneficial, creating a novel alternative socio-physical system paradigm.
Museums are dynamic learning environments [1, 2] and people always gain
useful information and positive experiences during a visit. They offer an ideal
window into a world of history and cultures of different countries. They also
offer a very positive educational environment where people can enjoy a shared-
learning experience with family and friends. Visitors gain experiences and create
memories at museums that do not expire and make them happier in the long run.
At the same time visitors’ experience, often referred to as Quality of Experience
(QoE) [3–5], is typically evaluated and/or measured in terms of visitors percep-
tion of different aspects, such as utility, satisfaction, and/or efficiency. Though
user experience expresses the individual’s own perception and could be a subjec-
tive metric, this is done with respect to the context - spatial or temporal - and
the characteristics - physical or social - of the system that the visitor belongs
to. Therefore, this gives rise to strong interdependent behavioral patterns and
decision-making processes among museum visitors [6].
One of the key issues and challenges, that directly impacts visitor satis-
faction, is the problem of congestion in cultural heritage spaces and especially
museums [7, 8]. Crowd density has been shown to be one of the most influential
factors, negatively affecting visitor QoE [4] because it results in long queuing,
noise and eventually to inability to observe exhibits. Congestion is mostly en-
countered in well-known and world famous museums, which are known as ”su-
perstar” museums. A superstar museum is a ”must” attraction for tourists, has
a significant number of visitors every year, includes a collection of well-known
artists and works, and finally concludes towards a significant positive impact on
the local economy [9]. However, even though such museums contain outstanding
exhibits, that are valuable and important to humanity, overcrowding prevents
visitors from accessing and enjoying them.
Despite the long history of interest in cultural heritage, the problem of mu-
seum congestion has not been resolved and it still remains an issue of signif-
icant practical and research interest. In this paper, we aim at exactly filling
this gap and shed light on museum congestion management problem from a
socio-technical perspective. To deal with this, we first suggest a realistic visitor
behavior modeling approach and respectively promote alternative and feasible
congestion management solutions, stemming from the power and principles of
Prospect Theory and the Tragedy of the Commons [10–12].
A Roadmap to Congestion Management in Museums 3

2 Visitor behavior and their risk choices
In our work, we consider cultural heritage spaces as cyber-physical social systems
where people interact with each other, and the behaviour and decisions of one
visitor influence and are influenced by others. Moreover, as opposed to other
social environments, human experiences in a cultural heritage space are primarily
controlled by visitors themselves, as they decide how much time to spend in a
museum or which exhibits to observe. Therefore it is important to understand
the potentially unknown behaviour tendencies of visitors - especially in terms of
decision making - in order to improve their visiting experience.

2.1 Visitor risk choices in a cultural heritage space
Visitor decisions about which exhibits to observe (e.g. popular or non-popular)
and how much time to spend in front of them constitute decisions that entail
risk. The outcome of visiting a popular exhibit is neither guaranteed nor always
positive. The exhibit may be so congested that it may be impossible for visitors
to gain any satisfaction from it.
Based on this observation, in our work we classify art works into two main
categories: safe and Common Pool Resource (CPR) exhibits. Safe exhibits are
less well-known exhibits and thus less congested. Accordingly, we consider the
decision of a visitor to be safe when investing time at a safe exhibit because the
exhibit will not be surrounded by a lot of people and the visitor will certainly en-
joy observing it. In contrast, CPR exhibits are works that are famous worldwide
and potentially overcrowded.
In principle, a CPR is a resource that may significantly benefit a group of peo-
ple, but provides diminished benefits to everyone if each individual pursues his
or her own self-interest. A CPR may experience “failure” due to over-utilization
(or over-exploitation) with a probability that increases as visitor total time spent
(invested) at CPR increases. In case of CPR failure, none of the visitors gain
any satisfaction from it, a phenomenon known in the literature, as “Tragedy of
the Commons” [12]. Consequently its availability and welfare is governed by the
key characteristics of subtractability and non-excludability. A popular exhibit is
subtractable because the time a visitor spends observing it, influences negatively
(reduces) the ability of being observed by another. At the same time, a famous
work-art is non-excludable as all visitors have the right to visit it and no one
can be excluded from observing it. We regard as risky the decision of a visitor to
invest his/her time at a popular exhibit, because the view of the exhibit may be
blocked by others in some cases, and thus the visitor will consider this experience
as a potential loss.
With this in mind, we claim that people’s behaviour inside a cultural her-
itage space is not risk neutral. Visitors exhibit either a risk seeking or risk averse
behaviour according to circumstances and specifically when they take decisions
under uncertainty. While taking into consideration visitor behavioral risk pref-
erences, we adopt Prospect Theory [10] to express visitor QoE in a quantifiable
and tractable manner. In the remaining of this work, we regard the portion of
4 A. Thanou et al.

each visitor’s available time invested at CPR exhibits, as the investing param-
eter (i.e. optimizable parameter) that directly impacts museum congestion and
consequently user satisfaction (i.e. utility). The remaining percentage of visitor’s
time is consequently assumed to be consumed at safe exhibits.

2.2 Prospect Theory Basic Properties: Background Information
Prospect Theory is the most widely accepted behavioral model of decision mak-
ing under risk. It is a Nobel prize winning theory [10], and in a nutshell has four
main characteristics:

Reference Dependence Prospect Theory declares that people evaluate out-
comes, both gains and losses, not as absolute values but with respect to a status
quo or baseline, which in principle could be different per visitor (or types of
visitors). Based on Kszegi and Rabin’s research work [13–15], people use their
expectations or beliefs as a reference point to measure losses and gains. For ex-
ample, in the case of cultural experiences, people may assess their quality by
comparing them with previous experiences, or other potential alternative op-
tions/choices. In our work, we set the reference point as the visitor perceived
satisfaction or utility gained when all of his/her total visiting time tM
i
ax
is in-
vested at safe exhibits and is expressed as follows:

z0 = wi tM
i
ax
(1)
where wi expresses the importance of safe exhibit for visitor i and arises
from the combination of the historical importance of the safe exhibit ew and the
subjective interest of visitor i for the specific safe exhibit Ii , i.e. wi = ew Ii .

Loss aversion Prospect Theory claims that people take losses into account
more than gains. Consequently, an individual experiences comparatively greater
discomfort in cases of loss than the joy felt in cases of gain of equal magnitude.
Therefore, visitors with high interest in an exhibit (e.g.“The Last Supper” of
Leonardo da Vinci) would sense sorrow if they were not able to visit or observe
it due to congestion that would be comparatively greater than the pleasure they
would gain otherwise.

Diminishing sensitivity Diminishing sensitivity signifies that people tend to
be loss averse towards gains and risk seeking towards losses. When people ex-
perience gains, they prefer not to “gamble”, and obtain a rather certain gain,
even if there is a possibility of gaining more. In contrast, they prefer to risk
over a certain loss. This human behavioral characteristic is expressed via the
prospect theoretic utility function which is presented in Fig.1a and is formally
defined later in Eq.2. The figure illustrates visitor perceived utility i.e. joy or
pain (vertical axis), as a function of a specific uncertain outcome, i.e. gain or
loss (horizontal axis). Regarding cultural heritage experiences, we consider gains
A Roadmap to Congestion Management in Museums 5

Probability Weighting Function
Prospect-theoretic utility u(z)
1
Joy

Gains

Losses

Pain
0 1
Visitor's actual utility z Objective probabilities, p

(a) (b)

Fig. 1. (a) Prospect-theoretic QoE and (b) Probability weighting function

and losses as the perceived satisfaction a visitor gains during his/her visit in a
cultural heritage space.

Probability weighting Probability weighting is the fourth characteristic of
Prospect Theory and refers to the probabilities assigned to events. In general,
people have difficulty in decoding probabilities due to human psychology and
not to a low mathematical background. They tend to assign to outcomes not
their objective probabilities but weighted probabilities or decision weights. The
solid line in Fig.1b shows the probability weighted function which illustrates the
decision weight as a function of the objective probability, p. The graph reveals
that the probability weighted function overweights extremely unlike events and
underweights events that are likely to happen.

3 Approaches to Museum Congestion
In the following, based on the aforementioned observations and arguments, we
present three different approaches to deal with the problem of congestion man-
agement in cultural heritage spaces, which could be used either in isolation or
in a complementary manner. Especially, since congestion management turns to
be a complicated problem, it is suggested that more than one of the proposed
solutions may need to be adapted, and thus their correlation and simultaneous
consideration is also highlighted in this article.

3.1 Risk-based Visitor Time Management
In the literature, there exist several works that study and evaluate visitor per-
ceived satisfaction either in a qualitative way [3, 16, 17] or in a quantitative way
using mathematical functions and formal expressions [4, 18, 19]. However, irrel-
evant of their nature, the majority of them do not consider visitor behavioral
characteristics, and more importantly how such attributes or reactions influence
6 A. Thanou et al.

visitor touring process and overall experience. Such an approach was very re-
cently introduced in [20], where the authors formulated and modeled the overall
visitor museum behavior by considering visitor risk preferences and their impact
on visitor decision making process. In particular, based on Prospect Theory
and properly formulated Prospect Theoretic Utility function (see Eq.2), visitor
optimal investment time at CPR exhibits was computed with the objective of
maximizing visitor Expected Prospect Theoretic Utility, and reducing the po-
tential negative impacts due to the congestion issue. The Prospect Theoretic
Utility function is defined as:
(
(z − z0 )a , z ≥ z0
u(z) = (2)
−k(z0 − z)b , z < z0
where 0 < a ≤ 1, 0 < b ≤ 1, and k > 1, while the interpretation and meaning
of these parameters are explained below. Specifically, parameter a expresses the
visitor sensitivity towards gains whereas parameter b expresses the corresponding
sensitivity towards losses. People with greater value of a given some gain, become
more satisfied than visitors with lower a. Respectively, people with lower value of
b compared to people with higher value of b feel greater sorrow for the same loss.
Complementary to this, parameter k signifies the importance someone places on
gains and losses. Specifically, people value losses more than gains when k > 1
and they weight gains more than losses when 0 ≤ k ≤ 1.
The study of visitor optimal investment time based on a Prospect Theoretic
approach [20] concluded to very interesting outcomes and give a different, yet
realistic, perspective to museum congestion problem. Characteristically, indica-
tive numerical results revealed that visitor heterogeneity in either the sensitivity
parameter or the loss aversion value results in an increase in CPR probability of
failure. CPR failure can be also provoked by different levels of interest in exhibits
among visitors. Moreover, people with a low sensitivity parameter a gain high
satisfaction from their visit while tending to invest less time at CPR exhibits.
As regards the impact of loss aversion, visitors with a high loss aversion value
make shorter visits and are happier when they leave.
Consequently, from a cultural heritage site operator point of view, it is clearly
more beneficial:
• to group visitors according to their risk preferences (a and k) in order to
accomplish homogeneity among simultaneous visitors at a museum
• to group visitors with respect to their interest in exhibits
• to accommodate visitors with a low sensitivity parameter and visitors with
a medium or high loss aversion value.

3.2 Pricing policies - ”Pay as you go” model
Another alternative approach to dealing with overcrowding is based on pric-
ing policy mechanisms. The question of charging admission fees is controversial
and there are arguments both for and against their implementation. The main
A Roadmap to Congestion Management in Museums 7

motivating arguments of supporters of free access stem solely from a social or so-
ciological perspective. They claim that cultural heritage spaces should be open
to the public and should not exclude any group (i.e. poor or young people).
They also argue that free entry raises the number of visitors and consequently
increases the prestige of a cultural heritage space.
However, there is significant research that contradicts the above claims. A
survey conducted in the British Museum [21] revealed that only 1% of visitors,
visited the museum because it was free, and on the question of what they liked
or disliked most about their experience, more than 15% of them stated that
they disliked the crowds. This survey also illustrated that visitors are prepared
to pay more in order to experience less congestion. The study [22] verified that
the charging of an entrance fee in museums decreased overall numbers of vis-
itors by 30%, but nevertheless the numbers of low-income visitor families rose
significantly instead of falling. Moreover, the authors in [23] demonstrate that
the main barrier to young people attending cultural events is not the cost but
their belief that art is not an enjoyable or beneficial experience.
Based on the above arguments, in the following, we adopt the perspective
that pricing policies constitute a valid measure to reduce overcrowding in cul-
tural heritage spaces, and we consider that visitors may pay according to the
duration of their visit, especially if this facilitates and promotes an increase in
their cultural benefits and expectations. This belief is clearly supported and
reflected in Goudrian and Gerrit’s study [22] which demonstrated that the en-
trance fee does not filter out low-income visitors as stated before, but rather
short stay visitors. Classification of visitors into short and long stay visitors is
found in the literature [24, 25] and distinguishes them according to their visiting
time. The results of [25] showed that both types of visitors tend to visit the same
number of popular exhibits but the longer stay visitors tend to spend more time
observing them. Surprisingly, it was also revealed that longest stay visitors visit
fewer exhibits on average compared to short stay visitors. Therefore, visitors who
extend their stay in a museum should be charged accordingly, especially when
investing great portion of their time in visiting CPR exhibits. In other words,
the cost that their presence imposes on other visitors should be transferred back
to them.
Therefore, we suggest a pricing fee which will be directly proportional to
the visitor invested time ti at the CPR. Initial indicative numerical results of
applying such a time-based pricing approach in a prospect theoretic framework,
actually confirm that pricing leads to a significant decrease in CPR failure prob-
ability and specifically CPR failure probability decreases as the price charged to
visitors increases.

3.3 Cumulative Prospect Theory and Framing effects impact
As mentioned before, decision making analysis, especially under risks and un-
certainty, is of high research interest among various disciplines i.e. mathematics,
statistics, economics, political science, sociology and psychology [26]. With refer-
ence to museums, risky prospects, such as finding congestion at a CPR exhibit or
8 A. Thanou et al.

CPR failure, are characterized by possible outcomes i.e. the CPR is congested
or the CPR is not congested, as well as the probabilities of these outcomes.
Therefore, a prospect f is expressed as the sequence of pairs (x, p) where x is
the outcome and p is its objective probability. However, the fourth key element
of Prospect Theory, probability weighting (section 2.2) illustrates that people
may not value outcomes by their objective probability but by a transformed
probability or decision weight. In particular, a modified version of Prospect The-
ory, namely Cumulative Prospect Theory [27], proposes a probability weighting
function (Eq.3), which is depicted by the solid line in Fig. 1b. As the dotted
line corresponds to the expected utility, it is obvious from the graph that people
overweight low probabilities and underweight high probabilities. The inverse-S
shape of the weighting function which is initially concave and then turns convex
is responsible for the decreased sensitivity to changes in the middle of the scale.
Therefore the proposed modified probability weighting function is given by:
pγ

 1 , x ≥ x0
[pγ +(1−pγ )] γ
π(p) = p δ (3)
1 , x < x 0

δ δ
[p +(1−p )] δ

where p is the probability of the outcome and γ, δ are positive parameters
that express the level of distortion in probability judgment in the decision making
process. In contrast to Prospect Theory, Cumulative Prospect Theory allows the
probabilities to enter the utility function Eq.2 non linearly but using the above
weighting function (as expressed by Eq.3), which considers people’s tendency to
overweight small probabilities and underweight large probabilities, in an attempt
to produce even more pragmatic results.
In order to further comprehend visitor risk attitudes, we propose the designa-
tion of a museum routing mechanism based on Cumulative Prospect Theory to
investigate visitors’ choices, when congestion information is provided. Electronic
devices installed at specific junctions in the museum would inform visitors about
the overcrowding they would meet. Under that setting, visitors would have to
deal with a choice under risk only, rather than under uncertainty, because the
probabilities of the possible outcomes would be known. Similar studies have al-
ready been conducted in other fields [28], where numerical results revealed that
people become risk seeking when outcome probabilities are high, and risk averse
when outcome probabilities are lower.
In the following, we also argue that a complementary and highly promising
approach towards reducing congestion is based on the potential of properly in-
fluencing visitors decisions towards being redirected to different floors, rooms or
buildings of a ”superstar” museum during busy days or peak hours. To this end,
we suggest the usage and application of framing effects which is part of the de-
velopment of Prospect Theory [29]. Specifically, it highlights either the positive
or the negative aspects of the available choices of a decision problem (e.g. either
presenting the museum as 75% full or as 25% empty). Therefore, risky prospects
can be respectively framed either as gains or losses. The available choices and the
potential outcomes are always the same, however the way available choices are
A Roadmap to Congestion Management in Museums 9

framed or described lead to a potentially different decision. Although changing
the description of a prospect should not change the decision in principle, framing
effects illustrate that not only is this possible but more importantly it can also
be predicted.

4 Concluding Remarks
The importance of cultural heritage is vital for humanity, as a means of sustain-
ing and enhancing our integrity as people. In this paper, in order to contribute
towards the improved visitor experience throughout a cultural heritage space
touring, we presented alternative approaches to handle museum congestion is-
sue, which is one of the key problems negatively affecting visiting experience.
Museums are socio-physical spaces where visitors behaviour and decisions
are influenced and being influenced by others. As visitors exhibit either a risk
seeking or risk averse behaviour, we argued that the understanding of visitor
behavioral characteristics and risk preferences, is vital for improving their per-
ceived satisfaction. Moreover, we suggested the application of a pricing policy as
an effective approach to address overcrowding issue and decrease the “failure”
probability especially of popular exhibits. Finally, we discussed the potential
of framing effects as an additional mechanism to treat congestion problem, by
implicitly influencing visitor touring decisions and thus permitting the better
planning and control of traffic withing a cultural heritage space, especially dur-
ing busy days and peak hours.

Acknowledgements. This research effort is supported by ICCS Research Award
under Grant Number 65020602, and by UNM Research Allocation Committee
award and the UNM Women in STEM Faculty Development Fund.

References
1. Falk, J. H., Dierking, L. D.: Learning from museums. Rowman and Littlefield (2018)
2. Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K., Knutson, K. (Eds.). Learning conversations in museums.
Taylor and Francis (2003)
3. Wright, P.: The quality of visitors experiences in art museums. The new museology,
119-148 (1989)
4. Tsiropoulou, E. E., Thanou, A., Papavassiliou, S.: Modelling museum visitors’ Qual-
ity of Experience. In 2016 11th International Workshop on Semantic and Social
Media Adaptation and Personalization (SMAP),pp. 77-82. IEEE (2016)
5. Tsiropoulou, E. E., Thanou, A., Papavassiliou, S.: Quality of Experience-based mu-
seum touring: A human in the loop approach. Social Network Analysis and Mining
7(1), 33 (2017)
6. Tsiropoulou, E., Kousis, G., Thanou, A., Lykourentzou, I., Papavassiliou, S.: Quality
of Experience in Cyber-Physical Social Systems Based on Reinforcement Learning
and Game Theory. Future Internet 10(11), 108 (2018)
7. Riganti, P., Nijkamp, P.: Congestion in popular tourist areas: a multi-attribute ex-
perimental choice analysis of willingness-to-wait in Amsterdam. Tourism Economics
14(1), 25-44 (2008)
10 A. Thanou et al.

8. Cros, H. D.: Too much of a good thing? Visitor congestion management issues for
popular world heritage tourist attractions. Journal of Heritage Tourism 2(3), 225-
238 (2008)
9. Frey, B. S., Meier, S.: The economics of museums. Handbook of the Economics of
Art and Culture 1, 1017-1047 (2006)
10. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.
In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I, pp. 99-127.
(2013)
11. Hota, A. R., Garg, S., Sundaram, S.: Fragility of the commons under prospect-
theoretic risk attitudes. Games and Economic Behavior, 98, 135-164 (2016)
12. Hardin, G.: The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859), 1243-1248 (1968)
13. Kszegi, B., Rabin, M.: A model of reference-dependent preferences. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics 121(4), 1133-1165 (2006)
14. Kszegi, B., Rabin, M.: Reference-dependent risk attitudes. American Economic
Review 97(4), 1047-1073 (2007)
15. Kszegi, B., Rabin, M: Reference-dependent consumption plans. American Eco-
nomic Review 99(3), 909-36 (2009)
16. Chittaro, L., Ieronutti, L.: A visual tool for tracing users’ behavior in Virtual Envi-
ronments. In Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces,
pp. 40-47. ACM (2004)
17. Goulding, C.: The museum environment and the visitor experience. European Jour-
nal of marketing 34(3/4), 261-278 (2000)
18. Sookhanaphibarn, K., Thawonmas, R.: A movement data analysis and synthesis
tool for museum visitors behaviors. In Pacific-Rim Conference on Multimedia, pp.
144-154. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2009)
19. Lykourentzou, I., Claude, X., Naudet, Y., Tobias, E., Antoniou, A., Lepouras, G.,
Vassilakis, C.: Improving museum visitors’ Quality of Experience through intelli-
gent recommendations: A visiting style-based approach. In Intelligent Environments
(Workshops), pp. 507-518. (2013)
20. Thanou, A., Tsiropoulou, E. E., Papavassiliou, S.: Quality of Experience Under a
Prospect Theoretic Perspective: A Cultural Heritage Space Use Case. IEEE Trans-
actions on Computational Social Systems 6(1), 135-148 (2019)
21. Maddison, D., Foster, T.: Valuing congestion costs in the British Museum. Oxford
Economic Papers 55(1), 173-190 (2003)
22. Goudriaan, R., Van t Eind, G.: To fee or not to fee: Some effects of introducing
admission fees in four museums in Rotterdam. Managerial Economics for the Arts.
Association for Cultural Economics, Akron, Ohio (1985)
23. Kolb, B. M.: Pricing as the key to attracting students to the performing arts.
Journal of Cultural Economics 21(2), 139-146 (1997)
24. Bitgood, S.: An analysis of visitor circulation: Movement patterns and the general
value principle. Curator: The Museum Journal 49(4), 463-475 (2006)
25. Yoshimura, Y., Sobolevsky, S., Ratti, C., Girardin, F., Carrascal, J. P., Blat, J.,
Sinatra, R.: An analysis of visitors’ behavior in the Louvre Museum: A study using
Bluetooth data. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 41(6), 1113-
1131 (2014)
26. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Choices, values, and frames. In Handbook of the
Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making: Part I, pp. 269-278. (2013)
27. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representa-
tion of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and uncertainty 5(4), 297-323 (1992)
A Roadmap to Congestion Management in Museums 11

28. Gao, S., Frejinger, E., Ben-Akiva, M.: Adaptive route choices in risky traffic net-
works: A prospect theory approach. Transportation research part C: Emerging Tech-
nologies 18(5), 727-740 (2010)
29. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.
Science 211(4481), 453-458 (1981)