Designing Public Soundscapes through Social Architecture and Soundscape Approaches: Reflective Review of Architectural Design Studio
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors draw an interesting study of soundscape design that applied soundscape approaches into social architectural design based on SDOS works by the Term 8 students of the ASD, SUTD. It is a novel study of soundscape design that exploring useful way to apply soundscape research and achievements into social architectural design through practical studio works of architectural education. I recommend publication and offer a few comments below.
1. Section 3 is verbosity that some part is not much relevant with the research. It is better to concise Section 3.2, eliminate long descriptions of design outcomes and use Figure/Table to conclude and compare the different designs.
2. It is better to depict soundscape approaches of improving monotonous soundscape before giving the studio's design outcomes.
3. Some sentences of describing the site's circumstance are repeated. Please check sentencs of 148-177 with 262-288.
4. Minor English writing error, such as Line 44 'paid to', line 213 ' due'.
5. The manuscript mentioned the students using the Pachyderm simulation software to evaluate their design outcomes, but no specific decription of it. If this is not important, I suggest to delete.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #1
We appreciate the time and effort of the reviewer in reviewing our paper and we have improved the manuscript based on reviewers’ suggestions and comments. These responses are elaborated in the point-by-point responses to your comments. Please see the attachment.
Sincerely,
Joo-Young Hong
Keng Hua Chong
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for submitting this study. I found it well written and extensive in detail. There were interesting results about the relationship between soundscape and landscape. The scientific problems of this paper were well raised and responded.
A few general improvements, however, are due:
1. How is the sound data collected by students through smartphones converted into various indicators? Is its accuracy reliable?
2. The article reflects the lack of acoustic measurement results, is it possible to summarize some trends of the measurement results and the problems fed back?
3. Is there a test of the public's perception of noise in the premises? (e.g. how many decibels above the noise level would people feel uncomfortable)
4. The Covid19 background has been repeatedly mentioned, and it is necessary to add the role of soundscapes in the psychological and physiological recovery of people after the epidemic.
5. The behavioral mapping, and tracing human activities mentioned in lines 204-205, could you elaborate on these methods and what software they are visualized through?
6. Please supplement the time and duration of the field survey in the section on the trajectory, number, behavior, etc. of visitors at the survey site.
7. Lines 224-225 mention using Rhinoceros 3D to validate their solution, and it seems that no user testing and feedback on results is seen later in the article.
8. What is the principle by which devices are used in Alley design to increase pleasant sound and attenuate noise?
9. Previous studies have shown that natural sounds have a better effect on the degree of human recovery. Has the design considered the introduction of animal sounds such as bird songs and insect chirps in addition to water sounds?
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #2
We appreciate the time and effort of the reviewer in reviewing our paper and we have improved the manuscript based on reviewers’ suggestions and comments. These responses are elaborated in the point-by-point responses to your comments. Please see the attachment.
Sincerely,
Joo-Young Hong
Keng Hua Chong
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This article is more like an introductory article, unlike a scientific paper, as there was no data to support the argument of the article. Mainly reflected in the following aspects:
1. The author should highlight the differences between their own research and other studies in the abstract, otherwise it will not reflect the significance of the research.
2. The interior design drawings in the article do not need to be too many, otherwise it is more like an art and design work display. The author can select several key drawings and delete unnecessary drawings, such as preserving the differences between this project and other projects.
3. The results of this article are almost without any support, relying solely on a few images to support the experimental results. For example, we can use software to analyze the experimental data and form corresponding data graphs, which is more convincing. Interior design drawings are easy for professionals in architecture, and data collection is the most difficult and academic. Scientific papers do not necessarily require a large amount of text to explain, but rather data.
4. The image resolution in this article is low and needs to be replaced.
I also hope to see the version after the author's major overhaul.
Pay attention to appropriate corrections in the tense of this article. Moderate editing of English language.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #3
We appreciate the time and effort of the reviewer in reviewing our paper and we have improved the manuscript based on reviewers’ suggestions and comments. These responses are elaborated in the point-by-point responses to your comments. Please see the attachment.
Sincerely,
Joo-Young Hong
Keng Hua Chong
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Section 1 must be improved.
- Authors should emphasize contribution and novelty, the introduction needs to clarify the motivation, challenges, contribution, objectives, and significance/implication.
- You must properly introduce your work, specify well what were the goals you set yourself and how you approached the problem.
- What are the advantages of the proposed work in comparison to already existing ones? This must be clear in the text. Please compare the proposed work with other existing ones.
Section 2 must be improved.
- In this section you present your methodology
- You should explain all the steps in detail
- You first mentioned a measures and then said you used them
- You mentioned a survey but did not say how you prepared it
- you have not described in detail how the survey was administered
- you have not described the sample of people who received it
- you did not say whether the subjects had an audiometric test done
- Where the tests were performed
- The part explaining that the students have taken a course is superfluous
- Instead it is necessary to describe in detail how the analysis was conducted.
- 113) balanced proximity is the key for all safety design project, but this is not a reason for creating a new form of urban conviviality
- Add references to works that have already dealt with the topic, for example:” Representation of the soundscape quality in urban areas through colours”
- 115) Do not use abbreviation such as i.e. I have seen that you often use this abbreviation, so I will not repeat this advice again, it also applies to the other occurrences.
- 134-181) Explain detailed the reason that you choose these locations
- 212-214) How did the authors characterize sounds without measures? This aspect must be adequately addressed. Otherwise the paper loses its scientific value
Section 3 must be improved.
- Figures must be improved: The text is too small and appears blurry, making it difficult for the reader to follow the flow of information.
- Make Figure and Caption fit on the same page.
- A description of the hardware and software used for data processing is completely missing. Describe in detail the hardware used: Extract this data from the datasheet of the hardware manufacturer. To make reading the specifications of the hardware more immediate, you can insert them in a table, listing the instruments used and the specific characteristics for each.
- Also, you should describe in detail the software platform you used. Also describe the machine learning-based libraries you used.
- I could not find a detailed description of the evaluation metrics you have adopted. How will you measure your work's performance? This section is essential in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of your methodology. Furthermore, only by adopting adequate metrics will it be possible to compare your results with those obtained by other researchers.
Section 5 must be improved.
- Paragraphs are missing where the possible practical applications of the results of this study are reported. What these results can serve the people, it is necessary to insert possible uses of this study that justify their publication.
- They also lack the possible future goals of this work. Do the authors plan to continue their research on this topic?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #4
We appreciate the time and effort of the reviewer in reviewing our paper and we have improved the manuscript based on reviewers’ suggestions and comments. These responses are elaborated in the point-by-point responses to your comments. Please see the attachment.
Sincerely,
Joo-Young Hong
Keng Hua Chong
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear authors,
This work regards urban planning proposals shaped by students with possible soundscape effects. This work is interesting and useful, but several revisions could be applied in order to improve the overall quality. The major issue is the degree of replicability which at this point is unsatisfactory. Through table 1 an attempt is made to summarize urban planning ideas. At this state this table is not enough, and it should be expanded in order to aid decision making.
Another major issue is the length of the manuscript in relation to the references used. More specifically I would suggest shortening the manuscript and expanding the references used. Furthermore, a clearer depiction of the aim is needed. The aim of the study (line 84), the goals of the soundscape design studio (line 112) and the challenges addressed by the students (line 121) create confusion. Additionally, the educational portion of this work could be expanded.
Furthermore, for an article type of manuscript, there is an unconventional outline. For example chapter 2.3 can be considered as a methodology.
Also, the soundscape approach made by the students that includes questionnaire analysis and objective measurements is not clearly reported.
All the figures need to be improved. At this point they are hard to follow due to their size. I would suggest choosing amongst the most representative sub-figures of each figure. Furthermore, I could not find the soundmaps promised.
The proposals made by the students are wonderful. Nevertheless, from proposal to practice there is a difference. The syntax of the results gives out the impression that these urban designs were implemented. This is due to the statements regarding the effects that these designs have on users and on the acoustic environment e.g. “the strategies resulted in a pleasant and calm ambience for users” (line 344) and “a gentle, rhythmic sound that helped to mask the undesirable noises” (line 346). There is a confusion on whether these proposals were implemented or designed. The same applies for all the designs proposed by the students.
In summary, the major issues of this manuscript are:
· The degree of replicability. This work is submitted as a research article that answers research questions. This could be resolved by expanding and improving table 1.
· The length and the disanalogous number of references used. This could be resolved by shortening parts of each case study.
· The manuscripts syntax. Even though generally very well-written, there are some parts that give out the impression that the urban designs were implemented.
· Lack of questionnaire results presentation.
Finally, it would not be irrational to include the students as co-authors. Hopefully this will be done in future submissions regarding each case study.
Several specific comments can be found bellow:
Lines 30-32: A reference is needed here.
Line 82: Please explain “for Term 8 students”.
Line 118: Please explain “currently without programs”.
Line 135: “in the studio”.
Line 178: “in this studio”.
Line 213: Please fix “due a lack”.
Lines 242-246: The sound maps (Figure 3a) are not presented. Or at least not noticeable.
Lines 246-250: Figure 3b shows something different.
Lines 247-250: Please report the soundscape assessment results according to the ISO method used. Furthermore, report in a special section information regarding the number of participants and other demographics.
Lines 251-261: The figures contain detailed information that is hard to understand at this quality. Furthermore, they don’t match their in-text description. Figure 4 is not mentioned at all.
Line 259: Figure 4 is not mentioned in text.
Lines 262-296: Consider creating a table with the observations made by the student.
Line 312: It would be preferable to state that “water fountains were proposed” instead of installed.
Lines 331-332: It is not clear on who characterized the soundscape. Is this the result of a questionnaire? Is it an assessment made by the student? If this is an outcome of a questionnaire, the results should be presented in a graph or a table.
Line 336: The design strategies were employed or designed? If designed and not actually built, then the resulting soundscapes are the result of modeling.
Line 341: The benches were actually built and used, or designed?
Line 344: To my understanding this is an assumption, therefore it should be reported as such.
Line 346: Were the bamboo wind chimes tested? Claiming that wind chimes can mask noise is far-fetched.
Line 370-372: The garden will probably provide a calming space when implemented. Furthermore, when this strategy is implemented, additional research regarding the perceptual outcomes must be conducted before making any claims.
Line 385-387: Please convey information on who characterized this soundscape. Is this a research outcome or an observation made by the student?
Line 389: The text in Figure 8(b) is not clear. Please provide an image of higher resolution. The same applies for all figures.
Lines 412-413: More information regarding the results of this simulation would be interesting.
Lines 530-534: This is an awkward paragraph and must be re-shaped.
Lines 589-591: The sound maps and the questionnaire results are not presented. More details regarding the questionnaires must be given in the methodology. Number of participants, age groups and other demographics.
Line 716: Table 1 must be developed.
Best regards
Minor revisions in language are needed. Please regard the above comments regarding the syntax.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #5
We appreciate the time and effort of the reviewer in reviewing our paper and we have improved the manuscript based on reviewers’ suggestions and comments. These responses are elaborated in the point-by-point responses to your comments. Please see the attachment.
Sincerely,
Joo-Young Hong
Keng Hua Chong
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Add data appropriately
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #3
We appreciate the time and effort of the reviewer in reviewing our paper. We have improved the manuscript based on the reviewers’ suggestions and comments. These responses are elaborated in the point-by-point responses to your comments. Please see the attachment.
Sincerely,
Joo-Young Hong
Keng Hua Chong
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors addressed the reviewer's comments with attention and modified the paper with the suggestions provided. The new version of the paper has improved both in the presentation and in the contents.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #4
Overall comments: The authors addressed the reviewer's comments with attention and modified the paper with the suggestions provided. The new version of the paper has improved both in the presentation and in the contents.
Thank you for the valuable time and effort dedicated to reviewing our paper. Your suggestions have significantly enhanced the quality of our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your supportive review and the effort you made to help us improve our work.
Sincerely,
Joo-Young Hong
Keng Hua Chong
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for taking the suggestions made into consideration. The article has been greatly improved. I am accepting this manuscript in order to avoid unnecessary delays, but I would suggest including the final remarks provided below.
Congratulations
As a final suggestion I would recommend including an educational “road map” or a course outline that highlights the learning procedure. This could be very useful.
Furthermore:
L33-35: The use of the term “acoustic comfort” is risky. I suggest using “acoustic quality” instead. Sound pressure levels can determine acoustic comfort, as specified in ISO 3382-3:2022. The problem with sound pressure levels and decibels in general, is that they are not adequately correlated with human perception. Also there is a problem in characterizing sounds based on their intensity alone. The soundscape approach puts forth the very important issue of “context”.
L227-228: I was wondering why the scale is presented opposite in relation to the ISO guidelines. Here it is “left (‘strongly disagree’) to right (‘strongly agree’)” (1 to 5) while in the ISO it is “left (‘strongly agree’) to right (‘strongly disagree’)” (5 to 1). Of course the result is the same.
L283: It would be preferable to name the resulted map as a “thematic sound map”, in order to avoid confusion with traditional noise and sound maps that visualize sound emission and propagation. Furthermore, the perceptual assessment of intensity that is presented with circles of different diameter, should be briefly explained.
L561: Please include the word “thematic” in sound mapping.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #5
We appreciate the time and effort of the reviewer in reviewing our paper. We have improved the manuscript based on the reviewers’ suggestions and comments. These responses are elaborated in the point-by-point responses to your comments. Please see the attachment.
Sincerely,
Joo-Young Hong
Keng Hua Chong
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
