Comparative Study of Cognitive Differences in Rural Landscapes Based on Eye Movement Experiments

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

We would like to express our sincere thanks to you for your valuable and insightful comments. The comments and suggestions truly helped us to improve the quality of the paper. In the revised manuscript, all the changes have been highlighted in red color.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Agree.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Agree.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Agree.

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Agree.

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Agree.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

Agree.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The Authors supplemented the text insufficiently. The weak point of the work is still the interpretation of the results in the field of qualitative research and the connection between qualitative and quantitative research.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable suggestions on our research, especially regarding the interpretation of qualitative research results and the connection between qualitative and quantitative research. After carefully considering your suggestions, we intend to respond and clarify from the following aspects.

Firstly, the specific results of qualitative research are as follows:

(1) Landmark. The evaluation of the participants in village group primarily revolves around Wangshang Village and the landmarks in the village, with a closely connected network of high-frequency words. And, their key elements of focus are centered on objects within the immediate surroundings of each landmark, such as stone lions, streetlights, pedestals, war drums, signboards, and roadside trees. Approximately 80% of the participants shared numerous anecdotes during interviews that were related to their living memories. However, the evaluation of the participants in tourist group revolves around the advantages and disadvantages of each landmark design, and the network formed between high-frequency words is relatively scattered. Their key elements of focus mainly concentrated on a particular special component of each landmark, such as the roof of an archway, the plaque of the service center, or the inscriptions on landmark landscaping stones. Most tourists made evaluations based on local characteristics, personal experiences, cultural aesthetics, and other factors, and their comments were primarily related to local folklore, culture, traditions, as well as their initial impressions of Wangshang Village.

(2) Edge. The evaluation of edges by the participants in village group mainly revolves around their understanding and perception of the edges, with a relatively close network of high-frequency words. Their key elements of focus are scattered across the geographical locations, surrounding environments, and hardware facilities of the boundaries, and the evaluation dimensions are often related to the materials, locations, and shape characteristics of each edge. While the evaluation of the participants in tourist group centers on the recognizability of the edges, with a similarly close net-work of high-frequency words. Their key elements of focus are mostly on the appearance of each edge, such as fences, rivers, roads, hedges, or cliff faces. Most tourists evaluate the design of the edges from a critical perspective, with evaluation dimensions primarily encompassing the clarity, physical function, and potential design improvements for these edges.

(3) District. The evaluation of the districts by the participants in the village group mainly revolves around the crops and several economic crop planting areas around the living area, with a relatively dispersed network of high-frequency words. Their key elements of focus are scattered across various locations within the kiwifruit, onion, and wheat planting areas, and the evaluation dimensions are often linked to economic benefits. However, the evaluation of the districts by the tourist group participants mainly revolves around the characteristics and functions of the district, and the high-frequency word network is relatively scattered. Their primary focus tends to concentrate on specific aspects within the regions, such as a unique building within the residential area, the color of plants grown in the agricultural planting area, the materials used in the economic crop planting area, the trellises in the kiwifruit planting area, or the shape of individual buildings in the homestay area. In addition, most tourists have pointed out the dilemma of Wangshang Village lacking an industrial chain, and the evaluation dimensions are related to the suggestions for future design improvements.

(4) Note. The evaluation of nodes by the participants in the village group mainly revolves around the node square within Wangshang Village, with a closely connected network of high-frequency words. Their key elements of focus are widely distributed across the plaque inscriptions on pavilions, the engravings on scenic walls, the size of water bodies, and the wooden walkways surrounding them. The evaluation dimensions are mostly related to the daily activities and habits of the local people. Besides, most middle-aged and elderly villagers have raised demands for the maintenance and updating of related activity facilities. Compared with the participants in the village group, the evaluation of the tourist group participants mainly revolves around the styling characteristics of each node, and high-frequency words also form a close network. Their attention is primarily concentrated on the distinctive individual components within each node plaza, such as pavilions, sculptures, tree pools, table tennis tables, water bodies, vegetation, or paving materials. The evaluation dimensions are mostly related to the advantages and disadvantages of node design, as well as subsequent design improvement suggestions.

(5) Path. The evaluation of paths by participants in the village group mainly revolves around the type, cleanliness, and daily habits of the paths, with a particularly tight network of high-frequency words. Their key elements of focus are widely dispersed across the surrounding environments on both sides of the roads, such as flower beds, streetlights, roadside trees, plant designs, residential buildings, and other facilities. Approximately 90% of villagers believe that compared to previous roads, the practicality and functionality of the various roads in the village have significantly improved. In contrast, the evaluation of the paths by the tourist group participants mainly revolves around the design, improvement, and enhancement measures of the path itself. Their main attention is often centered on the surface of each road or the various land-scape elements at the end of the road, and the network formed between high-frequency words is relatively scattered.

[In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 13-15, and line 471-534.]

Secondly, the relationship between qualitative research and quantitative research is as follows:

In our study, the quantitative eye-tracking experimental data reveal that the cognitive differences between tourist and villager participants primarily manifest in the average fixation duration, with tourists exhibiting the longest average fixation time, indicating a stronger interest and exploration desire towards the depicted rural landscape image elements. Furthermore, integrating the results of semi-structured interviews, we observe that villagers predominantly employ scanning patterns when viewing the five types of rural landscape image elements, displaying a more dispersed gaze and focusing their fixations primarily on the surrounding environments of these elements. Conversely, tourists adopt a gazing strategy, directing their more concentrated attention towards the specific components of each image element. The most noteworthy thing is that we found that the key focus elements of the subjects recorded in the eye movement heat maps were strongly consistent with the key focus elements recorded in the high-frequency word co-occurrence network diagrams, after carefully observing Figure 5, Figure 6, and comprehensively analyzing the key focal elements of each photo captured in the eye movement experiment with those recorded in the semi-structured interview. From this, although quantitative analysis (eye tracking technology) and qualitative analysis (semi-structured interviews) are two different types of research methods, the results of these two studies have a high degree of overlap.

By combining the results of eye tracking experiments with semi-structured interviews for comprehensive analysis, we found that the main reasons for these cognitive differences were due to the different living backgrounds of the subjects, as well as their familiarity, novelty, and personal needs towards rural landscapes. Specifically, villagers, being long-term residents of rural environments, possess a high degree of familiarity with the landscapes, thereby easily diverting their attention across a broader range of environmental elements. They prioritize the convenience and practicality of landscape facilities, linking their concerns closely to their daily lives, such as the functionality of amenities, crop cultivation, and road cleanliness. These elements not only reflect rural economic benefits and living standards but also embody the collective memories and cultural identities of villagers. In contrast, tourists, as outsiders, harbor a heightened sense of novelty and curiosity towards local rural landscapes, tending to focus on their uniqueness and design details. Unfamiliar with the local environment, tourists require more cognitive effort and time to comprehend and process the information, as evidenced by their longer average fixation durations, which reflect their efforts to assimilate and integrate new information. By gazing intently at specific components, tourists delve deeper into the cultural connotations and design philosophies of local landscapes, evaluating their merits, flaws, and design features based on personal experiences and aesthetic preferences, which are primarily driven by these preferences.

In summary, quantitative research captures specific differences in visual attention allocation between tourists and residents through eye tracking experiments, while qualitative research delves into personal experiences, cultural identity, and emotional responses behind these differences through interviews. The two showed a high degree of consistency in the results, complementing each other and jointly constructing a comprehensive understanding of the cognitive differences between the two groups of subjects.

[In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 16-17, and line 568-620.]

Comments 2: The interview process are not clear. How the data on "subjective gaze sequences" were obtained during interview? Specific questions or issues should be provided (they could be placed in an appendix). In addition, it is not known how the interview results overlap with the eye-tracking results (lines 504-506).

Response 2: We are immensely grateful for your meticulous review of our research and your invaluable insights. We sincerely apologize for any confusion arising from unclear expressions on our part. And we have provided the following explanations to address your questions.

Firstly, the specific process of semi-structured interviews is as follows:

Semi-structured interviews are promptly initiated with the participants after the successful completion of the eye-tracking experiments. In this phase, the experimenter first presents five sets of experimental images, including landmarks, edges, districts, nodes and paths, as visual prompts in front of the subjects. Then, based on the inter-view outline for rural landscape cognition, the experimenter engages in a dialogue with the subjects to guide them to clearly articulate their true feelings about these 25 photos. During the interview, participants were asked to describe their viewing sequence of the rural landscapes depicted in each photo while viewing the photos, and to mark the key elements of interest in each photo. The entire interview process was recorded using the Saramonia recording software.

[In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 8, and line 285-294.]

Secondly, in the semi-structured interview process, the experimenter mainly engages in dialogue with the subjects based on the interview outline. By guiding the subjects to clearly describe the observation order of each landscape element in each photo, the subjective gaze order of the subjects can be obtained to verify the results of the eye movement experiment and provide further supplementary explanations. At the same time, we have placed the specific questions asked during the semi-structured interview process in the appendix A.

[In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 19, and line 703-730.]

Thirdly, the interview results overlap with the eye tracking results. We found that the key focus elements of the subjects recorded in the eye movement heat maps were strongly consistent with those recorded in the high-frequency word co-occurrence network diagrams, when carefully comparing Figure 5 and Figure 6, and comprehensively analyzing the key focal elements of each photo captured in the eye movement experiment with those recorded in the semi-structured interview. From this, although quantitative analysis (eye tracking technology) and qualitative analysis (semi-structured interviews) are two different types of research methods, the results of these two studies have a high degree of overlap.

[In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 16, and line 577-585.]

Comments 3: The study results do not provide a basis for guidance described in the Conclusions. In my opinion the main research conclusion is in lines 588-591. The issues mentioned here should be developed and discussed.

Response 3: We fully accept your suggestion. We have once again reviewed the research findings and carefully revised the conclusion section. The specific revisions are as follows:

Cognitive differences are not only a reflection of the unique fascination of rural landscapes, but also a key factor in promoting sustainable development in rural areas. This research takes two types of subjects, villagers and tourists, as the entry point. Wang Shang Village, located in Yangling District, Xianyang City, Shaanxi Province, China, is selected as the experimental site. Using quantitative eye tracking technology and qualitative semi-structured interviews, the cognitive differences of 40 villagers and 37 tourists on 5 types of rural landscape elements were comparatively analyzed. Research findings indicate that the cognitive similarities and differences in rural landscapes between tourists and villagers are mainly reflected in their level of cognition, observation methods, and key elements of focus. And the reasons for cognitive differences are due to the different living backgrounds of the two groups of subjects, as well as their varying levels of familiarity, novelty, and personal needs to-wards rural landscapes.

The result findings not only provide theoretical and methodological support for rural landscape design, but also provide new perspectives and insights to address the issue of homogenization in rural landscapes. However, our research also has limitations that need to be addressed in the future. Although eye tracking experiments provide a scientific and objective quantitative way to study the cognitive differences among different participants in rural landscape cognition, eye tracking technology fail to directly explain the physiological mechanisms of information processing currently. Considering that physiological sensor technology can provide feedback and record physiological data of subjects, such as skin conductance response, heart rate variability, EEG indicators, etc. Therefore, in the future, we will attempt a research method that combines eye tracking technology with physiological sensor technology, and select multiple plots containing different rural landscape characteristics for comparative testing to improve the credibility of the research, thereby further improving the re-search system of rural landscape cognition.

[In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 18, and line 661-685.]

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your thorough review of our manuscript and for the valuable comments. As our goal is to communicate our research findings accurately and concisely, we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript, corrected all grammatical errors, improved sentence structures, and ensured that our terminology is precise and appropriate for the academic audience.

5. Additional clarifications

We have addressed all these comments and suggestions. We truly hope you can approve our revised manuscript.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

We would like to thank you for carefully reading our manuscript. We really appreciate the positive comments and suggestions. Your support for our research has greatly encouraged us. Thank you very much!

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Agree.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Agree.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Agree.

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Agree.

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Agree.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Agree.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The changes made by the authors, based on the reviewers' comments, make the paper better and more suitable for publication in my opinion.

Response 1: We are deeply grateful for your favorable evaluation and recognition of the improvements made to our manuscript. Your affirmation serves as a tremendous encouragement and support for our work.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your kind assessment of the English language used in our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript, corrected all grammatical errors, improved sentence structures, and ensured that our terminology is precise and appropriate for the academic audience.

5. Additional clarifications

We have addressed all these comments and suggestions. We truly hope you can approve our revised manuscript.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We really appreciate the comments and suggestions. All the changes have been highlighted with red color in the revised manuscript. In the following, we include a point-by-point response to your comments.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Agree.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Agree.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Agree.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Agree.

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Agree.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

Agree.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Does the interview explain the differences in heatmaps between villagers and tourists? If not, what are the specific outcomes of the semi-structured interview? If there are no clear outcomes that can explain the eye-tracking method, I would rather not use it.

Response 1: We are extremely grateful for your meticulous review of this research and the invaluable insights you have offered. We sincerely apologize for any confusion arising from unclear expressions on our part. And we have provided the following explanations to address your questions.

Firstly, in this study, semi-structured interviews served as a supplementary explanation to the eye tracking experiment, which not only confirmed the results of the eye tracking experiment once again, but also further explained the differences between villagers and tourists in the five types of rural landscape image elements: landmarks, edges, districts, nodes and paths.

Secondly, the specific results of qualitative research are as follows:

(1) Landmark. The evaluation of the participants in village group primarily re-volves around Wangshang Village and the landmarks in the village, with a closely connected network of high-frequency words. And, their key elements of focus are centered on objects within the immediate surroundings of each landmark, such as stone lions, streetlights, pedestals, war drums, signboards, and roadside trees. Approximately 80% of the participants shared numerous anecdotes during interviews that were related to their living memories. However, the evaluation of the participants in tourist group revolves around the advantages and disadvantages of each landmark design, and the network formed between high-frequency words is relatively scattered. Their key elements of focus are mainly concentrated on a particular special component of each landmark, such as the roof of an archway, the plaque of the service center, or the inscriptions on landmark landscaping stones. Most tourists made evaluations based on local characteristics, personal experiences, cultural aesthetics, and other factors, and their comments were primarily related to local folklore, culture, traditions, as well as their initial impressions of Wangshang Village.

(2) Edge. The evaluation of edges by the participants in village group mainly revolves around their understanding and perception of the edges, with a relatively close network of high-frequency words. Their key elements of focus are scattered across the geographical locations, surrounding environments, and hardware facilities of the boundaries, and the evaluation dimensions are often related to the materials, locations, and shape characteristics of each edge. While the evaluation of the participants in tourist group centers on the recognizability of the edges, with a similarly close net-work of high-frequency words. Their key elements of focus are mostly on the appearance of each edge, such as fences, rivers, roads, hedges, or cliff faces. Most tourists evaluate the design of the edges from a critical perspective, with evaluation dimensions primarily encompassing the clarity, physical function, and potential design improvements for these edges.

(3) District. The evaluation of the districts by the participants in the village group mainly revolves around the crops and several economic crop planting areas around the living area, with a relatively dispersed network of high-frequency words. Their key elements of focus are scattered across various locations within the kiwifruit, onion, and wheat planting areas, and the evaluation dimensions are often linked to economic benefits. However, the evaluation of the districts by the tourist group participants mainly revolves around the characteristics and functions of the district, and the high-frequency word network is relatively scattered. Their primary focus tends to concentrate on specific aspects within the regions, such as a unique building within the residential area, the color of plants grown in the agricultural planting area, the materials used in the economic crop planting area, the trellises in the kiwifruit planting area, or the shape of individual buildings in the homestay area. In addition, most tourists have pointed out the dilemma of Wangshang Village lacking an industrial chain, and the evaluation dimensions are related to the suggestions for future design improvements.

(4) Note. The evaluation of nodes by the participants in the village group mainly revolves around the node square within Wangshang Village, with a closely connected network of high-frequency words. Their key elements of focus are widely distributed across the plaque inscriptions on pavilions, the engravings on scenic walls, the size of water bodies, and the wooden walkways surrounding them. The evaluation dimensions are mostly related to the daily activities and habits of the local people. Besides, most middle-aged and elderly villagers have raised demands for the maintenance and updating of related activity facilities. Compared with the participants in the village group, the evaluation of the tourist group participants mainly revolves around the styling characteristics of each node, and high-frequency words also form a close network. Their attention is primarily concentrated on the distinctive individual components within each node plaza, such as pavilions, sculptures, tree pools, table tennis tables, water bodies, vegetation, or paving materials. The evaluation dimensions are mostly related to the advantages and disadvantages of node design, as well as subsequent design improvement suggestions.

(5) Path. The evaluation of paths by participants in the village group mainly revolves around the type, cleanliness, and daily habits of the paths, with a particularly tight network of high-frequency words. Their key elements of focus are widely dispersed across the surrounding environments on both sides of the roads, such as flower beds, streetlights, roadside trees, plant designs, residential buildings, and other facilities. Approximately 90% of villagers believe that compared to previous roads, the practicality and functionality of the various roads in the village have significantly improved. In contrast, the evaluation of the paths by the tourist group participants mainly revolves around the design, improvement, and enhancement measures of the path itself. Their main attention is often centered on the surface of each road or the various land-scape elements at the end of the road, and the network formed between high-frequency words is relatively scattered.

[In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 13-15, and line 471-534.]

Thirdly, the relationship between qualitative research and quantitative research is as follows:

In our study, the quantitative eye tracking experimental data reveal that the cognitive differences between tourist and villager participants primarily manifest in the average fixation duration, with tourists exhibiting the longest average fixation time, indicating a stronger interest and exploration desire towards the depicted rural landscape image elements. Furthermore, integrating the results of semi-structured interviews, we observe that villagers predominantly employ scanning patterns when viewing the five types of rural landscape image elements, displaying a more dispersed gaze and focusing their fixations primarily on the surrounding environments of these elements. Conversely, tourists adopt a gazing strategy, directing their more concentrated attention towards the specific components of each image element. The most noteworthy thing is that we found that the key focus elements of the subjects recorded in the eye movement heat maps were strongly consistent with the key focus elements recorded in the high-frequency word co-occurrence network diagrams, after carefully observing Figure 5, Figure 6, and comprehensively analyzing the key focal elements of each photo captured in the eye movement experiment with those recorded in the semi-structured interview. From this, although quantitative analysis (eye tracking technology) and qualitative analysis (semi-structured interviews) are two different types of research methods, the results of these two studies have a high degree of overlap.

By combining the results of eye tracking experiments with semi-structured interviews for comprehensive analysis, we found that the main reasons for these cognitive differences were due to the different living backgrounds of the subjects, as well as their familiarity, novelty, and personal needs towards rural landscapes. Specifically, villagers, being long-term residents of rural environments, possess a high degree of familiarity with the landscapes, thereby easily diverting their attention across a broader range of environmental elements. They prioritize the

convenience and practicality of landscape facilities, linking their concerns closely to their daily lives, such as the functionality of amenities, crop cultivation, and road cleanliness. These elements not only reflect rural economic benefits and living standards but also embody the collective memories and cultural identities of villagers. In contrast, tourists, as outsiders, harbor a heightened sense of novelty and curiosity towards local rural landscapes, tending to focus on their uniqueness and design details. Unfamiliar with the local environment, tourists require more cognitive effort and time to comprehend and process the information, as evidenced by their longer average fixation durations, which reflect their efforts to assimilate and integrate new information. By gazing intently at specific components, tourists delve deeper into the cultural connotations and design philosophies of local landscapes, evaluating their merits, flaws, and design features based on per-sonal experiences and aesthetic preferences, which are primarily driven by these preferences.

In summary, quantitative research captures specific differences in visual attention allocation between tourists and residents through eye tracking experiments, while qualitative research delves into personal experiences, cultural identity, and emotional responses behind these differences through interviews. The two showed a high degree of consistency in the results, complementing each other and jointly constructing a comprehensive understanding of the cognitive differences between the two groups of subjects

[In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 16-17, and line 568-620.]

Comments 2: The description of respondent groups is missing. The group of volunteers is not properly described—please describe the age groups and sex ratios at the very least.

Response 2: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have supplemented the description of respondent groups.

The experiment selected two different cognitive groups as participants, a total of 77 people, namely 40 villagers (23 males and 17 females, Mean Age=57.325, Standard Deviation=11.840) who have lived in Wangshang Village for a long time and 37 tourists (20 males and 17 females, Mean Age=32.892, Standard Deviation=10.107) who have no long-term living experience in Wangshang Village. All participants have normal vision, among them, the participants in the villager group are mostly farmers, students, chefs, township managers, and so on; The tourist group are mostly students, teachers, tour guides, maintenance workers, photographers, retired workers, and so on. Selecting cognitive groups with different identities is mainly to ensure the diversity of the subjects in terms of profession, aesthetics, taste, cognition, choice, and judgment. In the Materials and Methods section, we have clearly added a detailed description of respondent groups. [In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 5, and line 206-211.]

Comments 3: The conclusion doesn’t refer to the results. Be more specific. I would prefer to see improvements in the research methodology (similarly as described in lines 494 -500) rather than vague references to landscape planning and design.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable feedback on our study. We fully accept your suggestion. We have once again reviewed the research findings and carefully revised the conclusion section. The specific revisions are as follows：

Cognitive differences are not only a reflection of the unique fascination of rural landscapes, but also a key factor in promoting sustainable development in rural areas. This research takes two types of subjects, villagers and tourists, as the entry point. Wang Shang Village, located in Yangling District, Xianyang City, Shaanxi Province, China, is selected as the experimental site. Using quantitative eye tracking technology and qualitative semi-structured interviews, the cognitive differences of 40 villagers and 37 tourists on 5 types of rural landscape elements were comparatively analyzed. Research findings indicate that the cognitive similarities and differences in rural landscapes between tourists and villagers are mainly reflected in their level of cognition, observation methods, and key elements of focus. And the reasons for cognitive differences are due to the different living backgrounds of the two groups of subjects, as well as their varying levels of familiarity, novelty, and personal needs towards rural landscapes.

The result findings not only provide theoretical and methodological support for rural landscape design, but also provide new perspectives and insights to address the issue of homogenization in rural landscapes. However, our research also has limitations that need to be addressed in the future. Although eye tracking experiments provide a scientific and objective quantitative way to study the cognitive differences among different participants in rural landscape cognition, eye tracking technology fail to directly explain the physiological mechanisms of information processing currently. Considering that physiological sensor technology can provide feedback and record physiological data of subjects, such as skin conductance response, heart rate variability, EEG indicators, etc. Therefore, in the future, we will attempt a research method that combines eye tracking technology with physiological sensor technology, and select multiple plots containing different rural landscape characteristics for comparative testing to improve the credibility of the research, thereby further improving the re-search system of rural landscape cognition.

[In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 18, and line 661-685.]

Comments 4: Using aerial images for eye tracking. The Lynch methods you were referring to are based on perception and experience through movement in the city. Using aerial views denies the villager or tourist the experience of movement. Please properly explain the use of aerial images in your research.

Response 4: We are immensely grateful for your meticulous review of our research and your invaluable insights. We sincerely apologize for any confusion arising from unclear expressions on our part. We have provided the following explanations to address your questions：

Firstly, this research introduces rural image based on Lynch's theory of the Image of the City, dividing the elements of rural landscape imagery into five categories: landmarks, boundaries, regions, nodes, and roads. Furthermore, and more importantly, we have made appropriate adjustments and extensions considering the unique characteristics of the rural environment. This endeavor aims to construct an analytical framework tailored for rural landscapes, thereby facilitating a more comprehensive understanding the perceptions and experiences of rural residents and tourists about rural landscape.

Secondly, when researchers use eye tracking experiments for research, they need to find a way for subjects to better perceive the overall rural image and rural landscape through the scenes shown in the photos. Therefore, static images collected from a single human perspective are difficult to achieve this requirement. From this, the main purpose of adding aerial pictures to the stimulus materials is to more comprehensively showcase the rural landscape of Wangshang Village, thereby enhancing the effectiveness and reliability of the experiment.

Thirdly, before the formal experiment began, our team conducted careful preparation work and carried out three small-scale preliminary experiments successively to ensure the scientific and rigorous nature of the experiment. During these processes, we invited several participants, including villagers and administrative leaders of Wangshang Village, to participate in the testing. According to the feedback from the participants on the experimental process, photographs taken from a human perspective have significant limitations in showcasing the edges and districts characteristics of Wangshang Village, and fail to fully reflect the unique geological features and regional culture of the village. Considering these feedbacks, we have sought opinions from five renowned professors in the field of landscape architecture design. These experts point out that for rural areas such as Wangshang Village, which have relatively flat terrain and are mainly farmland, a single human perspective cannot fully display the complete appearance of their boundaries and regions. Based on this professional advice, we decided to incorporate aerial views into the formal experiment as a supplement, providing more comprehensive and objective visual information to ensure that the experimental materials truthfully reflect the characteristics of the study subject. Therefore, we have decided to include aerial pictures as a supplement in the formal experiment to provide more comprehensive and objective visual information, ensuring that the experimental materials can truly reflect the characteristics of the rural landscape in Wangshang Village. Besides, we have emphasized the principle of selecting experimental photos in the Materials and Methods section: to include as many cognitive elements of the corresponding categories as possible, so that each element is presented without distinction, and to avoid interference from unrelated factors.

Additionally, through literature review, we found that some researchers also added aerial pictures to the stimulus materials. For example, Ma et al. also used aerial images as a supplement to landscape types in their research, as shown in the following pictures [1].

To sum up, in the revised manuscript, we have not only provided detailed explanations in the materials and methods section [In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 4-5, and line 175-190.], but also explained the primary reasons for adopting aerial views in the Discussion section [In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 18, and line 644-659.]. In the future, we will delve deeper into the question of whether different photographic perspectives affect the cognitive differences among various subject groups. We believe that through these efforts, we can more effectively assess subjects' cognitive differences under varying perspectives, providing solid data support for subsequent academic research and practical applications.

Reference

[1] Ma, L.; Xu, Y.Z.; He, S.Y.; Tang, Z.; Li, T.Z. Exploring cognition differences in the traditional village landscape based on eye-tracking experiment. Urban Development Studies. 2023, 30, 86-94.

Comments 5: Additionally, coupling the Lynch qualitative method with the eye-tracking quantitative method is highly questionable.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing out this. We deeply apologize for any confusion caused by our unclear expression. And we have made the following statements regarding your doubts about this section.

Firstly, this study adopted a research method that combines quantitative analysis (eye tracking technology) with qualitative analysis (semi-structured interviews), rather than combining Kevin Lynch's qualitative methods (interviews, cognitive maps) with quantitative eye tracking methods.

Secondly, this study did not directly copy or replicate the qualitative research methods applied by Kevin Lynch in urban environments. Instead, it introduced rural imagery based on Kevin Lynch's theory of urban imagery, dividing the elements of rural landscape imagery into five categories: landmarks, edges, districts, nodes and paths. We have provided detailed explanations and strengthened the explanations in the introduction, discussion, materials and methods sections of the manuscript. In addition, more importantly, this study has made appropriate adjustments and extensions based on the uniqueness of rural environments, and constructed an image analysis framework applicable to rural landscapes.

Thirdly, eye tracking data can objectively reflect the allocation of visual attention and information processing processes, while semi-structured interviews can deeply explore the subjective feelings, cognitive pathways, and internal thinking processes of participants. In our research , as a scientific quantitative research technique, eye tracking technology objectively and accurately recorded the visual focus and visual gaze duration of subjects while observing rural landscapes. Meanwhile, as an important qualitative analysis method, semi-structured interviews combine the standardization of structured interviews with the flexibility of unstructured interviews. The two complement each other and comprehensively reveal the differences in rural landscape cognition between tourists and residents. They not only confirm the results of eye tracking experiments, but also further explain the differences between villagers and tourists in terms of five types of rural landscape image elements: landmarks, boundaries, regions, nodes, and roads.

We believe that through the above revisions, this study will be able to more clearly demonstrate the intrinsic connection between eye tracking experiments and semi-structured interviews, as well as how the two work together to answer research questions.

[In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 3, and line 129-130; page 4, and line 158-160; page 16-18, and line 539-659.]

Comments 6: Using small laptop screen to conduct research. The laptop screen is not described, but I seem standard 16-inch screen. Why don’t you use standard 24- or 27-inch screen? Is it possible to find relatable sources that will approve use of 16-inch screen and the results are not biased?

Response 6: We extend our heartfelt gratitude for your meticulous review of this research work and the invaluable suggestions provided. Regarding the issue of the laptop screen size utilized in the experiment that you have highlighted, we hereby clarify as follows:

Firstly, this study mainly used a 16-inch Lenovo Legion R9000P laptop as the experimental photo playback device.

[In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 6, and line 218-220.]

Secondly, in numerous eye movement experiments, small laptops have been widely used as playback devices and have been proven to effectively record and analyze subjects' eye movement data [1]. Through literature review, we found that multiple studies [2-4] have successfully conducted visual experiments using laptop screens of 16 inches or smaller, and have drawn reliable conclusions. These studies effectively reduced the influence of external factors such as screen size on experimental results by strictly controlling experimental conditions, using standardized test materials, and conducting sufficient statistical analysis.

Reference

[1] Liu, L.H.; Wu, M.Y.; Ma, Y.M.; Qu, H.Y. A review of research on the application of eye tracking in the field of landscape. J. Hum. Setts. West CHN. 2021, 36, 125-133. https://doi.org/10.13791/j.cnki.hsfwest.20210416.

[2] Ma, L.; Xu, Y.Z.; He, S.Y.; Tang, Z.; Li, T.Z. Exploring cognition differences in the traditional village landscape based on eye-tracking experiment. Urban Development Studies. 2023, 30, 86-94.

[3] Zhang, J. Inheritance and Renovate of Traditional Village Landscape Style Based on Sustainability Design: Taking Yandunjiao Village as an Example. Art & Design, 2017, (01): 140-141.

[4] Guo, S.L. Research on visual percept of mountain landscape in Eastern China based on eye movement. Master’ thesis, Nanjing University, Jiangsu Province, 2018. https://doi.org/10.27235/d.cnki.gnjiu.2018.000443.

Comments 7: 123 the sentence lacks clarity: “unlike their views”

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We sincerely apologize for any confusion arising from our unclear expressions. “… their views” refers to the viewpoints of the afore-mentioned research scholars. [In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 3, and line 124.]

Comments 8: 141 avoid poetic description “Shaanxi Province is one of the prominent birthplaces of the Chinese nation and Chinese culture …”

Response 8: Thank you very much for your meticulous review and for pointing out the need to avoid poetic descriptions in our writing. I fully appreciate the importance of maintaining an objective, accurate, and direct language in academic writing. The revised version is as follows: “Shaanxi Province, renowned for its pivotal role in the origin of the Chinese nation and culture”. [In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 3, and line 142-143.]

Comments 9: 149 reference is missing.

Response 9: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have supplemented the missing parts. [In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 4, and line 148-150.].

Comments 10: 152 repetitions, skip the sentence.

Response 10: When rechecking line 152, we found that there was indeed a repetition and have promptly corrected it.

[In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 4, and line 150-153.]

Comments 11: 169 The Conducting eye tracking research in landscape is technologically challenging too, I suppose.

Response 11: We agree with your viewpoint and have provided additional explanations for this section. [In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 4, and line 168.] Research on rural landscape, by its very nature, involves a complex interplay of visual stimuli, spatial arrangements, and ecological factors. While the technological challenges associated with conducting eye-tracking research in landscape studies are undeniable, they also present opportunities for groundbreaking insights into human perception, behavior, and the intricate relationships between humans and their natural surroundings. By embracing these challenges and leveraging the latest technological advancements in the future, we are confident in our ability to contribute meaningfully to this important area of research.

Comments 12: 175 designs (what king of design) If landscape design – use landscape architecture, if architecture – use architecture, if urban design, use urban design.

Response 12: Thank you very much for your thorough review of our manuscript and for bringing to our attention the important issue of terminology accuracy. I guess that you have a spelling error here, and the question should be “what kind of design”. In response, we have carefully reviewed our manuscript and confirm that our study primarily focuses on landscape design. Therefore, we have adhered to your recommendation and consistently used the term "landscape architecture" to describe the relevant designs throughout the text. [In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 5, and 193-194.] We believe that this precise terminology will aid readers in understanding the context and scope of our research more clearly. We deeply appreciate your meticulous correction and insightful suggestion, which have undoubtedly enhanced the academic rigor and readability of our work.

5. Additional clarifications

We have addressed all these comments and suggestions. Thank you again for your meticulous review and invaluable feedback. I appreciate your time and effort in helping me improve the quality of this research. We truly hope you can approve our revised manuscript.

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

We would like to express our sincere thanks to you for your valuable and insightful comments. The comments and suggestions truly helped us to improve the quality of the paper. In the revised manuscript, all the changes have been highlighted in red color.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Agree.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Agree.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Agree.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Agree.

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Agree.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Agree.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The Authors have provided sufficient text and answered all questions. However, they have not convinced me completely. I believe that the use of Lynch's landscape types in this study is not entirely appropriate. Furthermore, it seems that when participants were asked about these types.it may have influenced their responses. It is necessary to avoid such methodological uncertainties in future studies.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable feedback on our research, especially your questioning of ‘the use of Lynch's landscape types’. We think it was due to our improper wording or unclear explanation that you misunderstood this part. We deeply apologize for any confusion caused by our unclear expression, and we have made the following statements regarding your doubts about this section:

Firstly, it is crucial to clarify that this study does not directly adopt Lynch's landscape types but instead draws upon Kevin Lynch's theory of the image of the city, particularly its framework concerning the five elements of urban image (landmarks, edges, districts, nodes and paths). These elements have been appropriately adapted and expanded to accommodate the unique characteristics of the rural environment. We introduce the concept of ‘rural image’, categorizing the image elements within rural landscapes into these five categories and constructing an analytical framework tailored to the study of rural landscape imagery. This approach embodies both respect for and continuation of classical theories while acknowledging and exploring the uniqueness of rural landscapes, facilitating a deeper understanding for readers of villagers' and tourists' distinctive perceptions and experiences of rural landscapes.

Secondly, we fully comprehend and value the misunderstanding arising from our inappropriate word choice, for which we offer our sincere apologies. We have already made corresponding corrections in the latest revised manuscript. Specifically, we have altered ‘1.3 Classification methods for rural landscapes’ in the Introduction section to ‘1.3 Classification method for rural landscape image elements’, thereby more accurately reflecting the actual content and methodology of our research.

Thirdly, concerning your concern that participants in the interviews might be influenced by the inquiry into types of landscape image elements, we have taken this into rigorous consideration in our research design. Prior to conducting semi-structured interviews, we employed comprehensible language to elaborate on the definitions, characteristics, and classification methods of these five rural landscape image elements. This measure aimed to establish a clear conceptual framework for participants, mitigating biases stemming from vague concepts or misinterpretations, and thereby ensuring their responses genuinely reflected their perceptions and experiences of rural landscapes.

Lastly, we sincerely appreciate your correction, which has not only clarified misunderstandings in our research but also provided invaluable lessons for future endeavors. We pledge to exercise greater rigor in selecting and using academic terminology in our subsequent research work, preventing similar inaccuracies from recurring, thereby enhancing the accuracy and reliability of our research outcomes.

[In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 3, and line 121.]

Once again, thank you for your diligent work and professional guidance!

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your thorough review of our manuscript and for the valuable comments. As our goal is to communicate our research findings accurately and concisely, we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript, corrected all grammatical errors, improved sentence structures, and ensured that our terminology is precise and appropriate for the academic audience.

5. Additional clarifications

We have addressed all these comments and suggestions. We truly hope you can approve our revised manuscript.

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

We would like to express our sincere thanks to you for your valuable and insightful comments. The comments and suggestions truly helped us to improve the quality of the paper. In the revised manuscript, all the changes have been highlighted in red color.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Okay. Thank you.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Okay. Thank you.

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Okay. Thank you.

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Okay. Thank you.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

Okay. Thank you.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The sample images were categorized based on five elements, as shown in Figure 2, but there are significant issues with the sample data. Both the "boundary" and "area" categories include sample images from both human perspective and bird's-eye view, which can potentially impact the experiment conducted on the subjects. This is mainly due to two reasons: (1) Sample images from a bird's-eye view can reveal more information, while those from a human perspective cover less information; (2) Compared with the sample data of the other three categories, it can be observed that the data in the remaining categories are all sample images from a human perspective. The inconsistency in sample perspectives leads to different benchmarks for data comparison between different groups.

Response 1: We completely agree with this comment. We attach great importance to your profound insights regarding the inconsistency of perspectives in the sample data and have conducted a meticulous review and analysis. We sincerely apologize for any confusion arising from our unclear expressions, and we have provided supplementary explanations in the discussion section to address this issue. [In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 16 and line 512-552.]

In the preparation stage before formal experiment, our team embarked on rigorous preparatory work to ensure the scientific rigor, effectiveness, and cultural sensitivity of the experiment. This included conducting three small-scale pilot experiments successively one month prior to the main experiment. During these preliminary experiment period, we invited several participants, including local villagers and administrative leaders from Wangshang Village, to engage in testing. The feedback revealed that photographs taken from a human perspective had significant limitations in showcasing Wangshang Village's boundaries and regional characteristics, failing to comprehensively reflect its unique geomorphological features and regional culture. This finding resonated deeply with the intuitive perceptions of local villagers and administrative leaders, who emphasized that these photographs did not adequately capture the completeness of Wangshang Village's boundaries and the uniqueness of its regional characteristics, thereby raising concerns about the experiment's validity and the credibility of its results.

Recognizing the need for professional justification before directly replacing experimental materials, we sought opinions from five renowned professors in the field of landscape design. These experts highlighted the complexity of rural landscapes, emphasizing that photography should not only consider visual aesthetics but also accommodate topographical diversity and cultural uniqueness. For rural areas like Wangshang Village, characterized by relatively flat terrain and agricultural landscapes, a sole human perspective often proves insufficient to comprehensively present the village's boundaries and regional integrity. Based on this professional advice, we decided to incorporate aerial photographs as a supplement in the formal experiment, providing more comprehensive and objective visual information to ensure that the experimental materials genuinely reflect the characteristics of the study subject.

Furthermore, you mentioned that sample images from bird's-eye view reveal more information while human-perspective photographs contain less. This is indeed the case, but incorporating aerial photographs into our experimental design was deliberate, given the limitations of the human perspective in fully capturing Wangshang Village's boundaries and regional integrity. More importantly, our research aims to explore cognitive differences among different groups towards landscape types. The crux of our experiment lies in comparing and analyzing the cognitive differences generated by the same experimental photographs among distinct subject populations. For instance, suppose we present three sets of photographs: one featuring five different kinds of apples, another with five different kinds of pears, and the third containing five different kinds of bananas. Among these 15 photographs, six are captured from a human perspective, while the remaining nine are aerial views. Whether from a bird's-eye view or a human perspective, the photos they, tourists and villagers, see are the same. Their cognitive differences towards the same photograph do not stem from the varying angles of the photographs themselves but rather from their respective perspectives as tourists and villagers.

In addition, Ma et al. (2023) also used bird's-eye view images as a supplement to landscape types in their research [1], as shown in the following pictures.

In summary, our team took the feedback from participants, particularly local villagers, seriously during the preliminary experiment period and integrated expert opinions from the relevant field to make scientifically reasonable adjustments to the experimental materials. These adjustments aim to ensure the objectivity and representativeness of the experimental data while respecting and embodying the cultural characteristics and regional identities of the study subject. In the future, we will delve deeper into the impact of different photographic perspectives on the cognitive differences among various subject groups. We believe that through these efforts, we can more effectively assess subjects' cognitive differences under different perspectives, providing solid data support for subsequent academic research and practical applications.

[1] Ma, L.; Xu, Y.Z.; He, S.Y.; Tang, Z.; Li, T.Z. Exploring cognition differences in the traditional village landscape based on eye-tracking experiment. Urban Development Studies. 2023, 30, 86-94. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=4wkQyjAcIEfDE2UX36G8oE8vtDSIAbT5I-kw3ZLX3nZN5bk31_fG4DmiyeJSp1SBco_foaZpeP4RdoT4Bb1EM2dDNb3eRDM7fA5fcI5VH1XvJIDpItvd3eei30GlwTTJPGIDQFTbQzf289COwDdhwYRl8QRSX-06LSOzgkDZaJu6wvzZ7OdMItSvvfLF0VLTCjE_2XJmd0w=&unipl

Comments 2: Significance tests and data cleaning should be conducted on each eye movement indicator of the population over multiple rounds. Since eye movement data is greatly influenced by the subjectivity of the subjects, there may be deviations in the eye movement data of different subjects. This step is crucial to ensure the reliability and validity of the results.

Your insightful and pivotal suggestion regarding the conduct of multiple rounds of significance testing and data cleaning for each eye-movement indicator involved in the study is of paramount importance. We fully concur with this perspective and recognize that given the inherent characteristics of eye-movement data, which are significantly influenced by subjective factors of participants such as attention levels and fatigue states, deviations in eye-movement data among different participants are highly likely. Consequently, implementing rigorous data preprocessing and validation steps holds immeasurable value in ensuring the reliability and validity of the research outcomes.

Response 2: Your insightful and pivotal suggestion regarding conducting multiple rounds of significance testing and data cleaning for each eye movement index involved in the study is of paramount importance. We fully embrace this perspective and acknowledge that given the inherent characteristics of eye movement data, which are significantly influenced by subjective factors of participants such as the level of attention concentration and fatigue state, deviations in eye movement data among different participants are highly probable. thus, implementing rigorous data preprocessing and validation steps holds immeasurable value in ensuring the reliability and validity of the research outcomes. Therefore, we have provided supplementary explanations in the discussion section to address this issue.

To mitigate biases stemming from participant subjectivity, we conducted stringent screening during participant selection, striving to ensure representativeness across age, gender, cultural background, and other relevant dimensions. Additionally, prior to the experiment's onset, we provided participants with detailed guidance and training to ensure their accurate comprehension and execution of experimental tasks.

Besides, to ensure the stability and reliability of our results, we have collected eye-movement data from diverse populations. Besides, prior to data analysis, we rigorously cleaned and preprocessed the collected eye-movement data, eliminating invalid data (e.g., outliers due to equipment malfunctions or participant distractions) and standardizing the remaining data to ensure comparability across participants.

In future research, we plan to conduct multiple rounds of statistical analyses across different participant groups to examine whether differences between groups are statistically significant. These tests will aid in identifying eye-movement indicators that consistently reflect participants' visual cognitive processes, providing us with reliable conclusions. [In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 16-17and line 553-566.]

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Further refinement of the English language is recommended.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your thorough review of our manuscript and for the valuable comments. As our goal is to communicate our research findings accurately and concisely, we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript, focusing on clarity, conciseness, and consistency in language usage. We have corrected any grammatical errors, improved sentence structures, and ensured that our terminology is precise and appropriate for the academic audience.

5. Additional clarifications

We have addressed all these comments and suggestions. We truly hope the revised manuscript has now met the publication standard of your journal.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

We gratefully appreciate the editors and all reviewers for your time spend making positive and constructive comments.

and thoughtful corrections to our manuscript

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Okay. Thank you.

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

Okay. Thank you.

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Okay. Thank you.

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Okay. Thank you.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

Okay. Thank you.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The article describes the differences and similarities in landscape perception between tourists and villagers based on results of an eye movement experiment and interviews. This is a good direction. The text is clear and well ordered, but the methodology is controversial and requires additional explanations. In my opinion, the use of Lynch's elements is not accurate in the experiment because in many of photos they appear together, e.g. Landmarks and Nodes or Districts and Paths. I think that dividing the photos according to a different principle (for example types of scenes visible from roads and squares) would be more direct and fruitful.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestions regarding the principles of photograph classification. I fully understand your concern for a more direct and fruitful experimental design, and the following are my reflections and responses to your points.

Firstly, the Lynch's elements employed in our experiments, such as landmarks, edges, nodes, districts and paths, are foundational to his theory of cognitive mapping, describing how individuals mentally construct and comprehend spatial environments. These elements are not arbitrarily chosen but are derived from extensive observations and empirical research. Urban image is constructed by Kevin Lynch using psychological and behavioral research methods, such as interviews, descriptions, and drawing cognitive maps. This method of classification is now internationally recognized as a highly effective and widely used approach for gathering social data pertinent to urban design and planning [1].

You mentioned, the co-occurrence of these elements underscores their interconnectedness and significance within spatial contexts. However, this coexistence does not necessitate altering their definitions or classification principles in analysis. Rather, it underscores the need for a nuanced consideration of their interactions and hierarchical relationships.

Our study aims to refer to Kevin Lynch's theory of urban image, rural image is introduced, and the rural landscape is divided into five categories: "land-marks", "boundaries", "regions", "nodes", and "roads". It categorizes rural landscapes into five elements: "landmarks," "boundaries," "districts," "nodes," and "paths." The study delves into the manifestation and functions of these five elements within unique rural landscapes, as well as their impacts on human spatial cognition differences. Consequently, maintaining consistency and accuracy in the application of Lynch's elements is crucial for accurately assessing their roles within these landscapes. Regarding your suggestion to classify photographs based on different principles, such as the types of scenes visible from roads and plazas, I acknowledge its merit as a valuable perspective. Nevertheless, it may not fully align with the objectives of my research.

We recognize the importance of considering multiple perspectives and principles in research design. In future studies, I may integrate your suggestions with my research objectives to explore how different classification principles influence findings. Nevertheless, in the present study, I believe maintaining consistency and accuracy in the application of Lynch's elements is more crucial and necessary.

Lastly, I am grateful for your attention to my research and your valuable suggestions. Your feedback will positively impact my future endeavors, assisting me in continually refining and enhancing my research methodologies.

[1] Liu, Y.F. A Study on the Imagery of Urban Historical Landscape in the Old City of Beijing, 1st ed.; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2019; pp. 23-25.

Comments 2: The relationship between the both studies should be emphasized. An information about the purpose of the interviews and research linkages should be explained in the Introduction. In the Methodology section, the interviews process and the way in which the results of the quantitative and qualitative methods are related should be thoroughly described. How were words assigned to the Lynch’s elements if the photos were shown in random order and the interview was conducted after the experiment? Were participants aware of the photo categorization? The relationship between the results of both studies should be also explained in the Results part.

Response 2: You have kindly suggested that the tight relationship between the eye-tracking experiment and the semi-structured interviews should be further emphasized, and it is advisable to clearly articulate in the introduction the purpose of the interviews and their intrinsic connection to the overall research framework. Additionally, the methodology section should thoroughly describe the interview process and the analytical approach for integrating quantitative (eye-tracking data) and qualitative (interview content) results. We are deeply grateful for your meticulous review and invaluable suggestions on this research.

In the introduction, we have explicitly elaborated on the significance of the eye-tracking experiment and semi-structured interviews as complementary research methodologies. [In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 3 and line 96-119.]

In the methodology section, we have provided a more detailed account of the semi-structured interview process.  [In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 7-8 and line 266-288.]

The eye-tracking data objectively reflect the distribution of visual attention and the information processing mechanisms, whereas the semi-structured interviews delve into the participants' subjective experiences, cognitive pathways, and internal thought processes. These two methods, mutually reinforcing, comprehensively uncover the differences in rural landscape cognition between tourists and residents.

In the design of this study, we categorized 25 experimental photographs into five distinct groups and employed a sequential and randomized presentation of five photographs per group during the eye-tracking experiment to mitigate potential biases from subjective factors, rather than presenting all 25 photographs simultaneously in a randomized order. We sincerely apologize for any confusion arising from our unclear expressions, and we have provided supplementary explanations to address this issue. [In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page 5 and line 226-233.]

Regarding the question of whether participants were aware of the photograph classification, during the immediate semi-structured interviews conducted post-eye-tracking experiment, the experimental personnel presented printed copies of the experimental photographs to the participants as visual cues and disclosed the classification of each photograph group. This step aimed primarily to serve as a mnemonic device, facilitating participants' recall of the experimental procedure and enabling them to share their subjective experiences, cognitive pathways, and internal thought processes within the established classification framework during the interviews. [In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number7-8 and line 267-289.]

Furthermore, in the discussion section of the study, we have elaborated on the relationship between the findings from these two research components. [In the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number 15 and line 500-505.]

Lastly, I am deeply grateful for your attention to my research and the invaluable suggestions you have provided. We are confident that through these revisions, the study will more clearly demonstrate the inherent link between the eye-tracking experiment and semi-structured interviews.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your thorough review of our manuscript and for the valuable comments. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript, focusing on clarity, conciseness, and consistency in language usage. Meanwhile, we have corrected any grammatical errors, improved sentence structures, and ensured that our terminology is precise and appropriate for the academic audience.

5. Additional clarifications

We have addressed all these comments and suggestions. Thank you again for your meticulous review and invaluable feedback. I appreciate your time and effort in helping me improve the quality of this research. We truly hope the revised manuscript has now met the publication standard of your journal.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

We would like to thank you for carefully reading our manuscript. We really appreciate the comments and suggestions. All the changes have been highlighted with red color in the revised manuscript. In the following, we include a point-by-point response to your comments.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Okay. Thank you.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Okay. Thank you.

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Okay. Thank you.

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Okay. Thank you.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

Okay. Thank you.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The paper is well structured, with clear hypothesis, objectives and methodology. I also find the subject of the paper very interesting and with good potential for architectural and landscape design disciplines.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your acknowledgment of the clarity in our hypothesis, objectives, and methodology. Your appreciation reaffirms our belief in the significance of our research. Therefore, we plan to continue delving deeper into this topic in our future studies, aiming to provide even more theoretical foundations and practical guidance for the fields of architecture and landscape design.

Comments 2: The paper succeeds in demonstrating with relative precision what has already been known empirically for some time, namely the duality of any place to be perceived differently by inhabitants and tourists. There are many studies, both theoretical and practical, that analyze and explore this possible duality, and this paper fits into this vein by focusing mainly on the rural landscape.

Response 2: Thank you for your positive assessment of our paper and for acknowledging that it has succeeded in demonstrating, with relative precision, a phenomenon that has been empirically known for some time—the duality of perception between inhabitants and tourists in any given place. At the same time, we also recognize that within the vast landscape of research, our work represents only a small part of the whole. We look forward to collaborating with more researchers in the future to jointly explore the many unknowns and possibilities within this field.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine to me

Response 1: Thank you very much for your kind assessment of the English language used in our manuscript. As our goal is to communicate our research findings accurately and concisely, we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript, focusing on clarity, conciseness, and consistency in language usage. We have corrected any grammatical errors, improved sentence structures, and ensured that our terminology is precise and appropriate for the academic audience.

5. Additional clarifications

We have addressed all these comments and suggestions. We truly hope the revised manuscript has now met the publication standard of your journal.