Evaluating Stress Relief from Architecture: A Case Study Based on Buildings in Taiwan, China and Japan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, thank you very much for your submission to Sustainability and for giving me the opportunity to review your very interesting paper on the relationship between architectural designs and stress relief. I think your research is very good, but does not fit the thematic scope of the journal. I see the following issues:
1. It is unclear how your topic is relevant to sustainability in its original sense.
2. You hardly have any theoretical background. I cannot imagine that your research question has not been covered by other researchers before.
3. If your research was exploratory (because never dealt with before), the small sample of 60 participants would be fine. Otherwise it's too small.
4. Your sampling method is unclear.
5. Natural archtitectural designs have been a topic for a long time, for example in Art nouveau or in the works of Antoni Gaudí. These are not even mentioned. Their philosophies would relate to your findings.
Author Response
請參閱附件。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments:
- Abstract - please re-write the abstract in a way that we can see the clearly the background, methods used, the article´s main findings and conclusions. From my point of view, your abstract is not an objective representation of the article.
- Introduction - the article focuses on stress relief from artchitecture - but what kind of stress should be reliefed. I did not finf this the most important information. It should be clearly explained in the introduction
- Conclusions - this part should re-written completely. Please put down the conclusions that are not general ones, but the ones refulting from your research
- Literature - the number of references is very low
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The study proposed by the authors is interesting, since it addresses a recent theme, with few studies, but which in reality do not know if it will have any practical application. It will eventually have it in the construction of new cities, from scratch, if in fact it is proven that a certain type of architecture relieves stress. This will require a very comprehensive multi-, inter and pluri-disciplinary research with a database supported by reliable results, with a very significant sample. It must be adapted to every society, to every culture, ... can never be applied in a generalized manner.
This information is necessary for researchers already working on the subject, but also for those who want to start this line of research, and especially for architects and public decision-makers working in this area.
Specifically about the formal part I can say that:
- The title should be changed in so far as it is a case study based on the selection of buildings located in Taiwan, China and Japan. They have a similar, non-equal culture that cannot be extrapolated to other parts of the world.
- The abstract is correct, since it includes all relevant information about the article, objectives, methodology and main results.
- Introduction: correct, the subject is contextualized, the objective that covers the identified gap is increased.
- Literature review does not exist. There is a theoretical framework of background and research that tries to bridge this gap. But it is not the same thing! It would be interesting to include a conceptual diagram resulting from conceptual analysis.
In terms of the structure of the article, it would also be interesting to add the discussion to the conclusion, since the latter does not introduce information that add value to the article.
Maintaining as is the conclusion should be more objective to offer the reader more concrete information about the results obtained, giving, for example, some examples of applicability.
I also wonder if the lady in Figure 8 gave permission to post the images?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your revision.
Reviewer 2 Report
thank you for accepting my comments
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There is a bit of a leap from looking at pictures of nature or pleasant images to reduce stress to the idea that buildings can reduce stress.
The relationship between city image and stress relief remains unclear. I think this is because there is not a strong relationship there. I think dropping the idea of city image and of sustainability (which is briefly introduced only) and simply focusing on stress relief would be preferable.
The paragraph beginning on line 163 covers a great deal of ground without connecting from one sentence to the next. Why Gestalt theory, for example? How is it being used? It’s a dense and confusing paragraph that feels a bit like intellectual name-dropping.
I don’t understand the sentence on lines 187-190. What are “‘ideas’ operationalized as nodes” for example?
I am confused by the sentence on lines 219-20. What is meant by “eliminated the same buildings”?
Section 2.5 seems oddly placed between 2 stages of the research process.
I am struck by the images of buildings that are provided and how different they are from how buildings would be encountered in ordinary life in the city, especially the line drawings. Why did the researchers choose these types of images? What argument do they make for the validity of their study in re real world experience?
It would be useful to go into more analysis on the findings and their implications – why might rectilinear buildings be preferred? What theories might help to understand that reaction (cognitive overload, for example)?
What is the relationship between the set of adjectives in table 5 and stress relief? Perhaps the question is not about stress relief, but instead about emotional reactions to buildings.
Author Response
請參閱附件。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is unfortunately very difficult to fully understand, and therefore evaluate, your work, because there is a lack of precision in regards to the language. It is hence difficult to judge, where there is a lack of logic in the methodology, and presentation of background, and where this might only be due to language issues.
Please find attached a selection of examples.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
請參閱附件。
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I remain a little puzzled about the idea of stress relief and its relationship to the emotions discussed in the findings (table 5). Perhaps the question is not about stress relief, but instead about emotional reactions to buildings.
An underlying issue with this paper is that while it acknowledges the importance of context (as in lines 185-188, 235-237) and works from the idea of the image of a city, it looks at buildings completely divorced from context and from multisensory experience (rejecting everything in lines 155-166). As a reader, I feel the need for a clearer argument as to why.
A related question is about by the images of buildings that are provided and how different they are from how buildings would be encountered in ordinary life in the city, especially the line drawings. Why did the researchers choose these types of images? What argument do they make for the validity of their study in re real world experience?
I still believe the relationship between city image and stress relief remains unclear, because there is not a strong relationship there.
I am utterly puzzled by figure 3. It seems focused on transmitting design messages, which is not discussed in the paper. Lines 190-191 What is meant by shape problems? By ideation? Why are neither of these in figure 3?
Figure 6 says “residential buildings” at the top, but it is religious buildings.
Lines 341-344 It would be useful to be more explicit here about what is meant by “fun” and “kindly” forms rather than making the reader look at the chart and try to make sense of these categories. Are these the categories that people used to describe these attributes? They are not self-evident.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the work that has gone into revising the paper and it has definitely improved. However, there are still several assertions that are not supported and the core of the research -- the stress index and how it links adjectives like "kindly" to stress -- are not sufficiently explained.
In the first paragraph of 1.1 the assertion that sustainable development goals suggest that design should consider emotions and psychology and connects it to city image is not convincing. “Inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” does not immediately suggest either emotions or stress relief.
On lines 64-65 the authors state that “the relationship and message transduction between citizens and the city have been thoroughly discussed.” This assertion demands citations of those discussions.
It’s not clear to me what ideation means as it is used in this paper.
Line 143 could use a definition of “gestalt laws”
The Ellard citation (lines 154-160) suggest that asking people about stress is not an effective way of getting at the problem. How do the authors see their method as responding to this issue? I think it does, at least in part, by using adjectives used as a way of getting at stress relief, rather than asking people directly about their stress levels. However, I do think this needs to be explicitly said and that Ellard’s argument should be directly addressed.
I’m quite puzzled by figure 2. What are target input and encoding input? Why does the intent of the architect matter to the question of stress relief?
Line 249 what can participants look up? And what is the stimuli search tool? Explain a little more.
Line 257 what is the stress relief index? Can you explain more about it? How is it connected to the emotional adjectives?
Line 329 – I don’t know where the assertion about spiritual interests comes from.
What is the basis of figure 12? How does it relate to the research?
While Lynch and city image have mostly been edited out, it’s still there, incongruously, in the conclusion.
The assertion that “architecture plays a key role in reducing stress” line 375, is not supported by the research in this paper.
