• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.46 no.5
• /
• pp.1-9
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study was to identify differences of perceptions for gardens and parks between experts and the general public concerning several aspects including scope, scale, publicity, artistic and scientific nature, main materials, practicality and aesthetics, executive and management systems as well as legal understanding of garden and park. The properties of garden and park were derived through literature research, and the concept, similarity, and difference of gardens and the parks were recognized by the experts and the public viewpoint was clarified by questionnaire. As for the difference in the scope of the gardens and the parks, the expert group recognized it more widely than the general public. In general, the space recognized as a garden was the rooftop green space, and urban forests were recognized as a park. In addition, the general public recognized urban forests as gardens the same as they recognized parks, and the distinction was unclear. In the expert group, the perception that gardens were small and the parks were large was more prevalent. It was generally recognized that gardens were private spaces and the parks were public spaces. In the expert group, the gardens were more personal and the parks were more apparent to the public. In the general population, functional and scientific aspects rather than artistic creativity in both gardens and parks. In addition, both the general public and experts found that parks are more complex than gardens. The garden was centered on plant material, and the park was recognized as a center where the sculptural facilities were centered, or the plant material and the sculptural facilities were properly balanced. To the experts the view of the gardens was positive. Expert groups emphasized the aesthetics of the garden, and the parks were more practical, and the general population showed similar perceptions of utility and aesthetics when comparing gardens and parks. In addition, the utility of gardens in the general publics is more emphasized than the aesthetics of the park. Regarding the executive system the park was recognized as the public sector, and the difference was larger in the expert group. As for the management system, both experts and the general public perceive the management of the park or the garden to be carried out by the supporting organization, and it is necessary to discuss the diversification of the management subject. It is found that there is a certain difference in recognition with the mixture of concepts, and there is still a big difference in legal system and perception.

• Journal of Animal Science and Technology
• /
• v.45 no.2
• /
• pp.273-282
• /
• 2003

Consumer survey(n=1,343) was carried out to investigate the consumer's perception, purchase behavior and demand on the processed meat products. Most consumers purchased the ham and sausage products once a month (40.73%). Consumers(47.19%) didn’t distinguish between ham and sausage products due to the similarity of meat contents and additives in products. Consumers(72.75%) considered the product label when they purchased whereas 27.25% of consumers were not interested in the product label. Consumers(47.65%) were not satisfied with ham and sausage products because there were too much additives other than meat, there were many similar processed products in kinds and appearance(27.70%) and they could hardly detect meat taste(11.62%). Consumers demanded to produce the ham and sausage products which contain high meat contents(64.04%). Consumers were favored with establishment of the price differential system depending on the quality based on meat contents in the product(83.54%). In conclusion, the establishment of the price differential system depending on quality as well as the quality grading system for processed meat products is needed not only to increase the processed meat market but also increase the pork consumption especially for non-preferred pork portions.

• Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.89-97
• /
• 2010

This study researches the effects of common features on a no-choice option with respect to regulatory focus theory. The primary interest is in three factors and their interrelationship: common features, no-choice option, and regulatory focus. Prior studies have compiled vast body of research in these areas. First, the "common features effect" has been observed bymany noted marketing researchers. Tversky (1972) proposed the seminal theory, the EBA model: elimination by aspect. According to this theory, consumers are prone to focus only on unique features during comparison processing, thereby dismissing any common features as redundant information. Recently, however, more provocative ideas have attacked the EBA model by asserting that common features really do affect consumer judgment. Chernev (1997) first reported that adding common features mitigates the choice gap because of the increasing perception of similarity among alternatives. Later, however, Chernev (2001) published a critically developed study against his prior perspective with the proposition that common features may be a cognitive load to consumers, and thus consumers are possible that they are prone to prefer the heuristic processing to the systematic processing. This tends to bring one question to the forefront: Do "common features" affect consumer choice? If so, what are the concrete effects? This study tries to answer the question with respect to the "no-choice" option and regulatory focus. Second, some researchers hold that the no-choice option is another best alternative of consumers, who are likely to avoid having to choose in the context of knotty trade-off settings or mental conflicts. Hope for the future also may increase the no-choice option in the context of optimism or the expectancy of a more satisfactory alternative appearing later. Other issues reported in this domain are time pressure, consumer confidence, and alternative numbers (Dhar and Nowlis 1999; Lin and Wu 2005; Zakay and Tsal 1993). This study casts the no-choice option in yet another perspective: the interactive effects between common features and regulatory focus. Third, "regulatory focus theory" is a very popular theme in recent marketing research. It suggests that consumers have two focal goals facing each other: promotion vs. prevention. A promotion focus deals with the concepts of hope, inspiration, achievement, or gain, whereas prevention focus involves duty, responsibility, safety, or loss-aversion. Thus, while consumers with a promotion focus tend to take risks for gain, the same does not hold true for a prevention focus. Regulatory focus theory predicts consumers' emotions, creativity, attitudes, memory, performance, and judgment, as documented in a vast field of marketing and psychology articles. The perspective of the current study in exploring consumer choice and common features is a somewhat creative viewpoint in the area of regulatory focus. These reviews inspire this study of the interaction possibility between regulatory focus and common features with a no-choice option. Specifically, adding common features rather than omitting them may increase the no-choice option ratio in the choice setting only to prevention-focused consumers, but vice versa to promotion-focused consumers. The reasoning is that when prevention-focused consumers come in contact with common features, they may perceive higher similarity among the alternatives. This conflict among similar options would increase the no-choice ratio. Promotion-focused consumers, however, are possible that they perceive common features as a cue of confirmation bias. And thus their confirmation processing would make their prior preference more robust, then the no-choice ratio may shrink. This logic is verified in two experiments. The first is a $2{\times}2$ between-subject design (whether common features or not X regulatory focus) using a digital cameras as the relevant stimulus-a product very familiar to young subjects. Specifically, the regulatory focus variable is median split through a measure of eleven items. Common features included zoom, weight, memory, and battery, whereas the other two attributes (pixel and price) were unique features. Results supported our hypothesis that adding common features enhanced the no-choice ratio only to prevention-focus consumers, not to those with a promotion focus. These results confirm our hypothesis - the interactive effects between a regulatory focus and the common features. Prior research had suggested that including common features had a effect on consumer choice, but this study shows that common features affect choice by consumer segmentation. The second experiment was used to replicate the results of the first experiment. This experimental study is equal to the prior except only two - priming manipulation and another stimulus. For the promotion focus condition, subjects had to write an essay using words such as profit, inspiration, pleasure, achievement, development, hedonic, change, pursuit, etc. For prevention, however, they had to use the words persistence, safety, protection, aversion, loss, responsibility, stability etc. The room for rent had common features (sunshine, facility, ventilation) and unique features (distance time and building state). These attributes implied various levels and valence for replication of the prior experiment. Our hypothesis was supported repeatedly in the results, and the interaction effects were significant between regulatory focus and common features. Thus, these studies showed the dual effects of common features on consumer choice for a no-choice option. Adding common features may enhance or mitigate no-choice, contradictory as it may sound. Under a prevention focus, adding common features is likely to enhance the no-choice ratio because of increasing mental conflict; under the promotion focus, it is prone to shrink the ratio perhaps because of a "confirmation bias." The research has practical and theoretical implications for marketers, who may need to consider common features carefully in a practical display context according to consumer segmentation (i.e., promotion vs. prevention focus.) Theoretically, the results suggest some meaningful moderator variable between common features and no-choice in that the effect on no-choice option is partly dependent on a regulatory focus. This variable corresponds not only to a chronic perspective but also a situational perspective in our hypothesis domain. Finally, in light of some shortcomings in the research, such as overlooked attribute importance, low ratio of no-choice, or the external validity issue, we hope it influences future studies to explore the little-known world of the "no-choice option."

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.296-310
• /
• 1995

Classification of spatial units into meaningful sets is an important procedure in spatial analysis. It is crucial in characterizing and identifying spatial structures. But traditional classification methods such as cluster analysis require an exact database and impose a clear-cut boundary between classes. Scrutiny of realistic classification problems, however, reveals that available infermation may be vague and that the boundary may be ambiguous. The weakness of conventional methods is that they fail to capture the fuzzy data and the transition between classes. Fuzzy subsets theory is useful for solving these problems. This paper aims to come to the understanding of theoretical foundations of fuzzy spatial analysis, and to find the characteristics of fuzzy classification methods. It attempts to do so through the literature review and the case study of urban classification of the Cities and Eups of Kyung-Nam Province. The main findings are summarized as follows: 1. Following Dubois and Prade, fuzzy information has an imprecise and/or uncertain evaluation. In geography, fuzzy informations about spatial organization, geographical space perception and human behavior are frequent. But the researcher limits his work to numerical data processing and he does not consider spatial fringe. Fuzzy spatial analysis makes it possible to include the interface of groups in classification. 2. Fuzzy numerical taxonomic method is settled by Deloche, Tranquis, Ponsard and Leung. Depending on the data and the method employed, groups derived may be mutually exclusive or they may overlap to a certain degree. Classification pattern can be derived for each degree of similarity/distance $\alpha$. By takina the values of $\alpha$ in ascending or descending order, the hierarchical classification is obtained. 3. Kyung-Nam Cities and Eups were classified by fuzzy discrete classification, fuzzy conjoint classification and cluster analysis according to the ratio of number of persons employed in industries. As a result, they were divided into several groups which had homogeneous characteristies. Fuzzy discrete classification and cluste-analysis give clear-cut boundary, but fuzzy conjoint classification delimit the edges and cores of urban classification. 4. The results of different methods are varied. But each method contributes to the revealing the transparence of spatial structure. Through the result of three kinds of classification, Chung-mu city which has special characteristics and the group of Industrial cities composed by Changwon, Ulsan, Masan, Chinhai, Kimhai, Yangsan, Ungsang, Changsungpo and Shinhyun are evident in common. Even though the appraisal of the fuzzy classification methods, this framework appears to be more realistic and flexible in preserving information pertinent to urban classification.