{"paper_id":"d5c734cc-eb11-4253-9893-b287335e42ff","body_text":"Visual disturbance from informational signage in architectural heritage environments: Evidence from perception-based analyses | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Visual disturbance from informational signage in architectural heritage environments: Evidence from perception-based analyses Wei Zhao, Zhimo Tang, Hao Ma This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8579629/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Informational signage, including wayfinding, safety, and commercial signs, plays an essential role in architectural heritage environments. However, excessive or poorly coordinated signage can generate visual disturbance that disrupts visual environmental quality and undermines visitors’ cultural experience. This study investigates signage-related visual disturbance in six heritage parks influenced by classical garden principles. A mixed-methods approach was employed, integrating eye-tracking experiments, paired-comparison visual evaluations, semi-structured interviews, and visitor questionnaires. Through photographic analysis, different types of visual disturbance were identified, and their perceptual effects were further examined using structural equation modeling and regression analysis. The results indicate that disordered information hierarchy and inconsistency with the surrounding context are the primary factors reducing visual environmental quality, whereas signage quantity and color prominence exert comparatively limited effects. Based on these findings, this study proposes a visual management framework that supports coherent information delivery while safeguarding cultural perception and experiential quality in architectural heritage environments. Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology Architectural heritage Visual disturbance Information hierarchy Environmental design Visual signage design standards Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 1. Introduction Against the backdrop of rapid urbanization and increasing demands for high-quality living environments, urban green spaces have evolved from primarily ecological infrastructure into multifunctional components of the built environment that integrate environmental regulation, recreational use, and cultural expression. As key elements of urban environmental systems, they contribute to microclimate regulation, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity conservation, while also shaping the spatial quality and environmental performance of surrounding built areas (Sánchez et al., 2020) . Beyond their ecological functions, urban green spaces play an important role in everyday leisure, stress reduction, and physical and mental well-being, thereby influencing residential environments and overall urban quality. With the continued growth of urban leisure activities and nature-based recreation, these spaces increasingly embody social and cultural meanings, actively shaping human–environment interactions and the ways urban environments are perceived and experienced ( Bravi and Gasca, 2014 ) . The integration of ecological and cultural attributes forms a key source of spatial attractiveness in urban green spaces and heritage environments. Beyond serving as settings for visual appreciation, these spaces support active engagement through environmental perception, cultural interpretation, and everyday leisure, thereby creating distinctive eco-cultural settings that contribute to visual continuity, spatial identity, and psychological restoration ( Xu and Dong, 2025 ) . At the same time, increasing public use and management demands have led to the extensive installation of functional facilities, particularly signage systems for wayfinding, safety, and service provision. Despite their functional necessity, signage systems are often insufficiently integrated with surrounding spatial and visual contexts. Excessive density, inconsistent design language, and inappropriate placement frequently generate visual disorder within green and heritage environments. Such visual disturbance can disrupt landscape coherence, weaken the perceived integrity of ecological and cultural settings, and ultimately diminish visual environmental quality. As a result, the tension between functional management requirements and the maintenance of coherent visual environments has become a critical challenge for the sustainable planning, design, and management of urban green spaces and heritage-related built environments (Fig. 1 ). This phenomenon raises several critical questions for investigation: RQ1 In heritage sites cluttered with non-cultural visual elements, does visual overload hinder visitors from recognizing key cultural views and understanding the spirit of the place? RQ2 Beyond vision, can other sensory and experiential dimensions offset the impact of non-cultural visual clutter on visitors’ overall cultural experience? Previous studies on architectural and built environments have mainly focused on ecological function enhancement, vegetation configuration, and spatial accessibility, while tourism research has emphasized service facility satisfaction and activity development. In contrast, the effects of visual disturbance on environmental perception, particularly the role of signage systems in shaping visual environmental quality, have received limited attention, and empirical evidence on how visual environment management influences ecological perception and cultural meaning remains insufficient. To address these gaps, this study investigates the mechanisms through which signage systems generate visual disturbance in heritage related built environments, examines their effects on visual environmental quality, ecological perception, and cultural interpretation, and proposes targeted visual optimization strategies based on quantitative and perceptual analyses. In recent years, research on the mechanisms linking visual input, emotional immersion, and cultural identity formation in cultural heritage tourism has become increasingly comprehensive, gradually forming a conceptual chain from perception to identity construction. Existing studies have proposed multi-source data fusion approaches for visual behavior recognition, providing fundamental tools for understanding how tourists visually engage with heritage environments ( Li et al., 2022 ; Abrams et al., 1989 ; Al-Kodmany, 1999 ; Bell, 2001 ) . Building on this foundation, scholars have distinguished between low-level and high-level visual features ( Ibarra et al., 2017 ), explored heritage landscape protection and design from the perspective of visual elements ( Lam et al., 2024 ), and examined how visual composition influences temporal perception and experiential continuity ( Li et al., 2025 ). Empirical research further indicates that specific landscape elements, such as water features and color characteristics, can significantly predict visitor satisfaction through visual preference, while quantitative approaches to visual perception in heritage contexts continue to develop ( Arriaza et al., 2004 ; Kang and Liu, 2024 ) . At the perceptual level, studies have identified systematic differences among visitor groups. Tourists with professional backgrounds tend to exhibit more global fixation patterns when viewing cultural landscapes, whereas general visitors focus more on localized visual details ( Dupont et al., 2015 ). These perceptual differences directly influence landscape preference ( Arriaza et al., 2004 ; Qin et al., 2023 ), which has been confirmed as an important mediator between visitor satisfaction and emotional engagement ( De Rojas and Camarero, 2008 ) . When informational redundancy emerges within tourism scenes ( Zhao et al., 2022 ), or when perceived authenticity is weakened by excessive commercialization ( Cao et al., 2025 ; Lyu et al., 2024 ), immersive experiences are disrupted and may even generate negative evaluations of heritage environments. Related studies indicate that high-quality cultural interpretation and aesthetic stimulation can partially mitigate such losses of immersion ( Filova et al., 2015 ; Genc and Gulertekin Genc, 2023 ) . From this perspective, embodied participation ( He and Chen, 2023 ) , cultural contact embedded within heritage spaces ( Xu and Dong, 2025 ) , and interaction rituals ( Yu, 2022 ) constitute core mechanisms of cultural identity construction, enabling cognitive, emotional, and behavioral identification with heritage cultures ( He et al., 2024 ). Over the past decade, a substantial body of research has focused on cultural identity formation ( MacCannell, 1984 ; McIntosh et al., 2002 ; Zhang et al., 2020 ) and immersive experiences in heritage environments ( Hudson et al., 2019 ; Jafar and Ahmad, 2024 ; Hansen and Mossberg, 2017 ) . Quantitative studies have examined the relationships among heritage authenticity, perceived value, and satisfaction structures ( Lee et al., 2016 ; Altunel and Erkut, 2015 ; Bryce et al., 2015 ; Castéran and Roederer, 2013 ; Chang and Horng, 2010 ) , confirming that cultural experience, service facilities, and market conditions positively influence tourists’ preferences toward heritage tourism development ( Zhang et al., 2023 ; Zou et al., 2023 ). However, most existing studies continue to treat heritage entities as the primary objects of analysis, exploring experience enhancement from perspectives such as ethnicity, culture, architecture, and landscape characteristics ( Li et al., 2025 ; Li et al., 2024 ; Song et al., 2025 ; Yuan et al., 2022 ). Comparatively little attention has been paid to how non-heritage functional elements shape perceptual processes within heritage tourism environments. Recent studies have begun to address this gap by examining functional components such as signage systems, including efforts to develop universal signage frameworks guided by heritage routes and informed by perception, intelligibility, and visual cognition ( Shizhu et al., 2024 ; Renyong et al., 2011) . Overall, recent literature has refined strategies for enhancing heritage tourism experiences by strengthening the linkage between visual input and cultural perception, thereby improving visitor satisfaction across multiple dimensions ( Sterling, 2020 ; Hernandez-Rojas et al., 2021 ; Weber, 2017 ) . Nevertheless, explicit investigations into negative perceptual factors within heritage environments remain limited. Visual elements unrelated to cultural expression, particularly functional facilities such as signage systems, may fragment visual continuity, disrupt spatial coherence, and weaken the perceived integrity of ecological and cultural settings. Clarifying the mechanisms through which such visual disturbance occurs, and translating these insights into practical management strategies, remains an important yet underexplored research direction. The study examines how cluttered signage, commercial advertising, and warning messages interrupt perceptual continuity and disrupt perceived historical narratives, thereby reducing cultural immersion. Based on these mechanisms, it proposes a standardized visual system with principles for form, scale, material, and color that maintain contextual coherence while ensuring effective functional communication. 2 Material and methods This study will employ multiple methods, including eye-tracking experiments and expert interviews ( Li and Ito, 2023 ) , photo-comparison assessment, questionnaire surveys, and statistical analysis, to construct a standardized visual evaluation system. 2.1 Study areas This study selected six renowned classical gardens in Jiangsu Province, China, as case studies (Table A.1). These sites are among the most representative examples of classical garden culture, characterized by rich historical context and high visitation from both domestic and international tourists. Their cultural significance and visibility in global heritage discourse make them exemplary cases of cultural heritage landscapes. This research organized a two-week field investigation across the six selected classical gardens. The purpose was to collect information on visitor demographics, traffic flow, and future cultural tourism planning strategies, while simultaneously gathering and evaluating extensive data on visual disturbance elements. A standardized photo route starts at each garden entrance, follows the main axis, and covers key attractions and service areas. Photos are taken from a simulated eye-level viewpoint (≈ 1.65 m; within 20 m), recording signage-related elements. For each element, we document type, size, location, material, color, font, occlusion, and visibility in the primary viewing corridor. Visual fields are quantified using density, area ratio, occlusion rate, and a hierarchy index. At least 30 samples are collected per site to build a visual-disturbance-index database. Focusing on garden architecture, characteristic waters-capes, and rock formations, the researchers will collect visual disturbance elements affecting key scenic spots along the main routes within the gardens(Fig.A.1). 2.2 Eye tracking experiment Twenty representative photographs were selected from the image library. These photographs show typical arrangements of informational signage in relation to different vegetation types and historical elements. The images were presented on a computer connected to an EyeLink 1000 PLUS eye tracking system with a 27 inch monitor at a resolution of 1280 × 1025 pixels. The system recorded participants’ fixation data continuously, with a maximum sampling rate of 2000 Hz. A total of 30 participants were recruited for the experiment. Prior to the test, participants completed a short questionnaire collecting basic background information, including educational level. The experiment consisted of a free viewing task using 20 landscape images. Each image was displayed for 10 seconds, during which participants were asked to observe the scene naturally, without any specific viewing or search instructions, in order to approximate everyday visual experience in outdoor environments. Following the eye tracking session, brief interviews were conducted to collect participants’ preferences and impressions of the scenes. Based on the eye tracking data, the primary and secondary visual relationships within each scene were initially identified. 2.3 Paired-Comparison preference assessment Based on the eye-tracking results, factors contributing to visual distraction in urban parks and green spaces were preliminarily identified and representative photographs were selected. Controlled image manipulations were then applied by optimizing these factors in the selected images. Participants compared the original and manipulated images with respect to perceived visual quality within architectural heritage and surrounding environments. The comparison results were then used to validate the visual factors affecting environmental perception and to refine the dimensions of signage-related visual disturbance. 2.4 Interview survey and analysis Building on the findings from the first two stages, interviews will be conducted with park managers and designers to explore the dimensions of visual distraction, practical challenges in design and management, and key issues reflected in visitors’ feedback. The interview data will be systematically compared and synthesized to derive preliminary conclusions regarding the dimensions and mechanisms through which non-cultural factors in urban green spaces create visual distraction, thereby informing hypothesis development. 2.5 Questionnaire surveys At the six selected sites, the researchers distributed questionnaires. Participants could complete the survey by scanning a QR code with their mobile phones or by filling out a paper questionnaire. Based on the survey results, multivariate statistical analysis methods were employed ( Müller, 2020 ; Gao et al., 2015 ). 2.6 Visual evaluation system standard development Based on the results of questionnaire surveys, this study will validate the key influencing factors of visual disturbance elements, propose a standardized evaluation system, and provide recommended design prototypes. 3 Results 3.1 Eye tracking experiment results After overlaying the viewing trajectories of all participants, heatmaps were generated for public-space landscapes across different scene types. These heatmaps provide an intuitive visualization of the spatial concentration of participants’ fixations and the associated dwell time. In the heatmaps, red denotes areas of highest visual attention, followed by yellow and then green. Based on the eye-tracking results and the hotspot distribution patterns, two representative sets of photographs were selected from the twenty landscape images (Fig.A.2). Group A: Scenes in which signage is not the primary visual focus. In this group, 30 participants’ fixation hotspots were mainly concentrated on historical relics, landscape structures, or vegetation with pronounced spatial layering. Fixations on the signage areas were minimal, appearing only as occasional glances or brief fixations, without forming stable visual hotspots (Fig. 2 ). Group B: Scenes in which signage generates clear visual interference. In this group, the signage areas emerged as major or secondary visual hotspots. 30 participants tended to fixate on the signage early in the viewing period, and both the total fixation duration and fixation count on signage were markedly higher than those in Group A. In some photographs, repeated fixations within a narrow region around the signage were observed, indicating interference with continuous browsing of the overall landscape. Integrating the image content characteristics with the post-experiment interview findings, the potential sources of visual distraction associated with Group B signage include quantity and scale, color, hierarchy, shape and contour, and intrusion into key spatial sightlines (Fig. 3 ). Based on the results of eye-tracking, the information from the photos will be statistically analyzed according to potential visual interference factors. We assigned an ID number to each image in the database (Fig.A.3) and conducted a detailed analysis for every image, including the sign type, quantity, proportional area, whether the sign entered the central field of view, and its distance to the core attraction, among other variables (Table A.2). The above information, when categorized by different heritage sites(Table 1 ), leads to the following conclusions. There are notable differences in signage layout and visual occupancy across heritage sites. Haohe Scenic Area has the most signs, while Humble Administrator's Garden has the fewest, reflecting varying visitor flows and management needs. Haohe Scenic Area also has the highest area proportion (7.60%), indicating a need for larger signs to convey information, while Humble Administrator's Garden has the lowest (2.40%). The proportion of signs in key sightlines is highest in Haohe Scenic Area (87.50%) and lowest in Humble Administrator's Garden (37.50%), suggesting differing emphasis on visibility. In terms of distance, Ming Xiaoling Mausoleum's signs are farther from the core (average 10.5 meters), while He Garden's are closer (average 2 meters), showing different spatial strategies. Additionally, Humble Administrator's Garden places nearly all signs within 0–5 meters, ensuring high visibility, whereas He Garden places its signs in close proximity as well. In conclusion, signage design varies by site in terms of quantity, area, visibility, and distance, reflecting distinct management and design philosophies aimed at optimizing the visitor experience. Table 1 Signage layout and visual occupancy analysis Affiliated Park Total Number of Signs Average Proportion of Area Proportion of Signs Entering Key Sight Average Distance (m) Median Distance (m) Proportion of Signs within 0–5 Meters Proportion of Signs within 6–10 Meters Proportion of Signs Exceeding 10 Meters Ming Xiaoling Mausoleum 20 4.10% 65.0% 10.5 5 40.0% 30.0% 30.0% Zhan Garden 15 3.20% 50.0% 5.1 3 60.0% 30.0% 10.0% Haohe Scenic Area 21 7.60% 87.50% 5.6 4 62.5% 25.0% 12.5% Humble Administrator's Garden 11 2.40% 37.50% 3.3 3 87.5% 12.5% 0% He Garden 14 3.80% 66.70% 2.0 2 100% 0% 0% Slender West Lake 20 6.30% 71.40% 3.8 3 85.7% 14.3% 0% Statistical analysis by sign type (Table 2 ) reveals that these potential interference factors are interrelated. There are significant differences in the area proportion across different sign types. Narrative and cultural display signs (such as informational signs) typically have a larger area proportion, while functional signs (such as directional and safety signs) have smaller areas. It can also be observed that most signs are concentrated within the 0–5 meter range, particularly Guidance Systems, which are designed to ensure visibility and provide effective wayfinding. This phenomenon indicates that the functional attributes of signs largely determine their visual scale and information capacity. Table 2 Signage type and visual occupancy analysis Type Type_Count Area_Sum Count of Yes/No in KeySight Count of Sign Types in Each Distance Range yes no 0–5(m) 6–10(m) > 10(m) Interpretive Panels 14 73.50% 9 5 12 2 0 Guidance System 17 53.30% 11 6 12 1 3 Commercial Advertisements 5 52% 5 0 3 2 0 Warning Signs 24 39% 10 14 19 4 1 Comprehensive analysis shows that the size of the sign area, sign type, spatial distance, key sightline position, and information configuration are not independent design elements; they are closely related. These factors work together to influence the visual salience and potential interference of signs, thereby shaping the visual experience of visitors. Based on eye-tracking data and scene analysis, the impact pathways of different types of signage can be summarized as follows: Commercial advertising: Commercial advertisements with high quantity and high color saturation tend to become visual focal points. When they occupy the primary field of view, they directly disrupt landscape continuity and divert attention away from the heritage asset itself. Warning signs: When excessive in number and diverse in style, warning signs create visual clutter. Although some are functionally necessary, dense distribution weakens the sense of scene immersion. Wayfinding systems: When moderate in number and well organized, wayfinding systems cause relatively little visual disturbance. However, when overlaid with other sign types, they can easily lead to confusion in information hierarchy and increase cognitive load. Interpretive signs: Although rich in content, an excessive number of interpretive signs disperses attention from the landscape itself. If poorly positioned and obstructing key views, their disruptive effect becomes more pronounced. These characteristics provide targeted focal points for subsequent paired-comparison preference evaluations and mechanism analyses. To understand the interactions between these elements, photo analysis will be conducted to examine the role of each potential visual interference factor, followed by a quantitative analysis of their relationships. 3.2 Paired-comparison preference results Between 15 and 25 August 2025, the researchers visited each of the six gardens to collect photographic data, obtaining a total of 350 samples. From the image database, representative photographs will be selected. Based on the preliminary hypotheses derived from the eye-tracking experiment, the distracting elements in the photographs will be modified using one of the following three approaches: (1) Removal: For elements that significantly impair visual quality, are non-essential, and appear redundant, the option is to delete them or shift them outside the visual field; (2) Modification: These elements possess strong functionality but have a visually disruptive effect. Recommendations can be made to modify these elements to achieve harmony with the environment; (3) Retention: These elements are visually consistent with the environment, represent necessary functionality, and are therefore retained. To facilitate analysis, these three approaches are indicated using different color codes (Fig.A.4). The modified photographs are then presented to interviewees for comparison. Photographs receiving favorable modification evaluations are selected for analysis to further determine visual disturbance influence factors. 3.2.1 Quantity and scale When visually distracting elements are excessive in scale or number and are collocated with the primary feature, they are likely to capture visual attention and thereby diminish the cultural landscape experience. For instance, when a stone tablet at Slender West Lake serves as the primary element, three adjacent modern-style signboards are disproportionately large and numerous; their combined visible area exceeds that of the stone tablet, producing a visually dominant effect that reduces immersion. In this study, the signboards beside the stone tablet were removed (Fig.A.5). 3.2.2 Color Based on the eye-tracking experiment and the research team’s analysis, when the color of distracting elements is similar to that of the dominant landscape, the overall atmosphere appears more harmonious. In contrast, elements with high color contrast and high brightness are more likely to disrupt the overall visual atmosphere (Fig.A.6). For instance, at an intersection node within the Haohe Scenic Area, color adjustments were made to better match the environmental hues and non-harmonious items such as litter bins were removed from the scene (Fig. 4 ). 3.2.3 Hierarchy An excessive number of informational narrative levels and unclear prioritization reduce focus on the cultural theme and impair cultural comprehension. For instance, at a viewpoint within the Slender West Lake scenic area, the same visual field presented \"site introduction,\" \"promotional displays,\" \"boat route\" information, and multiple directional signs. The multitude of signs created a disordered hierarchy that hindered information retrieval and produced visual clutter. Interventions consolidated the signage: the \"boat route\" information was relocated to the ticket office, directional signs were merged, and styles were standardized (Fig. 5 ). 3.2.4 Shape and contour Highly complex or unconventional contours diverge from traditional forms and tend to draw disproportionate visual attention when positioned near primary heritage features. For instance, at Wenfeng Pagoda, an irregularly shaped management sign conflicts formally with the historic structure behind it and causes partial visual obstruction. A series of entrance signs also presented a disordered hierarchy. The following modifications were implemented: (1) simplify sign forms; (2) relocate signs to preserve unobstructed sightlines to the building; (3) reorder signs by content into a hierarchy, placing management regulations first, then a general introduction, and finally detailed information (Fig.A.7). 3.2.5 Intrusion into key spatial sightlines When visually distracting elements are located on primary axes, within framed views, or at commemorative nodes, or when they substantially obstruct major attractions, they can distort visitors’ understanding of architectural and landscape heritage. Representative images were selected from the sample database showing distracting elements combined with traditional Chinese lattice windows, positioned on the principal axis of classical buildings, or creating large-scale obstruction of cultural structures. The researchers attempted to remove these intrusive elements to restore a coherent, uninterrupted scene (Fig. 6 ) The processed images and before–after comparisons were sent via WeChat to 30 visitors between 28 August 2025 and 30 August 2025. All respondents reported that the post-intervention scenes appeared more cohesive and exhibited reduced visual disruption. From these preliminary results, the following visual disturbance factors were identified: quantity and scale, color, informational hierarchy, shape and contour, and intrusion into key spatial sightlines. Based on the image treatments above, visual disturbance elements were classified into four broad categories: commercial advertisements, warning signs, wayfinding systems, and site information. Treatment strategies were summarized according to the visual characteristics of these four categories (Table 3 ). Table 3 Summary of Visual Element Treatments Element Category Specific Conditions Recommended Treatment Commercial Advertisements Oversized structures occupying the main visual field of the landscape, with excessively vivid coloration and strong stylistic conflicts with the surrounding historic architecture. Such advertisements obscure key details of the cultural relics or the primary landscape features. Remove Designs highly consistent with the cultural theme of the scenic area, appropriate in scale, and harmoniously colored. Positioned within commercial zones, blending well with the surrounding environment and landscape atmosphere, without affecting visitors’ visual experience. Retain Well-crafted billboard with moderate size and natural color coordination, yet the placement is slightly abrupt near the core scenic area. Modify Warning Signs Overly large and visually jarring signs that obscure detailed textures of relics or occupy key viewing positions, disrupting the aesthetic and visual coherence of the landscape. Remove Appropriate in size, visually coordinated with the surrounding environment, and reasonably located near hazardous areas, serving an effective warning function without obstructing main scenic views. Retain Excessive in number, with inconsistent styles and materials, severely undermining the overall visual unity and harmony of the landscape. Modify Guidance System Redundant with other guiding elements, weak in warning function, and partially blocking architectural details of building facades. Remove Moderate in scale, using naturally coordinated colors that blend with the environment. Properly placed near intersections or entrances without obstructing landscape views, and constructed with materials that integrate well with the surroundings. Retain Excessive quantity and disorganized layout with inconsistent styles. Despite visual clutter, guiding function remains necessary at key intersections. Modify Interpretive Panels Overly large and vividly colored panels that obscure the forms of relics or main landscape features, offering limited interpretive value. Remove Appropriate in size and color, naturally blending with the surrounding environment—for instance, tones matching historic architecture or natural vegetation. Positioned at the side of scenic spots or along trails where visitors can easily read without hindering landscape appreciation. Retain Excessive in number, dispersed across the site with diverse designs and complex materials, undermining the overall unity and visual coherence of the landscape. Modify 3.3 Interview results In this study, eight basic interview questions were designed: four were answered jointly by designers and developers, two were directed specifically to management personnel, and two were designated for designers only. Each respondent answered questions relevant to their area of expertise (Table A.3). Based on the analysis of interview of manages (Table A.4) and designers (Table A.5), The interview results are summarized as follows: The expert interviews revealed several key insights into current challenges and evaluation needs related to visual interference in park and green space environments. Existing practices tend to rely heavily on general visitor satisfaction measures, lacking a systematic and multidimensional framework for assessing visual interference, while the perspective of visitors’ visual perception remains underutilized. Experts emphasized that effective evaluation should integrate multiple dimensions, including visitor satisfaction, negative visual interference, compatibility with the historical–cultural context, and clear optimization directions. Moreover, the interviews highlighted distinct role-based priorities: practitioners require a clearer understanding of the real-world effects of different interference dimensions, designers focus on meaning and visual interpretation, and managers emphasize overall experience and atmospheric quality. Collectively, these findings underscore the need for a standardized, multidimensional visual interference evaluation system to guide balanced visual design that simultaneously supports cultural expression and enhances visitor experience in urban parks and green spaces. Based on all the above analysis, the following hypotheses are proposed: H1 Semantic inconsistency of intrusive elements significantly undermines visitors’ cultural understanding of place-related meanings in urban parks and green spaces. H2 Spatial intrusion of intrusive elements significantly diminishes visitors’ cultural perception in urban parks and green spaces. H3 Visual discontinuity caused by intrusive elements significantly contributes to biased cultural interpretation of park environments. H4 Visual clutter generated by intrusive elements significantly impairs visitors’ cultural perception of urban green spaces. H5 Biased cultural understanding of park environments significantly increases perceived immersion loss in urban green spaces. H6 A decline in visitors’ cultural cognition of park environments significantly exacerbates perceived immersion loss in urban parks and green spaces. 3.4 Design of the evaluation system The evaluation framework comprises three stages (Fig.A.8). Based on photographic assessment and interviews, this study will develop a questionnaire covering six visual disturbance dimensions. A structural equation model will be used to examine how these visual disturbances affect immersion. Measurement indicators include: Quantity/Scale: number of visible signs within the sight line, total visible area ratio (sign pixels / view pixels), text density. Shape/Symbol salience: contour complexity, icon count, deviation score from traditional paradigms, layout disturbance index. Information hierarchy/Priority: information-hierarchy index, mixed ratio of navigation/warning/Explanatory items, information consistency. Color discordance: saturation difference from the environment’s dominant color, luminance contrast, material secular reflectance. Spatial intrusion/Occlusion: presence on main axis/framed view/commemorative node, occlusion proportion, distance/height relation to the cultural core. Contextual consistency: textual accuracy, tone appropriateness, translation standardization, cultural fit of icons, semantic consistency of interpretive text. 3.5 Questionnaire data analysis This study uses visitor perception data to examine how visual disturbances at cultural heritage sites diminish cultural immersion. The analysis followed a stepwise approach: establishing measurement quality, testing the hypothesized loss mechanism with SEM, and then using item level regression to derive actionable priorities for visual standardization. Surveys were conducted from September 1 to September 15, 2025 across six study sites under stable weather and high visitor flow. In total, 498 questionnaires were distributed and 325 valid responses were obtained. The questionnaire contained 27 items, including visitor background and scenario identification (Q1–Q5), visual disturbance indicators (Q6–Q17), and outcome measures of cultural understanding, cultural perception, and immersion (Q18–Q27). The full item list and construct mapping are provided in Table A.6. Prior to modeling, responses were screened for completeness and consistency. Q11 and Q17 were reverse scored to ensure that all VD indicators shared the same direction. Reliability and factorability were then assessed, followed by EFA and CFA to confirm the measurement structure. SEM was subsequently used to test the mediation based loss mechanism, with bootstrap resampling applied to evaluate indirect effects. Finally, a supplementary multiple regression model was estimated to identify which disturbance elements retained independent explanatory power for immersion when considered simultaneously, supporting clearer standardization priorities while keeping the SEM conclusions unchanged. 3.5.1 Reliability and Factor Analysis Pre-Conditions Reliability testing showed Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.827 to 0.936 across dimensions, indicating stable internal consistency (overall alpha = 0.825 for Q6–Q27) ( Nunnally & Bernstein, 1978 ) (Table A.7). This suggests the item sets are internally coherent, providing a necessary foundation for subsequent factor analysis and modeling. Next, we assessed the adequacy of the correlation structure for factor analysis. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure was 0.929, and Bartlett’s test was significant \\(\\:\\chi\\:²=6884.95,df=231,p<0.001\\) (Table A.8), indicating very high sampling adequacy and supporting the use of factor analysis. These diagnostics suggest that the item correlations reflect systematic structure rather than random noise, thereby justifying the subsequent EFA, CFA, and SEM procedures. 3.5.2 Factor Analysis and Structural Insights An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) identified three factors explaining about 60% of the total variance. Disturbance items (Q6–Q15) loaded heavily on one factor, suggesting that visitors perceive visual disturbances as a unified construct rather than isolated categories. This supports modeling visual disturbance as a single latent construct in SEM. Additionally, items related to cultural understanding and perception (Q18–Q23) co-loaded, indicating high relatedness but preserving conceptual separability for further testing of mechanism pathways (Table A.9). 3.5.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Building on the EFA, a four-factor CFA model was specified, including visual disturbance (VD), cultural understanding (CU), cultural perception (CP), and immersion (IM). The model showed good fit (RMSEA < 0.06; CFI/TLI > 0.95), with significant standardized loadings (0.65–0.90) and strong convergent (CR = 0.88–0.93; AVE = 0.58–0.73) and discriminant validity (Table A.10). CFA results confirm that heterogeneous disturbances converge into a unified VD construct, and CU and CP, though related, remain empirically distinct. These findings support a dual pathway interpretation, where disturbances erode immersion via both narrative comprehension and atmospheric coherence, with the IM construct demonstrating strong measurement quality. 3.5.4 Structural equation modeling for mechanism testing CFA established that the measurement model is reliable and that the four constructs (VD, CU, CP, and IM) are empirically distinguishable. However, measurement validation alone cannot explain how experience loss unfolds. Therefore, we estimated SEM to test the proposed loss mechanism, focusing on whether visual disturbance diminishes immersion primarily through weakening cultural understanding and cultural perception, rather than only through an immediate direct disruption. To clarify the role of mediation in the loss mechanism, three structural models were compared: a direct effect model, a full mediation model, and a partial mediation model. This comparison is theoretically meaningful because it distinguishes two competing interpretations. If visual disturbance mainly disrupts immersion through the degradation of intermediate processes (understanding and perception), mediation models should outperform a direct effect only structure. If disturbance also produces an additional immediate disruption that cannot be fully captured by the mediators, a partial mediation model should provide the best balance of explanatory realism and parsimony. As shown in Table A.11, the direct effect model exhibited weaker fit, whereas model fit improved once mediation paths were introduced. Among the alternatives, the partial mediation model showed the best overall performance (lower χ² /df, higher CFI and TLI, and lower RMSEA and SRMR). Accordingly, the partial mediation model was retained as the final structural model. The final SEM results are summarized in Table 4 . Visual disturbance exerted significant negative effects on both cultural perception and cultural understanding, whereas both mediators positively and significantly predicted immersion. Together, these paths indicate that reduced immersion is closely tied to the weakening of two key cultural processing conditions: atmospheric coherence (cultural perception) and semantic readability (cultural understanding). In addition to the indirect mechanisms, visual disturbance also showed a weaker but statistically significant direct negative effect on immersion. This residual direct path suggests that certain disturbances may interrupt attention and presence immediately, even before visitors process atmosphere or meaning. However, the direct effect was notably smaller than the combined mediated influence, implying that immersion loss is driven less by a single momentary “interruption” and more by a gradual erosion of the cultural processing conditions that sustain immersive experience. To assess the robustness of the mediation mechanism, indirect effects were examined using bootstrap resampling (5,000 samples). Both mediation paths were significant, and their confidence intervals excluded zero, confirming that cultural perception and cultural understanding reliably transmit the negative impact of visual disturbance on immersion. Table 4 SEM path coefficients and Robustness test of the mediation effects Path relationship Direct effect β Indirect effect β Total effect β Significance VD → CP -0.32 – -0.32 p < 0.01 VD → CU -0.25 – -0.25 p < 0.01 CP → IM 0.40 – 0.40 *p < 0.001 CU → IM 0.30 – 0.30 *p < 0.001 VD → IM -0.15 -0.21 -0.36 *p < 0.05 (direct effect) *p < 0.001 (total effect) Indirect path Standardized indirect effect β Lower CI Upper CI Significance VD → CP → IM -0.13 -0.21 -0.07 p < 0.01 VD → CU → IM -0.08 -0.15 -0.03 p < 0.01 Combining direct and indirect components, the total indirect effect was − 0.21 and the total effect of visual disturbance on immersion reached − 0.36. This decomposition provides a clear mechanism statement: immersion loss is generated primarily through mediated degradation in cultural processing, while a smaller direct disruption remains. To make the SEM results more interpretable in theoretical terms, we summarize the core findings, their supporting statistics, and their implications in Table A.12. The table A.11 highlights two points that are especially relevant for heritage experience design. First, the negative influence of disturbance operates through two distinct but complementary channels, one cognitive and one perceptual. This supports a dual process view of immersion formation, in which visitors need both a coherent atmosphere and a legible narrative to sustain engagement. Second, the relatively small direct path suggests that “reducing the number of signs” or “removing one prominent object” may not be sufficient if the overall information ecology remains structurally incoherent. In other words, governance should prioritize restoring visual continuity and contextual coherence as system properties, rather than treating disturbances as isolated defects. 3.5.5 Supplementary analyses to strengthen inference and generalization While SEM provides mechanism level evidence, two additional checks are important for design oriented interpretation. First, the proposed loss mechanism should be consistent with the observed covariance pattern at the construct level, rather than relying only on model specification. Second, because data were collected across six heritage scenarios, we need to confirm that the mechanism is not confined to a single site context but remains observable under heterogeneous spatial and management conditions. Therefore, we report construct level descriptive statistics and correlations, followed by scenario based comparisons. Finally, an item level regression analysis is presented to translate the mechanism findings into actionable prioritization for visual standardization. At the construct level, visual disturbance was negatively correlated with cultural understanding, cultural perception, and immersion, whereas cultural understanding and cultural perception were both positively correlated with immersion. This pattern mirrors the direction of the SEM paths and supports the basic plausibility of the loss mechanism: disturbance aligns with lower comprehension and weaker atmospheric coherence, and these two processes align with reduced immersion. Importantly, CU and CP are strongly related but not redundant, which is consistent with the earlier measurement model logic that treats them as two distinguishable mediators (Table A.13). Because the sample was collected across six scenarios, we further examined whether perceived disturbance and cultural experience outcomes varied systematically by scenario. Mean comparisons show clear between scenario differentiation for all four constructs, indicating that respondents were sensitive to environmental differences rather than responding uniformly across contexts. This provides ecological support for the SEM mechanism, suggesting that the observed relationships are not restricted to one exceptional site but emerge across heterogeneous heritage environments (Table A.14). Although SEM tests the loss mechanism at the construct level, design standardization also requires identifying which disturbance features matter most when multiple elements co occur on site. We therefore ran a supplementary multiple regression with immersion as the dependent variable and Q6–Q17 as simultaneous predictors (Table 5 ). The model was significant (adjusted R square = 0.216, F = 8.421, p < 0.001). Significant effects were concentrated on information hierarchy and contextual expression, with spatial intrusion showing marginal significance, whereas quantity and color did not remain significant after controlling for other elements. Table 5 Regression results of visual disturbance factors on immersion experience Independent variable Regression coefficient (B) t Significance Constant 4.951 28.989 *** Excessive number(Q6) 0.082 1.119 n.s. Excessive scale(Q7) -0.129 -1.510 n.s. Overly conspicuous form(Q8) -0.117 -1.527 n.s. Inconsistent style(Q9) 0.032 0.411 n.s. Unclear information priority(Q10) 0.160 1.452 n.s. Clear hierarchy(Q11, reverse scored) -0.273 -2.525 * Bright/reflective color(Q12) 0.037 0.461 n.s. Color inconsistent with expectations(Q13) -0.061 -0.805 n.s. Appears in key sightline(Q14) -0.144 -1.748 † Improper distance/height(Q15) -0.020 -0.250 n.s. Incorrect text/translation(Q16) 0.320 2.762 ** Adequate expression(Q17, reverse scored) -0.439 -3.808 *** Note : † p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; n.s. = not significant These results refine the design priority order. Immersion loss is driven less by isolated sensory attributes and more by failures in cultural information structure and contextual coherence. Non significant results for quantity and color should not be read as irrelevant; rather, their effects are likely contingent and often masked by deeper problems in hierarchy and expression. 4 Discussion This study clarifies that immersion loss in urban green heritage is not primarily a matter of single visual “defects” such as bright colors or oversized signage, but a mechanism of cultural experience erosion driven by weakened narrative legibility and contextual coherence. The SEM results show that visual disturbance significantly undermines both cultural perception and cultural understanding, and that these two processes in turn are strong predictors of immersion. In other words, disturbance harms immersion mainly by damaging the conditions that allow visitors to read the site as a coherent cultural setting, rather than by producing an immediate sensory irritation alone. The remaining direct path from disturbance to immersion is significant but relatively small, suggesting that what visitors lose is not merely attention in the moment, but the ability to sustain a culturally meaningful “presence” over time. This finding is theoretically informative because it reframes “visual disturbance” from a collection of isolated attributes into a system level experience condition. In the CFA, heterogeneous disturbance features do not split into separate perceptual categories; they converge into a single latent construct. This convergence implies that visitors do not typically diagnose whether a problem is caused by color, scale, or placement in an analytical manner. Instead, they form a holistic judgment about whether the site still “hangs together” as a cultural landscape. The practical consequence is important: design governance cannot rely on treating each element as an independent defect to be fixed locally. The primary task is to restore the overall readability of the cultural setting, because immersion is sustained by perceptual flow and narrative continuity rather than by perfect control of any single attribute. Meanwhile, the item level regression adds a crucial nuance that helps translate the mechanism into design priorities. When multiple disturbance features co occur, significance concentrates on hierarchy and contextual expression, while spatial intrusion shows only marginal evidence and quantity or color do not remain independently significant. This does not mean that color and quantity are irrelevant. Rather, it suggests that their influence is often conditional on the integrity of the information system. When hierarchy is unclear and cultural expression is weak, even minor sensory inconsistencies can accumulate into a strong sense of mismatch; when structure and expression are coherent, the marginal impact of color or quantity becomes less detectable. From a governance perspective, this implies a priority order: first stabilize information hierarchy and context appropriate expression, then refine spatial placement, and only then fine tune sensory attributes such as color schemes or surface reflectivity. The implication is counter-intuitive for many design practices that begin with style, palette, and form. Our evidence suggests the opposite sequence is more effective for protecting immersion. These mechanism level results also help explain why fragmented management practices frequently fail. In many heritage gardens and green heritage settings, signage, interpretive panels, safety notices, and commercial prompts are often introduced through separate actors and at different times, producing an additive accumulation rather than a designed system. The problem is not only “too many signs” or “too bright signs,” but the absence of an explicit hierarchy of meanings. When directional, warning, interpretive, and commercial messages compete in the same visual field, visitors cannot easily decide what to read, what to ignore, and what belongs to the heritage narrative. The outcome is not simply distraction, but a breakdown of cultural inference: visitors lose the pathway from what they see to what it means, and immersion becomes fragile. Figure 7 is proposed precisely as a design translation of this mechanism. It ope-rationalizes the priority order implied by SEM and regression by distinguishing three typical spatial situations and specifying how hierarchy, placement, and expression should be handled in each. In Panel A, route guidance and general notices are treated as a macro layer of functional information. The key principle is not decorative harmony alone, but hierarchy clarity: guidance should appear only at decision points, be concise, and be visually subordinate to heritage views. This aligns with the finding that hierarchy related disturbance is among the strongest predictors of immersion loss. In Panel B, where small heritage features sit within naturalistic settings, the logic shifts from “visibility” to “non competition.” Signs should avoid entering framed views and should keep sufficient distance from the feature so that interpretation supports, rather than replaces, direct appreciation. This corresponds to the marginal role of spatial intrusion: placement matters most when it interferes with key sightlines. In Panel C, where large landmark structures anchor the cultural narrative, the goal is to protect facade integrity and narrative reading. Interpretive panels should be limited, positioned away from the frontal axis, and designed to support meaning without becoming the primary visual subject. Here, contextual expression becomes critical: language tone, iconography, and material choices must reinforce site character, consistent with the regression evidence that cultural expression and wording related items retain independent explanatory power for immersion. Two broader implications follow. First, visual standardization for heritage gardens should be framed as “experience governance” rather than surface control. What needs to be standardized is not only the appearance of individual elements, but the cultural logic of information delivery across space. Second, the results suggest a practical evaluation criterion for future interventions: improvements should be judged by whether they increase cultural readability and atmospheric unity, because these are the mediating processes through which immersion is generated and protected. Finally, this study is limited to the visual dimension of immersion and does not model multisensory or technology mediated pathways. As immersive technologies such as projection mapping and VR become more common, the disturbance issue may shift from physical signage to mixed reality overlays and interface design. Nonetheless, the present findings provide a transferable baseline: whether in physical or digital form, immersion is likely to be lost when functional messages disrupt narrative continuity and contextual coherence. Future work can extend the framework by testing how visual governance interacts with interpretive media, movement patterns, and individual differences in heritage expertise, thereby supporting more comprehensive strategies for heritage protection and sustainable cultural tourism development. 5 Conclusion This study employed a mixed-methods approach including eye-tracking experiments, photo-comparison assessments, expert interviews, and questionnaire surveys to examine how visual disturbance shapes visitor experience in architectural heritage environments. The findings demonstrate that the random insertion of non-cultural information disrupts both information hierarchy and contextual consistency, leading to a significant decline in perceived immersion. This reduction in immersion further translates into lower visitor satisfaction and diminished word-of-mouth intention, highlighting the broader experiential and social implications of visual incoherence in heritage settings. By integrating qualitative insights from interviews and field photography with controlled before-and-after visual comparisons, the study identified key dimensions of visual disturbance and empirically tested their perceptual impact. The subsequent questionnaire analysis quantified the relative influence of these dimensions and validated the proposed analytical framework. The results indicate that immersion is not determined by any single visual element but emerges from the combined interaction of multiple perceptual factors. Among these factors, disruptions to the information hierarchy exert the strongest negative effect, underscoring the central role of cognitive legibility and narrative continuity in sustaining cultural immersion. Rather than advancing prescriptive design solutions, the study contributes an interpretive framework for visual governance that clarifies the mechanisms through which visual environments influence experiential quality in heritage contexts. The findings suggest that maintaining a legible information structure, protecting culturally meaningful visual focal points, and managing visual density and chromatic relationships are critical for preserving contextual coherence and supporting immersive experience. Evidence drawn from six parks with distinct spatial configurations and management contexts further suggests that the proposed framework has analytical relevance across diverse urban green spaces. This cross-contextual consistency indicates that the mechanisms identified in this study may extend beyond individual heritage sites, offering insights applicable to the broader governance of visual information in public cultural landscapes. Several limitations should be acknowledged. The study relied on opportunistic sampling, which may constrain the representativeness of the findings. Future research could collaborate with tourism authorities to organize more structured visitor cohorts and in-depth interviews, enabling a more systematic exploration of additional disturbance mechanisms. Moreover, the results indicate that visual disturbance is not the sole contributor to immersion loss. Complementary strategies such as virtual reality, projection-based interpretation, or participatory cultural activities may help compensate for visual deficits and enhance cultural engagement where visual coherence is difficult to achieve. Declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Ethical approval This study received ethical approval from an institutional science and technology ethics committee prior to data collection. All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with relevant ethical guidelines and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent Written and electronic informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study. Participants were informed about the study objectives, procedures, potential risks, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Author Contribution W.Z: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration. Z.T: Data curation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review and editing. H.M: Sofeware, Validation, Writing – review and editing. Acknowledgement This work was supported by the General Project of Philosophy and Social Science Research in Colleges and Universities of Jiangsu Province (No.2022SJYB0636). The authors would like to thank Professor Xueming Zai for his valuable advice during the field investigation, and Engineer Ruiming Jiang from the Jiangsu Institute of Planning and Design for assistance in coordinating expert interviews. Data Availability The data supporting the findings of this study are available in the related files submitted with the manuscript. The original datasets were screened and analysed following established procedures, and all measures demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity. References Abrams RA, Meyer DE, Kornblum S (1989) Speed and accuracy of saccadic eye movements: Characteristics of impulse variability in the oculomotor system. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 15:529–543 Al-Kodmany K (1999) Using visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: Process, implementation and evaluation. Landsc Urban Plann 45:37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00024-9 Altunel MC, Erkut B (2015) Cultural tourism in Istanbul: The mediation effect of tourist experience and satisfaction on the relationship between involvement and recommendation intention. J Destination Mark Manage 4(4):213–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.08.001 Arriaza M, Cañas-Ortega JF, Cañas-Madueño JA et al (2004) Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plann 69(1):115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.004 Bell S (2001) Landscape pattern, perception and visualisation in the visual management of forests. Landsc Urban Plann 54:201–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00136-0 Bravi M, Gasca E (2014) Preferences evaluation with a choice experiment on cultural heritage tourism. J Hospitality Mark Manage 23(4):406–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2014.880722 Bryce D, Curran R, O’Gorman K, Taheri B (2015) Visitors’ engagement and authenticity: Japanese heritage consumption. Tour Manag 46:571–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.006 Cabrera AT, Sánchez ML, Pulgar D, M. L. G (2020) Guidelines from the heritage field for the integration of landscape and heritage planning: A systematic literature review. Landsc Urban Plann 204:103931. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103931 Cao Q, Zhang J, Li C et al (2025) From tradition to transaction: The effect of commercialization on tourism experience in cultural heritage attractions. J Hospitality Tourism Manage 63:98–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2024.04.002 Castéran H, Roederer C (2013) Does authenticity really affect behavior? The case of the Strasbourg Christmas market. Tour Manag 36:153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.04.002 Chang CT-Y, Horng SC (2010) Conceptualizing and measuring experience quality: The customer’s perspective. Serv Ind J 30(14):2401–2419. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642060903401322 Chen RY, Wang H, Xu JF (2011) Marking Design for Landscape Systems of Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal: A Case Study of Urban Waterfront Landscape Marking Systems of Suzhou. J Shanxi Agricultural Univ (Natural Sci Edition) 31(06):486–491 (in Chinese) De Rojas C, Camarero C (2008) Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in a heritage context: Evidence from an interpretation center. Tour Manag 29(3):525–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.10.002 Dupont L, Antrop M, Van Eetvelde V (2015) Does landscape related expertise influence the visual perception of landscape photographs? Implications for participatory landscape planning and management. Landsc Urban Plann 141:68–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.05.005 Filova L, Vojar J, Svobodova K et al (2015) The effect of landscape type and landscape elements on public visual preferences. J Environ Planning Manage 58(11):2037–2055. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.920657 Gao Y, Gao R, Yang L (2015) Analysis of order statistics of uncertain variables. J Uncertain Anal Appl 3:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40467-014-0025-1 Genc V, Gulertekin Genc S (2023) The effect of perceived authenticity in cultural heritage sites on tourist satisfaction: The moderating role of aesthetic experience. J Hospitality Tourism Insights 6(2):530–548. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-03-2022-0070 Hansen AH, Mossberg L (2017) Tour guides’ performance and tourists’ immersion: Facilitating consumer immersion by performing a guide plus role. Scandinavian J Hospitality Tourism 17(3):259–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2017.1283138 He Y, Chen G (2023) A study on the construction of heritage identity in study trips to heritage sites from an embodied perspective. World Reg Stud 32(8):166–178 (in Chinese) He Y, Chen G, Wang J et al (2024) Development and empirical testing of a visitors’ heritage identification scale at World Cultural Heritage Sites. Tourism Sci 38(4):80–98 (in Chinese). https://doi.org/10.16323/j.cnki.lykx.20231008.001 Hernandez-Rojas RD, del Río JAJ, Fernández AI et al (2021) The cultural and heritage tourist, SEM analysis: the case of The Citadel of the Catholic King. Herit Sci 9(1):1–19. 10.1186/s43264-021-00010-4 Hudson S, Matson-Barkat S et al (2019) With or without you? Interaction and immersion in a virtual reality experience. J Bus Res 100:459–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.042 Ibarra FF, Kardan O, Hunter MCR et al (2017) Image feature types and their predictions of aesthetic preference and naturalness. Front Psychol 8:632. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00632 Jafar RMS, Ahmad W (2024) Tourist loyalty in the metaverse: The role of immersive tourism experience and cognitive perceptions. Tourism Rev 79(2):321–336. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-11-2022-0552 Kang N, Liu C (2024) Assessment of visual quality and social perception of cultural landscapes: Application to Anyi traditional villages, China. Herit Sci 12(1):235. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-024-00267-x Lam JM, Makhbul ZKM, Aziz NA, Ahmat MAH (2024) Incorporating multidimensional images into cultural heritage destinations. J Cult Herit Manage Sustainable Dev 14(4):563–580. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-07-2022-0123 Lee S, Phau I, Hughes M et al (2016) Heritage tourism in Singapore Chinatown. J Travel Tourism Mark 33(7):981–998. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1185683 Li X, Wang P, Li L et al (2025) The influence of architectural heritage and tourists’ positive emotions on behavioral intentions using an eye-tracking study. Sci Rep 15(1):1447. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-01004-7 Li Y, Ito H (2023) Visitor experience evaluation of projection mapping technology at cultural heritage tourism sites. Herit Sci 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-023-00898-4 Li Y, Cao L, Gao W (2025) Perceptual dimensions of heritage canal landscapes and their impact on conservation value cognition. Ecol Ind 176:113626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113626 Li Y, Guo J, Chen Y (2022) A new approach to tourists’ visual behavior patterns and perception evaluation based on multi-source data. J Geo-information Sci 24(10):2004–2020 (in Chinese). https://doi.org/10.12082/dqxxkx.2022.210840 Li Y, Liang J, Huang J et al (2024) Evaluating tourist perceptions of architectural heritage values at a World Heritage Site in South-East China: The case of Gulangyu Island. J Hospitality Tourism Manage 60:127–140. 10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.03.012 Lyu J, Huang Y, Wang L (2024) When essence is lost: The consequences of commercialization in historical towns. J Travel Res 63(7):1671–1687. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875221076752 MacCannell D (1984) Reconstructed ethnicity: Tourism and cultural identity in third world communities. Annals Tourism Res 11(3):375–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(84)90021-2 McIntosh AJ, Hinch T, Ingram T (2002) Cultural identity and tourism. Int J Arts Manage 4:39–49 Müller M (2020) Item fit statistics for Rasch analysis. J Stat Distribution Appl 7:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40488-020-00108-7 Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill Qin X, Fang M, Yang D et al (2023) Quantitative evaluation of attraction intensity of highway landscape visual elements based on dynamic perception. Environ Impact Assess Rev 100:107081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107081 Shizhu L, Qiuyu H, Ziyi M et al (2024) Design of a universal signage system for the Ruijin Soviet cultural heritage site. Herit Sci 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-024-01526-5 Song H, Chen J, Li P (2025) Decoding the cultural heritage tourism landscape and visitor crowding behavior. Tour Manag 110:105180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2024.105180 Sterling C (2020) Designing critical heritage experiences. Archaeol Int 22(1):100–113. https://doi.org/10.5334/ai.470 Weber J (2017) Designing engaging experiences with location-based augmented reality games for urban tourism environments. Bournemouth University Xu F, Dong Y (2025) Cultural contact and identity construction in heritage spaces. Folklore Stud 4:103–113 (in Chinese). https://doi.org/10.13370/j.cnki.fs.2025.04.008 Yuan G, Wang H, Wang M et al (2022) Visual attention and ethnic landscape perception. Appl Geogr 147:102781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2022.102781 Yu Z (2022) Model construction and practical strategies of heritage tourism and cultural identity. J Southwest Minzu Univ (Humanities Social Sciences) 3:34–42 (in Chinese) Zhang G, Chen X, Law R et al (2020) Sustainability of heritage tourism. Sustainability 12(21):9199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219199 Zhang S, Liu J, Pei T et al (2023) Perception in cultural heritage tourism. J Tourism Cult Change 21(5):569–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2023.2214793 Zhao T, Wong IKA, Tong P et al (2022) Gazing at the gazers. J Travel Res 61(4):730–746. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875211019068 Zou Y, Yang Y, Li Y et al (2023) How do tourists’ heritage spatial perceptions affect place identity. J Hospitality Tourism Manage 55:460–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.03.011 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementaryMaterialHSSC01111.docx floatimage1.png Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 15 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 28 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 25 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 08 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 30 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Jan, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 28 Jan, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 28 Jan, 2026 Editor invited by journal 28 Jan, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 25 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 25 Jan, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-8579629\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":581948962,\"identity\":\"6606a262-5a6d-4eb4-b760-bba43e8dc2aa\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"Wei Zhao\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Jinling Institute of Technology\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Wei\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Zhao\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":581948963,\"identity\":\"029ea2bd-7798-45ea-8dc6-38fc7034aafc\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"Zhimo Tang\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Jinling Institute of Technology\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Zhimo\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Tang\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":581948964,\"identity\":\"9992dd17-4a32-4bb9-bb95-8aa624ebe681\",\"order_by\":2,\"name\":\"Hao Ma\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Jinling Institute of Technology\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Hao\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Ma\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2026-01-12 09:09:35\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8579629/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8579629/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":101531139,\"identity\":\"96d63011-4d24-4ffd-9215-925fce571bf6\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-30 20:18:36\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"Figure 1\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":5982175,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eAnalysis of Current Issues\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage2.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8579629/v1/a54fe317e536a07422053860.png\"},{\"id\":101531140,\"identity\":\"2f972ef5-9912-417f-af38-1edaa62feffd\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-30 20:18:36\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":2,\"title\":\"Figure 2\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":1613816,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eRepresentative images of Group A (\\u003cem\\u003ePhotos from Groups A–D are all shown; the signs do not dominate the visual field\\u003c/em\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage3.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8579629/v1/e26d5dc6c6d11f0053ddc74a.jpeg\"},{\"id\":101531144,\"identity\":\"46b640b6-50d5-4abd-91e6-999d9acea3a1\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-30 20:18:36\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":3,\"title\":\"Figure 3\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":1675308,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eRepresentative images of Group B \\u003cem\\u003e(Photos from Groups A–D are analyzed in terms of color, background integration, placement, and informational content to explain why the signage becomes a visual focal point).\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage4.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8579629/v1/b5d92e81f5ecaa0021cff111.jpeg\"},{\"id\":101752532,\"identity\":\"0c1a01a6-5327-417c-9a88-268971039f32\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-02-03 10:28:00\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":4,\"title\":\"Figure 4\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":894806,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eAnalysis of road signage within the Haohe Scenic Area (\\u003cem\\u003eA is the original image, B is the analysis image, C is the proposed effect image.\\u003c/em\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage5.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8579629/v1/5ff199e002d443660ed49b20.jpeg\"},{\"id\":101752286,\"identity\":\"daa86b68-7fa3-4942-827c-aa8ab8d73a09\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-02-03 10:26:34\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":5,\"title\":\"Figure 5\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":3187509,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eAnalysis of signage and advertising boards at the boat docking area in the Slender West Lake Scenic Area (\\u003cem\\u003eA is the original image, B is the analysis image, C is the proposed effect image.\\u003c/em\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage6.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8579629/v1/dac1c7b231b7386bc299b255.png\"},{\"id\":101751967,\"identity\":\"457b129c-368c-4804-8a29-515fb0d0e206\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-02-03 10:24:34\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":6,\"title\":\"Figure 6\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":2840866,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eScene analysis of intrusions into key spatial sightlines \\u003cem\\u003e(A–C are the original images, while a–c shows the effect after removing the visual disturbances.\\u003c/em\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage7.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8579629/v1/96af248629be19fe77698170.png\"},{\"id\":101531145,\"identity\":\"559228f2-662e-4403-accf-1cbb06c53059\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-30 20:18:36\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":7,\"title\":\"Figure 7\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":6759284,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eIllustration of Non-Cultural Elements in Urban Green Spaces (\\u003cem\\u003ePanel A shows examples of route guidance signs and informational notices design; Panel B illustrates their integration with smaller built features in naturalistic park settings; Panel C shows non-cultural elements paired with large landmark structures\\u003c/em\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage8.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8579629/v1/5b53cb5d00f221955c7dde63.png\"},{\"id\":102294886,\"identity\":\"04246305-867d-4cee-b916-124115a1044b\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-02-10 10:03:27\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":33021643,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8579629/v1/3ab0f0a7-65a0-4187-bb89-d08a91676b3a.pdf\"},{\"id\":101531146,\"identity\":\"c524f3e1-4544-4f5a-ab73-d8fa6eaea408\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-30 20:18:36\",\"extension\":\"docx\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"supplement\",\"size\":9757947,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"SupplementaryMaterialHSSC01111.docx\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8579629/v1/0a8d1fbcfebb04c329d3aa30.docx\"},{\"id\":101531142,\"identity\":\"f298bd4d-f4cf-414d-9dec-a5032b8a0805\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-30 20:18:36\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":2,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"supplement\",\"size\":5334693,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage1.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8579629/v1/a25b727749b1f53bdeaed7c5.png\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"No competing interests reported.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"Visual disturbance from informational signage in architectural heritage environments: Evidence from perception-based analyses\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"1. Introduction\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eAgainst the backdrop of rapid urbanization and increasing demands for high-quality living environments, urban green spaces have evolved from primarily ecological infrastructure into multifunctional components of the built environment that integrate environmental regulation, recreational use, and cultural expression. As key elements of urban environmental systems, they contribute to microclimate regulation, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity conservation, while also shaping the spatial quality and environmental performance of surrounding built areas \\u003cb\\u003e(S\\u0026aacute;nchez et al., 2020)\\u003c/b\\u003e. Beyond their ecological functions, urban green spaces play an important role in everyday leisure, stress reduction, and physical and mental well-being, thereby influencing residential environments and overall urban quality. With the continued growth of urban leisure activities and nature-based recreation, these spaces increasingly embody social and cultural meanings, actively shaping human\\u0026ndash;environment interactions and the ways urban environments are perceived and experienced \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eBravi and Gasca, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2014\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe integration of ecological and cultural attributes forms a key source of spatial attractiveness in urban green spaces and heritage environments. Beyond serving as settings for visual appreciation, these spaces support active engagement through environmental perception, cultural interpretation, and everyday leisure, thereby creating distinctive eco-cultural settings that contribute to visual continuity, spatial identity, and psychological restoration \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eXu and Dong, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR43\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e. At the same time, increasing public use and management demands have led to the extensive installation of functional facilities, particularly signage systems for wayfinding, safety, and service provision.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDespite their functional necessity, signage systems are often insufficiently integrated with surrounding spatial and visual contexts. Excessive density, inconsistent design language, and inappropriate placement frequently generate visual disorder within green and heritage environments. Such visual disturbance can disrupt landscape coherence, weaken the perceived integrity of ecological and cultural settings, and ultimately diminish visual environmental quality. As a result, the tension between functional management requirements and the maintenance of coherent visual environments has become a critical challenge for the sustainable planning, design, and management of urban green spaces and heritage-related built environments (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e). This phenomenon raises several critical questions for investigation:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eRQ1\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn heritage sites cluttered with non-cultural visual elements, does visual overload hinder visitors from recognizing key cultural views and understanding the spirit of the place?\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eRQ2\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBeyond vision, can other sensory and experiential dimensions offset the impact of non-cultural visual clutter on visitors\\u0026rsquo; overall cultural experience?\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePrevious studies on architectural and built environments have mainly focused on ecological function enhancement, vegetation configuration, and spatial accessibility, while tourism research has emphasized service facility satisfaction and activity development. In contrast, the effects of visual disturbance on environmental perception, particularly the role of signage systems in shaping visual environmental quality, have received limited attention, and empirical evidence on how visual environment management influences ecological perception and cultural meaning remains insufficient. To address these gaps, this study investigates the mechanisms through which signage systems generate visual disturbance in heritage related built environments, examines their effects on visual environmental quality, ecological perception, and cultural interpretation, and proposes targeted visual optimization strategies based on quantitative and perceptual analyses.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn recent years, research on the mechanisms linking visual input, emotional immersion, and cultural identity formation in cultural heritage tourism has become increasingly comprehensive, gradually forming a conceptual chain from perception to identity construction. Existing studies have proposed multi-source data fusion approaches for visual behavior recognition, providing fundamental tools for understanding how tourists visually engage with heritage environments \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eLi et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR31\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e; Abrams et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1989\\u003c/span\\u003e; Al-Kodmany, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1999\\u003c/span\\u003e; Bell, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR5\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2001\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e. Building on this foundation, scholars have distinguished between low-level and high-level visual features \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eIbarra et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR23\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e), explored heritage landscape protection and design from the perspective of visual elements \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eLam et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e), and examined how visual composition influences temporal perception and experiential continuity \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eLi et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR28\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e). Empirical research further indicates that specific landscape elements, such as water features and color characteristics, can significantly predict visitor satisfaction through visual preference, while quantitative approaches to visual perception in heritage contexts continue to develop \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eArriaza et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR4\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2004\\u003c/span\\u003e; Kang and Liu, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAt the perceptual level, studies have identified systematic differences among visitor groups. Tourists with professional backgrounds tend to exhibit more global fixation patterns when viewing cultural landscapes, whereas general visitors focus more on localized visual details \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eDupont et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e). These perceptual differences directly influence landscape preference \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eArriaza et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR4\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2004\\u003c/span\\u003e; Qin et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR38\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e), which has been confirmed as an important mediator between visitor satisfaction and emotional engagement \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eDe Rojas and Camarero, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR13\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2008\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e. When informational redundancy emerges within tourism scenes \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eZhao et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR48\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e), or when perceived authenticity is weakened by excessive commercialization \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eCao et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR9\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e; Lyu et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR33\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e), immersive experiences are disrupted and may even generate negative evaluations of heritage environments. Related studies indicate that high-quality cultural interpretation and aesthetic stimulation can partially mitigate such losses of immersion \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eFilova et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR15\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e; Genc and Gulertekin Genc, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e. From this perspective, embodied participation \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eHe and Chen, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR19\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e, cultural contact embedded within heritage spaces \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eXu and Dong, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR43\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e, and interaction rituals \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eYu, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR45\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e constitute core mechanisms of cultural identity construction, enabling cognitive, emotional, and behavioral identification with heritage cultures \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eHe et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR20\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOver the past decade, a substantial body of research has focused on cultural identity formation \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eMacCannell, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR34\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1984\\u003c/span\\u003e; McIntosh et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR35\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2002\\u003c/span\\u003e; Zhang et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR46\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e) and immersive experiences in heritage environments \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eHudson et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e; Jafar and Ahmad, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR24\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e; Hansen and Mossberg, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR18\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e. Quantitative studies have examined the relationships among heritage authenticity, perceived value, and satisfaction structures \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eLee et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR27\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e; Altunel and Erkut, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR3\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e; Bryce et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e; Cast\\u0026eacute;ran and Roederer, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e; Chang and Horng, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR11\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2010\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e, confirming that cultural experience, service facilities, and market conditions positively influence tourists\\u0026rsquo; preferences toward heritage tourism development \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eZhang et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR47\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e; Zou et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR49\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). However, most existing studies continue to treat heritage entities as the primary objects of analysis, exploring experience enhancement from perspectives such as ethnicity, culture, architecture, and landscape characteristics \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eLi et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR28\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e; Li et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR32\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e; Song et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR40\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e; Yuan et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR44\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). Comparatively little attention has been paid to how non-heritage functional elements shape perceptual processes within heritage tourism environments. Recent studies have begun to address this gap by examining functional components such as signage systems, including efforts to develop universal signage frameworks guided by heritage routes and informed by perception, intelligibility, and visual cognition \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eShizhu et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR39\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e; \\u003cb\\u003eRenyong et al., 2011)\\u003c/b\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOverall, recent literature has refined strategies for enhancing heritage tourism experiences by strengthening the linkage between visual input and cultural perception, thereby improving visitor satisfaction across multiple dimensions \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eSterling, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR41\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e; Hernandez-Rojas et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR21\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e; Weber, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR42\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e. Nevertheless, explicit investigations into negative perceptual factors within heritage environments remain limited. Visual elements unrelated to cultural expression, particularly functional facilities such as signage systems, may fragment visual continuity, disrupt spatial coherence, and weaken the perceived integrity of ecological and cultural settings. Clarifying the mechanisms through which such visual disturbance occurs, and translating these insights into practical management strategies, remains an important yet underexplored research direction.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe study examines how cluttered signage, commercial advertising, and warning messages interrupt perceptual continuity and disrupt perceived historical narratives, thereby reducing cultural immersion. Based on these mechanisms, it proposes a standardized visual system with principles for form, scale, material, and color that maintain contextual coherence while ensuring effective functional communication.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"2 Material and methods\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThis study will employ multiple methods, including eye-tracking experiments and expert interviews \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eLi and Ito, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e, photo-comparison assessment, questionnaire surveys, and statistical analysis, to construct a standardized visual evaluation system.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec3\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e2.1 Study areas\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis study selected six renowned classical gardens in Jiangsu Province, China, as case studies (Table A.1). These sites are among the most representative examples of classical garden culture, characterized by rich historical context and high visitation from both domestic and international tourists. Their cultural significance and visibility in global heritage discourse make them exemplary cases of cultural heritage landscapes.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis research organized a two-week field investigation across the six selected classical gardens. The purpose was to collect information on visitor demographics, traffic flow, and future cultural tourism planning strategies, while simultaneously gathering and evaluating extensive data on visual disturbance elements.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eA standardized photo route starts at each garden entrance, follows the main axis, and covers key attractions and service areas. Photos are taken from a simulated eye-level viewpoint (\\u0026asymp;\\u0026thinsp;1.65 m; within 20 m), recording signage-related elements. For each element, we document type, size, location, material, color, font, occlusion, and visibility in the primary viewing corridor. Visual fields are quantified using density, area ratio, occlusion rate, and a hierarchy index. At least 30 samples are collected per site to build a visual-disturbance-index database.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFocusing on garden architecture, characteristic waters-capes, and rock formations, the researchers will collect visual disturbance elements affecting key scenic spots along the main routes within the gardens(Fig.A.1).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec4\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e2.2 Eye tracking experiment\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTwenty representative photographs were selected from the image library. These photographs show typical arrangements of informational signage in relation to different vegetation types and historical elements. The images were presented on a computer connected to an EyeLink 1000 PLUS eye tracking system with a 27 inch monitor at a resolution of 1280 \\u0026times; 1025 pixels. The system recorded participants\\u0026rsquo; fixation data continuously, with a maximum sampling rate of 2000 Hz.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eA total of 30 participants were recruited for the experiment. Prior to the test, participants completed a short questionnaire collecting basic background information, including educational level. The experiment consisted of a free viewing task using 20 landscape images. Each image was displayed for 10 seconds, during which participants were asked to observe the scene naturally, without any specific viewing or search instructions, in order to approximate everyday visual experience in outdoor environments. Following the eye tracking session, brief interviews were conducted to collect participants\\u0026rsquo; preferences and impressions of the scenes. Based on the eye tracking data, the primary and secondary visual relationships within each scene were initially identified.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec5\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e2.3 Paired-Comparison preference assessment\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBased on the eye-tracking results, factors contributing to visual distraction in urban parks and green spaces were preliminarily identified and representative photographs were selected. Controlled image manipulations were then applied by optimizing these factors in the selected images. Participants compared the original and manipulated images with respect to perceived visual quality within architectural heritage and surrounding environments. The comparison results were then used to validate the visual factors affecting environmental perception and to refine the dimensions of signage-related visual disturbance.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec6\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e2.4 Interview survey and analysis\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBuilding on the findings from the first two stages, interviews will be conducted with park managers and designers to explore the dimensions of visual distraction, practical challenges in design and management, and key issues reflected in visitors\\u0026rsquo; feedback. The interview data will be systematically compared and synthesized to derive preliminary conclusions regarding the dimensions and mechanisms through which non-cultural factors in urban green spaces create visual distraction, thereby informing hypothesis development.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec7\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e2.5 Questionnaire surveys\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAt the six selected sites, the researchers distributed questionnaires. Participants could complete the survey by scanning a QR code with their mobile phones or by filling out a paper questionnaire. Based on the survey results, multivariate statistical analysis methods were employed \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eM\\u0026uuml;ller, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR36\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e; Gao et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR16\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec8\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e2.6 Visual evaluation system standard development\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBased on the results of questionnaire surveys, this study will validate the key influencing factors of visual disturbance elements, propose a standardized evaluation system, and provide recommended design prototypes.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"3 Results\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec10\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.1 Eye tracking experiment results\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAfter overlaying the viewing trajectories of all participants, heatmaps were generated for public-space landscapes across different scene types. These heatmaps provide an intuitive visualization of the spatial concentration of participants\\u0026rsquo; fixations and the associated dwell time. In the heatmaps, red denotes areas of highest visual attention, followed by yellow and then green. Based on the eye-tracking results and the hotspot distribution patterns, two representative sets of photographs were selected from the twenty landscape images (Fig.A.2).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eGroup A: Scenes in which signage is not the primary visual focus.\\u003c/b\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn this group, 30 participants\\u0026rsquo; fixation hotspots were mainly concentrated on historical relics, landscape structures, or vegetation with pronounced spatial layering. Fixations on the signage areas were minimal, appearing only as occasional glances or brief fixations, without forming stable visual hotspots (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eGroup B: Scenes in which signage generates clear visual interference.\\u003c/b\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn this group, the signage areas emerged as major or secondary visual hotspots. 30 participants tended to fixate on the signage early in the viewing period, and both the total fixation duration and fixation count on signage were markedly higher than those in Group A. In some photographs, repeated fixations within a narrow region around the signage were observed, indicating interference with continuous browsing of the overall landscape.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIntegrating the image content characteristics with the post-experiment interview findings, the potential sources of visual distraction associated with Group B signage include quantity and scale, color, hierarchy, shape and contour, and intrusion into key spatial sightlines (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig3\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBased on the results of eye-tracking, the information from the photos will be statistically analyzed according to potential visual interference factors. We assigned an ID number to each image in the database (Fig.A.3) and conducted a detailed analysis for every image, including the sign type, quantity, proportional area, whether the sign entered the central field of view, and its distance to the core attraction, among other variables (Table A.2).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe above information, when categorized by different heritage sites(Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e), leads to the following conclusions. There are notable differences in signage layout and visual occupancy across heritage sites. Haohe Scenic Area has the most signs, while Humble Administrator's Garden has the fewest, reflecting varying visitor flows and management needs. Haohe Scenic Area also has the highest area proportion (7.60%), indicating a need for larger signs to convey information, while Humble Administrator's Garden has the lowest (2.40%). The proportion of signs in key sightlines is highest in Haohe Scenic Area (87.50%) and lowest in Humble Administrator's Garden (37.50%), suggesting differing emphasis on visibility. In terms of distance, Ming Xiaoling Mausoleum's signs are farther from the core (average 10.5 meters), while He Garden's are closer (average 2 meters), showing different spatial strategies. Additionally, Humble Administrator's Garden places nearly all signs within 0\\u0026ndash;5 meters, ensuring high visibility, whereas He Garden places its signs in close proximity as well. In conclusion, signage design varies by site in terms of quantity, area, visibility, and distance, reflecting distinct management and design philosophies aimed at optimizing the visitor experience.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab1\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 1\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSignage layout and visual occupancy analysis\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\" colnum=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\" colnum=\\\"7\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\" colnum=\\\"8\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\" colnum=\\\"9\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAffiliated Park\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTotal Number of Signs\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAverage Proportion of Area\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eProportion of Signs Entering Key Sight\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAverage Distance\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(m)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMedian Distance\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(m)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eProportion of Signs within 0\\u0026ndash;5 Meters\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eProportion of Signs within 6\\u0026ndash;10 Meters\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eProportion of Signs Exceeding 10 Meters\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMing Xiaoling Mausoleum\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e20\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.10%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e65.0%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e10.5\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e5\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e40.0%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e30.0%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e30.0%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eZhan Garden\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e15\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3.20%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e50.0%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e5.1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e60.0%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e30.0%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e10.0%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHaohe Scenic Area\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e21\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e7.60%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e87.50%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e5.6\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e62.5%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e25.0%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e12.5%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHumble Administrator's Garden\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e11\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2.40%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e37.50%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3.3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e87.5%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e12.5%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHe Garden\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e14\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3.80%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e66.70%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2.0\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e100%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSlender West Lake\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e20\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6.30%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e71.40%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3.8\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e85.7%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e14.3%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eStatistical analysis by sign type (Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e) reveals that these potential interference factors are interrelated. There are significant differences in the area proportion across different sign types. Narrative and cultural display signs (such as informational signs) typically have a larger area proportion, while functional signs (such as directional and safety signs) have smaller areas. It can also be observed that most signs are concentrated within the 0\\u0026ndash;5 meter range, particularly Guidance Systems, which are designed to ensure visibility and provide effective wayfinding. This phenomenon indicates that the functional attributes of signs largely determine their visual scale and information capacity.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab2\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 2\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSignage type and visual occupancy analysis\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\" colnum=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\" colnum=\\\"7\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\" colnum=\\\"8\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eType\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eType_Count\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eArea_Sum\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\" nameend=\\\"c5\\\" namest=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCount of Yes/No in KeySight\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c8\\\" namest=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCount of Sign Types in Each Distance Range\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eyes\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eno\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0\\u0026ndash;5(m)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6\\u0026ndash;10(m)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;10(m)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eInterpretive Panels\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e14\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e73.50%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e9\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e5\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e12\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGuidance System\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e17\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e53.30%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e11\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e12\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCommercial Advertisements\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e5\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e52%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e5\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWarning Signs\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e24\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e39%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e10\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e14\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e19\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eComprehensive analysis shows that the size of the sign area, sign type, spatial distance, key sightline position, and information configuration are not independent design elements; they are closely related. These factors work together to influence the visual salience and potential interference of signs, thereby shaping the visual experience of visitors.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBased on eye-tracking data and scene analysis, the impact pathways of different types of signage can be summarized as follows:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cul\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCommercial advertising: Commercial advertisements with high quantity and high color saturation tend to become visual focal points. When they occupy the primary field of view, they directly disrupt landscape continuity and divert attention away from the heritage asset itself.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWarning signs: When excessive in number and diverse in style, warning signs create visual clutter. Although some are functionally necessary, dense distribution weakens the sense of scene immersion.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWayfinding systems: When moderate in number and well organized, wayfinding systems cause relatively little visual disturbance. However, when overlaid with other sign types, they can easily lead to confusion in information hierarchy and increase cognitive load.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eInterpretive signs: Although rich in content, an excessive number of interpretive signs disperses attention from the landscape itself. If poorly positioned and obstructing key views, their disruptive effect becomes more pronounced.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003c/ul\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThese characteristics provide targeted focal points for subsequent paired-comparison preference evaluations and mechanism analyses. To understand the interactions between these elements, photo analysis will be conducted to examine the role of each potential visual interference factor, followed by a quantitative analysis of their relationships.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec11\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.2 Paired-comparison preference results\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBetween 15 and 25 August 2025, the researchers visited each of the six gardens to collect photographic data, obtaining a total of 350 samples.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFrom the image database, representative photographs will be selected. Based on the preliminary hypotheses derived from the eye-tracking experiment, the distracting elements in the photographs will be modified using one of the following three approaches: (1) Removal: For elements that significantly impair visual quality, are non-essential, and appear redundant, the option is to delete them or shift them outside the visual field; (2) Modification: These elements possess strong functionality but have a visually disruptive effect. Recommendations can be made to modify these elements to achieve harmony with the environment; (3) Retention: These elements are visually consistent with the environment, represent necessary functionality, and are therefore retained. To facilitate analysis, these three approaches are indicated using different color codes (Fig.A.4). The modified photographs are then presented to interviewees for comparison. Photographs receiving favorable modification evaluations are selected for analysis to further determine visual disturbance influence factors.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec12\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.2.1 Quantity and scale\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWhen visually distracting elements are excessive in scale or number and are collocated with the primary feature, they are likely to capture visual attention and thereby diminish the cultural landscape experience. For instance, when a stone tablet at Slender West Lake serves as the primary element, three adjacent modern-style signboards are disproportionately large and numerous; their combined visible area exceeds that of the stone tablet, producing a visually dominant effect that reduces immersion. In this study, the signboards beside the stone tablet were removed (Fig.A.5).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec13\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.2.2 Color\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBased on the eye-tracking experiment and the research team\\u0026rsquo;s analysis, when the color of distracting elements is similar to that of the dominant landscape, the overall atmosphere appears more harmonious. In contrast, elements with high color contrast and high brightness are more likely to disrupt the overall visual atmosphere (Fig.A.6). For instance, at an intersection node within the Haohe Scenic Area, color adjustments were made to better match the environmental hues and non-harmonious items such as litter bins were removed from the scene (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig4\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e4\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec14\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.2.3 Hierarchy\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAn excessive number of informational narrative levels and unclear prioritization reduce focus on the cultural theme and impair cultural comprehension. For instance, at a viewpoint within the Slender West Lake scenic area, the same visual field presented \\\"site introduction,\\\" \\\"promotional displays,\\\" \\\"boat route\\\" information, and multiple directional signs. The multitude of signs created a disordered hierarchy that hindered information retrieval and produced visual clutter. Interventions consolidated the signage: the \\\"boat route\\\" information was relocated to the ticket office, directional signs were merged, and styles were standardized (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig5\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec15\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.2.4 Shape and contour\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHighly complex or unconventional contours diverge from traditional forms and tend to draw disproportionate visual attention when positioned near primary heritage features. For instance, at Wenfeng Pagoda, an irregularly shaped management sign conflicts formally with the historic structure behind it and causes partial visual obstruction. A series of entrance signs also presented a disordered hierarchy. The following modifications were implemented: (1) simplify sign forms; (2) relocate signs to preserve unobstructed sightlines to the building; (3) reorder signs by content into a hierarchy, placing management regulations first, then a general introduction, and finally detailed information (Fig.A.7).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec16\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.2.5 Intrusion into key spatial sightlines\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWhen visually distracting elements are located on primary axes, within framed views, or at commemorative nodes, or when they substantially obstruct major attractions, they can distort visitors\\u0026rsquo; understanding of architectural and landscape heritage. Representative images were selected from the sample database showing distracting elements combined with traditional Chinese lattice windows, positioned on the principal axis of classical buildings, or creating large-scale obstruction of cultural structures. The researchers attempted to remove these intrusive elements to restore a coherent, uninterrupted scene (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig6\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e6\\u003c/span\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe processed images and before\\u0026ndash;after comparisons were sent via WeChat to 30 visitors between 28 August 2025 and 30 August 2025. All respondents reported that the post-intervention scenes appeared more cohesive and exhibited reduced visual disruption. From these preliminary results, the following visual disturbance factors were identified: quantity and scale, color, informational hierarchy, shape and contour, and intrusion into key spatial sightlines.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBased on the image treatments above, visual disturbance elements were classified into four broad categories: commercial advertisements, warning signs, wayfinding systems, and site information. Treatment strategies were summarized according to the visual characteristics of these four categories (Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab3\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab3\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 3\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSummary of Visual Element Treatments\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eElement Category\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSpecific Conditions\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRecommended Treatment\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCommercial Advertisements\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOversized structures occupying the main visual field of the landscape, with excessively vivid coloration and strong stylistic conflicts with the surrounding historic architecture. Such advertisements obscure key details of the cultural relics or the primary landscape features.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRemove\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDesigns highly consistent with the cultural theme of the scenic area, appropriate in scale, and harmoniously colored. Positioned within commercial zones, blending well with the surrounding environment and landscape atmosphere, without affecting visitors\\u0026rsquo; visual experience.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRetain\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWell-crafted billboard with moderate size and natural color coordination, yet the placement is slightly abrupt near the core scenic area.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eModify\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWarning Signs\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOverly large and visually jarring signs that obscure detailed textures of relics or occupy key viewing positions, disrupting the aesthetic and visual coherence of the landscape.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRemove\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAppropriate in size, visually coordinated with the surrounding environment, and reasonably located near hazardous areas, serving an effective warning function without obstructing main scenic views.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRetain\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eExcessive in number, with inconsistent styles and materials, severely undermining the overall visual unity and harmony of the landscape.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eModify\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGuidance System\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRedundant with other guiding elements, weak in warning function, and partially blocking architectural details of building facades.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRemove\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eModerate in scale, using naturally coordinated colors that blend with the environment. Properly placed near intersections or entrances without obstructing landscape views, and constructed with materials that integrate well with the surroundings.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRetain\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eExcessive quantity and disorganized layout with inconsistent styles. Despite visual clutter, guiding function remains necessary at key intersections.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eModify\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eInterpretive Panels\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOverly large and vividly colored panels that obscure the forms of relics or main landscape features, offering limited interpretive value.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRemove\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAppropriate in size and color, naturally blending with the surrounding environment\\u0026mdash;for instance, tones matching historic architecture or natural vegetation. Positioned at the side of scenic spots or along trails where visitors can easily read without hindering landscape appreciation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRetain\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eExcessive in number, dispersed across the site with diverse designs and complex materials, undermining the overall unity and visual coherence of the landscape.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eModify\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec17\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.3 Interview results\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn this study, eight basic interview questions were designed: four were answered jointly by designers and developers, two were directed specifically to management personnel, and two were designated for designers only. Each respondent answered questions relevant to their area of expertise (Table A.3).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBased on the analysis of interview of manages (Table A.4) and designers (Table A.5), The interview results are summarized as follows:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe expert interviews revealed several key insights into current challenges and evaluation needs related to visual interference in park and green space environments. Existing practices tend to rely heavily on general visitor satisfaction measures, lacking a systematic and multidimensional framework for assessing visual interference, while the perspective of visitors\\u0026rsquo; visual perception remains underutilized. Experts emphasized that effective evaluation should integrate multiple dimensions, including visitor satisfaction, negative visual interference, compatibility with the historical\\u0026ndash;cultural context, and clear optimization directions. Moreover, the interviews highlighted distinct role-based priorities: practitioners require a clearer understanding of the real-world effects of different interference dimensions, designers focus on meaning and visual interpretation, and managers emphasize overall experience and atmospheric quality. Collectively, these findings underscore the need for a standardized, multidimensional visual interference evaluation system to guide balanced visual design that simultaneously supports cultural expression and enhances visitor experience in urban parks and green spaces.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBased on all the above analysis, the following hypotheses are proposed:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eH1\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSemantic inconsistency of intrusive elements significantly undermines visitors\\u0026rsquo; cultural understanding of place-related meanings in urban parks and green spaces.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eH2\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSpatial intrusion of intrusive elements significantly diminishes visitors\\u0026rsquo; cultural perception in urban parks and green spaces.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eH3\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVisual discontinuity caused by intrusive elements significantly contributes to biased cultural interpretation of park environments.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eH4\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVisual clutter generated by intrusive elements significantly impairs visitors\\u0026rsquo; cultural perception of urban green spaces.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eH5\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBiased cultural understanding of park environments significantly increases perceived immersion loss in urban green spaces.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eH6\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eA decline in visitors\\u0026rsquo; cultural cognition of park environments significantly exacerbates perceived immersion loss in urban parks and green spaces.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec18\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.4 Design of the evaluation system\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe evaluation framework comprises three stages (Fig.A.8). Based on photographic assessment and interviews, this study will develop a questionnaire covering six visual disturbance dimensions. A structural equation model will be used to examine how these visual disturbances affect immersion. Measurement indicators include:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cul\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eQuantity/Scale: number of visible signs within the sight line, total visible area ratio (sign pixels / view pixels), text density.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eShape/Symbol salience: contour complexity, icon count, deviation score from traditional paradigms, layout disturbance index.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eInformation hierarchy/Priority: information-hierarchy index, mixed ratio of navigation/warning/Explanatory items, information consistency.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eColor discordance: saturation difference from the environment\\u0026rsquo;s dominant color, luminance contrast, material secular reflectance.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSpatial intrusion/Occlusion: presence on main axis/framed view/commemorative node, occlusion proportion, distance/height relation to the cultural core.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eContextual consistency: textual accuracy, tone appropriateness, translation standardization, cultural fit of icons, semantic consistency of interpretive text.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003c/ul\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec19\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.5 Questionnaire data analysis\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis study uses visitor perception data to examine how visual disturbances at cultural heritage sites diminish cultural immersion. The analysis followed a stepwise approach: establishing measurement quality, testing the hypothesized loss mechanism with SEM, and then using item level regression to derive actionable priorities for visual standardization.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSurveys were conducted from September 1 to September 15, 2025 across six study sites under stable weather and high visitor flow. In total, 498 questionnaires were distributed and 325 valid responses were obtained. The questionnaire contained 27 items, including visitor background and scenario identification (Q1\\u0026ndash;Q5), visual disturbance indicators (Q6\\u0026ndash;Q17), and outcome measures of cultural understanding, cultural perception, and immersion (Q18\\u0026ndash;Q27). The full item list and construct mapping are provided in Table A.6.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePrior to modeling, responses were screened for completeness and consistency. Q11 and Q17 were reverse scored to ensure that all VD indicators shared the same direction. Reliability and factorability were then assessed, followed by EFA and CFA to confirm the measurement structure. SEM was subsequently used to test the mediation based loss mechanism, with bootstrap resampling applied to evaluate indirect effects. Finally, a supplementary multiple regression model was estimated to identify which disturbance elements retained independent explanatory power for immersion when considered simultaneously, supporting clearer standardization priorities while keeping the SEM conclusions unchanged.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec20\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.5.1 Reliability and Factor Analysis Pre-Conditions\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eReliability testing showed Cronbach\\u0026rsquo;s alpha values ranging from 0.827 to 0.936 across dimensions, indicating stable internal consistency (overall alpha\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.825 for Q6\\u0026ndash;Q27) \\u003cb\\u003e(\\u003c/b\\u003eNunnally \\u0026amp; Bernstein, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR37\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1978\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e)\\u003c/b\\u003e (Table A.7). This suggests the item sets are internally coherent, providing a necessary foundation for subsequent factor analysis and modeling.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNext, we assessed the adequacy of the correlation structure for factor analysis. The Kaiser\\u0026ndash;Meyer\\u0026ndash;Olkin (KMO) measure was 0.929, and Bartlett\\u0026rsquo;s test was significant \\u003cspan class=\\\"InlineEquation\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"mathinline\\\"\\u003e\\\\(\\\\:\\\\chi\\\\:\\u0026sup2;=6884.95,df=231,p\\u0026lt;0.001\\\\)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e (Table A.8), indicating very high sampling adequacy and supporting the use of factor analysis. These diagnostics suggest that the item correlations reflect systematic structure rather than random noise, thereby justifying the subsequent EFA, CFA, and SEM procedures.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec21\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.5.2 Factor Analysis and Structural Insights\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAn exploratory factor analysis (EFA) identified three factors explaining about 60% of the total variance. Disturbance items (Q6\\u0026ndash;Q15) loaded heavily on one factor, suggesting that visitors perceive visual disturbances as a unified construct rather than isolated categories. This supports modeling visual disturbance as a single latent construct in SEM. Additionally, items related to cultural understanding and perception (Q18\\u0026ndash;Q23) co-loaded, indicating high relatedness but preserving conceptual separability for further testing of mechanism pathways (Table A.9).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec22\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.5.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBuilding on the EFA, a four-factor CFA model was specified, including visual disturbance (VD), cultural understanding (CU), cultural perception (CP), and immersion (IM). The model showed good fit (RMSEA\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.06; CFI/TLI\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;0.95), with significant standardized loadings (0.65\\u0026ndash;0.90) and strong convergent (CR\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.88\\u0026ndash;0.93; AVE\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.58\\u0026ndash;0.73) and discriminant validity (Table A.10). CFA results confirm that heterogeneous disturbances converge into a unified VD construct, and CU and CP, though related, remain empirically distinct. These findings support a dual pathway interpretation, where disturbances erode immersion via both narrative comprehension and atmospheric coherence, with the IM construct demonstrating strong measurement quality.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec23\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.5.4 Structural equation modeling for mechanism testing\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCFA established that the measurement model is reliable and that the four constructs (VD, CU, CP, and IM) are empirically distinguishable. However, measurement validation alone cannot explain how experience loss unfolds. Therefore, we estimated SEM to test the proposed loss mechanism, focusing on whether visual disturbance diminishes immersion primarily through weakening cultural understanding and cultural perception, rather than only through an immediate direct disruption.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo clarify the role of mediation in the loss mechanism, three structural models were compared: a direct effect model, a full mediation model, and a partial mediation model. This comparison is theoretically meaningful because it distinguishes two competing interpretations. If visual disturbance mainly disrupts immersion through the degradation of intermediate processes (understanding and perception), mediation models should outperform a direct effect only structure. If disturbance also produces an additional immediate disruption that cannot be fully captured by the mediators, a partial mediation model should provide the best balance of explanatory realism and parsimony.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAs shown in Table A.11, the direct effect model exhibited weaker fit, whereas model fit improved once mediation paths were introduced. Among the alternatives, the partial mediation model showed the best overall performance (lower \\u003cb\\u003eχ\\u0026sup2;\\u003c/b\\u003e/df, higher CFI and TLI, and lower RMSEA and SRMR). Accordingly, the partial mediation model was retained as the final structural model.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe final SEM results are summarized in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab4\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e4\\u003c/span\\u003e. Visual disturbance exerted significant negative effects on both cultural perception and cultural understanding, whereas both mediators positively and significantly predicted immersion. Together, these paths indicate that reduced immersion is closely tied to the weakening of two key cultural processing conditions: atmospheric coherence (cultural perception) and semantic readability (cultural understanding).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn addition to the indirect mechanisms, visual disturbance also showed a weaker but statistically significant direct negative effect on immersion. This residual direct path suggests that certain disturbances may interrupt attention and presence immediately, even before visitors process atmosphere or meaning. However, the direct effect was notably smaller than the combined mediated influence, implying that immersion loss is driven less by a single momentary \\u0026ldquo;interruption\\u0026rdquo; and more by a gradual erosion of the cultural processing conditions that sustain immersive experience.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo assess the robustness of the mediation mechanism, indirect effects were examined using bootstrap resampling (5,000 samples). Both mediation paths were significant, and their confidence intervals excluded zero, confirming that cultural perception and cultural understanding reliably transmit the negative impact of visual disturbance on immersion.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab4\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 4\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSEM path coefficients and Robustness test of the mediation effects\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePath relationship\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDirect effect β\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIndirect effect β\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTotal effect β\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSignificance\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVD \\u0026rarr; CP\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.32\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.32\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ep\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.01\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVD \\u0026rarr; CU\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.25\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.25\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ep\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.01\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCP \\u0026rarr; IM\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.40\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.40\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e*p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.001\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCU \\u0026rarr; IM\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.30\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ndash;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.30\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e*p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.001\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eVD \\u0026rarr; IM\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e-0.15\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e-0.21\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e-0.36\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e*p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.05 (direct effect)\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e*p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.001 (total effect)\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eIndirect path\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eStandardized indirect effect β\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eLower CI\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eUpper CI\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eSignificance\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVD \\u0026rarr; CP \\u0026rarr; IM\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.13\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.21\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.07\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ep\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.01\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVD \\u0026rarr; CU \\u0026rarr; IM\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.08\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.15\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.03\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ep\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.01\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCombining direct and indirect components, the total indirect effect was \\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.21 and the total effect of visual disturbance on immersion reached\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;0.36. This decomposition provides a clear mechanism statement: immersion loss is generated primarily through mediated degradation in cultural processing, while a smaller direct disruption remains. To make the SEM results more interpretable in theoretical terms, we summarize the core findings, their supporting statistics, and their implications in Table A.12.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe table A.11 highlights two points that are especially relevant for heritage experience design. First, the negative influence of disturbance operates through two distinct but complementary channels, one cognitive and one perceptual. This supports a dual process view of immersion formation, in which visitors need both a coherent atmosphere and a legible narrative to sustain engagement. Second, the relatively small direct path suggests that \\u0026ldquo;reducing the number of signs\\u0026rdquo; or \\u0026ldquo;removing one prominent object\\u0026rdquo; may not be sufficient if the overall information ecology remains structurally incoherent. In other words, governance should prioritize restoring visual continuity and contextual coherence as system properties, rather than treating disturbances as isolated defects.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec24\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.5.5 Supplementary analyses to strengthen inference and generalization\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWhile SEM provides mechanism level evidence, two additional checks are important for design oriented interpretation. First, the proposed loss mechanism should be consistent with the observed covariance pattern at the construct level, rather than relying only on model specification. Second, because data were collected across six heritage scenarios, we need to confirm that the mechanism is not confined to a single site context but remains observable under heterogeneous spatial and management conditions. Therefore, we report construct level descriptive statistics and correlations, followed by scenario based comparisons. Finally, an item level regression analysis is presented to translate the mechanism findings into actionable prioritization for visual standardization.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAt the construct level, visual disturbance was negatively correlated with cultural understanding, cultural perception, and immersion, whereas cultural understanding and cultural perception were both positively correlated with immersion. This pattern mirrors the direction of the SEM paths and supports the basic plausibility of the loss mechanism: disturbance aligns with lower comprehension and weaker atmospheric coherence, and these two processes align with reduced immersion. Importantly, CU and CP are strongly related but not redundant, which is consistent with the earlier measurement model logic that treats them as two distinguishable mediators (Table A.13).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBecause the sample was collected across six scenarios, we further examined whether perceived disturbance and cultural experience outcomes varied systematically by scenario. Mean comparisons show clear between scenario differentiation for all four constructs, indicating that respondents were sensitive to environmental differences rather than responding uniformly across contexts. This provides ecological support for the SEM mechanism, suggesting that the observed relationships are not restricted to one exceptional site but emerge across heterogeneous heritage environments (Table A.14).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAlthough SEM tests the loss mechanism at the construct level, design standardization also requires identifying which disturbance features matter most when multiple elements co occur on site. We therefore ran a supplementary multiple regression with immersion as the dependent variable and Q6\\u0026ndash;Q17 as simultaneous predictors (Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab5\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/span\\u003e). The model was significant (adjusted R square\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.216, F\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;8.421, p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.001). Significant effects were concentrated on information hierarchy and contextual expression, with spatial intrusion showing marginal significance, whereas quantity and color did not remain significant after controlling for other elements.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab5\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 5\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRegression results of visual disturbance factors on immersion experience\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIndependent variable\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRegression coefficient\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(B)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003et\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSignificance\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eConstant\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.951\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e28.989\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eExcessive number(Q6)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.082\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1.119\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003en.s.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eExcessive scale(Q7)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.129\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-1.510\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003en.s.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOverly conspicuous form(Q8)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.117\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-1.527\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003en.s.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eInconsistent style(Q9)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.032\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.411\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003en.s.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnclear information priority(Q10)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.160\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1.452\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003en.s.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eClear hierarchy(Q11, reverse scored)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.273\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-2.525\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e*\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBright/reflective color(Q12)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.037\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.461\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003en.s.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eColor inconsistent with expectations(Q13)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.061\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.805\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003en.s.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAppears in key sightline(Q14)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.144\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-1.748\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026dagger;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eImproper distance/height(Q15)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.020\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.250\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003en.s.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIncorrect text/translation(Q16)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.320\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2.762\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e**\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAdequate expression(Q17, reverse scored)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.439\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-3.808\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003ctfoot\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd colspan=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eNote\\u003c/b\\u003e: \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026dagger; p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.10; * p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.05; ** p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.01; *** p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.001; n.s. = not significant\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tfoot\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThese results refine the design priority order. Immersion loss is driven less by isolated sensory attributes and more by failures in cultural information structure and contextual coherence. Non significant results for quantity and color should not be read as irrelevant; rather, their effects are likely contingent and often masked by deeper problems in hierarchy and expression.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"4 Discussion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThis study clarifies that immersion loss in urban green heritage is not primarily a matter of single visual \\u0026ldquo;defects\\u0026rdquo; such as bright colors or oversized signage, but a mechanism of cultural experience erosion driven by weakened narrative legibility and contextual coherence. The SEM results show that visual disturbance significantly undermines both cultural perception and cultural understanding, and that these two processes in turn are strong predictors of immersion. In other words, disturbance harms immersion mainly by damaging the conditions that allow visitors to read the site as a coherent cultural setting, rather than by producing an immediate sensory irritation alone. The remaining direct path from disturbance to immersion is significant but relatively small, suggesting that what visitors lose is not merely attention in the moment, but the ability to sustain a culturally meaningful \\u0026ldquo;presence\\u0026rdquo; over time.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis finding is theoretically informative because it reframes \\u0026ldquo;visual disturbance\\u0026rdquo; from a collection of isolated attributes into a system level experience condition. In the CFA, heterogeneous disturbance features do not split into separate perceptual categories; they converge into a single latent construct. This convergence implies that visitors do not typically diagnose whether a problem is caused by color, scale, or placement in an analytical manner. Instead, they form a holistic judgment about whether the site still \\u0026ldquo;hangs together\\u0026rdquo; as a cultural landscape. The practical consequence is important: design governance cannot rely on treating each element as an independent defect to be fixed locally. The primary task is to restore the overall readability of the cultural setting, because immersion is sustained by perceptual flow and narrative continuity rather than by perfect control of any single attribute.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMeanwhile, the item level regression adds a crucial nuance that helps translate the mechanism into design priorities. When multiple disturbance features co occur, significance concentrates on hierarchy and contextual expression, while spatial intrusion shows only marginal evidence and quantity or color do not remain independently significant. This does not mean that color and quantity are irrelevant. Rather, it suggests that their influence is often conditional on the integrity of the information system. When hierarchy is unclear and cultural expression is weak, even minor sensory inconsistencies can accumulate into a strong sense of mismatch; when structure and expression are coherent, the marginal impact of color or quantity becomes less detectable. From a governance perspective, this implies a priority order: first stabilize information hierarchy and context appropriate expression, then refine spatial placement, and only then fine tune sensory attributes such as color schemes or surface reflectivity. The implication is counter-intuitive for many design practices that begin with style, palette, and form. Our evidence suggests the opposite sequence is more effective for protecting immersion.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThese mechanism level results also help explain why fragmented management practices frequently fail. In many heritage gardens and green heritage settings, signage, interpretive panels, safety notices, and commercial prompts are often introduced through separate actors and at different times, producing an additive accumulation rather than a designed system. The problem is not only \\u0026ldquo;too many signs\\u0026rdquo; or \\u0026ldquo;too bright signs,\\u0026rdquo; but the absence of an explicit hierarchy of meanings. When directional, warning, interpretive, and commercial messages compete in the same visual field, visitors cannot easily decide what to read, what to ignore, and what belongs to the heritage narrative. The outcome is not simply distraction, but a breakdown of cultural inference: visitors lose the pathway from what they see to what it means, and immersion becomes fragile.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFigure \\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig7\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e7\\u003c/span\\u003e is proposed precisely as a design translation of this mechanism. It ope-rationalizes the priority order implied by SEM and regression by distinguishing three typical spatial situations and specifying how hierarchy, placement, and expression should be handled in each.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn Panel A, route guidance and general notices are treated as a macro layer of functional information. The key principle is not decorative harmony alone, but hierarchy clarity: guidance should appear only at decision points, be concise, and be visually subordinate to heritage views. This aligns with the finding that hierarchy related disturbance is among the strongest predictors of immersion loss. In Panel B, where small heritage features sit within naturalistic settings, the logic shifts from \\u0026ldquo;visibility\\u0026rdquo; to \\u0026ldquo;non competition.\\u0026rdquo; Signs should avoid entering framed views and should keep sufficient distance from the feature so that interpretation supports, rather than replaces, direct appreciation. This corresponds to the marginal role of spatial intrusion: placement matters most when it interferes with key sightlines. In Panel C, where large landmark structures anchor the cultural narrative, the goal is to protect facade integrity and narrative reading. Interpretive panels should be limited, positioned away from the frontal axis, and designed to support meaning without becoming the primary visual subject. Here, contextual expression becomes critical: language tone, iconography, and material choices must reinforce site character, consistent with the regression evidence that cultural expression and wording related items retain independent explanatory power for immersion.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTwo broader implications follow. First, visual standardization for heritage gardens should be framed as \\u0026ldquo;experience governance\\u0026rdquo; rather than surface control. What needs to be standardized is not only the appearance of individual elements, but the cultural logic of information delivery across space. Second, the results suggest a practical evaluation criterion for future interventions: improvements should be judged by whether they increase cultural readability and atmospheric unity, because these are the mediating processes through which immersion is generated and protected.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFinally, this study is limited to the visual dimension of immersion and does not model multisensory or technology mediated pathways. As immersive technologies such as projection mapping and VR become more common, the disturbance issue may shift from physical signage to mixed reality overlays and interface design. Nonetheless, the present findings provide a transferable baseline: whether in physical or digital form, immersion is likely to be lost when functional messages disrupt narrative continuity and contextual coherence. Future work can extend the framework by testing how visual governance interacts with interpretive media, movement patterns, and individual differences in heritage expertise, thereby supporting more comprehensive strategies for heritage protection and sustainable cultural tourism development.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"5 Conclusion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThis study employed a mixed-methods approach including eye-tracking experiments, photo-comparison assessments, expert interviews, and questionnaire surveys to examine how visual disturbance shapes visitor experience in architectural heritage environments. The findings demonstrate that the random insertion of non-cultural information disrupts both information hierarchy and contextual consistency, leading to a significant decline in perceived immersion. This reduction in immersion further translates into lower visitor satisfaction and diminished word-of-mouth intention, highlighting the broader experiential and social implications of visual incoherence in heritage settings.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBy integrating qualitative insights from interviews and field photography with controlled before-and-after visual comparisons, the study identified key dimensions of visual disturbance and empirically tested their perceptual impact. The subsequent questionnaire analysis quantified the relative influence of these dimensions and validated the proposed analytical framework. The results indicate that immersion is not determined by any single visual element but emerges from the combined interaction of multiple perceptual factors. Among these factors, disruptions to the information hierarchy exert the strongest negative effect, underscoring the central role of cognitive legibility and narrative continuity in sustaining cultural immersion.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRather than advancing prescriptive design solutions, the study contributes an interpretive framework for visual governance that clarifies the mechanisms through which visual environments influence experiential quality in heritage contexts. The findings suggest that maintaining a legible information structure, protecting culturally meaningful visual focal points, and managing visual density and chromatic relationships are critical for preserving contextual coherence and supporting immersive experience.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEvidence drawn from six parks with distinct spatial configurations and management contexts further suggests that the proposed framework has analytical relevance across diverse urban green spaces. This cross-contextual consistency indicates that the mechanisms identified in this study may extend beyond individual heritage sites, offering insights applicable to the broader governance of visual information in public cultural landscapes.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSeveral limitations should be acknowledged. The study relied on opportunistic sampling, which may constrain the representativeness of the findings. Future research could collaborate with tourism authorities to organize more structured visitor cohorts and in-depth interviews, enabling a more systematic exploration of additional disturbance mechanisms. Moreover, the results indicate that visual disturbance is not the sole contributor to immersion loss. Complementary strategies such as virtual reality, projection-based interpretation, or participatory cultural activities may help compensate for visual deficits and enhance cultural engagement where visual coherence is difficult to achieve.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Declarations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eCompeting interests\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eEthical approval\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e This study received ethical approval from an institutional science and technology ethics committee prior to data collection. All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with relevant ethical guidelines and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eInformed consent\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e Written and electronic informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study. Participants were informed about the study objectives, procedures, potential risks, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eAuthor Contribution\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eW.Z: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing \\u0026ndash; original draft, Project administration. Z.T: Data curation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing \\u0026ndash; review and editing. H.M: Sofeware, Validation, Writing \\u0026ndash; review and editing.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eAcknowledgement\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThis work was supported by the General Project of Philosophy and Social Science Research in Colleges and Universities of Jiangsu Province (No.2022SJYB0636). The authors would like to thank Professor Xueming Zai for his valuable advice during the field investigation, and Engineer Ruiming Jiang from the Jiangsu Institute of Planning and Design for assistance in coordinating expert interviews.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eData Availability\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe data supporting the findings of this study are available in the related files submitted with the manuscript. The original datasets were screened and analysed following established procedures, and all measures demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAbrams RA, Meyer DE, Kornblum S (1989) Speed and accuracy of saccadic eye movements: Characteristics of impulse variability in the oculomotor system. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 15:529\\u0026ndash;543\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAl-Kodmany K (1999) Using visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: Process, implementation and evaluation. Landsc Urban Plann 45:37\\u0026ndash;45. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00024-9\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00024-9\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAltunel MC, Erkut B (2015) Cultural tourism in Istanbul: The mediation effect of tourist experience and satisfaction on the relationship between involvement and recommendation intention. J Destination Mark Manage 4(4):213\\u0026ndash;221. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.08.001\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.08.001\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eArriaza M, Ca\\u0026ntilde;as-Ortega JF, Ca\\u0026ntilde;as-Madue\\u0026ntilde;o JA et al (2004) Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plann 69(1):115\\u0026ndash;125. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.004\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.004\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBell S (2001) Landscape pattern, perception and visualisation in the visual management of forests. Landsc Urban Plann 54:201\\u0026ndash;211. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00136-0\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00136-0\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBravi M, Gasca E (2014) Preferences evaluation with a choice experiment on cultural heritage tourism. J Hospitality Mark Manage 23(4):406\\u0026ndash;423. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2014.880722\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/19368623.2014.880722\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBryce D, Curran R, O\\u0026rsquo;Gorman K, Taheri B (2015) Visitors\\u0026rsquo; engagement and authenticity: Japanese heritage consumption. Tour Manag 46:571\\u0026ndash;581. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.006\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.006\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCabrera AT, S\\u0026aacute;nchez ML, Pulgar D, M. L. G (2020) Guidelines from the heritage field for the integration of landscape and heritage planning: A systematic literature review. Landsc Urban Plann 204:103931. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003e10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103931\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103931\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCao Q, Zhang J, Li C et al (2025) From tradition to transaction: The effect of commercialization on tourism experience in cultural heritage attractions. J Hospitality Tourism Manage 63:98\\u0026ndash;111. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2024.04.002\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.jhtm.2024.04.002\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCast\\u0026eacute;ran H, Roederer C (2013) Does authenticity really affect behavior? The case of the Strasbourg Christmas market. Tour Manag 36:153\\u0026ndash;163. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.04.002\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.tourman.2012.04.002\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eChang CT-Y, Horng SC (2010) Conceptualizing and measuring experience quality: The customer\\u0026rsquo;s perspective. Serv Ind J 30(14):2401\\u0026ndash;2419. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/02642060903401322\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/02642060903401322\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eChen RY, Wang H, Xu JF (2011) Marking Design for Landscape Systems of Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal: A Case Study of Urban Waterfront Landscape Marking Systems of Suzhou. J Shanxi Agricultural Univ (Natural Sci Edition) 31(06):486\\u0026ndash;491 (in Chinese)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDe Rojas C, Camarero C (2008) Visitors\\u0026rsquo; experience, mood and satisfaction in a heritage context: Evidence from an interpretation center. Tour Manag 29(3):525\\u0026ndash;537. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.10.002\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.tourman.2007.10.002\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDupont L, Antrop M, Van Eetvelde V (2015) Does landscape related expertise influence the visual perception of landscape photographs? Implications for participatory landscape planning and management. Landsc Urban Plann 141:68\\u0026ndash;77. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.05.005\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.05.005\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFilova L, Vojar J, Svobodova K et al (2015) The effect of landscape type and landscape elements on public visual preferences. J Environ Planning Manage 58(11):2037\\u0026ndash;2055. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.920657\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/09640568.2014.920657\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGao Y, Gao R, Yang L (2015) Analysis of order statistics of uncertain variables. J Uncertain Anal Appl 3:1. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40467-014-0025-1\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1186/s40467-014-0025-1\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGenc V, Gulertekin Genc S (2023) The effect of perceived authenticity in cultural heritage sites on tourist satisfaction: The moderating role of aesthetic experience. J Hospitality Tourism Insights 6(2):530\\u0026ndash;548. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-03-2022-0070\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1108/JHTI-03-2022-0070\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHansen AH, Mossberg L (2017) Tour guides\\u0026rsquo; performance and tourists\\u0026rsquo; immersion: Facilitating consumer immersion by performing a guide plus role. Scandinavian J Hospitality Tourism 17(3):259\\u0026ndash;278. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2017.1283138\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/15022250.2017.1283138\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHe Y, Chen G (2023) A study on the construction of heritage identity in study trips to heritage sites from an embodied perspective. World Reg Stud 32(8):166\\u0026ndash;178 (in Chinese)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHe Y, Chen G, Wang J et al (2024) Development and empirical testing of a visitors\\u0026rsquo; heritage identification scale at World Cultural Heritage Sites. Tourism Sci 38(4):80\\u0026ndash;98 (in Chinese). \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.16323/j.cnki.lykx.20231008.001\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.16323/j.cnki.lykx.20231008.001\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHernandez-Rojas RD, del R\\u0026iacute;o JAJ, Fern\\u0026aacute;ndez AI et al (2021) The cultural and heritage tourist, SEM analysis: the case of The Citadel of the Catholic King. Herit Sci 9(1):1\\u0026ndash;19. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003e10.1186/s43264-021-00010-4\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1186/s43264-021-00010-4\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHudson S, Matson-Barkat S et al (2019) With or without you? Interaction and immersion in a virtual reality experience. J Bus Res 100:459\\u0026ndash;468. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.042\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.042\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eIbarra FF, Kardan O, Hunter MCR et al (2017) Image feature types and their predictions of aesthetic preference and naturalness. Front Psychol 8:632. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00632\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00632\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eJafar RMS, Ahmad W (2024) Tourist loyalty in the metaverse: The role of immersive tourism experience and cognitive perceptions. Tourism Rev 79(2):321\\u0026ndash;336. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/TR-11-2022-0552\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1108/TR-11-2022-0552\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKang N, Liu C (2024) Assessment of visual quality and social perception of cultural landscapes: Application to Anyi traditional villages, China. Herit Sci 12(1):235. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-024-00267-x\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1186/s43238-024-00267-x\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLam JM, Makhbul ZKM, Aziz NA, Ahmat MAH (2024) Incorporating multidimensional images into cultural heritage destinations. J Cult Herit Manage Sustainable Dev 14(4):563\\u0026ndash;580. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-07-2022-0123\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1108/JCHMSD-07-2022-0123\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLee S, Phau I, Hughes M et al (2016) Heritage tourism in Singapore Chinatown. J Travel Tourism Mark 33(7):981\\u0026ndash;998. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1185683\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/10548408.2016.1185683\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLi X, Wang P, Li L et al (2025) The influence of architectural heritage and tourists\\u0026rsquo; positive emotions on behavioral intentions using an eye-tracking study. Sci Rep 15(1):1447. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-01004-7\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1038/s41598-025-01004-7\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLi Y, Ito H (2023) Visitor experience evaluation of projection mapping technology at cultural heritage tourism sites. Herit Sci 11(1). \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-023-00898-4\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1186/s40494-023-00898-4\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLi Y, Cao L, Gao W (2025) Perceptual dimensions of heritage canal landscapes and their impact on conservation value cognition. Ecol Ind 176:113626. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113626\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113626\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLi Y, Guo J, Chen Y (2022) A new approach to tourists\\u0026rsquo; visual behavior patterns and perception evaluation based on multi-source data. J Geo-information Sci 24(10):2004\\u0026ndash;2020 (in Chinese). \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.12082/dqxxkx.2022.210840\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.12082/dqxxkx.2022.210840\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLi Y, Liang J, Huang J et al (2024) Evaluating tourist perceptions of architectural heritage values at a World Heritage Site in South-East China: The case of Gulangyu Island. J Hospitality Tourism Manage 60:127\\u0026ndash;140. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003e10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.03.012\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.03.012\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLyu J, Huang Y, Wang L (2024) When essence is lost: The consequences of commercialization in historical towns. J Travel Res 63(7):1671\\u0026ndash;1687. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/00472875221076752\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/00472875221076752\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMacCannell D (1984) Reconstructed ethnicity: Tourism and cultural identity in third world communities. Annals Tourism Res 11(3):375\\u0026ndash;391. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(84)90021-2\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/0160-7383(84)90021-2\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMcIntosh AJ, Hinch T, Ingram T (2002) Cultural identity and tourism. Int J Arts Manage 4:39\\u0026ndash;49\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eM\\u0026uuml;ller M (2020) Item fit statistics for Rasch analysis. J Stat Distribution Appl 7:5. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40488-020-00108-7\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1186/s40488-020-00108-7\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eQin X, Fang M, Yang D et al (2023) Quantitative evaluation of attraction intensity of highway landscape visual elements based on dynamic perception. Environ Impact Assess Rev 100:107081. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107081\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107081\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eShizhu L, Qiuyu H, Ziyi M et al (2024) Design of a universal signage system for the Ruijin Soviet cultural heritage site. Herit Sci 12(1). \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-024-01526-5\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1186/s40494-024-01526-5\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSong H, Chen J, Li P (2025) Decoding the cultural heritage tourism landscape and visitor crowding behavior. Tour Manag 110:105180. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2024.105180\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.tourman.2024.105180\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSterling C (2020) Designing critical heritage experiences. Archaeol Int 22(1):100\\u0026ndash;113. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5334/ai.470\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.5334/ai.470\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWeber J (2017) Designing engaging experiences with location-based augmented reality games for urban tourism environments. Bournemouth University\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eXu F, Dong Y (2025) Cultural contact and identity construction in heritage spaces. Folklore Stud 4:103\\u0026ndash;113 (in Chinese). \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.13370/j.cnki.fs.2025.04.008\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.13370/j.cnki.fs.2025.04.008\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eYuan G, Wang H, Wang M et al (2022) Visual attention and ethnic landscape perception. Appl Geogr 147:102781. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2022.102781\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.apgeog.2022.102781\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eYu Z (2022) Model construction and practical strategies of heritage tourism and cultural identity. J Southwest Minzu Univ (Humanities Social Sciences) 3:34\\u0026ndash;42 (in Chinese)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eZhang G, Chen X, Law R et al (2020) Sustainability of heritage tourism. Sustainability 12(21):9199. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su12219199\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3390/su12219199\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eZhang S, Liu J, Pei T et al (2023) Perception in cultural heritage tourism. J Tourism Cult Change 21(5):569\\u0026ndash;591. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2023.2214793\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/14766825.2023.2214793\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eZhao T, Wong IKA, Tong P et al (2022) Gazing at the gazers. J Travel Res 61(4):730\\u0026ndash;746. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/00472875211019068\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/00472875211019068\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eZou Y, Yang Y, Li Y et al (2023) How do tourists\\u0026rsquo; heritage spatial perceptions affect place identity. J Hospitality Tourism Manage 55:460\\u0026ndash;470. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.03.011\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.03.011\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":false,\"hideJournal\":false,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":false,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"externalIdentity\":\"palcomms\",\"sideBox\":\"Learn more about [Humanities \\u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)\",\"snPcode\":\"41599\",\"submissionUrl\":\"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3\",\"title\":\"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications\",\"twitterHandle\":\"\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":true,\"editorialSystem\":\"stoa\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"Nature AJ\",\"inReviewEnabled\":true,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":false},\"keywords\":\"Architectural heritage, Visual disturbance, Information hierarchy, Environmental design, Visual signage design standards\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8579629/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8579629/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eInformational signage, including wayfinding, safety, and commercial signs, plays an essential role in architectural heritage environments. However, excessive or poorly coordinated signage can generate visual disturbance that disrupts visual environmental quality and undermines visitors’ cultural experience. This study investigates signage-related visual disturbance in six heritage parks influenced by classical garden principles. A mixed-methods approach was employed, integrating eye-tracking experiments, paired-comparison visual evaluations, semi-structured interviews, and visitor questionnaires. Through photographic analysis, different types of visual disturbance were identified, and their perceptual effects were further examined using structural equation modeling and regression analysis. The results indicate that disordered information hierarchy and inconsistency with the surrounding context are the primary factors reducing visual environmental quality, whereas signage quantity and color prominence exert comparatively limited effects. Based on these findings, this study proposes a visual management framework that supports coherent information delivery while safeguarding cultural perception and experiential quality in architectural heritage environments.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"Visual disturbance from informational signage in architectural heritage environments: Evidence from perception-based analyses\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2026-01-30 20:18:29\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8579629/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0},{\"type\":\"decision\",\"content\":\"Revision requested\",\"date\":\"2026-04-15T16:01:10+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2026-02-28T18:08:17+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2026-02-25T17:15:42+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2026-02-08T14:17:30+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"286882365459747780966891988393730016676\",\"date\":\"2026-01-30T18:02:32+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"333095412113515038056401324071666434900\",\"date\":\"2026-01-28T16:32:45+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"43957485166268840153218605068533587628\",\"date\":\"2026-01-28T12:57:39+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewersInvited\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2026-01-28T07:44:18+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorAssigned\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2026-01-28T07:26:00+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvited\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2026-01-28T06:58:15+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"checksComplete\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2026-01-26T02:59:01+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"submitted\",\"content\":\"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications\",\"date\":\"2026-01-26T02:52:05+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"externalIdentity\":\"palcomms\",\"sideBox\":\"Learn more about [Humanities \\u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)\",\"snPcode\":\"41599\",\"submissionUrl\":\"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3\",\"title\":\"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications\",\"twitterHandle\":\"\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":true,\"editorialSystem\":\"stoa\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"Nature AJ\",\"inReviewEnabled\":true,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":false}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"238254b1-0b53-449f-8567-0ef8b5f51fe2\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"January 30th, 2026\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"under-review\",\"subjectAreas\":[{\"id\":61915559,\"name\":\"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences\"},{\"id\":61915560,\"name\":\"Biological sciences/Psychology\"},{\"id\":61915561,\"name\":\"Social science/Psychology\"}],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2026-04-27T04:53:44+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":[],\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2026-01-30 20:18:29\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-8579629\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-8579629\",\"identity\":\"rs-8579629\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}