Research on the Impact of Landscape Planning on Visual and Spatial Perception in Historical District Tourism: A Case Study of Laomendong

Abstract

Exploring the impact of landscape planning on visual and spatial perception is particularly significant for historical district tourism. The existing literature offers limited insight into which historical landscapes most effectively influence tourists’ visual and spatial perceptions. Our study investigates this relationship within the cultural heritage context of Laomendong, a historical district in Nanjing, China. Utilizing the Stimulus–Organism–Response (SOR) theoretical framework, this research explored how the stylistic, symbolic, and spatial dimensions of historical landscapes influence tourists’ visual and spatial perceptions. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test hypotheses concerning the relationships between historical landscapes, visual perception, spatial perception, and individual predispositions. The findings revealed that stylistic factors (material, color, and ornament), symbolic factors (landmark, relic, and sign), and spatial factors (openness, scale, and layout) significantly enhance visual perception and subsequently spatial perception. Visual perception plays a mediating role in the influence of historical landscapes on spatial perception. Individual predispositions, like sensation-seeking, intensify spatial perception, while destination familiarity surprisingly shows a negative effect, suggesting that over-familiarity might diminish the novelty and excitement of a spatial experience. These insights provide practical implications for the sustainable development of landscape planning in historical district tourism.

1. Introduction

China has built more newly constructed historical districts (NCHDs) due to recent policies aimed at heritage and cultural revitalization. These historical districts blend historical charm with modern amenities using place-making techniques that replicate traditional aesthetics and cultural elements [1]. In these historical districts, authenticity plays a critical role in shaping tourist experiences and behavioral intentions [2], making it essential to create environments that convincingly evoke history.

To achieve such authenticity, the restoration and rehabilitation of historic districts are underpinned by various theories and principles that ensure these areas retain their cultural and historical significance while adapting to contemporary needs. One such principle is minimal intervention, which advocates for the least amount of change necessary to preserve the historical value of a site. This principle helps maintain the authenticity and integrity of historic structures, ensuring that any modifications do not overshadow the original elements [3]. Furthermore, the principle of compatibility emphasizes that new additions or alterations should harmonize with the existing historical context, preserving the character of the historical district. This is closely related to sustainability, where the focus is on using materials and methods that are not only historically accurate but also environmentally sustainable [4]. In addition to these considerations, functionality also plays a key role, ensuring that restored sites remain useful and relevant to contemporary society, allowing them to serve modern needs without compromising their historical essence [5]. By adhering to these principles, the restoration of historic cities not only preserves their visual and physical integrity but also enhances their cultural and historical value, ensuring these spaces remain vibrant and meaningful [6].

These principles are further reinforced by cultural heritage conservation theories such as those of UNESCO and the Burra Charter, which emphasize the importance of preserving “historic landscapes”, ensuring the continuity of cultural identity, and enriching visitors’ spatial perceptions [7]. Landscape planning plays a vital role in this authenticity by conserving some important elements that embody the area’s heritage. These elements serve as tangible links to the past, offering a sense of continuity and identity. For instance, the use of traditional materials, textures, and colors can evoke historical contexts, enhancing the tourists’ connection to the space [8,9]. Architectural details like cornices, moldings, and window frames are replicated or restored to reinforce the historical narrative. These features, often crafted with a level of detail and craftsmanship that reflects the era of their creation, contribute to the unique character of the area [10]. New buildings and renovations complement existing structures, ensuring a harmonious blend that respects the original style and layout [11]. In essence, landscape planning in historical districts involves a delicate balance of preserving the past while accommodating present and future needs [12]. The theoretical principles of minimal intervention, authenticity, compatibility, sustainability, documentation, cultural significance, integrity, and functionality in restoration guide the landscape planning process [13,14]. By adhering to these principles, landscape planning not only maintains the visual and physical integrity of historical sites but also enhances their cultural and historical value [15]. Through careful consideration of materials, design elements, and spatial configurations, landscape planning ensures that historical districts remain vibrant and meaningful spaces that resonate with both history and modernity [16].

Effective landscape planning also enhances tourists’ overall experience and navigation. Visual perception aids in environmental orientation by using landmarks and spatial configurations to create mental maps, facilitating wayfinding and reducing disorientation [17]. This is particularly important in complex environments like historical districts, where clear visual markers can enhance the tourist experience.

Beyond aiding navigation, spatial perception in historical districts is enriched by the interplay of openness, scale, and layout. Narrow alleys, expansive plazas, and the strategic placement of landmarks create a dynamic spatial narrative that guides tourists. This spatial orchestration elicits emotional responses, ranging from awe to tranquility. As discussed by Norberg-Schulz [18], the concept of “genius loci” or the spirit of place highlights the importance of a location’s inherent character in shaping individual experiences. In historical district tourism, this character is a blend of physical form, historical context, and cultural significance, fostering a deeper appreciation of the site’s heritage.

Despite extensive research on visual and spatial perception, several gaps remain. Firstly, much of the existing research on spatial perception is concentrated within the field of modern areas, with studies on historical district tourism being particularly scarce [19]. Secondly, research on visual perception has not delved deeply into how historical landscapes influence visual and spatial perception. Thirdly, there is a lack of standardized quantitative measures to assess these perceptions in historical districts. Fourthly, most of the current research is theoretical or based on expert opinions, indicating a need for human-centered design approaches that involve direct input and feedback from end users. Lastly, there is no systematic research framework for analyzing the moderating mechanisms among “historical landscapes”, “visual perception”, and “spatial perception”.

This study aims to determine how historical landscapes in Laomendong influence spatial and visual perception. Specifically, this study addresses the following research questions: (i) What are the key historical landscapes in Laomendong that significantly influence spatial and visual perception? (ii) How do these elements shape tourists’ visual and spatial perceptions? (iii) What strategies can be employed to promote the sustainable development of historical district tourism while ensuring their preservation?

To address these research questions, a mixed-methods approach will be employed, combining qualitative analyses of historical landscapes with quantitative assessments of spatial perception through model analysis. This study develops a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework that connects historical landscapes, visual perception, and spatial perception [20] and also considers individual predispositions (sensation-seeking and destination familiarity), drawing upon Stimulus–Organism–Response (SOR) theory [21]. In the context of historical district tourism, historical landscapes serve as stimuli, visual perception acts as the organism, and the spatial perception is the response. The qualitative analysis will involve detailed surveys of Laomendong’s landscape elements, while the quantitative analysis will include spatial perception surveys with local and tourists, using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to extract the primary spatial perception components and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the reliability and validity of the historical landscape elements and their moderating effects on spatial perception.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Importance of Historical Landscapes to Visual Perception

Historical landscapes are those formed during historical periods that retain their main characteristics. The term “landscape” first appeared in the Hebrew Bible, referring to the beauty of Jerusalem, including Solomon’s Temple, castles, palaces, and other structures. In both the East and the West, the earliest meaning of “landscape” predominantly conveyed a sense of visual aesthetics. The visual perception of historical landscapes is a complex interplay of architectural forms, materials, colors, textures, and spatial arrangements, rooted in cultural and historical contexts. Norberg-Schulz’s concept of “Genius Loci” highlighted the spirit of place and the cultural identity conveyed by historical landscapes [18]. Lynch’s work on legible environments underscored that various visual element within historical landscapes significantly impact visual perception [8]. Materials and textures, highlighted by Köksaldı and Turkan, enhance the tactile experience of historical spaces [22]. Colors and finishes, as noted by Kumar et al., influence mood, atmosphere, and even perceived temperature, contributing to a visually cohesive and culturally resonant environment [23]. Askarizad and He discussed how the spatial organization and layout of historical landscapes enhance visual clarity and movement [24]. Recently, visual impact has also been considered an important factor to assess in environmental impact assessments to protect cultural heritage. For example, the European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/52/EU (2014) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment states, “In order to better protect historical landscapes, it is important to address the visual impacts of projects in environmental impact assessments, specifically changes in the appearance or landscape of architectural or natural settings and urban areas [25]”. Overall, historical landscapes significantly shape how tourists experience and engage with historical environments.

2.2. The Crucial Role of Visual Perception in Shaping Spatial Perception

Visual perception is the ability to interpret the surrounding environment by processing information contained in visible light, resulting from the coordinated function of the eyes and brain [26]. Light enters the eye through the cornea and lens, which focus it onto the retina at the back of the eye. The retina, containing photoreceptor cells called rods and cones, converts light into electrical signals; rods handle vision in low light, while cones are responsible for color vision and detail. These signals are processed by neurons in the retina and sent to the brain via the optic nerve [27]. The visual cortex in the brain’s occipital lobe then processes these signals to recognize shapes, colors, movement, and spatial relationships. The brain integrates this visual information with other sensory input and cognitive processes to form a coherent perception of the environment, enabling activities such as navigation, reading, recognizing faces, and interacting with surroundings. Thus, visual perception relies on the physical structure of the eyes and the neural mechanisms of the brain to function effectively [28].

Building on the foundation of visual perception, spatial perception emerges as a critical capability, intricately linked to our understanding and navigation of the environment. Visual perception provides the primary sensory inputs for spatial perception, involving several critical processes such as depth perception, motion perception, object recognition, and visual attention. Depth perception, facilitated by cues such as stereopsis, motion parallax, and texture gradients, is essential for judging distances and understanding the spatial relationships between objects [29]. Motion perception is crucial for navigating dynamic environments by predicting moving objects’ paths [30]. Object recognition involves identifying and categorizing objects, aiding orientation and cognitive mapping. Recognizable objects and landmarks aid in orientation and navigation, making it easier to remember spatial layouts [31]. Visual attention, focusing on relevant information while filtering out distractions, is vital for effective navigation and spatial decision-making. Architectural design that enhances visual clarity and reduces clutter improves both visual attention and spatial perception. Visual perception is crucial to spatial perception, as it helps us judge distances, recognize objects, and navigate environments effectively.

2.3. The Interdisciplinary Study of Spatial Perception and Its Impact on Urban Design

Spatial perception is a critical aspect of human cognition, encompassing the ability to understand and interact with the surrounding environment. This perceptual ability allows individuals to navigate, recognize, and respond to spatial relationships in their surroundings, which is essential for everyday activities such as moving through spaces, grasping objects, and orienting oneself in complex environments [32,33]. The foundational theories of spatial perception date back to the early 20th century, with the work of psychologists such as Jean Piaget, who explored how individuals develop an understanding of space as they grow [34]. This research reveals that four main dimensions collectively constitute the process of spatial perception: cognitive mapping, spatial relationships, navigation and wayfinding, and behavioral response [34,35].

Cognitive mapping involves creating mental representations of spatial environments, which help individuals understand and navigate these spaces. This includes visualizing the layout, identifying key landmarks, and integrating this information into a coherent mental map [32]. Sensory information gathered through sight is crucial for interpreting spatial environments, helping individuals recognize objects, determine distances, and understand the layout of the space [34]. Additionally, internal signals from muscles and joints provide information about one’s position and movement within a space, helping maintain balance and orientation [35].

Spatial relationships pertain to recognizing and understanding how objects and spaces relate to one another. This involves identifying and distinguishing objects within a spatial environment and understanding their relative positions and distances [33]. These skills are critical for spatial awareness, allowing individuals to plan movements and navigate efficiently.

Navigation and wayfinding involve the strategies and processes used to move through and orient within spatial environments. Effective movement through spaces requires understanding the spatial layout and using this knowledge to navigate from one point to another, including choosing paths and avoiding obstacles [35]. Maintaining a sense of direction and position within a space aids in navigation, using landmarks, visual cues, and proprioceptive information to stay oriented and reach destinations [34].

Behavioral response includes the actions and reactions to spatial environments based on cognitive and emotional factors. Spatial behavior is influenced by an individual’s spatial understanding, allowing them to navigate spaces efficiently [35]. Emotional responses to spatial environments can influence perception and interaction, with positive emotions enhancing spatial perception and making spaces feel more welcoming [33]. Engagement with the environment also plays a role, as active interaction with spatial surroundings leads to a deeper understanding and familiarity with the environment [34].

By integrating these dimensions, the process of spatial perception enables individuals to effectively understand, navigate, and interact with environments.

2.4. The Impact of Historical Landscapes on Visual and Spatial Perception in Historic Districts

Landscapes in historic districts include features like building materials, colors, and ornamental details that define the character and identity of the area. Miller highlighted the role of urban artifacts, such as monuments and historic buildings, in contributing to the collective memory and identity of a place [36].

Visual perception in historic district tourism involves interpreting visual stimuli from the historical landscapes. Gibson’s theory of affordances, which suggests that the visual properties of objects and environments provide cues for interaction [37], is crucial for understanding how people engage with historic architecture. Golestani examined how cultural and social factors influence the visual perception of built environments, emphasizing the importance of context in historic districts [38]. Sarihan introduced the concept of “isovists”, representing the visible area from a specific viewpoint, used to analyze visual access and spatial openness in historic districts [39].

Spatial perception in historical district tourism involves understanding spatial relationships and cognitive mapping, influenced by historical landscape planning. Özbek et al. developed “Space Syntax” theory, which analyzes spatial configurations to understand movement patterns and social interactions in historic districts [40]. Curtin investigated the cognitive processes involved in spatial perception, highlighting the role of landmarks and spatial hierarchies in historic environments [41].

Integrating historical landscapes, visual perception, and spatial perception is essential for developing historic district tourism. Erdogan explored the relationship between physical design and environmental aesthetics, showing how historical landscapes contribute to perceived attractiveness and legibility [42]. Carmona advocated for urban design principles that enhance the visual and spatial quality of historic districts, emphasizing strategies that respect the existing architectural character while accommodating contemporary needs [43]. El Ghandour identified design features that influence pedestrian perceptions and behaviors, relevant for creating engaging and navigable historic districts [44]. Cianchino et al. analyzed the preservation of historic districts in Italian cities, focusing on the integration of modern interventions with traditional historical landscapes [45]. Qianghua et al. studied the visual and spatial characteristics of Hengjin Tower Folk Custom Historical Block in Nanchang, providing insights into culturally specific perceptions and design approaches [46].

Despite advancements in studying visual and spatial perception in historical districts, several research gaps remain. The research on visual perception has not deeply explored how historical landscapes influence visual and spatial perception. There is a notable lack of standardized quantitative measures for evaluating the impact of historical landscapes on visual and spatial perception. Furthermore, the existing studies often overlook human-centered design approaches that incorporate direct feedback from tourists.

3. The Research Framework

According to the existing literature, the concept of historical landscape was first introduced by UNESCO in the 2005 Vienna Memorandum on the Conservation of Historic Urban Landscapes. This notion extends beyond the limited scope of a city’s historic center or its entirety, encompassing a broader urban context and geographical environment [47]. It emphasizes the accumulation of cultural and natural value over time, taking into account various aspects of urban management, including the specific location, city profiles, visual axes, types of architecture, open areas, topography, and vegetation [48].

To further explore this concept, it is essential to delve into the architectural characteristics that define these landscapes. Architectural form and structure, including shape, layout, and structural systems, are fundamental to understanding historical landscapes [49,50]. Ornamentation and decorative details, such as intricate carvings and moldings, add layers of artistic value [51]. The materials used in historical buildings reflect the technological advancements and resource availability of the time [52]. Additionally, the use of color and finishes, which involve paints and other finishing techniques, contribute significantly to the visual impact and authenticity of historical structures [53]. These elements are complemented by symbolism and iconography, which offer deep cultural and religious insights. Furthermore, the way spaces are organized within these landscapes directly influences their functionality and the experience of visitors [18,54]. Based on a comprehensive literature analysis and a case study of Laomendong, this study categorizes the elements of historic landscapes into three main groups with corresponding sub-dimensions: stylistic factors (material, color, ornament), symbolic factors (landmark, relic, sign), and spatial factors (openness, scale, layout).

Then, a further description of the hypotheses is developed, respectively, below:

Architectural material influences visual perception through its aesthetic quality and sensory experience. Natural materials like wood and stone evoke warmth and authenticity [55], defining tactile and visual boundaries and affecting spatial perception. Color, a powerful tool in visual perception, affects mood and atmosphere. Warm colors create energy, while cool colors induce calmness. Color also alters spatial perception [24]. Kumar stated that “color can influence mood, atmosphere, and even the perceived temperature of a space” [23]. Ornamentation adds detail and richness to visual perception, attracting attention and providing focal points that guide the gaze. It adds depth and texture to surfaces, enhancing spatial perception by breaking monotony and creating rhythm [51]. Considering these observations, this study posits the following hypothesis:

H1. 

Stylistic factors positively influence (a) visual perception and (b) spatial perception.

Landmarks enhance visual perception by serving as reference points. They aid in orientation and mental mapping [8], structure the environment to provide a sense of scale and orientation, and reinforce identity and historical continuity. Historical relics enrich visual landscapes by adding layers of historical depth and context, evoking a sense of continuity and curiosity [56]. These relics ground the environment in a historical narrative, fostering a sense of place and belonging. Architectural signs, like religious icons and traditional motifs, enrich visual perception by communicating cultural narratives and values [57]. They influence spatial perception by creating environments that resonate with cultural significance and historical continuity [18]. Based on these insights, this study suggests the following hypothesis:

H2. 

Symbolic factors positively influence (a) visual perception and (b) spatial perception.

The layout of a space determines the arrangement of elements, affecting visual clarity and navigability. A well-organized layout enhances visual comprehension and facilitates ease of movement [8]. The scale and proportion of historical landscapes determine their visual impact and harmony. Human-scale elements foster visual comfort and relatability, influencing spatial perception by creating feelings of intimacy or grandeur [44]. Openness or enclosure impacts visual perception by influencing how boundaries are perceived. Open spaces create a sense of freedom, while enclosed spaces provide intimacy and focus, thereby defining spatial boundaries and the flow of movement [51]. Considering these factors, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H3. 

Spatial factors positively influence (a) visual perception and (b) spatial perception.

Visual perception shapes spatial perception by providing essential sensory inputs for understanding, navigating, and interacting with the environment. Depth perception, involving cues such as stereopsis, motion parallax, and texture gradients, allows individuals to judge distances and understand spatial relationships [29]. This enhances spatial navigation and interaction. Environmental orientation and wayfinding rely on visual information to form mental maps. Landmarks, paths, edges, districts, and nodes play crucial roles in creating legible environments that are easy to navigate [8]. Object recognition enhances spatial understanding by offering reference points that help individuals grasp spatial layouts and relationships. This forms cognitive maps essential for effective navigation [31]. Visual attention directs our focus towards relevant stimuli, enabling efficient processing of spatial information and guiding movement. Aesthetic and emotional responses to the visual qualities of a space, such as its architecture and design, can evoke feelings of comfort or discomfort. These feelings affect spatial perception by making spaces feel more or less welcoming [23]. Given these analyses, this study advances the following hypothesis:

H4. 

Visual perception positively influences spatial perception.

Sensation-seeking, a personality trait characterized by the pursuit of novel and intense experiences, impacts spatial perception by influencing preferences for dynamic and intricate environments. High sensation-seekers are attracted to varied and complex spaces that offer rich sensory stimulation, resulting in a more detailed understanding of spatial layouts [58]. Their propensity for increased exploration fosters nuanced cognitive maps and a deeper spatial understanding [59]. Sensation-seekers often experience heightened emotional arousal, enhancing their spatial experience [58]. Urban environments, with diverse stimuli and social interaction opportunities, particularly appeal to sensation-seekers, enhancing their spatial perception through continuous engagement [60]. Reflecting on these findings, this study formulates the following hypothesis:

H5. 

Sensation-seeking has a positive impact on spatial perception.

Destination familiarity enhances spatial perception by improving cognitive mapping and wayfinding efficiency and reducing cognitive load. Familiar individuals possess detailed cognitive maps, enabling efficient navigation and spatial understanding [61]. Familiarity reduces cognitive load, easing the mental effort required to process spatial information, leading to smoother navigation [62]. It also increases confidence and comfort, making environments feel more manageable and user-friendly, enhancing overall spatial perception [62]. Familiar places evoke positive emotions and memories, enriching spatial perception through positive associations and attachment. However, familiarity levels can lead to variations in spatial perception. Highly familiar individuals have a nuanced understanding of spatial details, while unfamiliar individuals rely more on prominent landmarks [63]. Cultural and contextual factors shape how familiarity influences spatial perception. Familiarity with culturally specific spatial layouts and symbols enhances spatial understanding and comfort [63]. Based on these considerations, this study hypothesizes the following:

H6. 

Destination familiarity positively influences spatial perception.

Based on the above literature review and hypothesis, we construct a hypothesis model as illustrated in Figure 1.

4. Methodology

4.1. Model Theory

The Stimulus–Organism–Response (SOR) model provides a theoretical framework for understanding how environmental stimuli (S) affect the internal state of an organism (O), leading to a behavioral response (R). In the context of historical district tourism, historical landscapes serve as stimuli, visual perception acts as the organism, and spatial perception is the response [64]. Based on the literature review, sensation-seeking and destination familiarity are recognized as two individual predisposition factors influencing spatial perception. By using the SOR model, this study integrates insights from environmental psychology, cultural heritage studies, and architectural aesthetics. This interdisciplinary approach enriches the analysis of spatial perceptions, allowing for a more holistic understanding of how physical and cultural stimuli interact with tourists’ perceptions and emotions.

4.2. The Study Site

Laomendong originated during the Song Dynasty when it was known as “Nanmen Street”. Located to the east of Zhonghua Gate in the Qinhuai District of Nanjing, it is a historical and cultural district that embodies the essence of ancient Jinling, as reflected in the saying “The essence of Jinling lies in the south of the city, and the essence of the south lies in Laomendong”. During the Ming and Qing Dynasties, this area became a cultural and commercial center, with many residences of famous figures and historical buildings established. The architectural layout mainly includes commercial blocks facing the street and internal courtyards (as shown in Figure 2). Part of the Nanjing Confucius Temple area, Laomendong offers an immersive experience of the customs and culture along the ten-mile Qinhuai River.

Since modern times, despite numerous upheavals such as the Taiping Rebellion, the Second Sino-Japanese War, and the Cultural Revolution, historical districts in Nanjing like Chuanban Lane, Yanliao Fang Cattle Market, East Zhonghua Gate, West Zhonghua Gate, Diaoyutai, Nanbuting, Baihua Lane, Anping Street, and Jinshajing have remained well preserved through various dynasties, making them exceptionally valuable. Notably, the population and occupations in “Laomendong” area have changed significantly over time. However, a considerable number of long-term residents of the southern part of old Nanjing have continued to live here for generations, preserving their ancestral heritage. This coexistence of people with the old city, historical districts, ancient buildings, old trees, and customs has given rise to a unique cultural landscape in southern Nanjing, which stands out nationwide as an extremely valuable form of historical and cultural heritage [56].

Between 2002 and 2009, Laomendong’s historical district underwent unprecedented demolition and redevelopment, drawing the attention of numerous domestic experts and scholars on three separate occasions. These experts collectively called for the protection of Nanjing’s ancient city three times.

During the restoration process, the principle of “repairing the old as old and rebuilding the framework” was followed, preserving the traditional street and lane texture while adding new collective and historical memories to Nanjing. This transformation has turned Laomendong into a vibrant recreational destination rich in cultural heritage, making it an ideal case study for exploring spatial and visual perception within the context of historical district tourism. The district features traditional Chinese ancient architectural forms, intricate wood carvings, exquisite ornamentation, the strategic use of courtyards, and a rhythmic spatial layout (as shown in

Table 1. Description of three types of factors of historical landscapes of Laomendong.

Factors	Variables	Items	Explanation	References
Stylistic Factors	Material	Stone, wood, brick	Flagstone road, whitewashed brick walls, wooden columns with stone bases, and wood-carved decorations on doors and windows	[65,66]
	Color	Gray, white, black, red, yellow	Buildings are usually white walls and gray tiles with bright ornamentation
	Ornament	Wooden carvings, wall reliefs, wall murals, window grilles, door head	Reflect the unique “Jinling culture”, incorporating traditional craftsmanship and aesthetic concepts	[67]
Symbolic Factors	Landmark	Laomendong Archway	Buildings or structures of historical significance	[65]
	Relic	Ming Dynasty Ancient City Wall, Jiezi Garden, Jishan Pavilion
	Sign	Ancient well and trees, bronze statue, relic interpretation signs
Spatial Factors	Openness	Fully open	Public space	[66,67]
		Semi-open	“U”-shaped and “L”-shaped courtyards
		Fully enclosed	Square-shaped and four-sided enclosed courtyards
	Scale	Height of building	Limited to 1–2 stories, with eave heights of 2.8 to 3.3 m on the first floor and around 6 m on the second, capped at a total height of 7.5 m
		Depth of building	Primarily between 6 and 9 m, with most ranging from 7 to 8 m
		Width of building	Mainly falls within 7 to 9 m and 11 to 12 m.
		Ratio of building to courtyard spaces	Typically 1:2
		Dimension of street	The width of the streets primarily ranges from 3 to 5 m, with a width-to-height ratio consistently at or below 1
	Layout	Square-shaped courtyards
		“U”-shaped courtyards
		“L”-shaped courtyards
		Four-sided enclosed courtyards

, Figure 3), all of which influence spatial and visual perceptions. The interplay of these elements, along with varying scales and proportions, from intimate alleyways to expansive public squares, shapes human experiences and emotional responses. However, Laomendong faces challenges common to many urban heritage sites, namely balancing preservation with modernization and accommodating increasing tourist activity while maintaining local authenticity. Therefore, understanding how historical landscapes influence perception is crucial for developing strategies that promote sustainable tourism planning. This study aims to identify key historical landscapes in Laomendong that significantly influence spatial and visual perception, explore how these elements shape human interaction, and develop strategies for enhancing historical district tourism while ensuring their preservation.

4.3. Measurement

The survey questionnaire assessed several constructs: historical landscapes, sensation-seeking, visual perception, destination familiarity, and spatial perception. In order to devise a robust measurement method for capturing the unique experience of Laomendong, we conducted an extensive review of travelogues, online resources, and literary works pertinent to the area. This was complemented by a mixed-methods approach that integrated both deductive (literature review) and inductive (open-ended interviews) methodologies, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the various factors influencing tourist experiences in Laomendong.

Historical landscapes are subdivided into three dimensions: stylistic factors, symbolic factors, and spatial factors. These are formulated as second-tier constructs and quantified using nine items (material, color, ornament, landmark, relic, sign, openness, scale, and layout) through precise recognition and measurement attained via photogrammetry in Laomendong. Sensation-seeking is defined by three primary elements, seeking novelty, seeking experiences, and susceptibility to boredom, modified from the Brief Sensation-Seeking Scale for Chinese (BSSS-C). Destination familiarity is assessed using three items based on Chen and Tsai’s study [68]. All the constructs mentioned were assessed using an 11-point range, which spans from 0 (strongly disagree/completely dissatisfied) to 10 (completely agree/completely satisfied). This range was selected with reference to the Net Promoter Score (NPS) to ensure a more accurate capture of the subtle variations in tourist experiences, providing an accurate reflection of their perceptions and satisfaction levels.

4.4. Data Collection

Due to China’s adjustment of holidays for International Labor Day, there is a continuous five-day break, which is very advantageous for tourists. Therefore, we chose to distribute questionnaires on these five days to collect a larger sample of responses from tourists. Laomendong’s operating hours are from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. After conducting a preliminary site visit over the weekend, we discovered that tourists are mainly concentrated during three time periods: 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., 2 p.m. to 5 p.m., and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Consequently, we scheduled the distribution of questionnaires during these three time periods. Our research team of three members collaborated in the work. One individual distributed questionnaires at the exit of Laomendong, while the other two distributed them at two important nodes along the north–south central axis of Laomendong—Jishan Pavilion and Deyun Society. Each team member was responsible for distributing at least 40 questionnaires per day. Finally, a total of 650 questionnaires were distributed from 1 May to 5 May 2024, of which 616 were valid, resulting in a validity rate of 94.8%.

The data in

Table 2. Foundation survey.

Variable	Items	Occurrence	Proportion
Survey Respondent	Nanjing Citizen	69	11.2%
	Tourist	547	88.8%
Gender	Male	300	48.7%
	Female	316	51.3%
Age	Under 20	15	2.4%
	20–30	479	77.8%
	31–40	29	4.7%
	Above 40	93	15.1%

indicate that Nanjing citizens accounted for a modest 11.2% of the sample, with tourists forming the larger segment at 88.8%. In terms of the gender distribution, the sample was fairly balanced, with males making up 48.7% and females slightly more at 51.3%. Age-wise, the sample was predominantly young, with a significant majority (77.8%) falling in the 20–30 age bracket. Those under 20 years old were the least represented at 2.4%. Participants between 31 and 40 years old were also a smaller group, at 4.7%, and those above 40 years old made up a more considerable portion, at 15.1%. This profile suggested a predominantly young and balanced gender composition among the respondents, with a notable inclination towards tourists.

4.5. Data Analysis

In this study, several analytical steps were taken to validate the newly developed model and other key variables. Initially, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) assessed the reliability and validity of the historical landscape element constructs. Next, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and CFA were utilized to ascertain the dimensionality of spatial perception. Moreover, the extensive measurement model covering seven variables was assessed for its dependability and accuracy. Finally, structural equation modeling (SEM) investigated the relationships among historical landscape elements, visual perception, destination familiarity, sensation-seeking, and spatial perception. The analyses were carried out using SPSS 26.0, AMOS 26.0, and Mplus 8.7 software. The summary statistics for the questionnaire items are displayed in

Table A1. Summary statistics.

Factors	Average	Standard Deviation	Skewness	Kurtosis
Historical Landscapes
Stylistic Factor
SF1.Material	7.109	1.858	−0.077	−0.411
SF2.Color	7.167	2.012	−0.355	−0.407
SF3.Ornament	7.696	1.601	−0.484	−0.028
Symbolic Factor
SY1.Landmark	6.968	1.836	−0.110	−0.735
SY2.Relic	7.278	2.208	−0.910	0.950
SY3.Sign	6.656	2.336	−0.159	−1.039
Spatial Factor
SP1.Openness	7.183	2.149	−0.716	0.020
SP2.Scale	7.031	2.297	−0.583	−0.418
SP3.Layout	6.808	2.355	−0.589	−0.462
Sensation-Seeking
SS1.Experience-Seeking	8.140	1.482	−0.551	−0.126
SS2.Novelty-Seeking	8.068	1.686	−0.695	−0.008
SS3.Boredom Susceptibility	7.369	1.942	−0.396	−0.615
Destination Familiarity
DF1.Access Frequency	3.907	2.527	0.696	−0.116
DF2.Understanding Level	3.781	2.482	0.408	−0.784
DF3.Familarity Level	4.292	2.398	0.454	−0.676
Visual Perception
VP1.Environmental Orientation	7.006	2.202	−0.598	−0.304
VP2.Object Recognition	6.675	2.315	−0.484	−0.515
VP3.Visual Attention	6.578	2.323	−0.427	−0.639
Spatial Perception
Navigation and Wayfinding
NW1.Navigation	7.101	2.022	−0.215	−0.811
NW2.Wayfinding	6.753	2.278	−0.470	−0.422
NW3.Movement through spaces	6.682	2.355	−0.439	−0.640
Cognitive Mapping
CM1.Visualization and mental representation	6.182	2.470	−0.304	−0.818
CM2.Sensory information processing	6.323	2.369	−0.274	−0.753
CM3.Positional awareness	6.557	2.390	−0.403	−0.758
Behavioral Response
BR1.Actions and reactions	6.742	2.431	−0.508	−0.643
BR2.Emotional responses	6.570	2.388	−0.320	−0.672
BR3.Environment engagement	6.438	2.508	−0.357	−0.817
Spatial Relationships
SR1.Identify objects	5.768	2.461	−0.134	−0.906
SR2.Distinguish objects	6.091	2.502	−0.245	−0.839
SR3.Relative positions and distances between objects	6.265	2.443	−0.210	−0.929

.

5. Results

5.1. Multiple-Variable Normality

Within the framework of SEM, the premise of multiple-variable normality is essential. This research utilized Mardia’s standardized coefficient to evaluate this premise [69]. A Mardia’s coefficient exceeding 5 signals a departure from multivariate normality, which necessitates the adoption of a robust maximum likelihood approach [70]. In our research, the computation of Mardia’s standardized coefficient was carried out using AMOS 26.0. The obtained value of 74.950 indicates a clear deviation from multivariate normality. As a result, the MLM estimation method was utilized for the CFA and SEM analyses given its effectiveness in handling non-normal data. Additionally, the use of the MLM estimator in Mplus enables access to the Satorra–Bentler (S-B) chi-square statistic. This statistic provides robust estimates of maximum likelihood parameters, standard errors, and a mean-adjusted chi-square test statistic that are insensitive to non-normality [71].

5.2. Measurement for Historical Landscapes

A CFA using MLM estimation was conducted in Mplus 8.7 to evaluate the model’s overall fit and the validity of its factors. As a rule of thumb, standardized loading estimates should be at least 0.5 and ideally 0.7 or higher [72]. Additionally, the average variance extracted (AVE) should be no less than 0.5, and the construct reliability (CR) should exceed 0.7, except in exploratory research [73]. The analysis confirmed that the model had a good fit (χ² = 363.362, df = 24, p-value = 0.00 < 0.05, CFI = 0.914, TLI = 0.971, RMSEA = 0.052, and SRMR = 0.083).

In

Table 3. CFA test on historical landscape factors.

Variable/Items	Loading	CR	AVE
Stylistic Factor		0.884	0.723
ST1.Material	0.871
ST2.Color	0.990
ST3.Ornament	0.657
Symbolic Factor		0.820	0.607
SY1.Landmark	0.722
SY2.Relic	0.672
SY3.Sign	0.921
Spatial Factor		0.918	0.790
SP1.Openness	0.834
SP2.Scale	0.981
SP3.Layout	0.843

, each factor’s loadings exceed the threshold of 0.5, with the stylistic factor “Color” item exhibiting a particularly high loading of 0.990, indicating strong convergent validity. The CR for the “Stylistic”, “Historical”, and “Spatial” factors was robust, with the spatial factor achieving a CR of 0.918. This suggests that the items within each factor were highly reliable in measuring the underlying construct. The AVE values, which assessed the proportion of variance accounted for by the construct compared to the variance attributed to measurement error, exceeded the acceptable threshold of 0.5, with the spatial factor achieving an AVE of 0.790, indicating a strong level of construct validity.

Additionally,

Table 4. Discriminant validity test on historical landscape factors (AVE test).

	Stylistic Factor	Symbolic Factor	Spatial Factor
Stylistic Factor	0.851
Symbolic Factor	0.607	0.779
Spatial Factor	0.371	0.293	0.889

illustrates the discriminant validity of the constructs, as evaluated by the Fornell–Larcker Criterion (FLC). The square root of the AVE for each construct surpassed its correlations with other constructs, confirming that the constructs were empirically unique.

5.3. Measurement for Spatial Perception

In Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), it is essential for each observed variable to correspond to a latent variable to accurately assess both the measurement model and the structural model. In the initial SEM model, the dimensions for historical landscapes and visual perception were explicitly defined, facilitating the straightforward categorization of observed variables. However, the dimensions for spatial perception were not clearly delineated, presenting challenges in classifying the observed variables within the PLS-SEM framework. To address this issue and facilitate the effective application of PLS-SEM, it is imperative to employ exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to extract the primary components of spatial perception. EFA serves to identify the underlying structure of the observed variables, thereby clarifying the dimensions of spatial perception. This process enables the more accurate categorization of observed variables under appropriate latent variables, thereby enhancing the reliability and accuracy of the PLS-SEM analysis. Consequently, employing EFA ensures that both the measurement model and the structural model are robust, significantly improving the overall validity and reliability of the research findings.

Based on the literature review in Section 2.3 on spatial perception, we identified four possible dimensions of spatial perception and the latent variables for each dimension, as shown in

Table 5. CFA and EFA test on spatial perception.

Variable/Items	EFA (n = 308)			CFA (n = 308)
	Loading	Eigenvalue	Variance Explained	Loading	CR	AVE
Behavioral Response		4.030	33.583		0.880	0.714
BR1.Actions and reactions	0.864			0.814
BR2.Emotional responses	0.896			0.977
BR3.Environment engagement	0.829			0.724
Cognitive Mapping		2.072	17.263		0.876	0.706
CM1.Visualization and mental representation	0.806			0.730
CM2.Sensory information processing	0.926			0.988
CM3.Positional awareness	0.872			0.781
Spatial Relationships		1.778	14.813		0.836	0.643
SR1.Identify objects	0.908			0.989
SR2.Distinguish objects	0.885			0.811
SR3.Relative positions and distances between objects	0.735			0.541
Navigation and Wayfinding		1.218	10.151		0.810	0.595
NW1.Navigation	0.809			0.960
NW2.Wayfinding	0.808			0.661
NW3.Movement through spaces	0.771			0.653

. We then divided the final dataset, consisting of 616 participants, into two identical subsamples using the arbitrary case selection feature in SPSS 26.0. One subsample was designated as the calibration sample (n = 308) for CFA and the other as the validation sample (n = 308) for EFA. Factors conceptualized as second-order constructs were named based on the items with high loadings and the shared attributes of the items encompassed within each factor. The model had a good fit for the CFA (χ² = 66.42, df = 48, p-value = 0.04 < 0.05, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.987, RMSEA = 0.035, and SRMR = 0.039) and for the EFA (KMO = 0.836, χ² = 1852.614, df = 66, p-value = 0.00 < 0.05).

The factor loadings obtained through CFA, as evidenced in Table 5, are substantial, with all the items exceeding the critical value of 0.5, thus endorsing the factors’ construct validity. The CR for the “Navigation and Wayfinding”, “Cognitive Mapping”, “Spatial Relationships”, and “Behavioral Response” factors were determined to be satisfactory, surpassing the 0.7 benchmark, and the AVE for these factors exceeded the acceptable 0.5 threshold, thereby confirming convergent validity. The EFA, serving as a complementary analytical tool, revealed that the eigenvalues for the factors ranged from 1.218 to 4.030, explaining a significant portion of the variance, from 10.151% to 33.583%, for the “Navigation and Wayfinding”, “Spatial Relationships”, “Cognitive Mapping”, and “Behavioral Response” factors, respectively. This substantial explanatory power attests to the robustness of the factor structure within the spatial perception construct.

Discriminant validity, assessed through the FLC, was affirmed by the AVE values being greater than the squared inter-construct correlations, as depicted in

Table 6. Discriminant validity test on spatial perception (AVE/FLC test).

Variable /Items	AVE Test				FLC
	Navigation and Wayfinding	Cognitive Mapping	Behavioral Response	Spatial Relationships
Navigation and Wayfinding	0.771				True
Cognitive Mapping	0.189	0.840			True
Behavioral Response	0.431	0.150	0.845		True
Spatial Relationships	0.284	0.168	0.184	0.802	True

. For example, the “Navigation and Wayfinding” construct’s AVE of 0.771 is considerably higher than its squared correlation with “Cognitive Mapping” (0.189), “Behavioral Response” (0.431), and “Spatial Relationships” (0.284). This not only substantiates the distinctness of the constructs but also reinforces the validity of the measurement model.

5.4. Measurement for the Overall Model

A CFA employing maximum likelihood estimation was conducted in Mplus 8.7 to evaluate the construct validity of the comprehensive measurement model. The overall model demonstrated a satisfactory fit (χ² = 1092.656, df = 188, p-value = 0.04 < 0.05, CFI = 0.904, TLI = 0.907, RMSEA = 0.079, and SRMR = 0.073).

Table 7. Measurement for overall model.

Variable/Items	Loading	CR	AVE	Alpha (α)
Stylistic Factor		0.887	0.728	0.872
SF1.Material	0.882
SF2.Color	0.975
SF3.Ornament	0.674
Symbolic Factor		0.811	0.592	0.807
SY1.Landmark	0.795
SY2.Relic	0.638
SY3.Sign	0.859
Spatial Factor		0.918	0.790	0.793
SP1.Openness	0.834
SP2.Scale	0.981
SP3.Layout	0.843
Visual Perception		0.837	0.640	0.826
VP1.Environmental Orientation	0.998
VP2.Object Recognition	0.670
VP3.Visual Attention	0.690
Sensation-Seeking		0.852	0.665	0.823
SS1.Experience-Seeking	0.903
SS2.Novelty-Seeking	0.917
SS3.Boredom Susceptibility	0.583
Destination Familiarity		0.882	0.717	0.874
DF1.Access Frequency	0.998
DF2.Understanding Level	0.800
DF3.Familarity Level	0.717
Spatial Perception		0.829	0.529	0.770
SP1. Navigation and Wayfinding	0.825
SP2.Cognitive Mapping	0.783
SP3.Behavioral Response	0.749
SP4.Spatial Relationships	0.511

illustrates that all the item loadings surpassed the generally accepted 0.5 threshold, with several notable exceptions exceeding 0.7, indicating robust convergent validity. Cronbach’s alpha (α) and the CR coefficients exceeded the 0.7 benchmark across all the constructs, thereby confirming the reliability and internal consistency of the measurement scales. The AVE values for each construct provided further evidence of convergent validity, with the spatial factor demonstrating an exemplary AVE of 0.790, indicative of a strong level of variance captured by the construct relative to the measurement error. The lowest AVE was associated with spatial perception, at 0.529, which, while above the 0.5 threshold, suggested a potential area for the refinement of its measurement indicators to enhance the construct robustness.

Discriminant validity is confirmed through the FLC, as evidenced by

Table 8. Discriminant validity test for overall model (AVE/FLC test).

Variable /Items	AVE Test							FLC
	Stylistic Factor	Symbolic Factor	Spatial Factor	Visual Perception	Sensation-Seeking	Destination Familiarity	Spatial Perception
Stylistic Factor	0.816							True
Historical Factor	0.385	0.847						True
Spatial Factor	0.570	0.412	0.853					True
Visual Perception	0.424	0.523	0.607	0.770				True
Sensory Seeking	0.360	0.316	0.371	0.293	0.889			True
Destination Familiarity	0.401	0.566	0.476	0.457	0.266	0.800		True
Spatial Perception	0.319	0.622	0.454	0.580	0.277	0.525	0.727	True

. The AVE for each construct exceeds the squared correlations with other constructs, affirming that the constructs are distinct and measure discrete phenomena. For instance, the stylistic factor has an AVE of 0.816, which is greater than its squared correlations with all the other constructs (ranging from 0.319 to 0.570), satisfying the FLC and substantiating discriminant validity.

5.5. Measurement for the Structural Model

Figure 4 presents a visual representation of the structural model, illustrating the seven principal constructs in this study, among which six are formulated as second-tier latent variables. The suggested hypotheses were tested using a SEM method, employing maximum likelihood estimation with MLM in Mplus 8.7. The fit of the structural model was satisfactory (χ² = 1092.656, df = 188, p-value = 0.04 < 0.05, CFI = 0.904, TLI = 0.907, RMSEA = 0.079, and SRMR = 0.073). The analysis provided evidence for the hypotheses H1a through H6, each demonstrating substantial and significant path estimates.

Table 9. Estimated values (standardized).

Hypothesis	Route	Estimate	T-Value
H1a	Stylistic Factor→Visual Perception	0.165	10.745 ***
H2a	Symbolic Factor→Visual Perception	0.149	11.867 ***
H3a	Spatial Factor→Visual Perception	0.179	6.911 ***
H1b	Stylistic Factor→Spatial Perception	0.118	9.756 ***
H2b	Symbolic Factor→Spatial Perception	0.114	14.917 ***
H3b	Spatial Factor→Spatial Perception	0.147	6.159 ***
H4	Visual Perception→Spatial Perception	0.153	16.567 ***
H5	Sensation-Seeking→Spatial Perception	0.103	10.139 ***
H6	Destination Familiarity→Spatial Perception	−0.216	−18.5 ***

Note: *** p < 0.001.

presents the estimated values (standardized) for the hypotheses tested in the SEM, exploring the relationships between historical factors, individual predispositions, visual perception, and spatial perceptions in historical district tourism.

The path coefficients reveal several significant findings. Firstly, the stylistic factor (H1a) demonstrates a path coefficient of 0.165 to visual perception, which is supported by an impressive t-value of 10.745 (p < 0.001). Similarly, the historical (H2a) and spatial (H3a) factors show strong effects on visual perception. These three factors positively influence visual perception, indicating that historical landscapes related to stylistic, history, and spatial design significantly contribute to how tourists perceive the environment visually. Secondly, this finding is consistent with the results for the direct impact of three history landscape elements on spatial perception. Stylistic (H1b), historical (H2b), and spatial (H3b) factors also show high standardized coefficients (0.118, 0.114, and 0.147, respectively) and t-values (11.867, 14.917, and 6.159). These historical factors are significant determinants of spatial perception, suggesting that these elements play a crucial role in shaping tourists’ spatial perceptions in historical districts. Additionally, the direct effect of visual perception on spatial perception (H4) was estimated at 0.153, with a t-value of 16.567, which is significant at p < 0.001. This indicates that how tourists perceive the architectural environment visually affects their overall spatial perception.

Furthermore, sensation-seeking (H5) is positively associated with spatial perception, with an estimate of 0.103 and a t-value of 10.139, implying that tourists who seek novelty and stimulating sensory experiences are more likely to have intense spatial perceptions. Conversely, destination familiarity (H6) shows a negative relationship with spatial perception, with a path coefficient of −0.216, suggesting that tourists with greater familiarity with a destination experience a less intense spatial perception. These findings underscore the complex interplay between historical landscapes, individual predispositions, visual perception, and spatial perception in historical district tourism. They highlight the importance of both historical landscapes and individual traits in shaping individual experiences.

6. Conclusions and Discussions

6.1. Summary of the Research Findings

This study examines how the historical landscapes of Laomendong impact visual and spatial perception, using the Stimulus–Organism–Response (SOR) framework and considering individual predispositions (sensation-seeking and destination familiarity). The findings suggest that the stylistic, historical, and spatial dimensions of the historical landscapes significantly influence visual perception, which, in turn, shape their spatial perception. In other words, spatial perception is driven by historical landscapes as external stimuli. Additionally, individual predispositions also impact spatial perception. These findings are largely consistent with spatial perception theory [74] and sensation-seeking theory [75].

The analysis reveals that stylistic factors (material, colors, and ornaments) significantly influence both visual perception and spatial perception. Materials provide aesthetic quality and sensory experience. Colors affect mood and atmosphere. Ornamentation adds detail and richness, guiding visual focus and enhancing spatial perception. Symbolic factors (landmarks, relics, and signs) invoke a sense of temporal continuity and depth. They provide reference points for orientation and embed historical context through visual perception, augmenting spatial perception by forging a connection between past and present. Spatial factors (layout, scale, and openness) significantly affect visual perception, navigability, and overall spatial perception. Well-organized layouts enhance visual comprehension. The scale and proportion of elements influence feelings of intimacy or grandeur.

This study further reveals that visual perception mediates the effect of historical landscapes on spatial perception. The stimuli provided by historical landscapes influence spatial perception through their visual impact on tourists. These findings align with the SOR model, which posits that the environment creates an emotional response in individuals, subsequently eliciting approach or avoidance behaviors [76].

Furthermore, this study highlights the impact of individual predispositions on spatial perception. Sensation-seeking enhances spatial perception through exploration and responsiveness to stimuli. Contrary to the hypothesis, destination familiarity negatively affects spatial perception. The analysis shows that tourists have specific expectations about the spatial layout and architectural style of historical districts. If a newly constructed historical district does not meet these expectations, it may be perceived as inauthentic or lacking genuine historical essence. Familiarity reduces novelty and excitement, leading to a diminished sense of discovery and exploration. Familiar tourists may negatively compare new districts to genuinely historic areas, perceiving them as lacking depth and authenticity. This can lead to more passive engagement and a less immersive experience. Therefore, balancing familiarity with novel, engaging elements is crucial for shaping positive spatial perceptions in historic district tourism planning.

6.2. Practical Implications for the Sustainable Development of Historical District Tourism

Firstly, the preservation of historical landmarks, grounded in cultural heritage conservation theories such as those advocated by UNESCO and the Burra Charter, ensures the continuity of cultural identity and enriches tourists’ spatial perception [7,47]. Emphasizing the preservation of historical landmarks, relics, and symbols is crucial, as these elements connect tourists to the past and evoke a sense of continuity and depth. By grounding tourists in the historical narrative of an area and providing a tangible link to its cultural heritage, these elements significantly enhance spatial perception. Preservation should not only focus on physical conservation but also on interpretive strategies that convey the historical significance of these elements to tourists [77]. This aligns with conservation theory, which stresses maintaining the historical integrity of sites by preserving original materials and structures [78].

Secondly, incorporating sensory design elements aligns with environmental psychology principles, which study the relationship between individuals and their physical surroundings. Ranne emphasizes the role of sensory experiences in shaping spatial perception and emotional responses to environments [73]. Rehabilitation theory also supports using traditional materials and finishes to evoke historical contexts while ensuring contemporary functionality [79]. Design elements should stimulate visual sensory experiences through traditional materials, colors, and ornaments. For example, materials with rich textures and traditional finishes can evoke historical contexts, while vibrant colors and intricate ornaments can attract visual attention and create memorable impressions [80].

Thirdly, creating open and inviting spaces with thoughtful design of openness, scale, and layout can enhance visual perception. Open spaces provide unobstructed views and ease of movement, while appropriately scaled elements create intimacy or grandeur. Strategic layout planning ensures tourists encounter key historical features logically and engagingly, enhancing their understanding and appreciation of the space [81]. In addition to these design principles, the restoration and protection of historical districts play a crucial role in maintaining urban livability and cultural heritage. To achieve this, several theoretical principles should be followed. Firstly, contextual integration is essential, as it ensures that restoration efforts respect the existing architectural and cultural context, preserving the historical authenticity and visual integrity of an area [82]. Moreover, the principle of adaptive reuse encourages the repurposing of historical buildings for new uses that contribute to community vitality without compromising their historical significance, promoting sustainable urban development [83]. Furthermore, participatory planning involves local communities in the decision-making process, ensuring that restoration projects address residents’ needs while preserving their heritage, thus fostering a sense of ownership and pride [84]. Sensitive modern interventions integrate necessary modern infrastructure and amenities in a way that does not permanently alter the original structures, preserving historical value while enhancing usability [85]. By incorporating these principles, the restoration and protection of historical districts can enhance urban livability and social interaction, creating spaces that are both functional and rich in cultural heritage.

Fourth, social interaction theories and the concept of cognitive mapping emphasize the importance of easy orientation, movement, and wayfinding in enhancing spatial perception. Clear signage, landmarks, and pathways contribute to effective cognitive mapping [30]. Rehabilitation theory supports creating interactive features that enhance tourists’ engagement and understanding of historical sites. Spaces should facilitate easy orientation and movement with clear signage, landmarks, and pathways. Interactive features like informational kiosks, guided tours, and interactive exhibits can enhance cognitive mapping and active exploration and stimulate behavioral responses by creating spaces that invite social interaction, rest, and contemplation, fostering a deeper connection with cultural heritage and a more dynamic and inclusive spatial perception. This principle aligns with adaptive reuse theory, which advocates repurposing old buildings for new uses, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a sustainable and functional environment.

Fifth, tourism marketers should consider individual traits. By utilizing narrative theory, marketers can create multilayered narratives with popular historical stories catering to diverse interests [86]. Storytelling techniques in guided tours, interactive exhibits, and digital media provide rich cultural heritage understanding [87]. However, it is important to emphasize that storytelling only helps visitors better understand history; history is not just storytelling or a narrative. Historical preservation and rehabilitation must acknowledge the complexity and authenticity of history, incorporating rigorous scholarly research and factual accuracy to genuinely represent the past. This comprehensive approach ensures that the historical districts are not only visually appealing but also culturally and historically meaningful, fostering a deeper and more authentic connection between tourists and the heritage they are exploring. In this way, we ensure that the essence of the historical narrative is maintained, providing a richer and more informed experience that goes beyond superficial aesthetics and engages with the true substance of historical and cultural heritage. Furthermore, novel activities like immersive performances, cultural workshops, or themed events appeal to sensation-seekers, intensifying spatial perception [88]. Managing destination familiarity by mixing well-known and lesser-known attractions maintains a sense of discovery, which is crucial for a transformative spatial perception [89]. Offering customizable itineraries with guided tours, self-guided options, and interactive experiences caters to different knowledge and curiosity levels, enhancing the tourist experience.

These practical implications are underpinned by established theories of conservation theory, restoration theory, rehabilitation theory, and adaptive reuse theory [90,91,92]. Grounding the strategies in these theories ensures that the proposed implications are not only effective in enhancing spatial perception but also sustainable and respectful of the historical integrity of the districts. This theoretical foundation supports the preservation of historical authenticity while accommodating modern needs, ensuring a balanced and sustainable approach to historical district tourism development.

6.3. Contributions

This research contributes theoretically by identifying and analyzing the stylistic, symbolic, and spatial factors of historical landscapes that enhance visual and spatial perception. It provides a comprehensive understanding of the interaction between tourists and the built environment in historical district tourism planning, confirming the application of the Stimulus–Organism–Response (SOR) model. Furthermore, this research pioneers the exploration of individual predispositions in spatial perception by examining sensation-seeking and destination familiarity. This innovative approach opens new horizons in the understanding of how personal predispositions and prior knowledge influence the perception and experience of tourists.

From a practical perspective, this study suggests that strategically enhancing the visual and experiential qualities of historical landscapes can help tourism managers create environments that foster meaningful spatial perception. Moreover, this research emphasizes catering to diverse tourist preferences through customizable experiences and engaging narratives. This approach enhances overall spatial perception and deepens tourist appreciation of cultural heritage values. Specifically, it highlights the importance of considering the visual and spatial perception of historical landscapes, as well as the emotional and cognitive responses they elicit in tourists. This comprehensive approach sets a new standard for historical district tourism planning and tourist engagement. By fostering meaningful and immersive experiences, this research supports the sustainable tourism planning of historical districts.

6.4. Limitations

This study acknowledges several limitations and suggests directions for future research. Firstly, the reliance on self-reported data may introduce biases due to social desirability or recall inaccuracies, and the cross-sectional design limits causal inferences. Future research should use longitudinal designs and objective measures like behavioral observations or physiological indicators to mitigate biases. Additionally, ensuring diverse and representative samples would enhance generalizability. Thirdly, despite a comprehensive literature review, this study may have overlooked significant factors due to the multifaceted nature of historical districts. Future research should validate and refine measurement items for spatial perception and incorporate additional factors. Lastly, the focus on Laomendong may limit the scalability of its findings to other historical districts, as spatial perception contexts may differ across various destinations. Future research should explore other historical districts to understand broader applicability.