Impact of post-earthquake restoration on aesthetic preferences and heritage value of Sparkling Lake in Jiuzhaigou
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Natural disasters increasingly threaten world heritage sites, yet research on their impact on aesthetic and natural heritage values is limited, particularly regarding post-disaster restoration interventions. Following the 2017 earthquake that severely damaged Sparkling Lake in Jiuzhaigou, this study employs questionnaires and eye-tracking experiments to assess landscape aesthetic preferences and heritage value at various recovery stages. Findings indicate that the earthquake significantly reduced both aesthetic preferences and heritage value; however, late-stage restoration efforts led to a notable increase in aesthetic appreciation, surpassing pre-earthquake levels, while heritage value remained comparable to earlier conditions. Aesthetic preferences correlate positively with heritage value, emphasizing the importance of natural beauty, geomorphic features, natural habitat conservation, and landscape integrity during restoration. Visual attraction elements, such as water and vegetation, remained consistent pre- and post-restoration, though artificial elements, such as boardwalks, also drew attention. This study offers essential insights for landscape design and heritage management in post-disaster contexts.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Urban Green Space and Health · Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies · Urban Heat Island Mitigation
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (67)
Show source-provided references
1. UNESCO. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage, https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ (1972).
2. UNESCO. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (revised 2021), https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ (2021).
3. UNESCO. Managing Disaster Risks for World Heritage, https://whc.unesco.org/en/managing-disaster-risks (2010).
4. Pavlova, I., Makarigakis, A., Depret, T. & Jomelli, V. Global overview of the geological hazard exposure and disaster risk awareness at world heritage sites. J. Cult. Herit. 28, 151–157 (2017).10.1016/j.culher.2015.11.001 ↗
5. Fan, X. M. et al. Coseismic landslides triggered by the 8th August 2017 M-s 7.0 Jiuzhaigou earthquake (Sichuan, China): factors controlling their spatial distribution and implications for the seismogenic blind fault identification. Landslides 15, 967–983 (2018).10.1007/s10346-018-0960-x ↗
6. Wang, D. P. et al. Dam-break dynamics at Huohua Lake following the 2017 M-w 6.5 Jiuzhaigou earthquake in Sichuan, China. Eng. Geol. 289, 106145 (2021).10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106145 ↗
7. Zou, Z., Du, Y. & Song, H. X. Fractal Features in Terrain Restoration of Jiuzhai Valley, a World Natural Heritage Site in China. Fractal Fract. 7, https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract7120863 (2023).10.3390/fractalfract7120863 ↗
8. Shafer, E. L. & Brush, R. O. How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes. Landsc. Plan. 4, 237–256 (1977).10.1016/0304-3924(77)90027-2 ↗
9. Gao, J., Barbieri, C. & Valdivia, C. Agricultural landscape preferences: implications for agritourism development. J. Travel Res. 53, 366–379 (2014).10.1177/0047287513496471 ↗
10. Kalivoda, O., Vojar, J., Skrivanová, Z. & Zahradník, D. Consensus in landscape preference judgments: The effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents’ characteristics. J. Environ. Manag. 137, 36–44 (2014).10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.02.009 ↗
11. Kaltenborn, B. P. & Bjerke, T. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 59, 1–11 (2002).10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00243-2 ↗
12. Povilanskas, R., Baziuke, D., Ducinskas, K. & Urbis, A. Can visitors visually distinguish successive coastal landscapes? A case study from the Curonian Spit (Lithuania). Ocean Coast. Manag. 119, 109–118 (2016).10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.10.002 ↗
13. Jon, W. S., Ryang, D. & Ri, H. Y. Natural heritage value of Mt. Kumgang and global comparative analysis. Geoheritage 12, 299–306 (2020).10.1007/s12371-020-00454-7 ↗
14. Zhang, M., Xiong, K. N., Zhao, X. & Lyu, X. X. Mapping and assessment of karst landscape aesthetic value from a world heritage perspective: a case study of the Huangguoshu Scenic area. Herit. Sci. 12, 1–18 (2024).10.1186/s40494-024-01312-3 ↗
15. Zhao, X., Xiong, K. & Zhang, M. Advances and prospect in natural beauty evaluation: insights for the World Heritage karst. Herit. Sci. 12, 1–18 (2024).10.1186/s40494-024-01479-9 ↗
16. Dupont, L., Antrop, M. & Van Eetvelde, V. Eye-tracking analysis in landscape perception research: influence of photograph properties and landscape characteristics. Landsc. Res. 39, 417–432 (2014).10.1080/01426397.2013.773966 ↗
17. de Lucio, J., Mohamadian, M., Ruiz, J. P., Benayas, J. & Bernaldez, F. G. Visual landscape exploration as revealed by eye movement tracking. Landsc. Urban Plan. 34, 135–142 (1996).10.1016/0169-2046(95)00208-1 ↗
18. Guo, S. L., Sun, W., Chen, W., Zhang, J. X. & Liu, P. X. Impact of artificial elements on mountain landscape perception: an eye-tracking study. Land 10, 1055–1070 (2021).10.3390/land10101102 ↗
19. Dupont, L., Ooms, K., Antrop, M. & Van Eetvelde, V. Comparing saliency maps and eye-tracking focus maps: The potential use in visual impact assessment based on landscape photographs. Landsc. Urban Plan. 148, 17–26 (2016).10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.007 ↗
20. Liu, Y. P., Hu, M. J. & Zhao, B. Audio-visual interactive evaluation of the forest landscape based on eye-tracking experiments. Urban. Urban Green. 46, 126456 (2019).10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126476 ↗
21. Harel, J., Koch, C. & Perona, P. in Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) Vol. 19 545-552 (Vancouver, Canada, 2006).10.7551/mitpress/7503.003.0073 ↗
22. Kaplan, A., Taskin, T. & Önenc, A. Assessing the visual quality of rural and urban-fringed landscapes surrounding livestock farms. Biosyst. Eng. 95, 437–448 (2006).10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2006.07.011 ↗
23. Li, X., Wang, P., Li, L. & Liu, J. The influence of architectural heritage and tourists’ positive emotions on behavioral intentions using eye-tracking study. Sci. Rep. 15, 1447 (2025).10.1038/s41598-024-85009-4 ↗
24. JVNP. Jiuzhai Valley National Park: Jiuzhai Valley Information, Available online: https://www.jiuzhai.com/about/jiuzhai-valley (2024).
25. Nordh, H., Hagerhall, C. M. & Holmqvist, K. Tracking restorative components: patterns in eye movements as a consequence of a restorative rating task. Landsc. Res. 38, 101–116 (2013).10.1080/01426397.2012.691468 ↗
26. Van den Berg, A. E., Joye, Y. & Koole, S. L. Why viewing nature is more fascinating and restorative than viewing buildings: A closer look at perceived complexity. Urban. Urban Green. 20, 397–401 (2016).10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.011 ↗
27. Beza, B. B. The aesthetic value of a mountain landscape: A study of the Mt. Everest Trek. Landsc. Urban Plan. 97, 306–317 (2010).10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.003 ↗
28. Jacobsen, J. Use of Landscape Perception Methods in Tourism Studies: A Review of Photo-Based Research Approaches. Tour. Geogr. - Tour Geogr 9, 234–253 (2007).10.1080/14616680701422871 ↗
29. Cottet, M. et al. Using gaze behavior to gain insights into the impacts of naturalness on city dwellers’ perceptions and valuation of a landscape. J. Environ. Psychol. 60, 9–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.09.001 (2018).10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.09.001 ↗
30. Sun et al. Psycho-physiological responses to plant variegation as measured through eye movement, self-reported emotion and cerebral activity. Indoor Built Environ. J. Int. Soc. Built Environ. 26, 913–925 (2017).
31. Elsadek, R. Cross-cultural comparison of physiological and psychological responses to different garden styles. Urban. Urban Green. 38, 126456 (2019).10.1016/j.ufug.2018.11.007 ↗
32. Li, Q., Huang, Z. W. & Christianson, K. Visual attention toward tourism photographs with text: An eye tracking study. Tour. Manag. 54, 243–258 (2016).10.1016/j.tourman.2015.11.017 ↗
33. Wang, Y. & Sparks, B. A. An Eye-tracking Study Of Tourism Photo Stimuli: Image Characteristics And Ethnicity. J. Travel Res. 55, 588–602 (2016).10.1177/0047287514564598 ↗
34. Cronbach, L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16, 297–334 (1951).10.1007/BF02310555 ↗
35. Xiong, K. N., Zhang, S. R., Fei, G. Y., Jin, A. & Zhang, H. P. Conservation and sustainable tourism development of the natural world heritage site based on aesthetic value identification: a case study of the Libo Karst. Forests 14, 750–765 (2023).10.3390/f14040755 ↗
36. Zhang, M., Xiong, K. N., Wang, X. & Zhao, X. Natural beauty and esthetic value of natural world heritage sites: a literature review and implications for Karst Geoheritage Sites. Geoheritage 14, 78–94 (2022).10.1007/s12371-022-00714-8 ↗
37. Light, A. Ecological restoration and the culture of nature: a pragmatic perspective. Restoring nature: perspectives from the social sciences and humanities, 49-70 (2000).
38. Brook, I. Restoring landscapes: the authenticity problem. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 31, 1600–1605 (2006).10.1002/esp.1428 ↗
39. Mancilla, A. Nature, aesthetics and environmentalism: from beauty to duty. Environ. Values 20, 449–452 (2011).10.3197/096327111X13077055166180d ↗
40. Wang, M. et al. Seeking lost memories: application of a new visual methodology for heritage protection. Geogr. Rev. 110, 556–574 (2020).10.1080/00167428.2020.1715800 ↗
41. Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L. & Taylor, J. G. Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landsc. Plan. 9, 1–33 (1982).10.1016/0304-3924(82)90009-0 ↗
42. Bonev, B., Chuang, L. L. & Escolano, F. How do image complexity, task demands and looking biases influence human gaze behavior?. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 34, 723–730 (2013).10.1016/j.patrec.2012.05.007 ↗
43. Su, T. T. et al. Analysis and optimization of landscape preference characteristics of rural public space based on eye-tracking technology: The Case of Huangshandian Village, China. Sustainability 15, 678 (2023).
44. Zhang, H., Chen, B., Sun, Z. & Bao, Z. Y. Landscape perception and recreation needs in urban green space in Fuyang, Hangzhou, China. Urban. Urban Green. 12, 44–52 (2013).10.1016/j.ufug.2012.11.001 ↗
45. Schirpke, U., Tappeiner, G., Tasser, E. & Tappeiner, U. Using conjoint analysis to gain deeper insights into aesthetic landscape preferences. Ecol. Indic. 96, 202–212 (2019).10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.09.001 ↗
46. Wherrett, J. R. Creating landscape preference models using Internet Survey Techniques. Landsc. Res. 25, 79–96 (2000).10.1080/014263900113181 ↗
47. Faggi, A., Breuste, J., Madanes, N., Gropper, C. & Perelman, P. Water as an appreciated feature in the landscape: a comparison of residents’ and visitors’ preferences in Buenos Aires. J. Clean. Prod. 60, 182–187 (2013).10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.09.009 ↗
48. Li, J. et al. An evaluation of urban green space in Shanghai, China, using eye tracking. Urban. Urban Green. 56, 126987 (2020).10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126903 ↗
49. Amati, M., Ghanbari Parmehr, E., McCarthy, C. & Sita, J. How eye-catching are natural features when walking through a park? Eye-tracking responses to videos of walks. Urban. Urban Green. 31, 67–78 (2018).10.1016/j.ufug.2017.12.013 ↗
50. Yang, J., Zhao, L., McBride, J. & Gong, P. Can you see green? Assessing the visibility of urban forests in cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 91, 97–104 (2009).10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.004 ↗
51. Scott, N., Le, D., Becken, S. & Connolly, R. M. Measuring perceived beauty of the Great Barrier Reef using eye-tracking technology. Curr. Issues Tour. 23, 2492–2502 (2020).10.1080/13683500.2019.1626812 ↗
52. Le, D., Scott, N., Becken, S. & Connolly, R. Tourists’ aesthetic assessment of environmental changes, linking conservation planning to sustainable tourism development. J. Sustain. Tour. 27, 1477–1494 (2019).10.1080/09669582.2019.1632869 ↗
53. Lin, W., Zeng, C. C., Bao, Z. Y. & Jin, H. X. The therapeutic look up: Stress reduction and attention restoration vary according to the sky-leaf-trunk (SLT) ratio in canopy landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 234, 104785 (2023).10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104730 ↗
54. Liu, R. & Neisch, P. Measuring the effectiveness of street renewal design: Insights from visual preference surveys, deep-learning technology, and eye-tracking simulation software. Landsc. Urban Plan. 256, 105291 (2025).10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105291 ↗
55. Kaplan, S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 15, 169–182 (1995).10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2 ↗
56. Berto, R. Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environ. Behav., 93-106 (2001).10.1177/00139160121972882 ↗
57. Franek, M., Petruzálek, J. & Sefara, D. Eye movements in viewing urban images and natural images in diverse vegetation periods. Urban For. Urban Green. 46, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126477 (2019).10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126477 ↗
58. Junker, B. & Buchecker, M. Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations. Landsc. Urban Plan. 85, 141–154 (2008).10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.11.002 ↗
59. Hu, S. C. et al. Perceptions of urban rewilding in a park with secondary succession vegetation growth on lake silt: Landscape preferences and perceived species richness. Urban. Urban Green. 104, 126789 (2025).10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128648 ↗
60. Wang, R., Zhao, J., Meitner, M. J., Hu, Y. & Xu, X. Characteristics of urban green spaces in relation to aesthetic preference and stress recovery. Urban. Urban Green. 41, 6–13 (2019).10.1016/j.ufug.2019.03.005 ↗
61. Joye, Y., Pals, R., Steg, L. & Evans, B. New methods for assessing the fascinating nature of nature experiences. Plos One 8, e67943 (2013).10.1371/journal.pone.0065332 ↗
62. Meagher, B. R. Deciphering the religious orientation of a sacred space: Disparate impressions of worship settings by congregants and external observers. J. Environ. Psychol. 55, 70–80 (2018).10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.12.007 ↗
63. Franěk, M., Šefara, D., Petružálek, J., Cabal, J. & Myška, K. Differences in eye movements while viewing images with various levels of restorativeness. J. Environ. Psychol. 57, 10–16 (2018).10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.05.001 ↗
64. Valtchanov, D. & Ellard, C. G. Cognitive and affective responses to natural scenes: Effects of low level visual properties on preference, cognitive load and eye-movements. J. Environ. Psychol. 43, 184–195 (2015).10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.07.001 ↗
65. Berto, R., Massaccesi, S. & Pasini, M. Do eye movements measured across high and low fascination photographs differ? Addressing Kaplan’s fascination hypothesis. J. Environ. Psychol. 28, 185–191 (2008).10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.11.004 ↗
66. Kang, J. & Zhang, M. Semantic differential analysis of the soundscape in urban open public spaces. Build. Environ. 45, 150–157 (2010).10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.05.014 ↗
67. Paraskevopoulou, A. T. et al. The impact of seasonal colour change in planting on patients with psychotic disorders using biosensors. Urban. Urban Green. 36, 50–56 (2018).10.1016/j.ufug.2018.09.006 ↗