Just Accepted
Identifying Cultural Perceptions by Nature Language Processing Method: Differences of Historical Gardens and Urban Parks in Suzhou, China
Authors: 
Chang Su, Yixiu Chen, Xin Wang, Lin SongAuthors Info & Claims
Accepted on 09 October 2024
Abstract
Historical gardens, as important components of urban green spaces, have ecological, social, and significant historical heritage value. Urban residents develop close connections with nature, culture, and historical elements through landscape perception behavior in their daily activities, leading to different preferences and value judgments. However, it is still necessary to conduct in-depth research to explore whether there are differences in cultural perception and preferences between historical gardens and newly built parks during residents’ daily visits. To fill these gaps, this research utilized user-generated contents and natural language processing method, focuses on a sample of 40 historical gardens and newly built parks in Suzhou, China, to address the following three research questions: (1) Which elements do park visitors perceive more strongly in historical gardens and new parks?(2) Is there a correlation between the cultural perception preferences and the attributes of the gardens and parks?(3) What are the sentimental preferences of visitors between historical gardens and new parks? The research findings reveal that cultural and aesthetic perception is more pronounced in historical gardens compared to newly built parks, while the latter place greater emphasis on the perception of natural features. Additionally, attribute features of parks, such as area, perimeter, and public transportation facilities, equally impact visitors’ landscape perception. This study distinguished the cultural perception and preference characteristics of urban residents in historical gardens and new parks, providing urban managers and urban green space planning and design professionals with more experience in areas such as the preservation and renovation of urban historical landscapes.
References
[1]
Sun L, Chen J, Li Q, et al. Dramatic uneven urbanization of large cities throughout the world in recent decades[J]. Nature commu-nications, 2020, 11(1): 5366.
[2]
Kuddus M A, Tynan E, McBryde E. Urbanization: a problem for the rich and the poor?[J]. Public health reviews, 2020, 41: 1-4.
[3]
Kondo M C, Fluehr J M, McKeon T, et al. Urban green space and its impact on human health[J]. International journal of environ-mental research and public health, 2018, 15(3): 445.
[4]
Konijnendijk C C, Annerstedt M, Nielsen A B, et al. Benefits of urban parks[J]. A systematic review. A Report for IFPRA, Copenha-gen & Alnarp, 2013: 1-70.
[5]
Bazrafshan M, Tabrizi A M, Bauer N, et al. Place attachment through interaction with urban parks: A cross-cultural study[J]. Ur-ban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2021, 61: 127103.
[6]
Wang J. Beijing Record: a physical and political history of planning modern Beijing[M]. World Scientific, 2011.
[7]
ICOMOS-IFLA. Document on Historic Urban Public Parks[J]. 2017.
[8]
Jacques D. The treatment of historic parks and gardens[J]. Journal of architectural conservation, 1995, 1(2): 21-35.
[9]
Dai D, Chen Y, Dai K, Jin Y.Three-dimensional Visualisation of Historic Urban Parks: Scene Restoration of Shanghai’s Fuxing Park from 1926 to 1935[J].Heritage Architecture,2019(03):105-113.(in Chinese)
[10]
Rivera E, Timperio A, Loh V H Y, et al. Important park features for encouraging park visitation, physical activity and social in-teraction among adolescents: A conjoint analysis[J]. Health & Place, 2021, 70: 102617.
[11]
Veitch J, Ball K, Rivera E, et al. What entices older adults to parks? Identification of park features that encourage park visitation, physical activity, and social interaction[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2022, 217: 104254.
[12]
Liu X, Zhou X. Research on the Evaluation of Values of Historical Garden Heritage in Modern Times. Journal of Urban Planning, 2014(04): 104-110.(in Chinese）
[13]
Zhou X, Liu X. Research on the Lineage of Modern Chinese Public Gardens from the Perspective of Heritage Conservation: Meth-ods and Applications. Landscape Architecture Journal, 2014(04): 60-65.(in Chinese）
[14]
Zhou X, Chen L. Historical Park Renovation Strategies Based on Heritage Value Assessment. Landscape Architecture Journal, 2021, 28(06): 50-55.(in Chinese）
[15]
Qiu Q, Zheng T, Xiang Z, et al. Visiting intangible cultural heritage tourism sites: From value cognition to attitude and intention[J]. Sustainability, 2019, 12(1): 132.
[16]
Kaymaz I C. Landscape perception[J]. Landscape planning, 2012: 251-276.
[17]
Zube E H, Sell J L, Taylor J G. Landscape perception: research, application and theory[J]. Landscape planning, 1982, 9(1): 1-33.
[18]
De Groot J I M, Steg L, Poortinga W. Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy[J]. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 2013, 33(2): 307-317.
[19]
Lee T R. Psychology and living space[J]. Image and environment, 1973: 87-108.
[20]
Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the behold-er?[J]. Landscape and urban planning, 1999, 44(4): 177-198.
[21]
Bourassa S C. Toward a theory of landscape aesthetics[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1988, 15(3-4): 241-252.
[22]
Bourassa S C. A paradigm for landscape aesthetics[J]. Environment and behavior, 1990, 22(6): 787-812.
[23]
Tveit M S. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups[J]. Journal of environ-mental management, 2009, 90(9): 2882-2888.
[24]
Steen Jacobsen J K. Use of landscape perception methods in tourism studies: A review of photo-based research approaches[J]. Tourism geographies, 2007, 9(3): 234-253.
[25]
Goodchild M F. Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography[J]. GeoJournal, 2007, 69(4): 211-221.
[26]
Dunkel A. Visualizing the perceived environment using crowdsourced photo geodata[J]. Landscape and urban planning, 2015, 142: 173-186.
[27]
Tieskens K F, Van Zanten B T, Schulp C J E, et al. Aesthetic appreciation of the cultural landscape through social media: An analy-sis of revealed preference in the Dutch river landscape[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2018, 177: 128-137.
[28]
Cheng Y, Zhang J, Wei W, et al. Effects of urban parks on residents’ expressed happiness before and during the COVID-19 pan-demic[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2021, 212: 104118.
[29]
Lu Y, Zhao J, Wu X, et al. Escaping to nature during a pandemic: A natural experiment in Asian cities during the COVID-19 pan-demic with big social media data[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 777: 146092.
[30]
Niță M R, Arsene M, Barbu G, et al. Using Social Media Data to Evaluate Urban Parks Use during the COVID-19 Pandemic[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021, 18(20): 10860.
[31]
Huang J H, Floyd M F, Tateosian L G, et al. Exploring public values through Twitter data associated with urban parks pre-and post-COVID-19[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2022, 227: 104517.
[32]
Johnson M L, Campbell L K, Svendsen E S, et al. Mapping urban park cultural ecosystem services: A comparison of twitter and semi-structured interview methods[J]. Sustainability, 2019, 11(21): 6137.
[33]
Gugulica M, Burghardt D. Mapping indicators of cultural ecosystem services use in urban green spaces based on text classifica-tion of geosocial media data[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2023, 60: 101508.
[34]
Havinga I, Bogaart P W, Hein L, et al. Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2020, 43: 101091
[35]
Kim J, Son Y. Assessing and mapping cultural ecosystem services of an urban forest based on narratives from blog posts[J]. Eco-logical Indicators, 2021, 129: 107983.
[36]
Ghermandi A, Camacho-Valdez V, Trejo-Espinosa H. Social media-based analysis of cultural ecosystem services and heritage tourism in a coastal region of Mexico[J]. Tourism Management, 2020, 77: 104002.
[37]
Kong L, Liu Z, Pan X, et al. How do different types and landscape attributes of urban parks affect visitors' positive emotions?[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2022, 226: 104482.
[38]
Huai S, Chen F, Liu S, et al. Using social media photos and computer vision to assess cultural ecosystem services and landscape features in urban parks[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2022, 57: 101475.
[39]
Wang Z, Miao Y, Xu M, et al. Revealing the differences of urban parks’ services to human wellbeing based upon social media da-ta[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2021, 63: 127233.
[40]
Wan C, Shen G Q, Choi S. Eliciting users’ preferences and values in urban parks: Evidence from analyzing social media data from Hong Kong[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2021, 62: 127172.
[41]
Song X P, Richards D R, Tan P Y. Using social media user attributes to understand human–environment interactions at urban parks[J]. Scientific reports, 2020, 10(1): 1-11.
[42]
Huai S, Liu S, Zheng T, et al. Are social media data and survey data consistent in measuring park visitation, park satisfaction, and their influencing factors? A case study in Shanghai[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2023, 81: 127869.
[43]
Wartmann F M, Koblet O, Purves R S. Assessing experienced tranquillity through natural language processing and landscape ecology measures[J]. Landscape Ecology, 2021: 1-19.
[44]
Su S, He S, Sun C, et al. Do landscape amenities impact private housing rental prices? A hierarchical hedonic modeling approach based on semantic and sentimental analysis of online housing advertisements across five Chinese megacities[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2021, 58: 126968.
[45]
Plunz R A, Zhou Y, Vintimilla M I C, et al. Twitter sentiment in New York City parks as measure of well-being[J]. Landscape and urban planning, 2019, 189: 235-246.
[46]
Kaiser N N, Ghermandi A, Feld C K, et al. Societal benefits of river restoration–Implications from social media analysis[J]. Eco-system Services, 2021, 50: 101317.
[47]
Liang H, Zhang Q. Do social media data indicate visits to tourist attractions? A case study of Shanghai, China[J]. Open House International, 2022, 47(1): 17-35.
[48]
Yang D Y R, Wang H K. Dilemmas of local governance under the development zone fever in China: A case study of the Suzhou re-gion[J]. Urban Studies, 2008, 45(5-6): 1037-1054.
[49]
Suzhou Municipal People’s Government, 2022
[50]
Shengyin W, Yu L I U, Zedong C, et al. Representing multiple urban places’ footprints from Dianping. com data[J]. Acta Geodaetica et Cartographica Sinica, 2018, 47(8): 1105.
[51]
Leung D, Law R, Lee H A. The perceived destination image of Hong Kong on Ctrip. com[J]. International journal of tourism re-search, 2011, 13(2): 124-140.
[52]
Wang Z, Zhu Z, Xu M, et al. 2-grained assessment of greenspace satisfaction at regional scale using content analysis of social me-dia and machine learning[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 776: 145908.
[53]
Mikolov T, Chen K, Corrado G, et al. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781, 2013.
[54]
Yan Song, Shuming Shi, Jing Li, and Haisong Zhang. Directional Skip-Gram: Explicitly Distinguishing Left and Right Context for Word Embeddings. NAACL 2018 (Short Paper).
[55]
Tian H, Gao C, Xiao X, et al. SKEP: Sentiment knowledge enhanced pre-training for sentiment analysis[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.05635, 2020.
[56]
Chu YT, Li D, Chang PJ. Effects of Urban Park Quality, Environmental Perception, and Leisure Activity on Well-Being among the Older Population. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Oct 29;18(21):11402.
[57]
El-Kholy, S.A., Moustafa, Y.M. & Abou El-Ela, M.A.S. Urban park design and children’s physical activity levels: an investigation of design characteristics of green areas and playgrounds. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 69, 93 (2022).
[58]
Jelić A, Staničić A. Embodiment and meaning-making: interdisciplinary perspectives on heritage architecture[J]. The Journal of Architecture, 2022, 27(4): 473-484.
[59]
Díaz-Andreu M. Heritage values and the public[J]. Journal of community archaeology & heritage, 2017, 4(1): 2-6.
[60]
Basu S, Nagendra H. Perceptions of park visitors on access to urban parks and benefits of green spaces[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2021, 57: 126959.
[61]
Zhang, X., Melbourne, S., Sarkar, C., Chiaradia, A., & Webster, C. (2020). Effects of green space on walking: Does size, shape and density matter? Urban Studies, 57(16), 3402–3420.
[62]
Du Y, Zhao R. Research on the development of urban parks based on the perception of tourists: A case study of Taihu Park in Beijing[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2022, 19(9): 5287.
[63]
Wang E, Wei J, Lu H. Valuing natural and non-natural attributes for a national forest park using a choice experiment method[J]. Tourism Economics, 2014, 20(6): 1199-1213.
[64]
Huang W, Lu S, Guo Y. Measuring the perceived heterogeneity of cultural ecosystem services in national cultural parks: Evidence from China[J]. Sustainability, 2023, 15(12): 9428.
Index Terms
- Identifying Cultural Perceptions by Nature Language Processing Method: Differences of Historical Gardens and Urban Parks in Suzhou, China
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Evaluating the Spatial Distribution of Urban Parks by Network Analysis and Geostatistical Analysis
ICETCE '12: Proceedings of the 2012 Second International Conference on Electric Technology and Civil EngineeringAs an important part of the urban public service and open space, the urban parks play a significant role in improving urban ecological environment and living conditions. In the paper, we did the quantitative research on the spatial distribution of urban ...
Gamifying cultural experiences across the urban environment
New media and devices are offering huge possibilities for the enhancement and the enrichment of heritage experiences, improving the users' involvement. In particular, tourists equipped with their mobile devices are invading cultural attractions, sharing ...
Constructing a semantic wiki for living cultural heritage: case study of Korean tea culture
IMCOM '15: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and CommunicationIn recent years, the amount of digital content related to cultural heritage resources has been growing to such a degree that it can now be easily published and distributed. However, such digital content is limited to material manifestations, such as ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
EISSN:1556-4711
Table of ContentsCopyright © 2024 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Online AM: 01 November 2024
Accepted: 09 October 2024
Revised: 18 July 2024
Received: 14 November 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 120Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)120
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)120
Reflects downloads up to 23 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in