Annals of Tourism Research Manuscript Draft Manuscript Number: ATR-D-13-00054 Title: IMPACT OF CULTURE ON PERCEPTIONS OF LANDSCAPE NAMES Article Type: Full Length Article (6000 - 9000 words) Keywords: Landscape naming; Landscape perception; landscape preference; Cultural difference Abstract: This study examines the impact of culture on landscape name perceptions of tourist from China, the U.S. and Europe utilizing both Hofstede's and Hall's cultural typologies. Data for this study are collected from visitors to two national parks in China. Findings indicate that culture plays a significant role in landscape perception and landscape interpretation. Culture is found to have significant impact on both sub-dimensions of understanding (legibility and coherence) and involvement (mystery and diversity). Findings suggest that tourists from different cultures are likely to interpret landscapes names differently. While Chinese tourists prefer names that are filled with mythology and legends, Western tourists prefer names that simply describe the landscape.

IMPACT OF CULTURE ON PERCEPTIONS OF LANDSCAPE NAMES

Highlights

Relationship between landscape naming, landscape interpretation and landscape

perception.

Culture plays a significant role in landscape perception and landscape interpretation.

Culture has significant impact on both sub-dimensions of understanding and

involvement.

Tourists from different cultures are likely to interpret landscapes names differently.

*Highlights (for review)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

1

IMPACT OF CULTURE ON PERCEPTIONS OF LANDSCAPE NAMES

Abstract

This study examines the impact of culture on landscape name perceptions of

tourist from China, the U.S. and Europe utilizing both Hofstede‟s and Hall‟s cultural

typologies. Data for this study are collected from visitors to two national parks in

China. Findings indicate that culture plays a significant role in landscape perception

and landscape interpretation. Culture is found to have significant impact on both

sub-dimensions of understanding (legibility and coherence) and involvement (mystery

and diversity). Findings suggest that tourists from different cultures are likely to

interpret landscapes names differently. While Chinese tourists prefer names that are

filled with mythology and legends, Western tourists prefer names that simply describe

the landscape.

Keywords: Landscape naming; Landscape perception; landscape preference;

cultural difference.

*Manuscript (without author details, affiliations, or acknowledgements)Click here to view linked References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

2

INTRODUCTION

Name of a landscape plays a significant role in development of a strong

landscape image because a name represents configuration of symbols and meanings

that are embodied in a landscape. However, creating an effective landscape name is a

challenging task because tourists expect the name to include connotations associated

with the name, relevance to the landscape, memorability, and the ability of name to

offer a distinctive image over competing attractions. While the image associated with

a landscape name can be built with marketing activities over time, a carefully created

and chosen name can bring/add inherent and immediate attractiveness to a landscape.

Because of its importance, many destinations that attempt to reposition themselves

tend to rename attractions and landscapes. For example, Zhangjiajie National Park of

China renamed one of the landscapes as Montas Volans because of the popularity of

Movie Avatar, which significantly improved the number of tourists to the park and

became an example of a successful destination marketing case in China.

Even though identifying a name that appeals to prospective tourists can be a

powerful marketing vehicle for building a strong image of and attracting tourists to a

landscape, place naming, has not received much attention from tourism scholars. Only

a few scholars in cultural geography and environmental psychological have examined

landscape naming (Alderman, 2008; Schein, 1997). Most of the studies have focused

on the role of place names in nation building and how and why they are changed in

times of political and ideological change (Azaryahu, 1992).These studies largely

emphasized how government elites in countries such as Israel, Germany, Russia,

Romania, and the former Yugoslavia have manipulated the place names, particularly

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

3

commemorative street names (Alderman, 2008).

Cultural background is found to have significant impact on individuals‟

consumption behaviors. Individuals‟ culture and value affects not only their selection

of products and services but also their interpretation of visual and verbal cues

(Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2009). This is especially apparent in place naming practices

in different part of the world. For example, in China, most natural landscapes are

named to create a story or a magical theme, which are often allusive to other places or

to abstract qualities, such as South Gate, Golden Whip Crag, Mother and Child Peak,

Mandarin Duck Spring. On the other hand,in the United States, landscape names tend

to be more straightforward, prosaic or descriptive, such as naming landscapes after a

historical events or figures (i.e., Baronnette Peak, Abiathar Peak, Mount Norris, etc.)

or natural features (i.e., Black Sand Basin, Mammoth Hot Springs, etc.).

This study aims to expand the existing body of knowledge on landscape naming

by examining the influence of culture on landscape name perceptions. More

specifically, utilizing both Hofstede‟s and Hall‟s cultural typologies, this study aims to

examine the differences between Chinese and Western tourists‟ landscape name

perceptions and expectations. Possible contributions to landscape interpretation and

destination landscape marketing implication are discussed.

LANDSCAPE NAMING AND LANDSCAPE NAME PERCEPTIONS

Place names use a single word or series of words to distinguish and identify one

place from another; it can evoke powerful images and connotations, contributing to

the development of a sense of place. Place names can also provide insights into

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

4

cultures‟ linguistics, histories, habitats, and spatial and environmental perceptions

(Jett, 1997). Scholars in a number of fields, including geography, linguistics,

anthropology, folklore, and history have examined place naming practices in a variety

of settings (Jett, 1997; Мak, 2004). Most of them argue that place naming practices

are influenced by power or discourse (e.g., Alderman, 2008), politics (e.g., Azaryahu,

2012) and identity or collective memory (e.g.,Grounds, 2001). Studies also suggest

that place names play a key role in the social construction of space and contested

process of attaching meaning to places (Berg & Kearns, 1996). According to Afable

and Beeler (1996), place names reflect, and to an important extent, constitute a

detailed, encyclopedic knowledge of the environment, and how native people perceive,

communicate about, and make use of their surroundings.

A landscape can be defined as “an area, as perceived by people, whose character

is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors” (Europe,

2000). As the definition suggests an area is not a landscape until people perceive it to

be (Macia, 1979). Therefore, landscape naming is a constitutive component of the

landscape, rather than simply being entities in the landscape. Naming can be an active

process of defining and constructing the landscape (Alderman, 2008), especially when

it is related to cultural landscapes, because of society‟s extensive impact on cultural

landscape (Young, 1997). Since landscape names can shed light on the history,

cultural attitudes, and values of people who named them (Afable & Beeler, 1996),

most of the scholars who examined place names studied them from local perspectives

(e.g., local people , local history). For example, Jett (1997) who studied Navajo place

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

5

names of the Canyon de Chelly system reported that place names reflect the

interaction between the characteristics of a place and the Navajo residents‟ perception

of important aspects of the landscape.

Just as place names can provide insights into local history, cultural attitudes, and

values, interpretation of landscape names can provide insights into tourists‟ landscape

perception and their visitation intentions. Thus, understanding how tourists from

different cultures may interpret and perceive the same landscape name can have

significant impact on development of marketing strategies of a destination for specific

segments. Studies argue that landscape perception is the result of an interaction

between man and landscape (Zube, Sell, & Taylor, 1982). Characteristics of both the

landscape itself and the perceiver will impact landscape perception (Deng, 2006). For

example, perceived structural characteristics of a landscape (e.g., relatively open,

occasional clumps of trees) and specific content and perceptual features (e.g., water,

rock shapes, tree shapes) clearly influence landscape perceptions and preferences.

When it comes to perceivers‟ background, observer‟s gender (e.g.,Macia, 1979);

(Buijs, Elands, & Langers, 2009), age (e.g., Balling & Falk, 1982;Sevenant & Antrop,

2010, 2010) and education (e.g., Afable & Beeler, 1996) are often mentioned to be the

factors that may influence landscape perception and preference. However, studies

reported contradictory findings about the impacts of observers‟ background on their

landscape perceptions. For example, while gender is found to be a significant factor

that can influence landscape preference in Maciá‟s study (1979), it is not the case in

Yu‟s study (1995). Moreover, early studies undertaken by Yu (1990) shows that living

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

6

environment (urban vs. rural) is a significant predictor of variance in landscape

preference. Similar findings are also reported by (Chaozhi & Zeng, 2010).

Of several approaches for assessing landscape perceptions, the cognitive

paradigm approach has been the most dominant one. Utilizing this approach,

researchers try to identify the meanings and values associated with landscapes with

the objective of building predictive models of landscape preference (Zube,

1991).Within this paradigm, Kaplan and Kaplan (1982) and Kaplan‟s (Kaplan, 1972,

1973, 1982, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1992) landscape preference model has received the

most attention from researchers (Lee & Kozar, 2009; Rosen & Purinton, 2004; Singh,

Donavan, Mishra, & Little, 2008).

The Kaplans‟ preference model views human as information-seeking and

information-using organisms who are extremely efficient at collecting information

from their environment and very effective at attaching meaning to that information.

Kaplan (1992) further argues that people react to visual environment, including

landscape either in a visual array way, similar to observing a flat picture; or in a

three-dimensional pattern, in which people would mentally place themselves in the

scene while they are perceiving the setting.

According to Kaplan, an individual‟s preferred settings can be captured by two

concepts: understanding (or making sense) and involvement (or richness, exploration).

Understanding, or sense making, refers to a need for thorough understanding and

maintaining one‟s bearing, and comprehend what is going on in the immediate

environment, and often, in the projected environment. Understanding or sense making

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

7

should be considered from immediate and inferred perspective. Coherence and

legibility are two dimensions of understanding construct. These two dimensions allow

one to interpret what is going on in the immediate surroundings and that facilitate

seeing where one is headed. On the other hand, involvement (exploration) relates to

the diversity and variety (or richness) exists in an environment and the amount of

information that may be gained from walking into that environment. To improve

involvement, environment must have some complexity or richness, and also a

“mystery”, to attract one by promising more information. Making sense reflects

psychological constructs of order, security, and closure; whereas, involvement implies

curiosity, challenge, and stimulation (Kaplan, 1998, 1992).

In summary, Kaplan (1973) argues that landscape perception is a function of two

latent variables: making sense (understanding) and involvement. Both sense making

(understanding) and involvement have two dimensions: coherence and legibility are

two dimensions of making sense while diversity and mystery are the two dimensions

of involvement.

Impact of culture on landscape perceptions

Kaplan (1973) suggests that all humans share a common nature because “man

gained his selective advantage in a difficult and dangerous world in large part through

the development of quick and efficient mechanisms for handling information”

(Kaplan, 1973: 63). Thus, similarities in information-processing capabilities lead to

similarities in the use and interpretation of environmental information and hence

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

8

similarities in scenic evaluations of landscapes. But the specific landscape features

which contribute to the preferred levels of landscape features may differ from person

to person and culture to culture. Kaplan‟s landscape preference model does not take

into account the influence of cultural differences, which may lead to different

landscape understanding and evaluation of a landscape.

Cultural influences on landscape preference have received some attention (Buijs,

Elands, & Langers, 2009; Jorgensen, 2011; Morin, 2009; Yang & Kaplan, 1990) , but

findings have been contradictory (Yu, 1995). Several researchers have identified

culture as the pre-eminent determinant of preference (e.g., Lowenthal, 1968;Tuan,

1973). For example, Lyons (1983) and Tuan (1971) argue that an aesthetic reaction to

landscape is largely or even completely a learned, cultural trait. However, findings of

other studies suggest a weak influence of cultural difference on landscape perception

and preference (e.g., Yu, 1988, 1990, 1995). Furthermore, a number of scholars

reported strong similarities in landscape perception and preference across cultures

(e.g., Kwok, 1979; Yang & Kaplan, 1990). Both similarities (e.g., Kwok, 1979; Yang

& Brown, 1992; Yang & Kaplan, 1990; Zube & Pitt, 1981) and differences (e.g.,

Kaplan & Talbot, 1988; Yang & Brown, 1992) were reported in studies that compared

scenic beauty evaluations of rural landscapes by individuals from different cultures.

Studies concluded that some of these differences were due to cultural differences;

specifically tourists' misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the meaning associated

with certain landscape features by the locals (e.g., Kaplan and Talbot 1988; Yang and

Brown, 1992).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

9

Even though findings have been somewhat contradictory, all studies that

examined individuals‟ landscape perception and preferences reported some influence

of culture. Findings suggest that individuals from different cultures may attach

different meanings to landscape features suggesting that cultural differences, to a

certain degree, are likely to influence interpretation of landscape features and scenic

beauty. This may further imply that landscape features and scenic beauty

interpretation, to some extent, may be a learnt trait. While some authors attribute the

similarities to inherited traits others attribute the differences to learnt traits. (Hull,

1989). However, it is important to note that most of the cultural aspects of landscape

perception and preference studies are based on western cultures; cross-cultural

comparison of landscape perception and preference between Westerners and Asians

are quite limited (Yang and Brown, 1992; Yu, 1995).

A number of models have been proposed and utilized to examine impact of

culture on various attitudinal and behavioral variables (Gesteland, 1999; Morris, 1958;

Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998; Victor, 1992; Daugstad, 2008; Chen &

Cheng, 2012; Tsang, 2011; Zhou, Zhang, & Edelheim, 2013). Among several

approaches and models, Hofstede‟s typology became one of the most dominant

approach. According to Hofstede and Bond (1984, 1988), people from different

cultures vary in terms of five dimensions: Power distance, which refers to the degree

that less powerful people can accept their power are distributed unequally in a society;

Individualism versus collectivism, which refers to the degree a society values

individual concerns as opposed to collectivist concerns; Masculinity versus femininity,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

10

which refers to the degree a society perceives gender roles are fairly distinct;

Uncertainty avoidance, which refers to the degree members in a certain culture can

accept and endure uncertain or unknown situations; Long term orientation, which

refers to the degree people tend to focus on current outcome (short term) as opposed

to past and future outcome (long term).

Hofstede‟s culture typology (1984, 1988) has been utilized by a large number of

conceptual and empirical studies to examine cross-cultural issues (Peng, 2004).

Despite the wide acceptance of Hofstede‟s typology, Hofestde‟s dimensions have also

widely been criticized because use nationality as cultural difference unit may not be

reliable; and culture is a dynamic process but Hofstede‟s dimensions are static and

stable, it lags behind the time; and Hofstede‟s dimensions comes from institutional

and organizational culture which is different from the anthropology and social cultural

research, whether it could be used in the non-business culture research is

questionable.

Nationality has been frequently used to differentiate cultures in cross-cultural

studies (e.g. Gursoy & Terry Umbreit, 2004; Shoham, Schrage, & van Eeden, 2005;

You, O'Leary, Morrison, & Hong, 2000). However, several researchers argue that the

concept of national culture is problematic because the nation-state is a relatively

recent invention and has changed in its form and makeup. Also, many nation-states do

not have a common basis in race, culture or language. As a result, tourists from the

same country may have significantly different cultural characteristics. In addition, the

existence of sub-cultural groups within the same country may further complicate the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

11

issue. Furthermore, because of rapid globalization and the impact of internet, an

individual‟s cultural characteristics may not always be the same as his/her

surrounding groups (Wang, 2010). For example, when it comes to tourism, some

member of the young Chinese generation who have been well educated in

metropolitan areas may exhibit cultural characteristics that are similar to western

cultures rather than traditional Chinese culture.

Hall (1976) argues that cultures can be identified based on the messages

members in a given culture prefer to use. Based on the communication styles, he

argues that most cultures can be categorized as high context or low context

communication cultures. In low context cultures, „„where very little is taken for

granted, greater cultural diversity and heterogeneity are likely to make verbal skills

more necessary and, therefore, more highly prized‟‟ (Okabe, 1983, p. 38). On the

other hand, in high context cultures, „„cultural homogeneity encourages suspicion of

verbal skills, confidence in the unspoken, and eagerness to avoid confrontation‟‟

(Okabe, 1983, p. 39). Studies suggest that most Asian countries can be categorized as

high context culture countries, while most western countries are categorized as low

context culture countries.

This model has also been widely used in tourism to examine cultural differences

in tourist satisfaction (e.g. Choi & Chu, 2000; Reisinger & Turner, 1998; Wong &

Law, 2003) and tourist behavior (e.g., Liang, 2010; Liang, Ma, & Li, 2006). However,

the model is criticized for neglecting multicultural factors within Asian and Western

cultures. There are shared values (such as belief in democracy) that do not relate to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

12

national, ethnic or religious differences between people. Differences in nationality,

ethnic, religious and culinary values may not only affect people‟ overall cultural

values but may also affect personal tourism considerations. Due to weaknesses

associated with both the Hofstede‟s and Hall‟s cultural typologies, this study utilizes

both to examine influences of cultural differences on landscape interpretations and

preferences.

METHODOLOGY

Proposed model

As suggested by Kaplan (1973), landscape perception is defined as a function of

two latent variables: making sense (understanding) and involvement. As presented

in Table 1, both sense making (understanding) and involvement have two dimensions:

coherence and legibility are two dimensions of making sense while diversity and

mystery are two dimensions of involvement.

Complexity/diversity refers to the degree to which the information is available in

the two-dimensional, at the surface level with enhanced visual stimulus which can

potentially be measured by the presence of various dissimilar or distinct elements.

While mystery is the promise of information when a space (scene, landscape) is

viewed in three dimensions, The richness of information is based not only on the

features that are actually present or on what is happening at the surface level but also

on the promise of what is to come, such as an opportunity to gain new but related

information in the context of an inferred space (Surendra & Singh, 2008). Coherence

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

13

reflects “the ease with which one can grasp the organization of the scene” (Kaplan,

1992, p.588). It relates to the ability of immediate understanding the scene. While

legibility relates to whether the perceiver can expect to find his or her way within the

scene or setting or his or her bearings while moving deeper into the scene. Thus,

coherence pertains to the immediate aspect of orientation within the scene or

landscape, legibility relates to the inferred aspects of comprehension, or the ability to

continue to comprehend the environment yet to come (Surendra & Singh, 2008).

INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

Legibility relates to human inferred comprehension of landscape. A number of

studies in language and education fields show that there are sharp differences between

different cultures in infer comprehension for both reading and seeing (Steffensen,

Joag-Dev, & Anderson, 1979; Tuffs & Tudor, 1990), which means that culture no

doubts relates to legibility. Complexity/diversity reflects how many or what do the

perceivers see in the landscape. Mystery reflects in what extent the perceiver supposes

himself in the scene.

As Sofield and Li (1998, 2007, 2011) explain, the power of China's

4000-year-old cultural and philosophical heritage plays a key role in how

contemporary tourists see landscapes. Chinese are more willing to look at a scenery in

a anthropomorphic way, especially because of the Shan shui (Chinese natural

landscape) poem tradition. The essence of a culturally specific Chinese tourist gaze is

that humans and mountain enjoy reciprocal empathy, their feelings permeating each

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

14

other – an anthropomorphic mode from which to view the world. For Chinese, seeing

a landscape means entering into a relationship of mutual feeling with nature, with all

of the “Ten Thousand Things” (wanshi wanwu, meaning both happenings/events as

well as physical things) that in Daoism make up the cosmos. Because the Chinese

believe that all things are capable of feeling (Li & Sofield, 2008; Sofield & Li, 2011),

a Chinese tourist gaze, thus, encompasses anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism

(Sofield & Li , 2005). Thus, culture may impact landscape preference through

diversity and mystery.

In order to examine the impact of culture on landscape interpretation, two

cultural typologies were utilized because of the weaknesses associated with each. The

first typology is Hofstede‟s cultural dimensions. According to Hosftede‟s (1984, 1988,

2001) research, three of five dimensions, Power Distance Index (PDI), Individualism

Index (IDV) and Long-Term Orientation Index (LTO), are significantly different

between China and other Western countries. This study utilizes those three dimensions

to test the influence of culture on landscape interpretation. The second typology used

is Hall‟s typology. Respondents were grouped into Western and Asian culture groups

based on their nationality. Chinese respondents were classified as member of

high-context culture and respondents from Europe and the USA were examined as

member of a low-context culture.

Questionnaire design

The questionnaire is composed of three sections: landscape naming perceptions,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

15

cultural difference and personal information. Based on Kaplan‟s landscape preference

model, items that measure four latent constructs of landscape perceptions were

included in the first section of the questionnaire; all items were adapted from Singh‟s

(2008) study. Two items are used to measure coherence (This scene is balanced; the

setting shown in this scene has good symmetry”). The legibility dimension is

measured by three items (I could move within the depicted scene without any problem;

I feel confident in my ability to maneuver through this scene; Looking at this scene, I

think it will be easy to find my way in it). Diversity dimension is measured by three

items (This scene is full of details; this scene has a great deal of information in it; This

scene has a number of diverse elements). The mystery dimension is measured by three

items (This scene appears to be rich in possibilities; This scene would enable deeper

exploration; This scene promises further information if I could walk deeper into it).

All items are measured on a five point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly

agree)

In the second part of the questionnaire, modified version of Hofstede‟s scale

(Hofstede, 2001) is used. However, Hosftede suggested that only three dimensions

(PDI, IDV, LTO) of the five are significantly different between China and US or

European countries. Therefore, only questions that measure those three dimensions

are included in the questionnaire. In the third section of the questionnaire, questions

related to responder‟s socio-demographic information such as gender, age, education

level, work organization and nationality are included.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

16

Data collection

Data for this study were collected from both domestic and international tourists

in Zhangjiajie National Park and Huangshan National Park utilizing a semi-structured

survey questionnaire. Both national parks are top tourist destinations in China. Data

from international tourists is collected using the English version of the survey

instrument while the Mandarin version is used to collect data from Chinese tourists.

Interviewers were asked to approach every tenth person passing through. Interviewers

were instructed to ask the tourist if s/he would like to participate in the study. If the

tourist agreed, the interviewer conducted a personal interview using a structured

instrument. However, several open-ended questions such as “what you think about the

name of the landscape, how you like it, what are your comments about the landscape

name” were also asked. The interviewer asked each question to the tourist and

recorded his or her responses. A total of 427 valid questionnaires were obtained. Table

2 presents the socio-demographic profile of respondents.

INSERT TABLE 2 HERE

Data analysis

A multiple regression analysis is conducted to test the influence of cultural

differences on landscape interpretation using three dimensions of Hofstede‟s cultural

typology. An index for each of the three dimensions is created following Hofstede‟s

recommendations for analysis. Scores of the two items related to PDI are first

multiplied by their factor loadings and then summed up with the third item to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

17

represent PDI, scores of the six items related to IDV first multiplied by their factor

loadings then summed up to represent IDV, scores of the eight items related to LTO

first multiplied by their factor loadings are then summed up to represent. The data

processing approach utilized in this study is consistent with the method Hofstede

utilized in his study (2001).

To test the culture‟s role in landscape perception with Hall‟s West and Asian

dimension, two groups are created. Respondents from China (including Hong Kong,

Macao and Taiwan) are categorized into Asian culture group, and respondents from

America and Europe are categorized into western culture group. Then independent

sample t text is used to test whether the two groups differ significantly on coherence,

legibility, diversity and mystery.

RESULTS

Impact of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions on landscape name perceptions

To test whether culture plays a significant role in landscape perception, four

regression analyses are conducted. Legibility, coherence, mystery and diversity are

utilized as dependent variables while PDI, IDV, LTO are entered as independent

variables. As presented in Table 3, PDI is found to be the most significant predictor

for legibility, coherence and mystery, and IDV is found to be a significant predictor

for legibility, coherence and mystery. Thus people with high PDI and low IDV tend to

prefer natural landscape that possesses coherence, legibility and mystery, which is, to

some extent, is consistent with what one American tourist‟s comments: “I hate the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

18

way of naming and explanation, nature is to feel, just feel it, feeling and experience is

the most important during trip, mountain and stone’s figure various and vague, it

makes me imaginary space. It gives me energy”.

INSERT TABLE 3 HERE

Findings indicate that Western tourists are not likely to prefer names that

attempt to create a story or a magical theme. As indicated by one of the respondents

“what I care about is the scenery and local culture, names and stories don’t matter”

(a Spanish tourist). To them, these names are just symbols to help them identify the

natural landscape, as one tourist puts it “China has a very long history and lots of

culture traditions, and Chinese tourists know what lies behind the names. But to me,

these names are just vivid symbols which help me to remember the landscape.”

Compared with PDI and IDV, LTO is found to be the weakest predictor for legibility

and coherence. However, negative regression coefficients between LTO and four

dimensions of landscape interpretation suggest that tourists with low LTO prefers

landscape possessing legibility and coherence. This contradicts with previous findings.

This finding may result from the LTO itself. LTO was emerged from Bond‟s Chinese

Value Survey which is completely independent of Hofstede‟s culture study.

Moreover, it was more than ten years later that Hofstede integrated LTO into

his culture typology dimensions, by then the other four dimensions had already been

tested repeatedly. Furthermore, LTO describes Confusian culture, a very complex

concept in the east. It includes much more than time orientation. For those reasons,

this dimension may be more suitable for a qualitative study than quantitative analysis.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

19

Findings of this study suggest that LTO dimension of Hofstede‟s culture typology

does not influence landscape perception that strongly. However, other two dimensions

are likely to influence landscape perceptions. Findings suggest that culture influences

landscape perception(Singh, Todd Donavan, Mishra, & Little, 2008) by influencing

tourist‟s involvement (mystery) and understanding (legibility and coherence), which

are two latent variables of landscape perception (Kaplan,1987).

Impacts of Hall’s cultural dimensions on landscape name perceptions

The results of Independent-Samples T Test on four constructs of landscape

perception between the two groups are shown in table 4. For Asian tourists, means of

legibility, diversity, mystery and coherence are all higher than those for western

tourists. An independent-samples t-test was also conducted to compare four constructs

of landscape perception between the two groups. There were significant differences

between legibility construct of Chinese tourists (M=7.35, SD=1.465) and legibility

construct of Western tourists (M=6.40, SD=1.511), diversity construct of Chinese

tourists (M=8.21, SD=1.340) and diversity construct of Western tourists (M=7.73,

SD=1.707), mystery construct of Chinese tourists (M=7.56, SD=1.459) and mystery

construct of Western tourists (M=5.83, SD=2.144), and between coherence construct

of Chinese tourists (M=11.59, SD=2.083) and coherence construct of Western tourists

(M=9.54, SD=3.135) at the p<.01 level. These results indicate that culture has a

significant effect on landscape name perceptions and interpretations of tourists.

INSERT TABLE 4 HERRE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

20

CONCLUSIONS

Tourists‟ understanding of landscape names is part of landscape perception,

and culture is likely to play an import role in it. Findings of this study clearly suggest

that culture plays a significant role in landscape perception and landscape

interpretation. Culture is found to have significant influence on understanding and

involvement dimensions of landscape perceptions.

Chinese tourists are power and collectivism oriented. The landscape naming

and interpretation filled with mythology and legends in most domestic mountain

scenic sites is merely for guiding tourists to visit officially recommended landscapes.

Chinese tourists are more inclined to accept authoritative information because of their

high PDI, and as a result they would visit the landscapes as guided. On the other hand,

when the masses say one particular rock looks like someone or something, tourists of

Chinese culture tend to accept the reasoning and the story behind the name. They

even gain a sense of identity from it. The story behind name makes the site more

interesting and appealing, and becomes the main reason for visiting the site.

On the contrary, western tourists are not likely to value this kind of

anthropopathic, allegoric and authoritative naming style (Ramkissoon & Nunkoo,

2008). Just as one European tourist mentions, “Nature is nature, just feel it. This

naming style can be seen as a kind of destruction of nature. ”. Western tourists, with

low PDI and high IDV, are not likely to accept the things which are added to nature by

the authority or collective. They often have their own way of enjoying natural

landscape, such kind of names may “limit imagination and have a bad influence on

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

21

tourism experience” as just as one tourist puts it.

Culture not only influences destination choice, participation in tourist

activities and other forms of tourist behavior (Chen & Pizam, 2012), but also

influences tourists‟ perception of the landscape, that, in turn, may impact the tourists

satisfaction with landscape interpretation and explanation. In cross-cultural marketing,

the marketing mix consists of a set of tools or strategies designed to meet customer's

expected values in a manner that is congruent with their culture. Findings of this study

indicate the culture influences tourists‟ landscape perception and understanding,

suggesting that destination landscape name or the explanations of the names could be

utilized as one of the tools in destination cross-cultural marketing mix.

Currently, many international tourist destinations are trying to attract Chinese

tourists. However, most of those destinations are not aware of the fact the Chinese

culture plays a significant role on how Chinese interprets landscape names. It is vital

for destinations to understand how a landscape name is interpreted is likely to

influence Chinese tourists‟ willingness to visit that landscape. It is important to

develop landscape names that may be attractive to Chinese tourists. It may be feasible

for destinations to develop Chinese names for landscapes and other attractions in

order make those landscapes and attractions more attractive to Chinese tourists.

Meanwhile, many tourism destinations in China are trying to attract international

tourists especially the European and American tourists. However, those destinations

are using landscapes original Chinese names or literal translations of those Chinese

names in marketing and promotion activities (Yang, Ryan, & Zhang, 2013). Findings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

22

of this study suggest that original Chinese names of landscapes and other attractions

may not be very attractive for Western tourists. It may be a good strategy to develop

different names and interpretation of landscapes and other attractions in Chinese and

English, which may help motivate foreign tourist to visit those sites.

Findings of this study might also stimulate further future research on

understanding of Chinese tourists‟ destination choice and on-site landscape visitation

behaviors. These future studies may also be able to shed some light on why Chinese

tourists prefer to visit mega man-made attractions and landscapes that are constantly

developed by tourism developers in China while western tourists perceives those as

unauthentic or fake.

REFERENCES

Afable, P. O., & Beeler, M. S. (1996). Place Names. Handbook of North American

Indians, 17, 185-199.

Alderman, D. H. (2008). Place, Naming and the Interpretation of Culture Landscapes.

In P. H. Brian J. Graham (Ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage

and Identity (195-213). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Azaryahu, M. (1992). The purge of Bismarck and Saladin: the renaming of streets in

East Berlin and Haifa, a comparative study in culture-planning. Poetics Today,

351-367.

Azaryahu, M. (2012). Rabin‟s road: The politics of toponymic commemoration of

Yitzhak Rabin in Israel. Political Geography, 31(2), 73-82.

Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural

environments. Environment and Behavior, 14(1), 5-28.

Berg, L. D., & Kearns, R. A. (1996). Naming as norm: race, gender, and the identity

politics of naming places in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Environment and Planning

D: Society and Space, 14, 99-122.

Bruwer, J., & Lesschaeve, I. (2012). Wine Tourists‟ Destination Region Brand Image

Perception and Antecedents: Conceptualization of a Winescape Framework.

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29(7), 611-628.

Buijs, A. E., Elands, B. H. M., & Langers, F. (2009). No wilderness for immigrants:

Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape

and Urban Planning, 91(3), 113-123.

Chaozhi, Z., & Zeng, D. (2010). Exploration into Tourism Aesthestic Research:Based

on Vistor Self-employed Photography Method. Tourism Science, 66-76.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

23

Chen, P. J., & Pizam, A. (2012). Cross-Cultural Tourism Marketing. Tourism

Management Dynamics, 187.

Chen, W., & Cheng, H. (2012). Factors affecting the knowledge sharing attitude of

hotel service personnel. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2),

468-476.

Choi, T. Y., & Chu, R. (2000). Levels of satisfaction among Asian and Western

travellers. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(2),

116-132.

Buijs, A. E., Elands, B. H. M., & Langers, F. (2009). No wilderness for immigrants:

Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape

and Urban Planning, 91(3), 113-123.

Daugstad, K. (2008). Negotiating landscape in rural tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research, 35(2), 402-426.

Deng. (2006). landscape perception : towards landscape semiology. World

Architecture(7), 47-50.

Europe, C. O. (2000). European Landscape Convention and Explana-tory Report.

Document by the Secretary General established by the General Directorate of

Education, Culture, Sport and Youth, and Environment. (Reprinted.

Gesteland, R. R. (1999). Cross-Cultural Business Behavior (Marketing, Negotiating

and Managing Across Cultures). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School

Press.

Grounds, R. A. (2001). Tallahassee, Osceola, and the hermeneutics of American

place-names. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 69(2), 287-322.

Gursoy, D., & Terry Umbreit, W. (2004). Tourist information search behavior:

cross-cultural comparison of European union member states. International

Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(1), 55-70.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture: Anchor.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede's Culture Dimensions An Independent

Validation Using Rokeach's Value Survey. Journal of cross-cultural psychology,

15(4), 417-433.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots

to economic growth. Organizational dynamics, 16(4), 4-21.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,

institutions and organizations across nations: Sage Publications, Incorporated.

Jett, S. C. (1997). Place-naming, environment, and perception among the Canyon de

Chelly Navajo of Arizona. The Professional Geographer, 49(4), 481-493.

Jorgensen, A. (2011). Beyond the view: Future directions in landscape aesthetics

research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 353-355.

Kaplan, S. (1972). The challenge of environmental psychology: A proposal for a new

functionalism. American Psychologist, 27(2), 140.

Kaplan, S. (1973). Cognitive maps in perception and thought. Image and environment:

Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior, 63-78.

Kaplan, S. (1982). Where cognition and affect meet: A theoretical analysis of

preference. EDRA: Environmental Design Research Association.

Kaplan, S. (1983). A model of person-environment compatibility. Environment and

Behavior, 15(3), 311-332.

Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, Affect, and Cognition Environmental Preference from

an Evolutionary Perspective. Environment and behavior, 19(1), 3-32.

Kaplan, R., & Talbot, J. F. (1988). Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: A

review and recent findings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15(1), 107-117.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

24

Kaplan, S. (1992). Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking,

knowledge-using organism. In Barkow, Jerome H. (Ed); Cosmides, Leda (Ed);

Tooby, John (Ed), (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the

generation of culture, (581-598). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.

Kwok, K. (1979). Semantic evaluation of perceived environment: A cross-cultural

replication. Man-environment systems, 9, 243-249.

Lee, Y., & Kozar, K. A. (2009). Designing usable online stores: A landscape

preference perspective. Information & Management, 46(1), 31-41.

Li, F., Sofield, T.(2008). Huangshan (Yellow Mountain), China: The meaning of

harmonious relationships. In Ryan, C.(Ed). Tourism in China: Destinations:

Culture, communities and planning (157-167). London: Routledge.

Liang, X. S. (2010). The research for the interaction behavior of east-west

intercultural tourism under the view of sociology. Economic Geography, 30(7),

1221-1226.

Liang, X. S., Ma, Y. F., & Li, T. S. (2006). A Comparative Study on Cross-cultural

Behavior of Tourists between East and West in Cultural Marginal Region.

Tourism Tribune, 21(1), 36-39.

Lowenthal, D. (1968). The American Scene. Geographical Review, 61-88.

Lyons, E. (1983). Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and

behavior, 15(4), 487-511.

Macia, A. (1979, 1979-01-01). Visual perception of landscape: Sex and personality

differences. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Our National Landscape

Conference. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-35.

Mark, L. (2004). Naming and Collective Memory in the Malay Muslim World.

Taiwan Journal of Anthropology, 2(2), 81-114.

Morris, C. (1958). Prospects for a New Synthesis: Science and the Humanities as

Complementary Activities. Science and the Modern World View, 87(1), 94-101.

Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2009). Influence of Values on Residents' Attitudes

Toward Tourism. Tourism Analysis,14(2), 241-244.

Ramkissoon, H., & Nunkoo, R. (2008). Information search behavior of European

tourists visiting Mauritius. Turizam: znanstveno-stručni časopis, 56(1), 7-21.

Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2012). Power, trust, social exchange and community

support. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 997-1023.

Okabe, R. (1983). Cultural assumptions of east and west: Japan and the United States.

Intercultural communication theory: Current perspectives, 7, 21-44.

Peng, S. (2004). A perspection on cultural theories: From Hofstede to Fernandez.

Journal of Xi'an International Studies University(03), 32-36.

R. Bruce Hull IV, G. R. B. R. (1989). Cross-cultural comparison of landscape scenic

beauty evaluations: A case study in Bali. Journal of Environmental Psychology.

9, 177-191.

Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1998). Asian and Western Cultural Differences. Journal

of international hospitality, leisure & tourism management, 1(3), 21-35.

Rosen, D. E., & Purinton, E. (2004). Website design: Viewing the web as a cognitive

landscape. Journal of Business Research, 57(7), 787-794.

Schein, R. H. (1997). The place of landscape: a conceptual framework for interpreting

an American scene. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 87,

660-680.

Sevenant, M., & Antrop, M. (2010). The use of latent classes to identify individual

differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference.

Land Use Policy, 27(3), 827-842.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

25

Shoham, A., Schrage, C., & van Eeden, S. (2005). Student Travel Behavior. Journal

of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 17(4), 1-10.

Singh, S. N., Todd Donavan, D., Mishra, S., & Little, T. D. (2008). The latent

structure of landscape perception: A mean and covariance structure modeling

approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(4), 339-352.

Sofield, T. H., Mei, F., & Li, S. (1998). Historical methodology and sustainability: An

800-year-old festival from China. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6(4), 267-292.

Sofield, T. H. B.& FungMei, L., (2005). Is the Great Wall of China the Great Wall of

China? In Cartier, C.(Ed.). Seductions of place: geographical perspectives on

globalization and touristed landscapes (276-285). New York: Routledge.

Sofield, T., & Li, F. M. S. (2007). China: ecotourism and cultural tourism, harmony

or dissonance?. In Higham, J. E. (Ed). Critical issues in ecotourism:

Understanding a complex tourism phenomenon (368-385).

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Sofield, T., & Li, S. (2011). Tourism governance and sustainable national

development in China: A macro-level synthesis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,

19(4-5), 501-534.

Steffensen, M. S., Joag-Dev, C., & Anderson, R. C. (1979). A Cross-Cultural

Perspective on Reading Comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 15(1),

10-29.

Surendra, N., & Singh, D. T. S. T. (2008). The latent structure of landscape

perception: A mean and covariance structure modeling approach. Journal of

Environmental Psychology. 28, 339-352.

Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture:

Understanding cultural diversity in global business. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tsang, N. K. F. (2011). Dimensions of Chinese culture values in relation to service

provision in hospitality and tourism industry. International Journal of

Hospitality Management, 30(3), 670-679.

Tuan, Y. F. (1971, 1971-01-01). Man and nature. Paper presented at the Association

of American Geographers Washington, DC. .

Tuan, Y. F. (1973). Visual blight: exercises in interpretation. In Peirce Lewis (ed.),

Visual Blight in America (23-27). Association of American Geography.

Tuffs, R., & Tudor, I. (1990). What the Eye Doesn't See: Cross-Cultural Problems in

the Comprehension of Video Material. RELC Journal, 21(2), 29-44.

Victor, D. A. (1992). International Business Communication. New York: Harper

Collins Publishers Inc.

Wang, J. (2010). Trans-cultural Comparison——A Methodology Commonly Used in

Tourism Studies. Tourism Tribune(005), 20-24.

Wong, J., & Law, R. (2003). Difference in shopping satisfaction levels: a study of

tourists in Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 24(4), 401-410.

Yang, B. E., & Brown, T. J. (1992). A cross-cultural comparison of preferences for

landscape styles and landscape elements. Environment and behavior, 24(4),

471-507.

Yang, B., & Kaplan, R. (1990). The perception of landscape style: a cross-cultural

comparison. Landscape and urban planning, 19(3), 251-262.

Yang, J., Ryan, C., & Zhang, L. (2013). Ethnic minority tourism in China–Han

perspectives of Tuva figures in a landscape. Tourism Management, 36, 45-56.

You, X., O'Leary, J., Morrison, A., & Hong, G. S. (2000). A cross-cultural

comparison of travel push and pull Factors. International journal of hospitality &

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

26

tourism administration, 1(2), 1-26.

Young, K. R. (1997). Wildlife conservation in the cultural landscapes of the central

Andes. Landscape and urban planning, 38(3), 137-147.

YU, K. (1988). Landscape preference: BIB-LCJ procedure and comparison

of landscape preference among different groups. Journal of Beijing

Forestry University. 10(2), 1-11.

Yu, K. (1990). Study on systems landscape aesthetics: A case study on lake

landscape. Cross-century Planners’ Thoughts. (69-86). Beijing: China

Building Industry Press.

Yu, K. (1995). Cultural variations in landscape preference: Comparisons among

Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts. Landscape and Urban Planning,

32(2), 107-126.

Zhou, Q. B., Zhang, J., & Edelheim, J. R. (2013). Rethinking traditional Chinese

culture: A consumer-based model regarding the authenticity of Chinese

calligraphic landscape. Tourism Management, 36(0), 99-112.

Zube, E. H. (1991). Environmental psychology, global issues, and local landscape

research. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(4), 321-334.

Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: research,

application and theory. Landscape planning, 9(1), 1-33.

Zube, E. H., & Pitt, D. G. (1981). Cross-cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage

landscapes. Landscape Planning, 8(1), 69-87.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

27

Table 1 Kaplans‟ landscape preference model

Understanding

(sense making)

Involvement

(exploration)

Effort in perception of immediate aspects

of the scene

Coherence Diversity or

complexity

Effort in perception of future aspects of

the scence

Legibility Mystery

Note: Adapted from Surendra etc (2008).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

28

Table 2 Socio-demographic profile of the sample

Content Items Valid Percentage

Gender Male 56.5%

Female 43.5%

Age 19 8.7%

20-29 26.3%

30-39 22.9%

40-49 22.7%

50 10.9%

Education Level Senior high school or lower 15.7%

Junior College 16.7%

Bachelor 48.6%

Master 17.0%

PhD 2.0%

Work Organization Government 12.2%

Institution 35.7%

Enterprise 23.1%

Individual business 17.6%

Others 11.4%

Tourism Frequency 3 per year 40.4%

1-2 per year 49.2%

<1 per year 10.5%

Nationality China 55.9%

America 11.8%

European countries 23.5%

Others 8.8%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

29

Table 3 Regression results between Hofestede culture dimensions and landscape

perception

Dependent Variable

Predictor

Legibility Coherence Mystery Diversity

PDI .254***

.244*** .253*** -.092

IDV -.283*** -.328*** -.400*** -.019

LTO -.194*** -.203*** -.035 -.020

Adj.R2

0.251 0.287 0.294 0.000

Bold values are significant. *p< .05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

30

Table 4 Comparison of landscape perception between high and low context culture

tourists

Culture

Chinese Western t df

Understanding (sense making)

Legibility 7.35

(1.47)

6.40

(1.51)

5.97* 363

Coherence 11.59

(2.08)

9.54

(3.14)

7.51* 363

Involvement (exploration)

Diversity 8.21

(1.34)

7.73

(1.71)

2.95* 365

Mystery 7.56

(1.46)

5.83

(2.14)

9.19* 362

Note. * = p < .05. Standard Deviations appear in parentheses below means.

IMPACT OF CULTURE ON PERCEPTIONS OF LANDSCAPE NAMES

Statement of Contribution

1. What is the contribution to knowledge, theory, policy or practice offered by the paper?

This study aims to expand the existing body of knowledge on landscape naming by

examining the influence of culture on landscape name perceptions. More specifically,

utilizing both Hofstede’s and Hall’s cultural typologies, this study aims to examine the

differences between Chinese and Western tourists’ landscape name perceptions and

expectations.

2. How does the paper offer a social science perspective / approach?).

Landscape names and tourists’ interpretation of those names are likely to play a

significant role during the decision making process. Since culture is likely to influence

tourists’ decision making process, it is also likely that a tourist’s culture will influence

his/her interpretation of landscape names and his/her intention to visit those landscapes.

This study examines the impact of culture on landscape perception of tourist from China

and western Countries. Findings indicate that culture plays a significant role in landscape

perception and landscape interpretation.

*Statement of Contribution