The spatial configuration of local climate zones reveals effects on wayfinding in human walking

42. Bechtel B., Alexander P. J., Beck C., Bo¨ hner J., Brousse O., Ching J., et al (2019). Generating WUDAPT Level 0 data—Current status of production and evaluation. Urban Climate, 24–45. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.uclim.2018.10.001 43. McGarigal K., & Marks B. J. (1995). FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying land- scape structure. In General Technical Report—US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Issue PNW-GTR-351). https://doi.org/10.2737/PNW-GTR-351 44. Griffith J. A., Martinko E. A., & Price K. P. (2000). Landscape structure analysis of Kansas at three scales. Landscape and Urban Planning, 52(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00) 00112-2 45. Leitão A. B., Miller J., Ahern J., & McGarigal K. (2006). Measuring Landscapes: A Planner’s Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360701755667 46. Mcgarigal K. (2002). FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. In Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 47. Ord J. K., & Getis A. (1995). Local Spatial Autocorrelation Statistics: Distributional Issues and an Appli- cation. Geographical Analysis, 27(4), 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1995.tb00912.x 48. Can, I. (2012). In-Between Space and Social Interaction: a Case Study of Three Neighbourhoods in Izmir (Doctoral dissertation) [University of Nottingham]. http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/12637/1/ IsinCan_PhDThesis_July2012.pdf 49. Alfonzo M. A. (2005). To walk or not to walk? The hierarchy of walking needs. Environment and Behav-

ior, 37(6), 808–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916504274016 50. Brownson R. C., Hoehner C. M., Day K., Forsyth A., & Sallis J. F. (2009). Measuring the Built Environ- ment for Physical Activity: State of the Science. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(4 Suppl), S99–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.005 PMID: 19285216 51. Passini R. (1984). Spatial representations, a wayfinding perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychol- ogy, 4(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(84)80031-6 52. Koseoglu E., & Onder D. E. (2011). Subjective and objective dimensions of spatial legibility. Procedia— Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1191–1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2011.10.231 53. Mahdzar S. S. S., & Safari H. (2014). Legibility as a Result of Geometry Space: Analyzing and Compar- ing Hypothetical Model and Existing Space by Space Syntax. Life Science Journal, 11(8), 309–317. 54. Wu J. (2004). Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landscape Ecology, 19(2), 125–138. 55. Turnerl M. G., O’neill’ R. V, Gardner’ R. H., & Milne B. T. (1989). Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology, 3(3), 153–162. 56. Cushman S. A., & Mcgarigal K. (2008). Landscape Metrics, Scales of Resolution. In Designing green landscapes (pp. 33–51). Springer. 57. Rakoto P. Y., Deilami K., Hurley J., Amati M., & Sun Q. (Chayn). (2021). Revisiting the cooling effects of urban greening: Planning implications of vegetation types and spatial configuration. Urban Forestry &

Urban Greening, 64, 127266. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UFUG.2021.127266 58. Hao P., Geertman S., Hooimeijer P., & Sliuzas R. (2013). Spatial Analyses of the Urban Village Devel- opment Process in Shenzhen, China. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(6), 2177–2197. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-2427.2012.01109.X PLOS ONE The spatial configuration for wayfinding PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289780 September 8, 2023 18 / 18