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.

*Highlights (for review)

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.

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

IMPACT OF CULTURE ON PERCEPTIONS OF LANDSCAPE NAMES

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

Abstract This study examines the impact of culture on landscape name perceptions of tourist from China, the U.S. and Europe utilizing both Hofstedes and Halls 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.

INTRODUCTION
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

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
2

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

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 Hofstedes and Halls 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
3

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

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; ak, 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 societys 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
4

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

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, observers 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 Macis study (1979), it is not the case in Yus study (1995). Moreover, early studies undertaken by Yu (1990) shows that living
5

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

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 Kaplans (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 individuals 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 ones bearing, and comprehend what is going on in the immediate environment, and often, in the projected environment. Understanding or sense making
6

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

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
7

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

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. Kaplans 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).
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

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, Hofstedes 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,
9

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

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). Hofstedes 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 Hofstedes typology, Hofestdes dimensions have also widely been criticized because use nationality as cultural difference unit may not be reliable; and culture is a dynamic process but Hofstedes dimensions are static and stable, it lags behind the time; and Hofstedes 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
10

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

issue. Furthermore, because of rapid globalization and the impact of internet, an individuals 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
11

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

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 Hofstedes and Halls 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
12

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

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
13

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

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 Hofstedes cultural dimensions. According to Hosftedes (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 Halls 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,
14

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

cultural difference and personal information. Based on Kaplans 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 Singhs (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 Hofstedes 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 responders socio-demographic information such as gender, age, education level, work organization and nationality are included.

15

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

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 Hofstedes cultural typology. An index for each of the three dimensions is created following Hofstedes 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
16

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

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 cultures role in landscape perception with Halls 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 Hofstedes 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 tourists comments: I hate the
17

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

way of naming and explanation, nature is to feel, just feel it, feeling and experience is the most important during trip, mountain and stones 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 dont 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 Bonds Chinese Value Survey which is completely independent of Hofstedes 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.
18

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

Findings of this study suggest that LTO dimension of Hofstedes 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 tourists involvement (mystery) and understanding (legibility and coherence), which are two latent variables of landscape perception (Kaplan,1987).

Impacts of Halls 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
19

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

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
20

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

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
21

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

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). Rabins 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.
22

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

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.
23

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

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-struni asopis, 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.
24

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

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 ComparisonA 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 ChinaHan 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 &
25

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

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.

26

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

Table 1 Kaplans landscape preference model Understanding (sense making) Coherence Involvement (exploration) Diversity or complexity Mystery

Effort in perception of immediate aspects of the scene Effort in perception of future aspects of the scence Note: Adapted from Surendra etc (2008).

Legibility

27

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

Table 2 Socio-demographic profile of the sample Content Gender Age Items Male Female 19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50 Senior high school or lower Junior College Bachelor Master PhD Government Institution Enterprise Individual business Others 3 per year 1-2 per year <1 per year China America European countries Others Valid Percentage 56.5% 43.5% 8.7% 26.3% 22.9% 22.7% 10.9% 15.7% 16.7% 48.6% 17.0% 2.0% 12.2% 35.7% 23.1% 17.6% 11.4% 40.4% 49.2% 10.5% 55.9% 11.8% 23.5% 8.8%

Education Level

Work Organization

Tourism Frequency

Nationality

28

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

Table 3 Regression results between Hofestede culture dimensions and landscape perception Dependent Variable Legibility Coherence Mystery Diversity Predictor PDI IDV LTO Adj.R
2

.254*** -.283*** -.194*** 0.251

.244*** -.328*** -.203*** 0.287

.253*** -.400*** -.035 0.294

-.092 -.019 -.020 0.000

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

29

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

Table 4 Comparison of landscape perception between high and low context culture tourists Culture Chinese Western t df Understanding (sense making) 7.35 6.40 5.97* 363 Legibility (1.47) (1.51) 11.59 9.54 7.51* 363 Coherence (2.08) (3.14) Involvement (exploration) 8.21 7.73 2.95* 365 Diversity (1.34) (1.71) 7.56 5.83 9.19* 362 Mystery (1.46) (2.14) Note. * = p < .05. Standard Deviations appear in parentheses below means.

30

*Statement of Contribution

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 Hofstedes and Halls 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 tourists 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.