Appraisal of Architectural Ambiances in a Future District
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a well-written paper on a publication-worthy topic. However, I have two significant concerns: one, there is not a sufficient review of the existing literature on user evaluations of environmental ambiance, and I therefore miss a clear picture of how this research fits into and carries forward the existing research, with clear publication-worthy findings.
And two, the findings seem to be rather limited in their scope, perhaps because there is not a sufficiently clear research question emerging from the existing literature survey, which could be clearly discussed in the conclusion (as well as the introduction and methodology discussion.
As for existing literature, see for example the significant body of research regarding divergences between experts and laypeople (that is a finding of this study as well but it is only briefly mentioned in the discussion, with no reference or citations to the many studies with similar findings). A few of the studies can be found through Google Scholar or other citation index, e.g. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,38&q=architects+laypersons.
Also, the three criteria for "architectural style" seem limited and arbitrary, with no background of literature establishing those criteria. Yet there is a large body of research documenting so-called "biophilic" properties and user preferences for them, e.g. vegetation, fractal geometries, "prospect and refuge," etc. (See e.g. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,38&q=biophilic+environments)
The Mouratidis study is mentioned but probably deserves more discussion, as both an example of VR tools for such studies, and as a was of broadening the discussion including questions of contemporary versus traditional architectural styles. This and other aspect of "style" (or aesthetic character) could broaden what seems to be an overly limited discussion at present.
It may not be that the research itself needs to be altered, but the discussion needs to be expanded and more clearly grounded in existing literature.
I hope this is helpful.
Good quality.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is original and has interest for publication. It shows the potential of 3D simulation to improve planning proposals or urban requalification of neighborhoods and new urban sectors. The quality of the text and research is good. Only a few minor revisions are needed to have the final version.
The abstract is clear and precise. Also the introduction, although here the way of explaining the state of the art of the subject is somewhat surprising. It is addressed in the last section of this extensive part, but references to the background of this investigation should be on all these pages, not just at the end. This is an aspect to improve.
Materials and Methods perfectly explains the research and the reliability of the analysis carried out. Also the Experimental Results section is very good and should be kept that way. Finally, in conclusions, point out that they are correct and well elaborated. However, and this is a second issue to be improved, it is not properly explained what lessons would be obtained from this work for other projects. What transferability does the research have?
With these minor revisions indicated, the article can be published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The contribution deals with the experimentation and test of Virtual Reality to understand emotions of potential users of a future urban district.
The use of interviews to acquire feedbacks is an efficient tool to test the good practice of VR for any purposes.
The paper is well structured and supported by stout results about auditing of architectural ambiance about the aspects selected by the authors. The discussion and the conclusion are wide and clear enough. For sure, the experimentation need further calibration as declared by authors comparing the answers to the same questions to actual residents about the virtual tours with reality, when the district will be erected.
I suggest to have figures with higher resolution within the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been greatly improved and my concerns have all been addressed. The only remaining issue concerns some minor editing and typos, e.g. at lines 796-805:
Must take into account the possibility of manipulating the elements of urban space 796 (in a virtual environment) can provide new and different perceptions to those obtained 797 in a non-immersive VR environment.
(Sentence fragment)
In addition, future studies could focus on how residents perceive and experience 802 specific attributes of architecture and urban design, .
(Punctuation typos)
It should be investigated which of 803 these attributes are perceived and experienced positively and negatively by relating them 804 to the characteristics of architecture: color, light, scale, materiality, shapes, volumetry...
(Ellipsis "..." not recommended to end a sentence unless it is a truncated quote.)
I congratulate the authors on a good-quality paper that should make a useful contribution to the literature.
See comments above.
