Improving Soundscape Comfort in Urban Green Spaces Based on Aural-Visual Interaction Attributes of Landscape Experience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I evaluate the reviewed article as a very interesting work. Its structure is correct. The purpose and research problem are clearly presented. The methods used are adequate to the research problem being solved. However, it is necessary to verify the number of spots and answers. Besides, I suggest some changes and additions to make the results better presented.

1. in the keywords, I propose to remove words/phrases repeated from the title and add the words perception and China

2. in the introduction, I propose to add a definition of soundscape, for example from the ISO standard

3. there is a lot of research on audio-visual interaction, which has not been discussed enough. In the discussion, I encourage more references to existing research.

Please refer to the following publications:

J.L. Carles et al. Sound influence on landscape values. Landsc. Urban Plan.(1999).

S. Viollon et al. Influence of visual setting on sound ratings in an urban environment. Appl. Acoust. (2002)

R.J. Pheasant et al.The importance of auditory-visual interaction in the construction of 'tranquil space.' J. Environ. Psychol.(2010)

J. Liu et al.Landscape effects on soundscape experience in city parks. Sci. Total Environ. (2013)

A. Preis et al. Audio-visual interactions in environment assessment. Sci. Total Environ. (2015)

X. Xu, H. Wu Audio-visual interactions enhance soundscape perception in China's protected areas. Urban For. Urban Greening (2021)

4. in the Methods chapter, I propose to add figures showing the location of the study area, its spatial and functional structure (including transportation routes), and the location of study sites and measurment spots

5. in the Methods chapter, it is necessary to verify the correctness of the survey/measurment spots. In lines 194-195, the authors write about the selection of 8+3+12+1+2, or a total of 26 spots. In contrast, in line 252 there is information about 22 spots. Please still pay attention to the data in Tab.4. where there are 24 spots in total. How many spots were actually surveyed? In lines 238-252, the authors write about 20 survey participants who completed the survey at each of the 22 spots. Calculations show that there should therefore be a total of 440 responses. Meanwhile, line 252 states that a total of 380 responses were collected. In my opinion, something doesn't add up. Where are the other 60 responses? Further you can find out finally 268 correct answers were obtained. A big difference between 440 and 268, I don't understand something here. Please clarify and verify. 

It is good that the Authors are aware of the research limitations. The article after improvement in my opinion can be published.

Author Response

Many thanks for your kindly suggestions. We here make following replies to your comments:

1. Keywords were modified as you suggested.
2. The definition of soundscape has been added in the intro. Please see line 35-36.
3. A review-based discussion over aural-visual interactions has been added in 5.3 and your suggested references has been included wherever necessary.
4. The site location map has been added in 3.1 as you suggested. Please see figure 1.
5. In terms of the participants number and the number of responses, apologise for the misleading. It is 20 students we recruited and asked them to fill out the questionnaire in each of the 22 measurement spots, but not all of them has submitted their responses. So, the received responses are 380. Among which, we removed 112 responses that were obviously wrong, for example, some of them rated 1 for all the questions. The numbers have been clarified and corrected throughout the manuscript, including: 22 measurement spots, 380 received responses and 268 valid responses. Please see lines marked in red in 3.1 and Table 4.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article tackles an interesting topic that still does not seem to have received enough attention in research. Visual and auditory perception in the landscape is an issue that is difficult to explore because it combines both psychological, social and environmental aspects, including those related to landscape assessment.

The overall design of the article and the study appears to be correct, although, as noted by the authors themselves, this was accompanied by a number of limitations. The aim of the article is outlined in an understandable way, although it does not quite correspond with the title of the article, which refers to the promotion of soundscape comfort. 'Promoting' itself brings to mind activities aimed at disseminating a topic, which of course is the purpose of any article as such, but is not its substantive content. And this is what the title suggests.

In the introduction, the authors refer to the visual perception of landscape and an evolutionary perspective that illustrates selected theories, including Kaplan's. It seems that the topic of preferences and indicators for assessing visual landscape, has not been exhausted in detail, but only highlighted. I suggest the authors read, for example, the work of Ode et al. 2008 (Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators: Touching Base with Landscape Aesthetic Theory). The issue of visual perception of the landscape, which, as the authors themselves write, determines its evaluation, has been treated too generally, both in the theoretical and research sections. The cultural factor, which is also indicated by the researchers as influencing the evaluation and perception of the landscape, has also been omitted.

The design of the study is clear (despite the generalisation of the visual assessment of the landscape I mentioned above) and the analyses carried out are reliable and insightful. What is questionable, however, is the research sample used, which is a group of 20 students. The authors deliberately selected people in one age range to participate in the study, although, as they themselves point out, age (people's life stage) and other demographic characteristics influence landscape perception. Should the study therefore have been limited to young, near-peers? This sampling definitely affects the results and may not correlate to a large extent with the results that would have been obtained if people from several age ranges had participated in the study. Therefore, it would be important to emphasise that the study is concerned with the perceptions of young people and, as such, is merely a prelude to further research activities.

The Discussion section is written in a cursory manner, with little in the way of polemics with other researchers - this should be improved. Furthermore, the first paragraph of the Discussion reads like an abstract of the article and should therefore be dropped. A clear repetition (this time of the purpose of the study) also took place earlier, in the Introduction.

The study presented in the article undoubtedly required considerable work and effort. However, improvements should be made to the article before it is published.

Author Response

Many thanks for your kindly suggestions. We here make following replies to your comments:

1. ‘Promoting’ is indeed not an appropriate term, it has been corrected as ‘improving’. Please see the title marked in red.
2. Ode’s work does provide a solid theoretic basis of discussing visual landscape indicators. Relevant discussions are added in 2.1. Please see 64-67 and 82-85 marked in red. In terms of visual indicator selection, this study excluded those that may be influenced by environmental information other than visual to ensure the accuracy of visual-aural interaction exploration. This has been explained in the first paragraph in 3.2.
3. The focus on young group has been stated as you suggested in 3.4 and also as a limitation stated in 5.4. Please see 241-242 and 483 marked in red.
4. The first paragraph in discussion has been combined with the conclusion paragraph to avoid repetition (please see 5.5). A review-based discussion has been added in 5.3 to have further reflections on the aural-visual interactions.