A Content Analysis of Architectural Atmosphere Influencing Mindfulness through the Lens of Instagram

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

No comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

First and foremost, we would like to express our gratitude for your valuable feedback, which has greatly enhanced the comprehensiveness of our article.

Regarding Point 1, concerning the "Percent of agreement," we have added explanatory remarks in lines 247-249.

In Point 2, all the data used in our study were obtained through decoding by three individuals and utilizing the coding framework from section 2.2. Hence, to provide clearer understanding to our readers, we have replaced the term "the final dataset" to refer to the data in this section. We initially introduced this term in line 245 and continued using it in section 2.3 to reference the dataset's source.

For Points 3 and 4, we have added clarifying explanations in lines 259-274.

In Point 5, we have included a comparison of our study's results with other relevant studies in lines 371-378 and 389-397.

As for Point 6, due to the data primarily sourced from Instagram, it is challenging to specify the cultural background of the posters. Therefore, we have not made any additional modifications in this section.

We appreciate your time and input, which have significantly contributed to the refinement of our article. If you have any further questions or require additional clarification, please feel free to let us know.

Thank you for your continued interest and support.

Best regards,

Chaniporn Thampanichwat

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and questions

The title  suggests a striving for an universal conclusions but the article content (research questions Q1 and Q2,  discuss and conclusions) are fixed by Instagram only. This approach is limiting if the reinforcement tools of environmental behavior by architecture is wanted as the Abstract and Introduction inform. I wonder how the results of the study support sustainable architectural design strategies. I have not found an answer to this question.

The definition of the architectural atmosphere in lines 86-88 is not convincing. People’s perception, not an architectural atmosphere, has integrated character. We recognize objects in mutual space relations, with specific features such as color and material depending on lighting, time, speed of movement and cultural and individual filter. There are some patterns of landscape which are perceived as more friendly to the specific needs of the user.

I understood the following:

—          three architectural ideas were established as the most mindfulness friendly,

—          the characteristics of their architecture were determined which create place atmosphere,

—          the architecture characteristics were wanted on Instagram architecture images,

—          their frequency was counted.

It is not clear how the architectural concepts were defined on Instagram posts: were the selected architectural images tagged # Traditional Japonese or # Biophilic Design or # Buddhist Space by Instagram users?; did researchers indicate the concept or were they attributing one or more features to each image?

The space category has been defined by the atmosphere (table 2). That is defining something with the same.

 How was a separation of such non-specific characteristics as natural material and clay for example achieved?

What is „agreement”? How was it calculated?

How was the percentage results in tables 3-9 calculated? The descriptions in part 3.2. repeat the tables content; Discussion part repeats the descriptions only.

Conclusion part should be improved.

References part should be shortened and improved (eg. lines 603-608, 619-621).

There is a typo in „poser” (line 138).

The quotations in lines 98 and 100 should be corrected.

The sentence in lines 180-182 is not understandable.

What is the „correlation coefficient” (lines 228-229)?

The numeration of tables is wrong.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

First and foremost, we would like to express our gratitude for your valuable feedback, which has greatly enhanced the comprehensiveness and accuracy of our article.

In the first section, we have decided to minimize the chances of misinterpretation by revising the abstract, as outlined in the attached document.

Subsequently, we have added descriptions for the decision-making process regarding the architectural atmosphere components in lines 83-87, emphasizing their relevance to this study.

For the explanations related to the assessment of architectural design alignment with each image, we have included additional clarifications in lines 234-238. Furthermore, the criteria for analyzing similar architectural features have been expanded in lines 238-241.

Regarding the "Percent of agreement" issue, we have provided further explanations in lines 247-249.

The percentages in the results table have been elaborated upon in section 2.3. We have also utilized the term "final dataset" to indicate the data's origin from section 2.2 for the analysis in section 2.3, as well as summarizing the data in section 3.

We have improved the conclusion section by adding descriptions of the data sources, presenting graphs to illustrate the results, and including comparisons with other studies in the discussion.

The references and table numbers have been revised, along with rectifying sentence errors such as in line 138. The in-text citations have been addressed in lines 98, 100, 180-182.

Lastly, the description regarding the correlation coefficient has been amended in line 224.

We sincerely appreciate your time and input, which have significantly contributed to the refinement of our article. If you have any further questions or require additional clarification, please feel free to let us know.

Thank you for your continued interest and support.

Best regards,

Chaniporn Thampanichwat

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

For each category in architecture, addition of real images will be good. but only example images exists

Also add graphs in results section for easy conveying of results than table.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

First and foremost, we would like to express our gratitude for your valuable feedback. Regarding Comment 1, we acknowledge that the inclusion of images requires a considerable amount of space. Therefore, we have added an additional method for transmitting data to those who are interested under the heading Data Availability Statement, lines 447-448.

For your second comment. In response to it, we have prepared a graph illustrating the quantity and percentage of architectural features found in Figure 2, lines 349-350.

Thank you once again for your contribution and support.

Best regards,

Chaniporn Thampanichwat

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for the author's reply, but there are still 2 points that are unclear and 1 point of misunderstanding, please add and correct them.

Points 3 and 4 should be explained in a more detailed way with illustrations, rather than 1 or 2 concept description sentences, which will make people doubt the scientificity and rigor of the research method.

Point 6 is to hope that the authors can make readers understand possible cultural background differences through simple statistical ratio analysis of the data source's country, region, or language. This information should be available on the webpage. Please add analysis and explanation to make the inference and application of the research results scientific and evident. It is the basic information that should be presented in a rigorous research paper. Authors should be requested to pay attention and do your best to supplement it.

None.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your feedback on our article. We have made the requested additions and improvements as follows:

• We have included additional images to demonstrate the decoding methodology and the analysis of the alignment between the images and architectural design concepts and atmosphere characteristics. These images are now presented in section 2.3 of the article.
• Additionally, we have provided a cultural background report that presents the countries where the images were posted, the languages used in the posts, and the nationalities of the posters. This information can be found in the "Results" section of the article.

We appreciate your valuable input, and we hope that these revisions address your concerns. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Chaniporn Thampanichwat

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, parameterizing the assessment of the features and impact of architecture is extremely difficult. The authors bravely undertook this task, but the results of their hard work are modest: they calculated something but proved nothing. They admitted it themselves (lines 389-391 and Conclusion). Nevertheless, the attempt should be appreciated. The article is correctly constructed. It is worth rethinking methods. In the future the authors should focus solely on the characteristics of the architectural atmosphere components  and abandon the division into design concepts. The results would be more unambiguous and universal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for accepting our work. We sincerely appreciate your consideration and valuable suggestions.

Regarding future research, we will incorporate your feedback into our research development.

Furthermore, we have included your recommendations in the conclusion section with this following statement: “Future research should focus on empirical investigations to explore the characteristics of architectural atmospheric components that enhance mindfulness, utilizing alternative methodologies and diverse data sources, resulting in more globally applicable findings.”

We sincerely hope that our proposed enhancements will contribute to future advancements.

Best regards,

Chaniporn Thampanichwat