Research on Rural Landscape Preference Based on TikTok Short Video Content and User Comments
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Data Sources and Sample Analysis
3. Analysis of Rural Landscape Elements Based on Short Video Content
3.1. Landscape Description and Open Coding
3.2. Axial Coding
3.3. Selective Coding
4. Rural Landscape Preference Analysis Based on User Comments
4.1. Data Mining and Cleaning
4.2. High-Frequency Word Analysis
4.3. Semantic Network Analysis
4.4. Sentiment Analysis
4.5. Short Video Users Landscape Category Preference Analysis
4.5.1. Rural Ecological Landscape
4.5.2. Rural Living Landscape
4.5.3. Rural Productive Landscape
5. Conclusions, Discussions, and Recommendations
5.1. Conclusions
5.2. Recommendations
5.3. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Deng, H. On Sauer’s theory and practice in cultural ecology. Geogr. Res. 2003, 22, 625–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, W.W.; Fang, X.N. Landscape sustainability and landscape sustainability science. Acta Eco. Sin. 2014, 34, 2453–2459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakajima, N. City Beautiful Movement; University of Tokyo Press: Tokyo, Japan, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Denis, E.; Cosgrove, D. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape; The University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scazzosi, L.; Wang, X.; Li, J.Y. Contexts and Concept of Principles Concerning Rural Landscape as Heritage ICOMOS (2017). Chin. Landsc. Arch. 2018, 34, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, J.; Tang, X.Q. On the production of traditional settlement landscape in ethnic tourism destination from the triple meaning of landscape identity. Tour. Trib. 2020, 35, 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stelios, L.; Mina, D. Heritage in the making: Rural heritage and its mnemeiosis at Naxos island, Greece. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 77, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Liu, L. Characteristics and driving factors of rural livelihood transition in the east coastal region of China: A case study of suburban Shanghai. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 43, 145–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evan, J.J.; Christine, A.V.; Richard, P.D. A stress and coping framework for understanding resident responses to tourism development. Tour. Manag. 2015, 48, 500–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godfree, R.; Firn, J.; Johnson, S.; Knerr, N.; Stol, J.; Doerr, V. Why non-native grasses pose a critical emerging threat to biodiversity conservation, habitat connectivity and agricultural production in multifunctional rural landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2017, 32, 1219–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, T.; Liu, J. From “Home Decoration” to “Landscape Planning”: A Review of Landscape Aesthetical Resource Evaluation Theories in Germany. Urban Plan. Inter. 2012, 27, 84–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, R.; Yan, J.J. A framework for incorporating landscape management into the human-environment relationship research of rural tourism. Prog. Geogr. 2022, 41, 510–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P.H.; Li, K.; Wu, X.G. Evaluation of rural landscape image in southern Fujian based on the perspective of nostalgia. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. 2022, 41, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sıla, B.; Meryem, A. Rural planning guidelines for urban-rural transition zones as a tool for the protection of rural landscape characters and retaining urban sprawl: Antalya case from Mediterranean. Land Use Policy 2022, 119, 106144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, J.K.; Chen, Z.F.; Peng, Z.W.; Wang, Y.C. Development and Prospect of Rural Landscape Character Assessment in China. Landsc. Arch. 2022, 29, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polat, A.T.; Akay, A. Relationships between the visual preferences of urban recreation area users and various landscape design elements. Urban For. Urban Gree. 2015, 14, 573–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.P. Research on the Methods of Rural Landscape Classification. Master’s Thesis, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China, 2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Zhao, Z.B.; Li, X.Y. Landscape Value in Rural Community Based on PPGIS: A Case Study on Shuhe Old Town of Lijiang. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2021, 41, 328–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arriaza, M.; Cañas-Ortega, J.F.; Cañas-Madueño, J.A.; Ruiz-Aviles, P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zube, E.H. Perceived land use patterns and landscape values. Landsc. Ecol. 1987, 1, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Riper, C.J.; Kyle, G.T.; Sutton, S.G.; Barnes, M.; Sherrouse, B.C. Mapping outdoor recreationists’ perceived social values for ecosystem services at Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 35, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, G.L.; Freimund, W.; Belsky, J. The politics of place: Understanding meaning, common ground, and political difference on the Rocky Mountain Front. For. Sci. 2003, 49, 855–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G. Mapping landscape values and development preferences: A method for tourism and residential development planning. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2006, 8, 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Reed, P. Validation of a forest values typology for use in national forest planning. For. Sci. 2000, 46, 240–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, J.; Zhou, Y.M.; Zeng, L.; Tang, X.Q. Aesthetic heterogeneity on rural landscape: Pathway discrepancy between perception and cognition. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 92, 383–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schirpke, U.G.; Tappeiner, E.; Tasser, U.T. Using conjoint analysis to gain deeper insights into aesthetic landscape preferences. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 96, 202–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acar, C.; Sakici, C. Assessing landscape perception of urban rocky habitats. Build. Environ. 2008, 43, 1153–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.C.; Ma, Y.Y.; Shen, J.K. Application of Landscape Personality Assessment in National Territory Spatial Planning and Control. Landsc. Arch. 2020, 27, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agnoletti, M.; Santoro, A. Rural Landscape Planning and Forest Management in Tuscany (Italy). Forests 2018, 9, 473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.C.; Luo, C.X.; Cai, W.T.; Jin, H.X. Progress of Chinese Rural Landscape Characteristic System Research in Recent 20 Years. Chin. Gard. 2022, 38, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, T.; Wang, Y.J.; Wang, W.H. A review on visual landscape study in foreign countries. Prog. Geogr. 2013, 32, 975–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sevenant, M.; Antrop, M. The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 827–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogge, E.; Nevens, F.; Gulinck, H. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 82, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agnes, E.; Van, B.; Sander, L.K. New wilderness in the Netherlands:An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Targetti, S.; Raggi, M.; Zavalloni, M.; Viaggi, D. Perceived benefits from reclaimed rural landscapes: Evidence from the lowlands of the Po River Delta, Italy. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 49, 101288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, R.L. Preserving rural character in New England: Local residents’ perceptions of alternative residential development. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 61, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purcell, A.T.; Lamb, R.J.; Mainardi, P.E.; Falchero, S. Preference or preferences for landscape? J. Environ. Psychol. 1994, 14, 195–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valbuena, D.; Chenet, J.G.; Gaitán, C.D. Options to Support Sustainable Trajectories in a Rural Landscape: Drivers, Rural Processes, and Local Perceptions in a Colombian Coffee-Growing Region. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarah, K.; Richard, C. Digital cultural heritage and rural landscapes: Preserving the histories of landscape conservation in the United States. Built Herit. 2020, 4, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stamps, E.A. Demographic Effects in Environmental Aesthetics: A Meta-Analysis. J. Plan. Lit. 1999, 14, 155–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curtis, D.J. Creating Inspiration: How Visual and Performing Arts Shape Environmental Behaviour. Master’s Thesis, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Hadavi, S.; Kaplan, R.; Hunter, M.R. How does perception of nearby nature affect multiple aspects of neighbourhood satisfaction and use patterns? Landsc. Res. 2018, 43, 360–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerebel, A.; Gélinas, N.; Déry, S.; Voigt, B.; Munson, A. Landscape aesthetic modelling using Bayesian networks: Conceptual framework and participatory indicator weighting. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 185, 258–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, L.; Gu, Z.J.; Wang, N. Research on Landscape Pattern Change of Sloping Cultivated Lands in YuanJiang Savanna Valley. Yunnan Geogra. Environ. Res. 2017, 29, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Depietri, Y.; Ghermandi, A.; Campisi-Pinto, S.; Orenstein, D.E. Public participation GIS versus geolocated social media data to assess urban cultural ecosystem services: Instances of complementarity. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 50, 101277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vuokko, H.; Henrikki, T.; Claudia, B.; Olle, J.; Tuomo, H.; Tuuli, T. Understanding the use of urban green spaces from user-generated geographic information. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 201, 103845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorena, M.; Vera, H.H.; Claire, R.; Greg, B.; Remi, D. Using crowdsourced spatial data from Flickr vs. PPGIS for understanding nature’s contribution to people in Southern Norway. People Nat. 2020, 2, 437–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, G.D.; Qiu, B.; Wang, H. A Method of Evaluation and Modification of Plant Landscape Planning and Design Based on Virtual Reality Technology-Taking Changdang Lake Tourist Resort as an Example. Chin. Landsc. Arch. 2022, 38, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shafer, E.L.; Brush, R.O. How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes. Landsc. Plan. 1977, 4, 237–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balomenou, N.; Garrod, B.; Georgiadou, A. Making sense of tourists’ photographs using canonical variate analysis. Tour. Manag. 2015, 61, 173–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.Y.; Zhao, Z.B.; Zhang, Y.; Zhong, M. Backpackers’ Landscape Preference and Spatial Structure Based on Photo Analysis: Take the Qinling Taibai Mountain’s Backpackers as An Example. Areal. Res. Dev. 2020, 39, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, P.P.; Yao, Y.B. Tourism Constraints Structure Dimensions and Mechanism of Urban Senior Tourists: A Research Based on the Grounded Theory. Tour. Sci. 2022, 35, 92–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, X.B.; Tao, Y.; Ou, W.X. Spatio-Temporal Characteristics and Evolutions of Rural Production-Living-Ecological Function and Couping Coordination in Jiangsu. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin. 2022, 31, 222–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Y.R.; Xie, Y.J.; Zeng, S.Q. Estrangement and affinity: Reconstruction of interpersonal relationship and courtyard complex in rural tourist experience. Tour. Trib. 2020, 35, 63–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uriely, N. The tourist experience: Conceptual developments. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005, 32, 199–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- John, B.J. Discovering the Vernacular Landscape; The Commercial Press: Beijing, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, Z.Y. The Development and Protection of the Rural Landscape under the Perspective of Ecological Tourism: Taking GuangXi as an example. Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Region. Plan. 2017, 38, 209–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofer, J.H. Dissertatio medica de nostalgia. Bull. Hist. Med. 1688, 2, 376–391. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, P.L. The theory and practice exploration of “remembering nostalgia” in the construction of new urbanization. Geogr. Res. 2015, 34, 1205–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Technical Parameters | Absolute Number | Ratio | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Visual elements | Animation | Yes | 38 | 17.1% |
None | 184 | 82.9% | ||
Subtitle | Yes | 12 | 5.4% | |
None | 210 | 94.6% | ||
Stability | Yes | 222 | 100% | |
No | 0 | 0 | ||
Auditory elements | Music | Yes | 175 | 78.8% |
None | 47 | 21.2% | ||
Simultaneous sound | Yes | 135 | 60.8% | |
None | 87 | 39.2% | ||
Narration | Yes | 5 | 2.3% | |
None | 217 | 97.7% | ||
Positional information | Yes | 58 | 26.1% | |
None | 164 | 73.9% | ||
Presentation | Full screen | 218 | 98.2% | |
Half screen | 2 | 0.9% | ||
One-third screen | 2 | 0.9% | ||
Duration | Within 30 s | 214 | 96.4% | |
30–60 s | 6 | 2.7% | ||
More than 60 s | 2 | 0.9% | ||
Generated mode | UGC | 180 | 81.1% | |
PGC | 42 | 18.9% | ||
Likes | 1–5 w | 76 | 34.2% | |
5–10 w | 44 | 19.8% | ||
More than 10 w | 102 | 45.9% | ||
Comments | Below 5000 | 145 | 65.3% | |
5000–1 w | 28 | 12.6% | ||
More than 1 w | 49 | 22.1% | ||
Sharing | Below 5000 | 128 | 57.7% | |
5000–1 w | 49 | 22.1% | ||
More than 1 w | 45 | 20.2% |
Landscape Elements | Basic Category |
---|---|
moon, starry sky, stars, blue sky and white clouds, full moon, bright moon, night, morning… | A1 astronomical landscape |
grass, banyan tree, cherry tree, persimmon tree, ancient tree, plants, bamboo… | B1 plants in a rural landscape |
streams, current, lake… | C2 waterscape |
pump, harvester… | D2 agricultural machinery |
cattle farming, mechanized farming | E1 working in the fields |
Rice, rape, corn… | F3 crops |
stone bridge, stone steps, stone slab bridge, ghaut, dam… | G1 transportation facilities |
yard, courtyard, kitchen, hearth, balcony, fence, railing, wooden door… | H4 auxiliary space of rural buildings |
middle-aged women, grandmother, the elderly man, angler… | I1 rural residents |
washing clothes, washing vegetables, cooking… | J1 life activities |
plastic bucket, bamboo crate, bamboo basket | K1 life utensils |
coir raincoat, clothes, straw hat, bamboo hat… | L2 clothes |
… | … |
A total of 252 rural landscape elements are defined | A total of 32 basic categories are formed |
Rank | High-Frequency Words | Frequency | Rank | High-Frequency Words | Frequency |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | childhood | 17,342 | 26 | xanadu | 1870 |
2 | local | 16,216 | 27 | hometown | 1759 |
3 | world | 11,022 | 28 | hear | 1743 |
4 | fairyland | 9044 | 29 | infancy | 1726 |
5 | yearning | 5349 | 30 | maturity | 1619 |
6 | countryside | 4916 | 31 | suitable | 1614 |
7 | picturesque scenery | 3514 | 32 | celestial | 1593 |
8 | scenery | 3408 | 33 | day | 1576 |
9 | miss | 3286 | 34 | rain | 1574 |
10 | young | 3205 | 35 | birthplace | 1456 |
11 | recollection | 3180 | 36 | time | 1423 |
12 | grow up | 3061 | 37 | rich | 1392 |
13 | house | 2579 | 38 | rice | 1385 |
14 | remember | 2476 | 39 | real | 1385 |
15 | air | 2390 | 40 | fine | 1380 |
16 | beautiful | 2348 | 41 | paradise | 1376 |
17 | birds’ singing and flowers’ fragrance | 2212 | 42 | happy | 1324 |
18 | smoke | 2188 | 43 | peaceful | 1317 |
19 | sound | 2103 | 44 | comfortable | 1230 |
20 | household | 2095 | 45 | home | 1220 |
21 | small bridges flowing water | 2095 | 46 | native place | 1211 |
22 | environment | 2040 | 47 | grandmother | 1206 |
23 | old-age care | 2039 | 48 | mother | 1205 |
24 | wonderful | 1982 | 49 | scene | 1203 |
25 | memory | 1885 | 50 | feeling | 1094 |
Emotional Attitude | Ratio | Intensity | Ratio |
---|---|---|---|
Positive | 46.96% | High degree (above 20) | 6.12% |
Medium (10–20) | 13.54% | ||
General (0–10) | 27.30% | ||
Neutral | 40.70% | - | 40.70% |
Negative | 12.34% | High degree (below minus 20) | 0.21% |
Medium (−20–−10) | 1.94% | ||
General (−10–0) | 10.19% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chen, H.; Wang, M.; Zhang, Z. Research on Rural Landscape Preference Based on TikTok Short Video Content and User Comments. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10115. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610115
Chen H, Wang M, Zhang Z. Research on Rural Landscape Preference Based on TikTok Short Video Content and User Comments. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(16):10115. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610115
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Hao, Min Wang, and Zhen Zhang. 2022. "Research on Rural Landscape Preference Based on TikTok Short Video Content and User Comments" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 16: 10115. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610115