Rethinking Outdoor Courtyard Spaces on University Campuses to Enhance Health and Wellbeing: The Anti-Virus Built Environment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: However, the richness of the research paper, the combination of different analysis techniques (observation, questionnaires, space syntax modeling and CFD) of the article as a meritorious research effort. This point should be highlighted in future research studies.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment and suggestions. Kindly note that the text was updated in the revised manuscript to consider your comments. These are referred in the Conclusion section.
The update includes the following:
The significance of this research is its integration of concerns newly arising in response to COVID-19, in addition to the novel research design to include social, physical, and environmental factors in when considering the design. This study employed a comprehensive methodology, triangulating quantitative and qualitative methods for data collection and several analysis techniques including questionnaire, observation, space syntax, and CFD.
Point 2: Line 21, Keyword (Post-pandemic urbanism): Not appropriate
Response 2: Thank you for your comment and suggestions. Kindly note that the keyword was written this form due to keyword limit numbers.
Point 3: Lines 101, 105, 115, • According to [44], the availability of open green spaces in areas of high;
- Moreover, a study by [8] ….. ; • The [50] report on cities and pandemics states that public space assessments… : I understand that the authors follow the journal’s reference system but abnormalities which affect the meaning of the sentence should not be tolerated, as in the sentences opposite….and so on.
Response 3: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Kindly note that the text was updated in the revised manuscript to consider your comments. These are referred in 1.2. Factors Affecting the Spread of Viruses in Open Spaces section.
The update includes the following:
The availability of open green spaces in areas of high population density appears to be particularly important [44].
Moreover, a study conducted in the United States concluded that a higher ratio of green spaces was linked with lower racial disparities in coronavirus infection rates [8].
The report on cities and pandemics states that public space assessments and programs are needed to support the creation of more equitably distributed public spaces. Moreover, flexibility and adaptability in the use of public spaces is crucial, particularly during a pandemic when public spaces must rapidly accommodate new needs [50].
Virus survival decreases as temperatures rise [53].
The high air temperatures combined with high relative humidity levels have a synergistic impact on the inactivation of SARS CoV viability, while low temperature and low humidity promote the virus's extended life on contaminated surfaces [62].
Based on examining the COVID-19 data and metrological data from official sources, it was found that each 1ºC increase in temperature was associated with a 4.8% decrease in confirmed daily cases [63].
For example, the spread rate of COVID-19 is not sensitive to ambient temperature variations in Iranian cities [64].
Other studies identified a positive relationship between COVID-19 spread and high temperatures in Milan, Oslo, and Jakarta, respectively [65-67].
Also found that drier air favors the transmission of the virus [67].
The UVB levels representative of natural sunlight quickly inactivate SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces, particularly on stainless steel surfaces [71].
A significant positive correlation with increased air movement was found, where a 1% increase in average air speed causes an 11.21% increase in COVID-19 cases in African countries [68].
However, a significant negative correlation with air movement and COVID-19 was found, where an increase in air speed was associated with decreased incidence of COVID-19 [72-73].
Whilst an increase in PM2.5 of 41.9% during episodes of stagnant air compared with non-stagnant air days, was reported [77], a low wind speeds were strongly correlated with elevated pollution concentration, in the southern part of the United States [75].
Point 4: Figure 6, p. 15, Student observation mapping in the courtyard post-Covid-19: static activities and dynamic activities: the space usage maps are unreadable. The authors are not obliged to put all the mappings; it would be better to put a few, but which are clear.
Response 4: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Kindly note that the text was updated in the revised manuscript to consider your comments. Figure 6 (Figure 5 in the revised manuscript) was edited and modified to become clearer, and the detailed figure was moved to appendix A (Appendix A, Figure A2). The related text was edited as well.
Timed photographs of the courtyard were taken during the observation period, and graph-based descriptors (maps) of the space were generated (Appendix A, Figure A2), Figure 5 illustrated observation on Sunday and Monday, as students' schedules usually are the same on Sunday and Tuesday, as well as Monday and Wednesday.
In addition, all figures were reviewed and some figures were moved to Appendix section. The numbering of the figures in the text was updated. Accordingly, the related texts were edited.
Figure 14 (Figure 11 in the revised manuscript) was edited and modified to become clearer.
Figure 14 (Figure 11 in the revised manuscript) was edited and modified to become clearer.
Figure 3 (Figure A1 in the revised manuscript), Figure 6 (Figure A2 in the revised manuscript), Figure 8 (Figure A3 in the revised manuscript), and Figure 13 (Figure A4 in the revised manuscript) were moved to the Appendix.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is very interesting. It describes the design of the outdoor courtyard spaces before, during and in the future post pandemic. It reflects the general output due to the impact of the movement control order (MCO) imposed to curb the pandemic. Human behaviour and the spaces were linked in this study by using a multimodal approach. The findings are exciting.
However, the Discussion section (4.1) requires a link to the literature review discussed in the Introduction section. I would highly recommend that the authors connect the findings with the output of the literature review section.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: However, the Discussion section (4.1) requires a link to the literature review discussed in the Introduction section. I would highly recommend that the authors connect the findings with the output of the literature review section.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Kindly note that the text was updated in the revised manuscript to consider your comment. These are referred in the Discussion section, and the References list. The discussion was enhanced by linking the study’s findings to the literature review discussed in the Introduction section, in addition to adding new references.
The update includes the following:
- Discussion: Performative Design Guidelines for Anti-Virus Courtyards on University Campuses
The spread of viruses in outdoor courtyard is influenced by several factors. The organization of spaces for gathering and seating arrangements affect decentralization and social distancing [45-46]. Clustering decreases population density in gathering areas. The location and density of the greenery are also relevant, as they affect the air stagnancy. This supports the findings of [8,33,44]. Stagnant air concentration decreases significantly in areas surrounding trees. Community engagement in the design of open spaces is essential for meeting the needs of users and is thus more likely to result in behavioral change. This result aligns the findings of [11, 90, 91].
Social factors: The courtyard design should respond to students’ needs, preferences, behaviors, and attitudes [34-40].
Physical factors: The urban layout and physical conditions should enhance decentralization and promote social distancing [42-50].
Environmental factors: The environmental solutions should enhance urban air quality and thermal conditions [74-76].
References
- Luo, J., Chan, E.H.W., Du, J., Feng, L., Jiang, P., Xu, Y. (2022). Developing a Health-Spatial Indicator System for Healthy City in Small and Midsized Cities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19, 3294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063294. (Accessed April 28, 2022).
- Jian, I.-Y., Luo, J., Chan, E- H.W. (2020). Spatial justice in public open space planning: Accessibility and inclusivity. Habitat International, 97, 2020, 102122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102122. (Accessed April 28, 2022).
Reviewer 3 Report
The different figures (No: 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, ..) of the courtyard are nice but there are too many different times/days/issues etc., which are really difficult to recognize... For a paper like this is not really necessary. Your paper should report on the results but not on all details and deviations... Show examples and point out the small differences in time, wheather, crowding, etc. and also your suggestion. Fig. 11 is important but very difficult to read and understand - but this is the visual result of the observations and your study... And finally, Do you need to re-design the courtyard after discovering the different wind behavior pattern in the different seasons...? (I am aware: this is a non-sense question and not possible - but your research seems to aim at that...)
Why don't you design a new courtyards according to your observations and your scientific conclusions. The result should be new design plan according to the scientific research study!? Translate the scientific research results into design proposal!
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: The different figures (No: 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, ..) of the courtyard are nice but there are too many different times/days/issues etc., which are really difficult to recognize... For a paper like this is not really necessary. Your paper should report on the results but not on all details and deviations... Show examples and point out the small differences in time, wheather, crowding, etc. and also your suggestion.
Fig. 11 is important but very difficult to read and understand - but this is the visual result of the observations and your study...
Response 1: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Kindly note that the text was updated in the revised manuscript to consider your comment. These are referred to the whole manuscript.
All figures were reviewed and some figures were moved to Appendix section. The numbering of the figures in the text was updated. In addition, the related texts were edited.
Figure 6 (Figure 5 in the revised manuscript) was modified to be clearer, and the detailed figure was moved to appendix (Appendix A, Figure A2). The text edited as well.
Timed photographs of the courtyard were taken during the observation period, and graph-based descriptors (maps) of the space were generated (Appendix A, Figure A2), Figure 5 illustrated observation on Sunday and Monday, as students' schedules usually are the same on Sunday and Tuesday, as well as Monday and Wednesday.
Figure 14 (Figure 11 in the revised manuscript) was edited and modified to become clearer.
Figure 14 (Figure 11 in the revised manuscript) was edited and modified to become clearer.
Figure 3 (Figure A1 in the revised manuscript), Figure 6 (Figure A2 in the revised manuscript), Figure 8 (Figure A3 in the revised manuscript), and Figure 13 (Figure A4 in the revised manuscript) were moved to the Appendix.
Point 2: And finally, Do you need to re-design the courtyard after discovering the different wind behavior pattern in the different seasons...? (I am aware: this is a non-sense question and not possible - but your research seems to aim at that...)
Why don't you design a new courtyard according to your observations and your scientific conclusions. The result should be new design plan according to the scientific research study!? Translate the scientific research results into design proposal!
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. Kindly note that the study aims to provide general recommendations for design of courtyard open spaces considering their performance in terms of the social, physical, and environmental factors affecting virus transmission, as well as the users’ stated preferences and perceptions), as tested via space syntax, CFD simulation, and stimulus materials. However, due to word limit and paper length, the paper stopped at providing design guidelines for anti-virus courtyards on university campuses for the implications for the design and retrofitting of these spaces to create healthy campus environments. Though, your valuable suggestion will be taken into consideration in upcoming future research.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
I find your work very well designed and realized with the objectivity appropriate to scientific research. I have no scientific objections to your work. Nonetheless, I would like to bring up some questions for consideration.
Regarding the questionnaire - I understand that questions must vary between pre-covid and post-covid times, but what made me curious is the fact that, according to table 3, crowded conditions were considered only in pre-covid times. The spaces are the same - if they were crowded before pandemia it is quite likely they will be crowded also after... Maybe it would be interesting to ask if students perceive crowded conditions as something that prevents them from using the space? Because they fear the virus transmission? Or maybe they would respond that they want to return to their "normal", pre-pandemic life and they actually like high density?
The information about the number of questionnaire respondents should also be mentioned in the "methods" section.
It seems that there are some spelling errors in Table 3 to be verified (e.g., "crowed" instead of "crowding"?) You can also consider citing the questions as they were really asked, instead of transforming them into "survey items" in table 3.
In Figure 14 (a) right side the text is not very legible on the red background. If possible, I would suggest using the same graphic style as below.
In the Discussion section, you can consider generalizing your results and comparing them with other research findings. It could be interesting to see whether there are some universal similarities and, at the same time, some regional differences in using open spaces after Covid. Such comparisons could lead to interesting observations (general trends vs. cultural differences) and open new research perspectives.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: Maybe it would be interesting to ask if students perceive crowded conditions as something that prevents them from using the space? Because they fear the virus transmission? Or maybe they would respond that they want to return to their "normal", pre-pandemic life and they actually like high density?
The information about the number of questionnaire respondents should also be mentioned in the "methods" section. It seems that there are some spelling errors in Table 3 to be verified (e.g., "crowed" instead of "crowding"?) You can also consider citing the questions as they were really asked, instead of transforming them into "survey items" in table 3.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Kindly note that the spelling errors in Table 3 to be verified ("crowed" instead of "crowding"?). In addition, the number of questionnaire respondents was added in the "methods" section. However, due to word limit, the questions were presented based on the theme as questions items. In addition, your valuable suggestion will be taken into consideration in upcoming future research.
Point 2: In Figure 14 (a) right side the text is not very legible on the red background. If possible, I would suggest using the same graphic style as below.
Response 2: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Kindly note that the text was updated in the revised manuscript to consider your comment. All figures were reviewed and some figures were moved to Appendix section. The numbering of the figures in the text was updated. In addition, the related texts were edited.
Figure 6 (Figure 5 in the revised manuscript) was modified to be clearer, and the detailed figure was moved to appendix (Appendix A, Figure A2).
Figure 14 (Figure 11 in the revised manuscript) was edited and modified to become clearer.
Figure 3 (Figure A1 in the revised manuscript), Figure 6 (Figure A2 in the revised manuscript), Figure 8 (Figure A3 in the revised manuscript), and Figure 13 (Figure A4 in the revised manuscript) were moved to the Appendix.
Point 3: In the Discussion section, you can consider generalizing your results and comparing them with other research findings. It could be interesting to see whether there are some universal similarities and, at the same time, some regional differences in using open spaces after Covid. Such comparisons could lead to interesting observations (general trends vs. cultural differences) and open new research perspectives.
Response 3: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Kindly note that the text was updated in the revised manuscript to consider your comment. These are referred in the Discussion section, and the References list. The discussion was enhanced by linking the study’s findings to the literature review discussed in the Introduction section, in addition to adding new references. In addition, your valuable suggestion will be taken into consideration in upcoming future research.
The update includes the following:
- Discussion: Performative Design Guidelines for Anti-Virus Courtyards on University Campuses
The spread of viruses in outdoor courtyard is influenced by several factors. The organization of spaces for gathering and seating arrangements affect decentralization and social distancing [45-46]. Clustering decreases population density in gathering areas. The location and density of the greenery are also relevant, as they affect the air stagnancy. This supports the findings of [8,33,44]. Stagnant air concentration decreases significantly in areas surrounding trees. Community engagement in the design of open spaces is essential for meeting the needs of users and is thus more likely to result in behavioral change. This result aligns the findings of [11, 90, 91].
Social factors: The courtyard design should respond to students’ needs, preferences, behaviors, and attitudes [34-40].
Physical factors: The urban layout and physical conditions should enhance decentralization and promote social distancing [42-50].
Environmental factors: The environmental solutions should enhance urban air quality and thermal conditions [74-76].
References
- Luo, J., Chan, E.H.W., Du, J., Feng, L., Jiang, P., Xu, Y. (2022). Developing a Health-Spatial Indicator System for Healthy City in Small and Midsized Cities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19, 3294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063294. (Accessed April 28, 2022).
- Jian, I.-Y., Luo, J., Chan, E- H.W. (2020). Spatial justice in public open space planning: Accessibility and inclusivity. Habitat International, 97, 2020, 102122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102122. (Accessed April 28, 2022).
