IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i8p1306-d105998.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Landscape Perceptions of Bukhansan National Park According to the Degree of Visitors’ Experience

Author

Listed:
  • Kyu-Chul Lee

    (Interdisciplinary Program in Landscape Architecture, Seoul National University, 1, Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Korea)

  • Yong-Hoon Son

    (Graduate School of Environment Studies, Seoul National University, 1, Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Korea)

Abstract

This study explores differing landscape perceptions of Bukhansan National Park according to the degree of visitors’ familiarity, and discusses the utilization of commonality and diversity of landscape perception in sustainable landscape management. Visitor-employed photography (VEP) was used to capture the overall response to experiencing landscape directly on-site. According to the degree of familiarity of national parks, visitors were recruited into two groups: inexperienced group (the novice group) and experienced group (the veteran group). We collected photographs and photo-logs of liked and disliked landscape from the participants. Additional interviews were conducted to supplement the content of the photo-logs. The objects of landscape were classified into spatial configurations and specific elements. The cognitive process of landscape perception is divided into four stages: perceptual, expressive, interpretative, and symbolic. Emphasizing the narrative aspects of landscape, accepting and interpreting the phenomenon can vary according to an individual's interest and background. We used semantic network analysis to analyze the content of participants’ photo-logs. The content at the interpretative level showed that the two groups had very different perceptions of anthropic elements. The novice group emphasized walkability and accessibility, while the veteran group regarded naturalness and historicity as more important. In conclusion, it is a very useful way to analyze the differences of perceptions of two visitors, both the novice group and the veteran group to grasp the positive or negative perceptions of people’s impacts on the landscape. Understanding the value of relevant visitors through analysis results is one way to resolve potential conflicts.

Suggested Citation

  • Kyu-Chul Lee & Yong-Hoon Son, 2017. "Exploring Landscape Perceptions of Bukhansan National Park According to the Degree of Visitors’ Experience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-27, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:8:p:1306-:d:105998
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/8/1306/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/8/1306/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arnberger, Arne & Eder, Renate & Allex, Brigitte & Sterl, Petra & Burns, Robert C., 2012. "Relationships between national-park affinity and attitudes towards protected area management of visitors to the Gesaeuse National Park, Austria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 48-55.
    2. Bieling, Claudia & Plieninger, Tobias & Pirker, Heidemarie & Vogl, Christian R., 2014. "Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 19-30.
    3. Ueda, Hirofumi & Nakajima, Toshihiro & Takayama, Norimasa & Petrova, Elena & Matsushima, Hajime & Furuya, Katsunori & Aoki, Yoji, 2012. "Landscape image sketches of forests in Japan and Russia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 20-30.
    4. 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.
    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. Iván Franch-Pardo & Brian M. Napoletano & Gerardo Bocco & Sara Barrasa & Luis Cancer-Pomar, 2017. "The Role of Geographical Landscape Studies for Sustainable Territorial Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-23, November.
    2. Belén Martín & Rosa Arce & Isabel Otero & Manuel Loro, 2018. "Visual Landscape Quality as Viewed from Motorways in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-13, July.
    3. Erda Wang & Nannan Kang & Yang Yu, 2017. "Valuing Urban Landscape Using Subjective Well-Being Data: Empirical Evidence from Dalian, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Mara Cerquetti & Concetta Ferrara, 2018. "Marketing Research for Cultural Heritage Conservation and Sustainability: Lessons from the Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, March.

    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. Marc Vallverdu-Gordi & Estela Marine-Roig, 2023. "The Role of Graphic Design Semiotics in Environmental Awareness Campaigns," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Run Liu & Ziyue Qiu, 2022. "Urban Sustainable Development Empowered by Cultural and Tourism Industries: Using Zhenjiang as an Example," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-15, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Ju Hyoung Han & Andy S. Choi & Chi-Ok Oh, 2018. "The Effects of Environmental Value Orientations and Experience-Use History on the Conservation Value of a National Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, September.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Raymond, Christopher M. & Kenter, Jasper O. & Plieninger, Tobias & Turner, Nancy J. & Alexander, Karen A., 2014. "Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 145-156.
    8. Antonio Santoro & Martina Venturi & Mauro Agnoletti, 2021. "Landscape Perception and Public Participation for the Conservation and Valorization of Cultural Landscapes: The Case of the Cinque Terre and Porto Venere UNESCO Site," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24, January.
    9. Karimi, Azadeh & Yazdandad, Hossein & Fagerholm, Nora, 2020. "Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Linjia Wu & Qidi Dong & Shixian Luo & Wenyuan Jiang & Ming Hao & Qibing Chen, 2021. "Effects of Spatial Elements of Urban Landscape Forests on the Restoration Potential and Preference of Adolescents," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    12. Arsić, Sanela & Nikolić, Djordje & Živković, Živan, 2017. "Hybrid SWOT - ANP - FANP model for prioritization strategies of sustainable development of ecotourism in National Park Djerdap, Serbia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 11-26.
    13. Jacobs, Sander & Dendoncker, Nicolas & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David Nicholas & Gomez-Baggethun, Erik & Boeraeve, Fanny & McGrath, Francesca L. & Vierikko, Kati & Geneletti, Davide & Sevecke, , 2016. "A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 213-220.
    14. Moyle, Brent D. & Scherrer, Pascal & Weiler, Betty & Wilson, Erica & Caldicott, Rod & Nielsen, Noah, 2017. "Assessing preferences of potential visitors for nature-based experiences in protected areas," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 29-41.
    15. Xu, Feifei & Fox, Dorothy, 2014. "Modelling attitudes to nature, tourism and sustainable development in national parks: A survey of visitors in China and the UK," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 142-158.
    16. Adison Altamirano & Carolina Gonzalez-Suhr & Caroline Marien & Germán Catalán & Alejandro Miranda & Marco Prado & Laurent Tits & Lorena Vieli & Paula Meli, 2020. "Landscape Disturbance Gradients: The Importance of the Type of Scene When Evaluating Landscape Preferences and Perceptions," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-23, September.
    17. Beatriz Herrera Sabillón & Maria Gerster‐Bentaya & Andrea Knierim, 2022. "Measuring farmers' well‐being: Influence of farm‐level factors on satisfaction with work and quality of life," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(2), pages 452-471, June.
    18. Nowak-Olejnik, Agnieszka & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "A systematic review on subjective well-being benefits associated with cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    19. Ebner, Manuel & Fontana, Veronika & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services of mountain lakes in the European Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    20. Bélisle, Annie Claude & Wapachee, Alice & Asselin, Hugo, 2021. "From landscape practices to ecosystem services: Landscape valuation in Indigenous contexts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).

    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:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:8:p:1306-:d:105998. 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.