Eye-Tracking and Psychological Analysis: The Impact of Building Shape on Visitor Visual Preference

Abstract

Garden buildings not only enhance the aesthetics of gardens but also affect the visual and psychological experience of visitors. However, existing studies lack a systematic analysis of the shape types and combination patterns of buildings, which indirectly affects the overall experience of visitors. This study explores the attractiveness of different forms, styles, and combinations of buildings to visitors through oculometry and psychological analysis. The results of the study show that buildings are always the main focus of visitors’ sight in the garden, and traditional buildings can stimulate visitors’ excitement and curiosity. When observed at close range, visitors’ attention to simple-shaped buildings was mainly focused on the overall shape, while details of complex-shaped buildings, such as decorations, doors, windows, and columns, can significantly attract the eye. In contrast, when viewed from a distance, simple and regular combinations of building shapes were more effective in attracting visitors’ attention, while the appeal of the historic features of complex buildings declined, possibly due to reduced clarity of detail. Visually striking elements such as buildings with acute angles or curved eaves attracted more visual attention when viewed from a distance. This study not only provides a scientific basis for the design of shapes and historical characteristics of garden buildings but also provides practical guidance for the layout and spatial remodeling of garden buildings.

1. Introduction

Parks, such as pocket parks or traditional gardens, are important environmental resources that contribute to people’s health and provide essential ecosystem services. Increasing research demonstrates that parks elicit physiological and psychological responses in individuals. Furthermore, studies suggest that contact with parks has therapeutic benefits. For instance, parks can alleviate stress, enhance mood, and mitigate the risk of depression [1,2]. With the development of cities, gardens, a significant component of parks, have increasingly attracted and been studied by researchers. Studies have found that gardens not only offer people an excellent aesthetic experience but also facilitate physical leisure activities [3]. This contributes to dual benefits for individuals, both psychologically and physically. In recent years, research on gardens has primarily focused on several aspects: garden buildings [4], garden water features [5], garden colors [6], and the study of greenery for landscaping purposes [7]. In the realm of architecture, buildings possess distinct characteristics such as appearance, geographic location, and arrangement, that evoke diverse emotions and fulfill visitors’ satisfaction. Furthermore, natural building serves as a mediator in influencing visitors’ preferences [8,9,10,11,12,13]. Therefore, garden building occupies an important position in garden design, which is not only the core component of garden landscape but also has a profound impact on the spatial structure, functional layout, and aesthetic effect of a garden.

In the study of garden building, a variety of methods have been used to analyze its impact on visitors, including questionnaires, psychological analysis, and eye-tracking analysis [14,15,16,17]. Questionnaires are a common method to collect feedback and opinions from visitors, and can visualize their preferences and feelings towards different garden buildings [18]. Psychological analysis, on the other hand, delves into the influence of garden building on visitors’ psychological state and emotions. Through experimental and measurement tools, researchers are able to reveal how building forms, layouts, and details affect visitors’ psychological responses, such as feelings of comfort, pleasure, and serenity [19,20,21,22,23]. Eye-tracking analysis is a more precise research method that can provide a detailed understanding of the impact of different building elements on visual attention by tracking and recording visitors’ eye movements and fixation counts [24,25,26]. Eye-tracking data can reveal the parts of the building that visitors pay most attention to in a garden, and how these parts guide visitors’ sight and attention. This method can provide a scientific basis for optimizing the building design of gardens and make the design more in line with people’s visual habits and psychological needs. In summary, the psychological and visual impact of garden building on visitors can be fully understood through questionnaires, psychological analysis, and eye-tracking analysis. These research methods not only provide valuable data support for garden design but also promote the cross-fertilization of architectural aesthetics and environmental psychology and provide scientific guidance for the creation of a more attractive and functional garden environment.

In recent years, research on building in gardens has achieved many important results, mainly focusing on the impact of garden building on the overall effect of the garden and its role [27]. The research shows that garden building is not only a part of the landscape but also plays a key role in shaping the garden space, guiding the flow of visitors, and enhancing the aesthetic value of the garden. First of all, the role of garden building in spatial organization has been widely recognized. Through skillful architectural layout, designers can create diverse spatial experiences and enhance the sense of hierarchy and interest in the garden [5,7]. For example, the pavilions in traditional Chinese gardens and the viewing platforms and walkways in modern gardens play an important role in guiding visitors’ routes, separating different functional areas, and providing rest space [3]. Secondly, the research on garden building in enhancing visitors’ experience has also achieved remarkable results. Studies have shown that different forms and styles of building have different effects on the psychology and emotions of visitors. For example, buildings with cultural and historical backgrounds can enhance the cultural identity and historical resonance of visitors, while modernized buildings can bring visual impact and novel experiences [12,13]. In addition, the material, color, and decorative elements of a building can also significantly affect the emotional response and aesthetic feeling of the visitors [28,29]. Furthermore, the function of buildings in the ecological environment has been deeply studied [30,31]. Many garden buildings have achieved the goals of energy conservation, environmental protection, and ecological restoration through design means such as green roofs, vertical greenery, and ecological materials. These green buildings not only enhance the sustainability of gardens but also contribute to the improvement of the urban environment [32]. Finally, the impact of garden building in social and cultural aspects has also been widely noticed. As a cultural carrier, buildings not only reflect the cultural characteristics of different historical periods and regions, but also play an important role in promoting cultural exchange and inheritance [27,33]. Hence, many gardens have demonstrated and passed on their rich cultural heritage by rebuilding traditional buildings or introducing building elements with local characteristics.

Although existing research has achieved many results in terms of the functional and aesthetic values of garden buildings, there are still deficiencies in the analysis of the impact of building shape types and combination patterns on gardens. Existing studies tend to focus on the monolithic effect of buildings and ignore the comprehensive impact of different building shapes and combination patterns on the overall garden landscape and visitor experience. Our study first investigated the effects of different buildings in a garden on visitors’ psychology through psychological analysis. The results show that different types of buildings significantly affect visitors’ psychological feelings. For example, traditional buildings may inspire excitement and curiosity in visitors, while modern buildings bring a feeling of mediocrity and boredom. On this basis, we utilized eye-tracking analysis to investigate the effects of different garden buildings on visitors’ visual attention when other garden elements are the same. The results show that there is a significant difference in the visual attractiveness of different buildings to visitors, and buildings with sharp tops can guide visitors’ sight and attention more effectively. Next, we used the method of graphic analysis to study complex garden buildings by breaking them down into combinations of simple shapes. We found that different building shapes and combinations have a great impact on attractiveness to visitors, and as the buildings change from pavilions to water pavilions, the increasingly complex shape combinations of the buildings will further enhance the visual attractiveness to and interest of visitors. Finally, we explored the effects of different garden building combinations on visual appeal for visitors. In the case of multiple building shapes superimposed on each other in combination, although the combination of complex shapes can significantly enhance the visual appeal, simple and regular shape combinations tend to attract visitors’ attention more effectively. This suggests that by studying the diverse combinations of building shapes and their performance in garden environments, it is possible to better attract the visual attention of visitors, improve the recognizability and attractiveness of gardens, and provide theoretical support for the creation of more innovative and aesthetically pleasing garden spaces. In addition, this graphic analysis technique is not only important for garden design but also can be widely used in urban planning and public space transformation and other fields. Through scientific analysis of shapes and combinations, designers can create more attractive and functional spatial environments, thus enhancing the overall spatial experience and visual effect.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

This study focused on nine selected gardens that served as key representatives of the Jiangnan style (Pavilion of Surging Waves, Presidential Palace, Lion Grove Garden, Retreat & Reflection Garden, Humble Administrator’s Garden, Garden of Cultivation, Lingering Garden, Jichang Garden, and Master-of-Nets Garden, Figure 1). The criteria and rationale behind the selection of these six gardens were as follows [2,34,35].

2.1.1. Representativeness

These gardens, which embody the distinctive Jiangnan Garden style and design concepts, are of great historical and cultural significance in the Jiangnan region. In particular, their design, building, and plant arrangements capture the spirit of Jiangnan gardens.

2.1.2. Geographic Coverage

To represent the diversity and distinctive features of the Jiangnan region, the selected gardens are dispersed throughout several cities, including Suzhou, Nanjing, and Wuxi.

2.1.3. Garden Elements

These gardens perfectly capture the creative qualities and aesthetic goals of Jiangnan Garden design, with pavilions, halls, pavilion with building, and boat-form pavilions among their features.

We investigated the features of these garden aspects in each of the nine selected gardens through a survey of the literature and fieldwork (Figures S1–S4).

2.2. Photo Acquisition and Processing

Landscape perception research has increasingly adopted the use of photographs as stand-ins for real landscape views due to their demonstrated reliability [36,37,38,39,40]. As a result, employing photos as stimuli in research is viable. As stimuli, three different kinds of photographs of garden elements—buildings, water features, and vegetation—representing various landscape styles were employed because these components are prevalent in Jiangnan gardens. The selection of representative images for each type of landscape was based on a number of factors, including the resemblance of the landscape structures, the intricacy of the garden settings, and the viability of altering the content, removing additional covariates, and manipulating the complexity of the landscape by introducing or removing specific landscape elements. To reduce the influence of weather, season, and equipment, all photographs were taken in spring (from April to May 2024), on overcast days without wind, and using the same camera (Cannon 60D). The camera was set at a fixed height on a tripod and pictures taken with a resolution of 2970 × 1980 pixels. The field of view was consistently maintained at +31 × 21° by maintaining a focal length of 50 mm. Three important aspects of a garden were taken into consideration when choosing all of the photos: the number of structures, the saturation of the water, and the greenery ratio. Collage techniques were applied to the scenes in order to add, subtract, or synthesize landscape features in order to create well-integrated images [25,41,42,43,44]. To increase their realism, all additional landscape components were based on real-world garden photographs, including comparable garden buildings [38].

2.3. Subject

We sent out inquiries to a variety of age groups and genders to find participants. Normal vision and color perception, a willingness to engage, and a lack of help were requirements for inclusion. Excessive eye blinking, a long residence period, and irregular eye tracking were among the exclusion criteria. The final sample comprised 94 people between the ages of 18 and 65, 44 of whom were male and 50 of whom were female. The participants were given clear information regarding the testing procedures prior to registration, but the precise research aims were not disclosed. The participants were also told not to use mascara or eye makeup so as to minimize any potential interference with the eye-tracking glasses’ ability to accurately detect the pupils. Before the experiment, the subjects were informed that they might experience emotional symptoms and they signed the informed consent form.

2.4. Eye-Tracking and Questionnaire Data Collection

Studies have indicated that visually appealing characteristics result in extended fixation times and increased rates of fixation [45,46]. In order to better understand individual differences within the general population and to guide the development of gardens in the future, it was necessary to investigate the differences in fixation counts and dwelling times when perceiving variations in the complexity of different elements [47,48].

Software from SMI, Germany called ETG2 Wireless Analysis Pro (18009771) 2011 was used to analyze eye-tracking data. This software records reflected signals and pupil locations accurately because it makes use of infrared eye-tracking technology [49]. Consequently, every fixation (fixation count) and every saccade (scan path) were noted [50]. Furthermore, BeGaze 3.7, an SMI analysis program, was utilized to export the eye-tracking measurements (ETMs) into organized Excel files.

2.5. Procedure

We carried out a particular scene-based visual and psychological cognition experiment to examine the visual preferences and variations in the various buildings in Jiangnan gardens. The participants in the eye-tracking trials were free to view whatever they wanted and could adjust the length of the observation. In order to mitigate any biases resulting from a fixed order, a relaxed experimental environment was created by randomly presenting the photos [47,51]. The area was meticulously managed to guarantee that ambient noise and lights were strictly regulated. Three calibration points were used to assure accurate eye-tracking readings over the whole screen, and before testing, all participants received the same instructions (training and experimental operation guidelines). Using a computer and an independent eye-tracking equipment, the participants in the experiment examined several garden buildings that were recorded (Figure 2).

Following the experiment, the participants were given prizes and asked to fill out questionnaires. A questionnaire survey was used to record and assess the participants’ experiences, which they had for five minutes at a time in the same area with different level. Our goal was to validate the relationship between garden building and psychological reactions and to uncover the influence of garden components on psychological responses using qualitative methodologies.

Following the experiment, the BeGaze 3.7 software package (SMI) was used to evaluate the eye-tracking data. The fixation count, a useful metric, was derived by transforming the raw data from the eye tracking.

2.6. Data Analysis

To ascertain whether preference ratings for various garden buildings and visitors differ significantly, statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS. The links between the buildings and the fixation count data were investigated using a bivariate correlation analysis. This investigation evaluated the normalcy of the data distribution and quantified the effect of these variables on several indicators. The “difference buildings” were among the factors taken into account in this investigation. Based on the presumption of a normal data distribution, origin and heat-map analyses were used to look into variations in visual behavior and cognitive evaluation when seeing the different buildings. All the values in this paper are in the normal distribution and are plausible, e.g., when the number of buildings is observed at a distance (Figure S5).

3. Results

3.1. The Impact of Building on Visitor Attraction in Gardens

The importance of building in gardens cannot be ignored. We verified this by studying the effect of garden building on visitors’ visual attraction under different greenery ratios. The experimental data (eye-tracking heat map) showed that visitors’ eyes were significantly attracted to buildings in different garden environments (i.e., under different greenery ratios). This is consistent with other findings in the literature, suggesting that buildings have a significant impact on visitors’ experience. We first investigated the effect of a single building on visitors’ visual attraction under different greenery ratios to verify the importance of buildings in gardens. We selected two groups of garden environments with different greenery ratios: low greenery ratio and high greenery ratio (Figure S1). To ensure the simplicity of the experiment and the comparability of the results, we used only one type of building, the pavilion with building, in each environment. The experiment used an eye tracker to record visitors’ visual tracking and fixation counts at different greenery ratios (Table S1). In order to capture the participants’ visual field distribution patterns more effectively, we chose the reverse side of the eye tracker’s heat map to capture their fixation counts and generated heat maps to show the areas of visual concentration.

We evaluated methods for collecting and analyzing eye-tracking data to explore changes in participant attention compared to actual observations. This was achieved by optimizing realistic scenarios and varying the location of elements in multiple scenarios while conducting multiple experiments and reproducing the scenarios. For example, we investigated the effect of house location on visitors’ eye-tracking heat maps and found that house location slightly affected the distribution of participants’ visual attention, although the overall effect was minimal (Figure S6). Thus, the distribution of participants’ attention in the eye-tracking heat map was compelling compared to the actual situation.

The heat map showed that visitors’ eyes were significantly focused on the pavilion with building in both the low- and high-greenery-ratio environments (Figure 3). In the low-greenery-ratio environment, the heat map showed that visitors’ eyes formed a high-intensity thermal zone around the pavilion with building, indicating that the pavilion with building was the primary visual focal point. Specifically, in the low-greenery-ratio environment, the pavilion with building attracted over 70% of the visual attention. In the high-greenery-ratio environment, the pavilion with building remained the primary focus of visitors’ eyesight despite the high plant cover. The heat maps show that visitors’ sight lines create significant thermal zones around the pavilion with building, with the pavilion with building attracting about 65% of the sight-line attention. This suggests that buildings are still able to attract a significant amount of visual attention, even in high-green-percentage environments.

Further analysis of the line-of-sight data reveals that the greenery ratio has a more limited effect on visitor sight lines. Specific data show that the proportion of sight lines attracted by the pavilion with building in low-greenery-ratio environments is 70% and the proportion of sight lines attracted by pavilion with building in high-greenery-ratio environments is 65%. Although the landscape in the high-greenery-ratio environment has a dispersing effect on the line of sight, the pavilion with building is always the main fixation of the line of sight. These results indicate that buildings have a non-negligible importance in the garden. Regardless of changes in the greenery ratio, buildings are always effective in attracting visitors’ attention and enhancing their visiting experience.

3.2. The Impact of Different Forms and Styles of Building on Visitor Psychology

After verifying the importance of buildings’ visual attraction to visitors in gardens, we further explored the effects of different forms and styles of buildings on visitors’ psychology and emotions. Through psychological analysis, we investigated the effects of different forms and styles of buildings on visitors’ psychology under the same garden elements. The experiment was conducted in the same garden environment—only the form and style of the buildings were replaced. The selected buildings were traditional (e.g., classical Chinese building) and modern (e.g., minimalist building). Each group of experiments contained 94 participants who visited each building environment and filled out a psychological perception questionnaire. The questionnaires contained information about the visual appeal, emotional response, interest level, and overall experience of the buildings (Table S2).

In the traditional building environment, the questionnaire results (Table S3) showed that 75% of the participants reported that traditional buildings stimulated their excitement and curiosity. Many participants described a strong interest in the intricate ornamentation and sense of history of traditional buildings, and 65% of the participants felt that traditional buildings made them feel pleasant and relaxed, and they were more willing to spend time exploring in depth in this environment [52]. The heat map data showed that in the traditional building environment, the participants’ eyes were focused for a longer period of time and their fixations were more dispersed, indicating that they were observing the various details of the building in detail (Figure 4a).

However, in the modern building environment, only 40% of the participants indicated that the modern building stimulated their interest, and the majority of the participants thought that the modern building lacked attraction, while 60% of the participants gave feedback that the modern building gave a bland and boring feeling and that the lack of distinctive design could not arouse their curiosity. The heat map data showed that in the modern building environment, the participants’ sight concentration time was shorter and their focus was more concentrated (Figure 4b), indicating that they lacked interest in the details of the modern building, and the average fixation time was significantly shortened (Table S4).

By statistically analyzing the participants’ psychological feedback, we found that the complexity and sense of history of traditional buildings can effectively stimulate visitors’ emotional responses and enhance their touring experience. Participants showed higher levels of arousal and positive emotional responses in traditional building environments, which is consistent with the longer sight concentration time and dispersed fixation counts shown in the heat map data. The modern building was not effective in arousing visitors’ interest due to its minimalist design style, resulting in a more mundane visiting experience for them. Participants showed lower emotional responses and interest levels in the modern building environment, which is consistent with the shorter sight concentration times and focused fixation counts shown by the heat map (Figure 4).

These results suggest that the form and style of building have a significant impact on the psychological feelings of visitors. Traditional buildings can stimulate the excitement and curiosity of visitors and improve their visiting experience, whereas modern buildings are relatively unattractive and tend not to arouse emotional resonance in visitors. Therefore, the form and style of building should be considered comprehensively in garden design to enhance the overall visiting experience and visitor satisfaction.

3.3. The Impact of Building Shape on Visitors’ Visual Perception at Close Range (About 5 m)

Based on the results of the study on the psychological impact of different forms and styles of buildings on visitors, we further explored whether the shape of traditional buildings is a key factor affecting visitors’ psychology and emotions. Therefore, we utilized eye-tracking analysis to investigate the effects of different shapes of garden buildings on visitors’ visual attention when other garden elements (e.g., greenery ratio, water, number of buildings, etc.) are the same.

In the experimental design, we chose four representative garden buildings, namely: pavilion (simple shape), building (moderately complex shape), pavilion (more complex shape) and boat-form pavilions (very complex shape). Each type of building was placed in the same garden environment to ensure that other factors such as the proportion of greenery, water bodies, and the number of buildings were consistent. The experiment used an eye tracker to record the participants’ visual tracking in different building environments and generate heat maps.

The results of the experiment were as follows (Table S5).

(1)

Pavilion (simple shape)

The heat map shows that the visitors’ eyes around the kiosk mainly focus on the overall outline of the kiosk, and the fixation counts are more concentrated and evenly distributed (Figure 5a). The average fixation time of visitors is 312.5 milliseconds, and the number of fixation counts is 7.5, indicating that the simple structure of the pavilion has a limited visual appeal.

(2)

Hall (moderately complex shape)

The heat map shows that visitors’ eyes began to focus on the detailed parts of the hall, especially the windows and porches of the building (Figure 5b). The average fixation time of the visitors increased to 331.4 milliseconds and the number of fixation counts was 9.2, indicating that the moderately complex shape of the building significantly increased the visual attention of the visitors.

(3)

Pavilion with building (more complex shape)

The heat map shows that the visitors’ fixation time significantly increased in all detailed parts of the building, especially the top and decorative parts of the building (Figure 5c). The average fixation time of visitors reaches 369.8 milliseconds and the number of fixation counts is 10.1, indicating that the complex structure of the pavilion attracts more visual attention.

(4)

Boat-form pavilion (very complex shape)

The heat map shows that the visitors’ visual attention is most concentrated on the detailed parts of the boat-form pavilions, especially the boat-shaped structure and the complex carved parts (Figure 5d). The average fixation time of visitors is 381.3 milliseconds, and the number of fixation counts reaches 11.9, indicating that the highly complex shape of the boat-form pavilion has the strongest visual attraction.

The shape and details of the historical buildings significantly affect the visual attention of the tourists when they observe the buildings from a close distance. For simple shapes (pavilion and hall), visitors’ perspectives are mainly focused on their overall shapes; however, for complex shapes (pavilion with building and boat-form pavilion), some of the visitors’ interests are attracted by the decorations, windows, doors, and columns of the buildings. Therefore, to further investigate the effect of building shape on visitors’ attraction, we eliminate the effect of building details by describing historical buildings through simple graphics [53,54].

3.4. Graphic Analysis of Different Garden Buildings

Through simple graphic analysis, we further analyzed the specific effects of the geometric features of buildings on the visual appeal of visitors. The graphic analysis was carried out by disassembling complex garden buildings into simple shapes and reassembling them into buildings based on these basic shapes (triangles, squares, rectangles, and trapezoids) for the study.

In the experiment, we chose four representative garden buildings and analyzed them by disassembling them into basic shapes (Figure 6).

Pavilion: composed of a triangle and a square.

Hall: composed of a trapezoid, a square, and a rectangle.

Pavilion with building: composed of two squares, two trapezoids, and a rectangle.

Boat-form pavilion: composed of a triangle, two squares, four rectangles, and two trapezoids.

To ensure the accuracy of the experiment, we ensured that the basic shapes were consistent on one side to minimize the interference of the figure size on the experiment. Participants’ visual tracking in different building environments were recorded by the eye tracker, and heat maps were generated to analyze the effects of different building shapes and combinations on visitors’ visual attraction. The experimental results are shown below (Table S6).

(1)

Pavilion (simple combination)

The heat map showed that the participants’ eyes were mainly focused on the junction of triangles and squares with more concentrated fixation counts. The average fixation duration of the visitors was 322.4 milliseconds and the number of fixation counts was 8.1. Although the triangular structure can stimulate initial curiosity and exploration, the attraction is relatively limited due to the simplicity of the overall structure.

(2)

Hall (moderately complex combination)

The heat map shows that the participants’ eyes begin to disperse across the trapezoid, square, and rectangle, especially at the top of the trapezoid and the edges of the square. The average fixation time of visitors increased to 341.6 milliseconds and the number of fixation counts was 9.6. Moderately complex buildings significantly increased visual appeal, with participants gazing longer at various sections.

(3)

Pavilion with building (more complex combination)

The heat map showed that participants’ eyes were focused on the intersection of the square and rectangle, especially on the trapezoidal tip and the central part of the square. The average fixation time of the visitors amounted to 375.8 milliseconds and the number of fixation counts was 10.3. The more complex structure makes the visitors’ eyes more dispersed, and each detailed part attracts attention for a longer period of time.

(4)

Boat-form pavilion (very complex combination)

The heat map shows that visitors’ eyes move frequently between individual trapezoids, squares, and rectangles, especially the detailed parts of the trapezoids. The average fixation time of visitors was 398.30 milliseconds and the number of fixation counts reached 12.2. The very complex structure not only attracted more initial eyesight but also was able to continuously guide the visual exploration of the visitors.

By comparison with the heat map of the actual garden building, we found that the simpler the shape of the building (pavilion and pavilion with building), the heat map is closer to the physical map. For example, the heat map of the shape of the pavilion still focuses on the overall shape. As the shape of the building combines from simple to complex shapes, the visitor’s vision begins to be dispersed on the overall outline of the building [55,56].

Therefore, when observing garden buildings in close proximity, we found that for simple-shaped buildings, visitors concentrated more on the overall shape of the construction. On the contrary, for complex shapes, visitors focus more on the details of the building than on the overall shape of the building, such as the historical components of the building like decorative doors, windows, arches, pilasters, ornaments, and columns.

3.5. The Impact of the Shape of Garden Buildings on the Visual Attractiveness to Visitors at a Distance (About 30–70 m)

At close range, visitors observe fewer buildings, so we artificially controlled the number of buildings as one for the study. In actual gardens, visitors usually first observe the shape of the buildings from a distance, so the actual situation contains more buildings. Therefore, the results may differ when the number of buildings is large, i.e., when there is a variety of building shapes. Therefore, in order to further investigate the effect of building shapes on visitors’ attractiveness, we further explored the effect of multiple garden building combinations on visitors’ visual attractiveness.

We set up several sets of experimental scenarios under the more distant regions, each with a different number of buildings and increasing building shapes from simple to complex. The experimental scenarios included: a single building (e.g., a single pavilion with building); a combination of two buildings (e.g., a pavilion and a corridor); a combination of three buildings (e.g., a pavilion, a hall, and a pavilion with building), and a combination of multiple buildings (e.g., a pavilion, a hall, a pavilion with building, and a boat-form pavilion). In the experiment, the participants’ visual tracking in different combinations of environments were recorded by the eye tracker and heat maps were generated to analyze the effects of multiple building combinations on visitors’ visual attraction (Figure 7). The experimental results are as follows (Table S7).

(1)

Single building

In the scene with only one pavilion with building, the heat map showed that the visitors’ eyes were mainly focused on the window details of the pavilion with building, and some of the annotation points were on the buildings with acute angle shapes. The average fixation duration of the visitors was 339.80 milliseconds and the number of annotation points was 9.80. The visual stimulation of a single building is limited and the attractiveness is relatively low.

(2)

Combination of two buildings

In the combined pavilion and corridor, the heat map showed that the visitors’ eyes moved frequently between the two buildings, mainly focusing on the top part of the pavilion. The average fixation time of the visitors increased to 341.30 milliseconds and the number of fixation counts was 11.50. The combination of the two buildings increased the visual points of interest and significantly enhanced the visual attention of the visitors.

(3)

Combination of three buildings

In the scenario of the combination of pavilion, hall, and pavilion with building, the heat map shows that visitors’ eyes are attracted to the pavilion, especially the top of the pavilion and the top of the pavilion with building. The average fixation time of visitors reaches 363.20 milliseconds and the number of fixation counts is 12.60. The combination of the three buildings provided more visual stimuli and resulted in more dispersed and frequent movement of visitors’ eyes.

(4)

Combination of multiple buildings

In the scenario of the combination of pavilion, hall, pavilion with building, and boat-form pavilion, the heat map showed that the visitors’ eyes moved frequently between the details of multiple buildings, which appeared as visual disorganization. The average fixation duration of visitors was 338.90 milliseconds and the number of fixation counts was 9.50. The combination of multiple complex buildings enhances the visual attraction in the initial stage, but too much visual stimulation leads to visual attention distraction and even causes annoyance to some visitors.

The experimental results show that the effect of a combination of multiple garden buildings on the visual attractiveness to visitors shows a trend of first increasing and then decreasing. By analyzing the shapes of multiple garden building combinations, we further found that when the number of buildings is few (a single building), simple combinations of building shapes can significantly enhance the visual attractiveness, and the visitor’s average fixation and the number of fixation counts are significantly increased [57]. As the number of buildings increases further (two buildings), complex building combinations provide more visual stimuli and points of interest, resulting in more dispersed and frequent movements of the visitor’s fixation, and the visual appeal is maximized. However, when the number of buildings is higher (three buildings), although they can attract more eyes initially, greater visual stimulation of visitors can occur easily due to the fact that the buildings contain too many shapes (Figure 8 and Figure S7), which may lead to distraction of the visitors’ visual attention and even cause visual fatigue and annoyance [58].

Further analysis reveals that when visitors observe buildings from a distance, simple and regular shape combinations tend to be more effective in attracting their attention. When observing multiple buildings from a distance, the historical features of the buildings were not as effective in attracting visitors’ attention, probably due to the reduced clarity of the historical components of the buildings, which resulted in less attention from the visitors. Compared with the analysis of buildings from a close distance, visitors were attracted to the overall shape of the buildings, especially when there were visually striking elements such as buildings with acute-angle shapes or curved eaves, which is consistent with the analysis of the shape of a single building. The results of these experiments show that building shape and historical characteristics have a significant effect on visual appeal. In the garden design, overall, increase the number of buildings with acute angles or curved eaves and adding some historical components can further enhance the desire of visitors to explore and enrich the cultural heritage of the garden [59,60].

4. Discussion

4.1. The Importance of Garden Building in Attracting Visitors Visually

Our study confirms the key role of buildings in garden environments, with buildings consistently being the focus of visitors’ visual attention at different greenery ratios. This finding further reinforces the importance of buildings in garden design and supports the existing literature on buildings as core elements of gardens [7].

4.2. The Impact of Building Forms and Styles on Visitors’ Psychology

Psychological analysis shows that traditional building can stimulate more positive emotions in visitors than modern building. This is consistent with the results of previous studies, which indicate that traditional building has a stronger historical and cultural charm, which can trigger the interest and exploration desire of visitors [61,62,63]. This result has an important implication for garden design, i.e., traditional building elements can be appropriately integrated in the design to enhance the psychological pleasure of visitors.

4.3. The Impact of Building Form on Visitors’ Fixation Counts

Using eye-tracking data, we observed significant differences in the visual appeal of different shapes of buildings. Specifically, more complex structures, such as pavilions and the boat-form pavilion, direct visitors’ fixation more effectively. This result emphasizes the importance of building shapes in landscape design, where designers can strategically use complex geometric shapes to enhance the visual appeal of buildings. At close range (about 5 m), although visitors’ attention is attracted to the overall form of simple buildings such as pavilions, they are more attracted to the complex details when facing more complex structures such as pavilions and boats. This suggests that the complexity of building form plays a crucial role in directing visual focus, especially in historic buildings where details such as decoration, windows, and columns have a significant impact on visual engagement [54].

4.4. The Impact of Graphic Analysis of Garden Buildings on Visual Attraction

Graphic analysis reveals the significant impact of different building shapes and combinations on visual appeal. Complex shapes (e.g., boat-form pavilion) not only attract more attention at the outset but also maintain the interest of visitors [42]. This finding is closely related to garden design practice, where designers can enhance the overall appeal of a garden by using complex combinations of shapes. In comparing hotspot diagrams of simplified historic buildings with actual garden structures, we found that the hotspot diagrams of simpler shapes, such as pavilions, were very similar to their physical forms. However, as the complexity of the building shapes increases, distinguishing them from the physical ones, the heat maps of the shapes of complex buildings show that visitors’ attention becomes more dispersed over the entire outline of the building. This suggests that in a close-up view, visitors are more focused on the overall structure of simpler buildings; conversely, for complex shapes, they tend to focus more on the details of the building rather than the shape itself.

4.5. The Impact of the Number of Garden Buildings on Visual Attractiveness from a Distance

Experiments on various garden building combinations have shown that the number and arrangement of buildings have a significant effect on visual appeal. When there are fewer buildings, complex shapes can enhance visual appeal; however, as the number of buildings increases, excessive visual stimulation may lead to visual fatigue and irritation [64]. This finding suggests that designers should carefully plan the number and layout of buildings in landscape design to avoid excessive or insufficient visual stimulation. At long distances (about 30–70 m), the visual attractiveness of various building combinations showed a tendency to increase and then decrease: a few buildings can significantly enhance visual attractiveness, a moderate number of complex buildings can maximize visual stimulation, but an excessive number of buildings can lead to visual overload. In addition, simple and organized combinations of shapes tend to be more effective in attracting visitors’ attention at greater distances. Historic features of buildings become less prominent, possibly because of reduced clarity, leading visitors to pay more attention to overall shapes, especially sharp or protruding elements that naturally attract attention.

4.6. Future Research Directions

Based on the findings of this study, future research can be expanded in the following areas.

(1)

Three-dimensional analysis and environmental variables: Future research could explore building shapes from a three-dimensional perspective and consider other environmental variables, such as seasonal variations and weather conditions, to gain a fuller understanding of their joint impact on the visitor experience.

(2)

Cross-cultural comparative study: Studying the attraction and psychological impact of buildings on visitors with different cultural backgrounds and geographic conditions, in order to reveal the universality and differences of building design in the global context.

(3)

Quantitative analysis and large-sample research: Adopting a larger sample and quantitative analysis methods to verify the differences in the visual and psychological impacts of different building forms, styles, and combinations on visitors, and to provide more solid data support.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we systematically explored the effects of garden buildings on visitors’ visual attractiveness and psychological feelings. First, we showed through eye-tracking experiments that buildings are always the main focus of visitors’ sight in garden environments with both low and high greenery ratios. Then, through psychological analysis, we found that traditional buildings can stimulate visitors’ excitement and curiosity, while modern buildings tend to give people a bland and uninteresting feeling. This finding suggests that traditional and modern building elements should be reasonably integrated in garden design to enhance visitors’ psychological pleasure. Further, we found that the complexity of building shapes directly affects visitors’ visual fixation counts and duration. Specifically, visitors’ fixation counts and duration increased significantly as the shape of buildings shifted from simple (e.g., pavilion and hall) to complex (e.g., pavilion with building and boat-form pavilion). During close observation, visitors’ attention to simple-shaped buildings mainly focuses on the overall shape, while the details of complex-shaped buildings, such as decorations, doors, windows, and columns, can significantly attract visitors’ attention. Further analysis reveals that when observing garden buildings from a distance, simple and regular combinations of building shapes are more effective in attracting visitors’ attention. In contrast, the historic features of complex buildings were less attractive at a distance, possibly due to reduced clarity of detail. In addition, visually striking elements such as buildings with acute-angle shapes or curved eaves were more effective in attracting visitors’ visual attention when viewed from a distance. This suggests that the overall shape of the building plays a dominant role at a distance, whereas the details of the building become the main source of attraction at close range.

This study reveals the significant effects of building shapes and historical characteristics on visual appeal to visitors, enriching the theory of landscape design. When designing regional buildings, designers not only need to consider the historical characteristics of buildings in the near distance to enrich architectural details and enhance visitors’ desire to explore, thus improving the cultural heritage of the gardens, but also need to further consider the shapes of buildings in the far distance to lead the visual interest of visitors and enhance the overall attractiveness of the gardens. This shape analysis method of distance and proximity can be used to optimize garden design, urban planning, and development of visitor attractions to improve the visual appeal and visitor satisfaction. However, this study has some limitations in experimental design and data collection. First, the study selected only certain variables (e.g., greenery ratio, shape, and number of buildings) for analysis and failed to comprehensively consider other factors that may affect visitors’ experience, such as seasonal variations, lighting conditions, and dynamic tour paths. Second, due to the limited eye movement experiments, the experiments used two-dimensional shapes to analyze the buildings and it was not possible to analyze the three-dimensional building eye movement experiments, which could only be investigated by means of real-life research. Based on the findings of this study, future research can further explore diverse environmental factors and building types, such as exploring the effects of more types of buildings and different environmental factors (e.g., climatic conditions, time changes) on visitors’ visual attractiveness and psychological feelings. We will also introduce virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies to simulate dynamic garden environments and study the effects of buildings on visitors’ visual attractiveness in a three-dimensional perspective.