Landscapes of Prosperity, Youth, Femininity, Temptation, Friendship, Transition, Money, and Survival in Terms of Evolutionary Psychology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

This paper presents an interesting topic from a theoretical and methodological perspective. I would like to congratulate you for the clear take away messages regarding the results of the methodology used. The manuscript reads very well, the research objective, knowledge gap and contribution are clearly presented.

I would suggest you to add some references in the following paragraph: ‘Many researchers classify types of landscape attractiveness in terms of human preferences. They apply two approaches: ...’. Please provide examples of sources for the these approaches.

Also, following the research carried out by Buss, it would be relevant to have more details on the professionals participating to your study, and the sample of subjects attending your brainstorming session.

Author Response

Thank you for the feedback. We have carefully considered all the comments posted in the review and adapted them to the content of the manuscript.

3. As suggested, we added some references in the following paragraph: ‘Many researchers classify types of landscape attractiveness in terms of human preferences. They apply two approaches … “ the authors introduced examples of literature sources for these approaches in the relevant verses (lines 90 and 91 in the previous version of the manuscript). Therefore, the following line was rephrased as:: Many researchers evaluate landscape attractiveness in terms of human preferences. They apply two perspectives: one refers to the approach to landscape valuation [33, 34, 35, 36] and the second explores people's preferences in the assessment and characteristics of the landscape [6, 12, 13, 24, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41].
4. Following the request to “… have more details on the professionals participating to your study…”, in line 161 of the previous version of the manuscript, the following line was expanded as follows: “The basic mental procedure – the translation of human qualities into the attractiveness of a landscape, was made by the authors of this manuscript who are professional landscape architects. Their expert evaluation was founded on many years of research on landscape assessment and valuation, both from the natural and social point of view, as well as on expert knowledge in this field”.
5. Considering the essence of the research undertaken, we must admit that the term "brainstorming" has been used inadequately, and we appreciate pointing it out. Therefore, the lines were rephrased as: “Next, by combining a large number of spontaneous ideas invented by the duo of authors, duplicate qualities were removed from the established quality sets and similar and/or complementary qualities were combined”.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

Let me congratulate you on putting together a study that advances scholarly work in the discipline. It was a joy to review. However, the structure of the current manuscript is unclear, and it lacks rigour. I hope the comments will enable you to address the study and strengthen it.

 

Abstract

Clear and well-articulated providing a good summary of the study.

Introduction

The introduction needs revision. It’s structured in an illogical manner, making it somewhat confusing to follow. I understand that the authors want to position the problem upfront in the first paragraph, but none of the subsequent paragraphs provides the context to the problem under investigation. If the perception of landscape is the issue, then please introduce that. If is the matter in which an individual perceives the surrounding environment, then that needs to be acknowledged. It does seem to me that the authors are drawing from phenomenology quite a lot.

I think that sub-headings will help to make the introduction more coherent. Either reduce the introduction to 3 to 4 paragraphs and move all the rest as part of the literature review or then fully separate the literature from the introduction for greater clarity.

I’d suggest you to look at the following work to strengthen your argument:

1. Petrović, E. K., Marques, B., Perkins, N., & Marriage, G. (2018). Phenomenology in Spatial Design Disciplines: Could it Offer a Bridge to Sustainability?. In Advancements in the Philosophy of Design (pp. 285-316). Springer, Cham.
2. Girot, C. (1999). Four trace concepts in landscape architecture. Recovering landscape: Essays in contemporary landscape architecture, 59-68.
3. Koblet, O., & Purves, R. S. (2020). From online texts to Landscape Character Assessment: Collecting and analysing first-person landscape perception computationally. Landscape and Urban Planning, 197, 103757.
4. McIntosh, J., Marques, B., Palmer, M., & Ujung, V. (2019). The Outside In: The intensification of landscape in the Anthropocene. Enquiry The ARCC Journal for Architectural Research, 16(1), 1-14.

Method

Similarly to the introduction, it may need some restructuring. It reads as hectic. The authors should start with the phenomenological reduction method followed up by the anthropomorphising approach. These two set the theoretical underpinning of the study as well as how the study was conducted. Despite all the descriptions given, it is hard to understand who were the subjects of the study. The authors? Was there a group of participants? If so, how many and how were they recruited? How was the information transcribed and analysed? How were themes extracted from all of the information collected?

Results

Again, this section needs some tidying up. It’s long and unstructured.

Right at the beginning, the authors need to explain how those 4 models were reached out. How were the two relationships identified? Permanent and contingent? Where is the evidence of that?

The tables were very useful to understand the results.

Once we get into the definition of each quality, I think those should be sub-headings for easy read.

Another issue is how the images were selected. How did the authors find that those figures illustrate better the qualities identified?

Discussion

It is well-structured and clear. The authors make valuable conclusions here. However, I’d break this section into two: one for discussion and another one for conclusion.

Author Response

Thank you for the feedback. We were pleased to learn that you found our article not only interesting but also entertaining.

We carefully considered all comments posted in the review and adapted them to the content of the manuscript.

1. Particular consideration was given to the Introduction section. As suggested, the research problems described in the Introduction (previously: "questions") were juxtaposed with the subsequent research background and literature review.

Thus, the phrase describing the research problems was corrected to better convey the idea of the research. This fragment was rephrased as: To capture the problem of attractiveness, understood as a feature that arouses interest, desire or attraction to something or someone [1] the following problems were posed with regard to landscape: what are human preferences in experiencing landscape and evaluating it? What can be the sources of preferences for the attractiveness of observed landscapes?

Categorization was considered not as a research goal, but as a means to exploring the phenomenon of landscape attractiveness in terms of the proposed source of preference.

Finally, the structure of the literature section was adapted to the outlined research problems so that it broadens the scope of the problems discussed in the Introduction, and thus is more clear and logical.

In the Introduction, the suggested division into subsections was also introduced. The following headings were proposed: 1.1 Landscape as a phenomenon in humanistic terms; 1.2 Human preferences in experiencing and evaluating landscape attractiveness and their sources; 1.3  Research objective.

We’d like to thank the Reviewer for suggesting the valid and important literature. Following careful consideration of all publications, we included the following three:

• • Girot, C. Four trace concepts in landscape architecture. Recovering landscape: Essays in contemporary landscape architecture, 1999, 59-68.
  • Koblet, O., & Purves, R. S. From online texts to Landscape Character Assessment: Collecting and analysing first-person landscape perception computationally. Landscape and Urban Planning, 197, 2020, 103757.
  • Petrović, E. K., Marques, B., Perkins, N., & Marriage, G. Phenomenology in Spatial Design Disciplines: Could it Offer a Bridge to Sustainability? Advancements in the Philosophy of Design, Springer, Cham, 2018, 285-316.

2. Following the Reviewer's request for greater clarity, in the Methods section, two main research methods: phenomenological reduction and space anthropomorphizing were more clearly described. These two terms set the theoretical foundation of the study, as well as how the study was conducted, and were described first in theoretical perspective and then in applied terms. Particular emphasis was placed on improving the theoretical foundation of both methods. Therefore, the following line was rephrased as: To translate the preferential qualities described above into those related to the attractiveness of the landscape, two main studies were carried out in parallel. The first study was based on the phenomenological reduction method [53, 54]. This method, derived from phenomenology, is useful for a deeper and more integrated spatial design, so important for sustainable development, as pointed out by Petrović and Marriage [55].

The second study was based on the anthropomorphization of space (the metaphor of assigning human characteristics to animals, plants, objects, objects, phenomena, or abstract concepts). The latter research method was based on building brand awareness and the brand personality construct study [56]. This method involves the transfer of concepts specific to the human sphere, e.g., power, intelligence, or self-esteem, to the physical form of the designed objects (e.g., cars, perfumes, and costumes).

A description of the research was completed and revised, describing in more detail the following:

• • Scientific background of researchers responsible for the two main studies: phenomenological reduction and anthropomorphization of space was expanded on. The text was rephrased as: The basic mental procedure – the translation of human qualities into the attractiveness of a landscape, was made by the authors of this manuscript who are professional landscape architects. Their expert evaluation was founded on many years of research on landscape assessment and valuation, both from the natural and social point of view, as well as on expert knowledge in this field.
  • The paragraph mentioning the use of the brainstorming method was rewritten (leaving only a fragment, not specific only to this method). Therefore, the following line was rephrased as: Next, by combining a large number of spontaneous ideas invented by the duo of authors, duplicate qualities were removed from the established quality sets and similar and/or complementary qualities were combined.
  • The origins of the two basic types of relationships in sexual selection and the four models of qualities presented in detail in Tables 1-4 were clarified. The lines were rephrased as: Buss [46] identified two basic types of relationships in sexual selection: committed/permanent relationships (marriage and long-term partners) and short-term /contingent (an affair or a casual, non-committed relationship). Each of these two types of relationships was studied and described according to gender by Buss [46] as well. Based on this four models of qualities preferred in the selection of a partner in a given relationship were distinguished.

3. Results section - it was now explained that the two identified relationships (permanent and contingent) based on the study by Buss in the Methods section were presented.
   

We also explained in the Methods section how the four presented models were established.

Moreover, the following sub-headings were proposed for easy read: 3.1. Identification of landscape attractiveness types based on Models 1-4; 3.2. Characteristics of the obtained types of landscape attractiveness.

To answer the question how the images were selected, we would like to point out that the research undertaken was of an expert nature. First of all, the basic criterion was established: the landscape should contain at least three features described in the characteristics of a given type. The final selection of photographs was based on intuitive and expert judgement resulting from many years of experience in landscape evaluation. This remark was added to the text of the manuscript in the Methods section to better explain the source of the illustrations. 

4. In the Discussion section, the presented considerations were divided into a summary of the study and the discussion of the results.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper offers interesting point of view. Please consider proofreading by the Authors themselves to eliminate minor language issues. A few remarks: Line 113 - consider revising the citation format Line 176 - repetition, consider revising Table 1 and Table 3 - please consider revising the section generosity - why "rest" is included and what it means? Consider providing explanation. Lines 305, 333, 334, 481 - unclear, please consider revising

Author Response

Thank you for the feedback. We have carefully considered all the comments posted in the review and adapted them to the content of the manuscript.

1. The manuscript has been carefully reviewed and proofread.
2. Citation format concerning Aristotle's “Poetics” (line 113) has been corrected as follows: “… Aristotle [42] …”.
3. Repetition in line 176 was deleted.
4. Upon considering the phrase “rest” in Table 1 and 3, we would like to explain that what is meant is not so much “rest” as such, but rest that is comfortable and without payments (such as “free comfort” of public spaces). The phrase "rest" was replaced with "the value of comfortable rest for free".
   
5. To explain unclear phrases in lines: 305, 333, 334 and 481, we have revised them as follows:
• Line 305 in the previous version of the manuscript: On the other hand,  it includes the use of modern technologies in line with the latest trends in space planning (e.g. smart city solutions, outdoor advertising).
• Lines 333 and 334: in the previous version of the manuscript: …accompanied by calming forms. It is a landscape that is unoppressive, conflict-free, soothing, a landscape of space that offers shelter, integral with people who are part of it in terms of tradition and mentality.
• Line 481: in the previous version of the manuscript: The underlying formulas used determined the initial set of characteristics of human preferences. They were then the foundation for determining the quality preferences for landscape attractiveness.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Many thanks for the revised manuscript. The authors have addressed most of the concerns and the overall quality has improved significantly. I’m very happy to support this paper for publication.

 

Author Response

As suggested, we have revised the text again very carefully, removing all the typos, and any stylistic and punctuation errors. 

Thank you for your appreciation for our research.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx