Towards a “Positive Landscape”: An Integrated Theoretical Model of Landscape Preference Based on Cognitive Neuroscience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper carried out a study on an Integrated Theoretical Model of Landscape Preference Based on Cognitive Neuroscience. There are some new contributions made to this subject. The authors should revise the paper according to the following comments:

Authors should highlight the novelty of this research at the end of the Introduction section.

Additional theories published in the years 2021-2023 related to landscape preference need to be included in Table 1.

In Figure 1, Reference number need to be cited for the scholars mentioned in the figure respective of the theories illustrated.

Author needs to confirm whether any source citation need to be given for Figure 2

An additional flowchart can be included to illustrate the different strategies adopted and its importance related to the proposed integrated model.

The paper lacks sufficient illustrations of the proposed work to highlight its relevance to potential scholars

Avoid long sentences: short sentences are easier to understand than long sentences. In some of the paragraphs from Introduction to conclusions, it is best to write in short sentences

Section 4.3 is lengthy and can be trimmed down. Additional information related to the proposed integrated model can be included in Section 5.

English is comprehensible but needs correction of grammatical errors and style.

In view of this, the work in the paper requires minor revision prior to publication in this journal. 

Author Response

The review's comment : 1. Authors should highlight the novelty of this research at the end of the Introduction section. 2. Additional theories published in the years 2021-2023 related to landscape preference need to be included in Table 1. 3. In Figure 1, Reference number need to be cited for the scholars mentioned in the figure respective of the theories illustrated. 4. Author needs to confirm whether any source citation need to be given for Figure 2. 5. An additional flowchart can be included to illustrate the different strategies adopted and its importance related to the proposed integrated model. 6. The paper lacks sufficient illustrations of the proposed work to highlight its relevance to potential scholars 7. Avoid long sentences: short sentences are easier to understand than long sentences. In some of the paragraphs from Introduction to conclusions, it is best to write in short sentences 8. Section 4.3 is lengthy and can be trimmed down. Additional information related to the proposed integrated model can be included in Section 5. 9. English is comprehensible but needs correction of grammatical errors and style. The authors' answer: 1. We think this is an excellent suggestion and we have highlighted the novelty of this research at the end of the introduction section. (page 2) 2. As suggested by the reviewer, we have added more references published in the years 2021- 2023 related to landscape preference to support these theories. (table 1) 3. We have added a reference number in Figure 1. (page 6) 4. We have added a reference number in Figure 2. (page 7) 5. As suggested by the reviewer, we have added a flowchart to illustrate the process of implementing these two strategies. Drawing on Atkinson and Shiffrin's modal model of memory. Information is obtained by sense organs and enters the information-processing system. The neurons in the hippocampus are plastic, our aesthetic experience could be enhanced by regulating people's perceptual and cognitive processes, thus leading to a more aesthetically pleasing ecological landscape. (page 11) 6. On page 9, we added a new illustration to interpret how to map landscape preference theory and Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory one-to-one. 7. About the issues of numbers 7, and 9. We have tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes to the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked them in color in the revised paper. We appreciate your warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval. 8. Section 4.3 have been trimmed down. (page 9)

Reviewer 2 Report

 

I reviewed the interesting article by Yan et al., titled "Towards a “Positive Landscape”: An Integrated Theoretical Model of Landscape Preference Based on Cognitive Neuroscience" submitted to the prestigious journal Sustainability. The study presented in the manuscript effectively tends to explore the concept of Landscape preference (LPs) being derived from innate human needs and combining traditional theories to propose a unified model.

The strength of the work is that it is concise and thorough, with an illuminating introduction that accentuates the theme being discussed. It is recommended that the work may be published in the journal after a few corrections and suggestions incorporated.

The author can consider discussing a few points from the studies below.

1.     Yuan, Shuai & Browning, Matthew & McAnirlin, Olivia & Sindelar, Kailan & Shin, Seunguk & Drong, Gabrielle & Hoptman, David & Heller, Wendy. (2023). A virtual reality investigation of factors influencing landscape preferences: Natural elements, emotions, and media creation. Landscape and Urban Planning. 230. 104616. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104616

2.     Dai C, Maruthaveeran S, Shahidan MF, Chu Y. Landscape Preference Evaluation of Old Residential Neighbourhoods: A Case Study in Shi Jiazhuang, Hebei Province, China. Forests. 2023; 14(2):375. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14020375

I believe the paper would be an excellent contribution to literature after the revisions as suggested above.

Author Response

The review's comment : The author can consider discussing a few points from the studies below. 1. Yuan, Shuai & Browning, Matthew & McAnirlin, Olivia & Sindelar, Kailan & Shin, Seunguk & Drong, Gabrielle & Hoptman, David & Heller, Wendy. (2023). A virtual reality investigation of factors influencing landscape preferences: Natural elements, emotions, and media creation. Landscape and Urban Planning. 230. 104616. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104616 2. Dai C, Maruthaveeran S, Shahidan MF, Chu Y. Landscape Preference Evaluation of Old Residential Neighbourhoods: A Case Study in Shi Jiazhuang, Hebei Province, China. Forests. 2023; 14(2):375. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14020375 The authors' answer: In view of this valuable suggestion, we revised the content of the paper. Here we did not list the changes but marked them in color in the revised paper. We appreciate your warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval. 1. We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have checked the literature carefully and added the first reference to the introduction part of the revised manuscript. (page 1, 36, [9]) 2. We have added the second reference in table 1 and page 3. In this reference, the author argued that the preference for landscape elements has a strong correlation with psychological effects. Therefore, prioritizing these landscape elements in landscape design can facilitate landscape architecture projects. (page 3,148-152)

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors reviewed the development of landscape preference theories. They also proposed a conceptual framework of the psychological perception process of landscape including physiological basis of landscape preference and its evaluation based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. The positive landscape and its application in changing human landscape preference were discussed.

Minor comments

1, the author should explain how the 68 articles were selected among 714 hits and how the qualitative analysis was conducted.

2, Figure 2 presents the physiological and psychological mechanism of the landscape of preference. Therefore, the phrase, “psychological process”, in line 198 is not accurate.

Author Response

The review's comment : Minor comments 1. the author should explain how the 68 articles were selected among 714 hits and how the qualitative analysis was conducted. 2. Figure 2 presents the physiological and psychological mechanism of the landscape of preference. Therefore, the phrase, “psychological process”, in line 198 is not accurate. The authors' answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. Here we did not list the changes but marked them in color in the revised paper. We appreciate your warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval. 1. We have followed the reviewer’s comment and further illustrated this part in the revised manuscript. (Page 2, 118-123;126-127) 2. As suggested by the reviewer we have corrected the “psychological process” into “physiological and psychological process”. (page 7, 220)

Reviewer 4 Report

Yan, L, et al have reviewed and discussed that human preferences for landscape are influenced by either the preservation or reconstruction of the landscape materialized consciously and unconsciously. The authors discussed that human LPs are derived from innate human needs as well as based on the processed information of LPs.

In this study, the authors managed to demonstrate and discussed two regulatory strategies (perception and cognition) which involved the robust manipulation of LPs, eventually leading to benefit of both the ecosystem and human wellbeing. The novelty of this manuscript is the discussion of the LP is an emotional process induced by human needs, categorized within the framework of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs which engaged as an important appliance in the active/ conscious decision-making process to promote the reorganization of landscapes benefitting the ecosystem and human simultaneously.

Although the article provides a balanced view, the authors should discuss several other points with proper references like the correlation between LPs with landscape elements (LEs) and how it could influence landscape design. The chart with theories and their physiological implications is much appreciated. The authors have interpreted and presented the relevant data on the selection of LPs, correctly. One of the major discussions should be included on “human preference for visual openness in different emotional states.” Which is very relevant to this study.

 

Nonetheless, the article seemed to possess no major concern. Overall, the clarity of the text is good. The manuscript has a few typographical and grammatical errors. Charts and tables are much appreciated. In general, the manuscript can accomplish the caliber of quality for consideration for publication in the journal “Sustainability”. The authors are advised to consider the comments below:

 

Comments

1.      Please provide a discussion on the correlation between LPs with landscape elements (LEs) and how it could influence landscape design with proper references.

2.      Please provide a discussion on the “human preference for visual openness in different emotional states.” with proper references and how emotion is directly related to LP or not.

3.      Another important discussion point is the LPs in humans and insights into ethnobiology (evolutionary psychology, and the theoretical and applied implications). Provide appropriate references.

Author Response

The review's comment : 1. Please provide a discussion on the correlation between LPs with landscape elements (LEs) and how it could influence landscape design with proper references.  2. Please provide a discussion on the “human preference for visual openness in different emotional states.” with proper references and how emotion is directly related to LP or not. 3. Another important discussion point is the LPs in humans and insights into ethnobiology (evolutionary psychology, and the theoretical and applied implications). Provide appropriate references. The authors' answer: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have checked the literature carefully and added more references to the revised manuscript. If the cited literature is irrelevant to this paper, please point it out and we will make changes immediately. We appreciate your warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval. 1. We found that landscape elements can influence landscape preferences and that human preferences for landscape elements that contribute to survival are more pronounced. Thus we added a reference to support this idea. (page 3,146-148) [56] Cai, K.; Huang, W.; Lin, G. Bridging landscape preference and landscape design: A study on the preference and optimal combination of landscape elements based on conjoint analysis. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 73, 127615, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127615. 2. In this reference, we can know that emotional states are closely related to landscape preferences. The author found that college students in varied moods all prefer natural landscapes and open-view landscapes. And it is undeniable that in the studies on landscape preference, there is a positive correlation between a psychological state and a healthy relationship. (page 8,273-276) [83] Li, K.; Zhai, Y.; Dou, L.; Liu, J. A preliminary exploration of landscape preferences based on naturalness and visual openness for college students with different moods. Frontiers in Psychology 2021, 12, 629650, http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.629650. [84] Nesse, R.M. What is mood for? 1991. 3. From the perspective of evolutionary psychology we found that the human species prefers open landscapes similar to the savanna. And in this study, we know that the preference for images of savanna landscapes is universal in the human species. (page 3, 139-141) [53] Moura, J.; Ferreira Júnior, W.S.; Silva, T.C.; Albuquerque, U.P. The influence of the evolutionary past on the mind: An analysis of the preference for landscapes in the human species. Frontiers in psychology 2018, 2485, http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02485.