What on-site landscape experiences attract potential visitors to a site? A Japan–Korea cross-cultural comparison

References

• Aoki Y. 1999. Review article: trends in the study of the psychological evaluation of landscape. Landsc Res. 24(1):85–94. doi: 10.1080/01426399908706552.
   Google Scholar
• Appleton J. 1984. Prospects and refuges re-visited. Landsc J. 3(2):91–103. doi: 10.3368/lj.3.2.91.
   Google Scholar
• Appleton J. 1996. The experience of landscape. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Balomenou N, Garrod B. 2016. A review of participant-generated image methods in the social Sciences. J Mix Methods Res. 10(4):335–351. doi: 10.1177/1558689815581561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balomenou N, Garrod B. 2019. Photographs in tourism research: prejudice, power, performance and participant-generated images. Tour Manag. 70:201–217. doi: 10.1016/J.TOURMAN.2018.08.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barros C, Moya-Gómez B, Gutiérrez J. 2019. Using geotagged photographs and GPS tracks from social networks to analyse visitor behaviour in national parks. Current Issues In Tourism. 23(10):1291–1310. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2019.1619674.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beeco JA, Brown G. 2013. Integrating space, spatial tools, and spatial analysis into the human dimensions of parks and outdoor recreation. Appl Geogr. 38:76–85. doi: 10.1016/J.APGEOG.2012.11.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell S. 2010. Forest recreation and nature tourism. Urban For Urban Green. 9(2):69–70. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2010.03.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown M, Murtha T. 2019. Anthropological approaches for cultural resource conservation design and planning. Environmental Practice. 21(4):179–188. doi: 10.1080/14660466.2019.1688083.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G, Weber D. 2011. Public participation GIS: a new method for national park planning. Landsc Urban Plan. 102(1):1–15. doi: 10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2011.03.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bubalo M, van Zanten BT, Verburg PH. 2019. Crowdsourcing geo-information on landscape perceptions and preferences: a review. Landsc Urban Plan. 184:101–111. doi: 10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2019.01.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Parkins JR, Sherren K. 2018. Using geo-tagged Instagram posts to reveal landscape values around current and proposed hydroelectric dams and their reservoirs. Landsc Urban Plan. 170:283–292. doi: 10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2017.07.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colson V, Garcia S, Rondeux J, Lejeune P. 2010. Map and determinants of woodlands visiting in Wallonia. Urban For Urban Green. 9(2):83–91. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2009.04.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel TC, Daniel TC. 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc Urban Plan. 54(1–4):267–281. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jesus França LC, Júnior FWA, E Silva CSJ, Monti CA, Ferreira TC, de Oliveira Santana CJ, Gomide LR. 2022. Forest landscape planning and management: a state-of-the-art review. Trees, For People. 8:100275. doi: 10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100275.
   Google Scholar
• Domingo-Santos JM, de Villarán RF, Rapp-Arrarás Í, de Provens ECP. 2011. The visual exposure in forest and rural landscapes: an algorithm and a GIS tool. Landsc Urban Plan. 101(1):52–58. doi: 10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2010.11.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dosen AS, Ostwald MJ. 2016. Evidence for prospect-refuge theory: a meta-analysis of the findings of environmental preference research. City Territ Archit. 3(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s40410-016-0033-1.
   Google Scholar
• Fairweather JR, Swaffield SR. 2002. Visitors’ and locals’ experiences of Rotorua, New Zealand: an interpretative study using photographs of landscapes and Q method. Int J Tourism Res. 4(4):283–297. doi: 10.1002/jtr.381.
   Google Scholar
• Fossgard K, Fredman P. 2019. Dimensions in the nature-based tourism experiencescape: an explorative analysis. J Outdoor Recr Tour. 28:100219. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2019.04.001.
   Google Scholar
• Fujii E. 1990. Cross-cultural studies of Green spaces, especially of gardens in Japan and Korea. Tokyo: Ministry of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Garrod B. 2008. Exploring place perception a photo-based analysis. Ann Tour Res. 35(2):381–401. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2007.09.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrod B. 2009. Understanding the relationship between tourism destination imagery and tourist photography. J Travel Res. 47(3):346–358. doi: 10.1177/0047287508322785.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghorbanzadeh O, Pourmoradian S, Blaschke T, Feizizadeh B. 2019. Mapping potential nature-based tourism areas by applying GIS-decision making systems in East Azerbaijan Province, Iran. J Ecotourism. 18(3):261–283. doi: 10.1080/14724049.2019.1597876.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gobster PH, Schultz CL, Kruger LE, Henderson JR. 2022. Forest therapy trails: a conceptual framework and scoping review of research. Forests. 13:1613. doi: 10.3390/F13101613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg L. 2019. Toward conservation of visual resources at the regional scale. Environmental Practice. 21(4):201–215. doi: 10.1080/14660466.2019.1687231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen AS. 2020. Understanding recreational landscapes – a review and discussion. Landsc Res. 46(1):128–141. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2020.1833320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haukeland JV, Fredman P, Tyrväinen L, Siegrist D, Lindberg K. 2023. Prospects for nature-based tourism: identifying trends with commercial potential. J Ecotourism. 1–18. doi: 10.1080/14724049.2023.2178444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hays S, Page SJ, Buhalis D. 2013. Social media as a destination marketing tool: its use by national tourism organisations. Curr Issues Tour. 16(3):211–239. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2012.662215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heikinheimo V, Di ME, Tenkanen H, Hausmann A, Erkkonen J, Toivonen T. 2017. User-generated Geographic information for visitor monitoring in a national park: a comparison of social media data and visitor survey. ISPRS Int J Geo-Infor. 6(3):85 6:85. doi: 10.3390/IJGI6030085.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzog TR, Herbert EJ, Kaplan R, Crooks CL. 2000. Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environ Behav. 32(3):323–346. doi: 10.1177/0013916500323002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzog TR, Kirk KM. 2005. Pathway curvature and border visibility as predictors of preference and danger in forest settings. Environ Behav. 37(5):620–639. doi: 10.1177/0013916505275306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hull RB, Stewart WP. 1995. The landscape encountered and experienced while hiking. Environ Behav. 27(3):404–426. doi: 10.1177/0013916595273007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Japan Travel Bureau Foundation. 2014. Annual report on the tourism trends survey 2014. Tokyo
   Google Scholar
• Japan Travel Bureau Foundation. 2018. Annual report on the tourism trends survey 2018. Tokyo
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins OH. 2003. Photography and travel brochures: the circle of representation. Tourism Geogr. 5(3):305–328. doi: 10.1080/1461668032000098024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jianrong Z, Zhenbin Z. 2022. Tourists’ perceptual presentation of national forest park——A case study of Wujin mountain national forest park. J For Res-Jpn. 27(1):15–19. doi: 10.1080/13416979.2021.2006886.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan R, Kaplan S. 1989. The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kent RL. 1993. Attributes, features and reasons for enjoyment of scenic routes: a comparison of experts, residents, and citizens. Landsc Res. 18(2):92–102. doi: 10.1080/01426399308706398.
   Google Scholar
• Konijn E, Sluimer N, Mitas O. 2016. Click to share: patterns in tourist photography and sharing. Int J Tourism Res. 18(6):525–535. doi: 10.1002/jtr.2069.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu J, Wei Y, Lu S, Wang R, Chen L, Xu F. 2021. The elderly’s preference for the outdoor environment in fragrant hills nursing home, Beijing: interpreting the visual-behavioural relationship. Urban For Urban Green. 64:127242. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntymaa E, Tyrväinen L, Juutinen A, Kurttila M. 2021. Importance of forest landscape quality for companies operating in nature tourism areas. Land Use Policy. 107:104095. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104095.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mizuuchi Y. 2023. Landscape assessment of forest trail using geotagged visitor employed photography: the case of the inariyama trail in the Takao Quasi-National Park, Tokyo. J For Res-Jpn. 28(1):1–10. doi: 10.1080/13416979.2022.2117091.
   Google Scholar
• Mizuuchi Y, Nakamura KW. 2021. Landscape assessment of a 100-year-old sacred forest within a shrine using geotagged visitor employed photography. J For Res-Jpn. 26(4):267–277. doi: 10.1080/13416979.2021.1892251.
   Google Scholar
• Mizuuchi Y, Nojima T, Furuya K. 2016. A study on landscape evaluation by forest trail visitors in a nature park: a case of Meiji no Mori Takao Quasi-National park. Landscape Research Japan Online. 9:91–102. doi: 10.5632/jilaonline.9.91.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen AB, Heyman E, Richnau G. 2012. Liked, disliked and unseen forest attributes: relation to modes of viewing and cognitive constructs. J Environ Manage. 113:456–466. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okabe A, Okunuki KI, Shiode S. 2006. SANET: a toolbox for spatial analysis on a network. Geogr Anal. 38(1):57–66. doi: 10.1111/J.0016-7363.2005.00674.X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okabe A, Satoh T, Sugihara K. 2009. A kernel density estimation method for networks, its computational method and a GIS‐based tool. Int J Geogr Inf Sci. 23(1):7–32. doi: 10.1080/13658810802475491.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oku H, Fukamachi K. 2006. The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity. Landsc Urban Plan. 75(1–2):34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.10.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer JF. 2019. The contribution of a GIS-based landscape assessment model to a scientifically rigorous approach to visual impact assessment. Landsc Urban Plan. 189:80–90. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.03.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pino G, Peluso AM, Del Vecchio P, et al. 2019. A methodological framework to assess social media strategies of event and destination management organizations. J Hosp Mark Manag. 28:189–216. doi: 10.1080/19368623.2018.1516590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pop R-A, Săplăcan Z, Dabija D-C, Alt M-A. 2022. The impact of social media influencers on travel decisions: the role of trust in consumer decision journey. Curr Issues Tour. 25(5):823–843. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2021.1895729.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purcell AT, Lamb RJ, Mainardi Peron E, Falchero S. 1994. Preference or preferences for landscape? J Environ Psychol. 14(3):195–209. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(94)80056-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao C v , Rag C v. 2018. Analysis of means—A review. J Qual Technol. 37:308–315. 10.1080/00224065.2005.11980334.
   Google Scholar
• Rathmann J, Sacher P, Volkmann N, Mayer M. 2020. Using the visitor-employed photography method to analyse deadwood perceptions of forest visitors: a case study from Bavarian Forest National Park, Germany. Eur J For Res. 139(3):431–442. doi: 10.1007/s10342-020-01260-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommer R. 1997. Further cross-national studies of tree form preference. Ecol Psychol. 9(2):153–160. doi: 10.1207/s15326969eco0902_3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stepchenkova S, Zhan F. 2013. Visual destination images of Peru: comparative content analysis of DMO and user-generated photography. Tour Manag. 36:590–601. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2012.08.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strumse E. 1994. Perceptual dimensions in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western norway. J Environ Psychol. 14(4):281–292. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80219-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strumse E. 1996. Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscape in western Norway. J Environ Psychol. 16(1):17–31. doi: 10.1006/jevp.1996.0002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takayama N, Tanaka N, Tsuji K, Aoki Y. 2006. Genealogy and features of research on the relation between ”background” and “Environmental orientation” in western-language references. J Jap Inst Landscape Architect. 69(5):741–746. doi: 10.5632/JILA.69.741.
   Google Scholar
• Terkenli TS, Skowronek E, Georgoula V. 2021. Landscape and tourism: European expert views on an intricate relationship. Land (Basel). 10(3):327. doi: 10.3390/land10030327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tveit MS. 2009. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. J Environ Manage. 90(9):2882–2888. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ueda H, Nakajima T, Takayama N, Petrova E, Matsushima H, Furuya K, Aoki Y. 2012. Landscape image sketches of forests in Japan and Russia. For Policy Econ. 19:20–30. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urry J. 1990. Tourist gaze: travel, leisure and society. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Yang B-E, Brown TJ. 1992. A cross-cultural comparison of preferences for landscape styles and landscape elements. Environ Behav. 24(4):471–507. doi: 10.1177/0013916592244003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zube EH, Sell JL, Taylor JG. 1982. Landscape perception: Research application and theory. Landsc Plan. 9(1):1–33. doi: 10.1016/0304-3924(82)90009-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar