Social and Economic Geography
ISSN (Print): 2381-3199 ISSN (Online): 2381-3202 Website: http://www.sciepub.com/journal/seg Editor-in-chief: Apply for this position
Open Access
Journal Browser
Go
Social and Economic Geography. 2019, 4(1), 8-15
DOI: 10.12691/seg-4-1-2
Open AccessArticle

A Comparative Study on the Preferences of Residents and Tourists in Urban Underground Street Planning

Pei Zhang1, 2 and Jing Liu3,

1School of Tourism, History and Culture, Southwest Minzu University, Chengdu City, China

2GSST, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto City, Japan

3School of Tourism and Cultural Industry, Sichuan Tourism University, Chengdu City, China

Pub. Date: June 18, 2019

Cite this paper:
Pei Zhang and Jing Liu. A Comparative Study on the Preferences of Residents and Tourists in Urban Underground Street Planning. Social and Economic Geography. 2019; 4(1):8-15. doi: 10.12691/seg-4-1-2

Abstract

In urban planning and design, more and more scholars tend to adopt modern sociological research methods to study public opinions and suggestions on urban planning and design. Underground street is an important urban recreation resource. Visitor preference has a very important reference value for measuring the planning effect of underground street because there is no direct interest relationship between visitors and underground street developers or planners. Visitor preference can become a standard to test planner's works, especially for unsuccessful developed underground street. In the current underground street research, no literature has been found to study the visitor preferences. Therefore, this paper takes Diyi Underground Street, an unsuccessful underground street in Chengdu City, China, as an example, adopts the method of questionnaire survey and designs a special scale to investigate two groups of underground street visitors: residents and tourists. It intends to compare and analyze tourists and residents’ preferences by using SPSS software, and to explore the key points of underground street planning and transformation in the future. The research divides the questionnaire items into six dimensions: environment, decoration, commercial form, public facilities, traffic and other. The results show that there are not only similarities but also significant differences between residents and tourists in the above six dimensions. Similarity concentrates on the issues of common concern of the two groups, while difference reflects their different recreational needs. Therefore, the planning and design of underground streets in the future should first meet the common needs of residents and tourists, and then, according to the market positioning of underground streets and facing the differences in the number of groups, planning and transformation of key projects should be carried out selectively.

Keywords:
comparative study visitor preference resident tourist underground street urban planning

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]  Zhang, P. (2018). Japanese ways of developing urban underground recreation space. World Journal of Engineering and Technology, 6, 504-517.
 
[2]  Nigel Taylor. (1998). Urban Planning Theory Since 1945. New York: SAGE Publication.
 
[3]  Wu, Z. Q. (2014). Effect of third-party participation in urban planning: a case study on Enning Road in Guangzhou. Urban Planning, 38(2), 62-75.
 
[4]  Liu, J. Y. (2007). Discussion on rising and development experience of Japanese underground town. International Urban Planning, 22(6), 47-52.
 
[5]  Jacques Besner. (2017). Cities think underground – underground space (also) for people. Procedia Engineering, 209, 49-55.
 
[6]  Cranenburgh, S. V., Chorus, C. G., & Wee, B. (2014). Vacation behaviour under high travel cost conditions: A stated preference of revealed preference approach. Tourism Management, 2014, 43, 105-118.
 
[7]  Aslak Fyhri, Jens Kristian Steen, Jacobsen,Hans (2009). Tommervik. Tourists’ landscape perceptions and preferences in a Scandinavian coastal region. Landscape and Urban Planning, (91):202-211.
 
[8]  Xiang X.W., Zhen L.F., Zhang J.H. (2016). How smart is your tourist attraction? Measuring tourist preferences of smart tourism attractions via a FCEM-AHP and IPA approach. Tourism Management, (54):309-320.
 
[9]  Daud Mohamad, Rozana Mohd Jamil. (2012). A preference analysis model for selecting tourist destinations based on motivational factors: A case study in Kedah, Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, (65):20-25.
 
[10]  Sun, Y. Y., Piao, Y. J., Zhu, W. Q. (2010). Research on landscape five senses design. Modern Landscape Architecture. (12): 37-40.
 
[11]  Clawson M, Knetsch J. L. (1996). Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, p.328.
 
[12]  Ittelson W. H. (1978). Environmental perception and urban experience. Environment and Behavior, 10(2), 193-213.
 
[13]  Hull R. B. IV., Steward W. P., Yi Y. K. (1992). Experience pattern: Capturing the dynamic nature of a recreation experience. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(3), 240-252.