Exploring Immersive Co-Design: Comparing Human Interaction in Real and Virtual Elevated Urban Spaces in London
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study investigates the potential of VR technology as a co-design approach for public space design. The comparison of the experiences and design feedback of participants in two real urban spaces and created virtual environments is well-conducted and fully discussed. The findings demonstrate that VR-enabled interactive design offers a valuable platform for participatory design and user engagement. The paper is well-prepared.
Just a few concerns remain:
(1) Are there any ambient sounds embedded in both VR experiments? In chapter 3.2.3, sound effects are mentioned in the Crossrail Place experiment. Does this mean that every manipulated object has realistic sound effects? More detailed information is needed.
(2) The description of the similarities and differences between real environments and VR 3D models is lacking. This could undermine the validation of the differences observed in the results from the participants.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer One,
We would like to express our sincere appreciation for the time you have taken to thoroughly review our paper and provide insightful feedback. Your comments have been instrumental in identifying areas of our research that can be enhanced to present a more comprehensive and accurate picture.
We have addressed the specific points in your review as follows:
(1) We sincerely appreciate your detailed attention to our paper and your insightful comment on the need for more clarity regarding the use of sound effects in our VR experiments. Upon your suggestion, we have further detailed this aspect in the manuscript. We utilized Enscape to integrate ambient sounds in the Crossrail Place experiment, which included crowd noise, bird sounds, musical instruments, and the sound of water features, each corresponding to specific elements manipulated by the participants. We believe that this amendment will offer a clearer understanding of the application of sound effects in our VR model and their contribution to its realism.
(2) Thank you for emphasizing the importance of discussing the similarities and differences between real environments and VR 3D models. We agree wholeheartedly with your perspective and have included a comprehensive paragraph in the discussion section of the paper. This addition elucidates the visual, auditory, interactive, and sensory experiences encountered in both environments and explores how these differences may have influenced the responses and behaviour of the participants. We hope this addresses your concern effectively.
Once again, we appreciate your valuable comments that have undoubtedly enhanced the quality of our research paper.
Best Regards,
Tim Heath
Professor of Architecture & Urban Design
Department of Architecture & Built EnvironmentUniversity of Nottingham
Reviewer 2 Report
Need major revision. Comments as below and attached.
Major Modifications Needed
The paper « Exploring Immersive Co-Design: Comparing Human Interaction in Real and Virtual Elevated Urban Spaces in London » introduced the potential of virtual reality (VR) as a participatory design tool for public space design, specifically comparing the experiences and design feedback of participants in real-life and virtual environments.
Although the article seems to have significance, this is still unacceptable in the present format. Several changes are highlighted in the review. Accomplishing the given recommended updates shall ensure the article’s eligibility for publication.
1. (In introduction): The limitations of the existing methods as mentioned in following references must be added and proposed for similar task should be clearly pointed out and explanation on how the proposed framework would address each of the limitations.
[1] M. S. Bakli, M. A. Sakr and T. H. A. Soliman, “A spatiotemporal algebra in Hadoop for moving objects,” Geo-spatial Information Science, Vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 102-114, 2018.
[2] “A Wrist Worn Acceleration Based Human Motion Analysis and Classification for Ambient Smart Home System,” Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology, 2019.
[3] “Students’ Behavior Mining in E-learning Environment Using Cognitive Processes with Information Technologies,” Education and Information Technologies, Springer, 2019.
[4] “Recognize facial expression using active appearance and neural network,” in Proceedings of International Conference on I-SMAC, India, Feb 2017.
[5] "Multi-features descriptors for human activity tracking and recognition in Indoor-outdoor environments," IEEE International Conference on Applied Sciences and Technology, 2019.
[6] "A Triaxial acceleration-based human motion detection for ambient smart home system," IEEE International Conference on Applied Sciences and Technology, 2019.
[7] “Automatic facial expression recognition for affective computing based on bag of distances,” in Proceedings of Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference, Taiwan, pp. 1-4, Oct 2013.
[8] “Improved behavior monitoring and classification using cues parameters extraction from camera array images, International Journal of Interactive multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5(2), 2018.
2. (In Case Studies): How does the research address the differences and similarities in human interaction by considering following articles within the physical and virtual realms.
[1] Real-time vision-based camera tracking for augmented reality applications, ACM symposium for virtual reality software and technology.
[2] “Facial Expression Recognition in Image Sequences Using 1D Transform and Gabor Wavelet Transform, IEEE conference on International Conference on Applied and Engineering Mathematics, 2018..
[3] “A depth video-based human detection and activity recognition using multi-features and embedded hidden Markov models for health care monitoring systems, International Journal of Interactive multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4(4), pp. 54-62, 2017..
[4] “Video summarization by clustering using euclidean distance,” in Proc. Conference on Signal Processing, Communication, Computing and Networking Technologies, 2011.
[5] “Facial Expression recognition using 1D transform features and Hidden Markov Model, Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology, vol. 12(4), pp. 1657-1662, 2017.
[6] “Depth Images-based Human Detection, Tracking and Activity Recognition Using Spatiotemporal Features and Modified HMM, Journal of Electrical Engineering and Technology, pp. 1921-1926, 2016.
[7] “Individual Detection-Tracking-Recognition using depth activity images,” in Proceedings 12th IEEE International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence, pp. 450-455, 2015.
3. (In Methods): What steps were taken to ensure the VR experiment accurately reflected the physical characteristics of the Sky Garden and Crossrail Place roof garden, and how was the reliability and validity of the resulting data ensured?
4. (In Methods: VR Exploratory Experiment and Semi-Structured Interviews):Did the participants' feedback on their virtual experience and behavior during the study reveal any recurring themes or patterns in the interviews? What methods were employed to analyze and interpret these themes?
5. How was the sample size for the VR exploratory experiment determined? Were there any particular criteria for selecting the participants?
6. How does the study account for potential biases or limitations in the use of walkalong interviews and virtual reality technology as mentioned in following articles to assess user feedback and participation in the design process?
[1] Person re-identification across multi-camera system based on local descriptors,” in Proceedings IEEE conference on distributed smart cameras.
[2] “Human daily activity recognition with joints plus body features representation using Kinect sensor,” in Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Informatics, electronics and vision, pp: 1-6, 2015.
[3] “Daily Human Activity Recognition Using Depth Silhouettes and R Transformation for Smart Home,” in Proceedings Smart Homes Health Telematics, pp. 25-32, 2011.
[4] Vision-based real-time motion capture system using multiple cameras,” in Proceedings IEEE Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems.
[5] “Real-Time Life Logging via a Depth Silhouette-based Human Activity Recognition System for Smart Home Services,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Video and Signal-based Surveillance, pp. 74-80, 2014.
[6] "Assembled algorithm in the real-time H.263 codec for advanced performance," ” in Proceedings of the IEEE workshop on enterprise networking and computing in healthcare industry, pp.295-298, 2005.
[7] "The Mechanism of Edge Detection using the Block Matching Criteria for the Motion Estimation," Proc. Human Computer Interaction, pp.484-489, Jan. 2005.
[8] “Security and QoS Optimization for distributed real time environment,” In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer and Information Technology, pp. 369-374, 2007.
7. Validity: How were the walkalong interviews conducted, and were they reliable? Were the participants given enough time to explore the gardens, and did they feel comfortable providing honest feedback?
8. Technology: How were the walkalong interviews conducted, and were they reliable? Were the participants given enough time to explore the gardens, and did they feel comfortable providing honest feedback?
9. What do the results mean for architects, urban planners, and people who make policy? How can virtual reality (VR) be used in the planning process to make cities more sustainable and open to everyone?
10. What measures were taken to ensure the diversity and representativeness of the participant pool in the study, and to what degree might their backgrounds and experiences have impacted their responses?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Normal
Author Response
Dear Reviewer Two,
Thank you for your comprehensive and insightful feedback, as well as for the valuable references provided. Your expertise and deep understanding of this subject matter are evident, and we appreciate the time and thought you have put into your comments.
(1 & 2)- Thank you for your comments and we would like to emphasise that our study is primarily focused on the application of Virtual Reality (VR) as a co-design approach within Architecture and Urban Design. The more advanced technological aspects of VR systems, which fall more within the realm of computer science, were not the core focus of our work. However, we agree that these advanced systems play a significant role in creating immersive, interactive VR environments and are indeed. In response to your comments, we have revisited the sections of our paper you have highlighted and made appropriate adjustments. We have thoroughly considered all the references you have suggested and incorporated many of them into our discussion and bibliography. These works were discussed in the context of limitations and future directions, acknowledging the complexity of creating an immersive, interactive VR environment.
Your second point regarding the differences and similarities in human interaction within the physical and virtual realms in our case studies is well-taken. In response, we have expanded on these aspects, providing a more in-depth examination of human interaction within these two contexts.
3- In response to the reviewer's comment, we took a series of steps to ensure that the VR experiment accurately reflected the physical characteristics of the Sky Garden and Crossrail Place roof garden.
The first step involved extensive fieldwork that took place over the span of three years, from the end of December 2019 till mid-January 2021. The purpose of this fieldwork was to study how people perceived and used these vertical urban spaces before, during, and after the Covid-19 pandemic. We aimed to analyze the real-life cognitive experience of the visitors and examine critical design features and elements of the spaces such as accessibility, circulation, and activities.
Following the data collection from fieldwork, we employed high-fidelity modeling software, such as Revit and 3DS Max, to meticulously capture the fine details of both roof gardens. To elevate the level of detail, we utilized advanced visualization and rendering tools like Unreal Engine and Enscape. These technologies allowed us to create VR systems that accurately portrayed the current design stage of both gardens.
Beyond the physical structures, we also integrated an interactive design environment within the VR system. This included elements like sound simulation to mirror the indoor environment, models of static people to replicate occupancy, interactive design features such as light simulation, the ability to change materials, move objects, modify the design elements of the space, and a virtual camera. These details contributed significantly to the overall immersiveness and authenticity of the virtual environments.
The validity and reliability of the resulting data were confirmed by the close similarity between participants' responses to both the VR and real-life experiences. Responses regarding the design of the space, activities, and design limitations were congruent, indicating that our VR experiment faithfully mirrored the physical reality of the Sky Garden and Crossrail Place roof garden. This accuracy and fidelity are crucial to the success of our VR-based co-design approach in urban design.
4- We appreciate your insightful comments and question regarding our study. In response to your query, we indeed identified several recurring themes during our analysis of the participants' interactions in both the physical and virtual worlds. These patterns emerged from their experiences during the VR experiment and were further elaborated upon in the semi-structured interviews that followed. These recurring themes were primarily centred around the spatial circulation, teleportation methods, activities, and design concerns and alterations.
As for the methodology employed to analyse and interpret these themes, it is detailed under the section titled 'Qualitative Data Analysis' in our manuscript. For comprehensiveness, we conducted a thematic analysis that took into consideration a variety of qualitative data sets. We utilized content analysis, a proven effective method for achieving descriptive objectives, to guide our data examination through a summative approach. This analytical strategy allowed us to explore the underlying concepts comprising the themes, sub-themes, and their interconnections.
The final stage of our analysis involved investigating the evidence of relationships between the overarching themes, alongside identifying quotes that were initially challenging to categorize and incorporate into the themes and sub-themes. Subsequently, these sub-themes were integrated under the primary themes during the analysis of our research findings.
We hope this adequately addresses your query, and we appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which has allowed us to clarify these aspects of our study.
5- In response to your question about our sample size determination and participant selection criteria for the VR exploratory experiment, we would like to provide further explanation.
The study encompassed a diverse cohort of 33 participants spanning various age groups and professional backgrounds. The participants included architects, urban designers, interior designers, computer engineers, academics, and general public users. Our participant recruitment utilized a snowball sampling approach, through various international networks, thereby extending an email invitation with comprehensive study details to potential participants.
In order to ensure the generalizability of our findings and enhance their representativeness, we adopted targeted sampling methods. Firstly, participants were drawn from a wide range of architectural and urban design sectors, which included both small and large firms. Secondly, academics and experts specializing in VR, design, and public engagement were invited to impart their valuable insights. Finally, public participants were categorized by different age groups and gender. For additional details, please refer to the supplementary documents, such as the participant information sheet, the study advertisement, and the study outline.
We also implemented a participatory Action Research approach to involve a diverse range of participants, leading to three participant groups:
- Group A: Individuals who have visited London Sky Garden & Crossrail Place roof garden and those who hadn’t been before.
- Group B: Experts in the field, including Architects, Urban Designers, Interior designers, Academics, along with Public and Students.
- Group C: Users who had prior VR experience and those using VR for the first time.
We acknowledge that a sample size of 33 participants might be viewed as a limitation in our study, a fact that we have already noted in the discussion section of our paper. However, we would like to underscore that our study is qualitative in nature, aiming to glean deep insights rather than broad statistical generalizability. Consequently, our findings should remain insightful and relevant despite the sample size. Supporting this point, several other published articles in the field of interactive AR and VR design have conducted studies with similar or even smaller sample sizes, as demonstrated by the following studies:
- Li, J.; George, C.; Ngao, A.; Holländer, K.; Mayer, S.; Butz, A. Rear-Seat Productivity in Virtual Reality: Investigating VR Interaction in the Confined Space of a Car. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2021, 5, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti5040015
- Kim, S.; Park, H.; Choo, S. Effects of Changes to Architectural Elements on Human Relaxation-Arousal Responses: Based on VR and EEG. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4305. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084305
- Shouman, B., Othman, A.A.E.and Marzouk, M. (2022), "Enhancing users involvement in architectural design using mobile augmented reality", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 2514-2534. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-02-2021-0124
6- In response to your comment about potential biases or limitations in the use of walkalong interviews and virtual reality technology, we have carefully considered these issues in our methodology.
We ensured a diverse participant selection for each of the studies. Each of the three studies engaged a new set of 33 participants. This methodological choice was designed to limit any potential bias stemming from prior participant experiences, which might influence their responses during the VR experiments and interviews. In our VR experiment, a significant number of participants (n=21) had not previously visited either the Sky Garden or the Crossrail Place roof garden. We chose to include these participants specifically to minimize any preconceptions or cognitive biases formed from physical experiences of the gardens. This approach facilitated a more objective comparison of the participants' experiences in both the physical and virtual worlds.
With regards to the references you provided, we appreciate your suggestions. However, upon reviewing these papers, we found that they do not directly relate to our study's methodology or objectives. Therefore, we were unable to integrate these specific works into our research approach or our discussion of potential biases and limitations. Despite this, we've taken all necessary steps to ensure the reliability and validity of our study within our chosen methodological framework. We hope this provides a satisfactory response to your query, and we appreciate your valuable feedback on our work.
(7&8) In response to your questions regarding the validity and reliability of our walkalong interviews, as well as how we ensured participants' comfort and honest feedback, we appreciate these critical points and are pleased to provide further clarification:
To explore the relationship between visitors' behaviour and the design of vertical social spaces, our study deployed walkalong interviews. These interviews were embedded within a phenomenological qualitative approach, which aims to delve into participants' lived experiences and understand the essence of specific phenomena. This methodology is particularly effective for complex and multifaceted phenomena that might not lend themselves easily to quantitative measurement.
Walkalong interviews are a well-established method in environmental psychology and urban design research. In our study, we invited participants to walk with us through two London gardens, facilitating discussion on predetermined topics such as accessibility, circulation, possible activities, and design concerns and suggestions. The semi-structured nature of these interviews allowed us a balance of structure and flexibility, ensuring our research concerns were addressed while allowing participants to express their unique perspectives and experiences freely.
To ensure participants felt comfortable providing honest feedback, we created a relaxed environment conducive to open discussion. We encouraged participants, ranging from diverse age groups and all aged 18 or above, to share their impressions, feelings, and opinions about the space. This approach facilitated the collection of rich, context-specific data that may not have been accessible through traditional interview techniques.
Regarding data analysis, we conducted a theme-based analysis using various qualitative data sets. Data were analysed using content analysis, an effective method for achieving descriptive aims, guided by a summative approach. This strategy was used to examine the concepts that make up the themes and sub-themes and their interconnections.
The walkalong interview method has proven valid in various research studies. Here are a few examples:
- Veitch, J., Flowers, E., Ball, K., Deforche, B., & Timperio, A. (2020). Designing parks for older adults: A qualitative study using walk-along interviews. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 54, 126768.
- Rivera, E., Timperio, A., Loh, V. H., Deforche, B., & Veitch, J. (2021). Critical factors influencing adolescents’ active and social park use: A qualitative study using walk-along interviews. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 58, 126948.
- Carpiano, R. M. (2009). Come take a walk with me: The “Go-Along” interview as a novel method for studying the implications of place for health and well-being. Health & place, 15(1), 263-272.
- Garcia, C. M., Eisenberg, M. E., Frerich, E. A., Lechner, K. E., & Lust, K. (2012). Conducting go-along interviews to understand context and promote health. Qualitative health research, 22(10), 1395-1403.
We believe this methodology offers a comprehensive understanding of our methodological approach and adequately answers your queries. We deeply appreciate your meticulous review and feedback, and should further clarification be required, please do not hesitate to ask.
9- Thank you for your insightful comments and the opportunity to further emphasize the broader implications of our study. Indeed, the results of our study carry significant implications for architects, urban planners, and policymakers. By utilizing VR technology in the planning and design process, they can visualize, understand, and engage with the complexities of the urban environment in a novel and immersive manner. Our study reveals that VR enables real-time design modifications, which provide an in-depth understanding of potential design challenges. This makes the design process more interactive, inclusive, and better able to respond to user needs. Importantly, our research suggests VR's potential to function as a co-design tool for public spaces, enabling the inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the design process, including those who may be geographically distant or otherwise unable to visit the site physically. The incorporation of such wide-ranging perspectives is crucial for creating truly inclusive urban spaces and making cities more sustainable.
We have further highlighted these implications in both the discussion and conclusion sections of our paper to emphasize the potential of VR as a tool for sustainable urban development. We appreciate your attention to this aspect of our work, and trust that these revisions have clarified the significance of our findings for key urban stakeholders.
10- Thank you for raising this important point about participant diversity and representativeness. Ensuring a wide-ranging participant pool was one of the key considerations during the participant recruitment process in this study.
We employed a range of measures to ensure the diversity and representativeness of the participant pool. Firstly, our sample was comprised of 33 participants selected from diverse backgrounds, professions, and age groups. These included architects, urban designers, interior designers, computer engineers, academics, and general public users, including students, which helped ensure a wide spectrum of viewpoints and experiences.
In our recruitment strategy, we utilized snowball sampling through various international networks to access a diverse set of individuals. Furthermore, our targeted sampling approach aimed to include participants from a variety of architectural and urban design sectors, academic experts in VR, design, and public engagement, as well as public participants differentiated by age groups and gender.
Regarding the impact of participants' backgrounds and experiences on their responses, we recognize that each individual brings a unique perspective that may influence their interpretation and response. We accounted for this by categorizing participants based on several factors including their familiarity with the site, their expertise in the field, and their previous experience with VR. This categorization allowed us to compare and contrast responses across these different groups, leading to a more nuanced understanding of the responses.
This approach helped us not only in understanding how diverse individuals experience these spaces but also how the interaction between personal experiences, professional background, and familiarity with VR technology may shape their responses. While we acknowledge that perfect representativeness is challenging to achieve in any study, we believe that our recruitment strategy and sampling approach resulted in a robust and diverse participant pool that has enriched our findings. We hope this adequately addresses your question and we are open to further discussion on this matter.
Once again, we appreciate your valuable comments that have undoubtedly enhanced the quality of our research paper.
Kind regards,
Tim Heath
Professor of Architecture & Urban Design
Department of Architecture & Built EnvironmentUniversity of Nottingham
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this work, the authors explore the potential of virtual reality (VR) technology to enhance the design experience of elevated urban spaces, specifically the Sky Garden and Crossrail Place in London. The authors aim to examine the differences and similarities between human interaction in physical and virtual worlds, keeping in mind the importance of design decision-making for the longevity and sustainability of public spaces. In this study, the authors investigated the potential of virtual reality (VR) as a participatory design tool for the design of public spaces, specifically comparing participants' design experiences and feedback in real-life environments and virtual. The results demonstrated that VR-based design tools provide a valuable platform for participatory design and user engagement, allowing participants to actively explore, test, and suggest changes to the design of public spaces. This is essential for creating public spaces that can meet people's needs and therefore achieve long-term sustainability.I find this study rewarding and worthy of publication in
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
English Language is modrate
Author Response
Dear Reviewer Three,
We extend our heartfelt thanks for your detailed review and positive evaluation of our work. We greatly appreciate your acknowledgement of the relevance and potential impact of our research in the field of sustainable public space design.
We are pleased to note your agreement on the significance of VR technology as a participatory design tool and its potential to foster user engagement. This aligns with our objective of emphasizing the importance of understanding human interaction in both physical and virtual worlds to inform design decision-making, thus enhancing the longevity and sustainability of public spaces.
Your encouraging comments inspire us to continue contributing valuable research to the field. We have thoroughly considered your feedback and made updates to the revised manuscript accordingly.
Once again, we express our deep gratitude for your time and insightful evaluation. We look forward to your further feedback and guidance in future endeavours.
Best regards,
Tim Heath
Professor of Architecture & Urban Design
Department of Architecture & Built EnvironmentUniversity of Nottingham
Reviewer 4 Report
One strength of the article is that it provides a clear definition of public participation in urban design, explaining how it involves active engagement from members of the public in the design process. The author also acknowledges public participation's role in improving user satisfaction with built environments.
However, one potential limitation of the article is that it does not provide any specific examples of successful public participation projects or strategies. Including such examples could help to further illustrate the benefits and challenges of involving the public in urban design.
However, one potential limitation of the article is that it does not address potential limitations or challenges associated with the use of VR technology in co-designing public spaces. Including a discussion of potential limitations and challenges could help to provide a more balanced perspective on the topic.
Overall, the article provides a strong case for the use of VR technology in public participation in architecture and urban design, but could be strengthened by addressing potential limitations and challenges associated with the technology.
The methodology utilized in this study involved a combination of qualitative and
quantitative research methods. Walk-along interviews were conducted with 33 visitors in
each garden to gather data on human interaction and behavior in the physical environment.
This was followed by a VR exploratory experiment with 33 participants, and semi-structured
interviews with the participants were conducted to obtain feedback on their experience of
the virtual environment. The study aimed to examine the differences and similarities between
human interaction in the physical and virtual world, considering the importance of design
decision-making for the longevity and sustainability of public spaces.
The results of the study showed that VR technology has the potential to significantly enhance public participation in the design process of elevated urban spaces. The majority of
participants who had not physically visited both gardens were able to identify design limitations and concerns through the VR experiment, as well as suggest different activities and
design features. The findings also showed that VR technology enabled users to produce and
test design alternatives in real-time, resulting in a positive impact on user involvement.
Furthermore, the study identified a range of design issues and needs discussed by the VR
participants that matched the concerns and needs previously expressed by actual space users
who had been interviewed in both gardens.
Overall, this paper provides valuable insights into the potential of VR technology to enhance public participation in the design process of elevated urban spaces. The study emphasizes
the importance of integrating public participation into the design process to create more
sustainable and inclusive environments, and highlights the potential of VR technology as a
tool for co-designing public spaces. The research also underscores the need for further investigation into the ways in which individuals interact and behave in virtual environments
compared to real environments, as well as the effectiveness of VR technology as a tool for
designing sustainable public and social spaces in cities.
The study utilized a mixed-methods approach, consisting of a pre- and post-survey,
semi-structured interviews, and observations. Participants were first provided with a
brief introduction to the study and were asked to complete a pre-survey, which collected
data on their demographic information, previous experience with VR technology, and
their perceptions of elevated urban spaces in London. Following this, participants were
given the opportunity to experience the interactive VR model of the two case studies
and provide feedback in real-time. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after the
VR experience, and participants were asked to elaborate on their experience with the
model, their thoughts on the potential applications of VR technology in enhancing the
design process of elevated urban spaces, and their perceptions of the usability and
effectiveness of the model. Observations were also conducted throughout the study to
capture non-verbal cues and behaviors of the participants during the VR experience. The
post-survey was administered after the interviews, which aimed to measure changes in
participant perceptions and attitudes towards the design of elevated urban spaces in
London, as well as the effectiveness of VR technology in facilitating the design process.
The analysis of the space circulation design theme in elevated urban spaces revealed that participants had mixed responses regarding the one-way circulation system in the Sky Garden. While some participants found it necessary during pandemics and post-crisis, others found it restrictive and frustrating. Participants in both the real environment and VR experiment enjoyed navigating between the varying heights, but they concurrently expressed concerns regarding the limited accessibility for disabled and wheelchair users.
In the VR experiment, participants who had not previously visited the Sky Garden appreciated the experience of ascending the stairs virtually. However, they suggested implementing accessible ramps or a stair-platform-lift to accommodate wheelchair users. When exploring participants' preferences in the VR experiment, a significant number of participants expressed a preference for the Sky Garden's circulation due to its open floor plan, glass facade, and symmetrical layout. Conversely, a smaller group of participants favored the Crossrail Place circulation, citing the curvy and multiple pathways as factors that contributed to a more natural and engaging park-like experience.
The conclusion of the study highlights the potential of virtual reality as a participatory design tool for public space design. The study demonstrated that VR-based design tools offer a valuable platform for participatory design and user engagement, allowing participants to actively explore and suggest changes to the design of public spaces. The use of VR enabled interactive design exploration, empowering participants to unleash their creativity and adapt the design based on their individual needs and preferences.
The study also recognized the potential of VR as a social online platform for future pandemics, providing mental health benefits for individuals living alone during lockdowns. The findings suggest that integrating VR into the participatory design process can enhance the design quality, improve the overall functionality and longevity of public spaces, and increase user satisfaction.
Future research should further explore the potential of VR in urban design and planning, examining the long-term effects of VR-enhanced participatory design on public space utilization and satisfaction. Overall, the study highlights the advantages of integrating VR into the participatory design process and its potential to revolutionize public space design.
-
Author Response
Dear Reviewer Four,
We sincerely appreciate the time you have devoted to providing an insightful evaluation of our manuscript. Your expert commentary has been crucial in highlighting areas for improvement, thereby enriching the overall quality of our work.
(1) We concur with your observation regarding the incorporation of explicit examples of successful public participation projects to better elucidate the implications of public involvement in urban design. Accordingly, we have supplemented our manuscript with pertinent references to two significant public participation projects - Tempelhofer Feld in Berlin and Superkilen urban park in Copenhagen. Selected for their global renown as innovative public spaces emerging from robust community engagement, we believe these additions will robustly substantiate our assertions and afford the readers a nuanced understanding of the practical dynamics, benefits, and challenges entailed in public participation within urban design.
(2) Your discerning comment on the importance of a balanced view, particularly addressing the potential limitations and challenges associated with the application of VR technology in the co-design of public spaces, has been duly noted. We have extended our discourse on this aspect in the revised manuscript, providing an expanded exploration of the potential constraints and difficulties that may surface in the employment of VR for co-designing public spaces. This enriched perspective, we believe, will bolster our manuscript's academic rigour, offering a well-rounded examination of the topic.
Once again, we express our gratitude for your invaluable feedback and look forward to any further guidance you may provide in our future research endeavours.
Best Regards,
Tim Heath
Professor of Architecture & Urban Design
Department of Architecture & Built EnvironmentUniversity of Nottingham
Reviewer 5 Report
This paper tried to use the Virtual Reality technology (VR) to enhance the experience of virtual elevated urban spaces and conducted a detailed setups for VR co-design process to examine the distinctions and commonalities between human interactions in the physical and virtual world. Totally 33 participants were surveyed in this research to provide the suggestions and optimizations at the sensory level for two specially selected locations, Sky Garden and Crossrail Place in London. Although I am not an expert in this field, I think this research is quite interesting and it is also valuable for publishment in the Journal Sustainability. Here are some questions I would like to discuss with the authors:
Firstly, I noted that the authors had made a lot of efforts to invite people to participate in the survey of this study. But I have to clarify that the number of participants in this study is still insufficient in terms of quantity. Although the lack of survey samples may be an obvious flaw, as part of urban spatial research, the paper is still advisable. I don’t know the author thinks in this regard?
Secondly, in the section of walk-along interviews (page 7), the authors said the all interviews were conducted as the go-along interviews, and the content of interviews may involve the personal experiences, perceptions of studied environment, understandings of overall design and so on. But I find it is difficult to imagine the specific details of the survey. Did the authors have any framework or action plan for the interviews?
Thirdly, I noted that the survey of this study had provided sufficient security guarantees, such as asking the participants to ware the anti-nausea travel sickness wristbands and allow them to take a break after using VR equipment for a period of time. What I’m curious about is whether the authors have ever thought about wearing of sensing devices to collect more refined physiological features?
Fourthly, I suggest the authors to rewrite some parts of this article. For example, the abstract of this paper is more like a science report, and it is difficult for me to directly grasp the core conclusions of this article by reading it.
The English writing proficiency of this article is good.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer Five,
We sincerely appreciate the thoughtful critique and expert attention you have accorded to our manuscript. Your discerning observations and inquiring questions offer a valuable opportunity to refine our work and strengthen its academic contribution. We are pleased to respond to your comments and suggestions as follows:
- We acknowledge that the sample size of 33 participants might be considered a limitation in our study, and we have already mentioned this in the discussion section of the paper. However, we would like to emphasize that our research is a qualitative study and as such, the results should be relevant and insightful despite the sample size. In fact, many other published articles in the scope of interactive AR and VR design have similar or even smaller sample sizes, as demonstrated by the following studies:
- Li, J.; George, C.; Ngao, A.; Holländer, K.; Mayer, S.; Butz, A. Rear-Seat Productivity in Virtual Reality: Investigating VR Interaction in the Confined Space of a Car. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2021, 5, https://doi.org/10.3390/mti5040015
- Kim, S.; Park, H.; Choo, S. Effects of Changes to Architectural Elements on Human Relaxation-Arousal Responses: Based on VR and EEG. J. Environ. Res. Public Health2021, 18, 4305. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084305
- Shouman, B., Othman, A.A.E.and Marzouk, M. (2022), "Enhancing users involvement in architectural design using mobile augmented reality", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 2514-2534. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-02-2021-0124
- Thank you for your insightful question regarding our go-along interview methodology. We appreciate your interest in understanding more about our process.
Go-along interviews are indeed a recognized method in environmental psychology and urban design research. In our study, we invited participants to walk with us through two London gardens, prompting discussion around a set of predetermined topics: accessibility, circulation, possible activities, design concerns, and design suggestions. The semi-structured nature of these interviews allowed us a balance of structure and flexibility. This way, we could address our research concerns while also letting participants express their unique perspectives and experiences.
The supplementary data of our study provides further details, including the participant information sheet and the data collection sheet, which enumerate the specific questions used in our interviews and our ethical considerations. We highly recommend reviewing these materials for a comprehensive understanding of our methodological approach. We hope this adequately answers your question. We appreciate your attention to detail and your commitment to enhancing the quality of our work. Should you need further clarification, please feel free to ask.
- Thank you for your thoughtful comment and suggestion regarding the potential use of sensing devices to collect refined physiological data.
Indeed, during our study's planning phase, we considered the possibility of incorporating such devices. However, after thorough consultation with our institution's ethical committee, it was advised to prioritize participants' data privacy. Therefore, we decided to use the sickness questionnaire (personal comfort checklist) as an ethical and less intrusive alternative for collecting the necessary data.
Your suggestion aligns with our interest in improving data granularity and precision in future research. We certainly see the potential benefit of using sensing devices in a manner that respects participant privacy. We've taken the liberty to add your suggestion to the 'Future Research' section of our paper, recognizing the need for more refined physiological measurements in virtual environments potentially achieved through the use of sensing devices.
- Your critique of the abstract is well taken. We agree that an abstract should succinctly summarise the key aspects of the study, including objectives, methods, findings, and implications. As per your suggestion, we have revised the abstract to enhance its clarity and focus on our primary findings and conclusions.
Thank you once again for your constructive feedback. We look forward to your continued guidance in our research endeavours.
Best Regards,
Tim Heath
Professor of Architecture & Urban Design
Department of Architecture & Built EnvironmentUniversity of Nottingham
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept
Accept
