4.6 Article

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

期刊

LAND
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/land10101102

关键词

landscape perception; artificial element; eye movement; socio-demography; tourism resource conservation

资金

  1. Strategic Priority Research Program(A) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA230201]
  2. Key R&D Program of Jiangsu Province [BE2019773]
  3. Chinese Academy of Sciences
  4. Jiangsu Provincial Department of Science and Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the impact of artificial elements on mountain landscapes, finding that human structures can affect both visual perception and the perceived value of landscapes. Different socio-demographic groups show significant differences in how they observe and value landscapes.
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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据