Cross-Cultural Perceptual Differences in the Symbolic Meanings of Chinese Architectural Heritage

Abstract

Architectural heritage, as a highly symbolized medium of cultural expression, plays a vital role in transmitting collective memory and shaping intercultural tourism experiences. Yet, how visitors from diverse cultural backgrounds perceive and emotionally respond to Chinese architectural symbols remains insufficiently understood. This study addresses this gap by integrating architectural semiotics with cross-cultural psychology to examine perceptual differences across three visitor groups—Mainland China and Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan (C), East and Southeast Asia (A), and Europe/North America (UA)—at eleven representative Chinese heritage sites. Drawing on 235 in-depth interviews and 1500 online reviews, a mixed-methods design was employed, combining semantic network analysis, grounded theory coding, and affective clustering. The findings reveal that memory structures and cultural contexts shape symbolic perception, that cultural dimensions and affective orientations drive divergent emotional responses, and that interpretive pathways of architectural symbols vary systematically across groups. Specifically, Group C emphasizes collective memory and identity, and Group A engages through structural analogies and regional resonance, while Group UA favors aesthetic form and immersive experiences. These insights inform culturally adaptive strategies for heritage presentation, including memory-anchored curation, comparative cross-regional interpretation, and immersive digital storytelling. By advancing a micro-level model of “architectural symbol–perceptual theme–emotional response–perceptual mechanism,” this research not only enriches theoretical debates on cross-cultural heritage perception but also offers practical guidance for inclusive and resonant heritage interpretation in a global tourism context.

1. Introduction

Since China’s accession to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage in 1985, a total of 59 World Heritage Sites have been inscribed, among which 25 are World Cultural Heritage sites centered on architectural heritage [1]. These. heritage sites not only embody historical memory and artistic value but also spatially manifest the traditional Chinese social structure, ritual systems, and cosmological worldview. Through central axis planning, spatial symmetry, and symbolic architectural components, ancient Chinese architecture constructs a cultural landscape characterized by high symbolic density and a coherent semiotic system. It thereby serves as a crucial medium for visitors to engage with and interpret the essence of Chinese civilization [2].

With the expansion of global tourism, culturally diverse visitors demonstrate increasingly heterogeneous—and at times conflicting—perceptions and emotional responses toward Chinese architectural heritage. Many Western participants tended to approach these sites from a spectacle-oriented perspective, emphasizing formal aesthetics and functional logic, although intra-group variability was also observed. East Asian visitors are more inclined to resonate with spatial narratives embedded in the architecture. These perceptual divergences are rooted not only in visual cognition and aesthetic preferences, but more fundamentally in the distinct value systems, historical experiences, and semiotic interpretive frameworks of different cultural groups [3].

From the perspective of symbolic interactionism [4], this section outlines the application logic of architectural semiotics and cross-cultural psychology in heritage tourism, providing a theoretical foundation that supports the analytical framework of this study.

The semiotic perspective provides a linguistics-based analytical approach for architectural heritage studies. Saussure [5] views language as a system of signs, with his signifier-signified model illustrating how architecture conveys cultural meaning through spatial structure and decorative elements. Peirce [6] introduced a triadic model of the sign, emphasizing that meaning is not a fixed correspondence but a process continuously constructed by the interpreter.

Semiotics emphasizes the processes of encoding and decoding cultural meaning, viewing architecture as a sign system with both social and cultural representational functions [7]. Architecture is not only a combination of form and space but also a material manifestation of social institutions, religious beliefs, and aesthetic customs, where elements such as form, material, proportion, and decoration serve as “cultural symbols” [8].

Jencks suggests that architecture can be understood as a “polysemous carrier,” where different audiences in varying cultural contexts may interpret it in diverse ways [9]. Architectural heritage, as a repository of historical culture, is the crystallization of “spatial memory,” enabling visitors to perceive, imagine, and emotionally connect to specific cultural contexts through its symbolic mechanisms. Building on this theoretical foundation, semiotic perspectives have gradually been integrated into heritage tourism research, where the focus shifts from abstract symbolic systems to how visitors perceive and interpret cultural meanings in practice.

As semiotic theory has gradually been introduced into cultural heritage tourism studies, Peirce’s triadic sign model provides a logical framework for understanding how cultural heritage is “viewed” and “interpreted” [10]. Based on this theory, some scholars have analyzed the visual communication strategies, spatial narrative structures, and the construction of cultural meanings at heritage sites [11]. Visitors actively generate perceptual themes of architectural meaning and trigger corresponding emotional responses through their interaction with symbols and others within architectural heritage spaces.

This process is not a passive reception of pre-existing meanings but a social process of meaning-making in which individuals engage with cultural experiences. This perspective aligns with Blumer’s symbolic interactionism, which emphasizes “the production of meaning through interaction.”

Chinese scholars have attempted to use semiotic analysis to explore the ritual structures, ethical systems, and aesthetic symbols in traditional architecture (such as Beijing’s siheyuan and temple buildings), revealing the underlying cultural logic and value systems [12,13]. Additionally, Sheng & Buchanan apply a regional semiotics framework to analyze how traditional visual elements, such as calligraphy signs, handwritten fonts, and local characters, collaboratively construct the cultural atmosphere of ancient water towns in China [14]. Li & Hu analyze, through a survey of local residents, how the symbolic elements in traditional Chinese dwellings are interpreted and applied in the context of modern rural revitalization and traditional cultural preservation [15].

Relevant research indicates that symbols not only transmit historical culture but also shape identity and visual consistency in planning decisions. For visitors, architectural symbols serve as the key to unlocking the cultural code. Only through the decoding of these symbols can they “reconstruct” the meaning of architectural culture.

However, existing research has limitations: first, many studies focus on analyzing a single type of architectural symbol, lacking systematic and universal symbol classification; second, empirical research on how visitors identify and interpret architectural symbols in cross-cultural contexts remains limited, making it difficult to uncover their cognitive pathways and emotional response mechanisms.

To further situate these processes of symbolic perception in diverse visitor contexts, researchers have turned to cross-cultural psychology, which provides tools to explain how cultural values and affective orientations shape differences in perception.

Cross-cultural research is an important branch of heritage tourism studies, with a focus on understanding the differences in perception preferences, emotional responses, and behaviors among tourists from diverse cultural backgrounds [16].

As a high-density cultural medium, architectural heritage often carries differentiated interpretations of its spatial structure, decorative language, and symbolic meanings across various cultural contexts, which influences the depth of visitors’ perceptions and the quality of their experiences. Existing research mainly develops along two paths:

The first is based on cross-cultural psychological theories to analyze the impact of cultural values on visitor behavior. Zhang et al. conducted a questionnaire survey, which found that there are authenticity biases in tourism perceptions among Chinese people in a cross-cultural context in South Korea [17].

The second path starts from the perspective of identity and belonging, focusing on how visitors construct the cultural boundaries of “self” and “other” through heritage [18].

Some studies also show that Chinese tourists’ perceptions of Muslim destinations tend to be superficial, and they have not fully understood the values of Islam [19].

Although the aforementioned studies provide important perspectives for understanding cross-cultural perception, they also have limitations: firstly, they overly rely on cultural dimension models and fail to deeply analyze the micro-level mechanisms between visitors and architectural symbols; secondly, quantitative surveys dominate, lacking multimodal methods that specifically reveal the perceptual pathways; thirdly, research subjects are regionally concentrated, and the cross-cultural perception of non-Western architectural heritage remains marginalized.

In summary, architectural heritage, as a highly symbolic cultural medium, carries significant functions of meaning construction and emotional identity within cross-cultural tourism.

Existing research has provided rich perspectives for understanding cross-cultural perception in the context of cultural heritage. However, there are still several shortcomings in existing research:

Firstly, there is a lack of systematic construction between architectural symbols and cross-cultural perception. Most studies focus on cultural experiences, neglecting the mechanism by which architecture, as cultural encoding, is “perceived—decoded—reconstructed” within different cultural groups.

Secondly, research on the perception of cross-cultural tourists remains at the experiential level, with psychological analyses largely based on macro-level frameworks, lacking micro-level and embodied perspectives.

Thirdly, research methods are relatively singular, with few studies starting from the symbols themselves and using multimodal methods such as semantic networks and affective clustering to reveal the relationship between “symbol—psychology—behavior.”

Finally, most heritage displays still primarily follow local cultural logic, lacking research on exhibition strategies and communication mechanisms aimed at multicultural audiences.

To address these research gaps, it is essential to ground the analysis in well-established theoretical frameworks that link symbolic systems with cross-cultural perception and emotional response.

Foundational theories such as Saussure’s [5] duality of linguistic sign, Peirce’s triadic model of the sign (object–sign–interpretant) [6], and Blumer’s [4] symbolic interactionism provide a robust conceptual framework for understanding how tourists construct meaning [20]. Moreover, cross-cultural psychology theories—including high- and low-context communication theory [21], Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory [22], and the theory of ideal affect offer interdisciplinary tools to explain the emotional responses of different cultural groups.

Building upon this foundation, the present study adopts a cultural semiotic perspective, integrating architectural semiotics and cross-cultural psychological theories to develop a research framework encompassing “architectural symbols—perceptual themes—emotional responses—perceptual mechanisms.” The study selects eleven representative Chinese architectural heritage sites and focuses on three distinct cultural visitor groups—Mainland China and Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan (C group), East and Southeast Asia (A group), and Europe and North America (UA group). Data were collected through interviews and online textual sources and analyzed using a mixed-methods approach, including semantic network analysis, grounded theory coding, and affective clustering. The study aims to:

(1)

Construct a cultural symbolic system of traditional Chinese architecture;

(2)

Identify the perceptual preferences, emotional responses, and interpretive mechanisms among the three visitor groups;

(3)

Propose optimized strategies for the presentation and communication of architectural heritage tailored to multicultural audiences.

This study is important because it addresses architectural heritage as a highly symbolized medium that underpins both cultural transmission and tourist experience. It is original in integrating semiotic theory with cross-cultural psychology to develop a micro-level analytical framework of architectural symbol perception, which remains largely unexplored in existing scholarship. It is also timely, as the rapid diversification of global tourism calls for culturally adaptive strategies to present and interpret heritage in ways that resonate with heterogeneous audiences.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Case Selection

China has a total of 59 UNESCO World Heritage Sites, among which 25 are cultural heritage sites centered on architecture [1]. These sites can be classified into eight representative categories: imperial architecture, religious architecture, funerary architecture, military architecture, vernacular dwellings, ancient towns and villages, classical gardens, and historic urban ensembles. Geographically, northern and western China are dominated by imperial, religious, funerary, and defensive structures, while southern and eastern China feature vernacular dwellings, clan-based settlements, water towns, and gardens. Such diversity reflects regional variations shaped by geography, climate, and material availability.

Based on this overall landscape, this study selected 11 architectural heritage sites as research cases (

Table 1. Types of Architectural Heritage and Representative Sites.

Type of Architectural Heritage	Name and Code of Heritage Sites (11)
Ancient Cities and Historic Districts	(1) Xi’an Ancient City *
Historic Towns	(2) Wuzhen, Zhejiang
Official Architecture	(3) The Palace Museum, Beijing * (4) Temple of Confucius, Qufu
Religious Architecture	(5) Ancient Architectural Complex of Mount Wudang
Mausoleum Architecture	(6) Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor and the Terracotta Army, Xi’an *
Traditional Villages and Vernacular Dwellings	(7) Ancient Villages in Southern Anhui (Hongcun and Tangyue), Anhui
Cultural and Military Structures	(8) The Great Wall, Beijing * (9) Temple of Heaven, Beijing *
Gardens	(10) The Summer Palace, Beijing * (11) The Humble Administrator’s Garden, Suzhou *

Note: In the table, the attractions marked with * are the core attractions of the survey.

). The selection followed four criteria:

(1)

The sites are widely recognized as UNESCO World Heritage Sites that are familiar to both domestic and international visitors.

(2)

They represent the major architectural typologies and hold strong national cultural significance.

(3)

Each site has a sufficient volume of online data, with at least 5000 reviews available in both Chinese and non-Chinese platforms.

(4)

They reflect a balanced geographical distribution across northern, western, southern, and eastern China.

Through these criteria, the selected cases capture both the typological variety and geographical diversity of Chinese architectural heritage, ensuring that the findings of this study are broadly representative.

2.2. Tourist Group Classification

Based on the degree of cultural heterogeneity from Chinese culture—specifically, the closeness and divergence between the dominant culture of each group and traditional Chinese culture (i.e., cultural distance)—tourists are categorized into three groups: (1) Chinese tourists (Group C, including Mainland China [C1] and Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan [C2]); (2) Asian tourists (Group A, including Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asian countries); and (3) tourists from Europe and North America (Group UA). All participants were adults. No distinctions were made based on occupation, age, gender, education level, income, health status, or other individualized demographic characteristics. As this study aims to analyze the holistic perceptual differences among the three culturally distinct groups, no demographic analysis of the survey participants is conducted.

2.3. Data Collection and Processing

2.3.1. Interview Team

The interview team consisted of five postgraduate students and two faculty members from the first author’s and the corresponding author’s institution, all of whom had prior training in qualitative data collection and coding. Members were selected based on their academic background in cultural heritage and tourism studies, as well as relevant fieldwork experience. All interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ consent and supplemented by field notes; transcripts were anonymized and securely stored. Participants were recruited through collaboration with travel agencies to ensure random selection and through on-site invitations during field visits. At the beginning of each interview, the research purpose was explained, voluntary participation was emphasized, and informed consent was obtained.

2.3.2. Interview Text Data

From 1 May 2023 to 1 December 2024, the research team conducted semi-structured interviews with three tourist groups at the architectural heritage sites listed in Table 1. Interview participants were recruited with the assistance of travel agencies. Participants were randomly selected and audio-recorded during interviews conducted in public tourist spaces. Prior to each on-site interview, participants were verbally informed that: (1) the data collected would be used solely for academic research, with no involvement in commercial or other interests; and (2) the interview results might be presented in academic monographs and journal articles but would be reported anonymously, without disclosing any personally identifiable information.

Considering the noisy field conditions and the practical circumstance that some participants were unwilling to provide written consent, the Ethics Committee of the first author’s affiliated institution (Approval Code: 2023001) formally approved the procedure of verbal informed consent supplemented by voluntary written consent. During the interviews, more than 30% of the participants voluntarily signed the written informed consent form on site.

In line with actual visitor group proportions and the objectives of cross-cultural qualitative and quantitative analysis, seven interview samples were collected for each group at each site. This sampling approach reached thematic saturation in qualitative interviews (usually achieved with 5–8 participants per group). The final dataset comprises 231 valid interviews (11 sites × 3 groups × 7 samples), sufficient to construct a meaningful corpus for word frequency and sentiment analysis. The interviews were conducted face-to-face in a semi-structured format, with themes focused on “perceived content–emotional response–cultural understanding.”

The interviews followed a rolling sampling design, implemented in two phases: the first phase covered seven core heritage sites to test coding saturation; the second phase added four supplementary cases. A total of 264 valid interviews were collected, with a distribution ratio of C:A:UA = 4:3:3. The interviews lasted between 3 and 10 min. All interview data were transcribed and double-checked by two reviewers to ensure consistency in oral transcription and completeness of meaning.

2.3.3. Online Textual Data

As a contextual supplement and comparative material to the interview samples, this study collected user review texts from two platforms: TripAdvisor (for international tourists) and Ctrip (for Mainland Chinese tourists). On TripAdvisor, reviews were scraped from the “Architecture” section of online travelogues related to the sites listed in Table 1. Reviews were collected from tourists in Groups C2, A, and UA, covering multiple languages (Traditional Chinese, Japanese, Korean, English, French, and German). Each review included information such as site name, username, user location, review title, review content, rating, and date. Data from Mainland Chinese tourists (Group C1) were collected from Ctrip.

A total of 13,021 review texts were collected, with no fewer than 200 valid samples per heritage site. Each entry included user identity tags, review content, sentiment polarity, and ratings. The data collection spanned from 1 May 2023 to 1 December 2024, aligning temporally with the interview period to facilitate cross-referencing and comparative analysis.

The authors did not have access to any personally identifiable information during or after the data collection period.

2.3.4. Data Preprocessing

The research team manually reviewed 264 interview transcripts and selected 235 high-quality textual samples, comprising 94 from Group C, 70 from Group A, and 71 from Group UA. AI-assisted annotation was applied to the online reviews, from which 1500 thematically relevant sentences focused on architectural cultural evaluation were selected and grouped by tourist origin.

The data processing workflow included: (1) extracting sentences related to perceptual themes and emotional responses; (2) bilingual Chinese–English alignment and translation; (3) removal of invalid characters and duplicate entries; (4) word segmentation and stop-word elimination; and (5) stemming and normalization. These steps resulted in a standardized corpus for subsequent analysis.

2.4. Research Methods

2.4.1. Methodological Framework

To provide a coherent methodological foundation, this study adopts an integrated analytical framework that connects four key dimensions: architectural symbols, perceptual themes, emotional responses, and interpretive processes. In this framework, architectural symbols serve as the semiotic inputs; perceptual themes represent the cognitive categorization of these inputs; emotional responses capture the affective orientations shaped by cultural backgrounds; and interpretive processes integrate these responses into meaning-making. This sequential model not only clarifies the logical pathway of the study but also ensures consistency across the different methodological approaches.

The methodological pathway is illustrated in Figure 1, which also serves as the organizing logic for Section 2.4.3, Section 2.4.4, Section 2.4.5 and Section 2.4.6. Specifically, literature analysis establishes the theoretical foundation; perceptual semantic network analysis identifies structured features of perception; textual analysis extracts and verifies thematic categories; and affective quantitative analysis investigates cross-cultural emotional divergence. Together, these methods ensure both theoretical robustness and empirical validity.

2.4.2. Definition of Key Concepts

Before applying the specific analytical methods, several key concepts used in this study require clarification. Cultural symbols denote the overarching domain of meanings embedded in heritage, while architectural symbols refer specifically to the cultural significance carried by architectural components, spatial layouts, and entire ensembles. Within this framework, the notion of units is introduced as a semantic classifier to differentiate hierarchical levels among architectural symbols, which are then progressively synthesized into higher-order symbolic categories. This conceptual clarification ensures terminological consistency and provides the analytical foundation for the methods that follow.

2.4.3. Literature Analysis

By reviewing literature on architectural history and architectural semiotics, this study identifies typical symbolic elements in traditional Chinese architecture. Based on a structuralist perspective, architectural features such as function, form, and ornamentation are categorized and hierarchized to construct a symbolic-semantic framework, which serves as a theoretical reference for subsequent textual analysis.

2.4.4. Perceptual Semantic Network Analysis

Although textual coding is the core analytical method of this study, to enhance understanding of the structural relationships among architectural perception themes, a semantic network analysis based on co-occurrence matrices was conducted using Gephi 0.10. Semantic networks were constructed from the high-frequency words in interview transcripts for each of the three cultural groups. By analyzing network properties such as node centrality and modular density, the structural differences in architectural perception across the three tourist groups were revealed [23].

2.4.5. Textual Analysis

Text analysis was employed to objectively quantify qualitative textual materials and to reveal the structured characteristics of architectural perception [24]. To ensure analytical rigor and to capture the interaction between different data sources, a dual-path strategy was adopted, combining in-depth interview transcripts with large-scale online review texts. The procedure was as follows:

(1)

High-frequency word extraction.

Cleaned interview transcripts were processed in NVivo 12 [25]. Based on the number of respondents and questions, the top 20% of high-frequency words for each cultural group at each heritage site were retained, in line with the research goal of identifying core themes and uncovering underlying mechanisms.

(2)

Hierarchical coding of interview texts.

• Pre-analysis of high-frequency words: preliminary thematic lists were generated as a reference for sentence-level coding.
• Sentence-by-sentence hierarchical coding: interview sentences were independently subjected to open coding, axial coding, and selective coding, and the relationships among nodes were established [26].
• Validation of coding results: the coding framework was compared against the high-frequency word lists to ensure comprehensive coverage of architectural symbols.
• Cross-group theme validation: NVivo matrix coding was used to identify shared cross-cultural themes [27].
• Theoretical saturation test: checks were performed to identify whether any potential themes were left uncaptured across groups [28].

Through this procedure, both the explicit symbolic expressions of architecture and the implicit cognitive differences among cultural groups were captured, yielding a set of offline perception themes and emotional characteristics.

(3)

Online review analysis as a comparative dataset.

Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic modeling was applied to the online review corpus to extract latent perceptual themes [29]. LDA was selected because it is a widely adopted unsupervised machine learning method capable of automatically identifying underlying thematic structures from large-scale text corpora, thereby reducing human bias and complementing manual coding. In this study, the model was trained with approximately 1000 Gibbs sampling iterations, a commonly used parameter setting in comparable research, to ensure topic stability while maintaining computational efficiency.

(4)

Cross-validation of themes.

Themes derived from online review analysis were compared with those from interview coding to examine whether any potential themes were missed. Where necessary, the interview-based themes were revised and supplemented to achieve stability and reliability. To quantify the validity of theme construction, Jaccard similarity coefficients were calculated between the two data sources, with higher values indicating stronger consistency [30].

It is worth noting that the volume of online reviews was significantly larger than that of interview transcripts. To avoid structural imbalance, online data were not merged into the coding corpus but were instead used strictly for corroboration and validation. In this way, interview themes remain the primary basis of analysis, while online reviews provide an external reference to test the robustness and generalizability of the findings.

2.4.6. Affective Quantitative Analysis

From the high-frequency words related to architectural perception, affective keywords were further extracted, with approximately the top 20% retained for each cultural group. Guided by cross-cultural emotion theories [31,32,33] and using the NRC Emotion Lexicon as a reference, affective clustering was conducted across the three visitor groups. While the NRC framework typically includes eight primary emotional categories (joy, sadness, anger, fear, trust, disgust, anticipation, and surprise), this study refined the categories to generate context-specific emotional types tailored to the perception of Chinese architectural symbols.

Based on the clustering results, affective quadrant distributions were then constructed, mapping emotional responses along two dimensions: positive–negative valence and high–low arousal. This procedure revealed cross-group differences in evaluative orientations and emotional intensity.

Finally, an emotional typology matrix was developed for the three cultural groups, systematically illustrating their divergent emotional responses to Chinese architectural symbols. This matrix served as the foundation for the comparative analysis of cross-cultural emotional characteristics presented in the results.

2.4.7. Ethics Statement

All research procedures described in this study were conducted in accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and institutional guidelines, and adhered to internationally recognized ethical standards for academic research. The study received approval from the Academic Ethics Committee of the first author’s affiliated institution.

3. Results

3.1. The Construction of a Symbolic System of Chinese Architecture

The general overview of Chinese architectural heritage has already been presented in Section 2.1 (Case Selection) and may serve as the contextual background for the symbolic analysis in this section; therefore, it will not be repeated here.

Structuralism posits that the meaning of architecture is not an inherent attribute of individual elements, but is instead generated through the relational structure among components, functions, and historical contexts [7] (pp. 15–45). On this basis, the study adopts structuralist linguistics as its theoretical framework and follows an analytical path comprising “fundamental elements—symbolic system–functional roles–cultural interaction–multilayered structure” to uncover the deep cultural encoding embedded in classical Chinese architecture and to construct a symbolic system of Chinese architectural heritage.

3.1.1. Typological Classification of Chinese Architectural Symbols

This study reviews authoritative and classical works such as A History of Ancient Chinese Architecture [34], A Comprehensive History of Ancient Chinese Architecture [35], Language of Classical Chinese Architecture [36], and Traditional Chinese Architectural Culture [37] to establish a foundational symbolic system. The proposed system was reviewed and revised by two architectural scholars and one expert in Chinese culture to ensure its academic rigor and interpretive clarity. Integrating Saussure’s theory of signifier and signified [5], the symbolic system of Chinese heritage architecture is categorized into four primary levels: lexicon, syntax, grammar, and discourse. These are further divided into 15 secondary and 65 tertiary categories, systematically representing the symbolic architecture of Chinese heritage (

Table 2. Symbolic System of Chinese Architecture.

Primary Symbol (4)	Secondary Symbol (15)	Tertiary Symbol (65)
Lexicon	Materials	Wood, Earth, Brick/Stone, Tile, Paint, Paper
	Components & Decoration	Beams & Columns, Dougong (Bracket Sets), Doors & Windows, Ceilings, Carvings/Sculptures, Decorative Paintings/Murals, Inscribed Plaques/Couplets, Paving
Syntax	Roof	Form, Color, Ridges
	Main Structure	Walls, Doors, Windows, Colonnades
	Room	Partitions, Furniture, Furnishings
	Platform	Steps, Railings
Grammar	Rhetoric	Borrowing, Correspondence, Organization, Metaphor/Allusion, Annotation
	Structure	Axis, Fractality, Temporality
	Geomancy	Geomancy (Fengshui)
Discourse	Facilities	Mausoleum, Memorial Archway (Pailou), Steles, Pagoda, Altar, Grotto, Opera Stage, Storied Building, Bridge, City Wall
	Garden	Layout, Pavilions/corridors/Bridges, Rockeries/Water Systems/Vegetation
	Courtyard	Single Courtyard, Compound Form, Spatial Openness
	Village	Clustered Layout, Public Activities, Defensive System, Clan-based Residence
	Town	Transportation, Trade, Planning, Religion & Social Interaction
	City	Round Heaven-square Earth Cosmology, Grid Pattern, Hierarchy, Zoning, Defense

Note: This table is synthesized from relevant sections of references [34,35,36,37]. For cultural interpretations of Chinese architectural symbols, please refer to Appendix A, Table A1: Chinese Architectural Symbols and Their Cultural Interpretations.

).

3.1.2. Interpretive Framework of the Chinese Architectural Symbolic System

Table 2 presents the Chinese architectural symbolic system in a structured manner. To further clarify the underlying symbolic logic, Figure 2 visually illustrates how the major architectural symbols are embedded and organized within architectural forms. The table and the figure complement each other: while the table emphasizes systematic classification, the figure highlights spatial embedding and hierarchical relations. Building on these representations, the following four subsections provide a detailed interpretation of the types and specific content of Chinese architectural symbols.

(1)

Primary Symbols: Lexicon

The lexicon constitutes the most fundamental units of architectural symbols, encompassing two secondary categories: Materials and Components & Decoration. Materials include six tertiary symbols—wood, earth, brick/stone, tile, paint, and paper. These were typically sourced locally, serving both functional and decorative purposes. Components & Decoration include eight tertiary symbols—beams and columns, dougong (bracket sets), doors and windows, ceilings, carvings and sculptures, decorative paintings and murals, inscribed plaques and couplets, and paving. These may be regarded as the essential architectural constituents. Although they cannot operate independently, they form the basic symbolic units from which architectural parts emerge through specific combinations [38]. Such architectural lexicon elements possess a high degree of recognizability and immediately evoke associations with Chinese cultural imagery.

(2)

Primary Symbols: Syntax

Syntax refers to the rules of component combination and spatial composition, comprising four secondary categories: Roof, Main Structure, Room, and Platform/Base. Among them, the roof consists of three tertiary symbols—form, color, and ridges. The most elementary components—beams, columns, purlins, roof boards, and tiles, often characterized by ethnic decorative traits and local materiality—together constitute the roof. Likewise, door frames and panels assemble into doors, while window sashes and casings form windows. Doors and windows, combined with bricks, stones, and other construction materials, constitute walls. The stylistic formation of Chinese rooms relies on wooden panels or screens. Given the prevalence of earth and timber in traditional construction, buildings were usually erected on a platform base to prevent dampness. All such assemblages were shaped by the spatial logic and cultural conventions specific to Chinese architectural tradition [38].

(3)

Primary Symbols: Grammar

Grammar denotes the deeper mechanisms of combining components and spaces. It encompasses two secondary categories: Rhetoric and Structure and Geomancy.

Rhetoric includes five tertiary symbols—borrowing, correspondence, organization, metaphor/allusion, and annotation. Rhetoric in architectural symbols is an integral part of grammar, conveying ideals, emotions, values, and beliefs, thereby integrating geometric properties of space with the broader cultural context.

Structure consists of three tertiary symbols—axis, fractality, and temporality. The axis represents the most fundamental method of organizing Chinese architecture, employed in both public and domestic buildings. Fractality reflects the hierarchical replication of similar spatial forms—courtyard houses, building clusters, villages, and towns are all homologous units differing in scale. Temporality refers to human experience of physical space, shaped not only by spatial but also temporal constraints. Time regulates the rhythm of movement and pause, profoundly influencing psychological responses [39].

Geomancy (fengshui) is unique to Chinese culture, synthesizing empirical observation of nature with subjective cognition. Its epistemology underpins nearly all construction projects, guided by concepts such as warding off evil, harnessing qi, promoting the mutual flourishing of all things, and achieving the unity of heaven and humanity.

(4)

Primary Symbols: Discourse

Discourse reflects the overall style and cultural ambience of architecture, covering spatial forms such as facilities, gardens, courtyards, villages, towns, and cities. Facilities, often built in brick or stone but imitating timber in texture and form, served not only public functions but also as instruments of moral cultivation and spiritual sustenance. Gardens, constructed mostly adjacent to residences, employed techniques of landscape simulation and personalization, embodying idealized environments and cultural imaginaries of the Chinese literati. Courtyards, enclosed outwardly but internally integrated, reflected family and kinship relations. Villages were typically located in favorable natural settings, where clans sharing the same surname lived collectively, supported by spaces for public activities, ritual sites, and defensive structures. Towns usually developed at nodes of land–water transport, functioning as centers for trade, exchange, and cultural activities. Cities were divided into districts according to social functions and population, exemplified by systems such as the ward system (lifang zhi), and were protected by high walls and moats.

Facilities manifested specific functions, gardens emphasized landscape composition and spatial meandering, courtyards and villages embodied familial ethics and socio-economic order, while towns and cities combined defensive, commercial, transportational, and religious functions. Analogous to poetry, prose, or novels of varying length, these spatial forms constituted literary genres in architecture. Within discourse, fengshui, religion, and regional characteristics intersect to create distinctive cultural representations and pluralistic spatial narratives.

In summary, in line with structuralist linguistics, language is understood as a system of signs composed of the signifier (form) and signified (meaning), which are perceived through the senses. If architecture is regarded as a symbolic system, then through the analytical path of fundamental elements—symbolic system—functional roles—cultural interaction—multilayered structure, one can clarify both its physical representation and the interrelationship between material form and cultural, social, and historical connotations. For the ancient Chinese, the utilitarian function of architecture was a primary concern; yet its spatial layout, forms, and decorative features were imbued with cultural traditions, religious beliefs, social ethics, and cosmological views. Such practices endowed architecture with symbolic significance. This symbolic mechanism demonstrates pronounced historical continuity and cross-cultural communicability, acquiring renewed value in contemporary tourism and cultural dissemination.

3.2. Differences in Perceptual Semantic Networks

3.2.1. Construction of Perceptual Semantic Networks

Based on 11 selected representative Chinese architectural heritage sites, the research team conducted comparative reading and analysis. Using NVivo 12 software, 235 interview transcripts were processed, yielding a total of 3103 high-frequency words. After deduplication and weighting adjustments, 607 core high-frequency words were retained: 243 for Group C, 182 for Group A, and 182 for Group UA.

These words encompass both material and emotional dimensions, such as “components,” “structural form,” “culture,” “ritual system,” “delicate,” “grand,” “awe-inspiring,” and “mysterious.” They demonstrate strong cultural specificity and emotional density, forming a foundational dataset for subsequent semantic network modeling, perceptual theme extraction, and emotional classification. Using Gephi 0.10, semantic networks of architectural symbol perception were constructed for the three visitor groups (C, A, and UA) (Figure 3). The analysis revealed the following:

3.2.2. Analysis of Perceptual Semantic Network Differences Among Three Groups

For Group C, the core terms included “palace,” “power,” and “faith,” which reflect a strong recognition of themes such as national history, religious culture, and ancestral worship. These were accompanied by affective words such as “awe” and “heritage,” forming a tightly clustered semantic network, particularly around central nodes such as palace–Forbidden City–dynasty–culture–Confucius. This indicates that the perceptual themes of this group were highly concentrated on symbols of national history, cultural identity, and religious ethics, exhibiting a highly structured mode of cultural perception and a strong sense of cultural belonging and identity [40]. In addition, the network showed dense interconnections among nodes, with multiple semantic linkages across different heritage sites, suggesting a deep and comprehensive understanding of cultural connotations.

For Group A, the network displayed features of cultural comparison and analogy. Keywords such as “dougong” (bracket sets), “timber structure,” and “Buddhism” demonstrated an analogical understanding between Chinese and local architectural traditions, with a focus on topics such as religious integration and timber construction techniques (Taylor, 2009) [38]. Their affective responses emphasized “familiarity” and “comparison,” and they frequently used adjectives such as “elegant,” “delicate,” and “serene,” reflecting the common aesthetic characteristics of the East Asian cultural sphere. Compared with Group C, the semantic network was more dispersed and less dense, though several “locally cohesive clusters” were present, such as palace–roof–culture and garden–scenery–water. This suggests that Group A followed more diverse perceptual pathways, engaging not only with imperial architecture and institutional culture but also with garden aesthetics and natural spaces, thereby showing cultural features that partially overlap with Group C.

For Group UA, the semantic network was relatively loose. Core terms such as “Great Wall,” “mausoleum,” “defense,” and “empire” reflected grand themes but also indicated a more superficial understanding. Highly sensory adjectives such as “magnificent,” “spectacular,” “mysterious,” and “breathtaking” revealed emotionally volatile evaluations. The overall network was the most fragmented, with fewer inter-group connections and a “star-like” or “radiating” structure. Central nodes such as the Great Wall, mausoleum, and city wall were directly linked to emotional words like magnificent, mysterious, and spectacular, indicating that perceptions were dominated by surface-level impressions rather than deeper symbolic interpretation. Many participants in Group UA tended to highlight “spectacle-oriented experiences” and “historical awe,” reflecting a fascination with grand narratives and architectural wonders. However, intra-group variability was also evident, and not all participants neglected deeper cultural contextual interpretation.

In sum, Group C focuses on reconstructing connections to national history through architecture, and Group A seeks emotional and cultural resonance in spatial atmospheres. A recurrent but not universal pattern among Group UA participants was an emphasis on “spectacle-oriented tourism,” engaging with the visual allure of exotic civilizations through observation and surface analysis, although variations within the group were also observed. These differences reflect distinct cognitive patterns in heritage symbol perception across cultural contexts, consistent with the High-/Low-Context Communication Theory broader cultural dimension frameworks.

3.3. Differences in Perceptual Themes

3.3.1. Classification of Perceptual Themes

This study employed the classic three-stage grounded theory coding method, using NVivo 12 software, to systematically analyze the interview texts and classify perceptual themes [26].

(1)

Open Coding: A line-by-line analysis of 1450 thematic sentences yielded 82 initial concepts related to architectural components (e.g., dougong [bracket sets], overhanging eaves), visual impressions (e.g., solemnity, vivid colors), institutional symbols (e.g., imperial power, ritual order), and spatial symbolism (e.g., central axis, symmetry). To ensure semantic coverage and conceptual saturation, separate researchers independently coded the transcripts for each tourist group, followed by cross-validation.

(2)

Axial Coding: The initial concepts were aggregated and compared, resulting in 19 intermediate categories such as cultural aesthetics, religious symbolism, social hierarchy, ethnic characteristics, and local memory. NVivo’s node–subnode functions were used to normalize semantics and clarify the relationships among categories.

(3)

Selective Coding: With the core category of “how tourists perceive and interpret architectural culture,” the 19 categories were integrated into six overarching first-level themes: aesthetic perception, scientific/productive perception, institutional/ritual perception, political/hierarchical perception, ethnic/local perception, and religious/ethical perception.

(4)

Saturation and Reliability Testing: Theoretical saturation was confirmed when the sixth group of interview transcripts (Nos. 51–60) produced no new categories over two consecutive rounds. Coding reliability was assessed by randomly selecting 30 transcripts, yielding a Kappa coefficient of 0.78, which indicates a high level of inter-coder consistency.

(5)

Integration with Online Reviews: To enhance cross-source consistency, Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic modeling was conducted on 1500 online review texts. LDA was selected because it enables unsupervised identification of latent topics from large-scale corpora, thereby reducing human bias and supplementing the interview-based findings. The online themes were relatively broad and superficial, such as ancient architecture and history, regional architectural characteristics, cultural heritage and rituals, imperial gardens, vernacular buildings, etc., among a total of nine themes. Rather than serving as an equal dataset, online reviews played a corroborative and supplementary role: (a) where themes overlapped, they reinforced the robustness of the interview-based categories; (b) where additional signals emerged, they were assessed for integration as potential supplements; and (c) importantly, no contradictory patterns were detected.

(6)

Final Theme Consolidation: Based on the interview framework and incorporating online validation, the six initial themes were refined into five stable and representative perceptual themes (Table 3).

• Aesthetic Perception
• Scientific/Productive Perception
• Institutional/Political Perception
• Ethnic/Local Perception
• Religious/Ethical Perception

(7)

Validity Testing: The Jaccard similarity coefficient between interview- and review-based themes was calculated at 0.68, indicating a moderate-to-high level of consistency. In social science research, this threshold is generally considered sufficient to support construct validity, confirming that the interview-derived thematic categories are both reliable and representative.

Table 3. Thematic Coding of Perceptions of Chinese Architectural Heritage Symbols.

Perception Type (Main Category)	Sub-Category	Conceptual Examples	Sample Quotes	Group Coding
Aesthetic Perception	Exquisite ornamentation, Rigorous form, Spatial modulation	Aesthetic paradigm, Harmonious elegance	(Temple of Heaven) The Hall of Prayer for Good Harvests is truly beautiful. Whenever we introduce Chinese heritage tourism, it represents the aesthetic paradigm of traditional Chinese architecture (C1–12). (Summer Palace) It incorporates almost all the classic elements of Chinese gardens (C1–25).	C (170) A (130) UA (123) Key Sites: (3) (9) (10) (11)
		Majestic scale, spatial rhythm, Graceful refinement	(The Forbidden City) It’s larger than the Grand Palace, but less intricate and lavish (A-17). (The Summer Palace) It’s huge, but truly beautiful. It’s different from the Katsura Imperial Villa in Kyoto (A-21).
		Varied scenery, Delightful experiences	(Humble Administrator’s Garden) Sometimes it feels like standing on a cliff, other times like walking through blooming bushes—living here must have been incredibly romantic (UA-39).
Scientific/Productive Perception	Exquisite craftsmanship, Efficient tools, National strength	Architectural ingenuity	(The Forbidden City) How could such massive stones be crafted so smoothly? They almost don’t feel like stone anymore (C1-17). Such a towering and lengthy Great Wall—how many people and how much time did it take to build it? Truly remarkable (C2-27).	C (136) A (105) UA (98) Key Sites: (1) (3) (6) (8)
		Massive scale, Monumental proportions	The scale of Xi’an Ancient City and the Forbidden City is overwhelming—unlike any urban form found in Southeast Asia (A-33). He unified China and built such a massive mausoleum with an immense underground palace for himself (A-49).
		Majestic grandeur, Labor-intensive construction	(Xi’an) This is the largest ancient city I’ve ever seen—with towering walls, watchtowers, and such vast remains of royal palaces (UA-48). The Great Wall is a magnificent project. It still stands after all this time—truly incredible (UA-26).
Institutional/Political Perception	Supremacy of Imperial, Power Hierarchical, Authority Ritual Norms	Ritual sequence, Power appropriation	(Confucius Temple) From the main entrance, there are several gates and archways, with a long distance to the main hall. The hall is very tall—it shows how highly Confucius is regarded (C1–40). The Forbidden City is basically the emperor’s mansion. Ancient Chinese emperors made common people build these luxury residences for them (C2–13).	C (76) A (57) UA (49) Key Sites: (1) (3) (4) (6) (8)
		Imperial rites, Status symbols	(Confucius Temple) Why does the Confucius Temple in Qufu look so much like the Forbidden City in Beijing? Wasn’t the dragon motif reserved only for emperors? (A-42)
		Imperial symbolism	(Forbidden City) The emperor sits really high up. The dragon on the throne looks fierce—it makes the emperor seem really powerful (UA-29).
Ethnic/Local Perception	Clan-based Living, Cultural Ambience, Oriental Imagery	Clan settlement, Cultural ambience, Local livelihood	(Hongcun) Most villagers are related by blood. Close kinship families live together, and in a single house, family members occupy different rooms according to seniority (C1–52). (Humble Administrator’s Garden) We studied poems about Chinese gardens in literature class. She can truly feel the beauty in this space (C2–76). (Wuzhen) The small bridges, flowing water, and riverside markets shape the gentle temperament of Jiangnan people (C2–84).	C (112) A (84) UA (77) Key Sites: (2) (7) (10) (11)
		Geographic adaptation, Waterborne commerce, Commercial prosperity	(Hongcun) The village looks like my hometown, but the houses are kind of different (A-57). (Wuzhen) Small boats carry goods in and out—that’s how this place became so prosperous. It reminds me of Damnoen Saduak in Bangkok (A-31).
		Tranquility and harmony, Oriental scroll imagery, Ethnic diversity	(Hongcun) The alleys in the village are like a maze, and you can hear the stream beside them—it’s really pleasant (UA-48). (Wuzhen) People here live by the water and do business along the river. It feels like a medieval movie scene (UA-46). In Xi’an, there’s also a Muslim street like this. The food is delicious, and the Muslim vibe is very strong (UA-38).
Religious/ Ethical Perception	Moral Education, Fengshui principles, Nature Worship	Seeking immortality, Ancestral worship, Secluded upbringing	(Wudang Mountain) People come here to seek wisdom from the Wudang masters—and to enjoy the scenery. The Golden Hall is really high up; climbing there feels like a test (C1–87). (Hongcun) During the New Year, we return home and go to the ancestral hall together to honor our ancestors and pray for blessings (C1–76). (Hongcun) All the buildings are multi-story, and unmarried girls have to stay upstairs. They aren’t allowed to go out—I wonder how that affects their psychological development (C2–62)?	C (86) A (60) UA (43) Key Sites: (9) (4) (5) (7)
		Moral instruction, Religious gardens, Feng shui concepts	(Tangyue Village) Japan also has something similar to pailou like torii, but not with this variety and meaning (A-41). (The Summer Palace) In Singapore, people also believe in Daoism and Buddhism, but we don’t really have gardens that are directly related to religion. This is quite interesting (A-38). (Hongcun) Does feng shui help keep people safe? Is it like the bodhisattvas in Buddhist temples (A-61)?
		Moral exemplars, Nature worship, Longevity and health	(Tangyue Village) At first, I thought the pailou was built to honor warriors or generals. Turns out the real meaning was very different from what I imagined (UA-58). (Temple of Heaven) The ‘heaven’ worshipped in China—is it like a god that can’t be seen, or a god you can actually see? (UA-28) (Wudang Mountain) Many Europeans know about Chinese Daoism—especially how Taoist priests practice kung fu and rituals. It’s so mysterious, and they say it can lead to a longer life (UA-63).

Table 3. Thematic Coding of Perceptions of Chinese Architectural Heritage Symbols.

Perception Type (Main Category)	Sub-Category	Conceptual Examples	Sample Quotes	Group Coding
Aesthetic Perception	Exquisite ornamentation, Rigorous form, Spatial modulation	Aesthetic paradigm, Harmonious elegance	(Temple of Heaven) The Hall of Prayer for Good Harvests is truly beautiful. Whenever we introduce Chinese heritage tourism, it represents the aesthetic paradigm of traditional Chinese architecture (C1–12). (Summer Palace) It incorporates almost all the classic elements of Chinese gardens (C1–25).	C (170) A (130) UA (123) Key Sites: (3) (9) (10) (11)
		Majestic scale, spatial rhythm, Graceful refinement	(The Forbidden City) It’s larger than the Grand Palace, but less intricate and lavish (A-17). (The Summer Palace) It’s huge, but truly beautiful. It’s different from the Katsura Imperial Villa in Kyoto (A-21).
		Varied scenery, Delightful experiences	(Humble Administrator’s Garden) Sometimes it feels like standing on a cliff, other times like walking through blooming bushes—living here must have been incredibly romantic (UA-39).
Scientific/Productive Perception	Exquisite craftsmanship, Efficient tools, National strength	Architectural ingenuity	(The Forbidden City) How could such massive stones be crafted so smoothly? They almost don’t feel like stone anymore (C1-17). Such a towering and lengthy Great Wall—how many people and how much time did it take to build it? Truly remarkable (C2-27).	C (136) A (105) UA (98) Key Sites: (1) (3) (6) (8)
		Massive scale, Monumental proportions	The scale of Xi’an Ancient City and the Forbidden City is overwhelming—unlike any urban form found in Southeast Asia (A-33). He unified China and built such a massive mausoleum with an immense underground palace for himself (A-49).
		Majestic grandeur, Labor-intensive construction	(Xi’an) This is the largest ancient city I’ve ever seen—with towering walls, watchtowers, and such vast remains of royal palaces (UA-48). The Great Wall is a magnificent project. It still stands after all this time—truly incredible (UA-26).
Institutional/Political Perception	Supremacy of Imperial, Power Hierarchical, Authority Ritual Norms	Ritual sequence, Power appropriation	(Confucius Temple) From the main entrance, there are several gates and archways, with a long distance to the main hall. The hall is very tall—it shows how highly Confucius is regarded (C1–40). The Forbidden City is basically the emperor’s mansion. Ancient Chinese emperors made common people build these luxury residences for them (C2–13).	C (76) A (57) UA (49) Key Sites: (1) (3) (4) (6) (8)
		Imperial rites, Status symbols	(Confucius Temple) Why does the Confucius Temple in Qufu look so much like the Forbidden City in Beijing? Wasn’t the dragon motif reserved only for emperors? (A-42)
		Imperial symbolism	(Forbidden City) The emperor sits really high up. The dragon on the throne looks fierce—it makes the emperor seem really powerful (UA-29).
Ethnic/Local Perception	Clan-based Living, Cultural Ambience, Oriental Imagery	Clan settlement, Cultural ambience, Local livelihood	(Hongcun) Most villagers are related by blood. Close kinship families live together, and in a single house, family members occupy different rooms according to seniority (C1–52). (Humble Administrator’s Garden) We studied poems about Chinese gardens in literature class. She can truly feel the beauty in this space (C2–76). (Wuzhen) The small bridges, flowing water, and riverside markets shape the gentle temperament of Jiangnan people (C2–84).	C (112) A (84) UA (77) Key Sites: (2) (7) (10) (11)
		Geographic adaptation, Waterborne commerce, Commercial prosperity	(Hongcun) The village looks like my hometown, but the houses are kind of different (A-57). (Wuzhen) Small boats carry goods in and out—that’s how this place became so prosperous. It reminds me of Damnoen Saduak in Bangkok (A-31).
		Tranquility and harmony, Oriental scroll imagery, Ethnic diversity	(Hongcun) The alleys in the village are like a maze, and you can hear the stream beside them—it’s really pleasant (UA-48). (Wuzhen) People here live by the water and do business along the river. It feels like a medieval movie scene (UA-46). In Xi’an, there’s also a Muslim street like this. The food is delicious, and the Muslim vibe is very strong (UA-38).
Religious/ Ethical Perception	Moral Education, Fengshui principles, Nature Worship	Seeking immortality, Ancestral worship, Secluded upbringing	(Wudang Mountain) People come here to seek wisdom from the Wudang masters—and to enjoy the scenery. The Golden Hall is really high up; climbing there feels like a test (C1–87). (Hongcun) During the New Year, we return home and go to the ancestral hall together to honor our ancestors and pray for blessings (C1–76). (Hongcun) All the buildings are multi-story, and unmarried girls have to stay upstairs. They aren’t allowed to go out—I wonder how that affects their psychological development (C2–62)?	C (86) A (60) UA (43) Key Sites: (9) (4) (5) (7)
		Moral instruction, Religious gardens, Feng shui concepts	(Tangyue Village) Japan also has something similar to pailou like torii, but not with this variety and meaning (A-41). (The Summer Palace) In Singapore, people also believe in Daoism and Buddhism, but we don’t really have gardens that are directly related to religion. This is quite interesting (A-38). (Hongcun) Does feng shui help keep people safe? Is it like the bodhisattvas in Buddhist temples (A-61)?
		Moral exemplars, Nature worship, Longevity and health	(Tangyue Village) At first, I thought the pailou was built to honor warriors or generals. Turns out the real meaning was very different from what I imagined (UA-58). (Temple of Heaven) The ‘heaven’ worshipped in China—is it like a god that can’t be seen, or a god you can actually see? (UA-28) (Wudang Mountain) Many Europeans know about Chinese Daoism—especially how Taoist priests practice kung fu and rituals. It’s so mysterious, and they say it can lead to a longer life (UA-63).

To clarify, the qualitative analysis followed the classic three-stage grounded theory coding process (open coding, axial coding, and selective coding) in Nvivo, which corresponds to thematic analysis and symbolic coding of the interview texts. To ensure validity, online reviews were analyzed using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic modeling and compared with the interview-derived themes. The degree of overlap was quantified using the Jaccard similarity coefficient (0.68), while inter-coder reliability of the interview coding reached Kappa = 0.78. Although inferential statistical tests were not applied, this combined strategy provides both qualitative depth and descriptive quantitative validation for the robustness of the findings.

3.3.2. Analysis of Perceptual Differences in Architectural Symbols Among Three Groups

(1)

Aesthetic Perception

All three cultural groups demonstrated a strong sensitivity to the visual imagery and aesthetic dimensions of Chinese architecture, particularly to symbolic elements such as building materials, components, colors, decorative details, and garden landscapes. However, their perceptual pathways, aesthetic standards, and emotional responses varied significantly across cultural lines.

Group C followed a path of “familiarity–pride–identification.” Tourists in this group could accurately identify traditional architectural symbols such as dougong (bracket sets), wadang (eave tiles), mythological animals, and inscribed plaques, attributing to them profound cultural and historical meanings. They often described the architecture as “dignified,” “refined,” or “splendid.” As one visitor noted: “The Summer Palace pretty much includes all the classic elements of Chinese gardens—it’s grand yet serene” (C1–25). This aesthetic preference reflects the deep influence of Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist cultural heritage, particularly the concept of “unity of form and spirit,” and is accompanied by a strong sense of pride and belonging.

Group A followed a perceptual path of “analogy–understanding–appreciation.” They tended to use their own cultural traditions as a reference point, frequently comparing Chinese architecture with Buddhist temples, Japanese gardens, or Thai palaces from their home countries. One visitor remarked: “It’s way bigger than the Grand Palace, and the buildings are much taller—but it’s not as delicate” (A-17). This reveals how the East Asian notion of the “unity of heaven and humanity” informs their shared appreciation for spatial aesthetics. Emotionally, Group A expressed a sense of familiarity and cultural relatability, along with a nuanced understanding of spatial layout and the human–nature relationship [41].

Group UA tended to follow a path of “surprise–delight–detachment,” focusing on the visual impact and exotic appearance of Chinese architecture. Words like “magnificent” and “mysterious” came up frequently, emphasizing sensory qualities such as color, proportion, and scale, while paying relatively little attention to symbolic meaning. As one visitor described their experience in the Humble Administrator’s Garden: “It felt like wandering through a maze—so much fun!” (UA-39). This response illustrates a recurrent perceptual tendency that resonates with what Said [42] termed the “Oriental gaze,” where emotional reactions often focus on the surface level of visual impact and spatial novelty rather than deeper symbolic interpretation. However, intra-group variability was also evident, and some UA participants demonstrated an interest in cultural symbolism beyond sensory impressions.

(2)

Scientific and Productive Perception

This dimension reflects how tourists perceive and emotionally engage with the structural systems, material technologies, and construction craftsmanship of traditional Chinese architecture. The three cultural groups exhibit distinct perceptual paths in terms of what they focus on, how they interpret it, and how they respond emotionally.

Group C followed a perceptual path of “craftsmanship–institution–pride,” emphasizing the engineering management and organizational coordination embodied in ancient Chinese architecture. As a visitor from Mainland China commented at the Great Wall: “Just imagine how many people and how long it must’ve taken to build this—truly impressive” (C2–27). This response reflects deep admiration for the scale and technique of construction, but also a sense of national strength and historical continuity. Such perceptions are closely tied to cultural traditions like Tiangong Kaiwu (The Exploitation of the Works of Nature) and a collective view of engineering, accompanied by a strong sense of national pride.

Group A favored a perceptual path of “comparison–understanding–respect,” adopting a comparative lens. Tourists often drew parallels between Chinese landmarks such as the Forbidden City or the Great Wall and architectural heritage from their own countries. One Japanese visitor, for example, remarked: “It’s much bigger than Kyoto’s palace—the spatial design is way more complex” (A-33). This illustrates a deep respect for the scale and sophistication of Chinese architecture, framed through reference to their own architectural systems. The perceptual mode reflects shared technological traditions and historical conversations within the East Asian cultural sphere, generating feelings of respect and cultural resonance.

Group UA followed a perceptual path of “curiosity–inquiry–awe,” with a strong focus on rational questions such as how the structures were built and how long construction took. Their interest lay in the technical and engineering aspects, reflecting a modern scientific mindset. As one Western visitor said at the Great Wall: “It’s amazing this thing’s still standing after all these centuries” (UA-26). Their emotional response often evolved from casual curiosity to genuine awe, though they typically lacked a deeper understanding of the historical or institutional contexts embedded in the architecture.

(3)

Institutional and Political Perception

This theme reflects the varying cultural interpretations tourists hold toward symbols of political hierarchy, patriarchal order, and national governance embedded in architectural space.

Group C followed a perceptual path of “institutional familiarity–authority recognition–awe/reflection.” In interviews, Chinese tourists often demonstrated the ability to accurately interpret symbolic elements such as the central axis, elevated platforms (taiji), and gateway pavilions (fangmen), recognizing their significance in representing hierarchical order and ritual protocol. As one visitor commented: “The main hall of the Confucian Temple is grand and solemn—it really highlights Confucius’ cultural stature” (C1–44), expressing historical reverence for architecture as a symbol of authority. However, some also offered reflective critiques from a contemporary perspective, questioning the autocratic nature of imperial rule—revealing a more complex cultural identification shaped by modern values.

Group A displayed a perceptual path of “ambiguous recognition–ritual awe–cultural comparison.” Visitors from Southeast Asia and Japan often reported sensing a spatial hierarchy and a solemn atmosphere, though they struggled to fully grasp the institutional meanings behind these elements. As one tourist admitted: “It feels really imposing, but I’m not exactly sure what it’s supposed to mean” (A-38). Their perceptions of power-infused space tended to remain at the formal level. Some made analogies to temples or palaces in their home countries, forming a partial understanding of “ritual space,” but lacked deeper insight into China’s system of ritual governance.

Group UA frequently exhibited a perceptual tendency that could be summarized as “aesthetic fascination–symbolic detachment–surface-level contemplation.” Many Western tourists described the Forbidden City or city walls using terms like “palace” and “imperial,” highlighting their grand scale and historical ambiance. As one visitor remarked: “It’s like something straight out of a movie—really spectacular” (UA-29). While such responses reveal a strong orientation toward sensory and visual dimensions, their engagement with hierarchical and ritualistic meanings often remained limited. Nonetheless, intra-group differences were evident, with some participants showing curiosity about the deeper symbolic and institutional connotations.

(4)

Ethnic and Local Perception

This theme focuses on how tourists perceive regional characteristics, cultural atmospheres, and clan-based spatial structures embedded in Chinese architecture.

Group C followed a perceptual path of “belonging–familiarity–homeland identification.” Chinese tourists often projected strong emotional associations onto spaces such as ancestral halls, siheyuan (courtyard houses), and Jiangnan water towns, emphasizing themes of hometown, lineage, and cultural continuity. As one visitor noted in Hongcun: “Most of the villagers here are relatives” (C1–52), reflecting a deep sense of familiarity and identification with clan-based ethical space. This perception is rooted in a longstanding cultural schema of “lineage–locality–nationhood,” and is typically associated with feelings of safety, warmth, and nostalgia.

Group A exhibited a perceptual path of “analogy–curiosity–understanding.” Tourists frequently drew comparisons between Chinese vernacular spaces and their own rural or courtyard traditions. One visitor commented: “These houses look kind of like the ones in my hometown—but also kind of not” (A-57), illustrating how “cultural kinship” facilitated understanding of China’s localized architecture. However, many remained puzzled by the concept of same-surname residential clusters, revealing cultural boundaries in their interpretive framework.

Group UA followed a perceptual path of “observation–imagination–detachment,” with an emphasis on the visual presentation of architecture, natural scenery, and lifestyle elements. One visitor described Wuzhen as “like a medieval movie set” (UA-46), reflecting a romanticized and picturesque experience of otherness. Unfamiliar with the clan-based ethical space, most visitors from this group lacked emotional resonance, often expressing sentiments of “beauty tinged with distance.”

(5)

Religious and Ethical Perception

This theme captures how tourists perceive traditional Chinese religions (Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism) and their spatial manifestations, such as ancestral halls, temples, and altars, along with associated emotional responses.

Group C exhibited a perceptual path of “familiarity–reverence–internalization.” Visitors were able to distinguish between different religious structures and recognized that ancestral halls and temples convey family values and ancestral worship. As one visitor stated: “Ancestral halls are where we honor our ancestors and pass down family traditions” (C1–76), reflecting the internalization of Confucian filial piety through spatial symbolism. Their emotional experience was characterized by feelings of respect, solemnity, and self-reflection.

Group A followed a perceptual path of “analogy–interest–respect.” Visitors were generally able to identify architectural types and often compared Chinese religious structures with Japanese Buddhist temples or torii gates. One visitor remarked: “Chinese pailou (decorated gateway) look way more elaborate than Japanese torii” (A-41), reflecting a form-based cross-cultural understanding. However, they remained unfamiliar with the deeper ethical and familial frameworks underlying such spaces. Their emotional responses tended toward respect and curiosity, though deeper comprehension was limited.

Group UA followed a perceptual path of “mystery–interest–detachment,” emphasizing the sacredness and ritualistic atmosphere of religious spaces, though mainly at the level of “mystical” and “symbolic” impressions. As one visitor commented: “Daoism seems really mysterious—maybe it’s about qigong or living longer” (UA-63), exemplifying an “Oriental mystique” lens often applied when interpreting Chinese religious space. Emotional responses were marked by curiosity and awe, but lacked substantive understanding of the belief systems involved.

(6)

Summary

In summary, Group C tends to perceive traditional architectural heritage as a “material vessel of collective memory,” which evokes a strong sense of identification and emotional belonging toward homeland, ancestry, and historical order. This “culturally embedded” mode of perception enables them to reconstruct both ethnic and national identity within architectural space, effectively answering the question of “who we are.”

Group A relies on “analogical cultural memory,” reconstructing meaning through comparisons with similar architectural forms in their own countries. This leads to a perception shaped by a sense of “cultural kinship.” Such a memory mechanism enhances their ability to interpret spatial, formal, and institutional structures, though their understanding of deeper cultural symbolism remains limited.

Group UA exhibited what can be described as a “spectatorial cultural memory” pathway. In the absence of synchronic memory or direct historical connections with the Chinese architectural system, many participants reconstructed meaning primarily through impressions of visual novelty and monumental scale. Iconic sites such as the Forbidden City and the Great Wall were frequently perceived as striking attractions or emblematic representations of Eastern civilization. Nevertheless, intra-group variability was evident, with some visitors expressing curiosity about the cultural and historical contexts beyond surface-level impressions.

In terms of perceptual content and thematic focus, tourists’ selective attention to architectural symbols and their pathways of meaning-making are profoundly shaped by the theory of cultural memory [43] and symbolic interactionism [4]. These findings also validate the High-/Low-Context Culture theory (HC/LC theory) proposed by Hall [21]. Group C operates within a high-context culture, capable of deriving deeper meanings from implicit symbols. In contrast, Group UA belongs to a low-context culture, favoring visualized and surface-level perception, which limits their understanding of ritual, religious, and ethical connotations. Group A occupies an intermediate position, benefiting from analogical advantages while still constrained by cognitive boundaries.

3.4. Differences in Emotional Characteristics

3.4.1. Extraction and Classification of Emotion Words

(1)

Affective Word Extraction

Based on the previously identified 607 high-frequency words related to architectural perception, a second round of screening using NVivo 12 extracted 121 emotion-related high-frequency words. After manual validation, 110 emotion words were retained: 45 for Group C, 30 for Group A, and 35 for Group UA. A certain degree of word overlap across groups was observed, which is considered normal.

(2)

Affective Word Clustering and Visualization

Drawing on Russell’s (1980) Model of Affect and the Affect Valuation Index (AVI) proposed by Tsai et al. [33], this study conducted an emotion clustering analysis of each cultural group’s high-frequency emotion words using NVivo 12. The analysis was based on semantic patterns identified in earlier perceptual theme coding, and cross-referenced with the NRC Emotion Lexicon and its Chinese extension. Fifteen distinct emotional categories were identified (

Table 4. Emotional Typology Matrix of Chinese Architectural Symbols Across Cultural Groups.

Quadrant	Type	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
HP	Awe			●							●●●					●
	Pride			●			●●				●					●
	Surprise	●														●●
	Curious	●						●		●		●	●●
	Pleasure		●									●●		●●	●
	Resonance		●	●				●		●	●			●
LP	Belong					●			●	●			●	●	●
	Identity	●	●		●●	●	●●	●		●		●			●	●
	Appreciate		●			●●		●●	●		●●	●		●	●
	Respect			●			●●		●●	●●			●		●
	Nostalgia	●
	Familiarity	●●			●				●				●
LN	Reflect			●●							●
	Detached									●
	Confused							●								●
	● C ● A ● UA	Material	Element	Roof	Elevation	Room	Platform	Rhetoric	Structure	Geomancy	Facility	Garden	Courtyard	Village	Town	City

Note: Each colored dot in the table represents the overall emotional type of a group toward a category of architectural symbols.

).

These emotional categories reflect culturally symbolic orientations in architectural perception and are distributed across three emotional quadrants (Figure 4):

High-arousal, positive-valence (HP) emotions—typically associated with emotional appraisal and positive affect toward architecture.

Low-arousal, positive-valence (LP) emotions—typically associated with rational and objective perceptions of architecture, without strong emotional fluctuations.

Low-arousal, negative-valence (LN) emotions—often linked to feelings of distance, symbolic confusion, or cultural dissonance in response to architectural symbols.

Notably, no high-arousal, negative-valence (HN) emotions were identified. This aligns with the general assumption that most tourists do not travel with the intention of experiencing pain or anxiety.

(3)

Emotional Typology Matrix

Based on the clustering results, an emotional typology matrix of Chinese architectural symbols was generated for the three visitor groups (Table 4). The red, brown, and blue color blocks represent Groups C, A, and UA, respectively. As illustrated in Table 3, Groups C and A tend to favor low-arousal affiliative emotions (e.g., identification, nostalgia), while Group UA exhibits a preference for high-arousal exploratory emotions (e.g., awe, excitement). Notably, Group C did not express significantly more high-arousal positive (HP) emotions than Group UA when engaging with heritage from their own culture. This finding supports Tsai’s findings of “ideal affect” characteristics across cultural groups.

3.4.2. Emotional Profile Differences

A synthesis of the Table 3 matrix reveals that the three groups display differentiated emotional structures, which can be categorized as “immersive,” “analogical,” and “observational” modes—each representing a distinct pattern of cross-cultural emotional responses to architectural heritage.

Group C exhibits a dominant emotional structure characterized by high- and low-arousal positive emotions (HP + LP), with a minimal presence of low-arousal negative (LN) emotions. This pattern is closely linked to their extensive cultural capital, strong sense of national identity, and historical familiarity, with architecture functioning as a catalyst for triggering ethnic sentiment and cultural belonging.

Group A demonstrates emotional sensitivity across both HP and LP dimensions, while also displaying moderate levels of reflective negative emotions. This indicates a foundation of cultural affinity tempered by cognitive gaps stemming from differing interpretations of institutional and ritual contexts. Such a dual mechanism of “identification + estrangement” provides an emotional basis for cross-cultural analogy and comprehension.

Group UA displays a structure marked by a strong presence of HP emotions, sparse LP emotions, and relatively frequent LN responses. Their emotional reactions are primarily driven by visual stimuli and spatial grandeur, yet the considerable cultural distance results in fragmented perception and recurrent confusion due to limited semantic depth.

In sum, emotional dimensions [32], ideal affect orientations [31], and cultural dimensions [22] are key factors influencing emotional response differences among the three groups. Future heritage presentation and interpretation should adopt emotion-sensitive approaches, such as segmented guiding strategies, affective symbolic interpretation, and resonance-building mechanisms, to enhance cross-cultural understanding and emotional co-construction.

3.5. Differences in Perceptual Mechanisms

The preceding sections have revealed thematic and emotional differences in the perception of architectural heritage symbols among different cultural groups. However, these findings remain at the level of perceptual outcomes and are insufficient to address the needs of targeted cross-cultural interpretation and heritage communication. To further explore the underlying perceptual processes and pathways, this study proposes a five-stage model of cross-cultural perception of architectural heritage.

3.5.1. A Five-Stage Mechanism of Cross-Cultural Perception

Drawing on Blumer’s [4] interactionism, this study emphasizes that visitors actively construct meaning through on-site interaction with architectural heritage. Perception of architectural symbols is not a passive process, but rather an interpretive act shaped by visitors’ cultural backgrounds, personal experiences, and situational contexts. Within this process, “perceptual themes” function as mediators of meaning-making, while “emotional responses” reflect the subjective and culturally embedded interpretation of symbols. Accordingly, the three cultural groups form distinct perceptual mechanisms via divergent experiential paths. Based on this insight, the following five-stage perceptual pathway is proposed:

Visitors’ engagement with architectural heritage follows a dynamic symbolic perception process. First, symbol discovery occurs as sensory input is triggered through spatial layout, color schemes, and architectural components. This leads to primary perception, in which aesthetic appreciation and initial emotional responses emerge from the encounter with architectural forms and materials. Subsequently, meaning interpretation takes place, as visitors categorize and interpret symbols based on their cultural backgrounds and knowledge systems. Through interactive feedback, these experiences are externalized in activities such as photography, social media sharing, or verbal commentary. Finally, cultural internalization integrates these experiences into long-term memory, contributing to the formation of values and a sense of cultural belonging. Together, this mechanism reveals the dynamic evolution of visitors’ architectural experiences and holds both theoretical explanatory power and practical applicability.

3.5.2. Perceptual Mechanism Differences Among the Three Tourist Groups

The three cultural groups exhibit distinct trajectories across the five-stage perceptual mechanism (

Table 5. Perception Mechanisms of Chinese Architectural Symbols Across Cultural Groups.

Cultural Group	Symbol Discovery	Primary Perception	Meaning Interpretation	Interactive Feedback	Cultural Internalization
Group C	Recognition of traditional architectural forms	Elicitation of culturally affiliative emotions	Ritual-based interpretation/Activation of historical memory	Static observation/Introspective expression	Formation of cultural identity and sense of belonging
Group A	Focus on familiar components	Comparative interpretation/Sensory resonance	Cultural analogy/identification of differences	Rational inquiry/Dialogic feedback	Cultural comparison/Memory construction
Group UA	Stimuli from visual novelty	Aesthetic novelty/Sensory impact,	Tag-based interpretation/Construction of exoticism	Selfie-sharing/Cross-cultural storytelling	Fragmented experience/Visually driven memory

).

Group C (Culturally Embedded Type): This group places strong emphasis on ritual symbols (e.g., central axis, dougong bracket sets). During the meaning interpretation phase, they activate historical memory and ethnic sentiment. Their interaction style tends to be immersive and introspective, ultimately leading to a deep sense of cultural identity.

Group A (Culturally Affinitive Type): Visitors in this group focus on elements similar to their own traditions (e.g., Buddhist symbols, timber-frame construction). They interpret architectural meaning through cultural analogy, exhibit frequent interactive behaviors, and show a high level of cultural engagement and discursive participation.

Group UA (Cultural Otherness Type): This group emphasizes visual features such as color, proportion, and structure. Their experience is often mediated through selfies, hashtags, and other forms of digital expression that highlight the “exotic visual impressions.” Their perceptual mode leans toward sensationalization and symbolic consumption.

These divergent perceptual pathways reveal systematic differences among the three groups in emotional response, meaning construction, and modes of expression. Such variations are not only shaped by cultural backgrounds, but also influenced by factors such as social identity, educational attainment, and travel motivation [18,44].

In sum, these four contributions directly respond to the research gaps identified in the Introduction, particularly the absence of a systematic architectural symbolic framework, insufficient attention to cross-cultural perceptual mechanisms, and the limited use of multimodal analytical approaches. They also fulfill the research objectives of constructing a cultural symbolic system, revealing cross-cultural perceptual and emotional differences, and developing practical strategies for multicultural interpretation. By explicitly linking the symbolic, psychological, and affective dimensions, this study advances beyond the questions raised in the Introduction, providing a deeper and more integrated understanding of cross-cultural architectural perception.

4. Discussion

4.1. Theoretical Contributions to Cross-Cultural Tourism Studies

(1)

Establishing a Cross-Cultural Perception Paradigm Based on the Semantic System of Architectural Symbols.

Previous studies on heritage culture, constrained by researchers’ limited disciplinary backgrounds in architecture, have predominantly adopted macro-level approaches. This has restricted the precision and contextual relevance of perception-based analyses. This study addresses this gap by classifying and hierarchizing Chinese traditional architectural symbols and interpreting their meanings. The result is a culturally embedded semantic framework of architectural symbolism that provides a theoretically grounded reference for subsequent textual analyses. This approach resonates with international debates on the “uses of heritage,” which emphasize practice and meaning-making rather than static material descriptions [45]. By grounding perception in a systematic symbolic framework, our study goes beyond prior descriptive models, thereby offering a micro-analytical paradigm applicable across cultural contexts.

(2)

Highlighting the Key Role of Cultural Memory and Context in Shaping Perceptual Content.

This study identifies cultural memory and high-/low-context cultural orientation as the principal factors influencing different cultural groups’ recognition and initial perception of architectural symbols. Cultural groups activate or disregard the historical semantics embedded in architectural elements based on their familiarity with mnemonic symbolic systems. In addition, cultural context significantly determines how individuals perceive and process architectural heritage content at the initial stage. This finding aligns with global scholarship on “authorized heritage discourse,” which shows how collective memory mediates visitor engagement [46], and with recent heritage-science research demonstrating that symbolic encodings in architecture trigger culturally conditioned associations [47].

(3)

Expanding the Emotional Response Model in Cross-Cultural Tourism Through Ideal Affect Theory.

Building upon prior frameworks grounded in cultural value theories—such as high-/low-context orientation and cultural dimensions—this study incorporates the theory of ideal affect. This integration advances beyond traditional approaches to perceptual differences by explaining why emotionally convergent reactions may occur within a cultural group, and why seemingly unexpected emotional similarities may emerge across groups when engaging with the same architectural forms. This contribution enriches the theoretical understanding of affective mechanisms in cross-cultural tourism [16]. It also connects with international research on affect valuation, which highlights cultural variation in preferred emotional states, and with tourism studies showing that emotions such as nostalgia and awe mediate value co-creation and repeat visitation [16,48]. Moreover, although immersive technologies are widely recognized as enhancing visitor engagement, our findings indicate that their effectiveness depends on cultural decoding needs, being particularly salient for low-context cultural groups. This extends global debates on the contextual dependency of affective tourism experiences [49].

(4)

Proposing a Five-Stage Micro-Mechanism Model for Architectural Perception.

Drawing on symbolic interactionism and integrating insights from cultural semiotics and cross-cultural psychology, this study proposes a five-stage micro-mechanism of architectural perception: “symbol discovery–primary perception–meaning interpretation–interactive feedback–cultural internalization.” This model emphasizes the evolving cognitive trajectory within the visitor’s architectural experience. It aligns with the current research trend toward micro-level perception mechanisms in tourism studies [49] and offers a theoretical foundation for future investigations of cross-cultural spatial experience. Comparable international studies on embodied cognition and VR/AR-enhanced heritage show that iterative cycles of perception, action, and reflection are central to meaning-making [48]. Our model thus contributes to a global shift from static decoding toward dynamic, experiential interpretations of heritage.

4.2. Practical Strategies for Enhancing Cross-Cultural Visitor Experience

Effective strategies for enhancing cross-cultural visitor experience must be grounded in the symbolic analysis of Chinese architectural heritage. Different cultural groups respond to distinct sets of architectural symbols, and their perceptual and emotional reactions require tailored interpretive pathways and implementation strategies.

The practical strategies proposed in this section directly respond to the research objective outlined in the Introduction: developing culturally adaptive approaches for presenting and interpreting architectural heritage to diverse visitor groups. By grounding these strategies in the symbolic analysis of Chinese architecture, this study translates theoretical insights into actionable pathways that address the perceptual differences identified in the Results and the research gaps identified earlier.

• Experience Optimization Pathways

Group C: Symbols such as imperial motifs, ritual architecture, and inscribed plaques resonate strongly with Group C due to their embedding in collective memory and national identity. Curatorial narratives should reinforce these mnemonic connections, for example, by interpreting the axial layout not only as a technical spatial order but as a symbolic representation of dynastic legitimacy and cosmic harmony. This strategy aligns with recent findings that link heritage interpretation with identity reinforcement in domestic tourism, demonstrating how collective memory deepens affective ties to heritage sites [45].

Group A: Visitors from East Asia tend to resonate with structural-functional analogies such as dougong (bracket sets), axial symmetry, and courtyard configurations, which reflect shared regional traditions. Interpretive strategies should highlight these cultural proximities—for instance, comparing Chinese courtyards with Korean madang or Japanese machiya to emphasize familiar spatial logics. Cross-national research shows that emphasizing architectural analogies across East Asia enhances recognition and fosters regional cultural affinity [50].

Group UA is more sensitive to visual form, spatial scale, and ornamental detail. To enhance their engagement, immersive technologies such as AR-based reconstructions of roof ridges, multilingual narrative-driven tours, and story-based audio guides can lower cultural decoding barriers and foreground symbolic aesthetics. Empirical studies from European museums demonstrate that smart technologies and immersive storytelling foster stronger emotional resonance and comprehension among international visitors unfamiliar with local cultural codes [51].

2.

Implementation Recommendations

(1)

Culturally Adaptive Heritage Curation:

Curators should avoid relying solely on locally exclusive ritual or political language. Instead, they should adopt symbolically resonant and cross-culturally accessible expressions. For example, framing the imperial axis as an embodiment of “cosmic harmony” makes the meaning intelligible for Group UA while reinforcing identity for Group C. Comparative research in heritage interpretation confirms that symbol-based, inclusive narratives enhance cross-cultural accessibility without undermining local authenticity [52].

(2)

Affective and Immersive Interpretation:

Linking architectural symbols to specific affective states through immersive media can enrich the visitor experience. For Group C, VR simulations of palace gates or roof ridges can elicit awe; for Group A, AR reconstructions of courtyard harmony and fengshui-informed layouts highlight shared cultural heritage; and for Group UA, 360 reconstructions of dougong allow for visual and emotional immersion without requiring prior knowledge. Recent studies show that VR/AR interpretation strengthens both aesthetic appreciation and emotional engagement in heritage contexts [53].

(3)

Targeted Interpretation Systems:

Interpretation systems should be differentiated by cultural-symbolic needs. For Group C, mobile guides should emphasize dynastic continuity and mnemonic symbolism; for Group A, comparative displays should highlight cross-East Asian architectural logics; for Group UA, narrative-rich, multilingual platforms should emphasize aesthetic form and emotional storytelling. Evidence from leading museums such as the Louvre and the British Museum demonstrates that multilingual, narrative-driven interpretation significantly improves intercultural learning [54].

(4)

Integrative Cross-Cultural Platforms:

Finally, heritage managers should develop participatory digital platforms that allow visitors to share interpretations of architectural symbols. Such platforms encourage cross-cultural dialogue, strengthen empathy, and foster sustainable heritage practices by linking symbolic meaning with lived visitor experiences. Tourism research underscores that participatory interpretation models enhance both cultural understanding and heritage sustainability [55].

Taken together, these strategies operationalize the theoretical contributions by demonstrating how symbolic, psychological, and affective insights can be translated into differentiated interpretive practices. In this way, they fulfill the research objective of developing actionable pathways for presenting Chinese architectural heritage to multicultural audiences, thereby bridging the gap between the research questions raised in the Introduction and the applied needs of heritage management.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Main Findings

Adopting a cultural semiotic perspective, this study integrates theories from architectural semiotics and cross-cultural psychology to systematically analyze the symbolic system of Chinese architectural heritage and its perceptual differences among international visitor groups. By thematically coding 235 in-depth interview transcripts and applying LDA topic modeling to 1500 online reviews across 11 representative architectural heritage sites, the research constructs an analytical framework of “architectural symbol–perceptual theme–emotional response–perceptual mechanism” and arrives at the following three main conclusions:

(1)

Memory Structure and Cultural Context Shape Primary Perception of Architectural Heritage.

Cultural memory serves as a prerequisite for visitors’ perception of architectural culture. Different cultural groups rely on familiar mnemonic symbolic systems to either activate or overlook the historical semantics embedded in certain architectural elements [46]. Furthermore, high-context/low-context (HC/LC) theory significantly influences both the modes and outcomes of architectural heritage perception. High-context cultural groups (C and A) tend to grasp architectural meaning through abstract, implicit understanding, while low-context groups (UA) rely on more concrete, audiovisual cues. This finding resonates with international studies on heritage as “sites of memory,” which stress that visitor engagement is shaped by both cultural familiarity and interpretive context [56].

(2)

Cultural Dimensions and Affective Orientations Drive Differentiated Emotional Responses.

Visitors’ emotional reactions are shaped by their respective cultural dimensions, producing distinct psychological structures. Group C primarily experiences identity-based emotions such as pride, nostalgia, and awe; Group A exhibits interpretive curiosity grounded in regional resonance; while Group UA displays a mixed response of surprise, curiosity, and detachment. These findings support Russell’s model of affect and Tsai’s affect theory. Comparable global research confirms that cultural affective orientations not only influence how heritage is emotionally valued, but also mediate repeat visitation and cultural learning in tourism contexts [57,58].

(3)

Symbolic Interpretation Paths Exhibit Systematic Cross-Cultural Divergence.

Visitors’ perceptual depth and preferences are constrained by cultural value systems. Group C emphasizes ritual codes, patriarchal symbolism, and national representation; Group A focuses on shared East Asian architectural features; and Group UA favors aesthetic form and spatial experience. These differentiated preferences align closely with Hofstede’s (2001) [23] cultural dimensions. Recent comparative studies in global heritage tourism likewise demonstrate that symbolic decoding is not universal, but contingent on cultural repertoires and semiotic familiarity, which explains why divergent meaning-making persists across international visitor groups [59,60].

Overall, this study demonstrates that visitors from different cultural backgrounds exhibit systematic differences in meaning-making, emotional responses, and perceptual mechanisms regarding Chinese architectural heritage. These findings underscore the need for culturally adaptive interpretation frameworks in heritage tourism, particularly through multilingual narratives, digital mediation, and participatory curatorial practices. At the same time, the conclusions highlight the study’s limitations—such as its tourist-centered approach and text-based methods—pointing toward future research that integrates local communities, employs multimodal tools, and expands cross-regional comparisons.

5.2. Research Limitations and Future Directions

5.2.1. Research Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the analysis focused primarily on tourist perceptions and did not systematically incorporate perspectives from local communities or heritage stakeholders. Recent research has shown that residents’ narratives and stakeholder values are critical in shaping heritage meaning and influencing visitor experiences [61,62].

Second, the study employed text-based methods—interview coding and online review analysis—to identify perceptual themes and emotional responses. While effective, these methods are limited in capturing real-time and embodied dimensions of perception. Emerging multimodal approaches such as eye-tracking, facial expression analysis, EEG, and galvanic skin response have been increasingly applied in heritage and museum studies to assess attention, arousal, and affective valence more objectively [63,64,65].

Finally, although the selection of 11 heritage sites covered multiple architectural types and regions, the sample remains biased toward nationally recognized, high-visibility sites. Less prominent but culturally significant forms—such as vernacular dwellings or minority heritage—were underrepresented, limiting the study’s comprehensiveness.

5.2.2. Future Research Directions

Future studies could address these limitations in three ways. First, they should integrate local community voices and stakeholder perspectives, adopting participatory and dialogical frameworks to enrich the interpretive process. Second, research should employ multimodal and experimental methods to capture embodied and affective dimensions of visitor experience, advancing beyond text-based analysis. Third, broader cross-regional and longitudinal comparisons are needed to test the robustness of symbolic interpretation pathways and to track how tourist perceptions evolve over time. Finally, greater attention should be paid to digital and immersive media, which have shown potential to reshape heritage interpretation and foster intercultural understanding [66].