THEANO S. TERKENLI , EWA SKOWRONEK, ANDRZEJ TUCKI, NIKOLAOS KOUNELLIS QUAESTIONES GEOGRAPHICAE 38(3) • 2019 TOWARD UNDERSTANDING TOURIST LANDSCAPE. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LOCALS’ AND VISITORS’ PERCEPTION IN SELECTED DESTINATIONS IN POLAND AND GREECE THEANO S. TERKENLI 1, EWA SKOWRONEK 2, ANDRZEJ TUCKI 2, NIKOLAOS KOUNELLIS 3 1Department of Geography, University Hill, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Greece 2Department of Regional Geography and Tourism, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Lublin, Poland 3Department of Administration, Business School, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Greece Manuscript received: January 18, 2019 Revised version: July 24, 2019 TERKENLI T. S., SKOWRONEK E., TUCKI A., KOUNELLIS N., 2019. Toward understanding tourist landscape. A comparative study of locals` and visitors` perception in selected destinations in Poland and Greece. Quaestiones Geographicae 38(3), Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań, pp. 81–93. 7 figs, 7 tables. ABSTRACT: This paper critically negotiates the concept of the tourist landscape and proceeds, through a comparative cross-cultural empirical study, to test its basic conceptual premises in one upland and one seaside tourist destination, in Central Europe and in the Mediterranean. The conceptualization and employment of the term ‘tourist landscape’, in the social sciences and beyond, has been mostly intuitive and lacking a rigorous and broad-based conceptualization and empirical verification, incorporating its viewers’/users’ perceptions. On the basis of a conceptual model of the tourist landscape, the paper assesses conceptions and perceptions of the ‘tourist landscape’ and its constituent ele- ments by tourists, locals, and tourism stakeholders in Zwierzyniec, Poland and Chios Island, Greece. KEY WORDS: tourist landscape, conceptualization, perception, Greece, Poland Corresponding author: Theano S. Terkenli, [email protected] Introduction and theoretical empirically unexplored, especially as regards the background role of the landscape in the tourist experience. Despite its importance, this issue is difficult to analyse, due to its multidimensional nature The significance of landscape to the variety and the fact that landscape is connected with of experiences sought through or unfolding at a subjective or collective perceptions, by defini- visited destination is well-established and con- tion (Council of Europe 2000). Extensive research sidered paramount (Urry 1995, Löfgren 1999, highlights the great variability and cultural con- Terkenli 2000, 2014, Cartier, Lew 2005, Mikulek tingency in landscape perception, preference and 2011). Nonetheless, the great variability, depth appreciation, among visitors (Rojek, Urry 1997, and significance of this relationship, in its prop- Roovers et al. 2002, Conrad et al. 2011, Adevi, er time-space-culture context, largely remains Grahn 2012). © 2019 Author(s) This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license doi: 10.2478/quageo-2019-0031 ISSN 0137-477X, eISSN 2081-6383 82 ThEANO S. TERkENLI , EWA SkOWRONEk, Andrzej TUCkI, NIkolaos Kounellis Tourist landscape analysis is also difficult, constitute it (Gkoltsiou, Terkenli 2012, Skowronek because of the enormous current proliferation of et al. 2018). The constituent elements of a tourist a broad range of alternative and special-interest landscape are such that: a) ascertaining that they forms of tourism, variably (and often, intricate- define a landscape, b) differentiate it from other ly) connected to the visited landscapes. All types types of landscapes, on the basis of its connection of landscapes may potentially hold interest for to tourism, and c) are amenable and applicable some type of visitor, for purposes of consump- to as broad a range of tourist landscape concep- tion of goods, services, activities, experiences, tualizations, as possible. Summing up the points etc. (Terkenli et al. 2019). Although much quot- of the preceding discussion, we may conclude as ed in tourism literature, in most cases, the term to the following emergent groupings of compo- tourist landscape has been analysed for different nents/elements of a tourist landscape: research objectives, in a range of theoretical fram- – tourist attractions – including features/ele- ings, without providing or building on a more ments of the natural and/or cultural environ- generally-acknowledged definition (see e.g. ment, as well as events or associations which Chronis, hampton 2008, Fyhri 2009, Xiaobo 2010, are the object of tourists’ interests, meet their Chrenka, Ira 2011, kulczyk 2013). preferences and expectations, and attract Since the first attempts at its definition them to a given destination (1970s–1990s), the emphasis has shifted from – tourist facilities/services – tourist infrastruc- highlighting the functions of a landscape aimed ture and services, interconnected through at meeting tourists’ needs, to its internal sys- their functions and complementarities, de- temic mechanisms, its genesis and contextu- signed to make attractions available to tour- al and tourism development potential (2000s) ists, and serving the purpose of satisfying (Skowronek et al. 2018). Diverse approaches to tourist/recreational needs (kowalczyk, Derek the tourist landscape have also been changing. 2010: 18) For some, it is a particular physiognomy of ge- – presence of tourists – the presence of tour- ographical environment or tourist space (e.g. ists and tourist movement/activities, result- krzymowska-kostrowicka 1999, Włodarczyk ing from their interest in a given landscape, 2009a, Włodarczyk 2009b); for others, an area change its previous functions into tourist ones with its own characteristics resulting from its – equivalent to or predominant over previous function (tourism), distinguishing it from oth- ones. er types of landscapes (kowalczyk, Derek 2010, All of the above elements together constitute Myga-Piątek 2012) and yet, for others, a result of the physiognomy of a tourist landscape, differ- cultural landscape transformations related to the entiating it from the pre-existing landscape (be- development of tourism (Lozato-Giotart 1993, fore the development of tourism and featuring all Dietvorst 1998, kowalczyk, Derek 2010, Myga- other landscape elements, unrelated to tourism), Piątek 2012). Other definitions also given to the as well as other types of landscapes, e.g. urban, tourist landscape are as follows: industrial, rural, or other. We may, therefore – a natural or natural-anthropogenic system, proceed to the construction of a simple diagram- with potential for tourism function, which matic conceptual model (Fig. 1), linking these generates or can generate tourist movement elements groupings together, whereby tourist (Wall in Jafari 1982, Richling 2010) – an area where tourism has, at least tempo- rarily, a predominant role (krzymowska-ko- strowicka1999, Richling 2010) or – an area where tourism development consti- tutes an important component of the land- scape (Richling 2010, kowalczyk, Derek 2010). Only few publications, however, are of par- ticular analytical significance in constructing the definition of the tourist landscape, based on Fig. 1. The model of tourist landscape constituent the operationalization of the main elements that element groupings. TOWARD UNDERSTANDING TOURIST LANDSCAPE. A comparativE STUDy OF LOCALS’ AND vISITORS’ PERCEPTION 83 attractions (real, imaginary or other) form the ba- value, have been globally reported, due to urban- sis of all/any tourist interest, and which, when ization, development and resource degradation appropriately developed (infrastructure, services (Antrop 1998, Coccossis, Tsartas 2001, Terkenli etc.), variably attract tourist interest. 2002). In upland/Alpine tourist landscapes Obviously, this is a simplified and generalized (where five types of landscape values have been conceptualization of the process of tourism devel- indicated as central to the tourism experience: opment, leading to the creation of tourist land- scenic, outdoor activities, aesthetic, cultural/ scapes. The latter must always be contextualized historical and tranquillity), seven categories of in their unique settings, informed by both natu- threats have also been identified: urbanization, ral/physical and anthropogenic factors, such as lack of maintenance, congestion, visual/acous- the local communities, landscape physiognomy tic disturbance, pollution, overuse and traffic and various other geographical particularities, in (Scolozzi et al. 2014). however, not enough re- the broader context of the global tourism space/ search has so far been conducted cross-culturally system (e.g. Włodarczyk 2009b). Furthermore, and cross-contextually, in order to elucidate and the processes indicated in this model are not just analyse variability both in the holistic conceptu- one-way; as is the case in most tourism models alization/construction of tourist landscapes and (Pearce 1995), all linkages shown here are recipro- in their tangible and intangible constituent ele- cal and multi-directional. Nonetheless, the model ments, from all main sides involved. Our goal, purports to stand as a condensed conceptualiza- then, is to attempt to contribute to such research, tion of the basic key element groupings turning a broadly speaking, which may serve as a basis for landscape into a tourist one (for a more developed subsequent tourist landscape analysis and in- discussion on this, see Skowronek et al. 2018). As vestigation into the mechanisms informing such