IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i10p1102-d658540.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Artificial Elements on Mountain Landscape Perception: An Eye-Tracking Study

Author

Listed:
  • Suling Guo

    (Key Laboratory of Watershed Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Institute of Geography & Limnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, East Beijing Road 73, Nanjing 210008, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yuquan Road 19A, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Wei Sun

    (Key Laboratory of Watershed Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Institute of Geography & Limnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, East Beijing Road 73, Nanjing 210008, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yuquan Road 19A, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Wen Chen

    (Key Laboratory of Watershed Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Institute of Geography & Limnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, East Beijing Road 73, Nanjing 210008, China
    College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yuquan Road 19A, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Jianxin Zhang

    (School of Geography and Ocean Science, Nanjing University, 163 Xianlin Street, Nanjing 210023, China)

  • Peixue Liu

    (School of Geography and Ocean Science, Nanjing University, 163 Xianlin Street, Nanjing 210023, China)

Abstract

The landscape is an essential resource for attracting tourists to a destination, but this resource has long been overused by tourism development. Tourists and scholars have begun noticing the interference of human structures in the natural environment and how this can change the meaning of a landscape. In this study, the impact of artificial elements on mountain landscapes was investigated by measuring the characteristics of visual perception and a landscape value assessment using eye-tracking analysis. Furthermore, this study includes socio-demographic features for testing whether they have an impact on landscape perception. The results show that human structures impact both visual perception and the perceived value of landscapes. Hotels and temples attract more visual attention than a purely natural landscape. Modern hotels appear to have a negative influence on mountain landscape valuation, while temples with unique culture have positive impacts. Socio-demographic groups differ significantly in how they observe landscape images and, to a degree, how they value the landscape therein. Our study should be of value to landscape planning and tourism policy making.

Suggested Citation

  • Suling Guo & Wei Sun & Wen Chen & Jianxin Zhang & Peixue Liu, 2021. "Impact of Artificial Elements on Mountain Landscape Perception: An Eye-Tracking Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:10:p:1102-:d:658540
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/10/1102/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/10/1102/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jiang, Ting & Ryan, Chris & Zhang, Chaozhi, 2018. "The spiritual or secular tourist? The experience of Zen meditation in Chinese temples," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 187-199.
    2. Torres-Sibille, Ana del Carmen & Cloquell-Ballester, Vicente-Agustín & Cloquell-Ballester, Víctor-Andrés & Artacho Ramírez, Miguel Ángel, 2009. "Aesthetic impact assessment of solar power plants: An objective and a subjective approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 986-999, June.
    3. Sklenicka, Petr & Zouhar, Jan, 2018. "Predicting the visual impact of onshore wind farms via landscape indices: A method for objectivizing planning and decision processes," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 445-454.
    4. Peng Wang & Wenjuan Yang & Dengju Wang & Youjun He, 2021. "Insights into Public Visual Behaviors through Eye-Tracking Tests: A Study Based on National Park System Pilot Area Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    5. Tengberg, Anna & Fredholm, Susanne & Eliasson, Ingegard & Knez, Igor & Saltzman, Katarina & Wetterberg, Ola, 2012. "Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 14-26.
    6. Lien Dupont & Marc Antrop & Veerle Van Eetvelde, 2014. "Eye-tracking Analysis in Landscape Perception Research: Influence of Photograph Properties and Landscape Characteristics," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 417-432, August.
    7. Li, Qian & Huang, Zhuowei (Joy) & Christianson, Kiel, 2016. "Visual attention toward tourism photographs with text: An eye-tracking study," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 243-258.
    8. Helena Nordh & Caroline M. Hagerhall & Kenneth Holmqvist, 2013. "Tracking Restorative Components: Patterns in Eye Movements as a Consequence of a Restorative Rating Task," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 101-116, February.
    9. Ken Taylor, 2016. "The Historic Urban Landscape paradigm and cities as cultural landscapes. Challenging orthodoxy in urban conservation," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 471-480, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. María Jesús Montero-Parejo & Lorenzo García-Moruno & Julio Hernández-Blanco & Jacinto Garrido-Velarde, 2022. "Visual Impact Assessment in Rural Areas: The Role of Vegetation Screening in the Sustainable Integration of Isolated Buildings," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Ruochen Ma & Yuxin Luo & Katsunori Furuya, 2023. "Gender Differences and Optimizing Women’s Experiences: An Exploratory Study of Visual Behavior While Viewing Urban Park Landscapes in Tokyo, Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-14, February.
    3. Jiayin Zhang & Mingliang Lin & Min Wang & Yinbin Lin, 2023. "Scale transformation of place brands: a visual study of Xinhepu, Guangzhou," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Youngeun Kang & Eujin Julia Kim, 2019. "Differences of Restorative Effects While Viewing Urban Landscapes and Green Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, April.
    2. Yu Wu & Zhixiong Zhuo & Qunyue Liu & Kunyong Yu & Qitang Huang & Jian Liu, 2021. "The Relationships between Perceived Design Intensity, Preference, Restorativeness and Eye Movements in Designed Urban Green Space," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-16, October.
    3. Chang Li & Xiaohui Huang, 2022. "Differences in Visual Attraction between Historical Garden and Urban Park Walking Scenes," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Peng Wang & Wenjuan Yang & Dengju Wang & Youjun He, 2021. "Insights into Public Visual Behaviors through Eye-Tracking Tests: A Study Based on National Park System Pilot Area Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    5. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    6. Anabela Botelho & Lina Sofia Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Accounting for local impacts of photovoltaic farms: two stated preferences approaches," NIMA Working Papers 64, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    7. Ahmed Abdel Fattah & Mary Eddy-U, 2022. "The unique twin approaches of Sufi Sheikhs and host-guest relationships at El Sayed Ahmed El-Badawy Mosque in Egypt," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 2723-2750, August.
    8. Swetnam, R.D. & Harrison-Curran, S.K. & Smith, G.R., 2017. "Quantifying visual landscape quality in rural Wales: A GIS-enabled method for extensive monitoring of a valued cultural ecosystem service," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 451-464.
    9. Gianni Talamini & Ting Liu & Roula El-Khoury & Di Shao, 2023. "Visibility and symbolism of corporate architecture: A multi-method approach for visual impact assessment," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(9), pages 2407-2429, November.
    10. Radenka Mitova & Bilyana Borisova & Boian Koulov, 2021. "Digital Marketing of Bulgarian Natural Heritage for Tourism and Recreation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    11. Anastasija Novikova & Lucia Rocchi & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2019. "Valuing Agricultural Landscape: Lithuanian Case Study Using a Contingent Valuation Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, May.
    12. Pihel, Johan & Ode Sang, Åsa & Hagerhall, Caroline & Nyström, Marcus, 2015. "Expert and novice group differences in eye movements when assessing biodiversity of harvested forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 20-26.
    13. Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 291-307.
    14. Moses Fayiah & ShiKui Dong & Sphiwe Wezzie Khomera & Syed Aziz Ur Rehman & Mingyue Yang & Jiannan Xiao, 2020. "Status and Challenges of Qinghai–Tibet Plateau’s Grasslands: An Analysis of Causes, Mitigation Measures, and Way Forward," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, February.
    15. Bryce, Rosalind & Irvine, Katherine N. & Church, Andrew & Fish, Robert & Ranger, Sue & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 258-269.
    16. Elwell, Tammy L. & López-Carr, David & Gelcich, Stefan & Gaines, Steven D., 2020. "The importance of cultural ecosystem services in natural resource-dependent communities: Implications for management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    17. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà, N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.
    18. Ming Lu & Alin Lin & Jiyi Sun, 2018. "The Impact of Photovoltaic Applications on Urban Landscapes Based on Visual Q Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, April.
    19. Brzoska, P. & Grunewald, K. & Bastian, O., 2021. "A multi-criteria analytical method to assess ecosystem services at urban site level, exemplified by two German city districts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    20. Juan A. García-Esparza, 2022. "Urban Scene Protection and Unconventional Practices—Contemporary Landscapes in World Heritage Cities of Spain," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:10:p:1102-:d:658540. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.