The Landscape of the Spa Parks Creation through Components Influencing Environmental Perception Using Multi-Criteria Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. “The article fills a research gap by presenting a method to compare spa parks to allow decision-makers committed to promoting sustainable development to analyze the implications of economic, environmental, social and cultural factors at the same time.”

This statement is quite general and needs to be clarified and refined

 

2. The application prospect and deficiency of this study need to be pointed out in detail.

 

3. Line 181-195: Please use a table to show the 14 determinants of decision-making.

 

4. The production of Figures 2 and 3 needs standardization and improvement.

 

5. 5. A few references are not properly labeled. For example, [2], [50] etc..

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewed work is a relatively well prepared scientific article. The structure of the paper is correct, the aim and methods are presented. Although the article deals with spa  parks in one region in Poland, it may also be of interest to readers from other countries. Despite the positive evaluation of the paper I have some specific remarks that should be taken into account if the paper is to be published in an international journal.

1. I propose to modify the keywords by eliminating those which are already in the title and adding the words: revitalisation, Poland
2. In the introduction, it is worth adding information on the authors' understanding of landscape and soundscape and the relationship between them. I also encourage more references to publications dealing with the perception of landscape (including soundscape) of parks, in particular in health resorts. There are such publications also in MDPI journals. Moreover, I propose to refer to the theory of therapeutic landscape (Gesler 1992 and others).
3. In the methodological part, information on noise measurements should be added: when they were made, under what weather conditions, at what altitude, with what equipment, what indicator was used, how the acoustic map was prepared, etc. In addition, the information on surveys, which is mentioned in lines 278-279, should be completed. What was the structure of the respondents, was their consent obtained, what questions were asked?
4. I suggest adding detailed maps showing the landscape structure of the surveyed health resorts or at least the spa parks. Photographs are also advisable.

I encourage improvements and additions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

This is a review of sustainability-1155078, titled: "The evaluation soundscape methodology of the green spa areas based on multicriteria analysis". The paper proposes a criteria selection strategy based on information entropy for soundscape evaluation of spa parks. Analysis was conducted on three spa parks in Poland. The paper addresses a common flaw in urban design, whereby the space is usually designed without much consideration about the acoustic environment. 

However, the are a number of concerns affecting the readability and rigour of the paper.

1. Many repetitive words in the abstract, "the article presents".
2. The abstract is too long. Focus on the problem statement, pitfalls of existing methods, proposed solution and key findings.
3. Many grammatical errors and redundant words throughout the article.
4. Unnecessary to include "(literature survey)" in the introduction section heading.
5. The research question is not clearly defined. This should be the last sentence of the introduction.
6. Lack of background/literature on multicriteria analysis. There are numerous soundscape papers using multicriteria analysis. Are the authors following any past studies or proposing an entirely new approach to criteria selection. Are there examples of information entropy in soundscape research?
7. What was the strategy to choose noise measurement locations at all three sites?
8. Reference [55] is critical for verification but it is in Polish. This is not accessible to non-polish speakers. Cite a reference that is in English.
9. Line 346 to 348 is in Polish?
10. Line 428: Reference [47] appears to be the wrong publication. Should be [57]. 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Title and abstract of the paper are confusing – in general the English throughout the manuscript is quite poor and would need careful proof-reading and revision.

I am not clear about the specific advancement to knowledge that this paper would provide. The acoustic environment and soundscapes of parks has been investigated for several decades now.

The key messages on which the paper relies (e.g., importance of greenery for soundscape experience, etc.) have also been known for a long time.

The review of soundscape literature reflects that authors are not necessarily familiar with recent authors and advancements in the field.

The noise measurements on which the paper is based do not look accurate at all, they are badly reported and from what I can tell, no ISO standard has been followed as protocol for measurements. This makes me think that authors are not familiar with the discipline of environmental acoustics either.

Therefore, it is very difficult for me to trust any of the claims being made in this paper.