IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i10p1766-d939762.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in Visual Attraction between Historical Garden and Urban Park Walking Scenes

Author

Listed:
  • Chang Li

    (School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Suzhou University of Science and Technology, Suzhou 215000, China)

  • Xiaohui Huang

    (School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Suzhou University of Science and Technology, Suzhou 215000, China)

Abstract

Previous studies on visual perception and landscape element preference have mainly focused on urban green spaces such as parks and forests; the visual attraction potential of historical gardens has been less explored. Based on the analysis framework of the visual landscape experience, this study employed normalized eye-tracking data and preference questionnaires to compare the difference in visual attraction of typical walking scenes between historical gardens and urban parks. The results showed that in terms of landscape elements, the variation fluctuation of the fixation time on various landscape elements by participants viewing historical garden walking scenes (HGWSs) was less than for urban park walking scenes (UPWSs). Additionally, the visual perception scores of the former (i.e., fascinating, coherent, complex, and mysterious) were higher than the latter. In terms of the visual attention area, the visual exploration of HGWSs around the scene (i.e., top, bottom, left, and right) was longer than for UPWSs, while the latter’s central fixation time was longer than that of the former. The visual attraction of HGWSs was related to the foreground and middle ground, while that of UPWSs was related to the middle ground and background. Additionally, for policy makers and managers of urban green spaces, the recommendation of the present study was to consider and evaluate the differences between HGWSs and UPWSs in terms of visual attraction before policy establishment.

Suggested Citation

  • Chang Li & Xiaohui Huang, 2022. "Differences in Visual Attraction between Historical Garden and Urban Park Walking Scenes," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:1766-:d:939762
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/10/1766/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/10/1766/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huilin Liang & Weizheng Li & Siqi Lai & Wenli Jiang & Lingxi Zhu & Qingping Zhang, 2020. "How to survey, model, and measure rockeries in a Chinese classical garden: a case study for Huanxiu Shanzhuang, Suzhou, China," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(3), pages 377-391, April.
    2. Xin Li & Bing Xia & Anne Lusk & Xing Liu & Ning Lu, 2019. "The Humanmade Paradise: Exploring the Perceived Dimensions and Their Associations with Aesthetic Pleasure for Liu Yuan, a Chinese Classical Garden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-16, March.
    3. Helena Nordh & Caroline M. Hagerhall & Kenneth Holmqvist, 2013. "Tracking Restorative Components: Patterns in Eye Movements as a Consequence of a Restorative Rating Task," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 101-116, February.
    4. Birk Diedenhofen & Jochen Musch, 2015. "cocor: A Comprehensive Solution for the Statistical Comparison of Correlations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-12, April.
    5. Lien Dupont & Marc Antrop & Veerle Van Eetvelde, 2014. "Eye-tracking Analysis in Landscape Perception Research: Influence of Photograph Properties and Landscape Characteristics," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 417-432, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Suling Guo & Wei Sun & Wen Chen & Jianxin Zhang & Peixue Liu, 2021. "Impact of Artificial Elements on Mountain Landscape Perception: An Eye-Tracking Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Lina Yan & Yile Chen & Liang Zheng & Yi Zhang & Xiao Liang & Chun Zhu, 2023. "Intelligent Generation Method and Sustainable Application of Road Systems in Urban Green Spaces: Taking Jiangnan Gardens as an Example," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-80, February.
    3. Yu Wu & Zhixiong Zhuo & Qunyue Liu & Kunyong Yu & Qitang Huang & Jian Liu, 2021. "The Relationships between Perceived Design Intensity, Preference, Restorativeness and Eye Movements in Designed Urban Green Space," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Youngeun Kang & Eujin Julia Kim, 2019. "Differences of Restorative Effects While Viewing Urban Landscapes and Green Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, April.
    5. Anthony Evans & Willem Sleegers & Žan Mlakar, 2020. "Individual differences in receptivity to scientific bullshit," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(3), pages 401-412, May.
    6. Gianni Talamini & Ting Liu & Roula El-Khoury & Di Shao, 2023. "Visibility and symbolism of corporate architecture: A multi-method approach for visual impact assessment," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(9), pages 2407-2429, November.
    7. Walters, William H., 2017. "Do subjective journal ratings represent whole journals or typical articles? Unweighted or weighted citation impact?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 730-744.
    8. Kevin Handtke & Lisa Richter-Beuschel & Susanne Bögeholz, 2022. "Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Teaching ESD: A Theory-Driven Instrument and the Effectiveness of ESD in German Teacher Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-32, May.
    9. Pihel, Johan & Ode Sang, Åsa & Hagerhall, Caroline & Nyström, Marcus, 2015. "Expert and novice group differences in eye movements when assessing biodiversity of harvested forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 20-26.
    10. Audrey Helen Linden & Thomas V Pollet & Johannes Hönekopp, 2024. "Publication bias in psychology: A closer look at the correlation between sample size and effect size," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(2), pages 1-15, February.
    11. Joseph H. Paris & Catherine Pressimone Beckowski & Sara Fiorot, 2023. "Predicting Success: An Examination of the Predictive Validity of a Measure of Motivational-Developmental Dimensions in College Admissions," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 64(8), pages 1191-1216, December.
    12. Miloš Kankaraš & Stefania Capecchi, 2025. "Neither agree nor disagree: use and misuse of the neutral response category in Likert-type scales," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 83(1), pages 111-140, April.
    13. Chang Li & Yu Yuan & Changan Sun & Minkai Sun, 2022. "The Perceived Restorative Quality of Viewing Various Types of Urban and Rural Scenes: Based on Psychological and Physiological Responses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-21, March.
    14. Antonio Santoro & Martina Venturi & Mauro Agnoletti, 2021. "Landscape Perception and Public Participation for the Conservation and Valorization of Cultural Landscapes: The Case of the Cinque Terre and Porto Venere UNESCO Site," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24, January.
    15. Les Sikos & Noortje J Venhuizen & Heiner Drenhaus & Matthew W Crocker, 2021. "Reevaluating pragmatic reasoning in language games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-33, March.
    16. S. Adil Saribay & Onurcan Yilmaz & Gülay Gözde Körpe, 2020. "Does intuitive mindset influence belief in God? A registered replication of Shenhav, Rand and Greene (2012)," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(2), pages 193-202, March.
    17. Yao Sun & Yunhe Ding & Miaoyi Lei & Liang Mao, 2024. "Restoration Evaluation of National Forest Park in Greater Khingan Mountains Region, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-18, December.
    18. Tessa Haesevoets & Alain Van Hiel & Kim Dierckx & Chris Reinders Folmer, 2020. "Do multiple-trial games better reflect prosocial behavior than single-trial games?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(3), pages 330-345, May.
    19. Huili Sun & Rongtao Jiang & Wei Dai & Alexander J. Dufford & Stephanie Noble & Marisa N. Spann & Shi Gu & Dustin Scheinost, 2023. "Network controllability of structural connectomes in the neonatal brain," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, December.
    20. Kasemaa Antek & Suviste Reelika, 2020. "Comparing Two Instruments of Transformational Leadership," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 28(1), pages 2-31, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:1766-:d:939762. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.