Main Factors of Professional Experience on People’s Visual Behavior and Re-Viewing Intention in Different In-Forest Landscapes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction might benefit from diversification between parks and forests; a forest is not a park, so it is not necessary to be developed by including the stakeholders viewpoints - which is  my main question regarding this research. 

The second is using very similar photo material to question the response; have you applied also some more diverse pictures to test the preferences? The selection of the material is not clearly introduced; were you questioning the preferences just regarding the species (different tree species) in woods or the design (including roads, water bodies - which is "per se" more interesting and would catch more attention.  These limitations should be addressed in the article.

There is some repeating and unnecessary statements in conclusion. Also the mention of statistic analysis in the abstract is redundant. 

Some phrases / terms are used which are not precise; it feels like mixing "forests" with "parks"  e.g.: forest landscape space; in-forest landscape; forest tourism industry ...)

Author Response

Dear editor,

We have summarized your comments and suggestions, and made corresponding amendments in accordance with the comments.

In addition，we marked the added content in the manuscript in red. The specific modifications are as follows:

Comment 1:

The introduction might benefit from diversification between parks and forests; a forest is not a park, so it is not necessary to be developed by including the stakeholders viewpoints - which is my main question regarding this research.

Modify 1:

Thanks for your suggestion.

First, we agree that we can't develop forest landscape from the perspective of developing parks.

Second, we think that the forest landscape in China is special. Compared with the ecological service functions of forest, such as water conservation, soil conservation, carbon fixation and oxygen release, and improvement of ecological environment, the recreational function of forest has gradually become the focus and hot issue of the whole society.

Meanwhile, with the development of forest tourism in China, the amount of forest tourism in China is increasing year by year. However, in many cases, the feeling between designers and users does not match, and these differences will hinder the full expression of the value of forest landscape. Therefore, we believe that forest landscape planners and managers should be aware of a wide range of potential problems related to their users in order to meet the needs of users in forest landscape as best as possible. Thus to provide users with a high-quality forest landscape space with high visual behavior and satisfaction preference, and improve the "stickiness" between users and forest landscape, that is, the re-viewing intention.

This means that it is necessary to study the viewpoint that forest landscape is related to users' interests (visual behavior, satisfaction preference and re-viewing intention) in the study of forest parks in China to create high-quality forest landscape space.

Comment 2:

The second is using very similar photo material to question the response; have you applied also some more diverse pictures to test the preferences? The selection of the material is not clearly introduced; were you questioning the preferences just regarding the species (different tree species) in woods or the design (including roads, water bodies - which is "per se" more interesting and would catch more attention.  These limitations should be addressed in the article.Modify 2:

Modify 2:

Thanks for your review. We highly cherish your comments.

And we have made corresponding amendments in accordance with the comments.

First, previous studies showed that arbor forests account for a large proportion in the forest landscape space, occupying an absolute advantage. Therefore, we have studied the in-forest landscape of forest park. And according to the field investigation and screening of forest park, 50 sample plots were selected. See as Line 160-162, 165-169 in Page4.

Second, according to the concept of angular scale (Wi) proposed by Hui and Gadow, we counted and measured the tree species, DBH, crown width, coordinates (X and Y) and tree height in the selected in-forest landscape space. Next we calculated the angular scale of each plot by Winkelmass software and selected 50 sample plots which divided into three types (uniformly distributed landscape space, randomly distributed landscape space and clustered landscape space ). See as Line 169-173 in Page4.

Finally, we selected 9 representative pictures selected by 10 experts and 20 non-experts as the final experimental materials. Among them, there are 3 uniformly distributed landscape spaces, 3 randomly distributed landscape spaces and 3 clustered landscape spaces. See as Line 175-176 in Page4.

Comment 3:

There is some repeating and unnecessary statements in conclusion. Also the mention of statistic analysis in the abstract is redundant.

Modify 3:

Thanks for your suggestion.

First, we have reorganized the part of conclusion of manuscript according to your comments. See as Line 601-613 in Page 17, details are as follows:

“2) Although user with different professional attributes present similar visual be-haviors and satisfaction preferences for in-forest landscape, and the aesthetic prefer-ences of the scene will stimulate people's higher desire to visit again (There is a signifi-cant linear relationship between satisfaction preference and re-viewing intention (Adj.R2=0.412-0.697, Sig.=0.000). The more satisfied people are with the first impres-sion of the scene, the higher their desire to visit it again will be aroused).

3) The spatial cognitive mechanism of arousing user with different professional backgrounds' visual behavior and satisfaction preference for in-forest landscape is dif-ferent. On the whole, the color brightness and the layering of the scene work together on the visual behavior and satisfaction evaluation of landscape professional users (P < 0.05), but these two spatial cognition factors have no significant influence on the cog-nitive mechanism of visual behavior and satisfaction evaluation of non-landscape pro-fessional users (P > 0.05).”

Second, according to your suggestion, we deleted the statistic analysis in the abstract. See as Line 12-14 in Page 1, details are as follows:

“Purpose: This study mainly discusses whether people's professional background will affect their visual-behavior, satisfaction preference and re-viewing intention of landscape, and discusses the relationship among them.”

Comment 4:

Some phrases / terms are used which are not precise; it feels like mixing "forests" with "parks"  e.g.: forest landscape space; in-forest landscape; forest tourism industry ...).

Modify 4:

Thanks for your comment. According to your comments, we have unified the terms in the manuscript.

First, the forest landscape in our manuscript refers to the landscape in China forest park.

Second, the landscape in the forest park includes not only the in-forest landscape but also the water landscape and so on. However, previous studies have pointed out that arbor forests account for a large proportion in the forest landscape space, occupying an absolute advantage. Therefore, we only studied the in-forest landscape. That is, the in-forest landscape referred to in our manuscript is actually one of the landscape types in forest parks.

In addition, we have also made corresponding modifications based on the comments and suggestions of reviewer 2.

Thanks again for your valuable feedback.

Yours sincerely,

Tong ZHANG, Yu GAO.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for Author,

 

I have read your papaer carefullly. Actually, The topic is interesting. However, I have some main shortness. After the Author improved  paper, I will reconsider for the publication.

1- The design of paper does not reflect main issue. So, I strongly suggest that the introduction is so general and such a thesis style. Most of parts are needed to reevaluate and rephrases. 

2- The english of paper is needed to improve

3- I think, discussion is superficial. Please use more comprehensive figures and tables. Tables are simple. 

4- Conclusion remark could be more attractive. 

Best Regards

There are many grammatical issue in the paper. please give more attention during revision especially the first sentences in the pragrapgh and This paper is needed to improve substantially. 

Author Response

Dear editor,

Thanks for your valuable comments on this article, we valued your comments and suggestions very much and made relevant changes according to your comments.

In addition，we marked the added content in the manuscript in red. The specific modifications are as follows:

Detail as follows:

Comment 1:

I have read your paper carefullly. Actually, The topic is interesting. However, I have some main shortness. After the Author improved paper, I will reconsider for the publication.

Modify 1:

Thanks for your review.

Comment 2:

The design of paper does not reflect main issue. So, I strongly suggest that the introduction is so general and such a thesis style. Most of parts are needed to reevaluate and rephrases.

Modify 2:

Thanks for your suggestion.

According to your suggestion and the purpose of manuscript, we have combed and summarized the introduction again. See as Line 30 in Page 1, Line 56-61, 80-94 in Page 2, Line 95-112, 127-140 in Page 3.

Comment 3:

The english of paper is needed to improve

Modify 3:

Thanks for your suggestion.

According to your comments, we have polished the manuscript by AJE (https://secure.aje.com/r/HVPMKW56). The Editing Certificate is as follows:

Comment 4

I think, discussion is superficial. Please use more comprehensive figures and tables. Tables are simple.

Modify 4:

Thanks for your review.

First, we sort out our research results as a whole, and add Figure 7 to the discussion part of the manuscript. See as Line 394-429 in Page 13, details are as follows:

“This study discusses whether users' professional experience affect their visual be-havior, satisfaction preference and re-viewing intention when they viewing in-forest landscape space with different spatial layouts, and analyzes the spatial cognitive fac-tors that act on visual behavior and satisfaction preference. These clarified the prob-lems of " look at what ?" and "how to look at ?" the contents of the in-forest landscape when users with different educational backgrounds appreciated it, thus revealing the viewing and cognitive patterns of users with different educational backgrounds on the in-forest landscape.

Bagozzi proposed the theory of self-regulating attitude and pointed out that peo-ple's attitude towards the scene can be divided into three stages: the evaluation of the scene, the emotion generated and the behavior in the scene. The evaluation promote the emotion generation and further affect the individual's behavior or behavior inten-tion, and the overall performance is the process of evaluation-emotion-behavior. And Kevin Lynch also pointed out that the environment plays an important role in people's feelings and practices. Landscape cognition emphasizes the process that users perceive the environment, and then identify the landscape and choose behavior through inter-action with the environment [56].

Our research results shows that different spatial distribution of in-forest land-scapes have different degrees of visual cognitive load and preference evaluation on the subjects with different professional education. Among them, the UDS results in a greater cognitive load, and the CDS results in a lower cognitive load. Although peo-ple's cognitive processing of landscape content of in-forest environment is influenced by their educational background, people's overall preference evaluation of in-forest landscape and their visual viewing mode have not changed. At the same time, such an overall evaluation has promoted users' re-viewing intention for in-forest landscape. And the better their first impression of the scene, the higher their "attachment" will be, thus stimulating their "desire" to viewing the scene (Fig. 7).

That is, although the process of information cognition and processing of landscape is significantly influenced by educational background, it does not affect their overall preference for in-forest landscape and “return visit rate”. People's interaction with the landscape environment is also a process of continuous cognition of the landscape, which leads to a series of visual behaviors, and then forms a "self-cognition" of the landscape to show their preference for the landscape and produce "dependence", and then produces an "attachment" to the landscape, which finally arouses people's desire to re-viewing. That is, to enhance the "stickiness" between people and the landscape (Fig. 7).”

 

Figure 7. Stickiness mechanism of users for in-forest landscape.

Second, we made corresponding supplementary explanations to the discussion part of the manuscript. See as Line 394-429 in Page 13, Line 530-538 in Page 15, Line 539-546 in Page 16 details are as follows:

Line 394-429 in Page 13：

“This study discusses whether users' professional experience affect their visual be-havior, satisfaction preference and re-viewing intention when they viewing in-forest landscape space with different spatial layouts, and analyzes the spatial cognitive fac-tors that act on visual behavior and satisfaction preference. These clarified the prob-lems of " look at what ?" and "how to look at ?" the contents of the in-forest landscape when users with different educational backgrounds appreciated it, thus revealing the viewing and cognitive patterns of users with different educational backgrounds on the in-forest landscape.

Bagozzi proposed the theory of self-regulating attitude and pointed out that peo-ple's attitude towards the scene can be divided into three stages: the evaluation of the scene, the emotion generated and the behavior in the scene. The evaluation promote the emotion generation and further affect the individual's behavior or behavior inten-tion, and the overall performance is the process of evaluation-emotion-behavior. And Kevin Lynch also pointed out that the environment plays an important role in people's feelings and practices. Landscape cognition emphasizes the process that users perceive the environment, and then identify the landscape and choose behavior through inter-action with the environment [56].

Our research results shows that different spatial distribution of in-forest land-scapes have different degrees of visual cognitive load and preference evaluation on the subjects with different professional education. Among them, the UDS results in a greater cognitive load, and the CDS results in a lower cognitive load. Although peo-ple's cognitive processing of landscape content of in-forest environment is influenced by their educational background, people's overall preference evaluation of in-forest landscape and their visual viewing mode have not changed. At the same time, such an overall evaluation has promoted users' re-viewing intention for in-forest landscape. And the better their first impression of the scene, the higher their "attachment" will be, thus stimulating their "desire" to viewing the scene (Fig. 7).

That is, although the process of information cognition and processing of landscape is significantly influenced by educational background, it does not affect their overall preference for in-forest landscape and “return visit rate”. People's interaction with the landscape environment is also a process of continuous cognition of the landscape, which leads to a series of visual behaviors, and then forms a "self-cognition" of the landscape to show their preference for the landscape and produce "dependence", and then produces an "attachment" to the landscape, which finally arouses people's desire to re-viewing. That is, to enhance the "stickiness" between people and the landscape (Fig. 7).”

Line 530-538 in Page 15：

“From the results of spatial cognitive factor indicators that can promote visual be-havior and overall preference evaluation in this study, we can conclude the following:

1) Cognitive indicators (layering and stereoscopic impression) represented by the structure of space can jointly act on the visual behavior and preferences of users with different educational background. That is, people's cognitive index of space structure is the core element to promote people's positive visual behavior and overall evaluation.

2) When the layout of in-forest landscape space changes, the contribution (or in-fluence) of content richness and ribbon diversity derived from structural cognition to visual behavior and overall satisfaction evaluation also changes.”

Line 539-546 in Page 16：

“That is, although there is no significant difference in visual behavior and overall satisfaction evaluation of users with different educational background, the cognitive processing mode (or cognitive processing mechanism) acting on overall preference evaluation and viewing does show different trends.

This can also explain why an increasing number of people like in-forest landscape, because it can meet the public demand (or diversified public demand). This is not only influenced by the different attributes of user, but also by the landscape characteristics derived from the structural layout in the landscape space.”

Comment 5

Conclusion remark could be more attractive.

Modify 5:

Thanks for your review，we highly cherish your comments.

We have summarized and combed the conclusion of the manuscript again according to your suggestion. See as Line 601-613 in Page 17.

Comment 6

There are many grammatical issue in the paper. please give more attention during revision especially the first sentences in the pragrapgh and This paper is needed to improve substantially.

Modify 6:

Thanks for your suggestion.

According to your comments, we have polished the manuscript by AJE (https://secure.aje.com/r/HVPMKW56).

In addition, we have also made corresponding modifications based on the other editors’ comments and suggestions.

Thanks again for your valuable feedback.

Yours sincerely,

Tong ZHANG, Yu GAO.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Author improved paper carefully. Now the paper could be accepted for the publication.

Best Regards