The role of landscape preferences in the travel decisions of railway passengers: Evidence from Hungary

Open access

Abstract

When surveying the motivation side of travel and tourism, we can state that tourists consider in their travel decisions, certain landscape preferences – to a certain extent. It also seems to be evident, however, that the objective evaluation of a landscape is a hard task for researchers for numerous reasons. In recent decades, several attempts have been made to create such methods but it seems that, in Hungary at least, this topic is rather neglected. The aim of this study is to provide an evaluation method for the landscape preferences of passengers travelling on Hungarian railway lines, demonstrating how the landscape around the railways could become an attraction during the travel. We survey what types of landscape appearance would be needed in order to generate travel decisions for tourists and also how the travel experience itself could become a tourism product.

ALDSKOGIUS, H. (1977): A conceptual framework and a Swedish case study of recreational behavior and environmental cognition. Economic Geography, 53(2): 163–183.

BARROSO, F. L., PINTO-CORREIA, T., RAMOS, I. L., SUROVÁ, D., MENEZES, H. (2012): Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies: Photo-based questionnaires in the Mediterranean context. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(3–4): 329–342.

BEZA, B. B. (2010): The aesthetic value of a mountain landscape: A study of the Mt. Everest Trek. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(4): 306–317.

BOURASSA, S. C. (19888). Toward a theory of landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15(3–4): 241–252.

BUCKLEY, R. (2006): Environmental Inputs and Outputs in Ecotourism: Geotourism with a Positive Triple Bottom Line? Journal of Ecotourism, 2(1): 76–82.

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.

BUEHLER, R., NOBIS, C. (2010): Travel behavior in aging societies, comparison of Germany and the United States. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2182: 62–70.

BUNTING, T. E., GUELKE, L. (1979): Behavioral and perception geography: a critical appraisal. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 69(3): 448–462.

CHUA, B., SANGHYEOP, L., HUFFMAN, L., CHOI, H. (2015): The Role of Physical Environment in Leisure Service Consumption: Evidence From a Ski Resort Setting. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 4: 375–407.

COCEAN, G. (2010): The tourist role of relief as landscape background. Romanian Review of Regional Studies, 6(1): 79–90.

CSORBA, P., LÓCZY, D., MEZŐSI, G. (2004): Recent landscape research in Hungary. BELGEO – Revue Belge de Geographie, 2–3: 289–300.

DACHARY-BERNARD, J. RAMBONILAZA, T. (2012): Choice experiment, multiple programmes contingent valuation and landscape preferences: How can we support the land use decision making process? Land Use Policy, 29(4): 846–854.

DANIEL, T. C., BOSTER, R. S. (1976): Measuring Landscape Esthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. USDA, Fort Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service Research Paper No. RM-167.

DE LA FUENTE DE VAL, G., MÜHLHAUSER S. H. (2014): Visual quality: An examination of a South American Mediterranean landscape, Andean foothills east of Santiago (Chile). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(2): 261–271.

DENSTADLI, J. M., JACOBSEN, J. S. (2011): The long and winding roads: Perceived quality of scenic tourism routes. Tourism Management, 32(4): 780–789.

DESBARATS, J. (1983). Spatial choice and constraints on behavior. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 73(3): 340–357.

DIJST, M., FARAG, S., SCHWANEN, T. (2008): A comparative study of attitude theory and other theoretical models for understanding travel behaviour. Environment and Planning A, 40(4): 831–847.

FABOS, J. G. (1971): An analysis of environmental quality ranking systems in recreation. In: Recreation Symp. Proc. (pp. 40–55). Northeastern For. Exp. Stn., USDA For. Serv., Upper Darby, PA.

FAGGI, A., BREUSTE, J., MADANES, N., GROPPER, C., PERELMAN, P. (2013): Water as an appreciated feature in the landscape: a comparison of residents’ and visitors’ preferences in Buenos Aires. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60: 182–187.

FORNAL-PIENIAK, B., ŻARSKA, B. (2014): Methods of landscape evaluation for tourism and recreation. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum – Formatio Circumiectus, 13(2): 3–9.

FRANK, S., FÜRST, C., KOSCHKE, L., WITT, A., MAKESCHIN, F. (2013): Assessment of landscape aesthetics—Validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty. Ecological Indicators, 32: 222–231.

FREDE, H. G., BACH, M., FOHRER, N., MÖLLER, D., STEINER, N. (2002): Multifunktionalität der Landschaft – Methoden und Modelle. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen, 146: 58–63.

FYHRI, A., JACOBSEN, J. K. S., TØMMERVIK, H. (2009): Tourists’ landscape perceptions and preferences in a Scandinavian coastal region. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(4): 202–211.

GALAMBOS, J. (1989): New concepts in landscape assessment: a dynamic landscape assessment. In: Pécsi, M. [ed.]: Geomorphological and geoecological essays (pp. 87–97). Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó.

GARRE, S., MEEUS, S., GULINCK, H. (2009): The dual role of roads in the visual landscape: A case study in the area around Mechelen (Belgium). Landscape and Urban Planning, 92: 125–135.

GERGEL, S. E., TUNER, M. G. [eds.] (2017): Learning Landscape Ecology. A Practical Guide to Concepts and Techniques. New York, Springer-Verlag.

GOLLEDGE, R. G. (1997): Spatial behavior: A geographic perspective. Guilford Press.

GYURICZA, L., AMBRUS, T. (2008): An attempt at the quantitative evolution of the natural endowments of tourism. In: Matei, E. [ed.]: Sustainable Tourism Development in the Carpathian Mountains: The First International Carpathians Tourism Conference (pp. 42–65). Bucuresti, Universitara Housing Press.

HALSALL D. A. (2001): Railway heritage and the tourist gaze: Stoomtram Hoorn-Medemblik. Journal of Transport Geography, 9(2): 151–160.

HORVÁTH G. (2008): Természeti, táji értékek számszerű minősítése. In: Csorba, P., Fazekas, I. [eds.]: Tájkutatás – tájökológia (pp. 73–85). Debrecen, Meridián Alapítvány.

HOWLEY, P. (2011): Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general public’s preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecological Economics, 72: 161–169.

JACOBSEN, J. K. S. (2007): Use of Landscape Perception Methods in Tourism Studies: A Review of Photo-Based Research Approaches. Tourism Geographies – An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 9(3): 234–253.

JADE, R., MOLKOVÁ, T., KVIZDA, M. (2015): Role of railways in empowering travelers: A case study from the Czech Republic. Journal of Rail Transport Planning & Management, 5(2): 31–49.

JASZCZAK, A., ŽUKOVSKIS, J. (2011): Landscape valuation in development of rural tourism: case study of Ostfriesland (Germany). Management theory and studies for rural business and infrastructure development, 5(29): 89–95.

JEANLOZ, S., LIZIN, S., BEENAERTS, N., BROUWER, R., VAN PASSEL, S., WITTERS, N. (2016): Towards a more structured selection process for attributes and levels in choice experiments: A study in a Belgian protected area. Ecosystem Services, 18: 45–57.

JOLY, D., BROSSARD, T., CAVAILHES, J., HILAL, M., TOURNEUX, F. P., TRITZ, C., WAVRESKY, P. (2009): A quantitative approach to the visual evaluation of landscape. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(2): 292–308.

JUNGE, X., SCHÜPBACH, B., WALTER, T., SCHMID, B., LINDEMANN-MATTHIES, P. (2015): Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 133: 67–77.

KALIVODA, O., VOJAR, J., SKŘIVANOVÁ, Z., ZAHRADNÍK, D. (2014): Consensus in landscape preference judgments: The effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents’ characteristics, Journal of Environmental Management, 137: 36–44.

KIRILLOVA, K., FU, X., LEHTO, X., CAI, L. (2014): What makes a destination beautiful? Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment. Tourism Management, 42: 282–293.

KNUDSEN, D. C., SOPER, A. K., METRO-ROLAND, M. (2007): Commentary: Gazing, Performing and Reading: A Landscape Approach to Understanding Meaning in Tourism Theory. Tourism Geographies – An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 9(3): 227–233.

LEOPOLD, L. B. (1969): Quantitative comparison of some aesthetic factors among rivers. Geol. Survey Circ. 630: 1–16. USD1 Geological Survey, Washington, DC.

LIU, B. (2015): Quality Evaluation and Structure Optimization of Tourism Landscape (pp. 267–270). International Conference on Management Science and Innovative Education (MSIE 2015).

LÓCZY, D. (2015) [ed.]: Landscapes and Landforms of Hungary. Dordrecht, Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

MAROSI, S., SZILÁRD, J. (1985): Landscape topology and evaluation of the Balaton ‘Riviera’. In: Pécsi, M. [ed.]: Environmental and dynamic geomorphology: case studies in Hungary: contribution to the First International Geomorphological Conference, Manchester, (pp. 141–145). Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó.

MARTÍN, M., ORTEGA, E., OTERO, I., ARCE, R. M. (2016): Landscape character assessment with GIS using map–based indicators and photographs in the relationship between landscape and roads. Journal of Environmental Management, 180: 324–334.

MEZŐSI, G. (1990): Versuche zur Determination der ästhetischen Werte der Landschaft. Acta Universitas Szegediensis, Acta Geographica, 28–30: 51–66.

MYGA-PIATEK, U., NITA, J. (2008): The scenic value of abandoned mining areas in Poland. Acta Geographica Debrecina, Landscape & Environment Series, 2(2): 132–142.

NIKOLAISHVILI, D., DONADZE, T., MELADZE, G., TRAPAIDZE, V., DVALASHVILI, G., SHARASHENIDZE, M., TIGISHVILI, T. (2012): Evaluating the touristic potential of Georgia’s landscapes. Forum geografic. Studii ºi cercetări de geografie ºi protecþia mediului, 11(2): 145–154.

NITA, J., MYGA-PIATEK, U. (2014): Scenic values of the Katowice – Częstochowa section of national road No. 1. Geographica Polonica, 87(1): 113–125.

ODE, Å., Mari, S., TVEIT, M., FRY, G. (2008): Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators: Touching Base with Landscape Aesthetic Theory. Landscape Research, 33(1): 89–117.

PAGE, S. J. (2009): Transport and tourism global perspectives. London, Pearson, Prentice Hall, Harlow.

PARDO-GARCÍA, S., MÉRIDA-RODRÍGUEZ, M. (2017): Measurement of visual parameters of landscape using projections of photographs in GIS, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 61, Part A: 56–65.

PETERSON, M. N., THURMOND, B., MCHALE, M., RODRIGUEZ, S., BONDELL, H. D., COOK, M. (2012): Predicting native plant landscaping preferences in urban areas. Sustainable Cities and Society, 5: 70–76.

PHILLIPS, M. R., EDWARDS, A. M., WILLIAMS, A. T. (2010): An incremental scenic assessment of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, UK. The Geographical Journal, 176(4): 291–303.

RIECHERS, M., BARKMANN, J., TSCHARNTKE, T. (2015): Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Ecosystem Services, 17: 33–39.

ROGGE, E., NEVENS, F., GULINCK, H. (2007): Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82(4): 159–174.

ROSLEY, M. S. F., LAMIT, H., RAHMAN, S. R. A. (2016): Perceiving the Aesthetic Value of the Rural Landscape through Valid Indicators. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 85: 318–331.

SCOTT, A. (2006): Assessing public perception of landscape: past, present and future perspectives. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 1(041).

SEVENANT, M., ANTROP, M. (2009): Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes, Journal of Environmental Management, 90(9): 2889–2899.

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.

SHAFER, E. L., HAMILTON, J. F., SCHMIDT, E. A. (1969): Natural landscape preferences: a predictive model. Journal of Leisure Research 1: 1–19.

SHAFER, E. L. (1969): Perception of natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 1(1): 71–82.

SCHIRPKE, U., TASSER, E., TAPPEINER, U. (2013): Predicting scenic beauty of mountain regions, Landscape and Urban Planning, 111: 1–12.

SITWELL, O. F. G., LATHAM, G. R. (1979): Behavioural geography and the cultural landscape. Geografiska Annaler B, 51–63.

SWANWICK, C. (2009): Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy, 26: 62–75.

TAGLIAFIERRO, C., BOERI, M., LONGO, A., HUTCHINSON, W. G. (2016): Stated preference methods and landscape ecology indicators: An example of transdisciplinarity in landscape economic valuation, Ecological Economics, 127: 11–22.

TIMMERMANS, H. (1981): Spatial choice behaviour in different environmental settings: an application of the revealed preference approach. Geografiska Annaler. Series B. Human Geography, 63(1): 57–67.

TURNER, M. G., GARDNER, R. H. (2015): Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice. Pattern and Process. New York, Springer-Verlag.

TURNER, M. G., GARDNER, R. H., O’NEILL, R. V. (2001): Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice. Pattern and Process. New York, Springer-Verlag.

TVEIT, M., ODE, Å., FRY, G. (2007): Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3): 229–255.

VAN DER JAGT, A. P. N., CRAIG, T., ANABLE, J., BREWER, M. J., PEARSON, D. G. (2014): Unearthing the picturesque: The validity of the preference matrix as a measure of landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 124: 1–13.

VAN DER ZEE, D. (1990): The complex relationship between landscape and recreation. Landscape Ecology, 4(4): 225–236.

VAN ZANTEN, B. T., VERBURG, P. H., SCHOLTE, S. S. K., TIESKENS, K. F. (2016a): Using choice modeling to map aesthetic values at a landscape scale: Lessons from a Dutch case study. Ecological Economics, 130: 221–231.

VAN ZANTEN, B. T., ZASADA, I., KOETSE, M. J., UNGARO, F., HÄFNER, K., VERBURG, P. H. (2016b): A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes. Ecosystem Services, 17: 87–98.

VARJÚ, V., SUVÁK, A., DOMBI, P. (2014): Geographic Information Systems in the Service of Alternative Tourism – Methods with Landscape Evaluation and Target Group Preference Weighting. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(5): 496–512.

VIZZARI, M. (2010): Spatial modelling of potential landscape quality. Applied Geography, 31(1): 108–118.

VOULIGNY, É., DOMON, G., RUIZ, J. (2009): An assessment of ordinary landscapes by an expert and by its residents: Landscape values in areas of intensive agricultural use, Land Use Policy, 26(4): 890–900.

WANG, R., ZHAO, J., LIU, Z. (2016): Consensus in visual preferences: The effects of aesthetic quality and landscape types. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20: 210–217.

YOSHIHARA, T., NISHINA, D., TANAKA, T., KAWASE, K., TAKAGISHI, H. (2017): A Study on the Psychological Evaluation of Tourism Landscape Images in Hiroshima – A Psychological Evaluation by Korean Subjects. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 16(1): 223–229.

ZUBE, E. H. (1974): Cross-disciplinary and intermode agreement on the description and evaluation of landscape resources. Environment and Behavior, 6(1): 69–89.

ZUBE, E. H., PITT, D. G. ANDERSON, T. W. (1974): Perception and measurement of scenic resources in the southern Connecticut River Valley. Institute for Man and His Environment, PubI. R-74-1. Amherst, Mass.

Moravian Geographical Reports

The Journal of Institute of Geonics of the Czech Academy of Sciences (CAS)

Journal Information


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.435
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.500



CiteScore 2017: 1.83

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.408
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.090

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 72 72 18
PDF Downloads 54 54 10