Landscape Perception and Its Implications in Tourism PDF

Preview

Summary

CHAPTER SEVEN LANDSCAPE PERCEPTION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS IN TOURISM – A CROSS- CULTURAL COMPARISON BETWEEN POLAND AND TURKEY ANITA BERNATEK MICHAŁ JAKIEL Abstract Landscape is one of the most important reasons for choosing a tourist destination. Therefore, research on landscape perception may have i...

Description

CHAPTER SEVEN LANDSCAPE PERCEPTION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS IN TOURISM – A CROSSCULTURAL COMPARISON BETWEEN POLAND AND TURKEY ANITA BERNATEK MICHAŁ JAKIEL Abstract Landscape is one of the most important reasons for choosing a tourist destination. Therefore, research on landscape perception may have implications for the tourist industry. This chapter is a comparative study on landscape perception in Poland and Turkey. The landscape photographs used in the study are from Poland and Turkey and focus on ten major types of landscape - five in each country. The photographs were classified using the European Landscape Classification (LANMAP). The analysis is based on interviews with Polish and Turkish citizens who rated natural landscapes on the Likert scale. In general, the perception of the landscape is similar in Poland and Turkey. However, certain differences were identified. Poles prefer mountain landscapes, whereas Turks prefer forest landscapes. This can be explained by various factors, mainly in terms of landscape familiarity. Key words: landscape, cross-cultural comparison, photo-based assessing procedures.

96

Chapter Seven

1. Introduction The term landscape is used very often in daily life and in different scientific disciplines. All human activities are settled in the landscape. Even though it is something common, the landscape is a basic component of the world’s natural and cultural heritage. The landscape can exert an influence on human sentiments and human behavior (Paraskevopoulos & Papadopoulos, 2009). Accordingly, different landscape perceptions may imply a variety of behaviors. Thus, the selection of a tourist destination also depends on one’s perception of the landscape. Therefore, research on landscape perception possesses significant value in the marketing of tourist services and attractions. Given the increasing competition between tourist destinations, it is crucial to understand how individuals perceive certain landscapes. Photographic images of landscapes used in surveys are perceived differently by different cultural groups (Dewar et al., 2007), which is why this research study is concentrated on the perception of landscape by two culturally different groups. Moreover, most research on landscape perception and assessment is undertaken with respect to only one national culture and one language, thus avoiding the challenges that might come with multi-cultural and polyglot samples (Jacobsen, 2001, 2007). The aim of this chapter is to compare visual preferences for various landscape types between respondents from Poland and Turkey. The landscapes selected for analysis are from Poland and Turkey, which also makes it necessary to analyze for landscape familiarity. Furthermore, the relationship between landscape perception and sports was investigated. In addition, an analysis of holiday destinations was performed. Landscapes are an extremely important resource for the tourist industry. Hence, the research findings may be used in the management of the tourist industry.

2. Literature review The definition of the landscape is different in landscape ecology and in visual landscape studies (Brabyn, 2009). The landscape as an ecosystem underscores aesthetic (scenery) and biodiversity values but misses the visual phenomena. In this chapter, on human visual perception, the landscape is understood as a “portion of the world visible to an observer from a specific position” (Conzen, 1990). This definition combines the physical and human aspects of the landscape.

Landscape Perception And Its Implications In Tourism

97

The landscape has been a special area of interest and innovation in spatial policy in the international community (Brunetta & Voghera, 2008). International interest in the study of the landscape began in the 1970s. The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted by UNESCO in 1972. In 1979, the Council of Europe adopted the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats – and in 1985 – the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe. However, landscape was treated in an indirect manner by each convention. In recent years, the significance of the landscape was noted by the Council of Europe, which adopted the European Landscape Convention (ELC, 2000) in 2000. The ELC is the first international legal instrument, which is exclusively focused on the landscape. It contains definitions and basic information about the protection, management and planning of all landscapes in Europe (ELC, 2000). The immense significance of this document is highlighted in its preamble: “Aware that the landscape contributes to the formation of local cultures and that it is a basic component of European natural and cultural heritage, contributing to human well-being and consolidation of European identity” (ELC, 2000). Each document discussed above shows the increasing role of the landscape in the life of modern society. It is said that the twenty first century will be an age of tourism (Alsayyad, 2001). This is why one cannot forget that the landscape is among the most important features of contemporary tourism, being a typical choice for many tourists (Jacobsen, 1997). Landscape perception has been studied for some time now, but there are few empirical studies on tourists’ perceptions of the landscape and preferences, and even fewer studies that employ photographic visualizations of the landscape (Fyhri et al., 2009; Jacobsen, 2007). Some cross-cultural comparisons of landscape perception are available in the research literature: Western Australian (Kaplan & Herbert, 1987), Korean (Yang & Kaplan, 1990, Yang & Brown, 1992), Greek (Eleftheriadis et al., 1990, Paraskevopoulos & Papadopoulos, 2009), New Zealander (Fairweather & Swaffield, 2001), Scandinavian (Fyhri et al., 2009). All of these studies concentrated on landscapes in one country, which were assessed by different cultural groups, primarily by tourists and residents of those countries. Other researchers have suggested the role of personality as well as gender and cultural differences in landscape perception (Macia, 1979). Moreover, some studies showed similarities (e.g. Eysenck & Iwawaki, 1971), while other studies presented differences in landscape preferences between various nationalities (Buhyoff et al., 1983).

98

Chapter Seven

According to many landscape research studies, perception depends on the components of the physical landscape and on the values, past experiences and socio-cultural conditioning of the observer (Brabyn, 1996). Therefore, responses to the landscape can be treated as a result of the interaction of individuals with the physical and cultural environments at particular times (Emmelin, 1996; Muir, 1999; Scott, 2002). It is suggested that a positive assessment of a landscape is derived from the totality of the landscape, not only from the particular elements of its features (Appleton, 1994). Therefore, it is important to treat the landscape as unity.

3. Methodology In this research study, photo-based interviews were conducted in Poland and Turkey. Ten color photographs showing different landscape types were included in a questionnaire. The scenes were projected simultaneously in order from 1 to 10. The respondents were asked to rate how much they like each slide using the five-point Likert scale (5=strongly like, 1=strongly dislike). Moreover, all the respondents had to choose one or two places (as shown) where she/he would like to spend a holiday. This method, which is based on human observers’ expressions of preference (choice, like/dislike), is used in most types of research on landscape perception (Daniel & Meitner, 2001). Accompanying the photoquestionnaire was a set of verbal questions designed to investigate the respondents’ sports interests, holiday destination preferences and basic information such as age, gender, level of education, childhood environment and present living environment. Respondents in Poland (Cracow) and Turkey (Istanbul) were surveyed in December of 2011 and January of 2012. The survey was made available in both Polish and Turkish. It was designed to cater to cultural differences among the respondents, as it was acknowledged that multicultural research requires special considerations (Becker & Murrman, 2000). The study involved 140 individuals from Poland and Turkey who volunteered to provide their landscape perception. The Polish and Turkish samples consisted of 70 individuals each. Individuals who participated in the study varied in terms of age, level of education, personal interests and hometown. Both groups consisted of predominantly young people (more than 90%) under the age of 35. In the Polish group, 62.9% of the respondents were between 18 and 24, whereas in the Turkish group, it was 64.3%. Respondents 25 to 35 years of age constituted 27.1% of the Polish

Landscape Perception And Its Implications In Tourism

99

group and 28.6% of the Turkish group. Almost two thirds of the Polish and Turkish respondents practice sports. It was established that 48.6% of the Polish respondents and 40.0% of the Turkish respondents practice sports that require some contact with the mountain landscape – hiking, skiing, and climbing. The survey sample consisted of two different groups: 1) individuals who grew up in an urban area, and 2) individuals who grew up in a rural area. Seventy percent of the Polish respondents had grown up in an urban area, whereas 91.4% of the Turkish respondents had grown up in an urban area. However, the distribution for the present living environment was not varied – most of the respondents now live in urban areas (Polish – 92.9%, Turkish – 100%). Ten color photographs (15 cm × 21 cm) were employed as a basis for the questionnaire in this research study – five from Poland and five from Turkey. Only ten types were selected in order to reduce the number of images. Too many images might cause difficulties in the assessment procedure. One of the challenges in this research project was related to the selection of the photographs. Previous studies have found a preference for water as scenery (Zube et al., 1982; Kent & Elliot, 1995). Therefore, in this study, in order to avoid choosing a landscape because of water features (coast, lakes, rivers), the landscapes selected did not contain such features. All the photographs were taken from a broad perspective, which treats the landscape as a whole. Hence, the most significant elements in the field of view, primarily relief and vegetation, were shown in each photograph. The amount of light in each photograph was also similar. The images show scenes in the summer on sunny days – an important characteristic of photographs used for comparative purposes (Brown & Daniel, 1991). Furthermore, the landscapes were either natural or seminatural. This is also important in the context of the tourist industry. Landscape is one of the most important reasons for choosing a tourist destination (Jacobsen, 2007). It has been shown that tourists will often not return to areas that fail to offer environmental attractions (Middleton & Hawkins, 1998). The objective of the research was to choose five dominant landscape types for Poland and Turkey. The landscapes shown in the survey represent different types thought to be representative of Poland and Turkey (Table 1). Landscapes were classified using the European Landscape Classification (LANMAP) (Mücher et al., 2010). Photographs numbered 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 show what are presumed to be mountainous landscapes.

Chapter Seven

100

Table 1 – Photographs of landscapes used in the research

Photograph 1

POLAND Photograph 2

Photograph 3

Continental lowland Boreal hills Continental hills (Podlasie lowland) (Jurassic Highland) (Western Pomerania) Photograph 4 Photograph 5

Continental Mts (Gorce Mountains) Photograph 6

Alpine Mts (Tatra Mountains) TURKEY Photograph 7

Photograph 8

Anatolian Mts Mediterranean hills Mediterranean Mts (Cappadocia, inner (Southern Marmara (Taurus Mountains) Anatolia) region) Photograph 9 Photograph 10

Mediterranean high Mts (Pontic Mountains)

Anatolian high Mts (Erciyes – Inner Anatolia)

Landscape Perception And Its Implications In Tourism

101

4. Results Average preferences for different types of landscape were measured separately in each cultural group using the five-point Likert scale (5=strongly like, 1=strongly dislike). Both Poles and Turks showed a high preference for continental mountains represented in Photo 4 (Poles – 4.46; Turks 4.51). Also, the same type of landscape – Mediterranean hills (photograph 7) – has the lowest rate given by Poles and Turks (3.39, 3.09, respectively (Figure 1). It is interesting that, on average, Poles rated Turkish landscapes higher than Turks did. Likewise, Turks rated Polish landscapes higher than Poles did (Figure 1). In addition, landscapes with forests or trees in general were rated higher by Turks than Poles (Photos 1 to 4). Each type of landscape scored at least 3 points, which means that respondents generally liked the presented photographs. A few respondents “strongly liked” all the photographs, which had a substantial effect on the mean rating for each landscape. Figure 1– Mean ratings for images of landscapes

There were fewer strongly negative responses than strongly positive responses in both cultural groups (Figure 2). More than half of Polish respondents provided a strongly positive opinion of Alpine mountains (Photo 5 – 62.9%), Anatolian high mountains (Photo 10 –

102

Chapter Seven

54.3%) and continental mountains (Photo 4 – 54.3%). Turkish respondents provided a strongly positive opinion of continental mountains (Photo 4 – 61.4%) and continental hills (Photo 3 – 52.9%). No more than 15% of Polish and Turkish respondents provided a strongly negative opinion of any of the landscapes selected. The most negative Turkish opinion concerned Anatolian mountains (Photo 6 – 14.3%) and Anatolian high mountains (Photo 10 – 12.9%). On the other hand, no more than 10% of Polish respondents strongly disliked Anatolian high mountains (Photo 10) (Figure 2). In summary, the majority of Polish respondents strongly liked Alpine mountains (Photo 5), while Turkish respondents strongly liked continental mountains (Photo 4). Both landscapes are from Poland. Two types of landscape – boreal hills (Photo 2) and continental hills (Photo 3) were not strongly disliked by either group, whereas other types of landscape aroused strong feelings, both positive and negative (Figure 2). Figure 2 – Strongly positive and negative ratings among cultural groups

Both Polish and Turkish respondents were asked to choose one or two hypothetical holiday destinations from among the landscapes shown. More than one third of respondents chose continental mountains (Photo 4)

Landscape Perception And Its Implications In Tourism

103

as a hypothetical holiday destination. However, each cultural group responded to this request somewhat differently. The most popular hypothetical holiday destinations among Polish respondents were Alpine mountains (Photo 5) and Anatolian high mountains (Photo 10), whereas among Turkish respondents, continental hills (Photo 3) and continental mountains (Photo 4). None of the Polish respondents chose continental lowlands (Photo 1) as a hypothetical holiday destination, while none of the Turkish respondents chose Mediterranean hills (Photo 7). In summary, Poles preferred high mountains, while Turks preferred continental mountains and forested hills. As mentioned previously, 48.6% of Polish and 40.0% of Turkish respondents practice sports that require contact with mountain landscapes. Poles who practice mountain sports prefer more types of mountain landscapes. This is not true of Turks who practice mountain sports. Furthermore, there is no clear relationship between practicing mountain sports and rating other types of landscape.

5. Conclusion and Implications The Poles and Turks surveyed rated landscapes similarly. Both groups preferred continental mountains and tended not to prefer Mediterranean hills. In addition, the majority of the respondents liked the landscapes shown and none were rated as poor. The differences found between the two groups were mostly in the area of strong opinions and the selection of holiday destinations. The most attractive landscape for Poles was high mountains, while for Turks it was continental mountains and hills with forests. In Turkey, there are not many forests, which makes forested areas a somewhat “exotic” landscape and perhaps more attractive for that reason. On the other hand, Poles are accustomed to forest landscapes and generally tend to prefer different landscapes. On average, Poles rated Turkish landscapes higher than Turks did. Conversely, Turks rated Polish landscapes higher than Poles did. Therefore, landscape familiarity affects personal landscape preferences. Many individuals tend to like places, which are new and different from those known to them. The relationship between landscape perception and practicing sports was not readily observable. Research has shown that Poles who practice mountain sports tend to prefer mountain landscapes. However, the same is not true of Turks who practice mountain sports.

104

Chapter Seven

While the research study has shown that both Poles and Turks rate landscapes similarly, some differences can be elucidated. This confirms earlier studies, which suggested both similarities (e.g. Eysenck & Iwawaki, 1971) and differences (Macia, 1979, Buhyoff et al., 1983) in landscape assessment among different cultures. Furthermore, vegetation is an important feature in landscape perception (Yang & Brown, 1992, Fyhri et al., 2009). For instance, forests have also been found to be a favorite type of landscape for a holiday in Greece (Eleftheriadis et al., 1990). This can be explained by an appreciation for atypical surroundings. Certain limitations arise when using a landscape assessment method based on photographic images. The selection of photographs was one of the key challenges in this research study. The research conclusions can substantially depend on the appropriateness of the photographs selected. The selection of landscape types, photographic representations of each landscape, and the quality of the photographs can affect the study. Nevertheless, the photographs selected were deemed to be representative of certain landscapes and high quality from a technical perspective. Another problem is differences in the criteria adopted by the individuals rating the landscapes. Respondents were expected to rate the landscapes and not the technical quality of the photographs. However, respondents could still choose to rate the technical quality of each photograph without mentioning it explicitly. Furthermore, the information collected in this research study is just a small contribution to the analysis of cross-cultural landscape perception. The subject seems to be very interesting and needs to be explored in further studies. This paper presents preliminary results and provides some thoughts for future research. A basic implication of this type of research concerns the choice of marketing strategy for the tourist industry. A good understanding of landscape preferences helps in the preparation of an effective tourist offering for different cultural groups. In order to advertise Poland in Turkey, forest landscapes in Poland need to be emphasized in tourist brochures. On the other hand, the advertising of Turkey in Poland should concentrate on high mountain landscapes. This assumes that water-based attractions such as rivers and lakes do not need any special advertising in light of previous research results (Zube et al., 1982; Kent & Elliot, 1995). Finally, the use of photographs in this type of research is consistent with the way most advertising agencies promote tourists attract...