**Improving the Landscape and Tourism in Marginal Areas: The Case of Land Consolidation Associations in the North-West of Italy**

### **Alessandro Bonadonna 1,2,\*, Andrea Rostagno <sup>1</sup> and Riccardo Beltramo 1,2**


Received: 4 May 2020; Accepted: 28 May 2020; Published: 29 May 2020

**Abstract:** Land fragmentation is a factor that limits the development of the agricultural and forestry sector, as well as the ability of operators to reach a profitable economic dimension. This phenomenon also influences the creation of activities and incomes in a negative way in marginal areas. In this context, land consolidation associations (LCA) can be a useful tool in reducing this limitation and promoting better management of the territory by improving the link between the landscape and tourism. This study aims to make a comparison between the different LCAs operating in the north-west of Italy, with a specific focus on differences and similarities amongst LCAs, highlighting each orientation towards the management of the landscape with the purpose of improving tourism development. The research used a survey method; a questionnaire was designed, and a semi-structured interview was conducted with each LCA president. Findings show that land management by LCAs allows the preservation and/or improvement of the landscape and supports the development of agricultural activities such as animal breeding. This kind of landscape-based land management increases the attractiveness of the territory in terms of tourism, stimulating the nature-oriented tourism tools. Therefore, on the one hand, the Piedmontese model supports the landscape and also allows economic and social goals to be reached by tourism solutions, and on the other hand it stimulates the improvement of the environment and the creation of chests of biodiversity.

**Keywords:** land consolidation association (LCA); landscape; tourism; land fragmentation; north-west of Italy

### **1. Introduction**

The Sustainable Development Goals, identified by the UN, are increasing in importance at the international level and involve various economic and social areas, including land management. Careful management and use of territories, even in marginal and disadvantaged areas, can lead to the achievement of objectives such as the protection of the terrestrial ecosystem, the reduction of activities that can generate climate change and the creation of useful jobs to support the prosperity of rural communities.

In order to achieve these objectives, different tools can be implemented to support and enhance the territory and landscape that are also applicable for tourism purposes. In the field of tourism management, the territory is of primary importance in satisfying three essential conditions in the development phase of a tourism project, i.e., creating the tourist experience by meeting the needs of the demand, implementing a systemic appeal that integrates operators and the territory and monitoring the dynamics between tourist supply, demand and the territory [1–7].

The territory, therefore, is of significant importance for the tourism sector, and its role becomes central from the perspective of a sustainable tourist destination in order to ensure its competitiveness over time. The territory should be managed according to criteria of effectiveness and efficiency, with the involvement of the local community in decision-making processes, even in marginal and disadvantaged rural areas [8,9].

Especially, operators have an economic and social responsibility towards the territory [10]. On the one hand, they must be aware of the quality of the territorial heritage, which is the engine for the development of the territory [5]. On the other hand, they must be able to integrate into the dynamics of the local territorial context, to make their experiential tourism offer more authentic [4,11]. The concept of experience in tourism is constantly evolving, as shown by the models relating to the experience economy and its dimensions [12] and the experience pyramid model [13,14] as well as the dimensions of the tourist experience [15]. At the same time, the concept of territory, understood as geographically, culturally and historically delimited, can be related to an economic offer proposed by one or more operators and perceived by demand as a unitary product consisting of tangible elements (e.g., agro-food products and handicrafts) and intangibles (e.g., culture, history and tradition) and perhaps further characterized by a single image or identity [16,17].

In this context, the landscape is a particular element that can distinguish a territory and its tourist appeal. The landscape is the territory filtered by culture; it is linked to the perception of a territory, determined by the dominant elements and, sometimes, can be confused with the territory. This happens because of the characteristics of its external appearance or because it is an element of social and community value [18–20]. In a rural tourism context, the landscape is often combined with the perception of the transformation of the territory caused by agriculture and its products, as in the case of the International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV). Indeed, it defines terroir as the set of "specific soil, topography, climate, landscape characteristics and biodiversity features" that allow the unique characterization of wine products [21,22]. In many cases, the landscape and tourism represent a winning combination from an economic and social point of view and form a consolidated link in those territories that are also distinguished by well-structured businesses, such as Langhe and Monferrato in Piedmont, in the north-west of Italy [23]. The positive perception of transformations connotes a landscape worthy of conservation and enhancement.

In addition to these territories particularly suited for food and wine and landscape tourism, there are also some adjacent ones that are subject to high social and economic decline. These places are affected by the phenomena of depopulation and fragmentation of the land, which have fueled a series of limitations for agricultural and agro-pastoral farms, i.e., the reduction of the land surface necessary to produce sufficient income to maintain productive activities [24,25], the abandonment of the territory and the loss of eco-systemic services such as meadows, pastures and forests [26–29]. The territories with these kinds of problems and critical issues have been identified as marginal and are characterized by reduced economic and social development when compared to the neighboring territorial context [30,31]. At the same time, according to other currents of thought, abandonment has resulted in a re-naturalization of the landscape that alternates abandoned land with cultivated land. Spontaneous evolution is positively assessed for the formation of chests of biodiversity that had been lost with monoculture [32]. However, in general terms, the maximization of the value of ecosystems can only be ensured through planning and management processes [33]. Indeed, from the phenomenon of abandonment, diverse situations may arise and not necessarily coinciding with recoveries of biodiversity. For example, abandonment can lead to triggering erosion, runoffs and landslides or difficulties in intervening in the event of fires [34,35].

In the EU, territorial policy is oriented towards sustainable management of natural resources and socio-economic development for rural areas, also highlighting the different variations that agriculture can take on [36–42].

The EU guidelines are applied locally through the tools of rural development programs [43,44] with elements that meet the needs of each territory. A particular tool, aimed at the recovery of fragmented land located in marginal areas, was regulated in Piedmont (north-west of Italy) in 2016 to reduce depopulation and make abandoned agricultural land productive again. This tool is named the "land consolidation association—LCA" ("Associazione Fondiaria" in Italian). This approach allows functionally small portions of abandoned land owned by different parties to be joined in order to stimulate the development of new entrepreneurial agricultural activities and therefore create employment in marginal areas. In Italy, LCA initiatives are not very widespread, but the Piedmontese regulation stimulated the start of the activities of the associations. Indeed, the Piedmont area is characterized by the largest number of LCAs in Italy, equal to 16. These associations are active and operate in the area to recover the largest possible area of land, giving rise to different types of activities.

Given the importance of land management, these associations seem to be a useful tool to achieve different goals both in an environmental context, i.e., safeguarding of the ecosystem and landscape, and in a socio-economic sense, i.e., the ability to produce income. The purpose of this study is therefore to make a comparison between the different LCAs, with a focus on the objectives and the end use of the consolidated land of each association. Moreover, differences and similarities between the cases examined are analyzed, highlighting a feasible orientation towards the transformation of the landscape with the purpose of tourism development of the territory.

This paper is organized into different sections. The first presents the main references on land fragmentation and related tools to reduce this phenomenon. The second outlines the case study and methodology used in the scope of this research. The third presents main findings obtained by data analysis. The fourth discusses the results and indicates the main issues related to landscape and tourism connection. Lastly, the fifth presents final considerations.

### **2. Literature Review**

The consolidation of a territory is an important measure of management that is applied as a solution to the fragmentation of the territory. This approach allows a reorganization of space, with a new structure owned by the territory in terms of plots and land owners and the supply of adequate infrastructures [45–47]. The most important land consolidation approach is defined as land banking. Jack Damen was the first to define the concept of land banking as structural acquisition and temporary management of land in rural areas by a state agency, with the aim of renting or redistributing land to improve the agricultural structure or reallocating land for purposes with a public interest [48]. This definition underlines the importance of public intervention in the consolidation of fragmented soils [49], and many studies show the results of its implementation [50–54].

In addition to the public institution intervention, a second approach can be carried out. It consists of the initiative by the landowners who can stimulate the process of consolidation of the territory by joining their lands with the aim of operating cooperative agriculture with the common cultivation of land by a group of farmers [55,56]. This approach tends to be efficient if, through the voluntary exchange of land between the landowners, the neighboring lots of each landowner can be grouped.

The main objective seems to be that of the competitiveness of agricultural systems with the improvement of performance, e.g., productivity and related increase in profits. However, in geographical areas such as Europe, this objective can be combined with others that create value and wealth and are not directly related to agricultural production. European rural development policy is closely related to improving land management and the environment [57,58].

The orientation towards wider objectives leads to the involvement of various factors that allow identifying other objectives, such as improving the living conditions of rural populations [59,60], the improvement of sales practices and enhancement of local products [61–64] and the integrated exploitation of human, natural and cultural resources, including landscape heritage [65–68]. In the latter case, the landscape is an integral part of the tourist experience even when it is mainly oriented towards the knowledge of the typical agricultural products of the place, and the combination of the two elements can make the destination a unique area [69]. The link between food, the landscape and other elements, such as culture and environment, can create experiences and influence the tourist

choice [70–73]. Often, the landscape is an essential element in enhancing the food and wine tourism experience [74–78]. In addition, it is also an integral part of the tourist appeal in specific territorial areas such as in the case of UNESCO sites [23,65,79].

At the same time, the landscape can assume a particular value in marginal areas that tend to have a high naturalistic quality, which is perceived as an aspect of high growth potential in tourist terms [80,81]. In marginal areas, the landscape of a territory can be shaped by sustainable development policies through the support of initiatives aimed at the recovery of traditional agricultural activities, the protection of the environment and biodiversity. The result that can be obtained is a landscape as a fundamental vector of tourist attraction, which, in some cases, is the identity image of the territory itself [82]. At the same time, the landscape can be considered a tourist resource hampered by infrastructure limits, e.g., a lack of accommodation facilities and inadequate communication routes, which do not allow the tourism sector to develop [83]. Sometimes, the existence of areas with high quality natural and agricultural landscapes may not be associated with adequate tourism development, as well as areas where high tourism development is not associated with an appreciable quality of the landscape [84]. In some cases, tourism has developed to the point of generating unwanted effects that have led to changes in the landscape and, more generally, in the ecosystem [85].

In conclusion, farms operating in harsh environments, such as marginal areas, are uncovered to the effects of many environmental and climatic limitations that reduce the creation and development of activities. Territorial policies tend to mitigate these limitations by supporting initiatives aimed at revitalizing the productive, social and cultural structure, in order to strengthen and safeguard these territories [28]. Land fragmentation is a factor that limits the development of the agricultural and forestry sector, as well as the ability of individual companies to reach an adequate economic dimension by diversifying and expanding their income-related activities. The LCAs can therefore contribute to the reduction of these limitations and support better management of the territory, also from a tourism point of view.

### **3. Methodology**

The LCA phenomenon was treated as a case study. A comparison was made among the various associations established in the Piedmont area with a focus on their objectives and intended use of the consolidated land of each individual association, highlighting any discrepancies and/or similarities [86–90]. There are 16 LCAs in Piedmont, 15 of which are already active and operating in their areas of competence. All associations were contacted, and the 15 active ones participated in the study (Table 1). The Association of Sestriere declined the invitation to participate as, at the time of the investigation, it had just formed.

As already pointed out, the purpose of this study is the comparison between the associations to verify and understand a possible relationship between the transformation of the landscape and the tourist development of territories. In order to achieve this objective, the analysis was structured in three phases. The first was dedicated to the creation of the questionnaire, on the basis of a careful and complete bibliographic analysis aimed at identifying the specificities of the LCAs and the related opportunities resulting from their activation. The second was dedicated to the application of individual interviews to collect information from different presidents of the LCAs. The third was the analysis and comparison of the information collected in order to consolidate the possible combination of safeguarding the landscape and tourism development within marginal territories.

The questionnaire was designed to allow the interview of the 15 LCA presidents and collect the necessary information to be processed. The contents of the questionnaire considered all the studies carried out on the LCA theme, with particular attention to the analyses dedicated to the relevance of this management tool in the area [91].


**Table 1.** Operating land consolidation associations.

A first version of the interview was created and assessed by a group of experts to detect any structural weaknesses. The group was composed of four university researchers, experts on land consolidation, ecosystem management and tourism. A final version was then carried out. It was divided into three parts; the first was dedicated to assessing main items as to LCAs that emerged from the literature review, i.e., strengths and opportunities, with a 1–7 point Likert scale (Table 2). The second part was dedicated to open questions on particular issues, i.e., perception of ecosystem improvement and assessment of end use. The third part was dedicated to LCA data (see also Appendix A).

This study used a survey with an individual interview method to improve the knowledge of LCA implementation. This method allows goals to be reached and can more efficiently generate an in-depth analysis on the landscape and tourism topic. In this case, individual interviews are very useful for collecting all observations from presidents of the associations because interviewees sometimes do not like to share their own ideas with others, and this technique is a tool to bypass their hesitancy and diffidence. In this context, the individual interview method was the most useful tool to identify feasible destinations of consolidated land, evidencing the link between the landscape and tourism. This technique was applied to investigate LCA issues by interviewing all presidents of the associations. They can be identified as the main experts on the basis of their knowledge and closeness as to the topic of the study. Therefore, a total of 15 LCA presidents were involved.

This study was structured as a survey, with an individual semi-structured interview per each expert [92]. All presidents replied to the semi-structured interview [93] during the summer of 2018. Each president was contacted to set a date and time for the interview. The study aimed to collect information requested and, sometimes, extra data in line with other authors [94]. The interviews lasted from 60 to 150 min. The interviews were recorded and main topics noted by the interviewers.

Lastly, the collected information was divided up equally between the authors, who analyzed it separately so as not to influence one another [95]. Furthermore, the analysis results were compared and the main points identified.


**Table 2.** Strengths and opportunities that emerged from the literature review.

### **4. Results**

The first part of the interview aimed to evaluate items with a positive value that the LCAs have already generated and may be able to generate. With reference to the first group, the items identified with the review concern the estimated strengths (Table 2). Based on the experience gained by the presidents, all the items examined obtained positive results with a median between 6 and 7.

The positive environmental impacts and the innovative integration of several territorial areas obtained the highest averages, respectively 6.47 and 6.33, highlighting an easier understanding of the advantage generated by the interviewees. In fact, these items obtained an evaluation from all the interviewees characterized by a certain homogeneity with rather limited variances. The other items, on the other hand, were characterized by a lower homogeneity in the assigned assessments and in their overall number. These were practical guidelines, resumption of sustainable cultivation systems and improvement of the quality of life of the members. In the latter cases, there was a lack of implementation of cultivation systems in consolidated soils (3 respondents), an inability to identify viable guidelines (3 respondents) and a lack of any improvements in quality of life (1 respondent) (Table 3).


**Table 3.** Evaluation of the strengths of the land consolidation associations.

The second group of items consists of the opportunities generated by the activity carried out by the LCA, which, according to the literature, would be obtainable (Table 2) but have not yet been verified. Based on the considerations of the respondents, most of these items seem to be considered positively, with a median of 7 for eight out of 10 items.

Respondents seem to perceive the idea of a greater diffusion of sustainable forms of agriculture and interventions aimed at improving the tourist attractiveness of the managed territory and believe that the aggregation may also lead to more funding opportunities. They also consider positively the conservation of biodiversity, the active recovery of new agricultural land, the multifunctional use of consolidated surfaces, the increase soil fertility and the involvement of other owners with an increasing level of misalignment in the assessments. The establishment of a common brand to be dedicated to consolidated soil products does not seem to meet the favor of respondents with a strong divergence between the various assessments. The reduction of pesticides in the productive management of agricultural land deserves a separate discussion: two of the three respondents were unable to assign a value, since in the land-managed areas, the use of synthetic products is reduced to the essentials, and therefore it would be impossible to achieve a further reduction (Table 4).


**Table 4.** Evaluation of the opportunities generated by the land consolidation associations.

The second part of the interview was dedicated to the analysis of the potential of the territory according to the natural heritage and its possible intended use, in order to obtain a useful income for the community. All the presidents agreed in supporting the same fundamental motivation for the associations' establishment, i.e., better land management. The shared idea, indeed, consists of

considering the associated management of fragmented land properties and uncultivated or abandoned agricultural land a necessary tool for the protection of the environment and landscape, for the prevention of hydrogeological and fire risks. Based on this principle, all respondents highlighted another opportunity, considered as secondary, which consists of also enhancing the consolidated territory with economic value, i.e., a management oriented towards agricultural activities and/or tourist accommodation.

A total of 14 respondents identify as a priority the development of activities dedicated to the breeding of animals suitable for grazing even in semi-wild states such as horses, cattle and/or sheep. In one case, a semi-wild pig farm was implemented. The majority have farms already operating in the area, and the acquisition of land seems oriented towards increasing the economic value of activities already in progress, for the benefit of all members. In three cases, the intended use of the land was oriented towards animal breeding, but at the time of the interview, there was no presence of a company in operation.

A total of 10 respondents highlighted the importance of managing the territory to preserve and/or improve the landscape by increasing the attractiveness in terms of tourism. Landscape-based land management, indeed, enhances the cleaning of paths and undergrowth, allows farm animals to reclaim nature and, therefore, stimulates tourism activities such as hospitality. In particular, the tourist-oriented proposals are different, i.e., agritourist activities, horseback riding, hiking and more generally outdoor activities, with the possibility of approaching ancient rural activities in a didactic way, such as sheep farming and dairy produce.

The cultivation of fruit and vegetables is an end use shared by seven respondents that seems to be mostly an alternative to breeding and in any case linked to the soil and climatic conditions of the land involved. A further respondent, given the particular environmental conditions of the managed area, highlighted forestry as a tool for producing income. Finally, some respondents underlined the socio-economic value of associated management in addition to generating new jobs, through the creation and/or setting up of farms (4 respondents) and the importance for strengthening social cohesion in the community. Many respondents feel this aspect has a desirable positive effect, but only a total of four respondents highlighted an effective manifestation in their communities (Table 5).


**Table 5.** End use of territorial associate management by land consolidation associations.

### **5. Discussion**

As already indicated, the rational management of the territory is a fundamental element of achieving the objectives for sustainable development. Even marginal and disadvantaged areas can contribute to the protection of the environment and to the development of activities that are less impactful from an environmental point of view, improving the quality of life of rural populations.

In this context, the land associations can provide the tools for sustainable development of the territory concerned, as well as from a long-term perspective. Sustainable land management immediately takes on environmental, social and even economic value. The care of natural beauty and the return to nature of farm animals allows a coherent management of the territory that also positively affects the tourist flow.

The land associations have as their purpose the planning and implementation of a land management plan capable of identifying its potential and producing technical and economic solutions to enhance agricultural and forestry production and for the conservation of the environment and landscape. This value proposition of the associations convinced the owners of abandoned and/or uncultivated land to join, with the aim of promoting the use and conservation of the production potential and value of the landscape in those areas.

The investigation carried out validated what emerged from the literature [91]. With reference to the strengths identified, the respondents tended to agree upon them. Combining land in a rational and coordinated way generates benefits that the whole community can utilize, such as the cleaning of the territory or the distribution of income or goods generated from consolidated land [50,55,56]. In addition, it can activate virtuous mechanisms of territorial integration for the benefit of an enlarged community that can extend beyond the association's borders. Social cohesion and the benefits generated lead to a noticeable improvement in the quality of life of the members of the community [50,59] by amplifying the possibility of replicating the model in other rural areas. Another positive aspect concerns the environmental benefits that can pass through the reintroduction of "forgotten" cultivation practices of abandoned or uncultivated land and the rapprochement of man with nature. These elements also allow a return to the almost forgotten traditions and to that authenticity as it is understood by the older generations.

In relation to the opportunities that can be generated by the associated management of marginal and uncultivated land, respondents underline the importance of public support in associations through dedicated aid, highlighting the need for at least initial support from the institutions, in line with the requests of the rural world [49,50]. Land associations also have the ability to amplify the multifunctionality of consolidated land, in line with rural policies [36], which allow food production [61] and visibility of the usable aesthetic landscape element, as well as in tourism terms [67]. In particular, interventions aimed at improving the tourist service, such as paths for hikers and/or cycle paths for cyclists, possibly supported by external funding, are hoped for. The combination of landscape elements, food production and structures dedicated to tourism would therefore allow the creation of experiences that recall tradition and authenticity [66,70] and the consequent generation of value on the spot.

Lastly, results show that the presidents of LCAs assign a high value to the naturalistic heritage and landscape according to their destination in tourism terms, in line with other authors [80,81]. The belonging of managed land to marginal areas should not be considered a limit [83] or a threat [85] but, if anything, an opportunity that must necessarily pass through a rational use of the territory, mainly supported by agricultural and pastoral activities.

### **6. Conclusions and Limitations**

The territory offers many useful elements for increasing the number of visitors, tourists and/or customers, which varies according to the type of offer and/or context. The historical–cultural and environmental resources allow the activation of virtuous systems among the elements that compose them. Territory, landscape and tourism lead to the creation of experiences, useful means for increasing and spreading the value of the territory.

In this context, the present study analyzed the potential of the LCA, an important tool for collective management of the territory, in consideration of the relationship between the landscape and tourism. Indeed, LCAs revitalize the agro-forestry–pastoral activities and the relative production, supporting the benefits generated, as well as in the landscape setting. The collective improvement of the elements that make up the territory encourages the flow of potential tourists and stimulates the activation of new, focused services. Furthermore, the LCAs induce the reactivation of ties within the community; this type of initiative works when a participatory process is generated by the whole community, i.e., municipal administrations, landowners, citizens, agro-pastoral farms.

Therefore, an LCA is a tool dedicated to the management of fragmented territories and can be considered an opportunity for rural communities who wish to stimulate and revitalize their ability to produce environmental, economic and social value.

The survey carried out shows that the Piedmontese model can obtain results both in landscape–environmental and in economic-social terms and can be considered a replicable model, provided that some organizational barriers such as the complete bestowal by the individual owners' lands to the area of interest is obtained, through the involvement of all members of the community.

However, Piedmontese land associations are relatively young institutions. Expected results with a social value, such as recreating the social tissue of rural communities or stimulating shared planning and participatory mechanisms, can take a long time to consolidate and to produce advantages with a certain stability.

At the same time, the economic spillovers, as far as ascertained, are still difficult to quantify precisely. Let us consider, for example, the use of consolidated land for tourism or grazing purposes, the revenues of which are determined by a set of elements of which the consolidated land is just one of, or the economic value generated by the formation of "treasure chests" of biodiversity whose economic value is invaluable. In this sense, therefore, this study, while confirming the beneficial effects of the establishment of land associations, highlights the main limitation of the impossibility, at the moment, of being able to measure these effects with certainty from a purely monetary point of view.

To conclude, this study and related findings are able to provide some information to help LCAs and their presidents improve their activities in marginal areas. The collected information has some limitations determined, on the one hand, by the brief period of activity of LCAs with a specific location concentrated in the north-west of Italy that do not allowed a comparison with other areas where similar initiatives are rare. On the other hand, some Piedmontese LCA initiatives have been activated in recent times and, currently, their assessments are partial and limited. However, these results are the basis of lengthy research dedicated to LCAs and their evolution. Future development will focus on the analysis of the socio-economic dimension over a defined period of time.

**Author Contributions:** All authors contributed equally to this paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

### **Appendix A**

Main survey questions.

The questionnaire was organized into parts as explained in "Materials and methods".

FIRST PART—STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Respondents were asked to answer, using a seven-point Likert scale, to the statements in the following table. Moreover, respondents could add further indications for each item (the "I do not know" answer included evidencing motivations).


SECOND PART—PERCEPTION OF ECOSYSTEM IMPROVEMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF END USE This part was structured in the following open questions.


### THIRD PART—LAND CONSOLIDATION ASSOCIATION INFORMATION

In this case, the following information was requested.

Association name; year of foundation; location (municipality); number of associates; surface consolidated (ha); web site.

### **References**


© 2020 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## *Article* **Landscape and Tourism: Evolution of Research Topics**

### **Mercedes Jiménez-García \*, José Ruiz-Chico and Antonio Rafael Peña-Sánchez**

Department of General Economy and Research University Institute for Sustainable Social Development, University of Cadiz, 11003 Cadiz, Spain; jose.ruizchico@uca.es (J.R.-C.); rafael.pena@uca.es (A.R.P.-S.)

**\*** Correspondence: mercedes.jimenezgarcia@uca.es

Received: 30 October 2020; Accepted: 29 November 2020; Published: 2 December 2020

**Abstract:** Tourism and landscape are broad and complex scientific research fields, as is the synergy between them has given rise to a volume of articles diverse in nature, subject matter and methodology. These difficulties mean that, at present, there is no complete theoretical framework to support this tourism and landscape research, nor complete knowledge of its structure and organization. This motivates the present work, which constitutes the first attempt at mapping this research topic by applying bibliometric techniques using VOSviewer and Science Mapping Analysis Software Tool (SciMAT) software. A total of 3340 articles from journals indexed in Web of Science were analyzed. The results obtained confirm that interest in the study of these concepts has been growing, especially in the last decade. The main contribution of this work lies in the identification of work themes that were basic to the construction of the field but that are currently in decline, such as "cultural heritage" and other themes important to the field that should continue to be dealt with, such as "national parks" or "geotourism". The transversal nature of sustainability that appears in the network of keywords related to currently emerging themes, such as "planning" and "environment", is also highlighted and reinforced.

**Keywords:** bibliometric analysis; Web of Science; SciMAT; VOSviewer; sustainability

### **1. Introduction**

Although the term "landscape" was originally conceived as a geographical concept, it is now a holistic concept that is considered in different disciplines, including sociology, psychology, ethnology, landscape ecology and philosophy of nature [1]. Nevertheless, most concepts of landscape present a clear dichotomy: natural and anthropocentric [2]. The term landscape usually implies the holistic interrelation of human beings with a natural and physical environment [3,4]; this is clear in its systematization, where natural features are considered first, then socio-economic and technical features and, marginally, non-material aspects such as cultural and esthetic features [2].

In this way, many researchers define a landscape as the product of the actions and practices of humans who constantly make and remake the world around them, building a place within it that they can call home [5]. Landscapes can also be defined as the symbolic environment created by a human act of giving meaning to nature and the environment. In such cases, people transform their physical environment according to their cultural context [6]. In short, from all of these definitions, a landscape is the result of the interaction between human beings and nature, which converts the landscape into a diversity of visual, cultural and ecological constructions [7].

There are two closely related dimensions when it comes to seeing a landscape: the "inside" and the "outside". The latter is the perspective of the outsider, who is often the tourist [8]. The interest in seeing the landscape first appeared with the discovery of its esthetic value, which was one of the factors that triggered the development of tourism in the 17th and 18th centuries [9]. Landscape and tourism are, therefore, two closely related terms. The landscape is revealed as a factor of attraction and development for tourism, which in turn generates an impact on the landscape from very different perspectives [1,10]. The transformation of a "natural" landscape into a tourist landscape implies a fundamental symbolic and physical reordering of the characteristics of the former landscape [11].

Different types of tourism have different levels of impact on the environment, including its characteristics, vegetation, conservation and ecological balance. For example, ecotourism offers a new opportunity to protect nature reserves, but at the same time, ecotourism development can pose a risk to conservation [12] because of the disturbance caused by an excessive number of tourists, pollution and waste [13]. The pressure of excessive tourism may not only damage the natural environment of cities and towns but may also affect the brand image of the destination, which in many cases is associated with picturesque landscapes and a clean, green natural environment [14].

When referring to the idea of the "landscape", it is not only the natural landscape that is included: there are as many different types of landscape as there are of types of tourism. Thus, excess tourism affects the urban landscape as well as the "natural" landscape [15,16], producing effects such as overcrowding, environmental and cultural degradation, resident dissatisfaction [17], housing modification, reductions in urban green spaces and the appearance of modern architectural structures [10]. Beyond the urban landscape, there is also the historical urban landscape, understood as an urban area resulting from the historical stratification of cultural and natural values and attributes that encompass the general urban context and its geographical environment, above a historical site or center [18]; here, tourist development can be both an opportunity for conservation [19] and a danger leading to its degradation, depending on the type of resource and the intensity of its exploitation [20].

When reference is made to the cultural landscape, the cultural features of a place are combined with the natural environment, becoming a focus of tourist attraction due to the high esthetic value [21], although one could speak of different layers of value based on the concept of authenticity [22]. Nevertheless, the landscape which the local residents experience (in which they pursue their daily life and social connections) [23] contrasts with that experienced by the tourist [8,24], who is attracted by the landscapes presented in guides or advertising leaflets, which in their turn reproduce the experience of other travelers and value the destination as a paradise [25]. This leads to generation of possible conflicts between the interests of locals and visitors regarding both the meaning of the place and the management of local resources [24].

Many rural landscapes developed for tourism have undergone economic restructuring and reordering in which local traditions and products become a tourist attraction [26], and the physical and esthetic qualities of the landscape have been changed by negotiation between the views and perceptions of farmers and tourists [8]. However, it should be borne in mind that tourism is a global phenomenon [3] that affects the landscape through the development of infrastructure (transport and services), the establishment of wildlife and heritage conservation areas [27] or the reconfiguration of local practices, with tourism becoming part of the daily life of those who live in such landscapes [21]. Each destination has a social and environmental carrying capacity that must not be exceeded to ensure sustainable development; otherwise development will negatively affect the well-being of the local population, their environment [14] and the character of the landscape, its values and the distinctions that make an area unique and different. Tourism can therefore threaten the distinctive character of its territory [7].

Tourism should help preserve the traditional and physical elements of the landscape while providing socio-economic benefits to its inhabitants [21]. It is therefore of vital importance to carry out adequate tourism planning which takes into account the interests of all of the agents involved in the territory—from the government and businesses to local residents—to guarantee sustainable tourism development [14], as well as effective land use policies to maintain the character of the landscape [7]. Policymakers focused on more sustainable tourism should be guided by principles such as local prosperity, social equity, visitor satisfaction, community well-being and biological diversity, among others [28].

The complexity of the interconnections between landscapes and tourism has given rise to research that contains multiple contrasting interpretations, with focuses that address the interactions between these two themes. To mention just a few examples, we find work from the point of view of rural tourism, in combination with agriculture and local development [8], gastronomic tourism [29], potential tourism in protected landscape areas [30], tourism in relation to reforestation [31], the relationship between wind farms and tourism [32], nuclear landscape and tourism [33], the management of beaches to guarantee sustainable tourism [34] or the analysis of indigenous culture concerning the promotion of landscape tourism [35]. Furthermore, studies in this field can be approached from a physical, experimental and cultural point of view [36], from the point of view of visual perceptions of the landscape based on photography [37], the anthropogenic point of view [34] or geotourism [3], among others. This field also contains a multiplicity of territories under analysis, from islands [38–40], forests [41,42] or mountains [43,44] to cities [45,46], valleys [47,48] and lakes [49,50].

Both the multidisciplinary nature and the multiple and complex interrelations between these two themes, landscape and tourism, have prevented dynamism and progress in the research into the tourist landscape in general [3]. Indeed, Terkenli stated that: *"So far, however, this body of work lacks an adequate organizational framework of analysis"* [51] (p. 346). Given the increase in the number of works published on this subject in recent years, the need to analyze this discipline through bibliometric techniques is justified. Two fundamental objectives were pursued through this analysis: to determine the evolution of the field, identifying variables such as main authors, journals or most cited works, and to clarify the main research topics in the field, as well as their evolution and importance. To achieve these objectives, the first bibliometric review of this subject ("landscape and tourism") was carried out based on the information collected on the Web of Science (WoS) database using VOSviewer [52] and SciMAT [53] software.

### **2. Materials and Methods**

The methodology applied in this research was bibliometric analysis—that is, a quantitative analysis of scientific production through its literature, which allowed us to follow the evolution of a scientific discipline (here, landscape and tourism) in depth [54,55]. This study combined two types of bibliometric analysis [56]: performance analysis, using productivity and impact indicators that reveal the number of articles and citations, main journals and authors [57], and science mapping or conceptual analysis, through which the main research topics, their structure, evolution and trends were obtained. The bibliometric search was carried out in one of the main databases containing scientific production with the greatest impact [58]: the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection [59].

On 1 September 2020, a total of 3806 articles were extracted from this database using the search terms "landscape" AND "touris \*" (these terms could appear in the title, abstract and/or keywords). This resulting set of articles was filtered manually, eliminating one article with a publication date of 2021, which did not correspond to our period of study. We also eliminated 10 "proceedings" and a total of 455 articles that did not have author keywords. To obtain thematic groups, only the original keywords defined by the authors in their articles were used as the unit of analysis [60]. With this last filter applied, publications from 1980 to 1991 were eliminated, as they did not contain keywords from the authors. It is important to highlight this fact because, although our analysis begins in 1992, the first article published in WoS on the subject dates from 1980. We obtained a final data set consisting of 3340 articles published in 1338 different journals between 1992 and 1 September 2020, containing a total of 17946 keywords of authors.

For the analysis, we used VOSviewer software, which allows the visualization of distance-based bibliometric networks, working with different analysis units, including authors, organizations, countries, keywords or cited references, and units of measurement, such as co-authorship, co-occurrence, citation, bibliographic linkage or co-citation [61,62]. We also used the Science Mapping Analysis Software Tool (SciMAT) [63], which allows the elaboration of science maps using different measures of data normalization (association strength, equivalence index, inclusion index, Jaccard's index and Salton's cosine) and based on the h-index, g-index, hg-index and q2-index, among others [56,64].

For this study, the co-occurrence of the keywords proposed by the authors in the different articles was analyzed. VOSviewer software makes it possible to remove duplicate keywords from the database extracted from the WoS through thesaurus files and then build the co-occurrence network of keywords [56]. One of the main advantages of this software is the construction of graphic maps of the relationships among the data [65]. In these graphic representations, the nodes represent the variable analyzed (keywords in our case), and the thickness of the lines that connect them indicates the intensity of the co-occurrence. The keywords are grouped into clusters differentiated by color [66].

One of the most helpful aspects of SciMAT is the representation of the topics analyzed in four categories (motor, highly developed and isolated, emerging or declining, and basic and transversal clusters) depending on Callon's centrality and density indicators. Centrality can be interpreted as the external cohesion of the network, because it measures the degree of a system's interaction with other networks, while density can be understood as the internal cohesion of the network, because it measures the inner strength of the network [30,63].

### **3. Results and Discussion**

### *3.1. Evolution of Scientific Production: Performance Analysis*

To determine the evolution of the subject of study, some of the main bibliometric characteristics defining it were analyzed, including number of articles published, number of authors, citations, journals and countries. As shown in Table 1, 85% of the production in this field has been published in the last decade. The increase in the number of publications (ApY) has evolved in parallel with the increase in the number of authors who publish on this subject (AupY), with 2019 standing out with 1174 authors. This is also mirrored in the evolution of the number of journals (JpY) that have published at least one article on landscape and tourism in a given year (which has increased from 1 in 1992 to a maximum of 246 in 2019) and the number of countries (CopY) that have published at least one article on the subject. This indicates that the scientific community throughout the world has shown a progressive interest in the subject of landscape and tourism, which is reflected in publications in an increasing number of journals.

As for the evolution of the average number of citations per article (-Cpy/ -Apy), the highest figures appear in publications at the end of the 1990 s and the beginning of the 21st century, although this indicator presents more fluctuation than the previous ones.


**Table 1.** Evolution of the main characteristics of the published articles related to landscape and tourism (1992–1 September 2020).


**Table 1.** *Cont*.

ApY: number of articles published per year; AupY: number of authors per year; CpY: number of citations per year; -Cpy/ -Apy: average number of citations per article (citation total since 1992/total of articles since 1992); JpY: number of journals that published at least one article in a specific year; CopY: number of countries that published at least one article in a specific year. Source: prepared by the authors based on Capobianco-Uriarte et al. [67].

More precisely, the number of articles published on landscape and tourism shows a clear upward trend since 1992, highlighting years such as 2002 and 2016 in which the growth in publications was even more striking (Figure 1).

**Figure 1.** Number of articles published per year (ApY). Source: prepared by the authors based on Web of Science (WoS) data.

From 2006 onwards, articles about research supported by some kind of subsidy from public or private bodies began to be published and both the number of articles benefiting from this type of funding and the number of funding organizations has been progressively increasing year after year. We then considered ordinary least square (OLS) regression models with fixed effects to analyze the possible influence of the subsidies received and the funding organizations on the level of scientific production. Two regressions were carried out to explain this relationship due to the severe multicollinearity between the variables. The contrasts carried out were corrected for heteroscedasticity using the White procedure and do not show any symptoms of autocorrelation. The results are presented in Table 2.


**Table 2.** Fixed effect ordinary least square (OLS) regression models—panel data.

Dependent variable: number of articles published (years). Source: prepared by the authors based on WoS data.

All of the estimators calculated for the explanatory variables of scientific production, as predicted by scientific theory in this field, show positive signs and are also highly significant, with a confidence level of 99%. Based on the results obtained in the estimates made, and with due caution, it can be stated that research grants and funding organizations appear to have been key elements in the level of scientific production in the countries over the period analyzed, with China, the United States and Spain, respectively, standing out as the countries which have received the largest number of grants for publication in this field since 1992.

In the following tables, greater detail is given about the variables analyzed in Table 1: number of citations, journals and authors and journals. Table 3 breaks down the citation structure of the field under study. There appears to be a high concentration of works with no or a low percentage of citations. Specifically, more than 60% of the literature on landscape and tourism has four or fewer citations. This may be because the work is not considered important enough to be cited, or because studies are too recent [68]. Reinforcing this second explanation, 31.6% of works with four or fewer citations were published in 2019 and 2020.


**Table 3.** General citation structure in landscape and tourism.

Source: prepared by the authors based on WoS data.

In contrast, the three most important works in the field, according to the number of citations received [57], have more than 300 citations (Table 4). *Annals of Tourism Research* is the journal with the most cited article, followed by *Ecological Economics* and *Tourism*. It should be noted that these three journals do not coincide with the three most productive journals in the field (Table 5).


Abbreviations: ATR: Annals of Tourism Research; EE: Ecological Economics; T: Tourism. Source: prepared by the authors based on WoS data.

The three journals that published the most papers on tourism and landscape, by volume of published articles, are listed in Table 5. Although *Sustainability* does not specialize in the field of landscape and tourism, but is an interdisciplinary journal that treats sustainability from various perspectives including economic, social, cultural and environmental, it has the highest number of published articles, with 122. There is a large gap in terms of publications with the second journal, *Land Use* Policy (with 65 articles), but more than double the number of citations, 1235. The third journal, *Tourism Geographies*, is an international journal on tourism space, place and environment. This difference in productivity between journals can be explained, in part, by their publication volume. In *Sustainability*, for example, the number of articles per issue has increased progressively since 2009, where in Vol. 1, issue 1, 8 articles were published, while 404 have been published in 2020 (Vol. 12, issue 16). In addition, from 2019 onwards, this journal publishes two issues per month, instead of one as in previous years. In contrast*, Land Use Policy* publishes ten issues a year and *Tourism Geographies* only five, with a volume of articles per issue far lower than the 404 published in *Sustainability*.

Although papers on the topic have been published in 1338 different journals, more than 68% of the published papers are concentrated in just 30 journals.



Source: prepared by the authors based on WoS data.

A total of 7419 different authors have published articles related to landscape and tourism during the study period, according to data obtained from the WoS. However, more than 87% of the authors produced only a single article, indicating a low concentration in this field, and only four authors have published ten or more articles, positioning themselves as reference authors with greater specialization in the subject (Table 6).

**Table 6.** The most productive authors in landscape and tourism (1992–1 September 2020).


Source: prepared by the authors based on WoS data.

### *3.2. Conceptual Analysis: VOSViewer and SciMAT*

The analysis of the keywords used in the articles shows us both the most relevant topics and the main research trends in the area [69]. Figure 2 was constructed using VOSviewer, which makes it possible to visually demonstrate the differences in scientific production [70]—in our case, between the keywords used by the authors. Figure 2 illustrates the most frequently used keywords in the different papers, and these keywords indicate the most studied topics. Due to the high number of keywords used by the authors, only keywords that occurred a minimum of 20 times have been used. Using this criterion, a total of 40 items were found, grouped into five clusters (differentiated by color) with a total of 349 links between them. The most frequently recurring keywords are represented in larger nodes. The shorter the distance between the different nodes, the stronger the relationship between the keywords [52].

**Figure 2.** Co-occurrence network of keywords (2092—1 September 2020). Source: prepared by the authors using VOSviewer and based on WoS data.

As expected, "landscape" (with 365 occurrences and 38 links to other keywords) and "tourism" (569 occurrences and 37 links) are the keywords that recurred the most, which means that they are at the center of the network. However, Figure 2 also highlights the importance of "cultural heritage" and "sustainability", both present in more than 200 documents and with more than 30 links to other keywords. These four words, therefore, constitute the nucleus of four of the five clusters identified. Cluster 1 (sustainability) is the most numerous, consisting of 18 items such as national park, land use, conservation, biodiversity or protected area. Cluster 2 (landscape) is made up of nine items including identity, rural, authenticity, local development and place-attachment. Cluster 3 (tourism) is made up of five items, such as urban or linguistic landscape. Finally, clusters 4 and 5 are made up of four items each, such as development, environment and geotourism in the first, and architecture, perception and nature, in the second. It should be noted that in four of the five clusters a node has appeared relating to the country in which the different analyses are carried out, with Mexico belonging to cluster 1, Italy to cluster 2, China to cluster 3 and Spain to cluster 4.

From this first approach to the main keywords used in this research topic throughout the period analyzed, a much more detailed analysis can be made, subdividing the period of study in different stages. As previously mentioned, despite the positive trend of growth in the publication of publications on landscape and tourism, changes in productivity can be observed both in 2002 and 2016 (Figure 1), which allows us to identify three stages of research [57].

The first period (1992–2002), which we can call the "initial stage", contains a total of 76 articles published (almost seven articles per year). The year 2001 stands out with 13 articles published. A second "developmental stage" (2003–2016), in which more than 132 articles were published per year, witnessed a total of 1859 publications. In this stage, the year 2010 and after showed above average productivity. Finally, there has been an "expansionary stage" (2017–1 September 2020) with more than 351 articles per year and a total of 1405 published. This last stage of barely four years represents 51% of the total production of literature in the field to date. Figure 3 shows the bibliometric map of the evolution of the research topics during the three time periods. The inclusion index has been used to detect the links between the different themes (represented by circles) and to define the thematic areas (lines). The size of the circle corresponds to the number of documents in each theme.

**Figure 3.** Thematic development (1992–1 September 2020). Source: prepared by the authors on the basis of SciMAT data.

In the first column of Figure 3, six research topics can be identified in the first period, 1992–2002. It can therefore be said that the subject studied began to be considered based on analyses focusing on "cultural heritage", "sustainability", "management", "post-war/industrial tourism", "soil" and

"landscape assessment". The "cultural heritage" cluster includes terms related to "cultural landscape", "cultural tourism" and "cultural ecosystem services". The cluster "sustainability", is a wide and transversal concept, but as a cluster is basically made up of two main components: sustainable tourism and sustainable development. "Management" is also a broad term encompassing coastal, tourism, landscape and territorial management, as well as waste management. The cluster of "post-war/industrial tourism" includes work centered on postwar tourism and post-industrial landscapes, referring to the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the First World War and the phenomenon of post-colonialism. Finally, under the term "soil" there are keywords fundamentally related to soil erosion, as well as the relationship of the soil with flora and fauna. The last group, "landscape assessment", is the most homogeneous, as it is made up mainly of the keyword which gives the group its name, as well as other, similar keywords that refer to landscape assessment.

However, during the second period, 2003–2016, a greater diversity of 24 total themes related to the previous ones appeared. Of these 24, only "management" from the previous period was conserved, with other important themes such as "national park", "climate", "forest" and "rural" appearing. A distinction can be made between themes with strong connections to those from period one (continuous lines)—such as "national park", "heritage", "forest", "management", "conservation", "visual analysis", "globalization", "alpine landscape" and "tourist beaches"—and other themes that have a weaker connection (dotted lines) sharing keywords with the previous period but not indicating the main research topic, such as "climate", "rural", "urban", "place attachment", "geotourism", "human" and "GIS" (this corresponds to the acronym for the geographical information system, a computer system for capturing, storing, checking, and displaying data related to positions on Earth" s surface). The groups "urban" and "rural" refer, fundamentally, to the type of tourism and the development of these territories, and the term "human" encompasses all types of impact that human activity has on a territory (e.g., footprint, pressure, transhumance).

Finally, in the third and final period, 2017–1 September 2020, there is a small decrease in the number of research topics, to 19, with eight of the topics from the previous period remaining (national park, rural, urban, place attachment, geotourism, linguistic landscape, religious tourism and tourist beaches), with "management" (present in the first two stages) disappearing, while "cultural heritage" reappears from the first stage. In addition, ten new themes emerge for this period: "ecosystem services", "planning", "environment", "spatial analysis", "mountain", "settlement", "collaborative economy", "tourism destination", "3D models" and "sensitive analysis".

It is necessary to clarify that the "heritage" group (which appears in the second stage) is created to differentiate it from the "cultural heritage" group (first and third stages), a group with a complete identity and explicit reference to culture, while "heritage" includes a diversity of themes related to the subject, such as preservation, interpretation, modernization and policies. Nevertheless, Figure 3 illustrates the strong interrelationship of these two groups, which are united through continuous lines. The different themes identified in Figure 3 for each period are represented in a strategic diagram, in which the size of the circle is proportional to the number of documents linked to each research theme. The h-index for each theme is provided next to each one (Figure 4).

For the first decade (1992–2002), three fundamental themes stand out in this field, with the greatest number of documents published and the highest h-index: "sustainability", "cultural heritage" and "management". The first theme is the most central, but it can be said that all three are highly developed and essential in the construction of the research area. Although "sustainability" will not appear again in the following periods of the field's evolution, it is a transdisciplinary concept [71,72] which, as can be seen in its network of keywords (Figure 5), is related to 11 other keywords: "ecotourism", "recreation", "planning", "conservation", "agriculture", "destination", "islands", "land use", "resources", "environment" and "globalization". Although "sustainability" does not appear in the conceptual maps of the following stages, most of these keywords do, so it cannot be said that sustainability is not being addressed after 2003, but rather that it is being worked on in a less direct and more transversal way in conjunction with various other themes.

**Figure 4.** *Cont*.

**Figure 4.** (**a**) Strategic diagram for the period 1992–2002. (**b**) Strategic diagram for the period 2003–2016. (**c**) Strategic diagram for the period 2017–1 September 2020. Source: prepared by the authors on the basis of SciMAT data.

**Figure 5.** Thematic network of the main cluster 1992–2002. Source: prepared by the authors on the basis of SciMAT data.

In the second period (2002–2016), "management" continues to appear at least partially as the driving theme with greater relevance to the subject than in the previous period (centrality), but a lower degree of subject development (density); instead of "cultural heritage", another driving theme closely related to it appears, but much broader: "heritage". "National park", "climate", "human" and "visual analysis" can also be included as driving themes in the second period. This is also the period in which the greatest number of essential themes concern the countryside as an area and in which various emerging themes also arise (lower right quadrant) such as "rural", "urban" or "forest", as well as general and transversal themes, such as "globalization" or analysis of territories in "Spain" and "China".

In the last period (2017–1 September 2020), "geotourism" appears to have gained great moment, after first appearing as a specialized theme at the periphery of the research area in the previous period, in this third stage it becomes, together with "national park" (maintaining its position from the previous period), of key importance. It is possible that "geotourism" will evolve in the same manner as "national park", becoming a subject of interest over the long term and serving to motivate a large part of the future research in this field, but it is also possible that it could evolve like other driving themes from the two previous periods, gradually allowing the interest of researchers to shift from this theme to others that will become new driving forces. In this period, other new themes also appear which are very attractive, although not as developed as the driving theme. These new themes include "ecosystem services", "planning" (in which spatial, landscape and tourism planning are dealt with) and "environment" (a very broad theme that covers education, perception, protection, impacts, policies, etc.). Other highly topical and innovative subjects such as "collaborative economy", "3D models" or "sensitive analysis" also appear, but these are quite specialized and therefore present internal and external connections with other weaker keywords. "Cultural heritage" is no longer the driving force it was in the first period, and is now located finally in the lower right quadrant, which indicates it can be interpreted as a theme in decline.

Many of the emerging themes from the previous period remain in the same quadrant, although with slight changes that bring them closer to potentially becoming driving themes for future stages, as is the case with "rural" and "spatial analysis". There is also continuity of some of the second stage themes in the same upper left quadrant during this third period, as in the case of "religious tourism", "tourist beaches," and "linguistic landscape". Although a priori they are not very relevant to the field, the fact that they are present in both stages suggests that they are mature, although not innovative, themes which have been recurrent throughout the discipline for a group of researchers (this assumption is reinforced by the fact that "linguistic landscape" is shown in Figure 2, which analyses the whole period). It is therefore likely that these issues will continue to appear in the same quadrant in future research.

Finally, it should be noted that a considerable number of articles deal with issues that are not included in the different strategic diagrams. These include research focused on territorial development (especially at a local level), human impact (e.g., ecological footprint, conservation and impact at a social level) and waste (solid, liquid) management and planning. That these issues do not appear in the strategic diagrams may be because these are subjects whose development has not been the focus in a specific period (of the three analyzed), but they are subjects in which the researchers show a continuous interest throughout the whole period of study, with the articles concentrating on them being scattered throughout.

### **4. Conclusions and Limitations**

The research presented in this paper has made it possible to clarify the evolution and bibliometric structure of the field of landscape and tourism, which is highly complex due to the multiplicity of themes, approaches and the interdisciplinary nature of the field. Through this analysis, the two objectives pursued in this work have been achieved, and the main contributions can be summarized as follows:

First, the subject of landscape and tourism has been analyzed by a large number of authors, but there are few groups that specialize specifically in this field (87% of the authors have only published one article on this subject). It may be that this high dispersion has, in turn, been favored by the increase in grants and funding bodies for the works presented, which has led to an increase in the volume of publications on this subject over the last decade. An additional factor that reinforces this conclusion is that the journal with the greatest number of publications on the subject, *Sustainability*, is not a specialized journal on this particular subject, but the high number of publications is rather explained by the volume of articles the journal published annually.

Second, in terms of conceptual analysis, this increase in the number of publications in the last decade has been reflected in the increase in research topics dealing with landscape and tourism. The field has been opening up since 1992, with works focusing on various aspects, among which the themes of "heritage" (in a broad sense, but, above all, "cultural heritage") and "national park" stand out as the driving forces. These themes have been the center of interest in the work and made the field more dynamic and developed. Possible emerging lines of study that can be configured as motors for the future are the "rural" and "spatial analysis" clusters.

This study constitutes a first bibliometric approach to the field of landscape and tourism studies, so this analysis is not exempt from certain limitations. There are geographical and language limitations that must be kept in mind, as this paper analyzed only the scholarly production indexed in the WoS. For future research, it is recommended that these results be compared with those from other databases such as Scopus or Google Scholar [66] and in languages other than English [68]. On the other hand, when carrying out a conceptual analysis of keywords provided by the authors, 455 articles belonging mainly to the early years of the discipline (from 1980 onwards) have not been analyzed. It would be appropriate for future research to carry out a concept mapping by authors or journals to include these articles. Finally, limitations intrinsic to the tool used, SciMAT, where the different grouping algorithms and similarity measures are selected at the discretion of the researcher [68]. In this sense, the authors have carried out an exhaustive review of the articles analyzed using a double peer review to try to minimize this limitation.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, M.J.-G.; data curation, J.R.-C.; formal analysis, M.J.-G.; funding acquisition, A.R.P.-S.; investigation, A.R.P.-S.; methodology, M.J.-G.; project administration, A.R.P.-S.; resources, J.R.-C.; software, M.J.-G.; supervision, J.R.-C.; validation, A.R.P.-S.; visualization, A.R.P.-S.; writing—original draft, M.J.-G.; writing—review and editing, J.R.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This publication and research were partially funded by INDESS (the University Institute of Research for Social Sustainable Development) of the University of Cadiz, Spain.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

### **References**


**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2020 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
