📄 social_science

Differences in Visual and Cultural Perception among Different Tourist Groups in Traditional Village Landscapes: Evidence from an Eye-Tracking Experiment

This study utilizes eye-tracking experiments and questionnaires to demonstrate that professional tourists exhibit significantly higher visual and cultural perception of traditional village landscapes compared to non-professionals, revealing distinct attention patterns across spatial types and highlighting the critical role of professional background in interpreting heritage environments.

Original authors: Xin Zhang, Yabin Peng, Mengru Jia, Yi Lu, Dandan Chen, Zhenhua Xu

Published 2026-08-05

📖 4 min read☕ Coffee break read

CC BY 4.0

Original authors: Xin Zhang, Yabin Peng, Mengru Jia, Yi Lu, Dandan Chen, Zhenhua Xu

Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). ✨ This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer

Imagine you are walking through a beautiful, ancient village where every stone tells a story and every roofline holds a secret. Now, imagine two people walking side-by-side through that same village. One is a regular visitor, just there to enjoy the scenery and take photos. The other is an expert, like an architect or a landscape designer, who has spent years studying how buildings and spaces are put together. Do they see the same thing? Probably not. This is the big question that sits at the heart of a fascinating field called environmental psychology and heritage tourism. It's the study of how our brains process the world around us, specifically how we "read" a place. Think of it like reading a book: one person might just enjoy the plot and the characters, while another analyzes the grammar, the metaphors, and the author's hidden messages. Understanding these differences matters because if we want to protect these special villages and make them enjoyable for everyone, we need to know what grabs the attention of the casual walker versus the trained eye.

This paper, titled "Differences in Visual and Cultural Perception among Different Tourist Groups in Traditional Village Landscapes," takes a deep dive into that very idea. The researchers, a team from Hebei University of Architecture, decided to stop guessing and start measuring. They used a high-tech tool called an eye-tracker—basically a camera that watches where your eyes look and how long they stay there—combined with a standard survey questionnaire. They invited 76 people to look at 25 different photos of a traditional Chinese village (Cuandixia Village) and then asked them how they felt about what they saw. The group was split evenly: 38 "professional tourists" (people with degrees and experience in architecture or landscape design) and 38 "non-professional tourists" (everyone else).

The results were like watching two different movies playing on the same screen. The study found that the experts and the non-experts didn't just see the village differently; they perceived it differently in a statistically significant way (meaning the difference was real and not just a fluke). The experts scored much higher on both Visual Perception (how well they noticed the layout, lines, and details) and Cultural Perception (how deeply they felt the history and atmosphere). It's as if the experts had a "superpower" lens that let them see the hidden blueprints and cultural stories, while the non-experts were more focused on the immediate colors, shadows, and general vibe.

The researchers broke the village down into five types of spaces to see where the eyes landed: Edge spaces (the boundaries), Path spaces (the walkways), Node spaces (gathering spots), District spaces (neighborhoods), and Landmark spaces (famous buildings). They discovered that while everyone looked at the same general areas—like the end of a road or a bright building—the reasons they looked were different. The experts stared longer at architectural details, native plants, and how spaces connected to each other. The non-experts were drawn to high-contrast colors, light and shadow, and clear visual signs.

Furthermore, the study showed that for the experts, their ability to see the "artistic mood" of the place was tightly linked to their sense of "place spirit" (feeling like they belonged there). It wasn't just one thing; their cultural understanding, artistic appreciation, and sense of place all boosted each other. The paper suggests that if we want to save these villages, we can't just treat them like a museum. We need to design them so that the casual visitor can enjoy the beauty and comfort, while also giving the experts (and those who want to learn) enough depth and detail to appreciate the history. The authors are careful to note that this was done with photos in a lab, not a real walk through the village, so while the findings are strong, the real-world experience might add even more layers to the story. But one thing is clear: when we walk through history, we don't all see the same picture.

Technical Summary: Differences in Visual and Cultural Perception among Different Tourist Groups in Traditional Village Landscapes

Problem Statement

Traditional village landscapes serve as critical heritage spaces preserving regional culture and historical memory. While previous research has extensively evaluated the visual aspects of these landscapes or examined cultural perception in isolation, there is a lack of integrated studies exploring the interaction between visual and cultural perception. Furthermore, existing literature often treats tourists as a homogeneous group, failing to sufficiently investigate how professional backgrounds (e.g., landscape architecture, architecture) versus non-professional backgrounds influence landscape perception. Additionally, variations in perception across different spatial typologies within traditional villages (e.g., paths, nodes, landmarks) remain under-explored. This study addresses these gaps by investigating the differences in visual and cultural perception between professional and non-professional tourists across five distinct spatial types.

Methodology

The study employs a mixed-methods approach combining objective eye-tracking experiments with subjective questionnaire surveys.

Study Area and Stimuli:
The research focuses on Cuandixia Village in Beijing. Based on Kevin Lynch's spatial classification system and Sense of Place theory, the village landscape was categorized into five spatial types: edge space, path space, node space, district space, and landmark space. Five representative landscape photographs were selected for each category, totaling 25 images used as experimental stimuli.

Participants:
A total of 76 valid participants were recruited and divided into two equal groups (38 each):

Professional Tourists: Individuals with 5–7 years of work experience in landscape architecture, architecture, or urban planning.
Non-professional Tourists: Individuals without formal education or professional training in related fields.
All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and no color vision deficiency.

Experimental Procedure:

Eye-Tracking: Participants viewed the 25 images on a high-definition monitor using a German ERGONEERS DG3 wearable eye tracker (60Hz sampling rate, 0.05° accuracy). Each image was displayed for 10 seconds with a 2-second interval.
Indicators: Six eye-tracking indicators were selected: average blink count (X1), average fixation duration (X2), average fixation count (X3), average saccade duration (X4), total saccade count (X5), and average saccade angle (X6).
Questionnaire: Following the eye-tracking task, participants completed a survey measuring three dimensions: Cultural Perception (Y1), Perception of Artistic Conception (Y2), and Sense of Place Perception (Y3) using a 5-point Likert scale. The survey also included semi-open and open-ended questions regarding landscape elements and improvement suggestions.

Data Analysis:

Visual Perception Index (VQ): Constructed using the Entropy Weight Method (EWM) based on the six eye-tracking indicators.
Cultural Perception Index (CAQ): Derived via Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to synthesize the three perceptual dimensions (Y1, Y2, Y3).
Statistical Tests: The Mann–Whitney U Test was used to compare group differences in VQ and CAQ. Spearman's Rank Correlation Analysis examined relationships among perceptual dimensions. Chi-Square tests and word cloud text mining were applied to semi-open questions to identify spatial heterogeneity and keyword differences. Heat map analysis visualized attention distribution.

Key Results

1. Group Differences in Perception:

Visual Perception: Professional tourists demonstrated significantly higher Visual Perception Index (VQ) scores (Median = 0.418) compared to non-professional tourists (Median = 0.314), with a statistically significant difference ( $p < 0.001$ ).
Cultural Perception: Professional tourists also scored significantly higher on the Cultural Perception Index (CAQ) (Median = 0.422) than non-professional tourists (Median = -0.209) ( $p = 0.019$ ).
Correlation: A strong positive correlation was found among Cultural Perception (Y1), Perception of Artistic Conception (Y2), and Sense of Place Perception (Y3) (correlation coefficients ranging from 0.872 to 0.966, $p < 0.001$ ), indicating these dimensions are closely coupled rather than isolated.

2. Visual Attention Patterns:

General Focus: Both groups focused on path spaces, building facades, and landscape saliency. However, specific elements differed.
Professional Tourists: Showed a tendency to focus on building details, native vegetation, spatial associations, and the logical construction of space.
Non-professional Tourists: Prioritized color contrasts, light and shadow effects, and clear visual identification points.
Spatial Variations:
- Edge/Path Spaces: Attention focused on boundaries, road curves, and vanishing points.
- Node Spaces: Attention converged on entertainment facilities and sculptures.
- District Spaces: Showed higher visual dispersion, extending from nearby elements to the broader scene.
- Landmark Spaces: High focus on outer edges of traditional architecture and cultural symbols.

3. Cultural Perception Drivers:

Key Elements: The most frequently cited factors influencing cultural perception were intact traditional architectural character, historical atmosphere, native vegetation, and authentic residents' daily life scenes.
Group Divergence: Professional tourists emphasized cultural integrity, spatial layout logic, and historical connotation. Non-professional tourists prioritized environmental tidiness, supporting facilities, and interactive experiences.
Spatial Heterogeneity: Chi-Square tests confirmed that cultural perception varies significantly across the five spatial types ( $p < 0.05$ for most comparisons).

Key Contributions

Integrated Framework: The study successfully integrates objective eye-tracking data with subjective cultural perception evaluations, providing a more comprehensive understanding of tourist experiences than single-method studies.
Group Differentiation: It empirically demonstrates that professional background significantly alters both visual attention patterns and cultural interpretation of traditional village landscapes.
Spatial Typology Application: The research applies Lynch's spatial framework to traditional villages, revealing that different spatial types (edges, paths, nodes, districts, landmarks) elicit distinct visual and cultural responses.
Index Construction: The development of the Visual Perception Index (VQ) and Cultural Perception Index (CAQ) offers quantitative tools for evaluating landscape perception in heritage contexts.

Significance and Implications

The paper posits that its findings offer critical insights for the conservation, cultural interpretation, and landscape renewal of traditional villages.

Conservation Strategy: The results suggest that conservation efforts must balance the preservation of physical landscape features (architecture, vegetation) with the transmission of cultural connotations.
Design and Renewal: Design strategies should be tailored to specific spatial types. For instance, edge and path spaces should focus on continuity and atmosphere; node spaces should prioritize interaction and cultural display; and landmark spaces should highlight symbolic meaning.
Visitor Experience: Enhancing the clarity of landscape presentation and retaining cultural authenticity can aid tourists in understanding village identity. The study implies that different tourist groups require different interpretive approaches; professionals seek historical depth, while general tourists seek comfort and interaction.
Limitations and Future Directions: The authors acknowledge limitations, primarily the use of static images which cannot fully replicate the dynamic nature of real-world visits involving movement and interaction. They suggest future research should incorporate field observations and immersive technologies (e.g., VR) to further explore the mechanisms of heritage landscape perception.