In Pursuit of Eye Tracking for Visual Landscape Assessments
Ian D. Bishop
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for your article and for bringing to us this interesting topic.
However, it was not clear to me the originality of your paper, since many articles have been written about it. It is not obvious from the introduction the contribution of your research, neither the added value. The goals of your research should be stated more clearly at the end of the Introduction.
I was confused if your paper is a review paper or not. If it is a review paper a more systematic structure is needed. You could start by presenting the methodology of your research and the results. There are many interesting arguments presented, but they are not new or novel. They should be grouped accordingly, instead of a story telling format.
The value of this paper as I see it, is the whole review which is presented. Therefore, should be well organised and presented.
The paper needs to be rewritten in an other format, in order to present its value as a review. I believe that with a small effort this could be achieved.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We thank you for your time and insight in reading and commenting on our article. Your response has helped us improve the paper, now categorized as a "communication" rather than a research article or review. Please find our point-by-point responses below.
Comment 1: However, it was not clear to me the originality of your paper, since many articles have been written about it.
Response 1: Some articles may have been written about eye tracking and landscape perception, but the exocentric spatial analysis of eye tracking data is entirely novel to our knowledge. Our primary point in this regard is that 1) traditional eye tracking analysis has predominantly been conducted in 2D, 2) this analysis has been egocentric and analyzed eye movements within the scene perspective. Our research explores the potential benefits of analyzing points of regard from an exocentric perspective using spatial analyses. We added “These binary approaches, despite being written about extensively, have left significant gaps concerning the holistic integration of methods and data types covering the full spectrum from raw spatial data through perception to preference.” (Page 1, paragraph 1, lines 39-42)
Comment 2: It is not obvious from the introduction the contribution of your research, neither the added value. The goals of your research should be stated more clearly at the end of the Introduction.
Response 2: Moved “It should be noted that this paper uses terms such as “landscape assessment” and “impact assessment” broadly and interchangeably. In exploring the interface between psychological perception research and professional visual landscape management practices, this research specifically questions the boundaries between these various approaches. Palmer [13] notes that the goals of environmental perception research are distinct from but related to, the goals of visual impact assessments. While the prior is typically a type of fundamental research exploring the human experience of landscape, the latter measures and evaluates particular scenes’ potential impact from proposed landscape projects or management strategies.” from Page 2 paragraph 4 to Page 2 paragraph 3.
To clarify our goals, we then added “In order to integrate psychological perception and visual resource practices, how-ever, the methods, data types, and goals of each field must be assessed for their potential compatibility. This paper is a first step in that comparison by presenting an brief over-view of eye tracking methods along with a conceptualized workflow for integrating that field with more traditional spatial analysis." (page 2, paragraph 5, lines 89-93)
Comment 3: I was confused if your paper is a review paper or not. If it is a review paper a more systematic structure is needed. You could start by presenting the methodology of your research and the results.
Response 3: The type of submission has been changed from “article” to “communication”.
Comment 4: There are many interesting arguments presented, but they are not new or novel.
Response 4: We added “The novelty and value of this contribution lie in the movement towards a more holistic understanding of the interplay between landscape spatial metrics, the spatial properties of perceptual mechanisms mediating the interaction between viewer and landscape, and psychological phenomema such spatial cognition and landscape preference." (page 2, paragraph 5, lines 93-97)
Comment 5: They should be grouped accordingly, instead of a story telling format.
Comment 5: See response 3
Comment 6: The value of this paper as I see it, is the whole review which is presented. Therefore, should be well organised and presented. The paper needs to be rewritten in an other format, in order to present its value as a review. I believe that with a small effort this could be achieved.
Response 6: See response 3
Thank you again for your time and effort as a reviewer!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI agree with the major premise of the paper that eye tracking can be a very useful linking technology drawing together analytical and perceptually based approaches to visual landscape assessment. As I read the introductory sections I was looking forward to also learning about some emprirical exploration of the theme. I was just beginning to think that the introduction was rather long when I suddenly arrived as Discussion and Conclusion. While this was a disappointment, I feel that the paper still has merit. While a prima facie case for eye tracking is easily made, the paper goes further and provides a sound conceptual structure for the relationship between approaches and the specifics of application.
The paper is generally well written but I did pick out a few sentences/phrases that could have been expressed more clearly. These are listed below, some with comment and others simply for you to consider rephrasing.
- most forms of visual landscape assessments have predominantly relied on evaluations of landscape characteristics (while this may make sense to those with deep knowledge of landscape assessment options it may be opaque to other readers)
- namely the observation patterns within scenes and giving rise to subsequent perceptions.
- explicitly prods
- This finding suggests that while some eye movements may be more common with certain preference types, some eye movement patterns may be more closely related to the visual task being conducted, such as modes of searching or evaluation. (a mode is not a task - maybe you can find a better example).
- of the relationship between scenes and their allocentric spatial relationships (allocentric is the wrong term - could be simply deleted)
- at Line 208 'more studies' should be 'other studies' unless there are actually more of them.
- both in terms of physical or visual scope as well as time spent looking at each (remove 'both')
- In preference evaluations, eye tracking could potentially serve as a tool 258 for standardizing individuals’ disparate preference scales (I think this deserves further comment as it is not at all clear how this facilitates standardisation)
Author Response
Hello Reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our submission. Please see the attachment for our detailed response.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am happy with the minor revisions.
