How Different Tourist Sites Evoke Different
Emotions: Investigation Focusing on the Urban
and Rural Sites in Japan
Masashi Sugimoto(B), Yasuo Yagi, and Noriko Nagata

Kwansei Gakuin University, 1 Gakuen Uegarhara, Sanda 6691337, Hyogo, Japan{sugimoto.masashi,yagi567,nagata}@kwansei.ac.jp

Abstract. In this research, we examined the affective values realized by two
different tourist sites: Sannomiya (Kobe) and Asago. We conducted interviews
based on the Evaluation Grid Method with 14 participants. The result of the interviews revealed different affective values according to the site and valence. For
Sannomiya, “increasing return motivation” and “enjoyable” were extracted as
attractive factors, whereas “unwillingness to walk around,” “feeling dangerous,”and “uneasiness” were perceived as unattractive aspects. In contrast, for Asago,“relaxing,” “feeling of novelty,” “feeling of sightseeing,” “enjoyable,” and “feeling of extraordinariness” were identified as attractive factors, whereas “decreasing
return motivation,” “decreasing visit motivation,” and “feeling of wasting” were
determined as unattractive aspects. We also examined the kinds of impressions andtourist resources that influence these affective values. In addition to these qualitative analyses, we conducted a quantitative analysis to verify that these affective
factors could distinguish these two sites. These differences in affective values,
impressions, and tourist sites enable us to visualize the attractiveness and unattractiveness of each site. The approach used in this research is helpful in investigating
different affective values realized in different tourist sites and for describing thecharacteristics of the sites.
Keywords: Affective Value · Tourist Site · Evaluation Grid Method

1 Introduction
For many countries, sightseeing is one of the most critical industries. Travel and tourism
accounted for 10% of the GDP until the outbreak of COVID-19 [1]. Although somechanges might be made in the tourism industry after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic[2], sightseeing is still perceived as an effective method for regional vitalization [3].
Although many people enjoy tourism, their motivations for traveling are not necessarily shared. In addition to a general interest in tourism, they have different and specificmotivations and evaluate events and items differently depending on the relevance to themotivation for their trip [4]. For example, a suburban area with abundant nature would be
an excellent place for those who seek calm and relaxing travel. However, the same area
might not satisfy those who want to experience energetic events. To avoid this mismatch,© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
M. Kurosu and A. Hashizume (Eds.): HCII 2023, LNCS 14012, pp. 332–343, 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35599-8_21

How Different Tourist Sites Evoke Different Emotions

333

tourists need to understand the affective values that should be satisfied (e.g., whether
they want to be relaxed or energized.). For tourist sites to attract tourists, they need toknow what affective values they can impact by using their resources.
Considering the different evaluations of the same events and items, we focused on theaffective value generated by the tourist site rather than the items or events of the tourist
site itself and attempted to investigate the characteristics of the tourist sites through theiraffective value. To accomplish this purpose, in this research, we extracted data on how
tourist sites evoke different affective values through impression, which is evoked by their
tourist resources. We examined two tourist sites (Sannomiya, a central urban area of Kobe
city, and Asago, a suburban area full of nature) that would produce different affective
values and visualized the affective values they created. In other words, this research
focused not on push factors but on pull factors [5]. A pull factor is defined as a factor
that emerges due to the attractiveness of a particular tourist site, which distinguishes itfrom other sites. In contrast, a push factor is defined as a component of the tourists’socio-psychological factors that influences travel decisions and demand.

2 Related Research
2.1 How Tourists Determine Whether to Go and Where to Go
Whether one wants to go on a journey and where he/she goes are matters of decisionmaking. To examine the process, Mansfeld constructed the conceptual model of tourist
destination choice [6] to explain the decision-making process of tourists. In the model,
the tourists’ decision-making consists of eight steps. In the first step (“travel motivation”), tourists are motivated to travel. In the second step (“information gathering”),
they gather information to ascertain the attractive destinations that are within constraint
limits and to evaluate the alternative destinations based on “place-utility.” In the third
step (“establishing alternatives”), the tourists list several alternatives that meet theirmotivation, constraint limits, and place utility. In the fourth, fifth, and sixth steps (“eliminating destination alternatives,” “assessing destination alternatives,” and “choosing thebest alternative”), tourists select one destination and eliminate the alternatives. In theseventh step (“undertaking the travel”), tourists actually travel to the selected destination.
In the eighth step (“choice evaluation”), they evaluate the destination they visited.
In each step of Mansfeld’s model, the information about the destination (tourist site)
is perceived and processed. Therefore, the aspects perceived as an attribute of the site
will determine the tourists’ evaluation of the site and whether they will select the site as
the destination.
2.2 How Tourists Perceive Tourists Perceive Tourist Sites
Some studies focus on the site’s resources that attract tourists to a site. For example,
eight factors that relate to the satisfaction of the tourists to Cape Cod, Massachusetts,
USA, have been identified: beach opportunities, cost, hospitality, eating and drinking
facilities, accommodations, campground facilities, environment, and commercialization

334

M. Sugimoto et al.

[7]. Since each site has different factors, tourists have various motivations for choosing different sites. For example, tourists who visited Turkey had stronger cultural andphysical motivations than those who visited Mallorca [8].
Another study pointed out that the tourist’s attributes, not the site’s characteristics,
affect the tourist’s satisfaction. For example, the tourist’s preconceived image of the site
influences their expectations and loyalty [9]. In addition, the tourist’s nationality has aneffect on their motivation [8]. These motivations are also known to affect evaluations of
tourist resources [10].

3 How Tourist Sites Generate Different Affective Values:
An Investigation Using the Evaluation Grid Method
for Interviews
3.1 Approach
In this research, we adopt the three-layer hierarchical model of Kansei [11], where the
top layer (affective value) is realized by the middle layer (impression), and the middle
layer is formed by the bottom layer (physical feature). Physical features are perceived by
and used to form impressions, generating value. In the case of tourism, the bottom layer(physical feature) corresponds to concrete tourist resources such as facilities, historic
landmarks, and natural environments, the middle layer corresponds to impressions of
the site, and the top layer corresponds to the affective value of the site.
3.2 Method
Participants. Fourteen participants participated in the study (seven males and sevenfemales). Thirteen participants were graduate and undergraduate students in architecture
courses, and one was a working adult who graduated from an architecture course. Theiraverage age was 21.14 (ranging from 20 to 28). We selected participants who had visited
both sites because a previous study pointed out that the visiting experience changes
tourists’ perception of the site [12]. All participants visited Sannomiya regularly, andthe graduate and undergraduate students visited Asago immediately before the interview
as a hands-on learning experience for the course.
Materials. For this study, we selected two tourist sites for the theme: Sannomiya andAsago. Both are in the Hyogo prefecture of Japan. Sannomiya is the central urban areaof Kobe city with a population of around 1.5 million (Fig. 1). In contrast, Asago is arural city with a population of around 30 thousand (Fig. 2). These areas were selected
for two reasons. First, all of the participants had visited these areas and knew what kindof tourist resources are available and what kind of impressions and values are provided
at the sites. Second, the two areas are contrary to each other in characteristics (urban vs.
rural) and will provide different values.

How Different Tourist Sites Evoke Different Emotions

Fig. 1. Sites in Sannomiya

Fig. 2. Sites in Asago

335

336

M. Sugimoto et al.

Procedure. Participants’ Information. Participants were asked how many times they
have visited Sannomiya and Asago (1: Never, 2: Once, 3: Twice or Thrice, 4: More thanfour times, 5: I live there or have lived there) and when they had last visited each site (1:A month, 2: Three months, 3: Half a year, 4: A year, 5: More than a year).
Interview. We conducted interviews based on the Evaluation Grid Method [13], which
is a semi-structured interview process with a series of open questions. In the Evaluation
Grid Method, we premise the interview with a hierarchical information processing mechanism called a construct system, which consists of concrete understanding (bottom layer),sensory understanding (middle layer), and abstract value judgment (top layer). In thissystem, people first form concrete understandings about an item from perceived information. Afterward, they form sensory understandings based on concrete understandings.
Finally, they judge the abstract value using sensory understanding. Through this construct system, people will process outside information, understand their circumstances,and decide on what actions to take.
The Evaluation Grid Method is executed in two steps. In the first step, respondents
are asked to compare two items, select the better one, and explain why that item is better
than the other one. In the second step, participants were asked to respond to “ladderup” and “ladder-down” questions. The ladder-up question asks participants about theupper concept of the response with an open question (e.g., “What is the advantageof xxx for you?”). In contrast, the ladder-down question asks participants about thelower concept of the response with an open question (e.g., “What is needed for xxx to berealized?”). By repeating these two questions, the interviewer will develop an evaluation
structure of each respondent in a hierarchical network style to visualize how the objective
factors conceive the abstract values via sensory understanding. After accumulating theevaluation structures of each respondent, the interviewer will develop an evaluation
structure for the whole group of respondents.
The Evaluation Grid Method has three advantages [13]. First, using open questions
allows the interviewer to elicit respondents’ construct system without relying on the apriori hypothesis. Second, the fixed interview procedure enables the interviewer to collect
results while minimizing the bias derived from the interviewer’s subjective hypothesis.
Third, the results are visualized in a hierarchical network based on the human information
processing, which helps the researcher understand the results easily.
In the present research, we modified the procedure in the following ways. First,
participants were asked to list attractive aspects of Sannomiya. Second, they were asked
to respond to ladder-up questions to extract an abstract value judgment (e.g., “Why is
it attractive?”) and to ladder-down questions to extract objective understandings of theitems (e.g., “What is needed to make the item attractive?”). They responded to all of
the attractive/unattractive aspects of Sannomiya/Asago. The order of the four interviews
was counterbalanced, and the interviews were about 90 min long in total.

How Different Tourist Sites Evoke Different Emotions

337

3.3 Results
Participants’ Familiarity with Sannomiya and Asago. Figure 3 shows the participants’ number of visits to Sannomiya and Asago. All participants have visited Sannomiya
more than four times. More than half of the participants have visited Asago once, andthe rest have visited it two or more times.
1: Never3: Twice or Thrice
5: I live there or had lived there
0%
20%
40%

2: Once
4: More than four mes
60%

80%

100%

Sannomiya

Asago

Fig. 3. Participants’ experience visiting the sites

Figure 4 shows the participants’ last visit to Sannomiya and Asago. Most of themvisited both sites within the month before the interview, indicating that their evaluationsof the sites are relatively free of recall bias caused by long periods between a visit andan interview.
1: In a month
4: In a year0%

2: In three months
20%

5: In more than a year40%
60%

3: In a half year
80%

100%

Sannomiya

Asago

Fig. 4. Participants’ last visit to the sites

Qualitative Difference in Tourist Sites and Valence. The interview data were summarized using the Evaluation Structure Visualization system, which was developed basedon [14].

338

M. Sugimoto et al.

In the data analysis, we first categorized the interview responses with similar meanings. For example, responses such as “I can be relaxed,” “I feel relaxed,” and “It soothes
the mind” are categorized into the “relaxing” category.
The software allows the analyzer to raise or lower the threshold of the results basedon Katz’s centrality to ensure that more important nodes are enhanced in the graph. In
the analysis, we adopted 0.1008 in Katz centrality to make the graph comprehensive anddetailed.
Figure 5 shows the attractive aspects of Sannomiya. At the higher level (abstract
value judgment), the graph is characterized by words such as “increasing return motivation” and “enjoyable.” In the middle level (sensory understanding), the attractive factors
are recognized as “enjoy oneself,” “easiness to visit,” “pleasure of the table,” “lively
atmosphere,” and “convenience.” In the lower level (objective and concrete understanding), the participants highlighted “various shops,” “many people,” “cafe,” “store,” and“gathered stores.”Fig. 5. Evaluation structure of the attractive aspects of Sannomiya (the thick blue nodes indicate
affective value, the thin blue nodes indicate impression, and the white nodes indicate tourist
resource)

Figure 6 shows the unattractive aspects of Sannomiya. At the higher level, the graphis characterized by words such as “unwillingness to walk around,” “feeling dangerous,”and “uneasiness.” In the middle level, the graph is characterized by words such as “badatmosphere,” “restrictions in walking around,” “poor public peace and order,” “uncleanness,” “need time to travel,” “crowdedness,” and “pleasure of the table.” In the lower
level, the graph is characterized by words such as “danger in disaster,” “many cars,”“touting,” “suspicious people,” “drunken people,” “busy street,” “many people,” “station
and around,” and “Center Street.”Fig. 6. Evaluation structure of the unattractive aspects of Sannomiya (the thick blue nodes indicate
affective value, the thin blue nodes indicate impression, and the white nodes indicate tourist
resource)

How Different Tourist Sites Evoke Different Emotions

339

Figure 7 shows the attractive aspects of Asago. At the higher level, the graph ischaracterized by words such as “relaxing,” “feeling of novelty,” “feeling of sightseeing,” “enjoyable,” and “feeling of extraordinariness.” In the middle level, the graph ischaracterized by words such as “attractive scenery,” “distinctive scenery,” “quietness,”“events that never can be experienced in another place,” “pleasures of the table,” “beinga historical place,” “abundant nature,” and “beautiful nature.” In the lower level, thegraph is characterized by words such as “snowfall and snow coverage,” “Takeda castle,”“station and around,” “mountains,” “Ikuno area,” and “Ikuno silver mine.”

Fig. 7. Evaluation structure of the attractive aspects of Asago (the thick blue nodes indicate
affective value, the thin blue nodes indicate impression, and the white nodes indicate tourist
resource)

Figure 8 shows the unattractive aspects of Asago. At the higher level, the graph ischaracterized by words such as “decreasing return motivation,” “decreasing visit motivation,” and “feeling of wasting.” In the middle level, the graph is characterized bywords such as “not making use of the tourist attractions,” “no pleasures of the table,”inconvenience,” “difficulty to visit,” “no sense of uniqueness,” “need time to travel,”“limited numbers in options to take.” In the lower level, the graph is characterized bywords such as “limited numbers in people,” “limited numbers in shops,” “snowfall andsnow coverage,” “staying for a short time,” “castle town,” and “Takeda castle.”

Fig. 8. Evaluation structure of the unattractive aspects of Asago (the thick blue nodes indicate
affective value, the thin blue nodes indicate impression, and the white nodes indicate tourist
resource)

340

M. Sugimoto et al.

Quantitative Difference in Tourist Sites and Valence. To determine whether there
is a quantitative difference between each site’s affective value, we conducted four (siteand valence: Sannomiya (attractive)/Sannomiya (unattractive)/Asago (attractive)/Asago(unattractive)) by two (response: referred/did not refer) chi-squared tests on 12 affective
values. Figure 9 shows the rate of participants who referred to each affective value in theattractive and unattractive interviews. The chi-squared tests showed significant differences in reference rate (ps < 0.05) for almost all affective values, excluding “uneasiness,”“unwillingness to walk around,” and “decreasing return motivation.” Among the ninewords that presented significant differences, “enjoyable” was referred to more frequently
in the attractive interview on Sannomiya, whereas “feeling dangerous” was referred tomore frequently in the unattractive interview. In comparison, “increasing return motivation,” “relaxing,” “feeling of novelty,” “feeling of extraordinariness,” and “feelingof sightseeing” were referred to more frequently in the attractive interview on Asago,
whereas “decreasing visit motivation” was referred to more frequently in the unattractive
interview on Asago. “Feeling of wasting” was not frequently referred to in any condition.

increasing return motivation
enjoyable
Sannomiya (attractive)
Sannomiya (unattractive)
Asago (attractive)
Asago (unattractive)

feeling dangerous

Affective value

uneasiness
unwillingness to walk aroundrelaxing
feeling of novelty
feeling of extraordinarinessfeeling of sightseeing
decreasing return motivation
feeling of wasting
decreasing visit motivation
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Rate of participants who referred to the affective value
Fig. 9. Rate of participants who referred to each affective value during the interviews.

How Different Tourist Sites Evoke Different Emotions

341

4 Conclusions
4.1 Summary of the Results
In this research, we conducted interviews on the attractive and unattractive aspects of two
tourist sites: Sannomiya and Asago. The results of each interview qualitatively presenteddifferent affective values according to the tourist sites and valence. The quantitative
analysis revealed the differences between the tourist sites.
From the qualitative analysis of the interview data, Sannomiya was revealed to be an
enjoyable site that tourists want to visit more than once (“increasing return motivation”).
The attractiveness of Sannomiya was derived from the visitors’ impression that it is alively and accessible city where they can find many places to enjoy themselves and eat
delicious foods. These impressions were influenced by the various shops, cafes, andpeople there.
However, Sannomiya was also revealed to be an uneasy, dangerous place wherevisitors do not want to walk around. These affective values are a result of the visitors’impression that it is an unclean and crowded place with a bad atmosphere, poor public peace and order, and restrictions on walking around. This impression was derived
from many people, who mentioned witnessing touting, suspicious behavior, and drunken
people on the busy street near the station.
In contrast, Asago was described as an enjoyable place with a relaxing atmosphereand feeling of novelty, with plenty of sightseeing opportunities and an overall impressionof extraordinariness. These affective values were extracted from the visitors’ impressionthat Asago is a quiet and historical place with affective and distinctive scenery andabundant and beautiful nature. These impressions are influenced by artificial (e.g., Takeda
castle and Ikuno silver mine) and natural (e.g., snow and mountains) tourist resources.
Unfortunately, Asago was revealed as a tourist site that people don’t want to visit.
The unattractive aspects of Asago resulted from visitors’ belief that they could not feelthe uniqueness of the place. This is most likely due to the difficulty to visit and the limited
options available, which were derived from the fact that there are few shops there andvisitors cannot stay there for a long time.
These feelings of novelty and extraordinariness might reflect people’s familiarity
with the sites. For most of the participants, Sannomiya was a familiar place that they had
frequently visited, whereas Asago was a place that they had only visited once. Because ofthis difference, the participants might have perceived Asago as a novel and extraordinary
place.
The quantitative analysis supported most of the affective differences. The result
indicated that Sannomiya is an enjoyable but dangerous place, whereas Asago is arelaxing town with a feeling of novelty and extraordinariness and numerous sightseeing
opportunities. One interesting point is that Asago is both attractive (“increasing returnmotivation”) and unattractive (“decreasing visit motivation”), potentially because it isdifficult to visit, which prevents Asago from attracting first-time visitors.
The factors of the two tourist sites illustrate their characteristics distinctively. From avalence viewpoint, some factors reflect the attractive aspects of the sites, whereas othersreflect the unattractive aspects. From the viewpoint of the site, some factors shed light342

M. Sugimoto et al.

on the characteristics of Sannomiya, and others describe the characteristics of Asago.
This distinctiveness could be useful for grasping the nature of various tourist sites.
4.2 The Novelty and Importance of This ResearchThis research is novel because we focused not on the tourist resources themselves, buton the affective value created by them. The affective value is realized by the interaction
between the site and tourists, which could be a helpful clue for understanding tourism.
Considering the increasing interest in co-creating tourist experiences [15], the interactive
affective value will play an essential role in future tourism.
Moreover, this research is important because we focused on both the attractive andthe unattractive aspects of the sites. Although most sites emphasize their attractive factors exclusively, analyzing the unattractive factors would also be useful. In a previous
study, researchers demonstrated the usefulness of examining both sides by investigating both the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of tourists. It revealed that evaluations of
the positive attributes and negative attributes lacked concordance [16]. In this research,
the opposite of the attractive factors are not the unattractive factors. For example, theattractive affective values of Sannomiya (i.e., “increasing return motivation” and “enjoyable”) are not the opposite of the unattractive affective values (i.e., “unwillingness towalk around,” “feeling dangerous,” and “uneasiness”). In addition, unlike the affective
values realized in the Sannomiya and Asago, whose levels of urbanization are opposite,
the lack of concordance between attractive and unattractive factors were not opposite.
By conducting interviews on the attractive and unattractive aspects of different sites, wewere able to reveal the characteristics of the sites more specifically.
This study succeeded in estimating the characteristics of the sites based on affective
values, sensory impressions, and tourist resources. By using this method, it is possible
to index the affective value of various tourist attractions. In the future, it will also be
possible to classify tourist types by examining the degree to which visitors seek out
each of the affective values that various tourist sites offer. It will also enable tourist
sites to target tourists to whom the region is likely to appeal and allow tourists to selectappropriate travel plans.
Acknowledgment. This study is supported by the collaborative special research subsidy ofKwansei Gakuin University.

References
1. Statista homepage. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1099933/travel-and-tourism-share-ofgdp/. Accessed 06 Feb 2023
2. Bhatia, A., Roy, B., Kumar, A.: A review of tourism sustainability in the era of Covid-19. J.
Stat. Manag. Syst. 25(8), 1871–1888 (2022)
3. Japan Tourism Agency homepage. https://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/iinkai/after_corona_kan
kosangyo.html. Accessed 06 Feb 2023
4. Devesa, M., Laguna, M., Palacios, A.: The role of motivation in visitor satisfaction: empiricalevidence in rural tourism. Tour. Manage. 31(4), 547–552 (2010)

How Different Tourist Sites Evoke Different Emotions

343

5. Uysal, M., Li, X., Sirakaya-Turk, E.: Push-pull dynamics in travel decisions. Handbook of
Hospitality Marketing Management, pp. 412–439 1st edn. Routledge, London (2008)
6. Mansfeld, Y.: From motivation to actual travel. Ann. Tour. Res. 19(3), 399–419 (1992)
7. Pizam, A.: Tourist satisfaction with a destination area. Ann. Tour. Res. 5(3), 3–14 (1978)
8. Kozak, M.: Comparative analysis of tourist motivations by nationality and destinations. Tour.
Manage. 23(3), 221–232 (2002)
9. del Bosque, I.R., San Martín, H.: Tourist satisfaction a cognitive-affective model. Ann. Tour.
Res. 35(2), 551–573 (2008)
10. Hatano, T., et al.: Measuring attractiveness of tourism resources by focusing on Kansei value
structure: possibility of inviting visitors using the Japanese Heritage “Ako Salt”. In: 2021
Asia-Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference(APSIPA ASC), pp. 1–7 (2021)
11. Miyai, S., Katahira, K., Sugimoto, M., Nagata, N., Nikata, K., Kawasaki, K.: Hierarchicalstructuring of the impressions of 3D shapes targeting for art and non-art university students. In:
HCI International 2019 - Posters. HCII 2019. Communications in Computer and Information
Science. vol. 1032, pp. 385–393. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03023522-2_50
12. Pearce, P.L.: Perceived changes in holiday destinations. Ann. Tour. Res. 9(2), 145–164 (1982)
13. Sanui, J.: Visualization of users’ requirements: introduction of the evaluation grid method.
In: Proceedings of the 3rd Design Decision Support Systems in Architecture Urban Planning
Conference, vol. 1, pp. 365–374 (1996)
14. Onoue, Y., Kukimoto, N., Sakamoto, N., Koyamada, K.: E-Grid: a visual analytics systemfor evaluation structures. J. Visualization 19(4), 753–768 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12
650-015-0342-6
15. Campos, A.C., Mendes, J., do Valle, P.O., Scott, N.: Co-creation of tourist experiences: aliterature review. Curr. Issues in Tourism 21(4), 369–400 (2018)
16. Alegre, J., Garau, J.: Tourist satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Ann. Tour. Res. 37(1), 52–73(2010)