The influence of architectural heritage and tourists’ positive emotions on behavioral intentions using eye-tracking study

Xinyu Li; Pohsun Wang; Long Li; Jing Liu

doi:10.1038/s41598-024-85009-4

. 2025 Jan 9;15:1447. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-85009-4

The influence of architectural heritage and tourists’ positive emotions on behavioral intentions using eye-tracking study

Xinyu Li ¹, Pohsun Wang ^1,^✉, Long Li ², Jing Liu ¹

PMCID: PMC11717946 PMID: 39789079

Abstract

The city’s rapid development would lead to irreversible changes in architectural heritage. As one of the ways to promote sustainable development, world heritage tourism has opened up a new perspective for the protection, inheritance and development of architectural heritage. Taking the study of architectural heritage in the Historic Centre of Macau as an example, employing eye-tracking experiment and semantic differential method (SD method) to explore the relationship between tourists’ perceptions of visual elements of architectural heritage, positive emotions, and behavioral intentions. The results show that in terms of visual elements, the architectural style of the wall (p = 0.013 < 0.05, B = 0.165), the proportional balance of the windows (p = 0.047 < 0.05, B = 0.120), the exquisite decoration of the door (p = 0.028 < 0.05, B = 0.125), and the proportional balance of other buildings (p = 0.042 < 0.05, B = 0.121) have a positive impact on tourists’ behavioral intention. In terms of positive emotions, positive (p = 0.001 < 0.05, B = 0.177), intense (p = 0.000 < 0.01, B = 0.228), and enthusiastic (p = 0.008 < 0.05, B = 0.156) emotions were positively correlated with behavioral intention. The research results can provide a scientific basis and decisional reference for the protection and tourism development of architectural heritage in the Historic Centre of Macau.

Keywords: Architectural heritage, Eye-tracking, Visual elements, Positive emotion, Behavioral intentions

Subject terms: Psychology, Environmental social sciences

Introduction

Cultural heritage is a combination of society, tourism, heritage and sustainable development^1–4. Cultural heritage is becoming one of the most competitive tourism resources. Among them, architectural heritage, as an important type of cultural heritage, has received great attention from governments and international organizations⁵. With the acceleration of social progress, cultural heritage protection faces a dilemma: it is necessary to consider the protection of cultural heritage while meeting the ever-changing needs of the tourism industry^6,7 From a sustainable perspective, the protection of cultural heritage should take into account both historical value and modern needs. At the same time, it should maintain its appeal and achieve balanced development^8,9.

In the study of tourism experiences of architectural heritage, although numerous studies have explored the psychological effects of the visual aesthetics of architectural heritage on visitors, few have specifically focused on the relationship between the aesthetic experience of architectural heritage and the emotions of visitors. Existing research indicates that the artistic quality of architectural heritage styles influences visitor interest and aesthetic pleasure^10,11. This emotional experience not only enhances tourists’ satisfaction with their tourist destinations but also provides a new perspective for architectural heritage conservation¹². Furthermore, bringing the tourists’ interest and aesthetic pleasure into the scope of sustainable heritage protection can enhance the tourists’ experience while fostering interdisciplinary discussion and multi-dimensional understanding of heritage protection^13–15. Moreover, there is a correlation between tourists’ aesthetic experiences of architectural heritage and their behavioural intentions, as aesthetic experiences evoke positive feelings in tourists, thereby influencing their future travel intentions^16–19. Currently, the methods for exploring tourists’ emotional perceptions of architectural heritage are predominantly qualitative, primarily implemented through questionnaires, interviews, observations, and ethnographic analysis, lacking systematic quantitative research.

With the continuous innovation and iteration of human emotion research technology, researchers have begun to combine subjective evaluations with physiological indicators to conduct a comprehensive assessment of human perception and emotions, which provides a new research method for the protection and tourism development of cultural heritage^20–22. As a primary means for individuals to acquire information, eye-tracking technology has become an important tool in heritage tourism research for understanding people’s visual attention and emotions^23,24. This technology can help researchers understand how people allocate their attention and respond emotionally in different environments²⁵. Participants are asked to observe and evaluate photographs, thereby collecting and analyzing data on the emotional responses elicited by these visual stimuli. In historically and culturally distinctive districts, eye-tracking technology can be used to assess tourists’ visual perception and emotional tendencies²⁶.

In the field of visual perception of architectural heritage, scholars at home and abroad have conducted extensive research on various aspects such as heritage colour, heritage image, heritage elements, heritage shape, and heritage style^27–31. These studies emphasize that visual perception is essential for preserving architectural heritage features, promoting heritage tourism, and protecting the sustainable development of architectural heritage from different perspectives^32–34. Research indicates that when people visit architectural heritage, they perceive and understand it through specific architectural elements (such as colour, shape, materials, decoration, etc.) or the overall form of the building³⁵. The perception of visual elements of architectural heritage is not only an important medium for people to intuitively understand and recognize these architectural heritage characteristics, but also a crucial bridge for building emotional connections between visitors and architectural heritage³⁶.

Based on previous research, we put forward the following three hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1:

There are obvious differences in the visual attention of tourists when viewing different visual elements of architectural heritage.

Hypothesis 2:

There is a relationship among visual elements of architectural heritage, tourists’ positive emotions, and behavioural intentions.

Hypothesis 3:

Visual elements of architectural heritage and tourists’ positive emotions affect behavioural intentions.

Therefore, this study takes the World Heritage buildings in the Historic Centre of Macau as the research object, from the perspective of tourists, constructs the relationship between the perception of visual elements of architectural heritage (e.g., facade elements of architectural heritage and built environment elements) and tourists’ emotions and behavioural intentions. The innovation of the research points in integrating eye-tracking technology into the field of architectural heritage studies. Assessing the complex interactions between aesthetics, emotions, and behaviours of visual elements of architectural heritage in tourism experiences through quantitative methods. The research aims to draw the attention of cultural heritage managers to the protection of visual elements of architectural heritage and provide a reference for the development of tourism in historical urban areas.

Methods

Study area

In 2005, at the 29th session of the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO, the Historic Centre of Macau was included in the World Cultural Heritage List. The Historic Centre of Macau is the oldest, largest, best-preserved, and most concentrated building cluster that exemplifies the coexistence of Eastern and Western architectural styles in China. It is composed of 22 historical buildings connected to eight adjacent frontlands and streets.

The successful inscription of the Historic Centre of Macau is of great significance for sustainable development of the tourism industry in Macao. This achievement not only enhances the status of the Historic Centre as a World Heritage Site but also imparts new significance to the development and protection of its resources. The Macau government took this opportunity to promote the construction of Macau as a world tourism and leisure centre based on the world cultural heritage tourism resources of Macau’s Historic District. However, as Macau’s tourism industry grows, increasing tourists’ intention to visit world heritage sites has become a critical issue. This challenge requires us to protect the authenticity of cultural heritage while focusing more on optimizing and enhancing the visitor experience, striving to find the best balance between protection and utilization.

After field research, 16 representative World Heritage buildings within the historic district of Macau were selected as the subjects of study. These buildings are all included in the first batch of the World Heritage List and possess significant historical, cultural, and artistic value. These architectural heritages include five major types: residential buildings, public buildings, administrative buildings, religious buildings, and defensive buildings, which fully demonstrate the unique charm and profound heritage of the Historic Centre of Macau. The distribution of the research subjects is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 — Distribution of sample buildings.

Source: OpenStreetMap (https://www.openstreetmap.org).

Eye-tracking experiments

Eye-tracking technology is an important research tool in the field of visual studies, used to measure and record the fixation points and eye movements of subjects³⁷. Through eye-tracking technology, researchers can objectively identify and analyse various factors that influence the attention of subjects³⁸. In this study, Eye-tracking technology was used to record participants’ eye movements while viewing sample images, allowing for the acquisition of eye movement data related to attention and cognitive levels, thereby effectively identifying the visual appeal of architectural heritage to the subjects.

Photograph selection

Under the same imaging technology and weather conditions, we collected pictures of the architectural heritage in the Historic Centre of Macau and took 200 pictures of the architectural heritage in Macau. This study invited five experts in the field of cultural heritage research in Macau and asked them to select sixteen representative images, including two residential buildings, two public buildings, two administrative buildings, eight religious buildings, and two defensive buildings. The resolution of the sample images was 4030*3024 pixels, 300 dpi, and the aspect ratio was 4:3.

In order to ensure the accuracy and objectivity of the research results, the sample collection did not deliberately avoid disturbing elements such as stores, vehicles, and crowds. Pictures were collected during normal hours during tourists’ tours, aiming to explore tourists’ visual preferences when visiting heritage spaces.

Participants

We invited 19 tourists who had visited the Historic Centre of Macau to participate in an eye-tracking experiment. The participants included 9 males and 10 females, with the age ranging from 18 to 45 years. Participants mainly come from the Guangdong regions. Influenced by Lingnan culture, these tourists have a good understanding and aesthetic evaluation of Macau’s architectural heritage. These participants included people with professional backgrounds in design, architecture, chemistry, computer science, history, etc. Their uncorrected or corrected visual acuity was above 1.0, and they had no colour weakness or colour blindness. This was the first time that the participants had viewed the experimental sample pictures. Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the experiment, and consent forms were signed prior to the commencement of the study. All procedures were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The Academic Committee of the City University of Macau approved this research.

Procedure

The experiment was conducted in a professional laboratory at the School of Innovation and Design of City University of Macau. Tobii Pro Spectrum equipment, manufactured by a well-known Swiss company, was used to record the eye-tracking data. The experimental pictures were displayed on a 23.8-inch (2560 × 1600 dpi, 600 Hz) computer screen. The participants were required to fully understand the experimental environment and sign a consent form before the experiment began, and they were then guided to a designated location 60–65 cm away from the screen to conduct the experiment (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 — Experiment process. ((a) Eye-tracking experiment. (b) Subjective evaluation process and selected indicators. The reasons for selecting the indicators can be found in the questionnaire design).

The experimental process included three parts: First, the subjects were guided to sit ~ 60 cm in front of a computer screen equipped with an eye-tracking instrument, and the experimenter explained the purpose, process, and requirements of the entire experiment to the subjects in detail. Secondly, the experimenter calibrated the eye-tracking equipment and automatically displayed the 16 sample pictures. The playback time of each sample picture was 10 s, with a 2-s blank interval between pictures to relieve eye fatigue and focus. Finally, after the eye-tracking experiment, the subjects were invited to fill in the questionnaire.

Data analysis

Eye-tracking metric selection

Vision can reflect people’s attention and emotional tendencies. The study of visual behaviour is conducive to exploring the characteristics of the research object, thereby more accurately and objectively revealing the emotional experiences of tourists during their interactions with architectural heritage^39–41. Eye-tracking experiments are widely used to study the emotional processes of individuals. Researchers objectively quantify human visual attention and emotional states using indicators such as gaze, saccades, blinking, and pupil size. Related research indicates that the duration of eye fixation can reflect which visual elements attract the attention of tourists and elicit positive or negative emotional responses from them⁴². Moreover, pupil size varies with different emotional stimuli, indicating that changes in pupil diameter can serve as an important indicator for emotion recognition⁴³.

In this study, we selected six indicators for analysis: total fixation duration (TFD), fixation count (FC), average fixation duration (AFD), first fixation time (FFD), visit count (VC), and mean pupil diameter (MPD). These indicators have been proven to be closely related to visitors’ emotional experiences in previous studies^44–46. Their definitions and corresponding emotional representations are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Basic definitions of eye-movement indicators.

Index	Abbreviation	Definition	Corresponding emotional representation
Total fixation duration	TFD	The total time spent looking at the fixation point in interest	The longer the TFD, the more attention participants paid to the area
Fixation count	FC	The total fixation count a participant made while viewing each AOI	The higher the FC, the stronger the participant’s interest in the corresponding AOI⁴⁷
Average fixation duration	AFD	The average length of gaze in a certain area	The longer the AFD, the more attention participants paid to architectural elements or environmental elements, indicating greater interest
First fixation time	FFD	The time when the fixation point in the area of interest was first fixed upon	The shorter the FFD, the stronger the attraction of the object to the participants, and the more conducive to inducing emotions
Visit count	VC	The time at which the participant returns their gaze to a specific point in the AOI	VC indicates that the AOI repeatedly attracts the attention of participants (whether good or bad). The higher the VC, the more attractive the AOI is to participants
Mean pupil diameter	MPD	Average change in pupil size when participants looked at pictures	Changes in MPD were directly related to changes in participants’ moods, but they did not necessarily correspond to positive or negative emotions⁴⁸

Open in a new tab

Drawing of AOIs

During the eye-tracking data analysis process, an area containing the key objects of the experiment is drawn on the sample picture. This area is called the area of interest (AOI). Researchers often use AOIs to analyse tourists’ attention to individual objects, exploring the relationships between eye-movement behaviour and the visual world, thereby testing hypotheses about underlying cognitive processes⁴⁹. In this study, the collected architectural heritage images were divided into two categories: architectural heritage facade elements and built environment elements. The facade elements of architectural heritage are mainly the visual elements of the building facade, including roofs, walls (excluding other elements such as windows and doors), windows, and doors. Built environment elements refer to other elements seen in the site space, including facilities, plants, and other buildings. Based on the common elements of architectural heritage, 11 pictures were drawn (Fig. 3).

Semantic differential method

Semantic differential method (SD method) is a psychological measurement technique proposed by American psychologist Osgood in 1957⁵⁰. This research aims to evaluate tourists’ visual perception experiences of Macau’s architectural heritage through the SD method. In research processing, although eye-tracking data can capture the gaze patterns of visitors, relying solely on this data does not clearly explain the deeper reasons for the differences in participants’ experiences. Therefore, combining eye-tracking data with subjective assessment data from the SD method can compensate for the limitations of using eye-tracking experiment alone, better elucidating the cognitive activities and experiences of the subjects, and providing richer and more reliable data support for this research⁵¹.

Questionnaire design

After the eye-tracking experiment, the subjects were required to fill out a questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of four parts: basic personal information, visual preferences, positive emotions, and behavioural intentions. In the visual preference section, visual elements were initially screened based on eye-movement heat distribution. In order to establish an evaluation standard for visual preferences, this study draws on the research findings from existing literature and selects 20 pairs of adjectives closely related to architectural characteristics and emotional perception from core journals in the Web of Science database. These adjectives cover multiple aspects such as architectural features, styles, forms, decorative elements, textures, and colours, and have been widely applied in assessing individuals’ visual and emotional perceptions of architectural heritage⁵². To ensure the scientific validity and effectiveness of the indicators, the research invited 5 experts from relevant fields, each possessing a profound professional background in design, architecture, and heritage conservation. All experts hold a doctor’s degree and have worked in architecture and related fields for over 10 years. After in-depth discussions and rigorous selection by experts, 6 evaluation criteria were chosen, including rich shapes, balanced proportions, bright colors, exquisite decoration, visual order, etc. These visual preference indicators are not only crucial for the comprehensive assessment of the visual elements of architectural heritage, but also provide important evidence for understanding the visitor experience.

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) was developed by Watson, Clark, and Tellegen in 1988 to assess an individual’s levels of positive and negative emotions over a specific period of time⁵³. This study used the Chinese version of the revised Positive Emotion Scale to reduce cultural differences⁵⁴. Words associated with positive emotions include pleasant, interesting, positive, excited, intense, enthusiastic, etc.^55,56. The behavioural intention part includes three measurement items: “I would like to come here again”, “actively promote this place”, and “I would recommend it to others”^57,58. The questions in the subjective questionnaire are based on the semantic differential method. The questionnaire employs a Likert scale to evaluate and assign values to adjectives, with 5 rating scales assigned values of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. “1” indicates the minimum emotional inclination of tourists, while “5” indicates the maximum emotional inclination of tourists (Table 2).

Table 2.

Subjective evaluation index.

Category	Evaluation index
Visual characteristics	Rich shapes, balanced proportions, bright colors, exquisite decorations, visual order, and architectural style
Positive emotions	Pleasant, interested, positive, exciting, intense, enthusiastic, proud, inspired, energetic
Behavioural intention	Visit again, actively promote, recommend to others

Open in a new tab

Questionnaire distribution

From July 1 to July 4 2024, questionnaires were randomly distributed in the Historic Centre of Macau. A total of 230 questionnaires were distributed, and 214 valid questionnaires were recovered. The effective questionnaire recovery rate was 93.04%.

Results

Heatmap distribution and analysis

After the eye-tracking experiment, Tobii Pro Lab software (Version 1.232.52758, available at https://www.tobii.com/) was used to organize the collected eye-movement data and generate an eye-tracking heatmap (Table 3). Heatmap visually presents the areas of interest for the subjects, as well as the duration and intensity of their attention in these areas⁵⁹. In the heatmap, the red areas indicate longer viewing times at those locations, the green areas represent shorter fixation durations, and the transparent areas signify parts that failed to capture the participants’ attention⁶⁰.

Table 3.

Heatmap of architectural heritage.

Open in a new tab

It can be roughly seen from the heatmap that, at the level of facade elements of architectural heritage, subjects paid more attention to visual elements such as windows, doors, and wall decorations, and the colours are mainly dark red and orange-red. Doors NO. A-01 and A-02 attracted the attention of the participants. NO. B-01, B-02, and C-02 show that the subjects have a higher level of attention to the roofs. At the level of architectural environmental elements, such as facilities and plants, the aspects that attract the attention of the subjects are represented in light green on the heatmap. People pay less attention to facilities D-07, surrounding buildings C-01, and plants D-08. By comparing the distribution of eye-tracking heatmaps, it can be inferred that the differences in eye-tracking heatmaps distribution arise from two aspects: on one hand, the complexity of architectural forms, and on the other hand, the influence of the proportion of architectural elements within the sample.

Preliminary screening of visual elements through eye-tracking heatmaps to identify common visual elements in heritage buildings that attract significant attention from people. These elements were selected for subsequent comparative analysis (Table 4).

Table 4.

Classification of visual elements.

Classification	Selected visual elements
Architectural heritage facade elements	Roofs, walls, windows, and doors
Elements of the built environment	Facilities, plants, and other buildings

Open in a new tab

Differences in eye-movement indicators for different visual elements

We analysed six eye-movement indicators that are closely related to architectural heritage facade elements, architectural environment elements, and subjects’ visual behaviour. The total fixation duration (TFD), fixation count (FC), first fixation time (FFD), visit count (VC) of the eye-tracking data indicated significant differences (p < 0.01), indicating that there were significant differences in the visual behaviour of visitors with respect to different visual elements of architectural heritage facades and built environments. The average fixation duration (AFD) (p < 0.05) showed that visitors had different visual responses to architectural heritage facade elements and built environment elements, and the differences were significant at the 0.05 level. The mean pupil diameter (MPD) showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) (Table 5).

Table 5.

Analysis of variance of eye-tracking metrics for different visual elements.

Index	TFD	FC	AFD	FFD	VC	MPD
p-value (sig.)	0.000**	0.000**	0.001*	0.000**	0.000**	0.349
Differences between specific elements
Roofs	0.85^be	3.08^be	0.24^c	0.26^c	1.91^bc	3.63f.
Walls	5.60^acdefg	21.25^acdefg	0.32^c	0.26^c	4.48^adefg	3.70f.
Windows	1.16^befg	3.85^bef	0.59^abefg	0.58^abefg	3.36^aefg	2.92
Doors	1.29^befg	4.11^bef	0.39^ef	0.4^efg	2.94^befg	3.05
Facilities	0.17^abcd	0.73^abcd	0.12^cd	0.13^cd	0.73^bcd	2.19
Plants	0.30^bcd	1.29^bcd	0.17^cd	0.14^cd	0.87^bcd	1.56^ab
Other buildings	0.56^bcd	2.37^b	0.18^c	0.15^cd	1.26^bcd	2.97

Open in a new tab

**Indicates p < 0.01, i.e., significant correlation at the 0.01 level; *Indicates p < 0.05, i.e., significant correlation at the 0.05 level. a: roofs; b: walls; c: windows; d: doors; e: facilities; f: plants; g: other buildings. In 0.85^be, 0.85 represents the average of the total fixation duration on roof elements, and be indicates that roof elements are significantly different from wall elements and facilities elements. Other values are interpreted in the same way.

One-way analysis of variance was used to perform pairwise comparisons of eye-tracking data on different elements of architectural heritage facades and built environments (Fig. 4). Among the architectural heritage facade elements, based on the average fixation duration (AFD), the average gaze time on windows and doors was longer than that on other visual elements. The exquisite decoration and diverse form and structure of windows and doors are more likely to attract tourists’ attention. The data of total fixation duration (TFD), fixation count (FC), and visit count (VC) were generally consistent with the results of average fixation duration (AFD), further verifying the important visual role of windows and doors in architectural heritage facade elements. Among the elements of the built environment, the facilities had the shortest first fixation time (FFD), indicating that the tourists noticed the facility elements first. This may be because the facility elements are more directly related to tourists’ behavioural activities. Therefore, the above results show that there are significant differences between different visual elements, and Hypothesis 1 is confirmed.

Fig. 4 — Visitors’ analysis of differences in different visual elements.

Correlation analysis of different visual elements, positive emotions, and behavioural intentions

In order to verify Hypothesis 2, bivariate Pearson correlation analysis was used to analyse the subjective evaluation and behavioural intention dimensions of Macau’s architectural heritage facade elements and built environment elements. The results are as follows (Table 6):

From the results in the table, it can be concluded that a total of 37 visual element evaluation items and behavioural intention dimensions show significance at the 0.01 level, while a further 4 visual element evaluation items and behavioural intention dimensions show significance at the 0.05 level.
From the perspective of visual elements of architectural heritage, among the visual elements of architectural heritage facades, roofs (0.384), walls (0.342), and windows (0.303) showed the strongest correlation with intention to recommend to others under the dimension of behavioural intention. The results indicate that people’s attention is easily drawn to the most complex part of architectural heritage. The roofs, walls, and windows constitute the most intuitive and significant visual features of the architectural heritage. For example, buildings such as the Holy House of Mercy (B-01), the Dom Pedro V Theatre (B-02), the St. Joseph’s Seminary and Church (D-05), and the St. Dominic’s Church (D-06) have triangular shapes of gable roofs and central decorative motifs that become focal points, significantly stimulating viewers’ interest. The oyster shell windows of the Lou Kau Mansion (A-02) and the flower-shaped light-transmitting windows on the facade of the Chapel of Our Lady of Guia (E-02) exhibit complex and exquisite decorative patterns, showcasing the unique charm and recognition of the architectural heritage. Among the elements of the built environment, the correlation between facilities and behavioural intention is high (0.297), which shows that complete facilities can not only meet the basic needs of tourists but also improve tourists’ experience, thereby enhancing tourists’ behavioural intentions.
From the perspective of visual evaluation indicators, proportional balance (-0.009) and rich shapes (-0.085) are negatively correlated with positive publicity under the dimension of behavioural intention. Meanwhile, bright colours, exquisite decorations, visual order, and architectural style are all positively correlated with positive publicity. Against the backdrop of a complex social environment in which Chinese and Western cultures coexist, Macau’s architectural heritage presents features such as bright colours, beautiful and exquisite decorations, and the coexistence of Chinese and Western architectural styles, giving it unique cultural attributes that are deeply loved by tourists. As a result, evaluation factors such as bright colours, exquisite decoration, visual order, and architectural style have a significant impact on tourists’ behavioural intentions.
From the analysis of positive emotional factors, nine positive emotions, such as pleasure and interest, are positively correlated with the behavioural intention dimension. This means that, in a positive emotional state, tourists are more likely to have certain behavioural intentions. Intense (0.420) and positive (0.406) have the highest correlation values with recommending to others under the behavioural intention dimension, indicating that positive emotional elements can arouse tourists’ strong behavioural intentions and make them willing to visit again, actively promote the place, and recommend it to others. There is a positive correlation between positive emotions and behavioural intentions.

Table 6.

Correlation analysis.

Visual element	No	Visual evaluation indicators	Behavioural intention
Visual element	No	Visual evaluation indicators	Visit again	Actively promote	Recommend to others
Roofs	01	Rich shapes	0.023	0.079	0.276**
	02	Balanced proportions	0.079	-0.009	0.213**
	03	Bright colours	0.186**	0.067	0.228**
	04	Exquisite decorations	0.218**	0.167*	0.244**
	05	Visual order	0.151*	0.165*	0.384**
	06	Architectural style	0.188**	0.099	0.271**
Walls	07	Rich shapes	0.093	0.135*	0.217**
	08	Balanced proportions	0.176**	0.126	0.292**
	09	Bright colours	0.155*	0.000	0.101
	10	Exquisite decorations	0.151*	0.161*	0.257**
	11	Visual order	0.210**	0.039	0.251**
	12	Architectural style	0.201**	0.034	0.342**
Windows	13	Rich shapes	0.164*	0.021	0.085
	14	Balanced proportions	0.105	0.050	0.303**
	15	Bright colours	0.103	0.063	0.167*
	16	Exquisite decorations	0.053	0.145*	0.216**
	17	Visual order	0.102	0.163*	0.218**
	18	Architectural style	0.071	0.252**	0.314**
Doors	19	Rich shapes	0.076	0.043	0.248**
	20	Balanced proportions	0.063	0.076	0.174*
	21	Bright colours	0.094	0.083	0.148*
	22	Exquisite decorations	0.104	0.188**	0.300**
	23	Visual order	0.072	0.109	0.183**
	24	Architectural style	0.248**	0.201**	0.275**
Facilities	25	Rich shapes	0.024	-0.085	0.123
	26	Balanced proportions	0.131	0.044	0.159*
	27	Bright colours	0.169*	0.059	0.191**
	28	Exquisite decorations	0.089	0.230**	0.297**
Plants	29	Visual order	0.169*	0.125	0.230**
Other buildings	30	Rich shapes	0.150*	0.120	0.268**
	31	Balanced proportions	0.111	0.138*	0.290**
	32	Bright colours	0.054	0.111	0.198**
	33	Exquisite decorations	0.228**	0.208**	0.280**
	34	Visual order	0.136*	0.185**	0.285**
	35	Architectural style	0.230**	0.187**	0.265**
Positive emotions	36	Pleasant	0.112	0.175*	0.307**
	37	Interested	0.169*	0.134*	0.254**
	38	Positive	0.256**	0.166*	0.406**
	39	Exciting	0.162*	0.253**	0.269**
	40	Intense	0.230**	0.086	0.420**
	41	Enthusiastic	0.101	0.092	0.254**
	42	Proud	0.199**	0.129	0.254**
	43	Inspired	0.257**	0.175*	0.316**
	44	Energetic	0.176**	0.250**	0.331**

Open in a new tab

**Indicates p < 0.01, i.e., significant correlation at the 0.01 level; *Indicates p < 0.05, i.e., significant correlation at the 0.05 level.

Existing research has demonstrated that cognition, emotion, and behaviour are interrelated. This study verifies this by analysing the correlation between visual attention, positive emotions, and behavioural intentions regarding architectural heritage. The results indicate that architectural visual elements (such as roofs, walls, windows, etc.) and architectural environmental elements (such as facilities) have a high correlation with behavioural intentions. In terms of positive emotions, nine positive emotions such as pleasure and interest are positively correlated with the behavioural intention dimension. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is confirmed.

Multiple linear regression analysis

In order to further verify the correlations among the visual elements of Macau’s architectural heritage facades, the visual elements of the built environment, emotional experiences, and behavioural intentions, this study used multiple linear regression analysis. The dependent variable set to “recommend others”, while the independent variables include visual elements, positive emotional elements, totalling 46 items. By analysis, the results of the multiple linear regression model (Table 7) and the data table (Table 8) were obtained.

Table 7.

Multiple linear regression model results.

Model	R	R²	Adjusted R²	Standard error of the estimate	Durbin Watson	F	p-Value
1	0.780	0.608	0.500	0.967	2.010	5.624	0.000

Open in a new tab

Table 8.

Multiple linear regression model data table.

Dependent variable	Independent variable			Unstandardized coefficient		Standardized coefficient	t	p-Value
Dependent variable	Independent variable			B	Standardized error	Beta	t	p-Value
Recommend others	Constant			− 3.429	0.532		− 6.443	0**
	Walls	Architectural style	× 1	0.165	0.066	0.169	2.505	0.013*
	Windows	Balanced proportions	× 2	0.120	0.060	0.118	2.001	0.047*
	Doors	Exquisite decorations	× 3	0.125	0.056	0.136	2.221	0.028*
	Facilities	Balanced proportions	× 4	− 0.123	0.060	− 0.122	− 2.053	0.042*
	Other buildings	Balanced proportions	× 5	0.121	0.059	0.114	2.050	0.042*
	Other buildings	Architectural style	× 6	− 0.130	0.062	− 0.133	− 2.116	0.036*
	Positive emotions	Positive	× 7	0.177	0.054	0.192	3.252	0.001**
		Intense	× 8	0.228	0.059	0.238	3.840	0**
		Enthusiastic	× 9	0.156	0.059	0.151	2.663	0.008**
	Behavioural intention	Actively promote	× 10	0.194	0.061	0.182	3.167	0.002**

Open in a new tab

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

From the results of the overall regression model in the table above, we can observe the following:

F = 5.624, p = 0 0.000 < 0.01, indicating the significance of the model at the 0.01 level. The model passed the F test, the overall relationship with the dependent variable was linear, and the model was established.
The adjusted R² value was 0.500, which means that 46 influencing factors can explain 50% of the changes in visual behavioural intention; that is, 50% of the behavioural intention is caused by these 46 influencing factors, and the model fits well.
Durbin–Watson (D-W value) = 2.010, close to 2, indicating that no autocorrelation occurs and that the data conform to independence.

Based on the significance and correlation coefficients of the independent and dependent variables, the study found that:

From the perspective of visual elements of architectural heritage and visual evaluation criteria, the six significant visual elements primarily focus on the evaluation indicators of proportional balance and architectural style. Specifically, the architectural style of the walls (p = 0.013 < 0.05, b = 0.165), the proportional balance of the windows (p = 0.047 < 0.05, b = 0.120), and the proportional balance of other buildings (p = 0.042 < 0.05, b = 0.121) all show a positive correlation with behavioural intention at the 0.05 significance level. The proportional balance of facilities (p = 0.042 < 0.05, b = − 0.123 < 0) and the architectural style of other buildings (p = 0.036 < 0.05, b = − 0.130 < 0) are negatively correlated with behavioural intentions.
From the perspective of positive emotional factors, the elements of positivity, enthusiasm, and intensity all have p-values less than 0.01, indicating a significant positive relationship between these positive emotions and behavioural intentions. This means that when visitors experience positive emotions, they are more likely to exhibit positive behavioural intentions, thereby validating the important role of emotions in tourists’ decision-making processes.

Through regression analysis, the study found that visual elements of architectural heritage, such as the architectural style of walls and the proportional balance of windows, among 6 evaluation indicators, have a significant impact on behavioural intentions. Moreover, the three emotional elements of “positive,” “enthusiastic,” and “intense” within positive emotions also influence people’s behavioural intentions. Therefore, it can be concluded that the visual elements of architectural heritage and positive emotions influence behavioural intentions, thereby supporting the validity of Hypothesis 3.

Discussion

This study reveals the relationship among visual perception, positive emotions, and behavioural intentions associated with visual elements of architectural heritage. First, the eye-movement indicators that characterize the observation process are comprehensively explained. Through the visual behaviour analysis of architectural heritage facade elements and built environment elements, the question of what tourists specifically “see” in architectural heritage is revealed. Secondly, based on eye-tracking experimental data combined with questionnaires, the correlation and influencing factors among visual elements of architectural heritage and built environment, active interest, and behavioural intention are analysed.

Different visual elements are subject to different visual behaviours

It has been confirmed that facade elements and built environment elements of architectural heritage have a significant impact on tourists’ visual behavior^61–63. Our research further revealed that tourists have higher levels of visual perception of doors, windows, and other architectural elements of architectural heritage. In terms of door design, the round-arched doors of buildings such as the Headquarters of the Orient Foundation (A-01) have garnered significant attention. This is likely due to their central position on the facade, which gives them a dominant presence. In terms of window decorations, the St. Joseph’s Seminary and Church (D-05) features scroll motifs as a decorative theme, while the windows of the St. Lawrence’s Church (D-08) incorporate Baroque curvilinear gables adorned with scrolls and leaf patterns which reflects that in architectural heritage, highly decorative and expressive elements tend to capture the attention of visitors. These findings are consistent with previous research results, indicating that visual attention is attracted to spatial elements with unique features, and that complex design elements enhance the aesthetic appeal of architectural heritage and promote conservation intentions^64,65^. Therefore, these visually focal areas can serve as the basis for judgment when assessing the protection of architectural features.

Based on the results of the time to first fixation (FFD), we found that, among built environment elements, facilities can quickly attract visitors’ attention. As an important carrier of tourist destinations, facilities have a significant impact on tourists’ visual perception. For example, comfortable seating facilities or convenient navigation facilities can quickly attract visitors’ attention, thereby enhancing their overall perception of an architectural heritage site. Therefore, it is necessary to comprehensively consider the synergy of architectural heritage facade elements and built environment elements in order to enhance tourists’ visiting experience and effectively disseminate and promote the historical and cultural connotations of heritage sites.

There is a relationship between visual elements, emotional perception, and behavioural intention

Relevant research has shown that the visual perception, emotional perception, and behavioural intention associated with heritage sites are related, and tourists’ visual perception of heritage sites and positive emotions affect their behavioural intentions^66–69. The results of this study also confirm this view, finding that complex graphics on the facades of architectural heritage buildings and elements on the centre line of the building facades tend to attract more visual attention. This is because the human brain tends to understand visible details and the centre area of visual attention. When people are attracted by the visual aesthetics of architectural heritage sites and have positive emotions such as pleasure and excitement, they are more likely to have positive behavioural intentions. Through psychological and neuroscientific research on the visual preferences and emotional perceptions of architectural heritage, it is possible to provide tourists with more engaging and emotionally resonant travel experiences, while further shaping the future of tourist destinations⁷⁰.

Among the visual evaluation indicators, architectural style, exquisite decoration, and proportional coordination are relevant to public behaviour. These elements are the embodiment of the unique charm of heritage sites and can trigger positive emotions among tourists and promote deeper participation and experience. At the same time, we also found that the architectural style of other buildings negatively affects the public’s behavioural intentions. This finding reminds us that, when protecting and developing heritage sites, we should fully consider the consistency and coordination of the overall architectural style in order to create a tourism environment that meets tourists’ expectations. In terms of positive emotions, factors such as positivity, intensity, and enthusiasm significantly affect behavioural intentions, indicating that positive emotions can stimulate tourists’ willingness to participate and their motivation for action, making them more willing to invest time in experiencing the charm of heritage sites. Therefore, an in-depth understanding of tourists’ preferences can create a more accepting environment for heritage site tourism, improve tourists’ satisfaction and loyalty, and thereby promote the living inheritance and sustainable development of architectural heritage.

The application of eye-tracking technology in the tourism industry and heritage conservation

Previous research on tourists’ emotional experiences and heritage conservation primarily employed subjective methods such as surveys and interviews. This study overcomes the limitations of these methods through eye-tracking technology and subjective questionnaires. First, the study utilizes eye-tracking metrics (TFD, FC, AFD, FFD, VC, and MPD) to conduct a one-way analysis of variance. The results indicate that these indicators demonstrate good performance in distinguishing significant differences in visual attention among elements of architectural heritage. This finding supports the eye movement-mind hypothesis, indicating that eye-tracking technology can effectively predict the visual behaviour characteristics of visitors during their exploration of architectural heritage⁷¹. Secondly, a comprehensive analysis method that combines eye-tracking experiments with subjective questionnaire ratings will further explore tourists’ aesthetic perception and emotional evaluation of the visual elements of architectural heritage. The subjective questionnaire corroborated the eye movement data and revealed that the differences in eye movement data are attributed to the considerable aesthetic value of architectural heritage. Overall, this study not only enriches the understanding of tourists’ emotional experiences but also provides new research perspectives and application potential for the fields of cultural tourism and heritage conservation.

Research limitations

This study has certain limitations. This study uses a combination of eye-tracking technology and subjective evaluation questionnaires to explore the impact of visual perception of architectural heritage and emotion on behavioural intention. However, visual perception of architectural heritage is a complex phenomenon, which not only involves to the evaluation of the objective artistic form of architectural heritage, but also includes the subjective cultural value and aesthetic experience generated by individuals during the experience process. It is difficult to fully describe the real visual perception experience of tourists by relying solely on eye movement data. Future research can combine physiological indicators (such as EEG, fMRI, etc.) and qualitative interviews to explore the neural mechanisms and cognitive basis of tourists’ perception of architectural heritage more comprehensively.

In addition, this research focused on the impact of the environment on visual perceptions and emotions, but we did not evaluate the potential impact of real-life conditions on public preferences, such as the purpose of travel, number of tourists, transportation methods, accessibility, and other factors, which may also affect people’s opinions and perceptions of architectural heritage. These factors should also be taken into consideration and combined with tourists’ travel purposes and behavioural processes to form a more comprehensive and accurate evaluation framework, which could be further improved in future research.

Conclusions

This study integrates visual perception and psychological analysis, providing new insights for the protection of architectural heritage and the optimization of tourism experiences by combining eye-tracking technology with subjective evaluation methods. Eye-tracking experiments effectively simulate the experiential environment of tourists in real scenarios. Through eye movement data, this study provides an in-depth understanding of tourists’ visual perception preferences during the process of converting external imagery into internal mental imagery. This analysis helps to clearly articulate the changes in tourists’ visual perception and emotions regarding the architectural heritage of tourist destinations. In addition, by combining the subjective feedback collected from the questionnaire survey, further analysis of the differences in tourist behavior and the underlying psychological mechanisms will be conducted.

The results of this study provide a more scientific basis for the protection, utilization, and transmission of architectural heritage in Macau. This research employs eye-tracking technology and the SD method to discuss the relationship between visual elements of architectural heritage and the built environment, positive emotions, and behavioural intentions from visitors’ perspectives. The findings indicate significant differences in eye-tracking metrics among various visual elements of architectural heritage and the built environment, including total fixation duration (TFD), fixation count (FC), first fixation duration (FFD), and visit count (VC). Among the architectural heritage facade elements, windows and doors were the most visually important, while among the built environment elements, facilities had the highest visual appeal. The study combines objective experiments with subjective perception to explore which specific elements influence people’s overall experience of architectural heritage. By identifying these key elements, practitioners in heritage conservation can determine which aspects should be preserved or enhanced to ensure sustainability. Additionally, based on the impact of these elements on the experience, the prioritization of conservation and improvement efforts can be refined. Elements that negatively affect perception should be prioritized for improvement.

This study expands the application value of eye-tracking technology in the research of architectural heritage tourism and emotions, with significant potential value at the practical level. By combining eye-tracking technology with subjective evaluation, the study verifies that emotions play an important role in the tourism experience. Specifically, tourists often experience strong emotional responses when viewing different visual elements of architectural heritage. These emotional responses are a crucial component of tourists’ travel experiences and directly influence their emotional attachment to heritage sites and subsequent behavioural intentions. The results provide valuable suggestions for policymakers to help them enhance tourists’ memorable tourism experiences while protecting cultural heritage. By identifying which architectural heritage elements can inspire positive emotions in tourists and carrying out special maintenance or restoration of these elements and their corresponding areas to maintain their original visual beauty, the attractiveness and competitiveness of cultural heritage tourism destinations can be enhanced.

Acknowledgements

The author expresses gratitude to Professor Junling Zhou of Guangdong Polytechnic Normal University for guidance on this paper, as well as to Dr. Hao Fu of the City University of Macau for his technical support and assistance in the experimental activities.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, validation, X.L.; investigation, resources, data curation, writing-original draft preparation, writing-review and editing, visualization, X.L., P.W. and J.L.; supervision, project administration, L.L.; funding acquisition, P.W. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by China National Arts Fund Artistic Talent Training Project, 2024-A-05-110-622, The Science and Technology Development Fund of the Macao Special Administrative Region, 0036/2022/A, Anhui Province Philosophy and Social Science Planning Youth Project, AHSKQ2021D178, Humanities and Social Sciences Research in Anhui Province Universities, SK2021A0707, Suzhou University’s 2021 Doctoral Research Launch Fund Project, 2021BSK027, Anhui Province Excellent Young Teacher Training Project, YQYB2023049.

Data availability

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

1.Timothy, D. J. Contemporary cultural heritage and tourism: Development issues and emerging trends. Public Archaeol.13(1–3), 30–47 (2014). [Google Scholar]
2.Bak, S., Min, C. K. & Roh, T. S. Impacts of UNESCO-listed tangible and intangible heritages on tourism. J. Travel Tour. Mark.36(8), 917–927 (2019). [Google Scholar]
3.Cai, Z., Fang, C., Zhang, Q. & Chen, F. Joint development of cultural heritage protection and tourism: The Case of Mount Lushan cultural landscape heritage site. Heritage Sci.9(1), 86. 10.1186/s40494-021-00558-5 (2021). [Google Scholar]
4.Lak, A., Gheitasi, M. & Timothy, D. J. Urban regeneration through heritage tourism: Cultural policies and strategic management. J. Tour. Cult. Chang.18(4), 386–403. 10.1080/14766825.2019.1668002 (2020). [Google Scholar]
5.Wang, R., Liu, G., Zhou, J. & Wang, J. Identifying the critical stakeholders for the sustainable development of architectural heritage of tourism: From the perspective of China. Sustainability11(6), 1671 (2019). [Google Scholar]
6.Landorf, C. Managing for sustainable tourism: A review of six cultural World Heritage Sites. J. Sustain. Tour.17(1), 53–70 (2009). [Google Scholar]
7.Graham, J., North, L. A. & Huijbens, E. H. Using mobile eye-tracking to inform the development of nature tourism destinations in Iceland. In Eye Tracking in Tourism (eds Rainoldi, M. & Jooss, M.) 201–224 (Springer International Publishing, 2020). [Google Scholar]
8.Najd, M. D., Ismail, N. A., Maulan, S., Yunos, M. Y. M. & Niya, M. D. Visual preference dimensions of historic urban areas: The determinants for urban heritage conservation. Habitat Int.49, 115–125 (2015). [Google Scholar]
9.Li, Y. et al. Evaluating tourist perceptions of architectural heritage values at a World Heritage Site in South-East China: The case of Gulangyu Island. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.60, 127–140 (2024). [Google Scholar]
10.Grossi, E., Tavano Blessi, G. & Sacco, P. L. Magic moments: Determinants of stress relief and subjective wellbeing from visiting a cultural heritage site. Cult. Med. Psychiatry43(1), 4–24 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Royo Vela, M. & Garzón Paredes, A. Effects of heritage on destination image: Multi-method research based on an appraisal approach to emotional response in-situ. J. Heritage Tour.18(4), 531–555 (2023). [Google Scholar]
12.Ren, J. Y. Landscape visual evaluation and place attachment in historical and cultural districts: A study based on semantic differential scale and eye tracking experimental methods. Multim. Syst.30(5), 306 (2024). [Google Scholar]
13.Lee, Y. J., Tsai, I. Y. & Chang, T. Y. Exploring tourist behavior in a reused heritage site. J. Hosp. Tour. Res.47(6), 1071–1088 (2023). [Google Scholar]
14.Lucifora, C., Schembri, M., Poggi, F., Grasso, G. M. & Gangemi, A. Virtual reality supports perspective taking in cultural heritage interpretation. Comput. Hum. Behav.148, 107911 (2023). [Google Scholar]
15.Karran, A. J., Fairclough, S. H. & Gilleade, K. A framework for psychophysiological classification within a cultural heritage context using interest. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. (TOCHI)21(6), 1–19 (2015). [Google Scholar]
16.Su, D. N., Nguyen, N. A. N., Nguyen, Q. N. T. & Tran, T. P. The link between travel motivation and satisfaction towards a heritage destination: The role of visitor engagement, visitor experience and heritage destination image. Tour. Manag. Perspect.34, 100634 (2020). [Google Scholar]
17.Marín-Morales, J. et al. Affective computing in virtual reality: emotion recognition from brain and heartbeat dynamics using wearable sensors. Sci. Rep.8(1), 13657 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Zoëga Ramsøy, T., Michael, N. & Michael, I. A consumer neuroscience study of conscious and subconscious destination preference. Sci. Rep.9(1), 15102 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Meng, W. A. N. G. & Junyi, L. I. The influence of the landscape of historical and cultural blocks on tourists’ emotion and behavioral intentions—Taking Xi’an historical and cultural blocks as an example. J. Southwest Univ. Nat. Sci. Edn.43(10), 146–153 (2021). [Google Scholar]
20.Rusnak, M. 2D and 3D representation of objects in architectural and heritage studies: In search of gaze pattern similarities. Heritage Sci.10(1), 86 (2022). [Google Scholar]
21.Li, S., Scott, N. & Walters, G. Current and potential methods for measuring emotion in tourism experiences: A review. Curr. Issues Tour.18(9), 805–827 (2015). [Google Scholar]
22.Škola, F. et al. Virtual reality with 360-video storytelling in cultural heritage: Study of presence, engagement, and immersion. Sensors20(20), 5851 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Hoare, J. The practice and potential of heritage emotion research: An experimental mixed-methods approach to investigating affect and emotion in a historic house. Int. J. Heritage Stud.26(10), 955–974 (2020). [Google Scholar]
24.Wang, S. et al. Urban cultural heritage is mentally restorative: An experimental study based on multiple psychophysiological measures. Front. Psychol.14, 1132052 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Scott, N., Zhang, R., Le, D. & Moyle, B. A review of eye-tracking research in tourism. Curr. Issues Tour.22(10), 1244–1261 (2019). [Google Scholar]
26.Qin, Z., Tan, M., Zhang, W. & Wang, Y. Visual perception and emotional experience of tourist towards the landscape of historical and cultural blocks: Case of Dazhao in Hohhot. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ.07, 201–208 (2024). [Google Scholar]
27.Bian, W., Li, J., Zhao, R., Wu, X. & Wu, W. Establishment and saliency verification of a visual translation method for cultural elements of high-speed railways: A case study of the BZ railway line. Appl. Sci.12(17), 8520 (2022). [Google Scholar]
28.Liu, M. T., Liu, Y., Mo, Z. & Ng, K. L. Using text mining to track changes in travel destination image: The case of Macau. Asia Pac. J. Market. Logist.33(2), 371–393 (2021). [Google Scholar]
29.Rusnak, M. Eye-tracking support for architects, conservators, and museologists. Anastylosis as pretext for research and discussion. Heritage Sci.9, 1–19 (2021). [Google Scholar]
30.Yan, L., Li, Q., Zhang, Y. & Zhu, C. Computer vision quantization research on the architectural color of Avenida de Almeida Ribeiro in Macau based on the human eye perspective. Front. Computat. Neurosci.16, 951718 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Xing, Y., Xiao, Y. & Luo, Y. Integrating restoration and interactive exploration to enhance cultural heritage through VR storytelling. Sci. Rep.14(1), 21194 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Higuera-Trujillo, J. L., Llinares, C. & Macagno, E. The cognitive-emotional design and study of architectural space: A scoping review of neuroarchitecture and its precursor approaches. Sensors21(6), 2193 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Li, N., Zhang, S., Xia, L. & Wu, Y. Investigating the visual behavior characteristics of architectural heritage using eye-tracking. Buildings12(7), 1058 (2022). [Google Scholar]
34.Wang, P., Song, W., Zhou, J., Tan, Y. & Wang, H. AI-Based environmental color system in achieving sustainable urban development. Systems11(3), 135 (2023). [Google Scholar]
35.Yu, X. & Xu, H. Cultural heritage elements in tourism: A tier structure from a tripartite analytical framework. J. Destinat. Market. Manag.13, 39–50 (2019). [Google Scholar]
36.Ren, H., Cheng, L., Zhang, J. & Wang, Q. Eye-tracking investigation of emotional feedback to southern Hebei courtyard gates. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.10.1080/13467581.2024.2407589 (2024). [Google Scholar]
37.Xing, Y. & Leng, J. Evaluation of public space in traditional villages based on eye tracking technology. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.23(1), 125–139 (2024). [Google Scholar]
38.Shen, M., Xie, Y., Fujii, Y. & Furuya, N. Analyzing spatial visual characteristics in Japanese stroll gardens based on eye-tracking technology: Case study of Saihō-ji Garden. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.23(1), 140–156 (2024). [Google Scholar]
39.Kang, N. & Liu, C. Assessment of visual quality and social perception of cultural landscapes: Application to Anyi traditional villages, China. Heritage Sci.12(1), 235 (2024). [Google Scholar]
40.Motevalian, N. & Yeganeh, M. Visually meaningful sustainability in national monuments as an international heritage. Sustain. Cities Soc.60, 102207 (2020). [Google Scholar]
41.Pierdicca, R., Paolanti, M., Quattrini, R., Mameli, M. & Frontoni, E. A visual attentive model for discovering patterns in eye-tracking data—a proposal in cultural heritage. Sensors20(7), 2101 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Subramanian, R., Shankar, D., Sebe, N. & Melcher, D. Emotion modulates eye movement patterns and subsequent memory for the gist and details of movie scenes. J. Vis.14(3), 31–31 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Granholm, E. E. & Steinhauer, S. R. Pupillometric measures of cognitive and emotional processes. Int. J. Psychophysiol.10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2003.12.001 (2004). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Tufail, M. et al. How do visitors perceive the significance of tangible cultural heritage through a 3D reconstructed immersive visual experience at the Seokguram Grotto, South Korea?. J. Heritage Tour.17(4), 409–430 (2022). [Google Scholar]
45.Doğan, H. A. Improvement of the cultural heritage perception potential model by the usage of eye-tracking technology. J. Cult. Heritage Manag. Sustain. Dev.12(4), 321–344 (2022). [Google Scholar]
46.Katahenggam, N. Tourist perceptions and preferences of authenticity in heritage tourism: Visual comparative study of George Town and Singapore. J. Tour. Cult. Change18(4), 371–385 (2020). [Google Scholar]
47.Ye, F., Yin, M., Cao, L., Sun, S. & Wang, X. Predicting emotional experiences through eye-tracking: A study of tourists’ responses to traditional village landscapes. Sensors24(14), 4459 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Zhang, R., Duan, W. & Zheng, Z. Multimodal quantitative research on the emotional attachment characteristics between people and the built environment based on the immersive VR eye-tracking experiment. Land13(1), 52 (2024). [Google Scholar]
49.Emo, B. Choice zones: Architecturally relevant areas of interest. Spatial Cogn. Computat.18(3), 173–193 (2018). [Google Scholar]
50.Back, K. W., Bunker, S., & Dunnagan, C. B. Barriers to communication and measurement of semantic space. Sociometry 347–356 (1972).
51.Xu, X., Dong, R., Li, Z., Jiang, Y. & Genovese, P. V. Research on visual experience evaluation of fortress heritage landscape by integrating SBE–SD method and eye movement analysis. Heritage Sci.12(1), 281 (2024). [Google Scholar]
52.Wu, Y. et al. Visual attention predictive model of built colonial heritage based on visual behaviour and subjective evaluation. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun.10(1), 1–17 (2023). [Google Scholar]
53.Watson, D., Clark, L. A. & Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.54(6), 1063 (1988). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Liu, J. D., You, R. H., Liu, H. & Chung, P. K. Chinese version of the international positive and negative affect schedule short form: Factor structure and measurement invariance. Health Qual. Life Outcomes18, 1–8 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Prayag, G. & Del Chiappa, G. Nostalgic feelings: Motivation, positive and negative emotions, and authenticity at heritage sites. J. Heritage Tour.18(3), 349–364 (2023). [Google Scholar]
56.Prayag, G., Alrawadieh, Z. & Alrawadieh, Z. Motivation, emotion and world heritage status in discerning the heritage tourists: A segmentation perspective. Tour. Manag. Perspect.40, 100906 (2021). [Google Scholar]
57.Li, M. & Cai, L. A. The effects of personal values on travel motivation and behavioral intention. J. Travel Res.51(4), 473–487 (2012). [Google Scholar]
58.Darvishmotevali, M., Tajeddini, K. & Altinay, L. Experiential festival attributes, perceived value, cultural exploration, and behavioral intentions to visit a food festival. J. Convent. Event Tour.24(1), 57–86 (2023). [Google Scholar]
59.Hao, S. et al. Visual behavior characteristics of historical landscapes based on eye-tracking technology. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.10.1080/13467581.2024.2306361 (2024). [Google Scholar]
60.Zheng, J., Huang, Y., Chen, Y., Guan, L. & Liu, Q. Subjective preference and visual attention to the attributes of Ornamental Plants in urban green space: An eye-tracking study. Forests13(11), 1871 (2022). [Google Scholar]
61.Wu, H. C. & Li, T. An empirical study of the effects of service quality, visitor satisfaction, and emotions on behavioral intentions of visitors to the museums of Macau. J. Qual. Assurance Hosp. Tour.16(1), 80–102 (2015). [Google Scholar]
62.Liu, Y. et al. A study on identifying the spatial characteristic factors of traditional streets based on visitor perception: Yuanjia Village, Shaanxi Province. Buildings14(6), 1815 (2024). [Google Scholar]
63.Sadeghifar, M., Pazhouhanfar, M. & Farrokhzad, M. An exploration of the relationships between urban building façade visual elements and people’s preferences in the city of Gorgan, Iran. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag.15(6), 445–458 (2019). [Google Scholar]
64.Cao, Z., Mustafa, M., Mohd Isa, M. H. & Mao, Y. Collision of tradition and visual perception: Aesthetic evaluation and conservation intent in adapting traditional Chinese gates within architectural heritage. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.10.1080/13467581.2024.2428273 (2024). [Google Scholar]
65.Li, Y., Zhao, L., Huang, J. & Law, A. Research frameworks, methodologies, and assessment methods concerning the adaptive reuse of architectural heritage: A review. Built Heritage5, 1–19 (2021). [Google Scholar]
66.Xu, G., Zhong, L., Wu, F., Zhang, Y. & Zhang, Z. Impacts of micro-scale built environment features on tourists’ walking behaviors in historic streets: Insights from Wudaoying Hutong, China. Buildings12(12), 2248 (2022). [Google Scholar]
67.Cao, Z., Mustafa, M., & Mohd Isa, M. H. The role of artistic quality in a heritage architectural style in modulating tourist interest and aesthetic pleasure: a case study of Hui-style architecture in the Hongcun Scenic Area, China. J. Heritage Tour. 1–23 (2024).
68.Palau-Saumell, R., Forgas-Coll, S., Sánchez-García, J. & Prats-Planagumà, L. Tourist behavior intentions and the moderator effect of knowledge of UNESCO World Heritage Sites: The case of La Sagrada Família. J. Travel Res.52(3), 364–376 (2013). [Google Scholar]
69.Tao, H., Peiying, S., Huihui, W. & Jiamin, F. How do affective and cognitive involvement affect tourism intentions: A perspective on blogger impact. Curr. Issues Tour.10.1080/13683500.2024.2392763 (2024). [Google Scholar]
70.Cardoso, L. & Fraga, C. Shaping the future of destinations: New clues to smart tourism research from a neuroscience methods approach. Admin. Sci.14(6), 106 (2024). [Google Scholar]
71.Rahn, J., Jaudas, A. & Achtziger, A. To plan or not to plan—mindset effects on visual attention in decision making. J. Neurosci. Psychol. Econ.9(2), 109 (2016). [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

[CR1] 1.Timothy, D. J. Contemporary cultural heritage and tourism: Development issues and emerging trends. Public Archaeol.13(1–3), 30–47 (2014). [Google Scholar]

[CR2] 2.Bak, S., Min, C. K. & Roh, T. S. Impacts of UNESCO-listed tangible and intangible heritages on tourism. J. Travel Tour. Mark.36(8), 917–927 (2019). [Google Scholar]

[CR3] 3.Cai, Z., Fang, C., Zhang, Q. & Chen, F. Joint development of cultural heritage protection and tourism: The Case of Mount Lushan cultural landscape heritage site. Heritage Sci.9(1), 86. 10.1186/s40494-021-00558-5 (2021). [Google Scholar]

[CR4] 4.Lak, A., Gheitasi, M. & Timothy, D. J. Urban regeneration through heritage tourism: Cultural policies and strategic management. J. Tour. Cult. Chang.18(4), 386–403. 10.1080/14766825.2019.1668002 (2020). [Google Scholar]

[CR5] 5.Wang, R., Liu, G., Zhou, J. & Wang, J. Identifying the critical stakeholders for the sustainable development of architectural heritage of tourism: From the perspective of China. Sustainability11(6), 1671 (2019). [Google Scholar]

[CR6] 6.Landorf, C. Managing for sustainable tourism: A review of six cultural World Heritage Sites. J. Sustain. Tour.17(1), 53–70 (2009). [Google Scholar]

[CR7] 7.Graham, J., North, L. A. & Huijbens, E. H. Using mobile eye-tracking to inform the development of nature tourism destinations in Iceland. In Eye Tracking in Tourism (eds Rainoldi, M. & Jooss, M.) 201–224 (Springer International Publishing, 2020). [Google Scholar]

[CR8] 8.Najd, M. D., Ismail, N. A., Maulan, S., Yunos, M. Y. M. & Niya, M. D. Visual preference dimensions of historic urban areas: The determinants for urban heritage conservation. Habitat Int.49, 115–125 (2015). [Google Scholar]

[CR9] 9.Li, Y. et al. Evaluating tourist perceptions of architectural heritage values at a World Heritage Site in South-East China: The case of Gulangyu Island. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.60, 127–140 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR10] 10.Grossi, E., Tavano Blessi, G. & Sacco, P. L. Magic moments: Determinants of stress relief and subjective wellbeing from visiting a cultural heritage site. Cult. Med. Psychiatry43(1), 4–24 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR11] 11.Royo Vela, M. & Garzón Paredes, A. Effects of heritage on destination image: Multi-method research based on an appraisal approach to emotional response in-situ. J. Heritage Tour.18(4), 531–555 (2023). [Google Scholar]

[CR12] 12.Ren, J. Y. Landscape visual evaluation and place attachment in historical and cultural districts: A study based on semantic differential scale and eye tracking experimental methods. Multim. Syst.30(5), 306 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR13] 13.Lee, Y. J., Tsai, I. Y. & Chang, T. Y. Exploring tourist behavior in a reused heritage site. J. Hosp. Tour. Res.47(6), 1071–1088 (2023). [Google Scholar]

[CR14] 14.Lucifora, C., Schembri, M., Poggi, F., Grasso, G. M. & Gangemi, A. Virtual reality supports perspective taking in cultural heritage interpretation. Comput. Hum. Behav.148, 107911 (2023). [Google Scholar]

[CR15] 15.Karran, A. J., Fairclough, S. H. & Gilleade, K. A framework for psychophysiological classification within a cultural heritage context using interest. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. (TOCHI)21(6), 1–19 (2015). [Google Scholar]

[CR16] 16.Su, D. N., Nguyen, N. A. N., Nguyen, Q. N. T. & Tran, T. P. The link between travel motivation and satisfaction towards a heritage destination: The role of visitor engagement, visitor experience and heritage destination image. Tour. Manag. Perspect.34, 100634 (2020). [Google Scholar]

[CR17] 17.Marín-Morales, J. et al. Affective computing in virtual reality: emotion recognition from brain and heartbeat dynamics using wearable sensors. Sci. Rep.8(1), 13657 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR18] 18.Zoëga Ramsøy, T., Michael, N. & Michael, I. A consumer neuroscience study of conscious and subconscious destination preference. Sci. Rep.9(1), 15102 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR19] 19.Meng, W. A. N. G. & Junyi, L. I. The influence of the landscape of historical and cultural blocks on tourists’ emotion and behavioral intentions—Taking Xi’an historical and cultural blocks as an example. J. Southwest Univ. Nat. Sci. Edn.43(10), 146–153 (2021). [Google Scholar]

[CR20] 20.Rusnak, M. 2D and 3D representation of objects in architectural and heritage studies: In search of gaze pattern similarities. Heritage Sci.10(1), 86 (2022). [Google Scholar]

[CR21] 21.Li, S., Scott, N. & Walters, G. Current and potential methods for measuring emotion in tourism experiences: A review. Curr. Issues Tour.18(9), 805–827 (2015). [Google Scholar]

[CR22] 22.Škola, F. et al. Virtual reality with 360-video storytelling in cultural heritage: Study of presence, engagement, and immersion. Sensors20(20), 5851 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR23] 23.Hoare, J. The practice and potential of heritage emotion research: An experimental mixed-methods approach to investigating affect and emotion in a historic house. Int. J. Heritage Stud.26(10), 955–974 (2020). [Google Scholar]

[CR24] 24.Wang, S. et al. Urban cultural heritage is mentally restorative: An experimental study based on multiple psychophysiological measures. Front. Psychol.14, 1132052 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR25] 25.Scott, N., Zhang, R., Le, D. & Moyle, B. A review of eye-tracking research in tourism. Curr. Issues Tour.22(10), 1244–1261 (2019). [Google Scholar]

[CR26] 26.Qin, Z., Tan, M., Zhang, W. & Wang, Y. Visual perception and emotional experience of tourist towards the landscape of historical and cultural blocks: Case of Dazhao in Hohhot. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ.07, 201–208 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR27] 27.Bian, W., Li, J., Zhao, R., Wu, X. & Wu, W. Establishment and saliency verification of a visual translation method for cultural elements of high-speed railways: A case study of the BZ railway line. Appl. Sci.12(17), 8520 (2022). [Google Scholar]

[CR28] 28.Liu, M. T., Liu, Y., Mo, Z. & Ng, K. L. Using text mining to track changes in travel destination image: The case of Macau. Asia Pac. J. Market. Logist.33(2), 371–393 (2021). [Google Scholar]

[CR29] 29.Rusnak, M. Eye-tracking support for architects, conservators, and museologists. Anastylosis as pretext for research and discussion. Heritage Sci.9, 1–19 (2021). [Google Scholar]

[CR30] 30.Yan, L., Li, Q., Zhang, Y. & Zhu, C. Computer vision quantization research on the architectural color of Avenida de Almeida Ribeiro in Macau based on the human eye perspective. Front. Computat. Neurosci.16, 951718 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR31] 31.Xing, Y., Xiao, Y. & Luo, Y. Integrating restoration and interactive exploration to enhance cultural heritage through VR storytelling. Sci. Rep.14(1), 21194 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR32] 32.Higuera-Trujillo, J. L., Llinares, C. & Macagno, E. The cognitive-emotional design and study of architectural space: A scoping review of neuroarchitecture and its precursor approaches. Sensors21(6), 2193 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR33] 33.Li, N., Zhang, S., Xia, L. & Wu, Y. Investigating the visual behavior characteristics of architectural heritage using eye-tracking. Buildings12(7), 1058 (2022). [Google Scholar]

[CR34] 34.Wang, P., Song, W., Zhou, J., Tan, Y. & Wang, H. AI-Based environmental color system in achieving sustainable urban development. Systems11(3), 135 (2023). [Google Scholar]

[CR35] 35.Yu, X. & Xu, H. Cultural heritage elements in tourism: A tier structure from a tripartite analytical framework. J. Destinat. Market. Manag.13, 39–50 (2019). [Google Scholar]

[CR36] 36.Ren, H., Cheng, L., Zhang, J. & Wang, Q. Eye-tracking investigation of emotional feedback to southern Hebei courtyard gates. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.10.1080/13467581.2024.2407589 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR37] 37.Xing, Y. & Leng, J. Evaluation of public space in traditional villages based on eye tracking technology. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.23(1), 125–139 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR38] 38.Shen, M., Xie, Y., Fujii, Y. & Furuya, N. Analyzing spatial visual characteristics in Japanese stroll gardens based on eye-tracking technology: Case study of Saihō-ji Garden. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.23(1), 140–156 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR39] 39.Kang, N. & Liu, C. Assessment of visual quality and social perception of cultural landscapes: Application to Anyi traditional villages, China. Heritage Sci.12(1), 235 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR40] 40.Motevalian, N. & Yeganeh, M. Visually meaningful sustainability in national monuments as an international heritage. Sustain. Cities Soc.60, 102207 (2020). [Google Scholar]

[CR41] 41.Pierdicca, R., Paolanti, M., Quattrini, R., Mameli, M. & Frontoni, E. A visual attentive model for discovering patterns in eye-tracking data—a proposal in cultural heritage. Sensors20(7), 2101 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR42] 42.Subramanian, R., Shankar, D., Sebe, N. & Melcher, D. Emotion modulates eye movement patterns and subsequent memory for the gist and details of movie scenes. J. Vis.14(3), 31–31 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR43] 43.Granholm, E. E. & Steinhauer, S. R. Pupillometric measures of cognitive and emotional processes. Int. J. Psychophysiol.10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2003.12.001 (2004). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR44] 44.Tufail, M. et al. How do visitors perceive the significance of tangible cultural heritage through a 3D reconstructed immersive visual experience at the Seokguram Grotto, South Korea?. J. Heritage Tour.17(4), 409–430 (2022). [Google Scholar]

[CR45] 45.Doğan, H. A. Improvement of the cultural heritage perception potential model by the usage of eye-tracking technology. J. Cult. Heritage Manag. Sustain. Dev.12(4), 321–344 (2022). [Google Scholar]

[CR46] 46.Katahenggam, N. Tourist perceptions and preferences of authenticity in heritage tourism: Visual comparative study of George Town and Singapore. J. Tour. Cult. Change18(4), 371–385 (2020). [Google Scholar]

[CR47] 47.Ye, F., Yin, M., Cao, L., Sun, S. & Wang, X. Predicting emotional experiences through eye-tracking: A study of tourists’ responses to traditional village landscapes. Sensors24(14), 4459 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR48] 48.Zhang, R., Duan, W. & Zheng, Z. Multimodal quantitative research on the emotional attachment characteristics between people and the built environment based on the immersive VR eye-tracking experiment. Land13(1), 52 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR49] 49.Emo, B. Choice zones: Architecturally relevant areas of interest. Spatial Cogn. Computat.18(3), 173–193 (2018). [Google Scholar]

[CR50] 50.Back, K. W., Bunker, S., & Dunnagan, C. B. Barriers to communication and measurement of semantic space. Sociometry 347–356 (1972).

[CR51] 51.Xu, X., Dong, R., Li, Z., Jiang, Y. & Genovese, P. V. Research on visual experience evaluation of fortress heritage landscape by integrating SBE–SD method and eye movement analysis. Heritage Sci.12(1), 281 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR52] 52.Wu, Y. et al. Visual attention predictive model of built colonial heritage based on visual behaviour and subjective evaluation. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun.10(1), 1–17 (2023). [Google Scholar]

[CR53] 53.Watson, D., Clark, L. A. & Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.54(6), 1063 (1988). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR54] 54.Liu, J. D., You, R. H., Liu, H. & Chung, P. K. Chinese version of the international positive and negative affect schedule short form: Factor structure and measurement invariance. Health Qual. Life Outcomes18, 1–8 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR55] 55.Prayag, G. & Del Chiappa, G. Nostalgic feelings: Motivation, positive and negative emotions, and authenticity at heritage sites. J. Heritage Tour.18(3), 349–364 (2023). [Google Scholar]

[CR56] 56.Prayag, G., Alrawadieh, Z. & Alrawadieh, Z. Motivation, emotion and world heritage status in discerning the heritage tourists: A segmentation perspective. Tour. Manag. Perspect.40, 100906 (2021). [Google Scholar]

[CR57] 57.Li, M. & Cai, L. A. The effects of personal values on travel motivation and behavioral intention. J. Travel Res.51(4), 473–487 (2012). [Google Scholar]

[CR58] 58.Darvishmotevali, M., Tajeddini, K. & Altinay, L. Experiential festival attributes, perceived value, cultural exploration, and behavioral intentions to visit a food festival. J. Convent. Event Tour.24(1), 57–86 (2023). [Google Scholar]

[CR59] 59.Hao, S. et al. Visual behavior characteristics of historical landscapes based on eye-tracking technology. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.10.1080/13467581.2024.2306361 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR60] 60.Zheng, J., Huang, Y., Chen, Y., Guan, L. & Liu, Q. Subjective preference and visual attention to the attributes of Ornamental Plants in urban green space: An eye-tracking study. Forests13(11), 1871 (2022). [Google Scholar]

[CR61] 61.Wu, H. C. & Li, T. An empirical study of the effects of service quality, visitor satisfaction, and emotions on behavioral intentions of visitors to the museums of Macau. J. Qual. Assurance Hosp. Tour.16(1), 80–102 (2015). [Google Scholar]

[CR62] 62.Liu, Y. et al. A study on identifying the spatial characteristic factors of traditional streets based on visitor perception: Yuanjia Village, Shaanxi Province. Buildings14(6), 1815 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR63] 63.Sadeghifar, M., Pazhouhanfar, M. & Farrokhzad, M. An exploration of the relationships between urban building façade visual elements and people’s preferences in the city of Gorgan, Iran. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag.15(6), 445–458 (2019). [Google Scholar]

[CR64] 64.Cao, Z., Mustafa, M., Mohd Isa, M. H. & Mao, Y. Collision of tradition and visual perception: Aesthetic evaluation and conservation intent in adapting traditional Chinese gates within architectural heritage. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.10.1080/13467581.2024.2428273 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR65] 65.Li, Y., Zhao, L., Huang, J. & Law, A. Research frameworks, methodologies, and assessment methods concerning the adaptive reuse of architectural heritage: A review. Built Heritage5, 1–19 (2021). [Google Scholar]

[CR66] 66.Xu, G., Zhong, L., Wu, F., Zhang, Y. & Zhang, Z. Impacts of micro-scale built environment features on tourists’ walking behaviors in historic streets: Insights from Wudaoying Hutong, China. Buildings12(12), 2248 (2022). [Google Scholar]

[CR67] 67.Cao, Z., Mustafa, M., & Mohd Isa, M. H. The role of artistic quality in a heritage architectural style in modulating tourist interest and aesthetic pleasure: a case study of Hui-style architecture in the Hongcun Scenic Area, China. J. Heritage Tour. 1–23 (2024).

[CR68] 68.Palau-Saumell, R., Forgas-Coll, S., Sánchez-García, J. & Prats-Planagumà, L. Tourist behavior intentions and the moderator effect of knowledge of UNESCO World Heritage Sites: The case of La Sagrada Família. J. Travel Res.52(3), 364–376 (2013). [Google Scholar]

[CR69] 69.Tao, H., Peiying, S., Huihui, W. & Jiamin, F. How do affective and cognitive involvement affect tourism intentions: A perspective on blogger impact. Curr. Issues Tour.10.1080/13683500.2024.2392763 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR70] 70.Cardoso, L. & Fraga, C. Shaping the future of destinations: New clues to smart tourism research from a neuroscience methods approach. Admin. Sci.14(6), 106 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR71] 71.Rahn, J., Jaudas, A. & Achtziger, A. To plan or not to plan—mindset effects on visual attention in decision making. J. Neurosci. Psychol. Econ.9(2), 109 (2016). [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

The influence of architectural heritage and tourists’ positive emotions on behavioral intentions using eye-tracking study

Xinyu Li

Pohsun Wang

Long Li

Jing Liu

Abstract

Introduction

Hypothesis 1:

Hypothesis 2:

Hypothesis 3:

Methods

Study area

Fig. 1.

Eye-tracking experiments

Photograph selection

Participants

Procedure

Fig. 2.

Data analysis

Eye-tracking metric selection

Table 1.

Drawing of AOIs

Fig. 3.

Semantic differential method

Questionnaire design

Table 2.

Questionnaire distribution

Results

Heatmap distribution and analysis

Table 3.

Table 4.

Differences in eye-movement indicators for different visual elements

Table 5.

Fig. 4.

Correlation analysis of different visual elements, positive emotions, and behavioural intentions

Table 6.

Multiple linear regression analysis

Table 7.

Table 8.

Discussion

Different visual elements are subject to different visual behaviours

There is a relationship between visual elements, emotional perception, and behavioural intention

The application of eye-tracking technology in the tourism industry and heritage conservation

Research limitations

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Author contributions

Funding

Data availability

Declarations

Competing interests

Footnotes

References

Associated Data

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases