Exploring the Impact of Visual and Aural Elements in Urban Parks on Human Behavior and Emotional Responses
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the changes and explanations.
I am convinced with the new version of the manuscript.
(Present manuscript is the upgraded version of the submission Id 3128565 and has responded to the shortcomings.)
----------
It explores the relationship between landscape experiences in terms of audio-visual elements and the sensory quality of urban parks. It studies the effects of visual and aural aspects of nature on human behavior, emotional responses, and users activities. Accordingly, certain areas of a two square kilometers park are selected to be analyzed in terms of the mentioned factors (landscape and soundscape) through QGIS calculations and field surveys.
Regards
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is greatly improved and the authors have adequately responded to all my previous comments. This manuscript should be placed in the LAND journal special issue "Landscape Architecture Research and Design for Urban and Periurban Environment 2nd Edition".
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntroduction Improvements: The introduction provides a good overview but could benefit from a more structured comparison with existing studies to highlight the novelty of the current research. Ensure all relevant references are included.
Research Design: While the research design is comprehensive, the limitations related to seasonal and temporal factors should be acknowledged and addressed. Expanding the number of measurement points for sound pressure levels would improve the robustness of the findings.
Methods Description: The methods section is detailed but could be made clearer with additional information on how the specific measurement points were selected and any potential biases this might introduce. A more detailed description of the soundwalk and questionnaire procedures would enhance reproducibility.
Results Presentation: The results are generally well-presented, but some sections could be clearer with more direct comparisons between different measurement points. Including more visual aids, such as graphs or charts, could help in illustrating key findings.
Conclusions: The conclusions are supported by the results but could be strengthened by a more detailed discussion on the implications of the findings and how they contribute to the existing body of knowledge. Addressing the limitations more explicitly would also provide a balanced view.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish Language: Moderate editing is required to improve the readability of the manuscript. Simplifying complex sentences and correcting minor grammatical errors will enhance the overall clarity.
Author Response
Thank you so much for pointing all the issues out. We agree with them and have revised accordingly.
Comment 1：Introduction Improvements: The introduction provides a good overview but could benefit from a more structured comparison with existing studies to highlight the novelty of the current research. Ensure all relevant references are included.
Response 1: We have reorganized the introduction to highlight that the main research gap lies in the limited studies discussing the influence of physical landscape elements on emotional perception. The novelty of this research is in the quantitative analysis that reveals which landscape elements can influence different emotional perceptions.
comment 2: Research Design: While the research design is comprehensive, the limitations related to seasonal and temporal factors should be acknowledged and addressed. Expanding the number of measurement points for sound pressure levels would improve the robustness of the findings.
Response 2: We have acknowledged the limitation related to seasonal and temporal factors. Instead of relying solely on noise measurements and recordings, we used the Noise Prediction Model (NPL) (http://resource.npl.co.uk/acoustics/techguides/crtn/) to generate a noise map of the park, which enhances the robustness of our findings.
Comment 3: Methods Description: The methods section is detailed but could be made clearer with additional information on how the specific measurement points were selected and any potential biases this might introduce. A more detailed description of the soundwalk and questionnaire procedures would enhance reproducibility.
Response 3: We have added detailed information regarding the selection of measurement points, the size of soundwalk points, and the conduction of the soundwalk. In the main text, we described the composition of the questionnaire. Excluding the personal information section, the questionnaire consists of two main parts: sound environment perception and emotional perception questions. The sound environment perception includes semi-open questions for collecting perceived sound source types and a 5-point scale for evaluating the intensity of sound source perception. The emotional perception section also uses a 5-point scale to collect the intensity of emotional perception. We have added a new Figure 2 to illustrate the entire experimental process, making it easier to understand.
Comment 4: Results Presentation: The results are generally well-presented, but some sections could be clearer with more direct comparisons between different measurement points. Including more visual aids, such as graphs or charts, could help in illustrating key findings.
Response 4: We have included a more detailed presentation of the results.
Comment 5: Conclusions: The conclusions are supported by the results but could be strengthened by a more detailed discussion on the implications of the findings and how they contribute to the existing body of knowledge. Addressing the limitations more explicitly would also provide a balanced view.
Response 5: We have reorganized the discussion and conclusion sections to emphasize our contribution to existing design strategies. We also provided a more detailed and balanced discussion on the limitations.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have read the manuscript very carefully; and have found that it is very well written (The whole process is well designed and implemented). And I did not have detected any significant issue (shortcoming) regarding this study.
It explores the relationship between landscape experiences in terms of audio-visual elements and the sensory quality of urban parks. In fact, it studies the effects of visual and aural aspects of nature on human behavior, emotional responses, and users activities. Accordingly, certain areas of a two square kilometers park are selected to be analyzed in terms of the mentioned factors (landscape and soundscape) through QGIS spatial syntex calculations and field surveys. The results include prediction maps of the emotions.
But, later and while I was searching for more up-to-date publications on the topic in order to have a better understanding, I have found the following publication that considering the ¨objectives, site location, method, concepts, results, and discussion¨ are the almost same:
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1186806
I have compared them in details. In this regard, I do not recommend further process of this article unless there are certain justifications.
Regards
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I have completed my review of this manuscript. This is a very interesting and novel study with important implications for the future of visitor experience/environmental design in urban parks. However, the current version cannot be considered further until the following questions are addressed:
Point 1 The Introduction chapter seems to provide enough information, however, I would like the authors to consider rewriting/reorganizing this chapter because this study discusses the effects of visual and auditory elements in parks on human behavior and emotions, and the current version does not reflect this key information in a logical way: the health benefits of parks, the effects of visual elements on human behavior and emotions, and the effects of auditory elements on human behavior and emotions.
Point 2 (Line155-156) This seems to be an incomplete sentence? What does xxxx mean?
Point 3 (Subsection 2.1) 50mx50m seems like a very large area and the author may need to provide some explanation for this size setting.
Point 4 (Subsection 2.2) It is recommended that a methodological framework figure be added to show the research process more clearly.
Point 5 (Line 198) More information could be provided on the pre-study and how/why the four categories of visual landscape elements were identified.
Point 6 (Line 211-212) As with the previous comment, please provide more information on the pre-study.
Point 7 (Line 213-214) Despite the annotations in Figure 5, however, information on the subtypes of sounds should be provided where these sound categories first appear.
Point 8 (Line 216) The citation style here is inconsistent; also, please provide more description of the sound walk method.
Point 9 (Line 234) If semi-open questionnaire, please provide more information about the open questions in the questionnaire.
Point 10 Can the authors provide more details about using Depthmap software to analyze the visible area of landscape elements?
Point 11 (Line 257) Is this a mistake? 25 participants? 30 participants?
Point 12 (Line 272) A mistake? In Line251 it mentions that the observation time is 8:00-12:00.
Point 13 (Line 292) I don't think the purpose of these models is to optimize, but rather to discover the driving elements that significantly affect the dependent variable. And then we propose optimization measures based on these model results.
Point 14 (Line 300) The t-test is a parametric test and the authors need to test the normality of the data first.
Point 15 (Table 1) Please provide the full name of each abbreviation at the end of the table; in addition, there are two rows of data for each location, please explain the meaning of the data in the second row.
Point 16 (Line 381) Can the author explain in detail how these zones are divided according to the four elements: lawn, woodland, water and paving?
Point 17 (Table 3) Pearson correlation analysis requires that the data satisfy a normal distribution, and the authors do not appear to have tested the data for normality.
Point 18 (Table 8) It is recommended that the color style of the four charts be uniform to show trends more clearly.
Point 19 (Table 9) The name of the third category seems to be wrong? I think it should be “Restriction Area” instead of “wetland reserves area”.
Point 20 (Subsection 4.4) In addition to the limitations listed, I think the authors should have mentioned that the respondents of this study were all young adults in the 20-30 year old age group, which could potentially have an impact on the applicability of the results of this study (e.g., the young adult group may have a higher tolerance for temperature, noise); furthermore, the authors in the methodology section should have given a powerful justification for using only the young adult group as the respondents of the study.
Author Response
Comment 1: Point 1 The Introduction chapter seems to provide enough information, however, I would like the authors to consider rewriting/reorganizing this chapter because this study discusses the effects of visual and auditory elements in parks on human behavior and emotions, and the current version does not reflect this key information in a logical way: the health benefits of parks, the effects of visual elements on human behavior and emotions, and the effects of auditory elements on human behavior and emotions.
Response 1: We have reorganized the introduction into three subsections: 1) The Health Benefits of Parks, 2) The Effects of Visual and Auditory Elements on Human Behavior and Emotions, 3) The Interactive Effects of Visual and Auditory Elements on Human Behavior and Emotions. We hope this structure presents the key information in a more logical way.
Comment 2: Point 2 (Line155-156) This seems to be an incomplete sentence? What does xxxx mean?
Response 2: We have rewritten the introduction part to avoid such mistakes.
Comment 3: Point 3 (Subsection 2.1) 50mx50m seems like a very large area and the author may need to provide some explanation for this size setting.
Response 3: We have added explanation regarding this point. 50mx50m point size allows participants to move around independently and gain a more comprehensive soundscape experience without causing excessive differences in the sound environment.
Comment 4: Point 4 (Subsection 2.2) It is recommended that a methodological framework figure be added to show the research process more clearly.
Response 4: We have added a new Figure 2 to explain the experimental process.
Comment 5: Point 5 (Line 198) More information could be provided on the pre-study and how/why the four categories of visual landscape elements were identified.
Comment 6: Point 6 (Line 211-212) As with the previous comment, please provide more information on the pre-study.
Response 5、6: We have provided a brief explanation of the content and purpose of the pre-experiment in the newly added Figure 2 and the corresponding sections of the text. In the pre-experiment, we conducted a preliminary survey of the site, selected experimental sites and sound walk routes, and initially collected panoramic images of these ten sites. Through image semantic segmentation, we identified four types of visual landscape elements. We also recorded the sound environment at the experimental sites, used a semi-open questionnaire to collect perceptible sound sources in the venue, and through semantic extraction, we obtained four main types of sound sources.
Comment 7: Point 7 (Line 213-214) Despite the annotations in Figure 5, however, information on the subtypes of sounds should be provided where these sound categories first appear.
Response 7: We have provided information on the subtypes of sounds.
Comment 8: Point 8 (Line 216) The citation style here is inconsistent; also, please provide more description of the sound walk method.
Response 8：This section contains the URL of the referenced analysis website, for which we have corrected the format. The specific method of the sound walk has been supplemented in section 2.2.2 of the text.
Comment 9: Point 9 (Line 234) If semi-open questionnaire, please provide more information about the open questions in the questionnaire.
Response 9：Additional information about the content of the semi-open questionnaire has been provided in section 2.2.2 of the text.
Comment 10: Point 10 Can the authors provide more details about using Depthmap software to analyze the visible area of landscape elements?
Response 10：Figure 3 has been added to illustrate the process of using Depthmap software to analyze the visible area of landscape elements.
Comment 11: Point 11 (Line 257) Is this a mistake? 25 participants? 30 participants?
Response 11: Mistake has been corrected. 30 participants were involved in this research.
Comment 12: Point 12 (Line 272) A mistake? In Line251 it mentions that the observation time is 8:00-12:00.
Response 12: Mistake has been corrected.
Comment 13: Point 13 (Line 292) I don't think the purpose of these models is to optimize, but rather to discover the driving elements that significantly affect the dependent variable. And then we propose optimization measures based on these model results.
Response 13: Your observation is indeed correct; it was an oversight on our part, and we have made the appropriate revisions in the text.
Comment 14: Point 14 (Line 300) The t-test is a parametric test and the authors need to test the normality of the data first.
Response 14: Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests have added to test the normality of the data.
Comment 15: Point 15 (Table 1) Please provide the full name of each abbreviation at the end of the table; in addition, there are two rows of data for each location, please explain the meaning of the data in the second row.
Response 15: Acronyms for each table have been labeled, and row headers have been added to the original Table 1 (now Table 2).
Comment 16: Point 16 (Line 381) Can the author explain in detail how these zones are divided according to the four elements: lawn, woodland, water and paving?
Response 16: The previous text has already described that the final visual elements were extracted into four types, with the classification based on the dominant element in the proportion of each basic unit in the site. The specific content has been supplemented in the main text.
Comment 17: Point 17 (Table 3) Pearson correlation analysis requires that the data satisfy a normal distribution, and the authors do not appear to have tested the data for normality.
Response 17: Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests have added to test the normality of the data.
Comment 18: Point 18 (Table 8) It is recommended that the color style of the four charts be uniform to show trends more clearly.
Response 18: The colors of the figure 8 have been standardized.
Comment 19: Point 19 (Table 9) The name of the third category seems to be wrong? I think it should be “Restriction Area” instead of “wetland reserves area”.
Response 19: We have changed analysis strategy, therefore, this part has been replaced by the new analysis.
Comment 20: Point 20 (Subsection 4.4) In addition to the limitations listed, I think the authors should have mentioned that the respondents of this study were all young adults in the 20-30 year old age group, which could potentially have an impact on the applicability of the results of this study (e.g., the young adult group may have a higher tolerance for temperature, noise); furthermore, the authors in the methodology section should have given a powerful justification for using only the young adult group as the respondents of the study.
Response 20: We have added explanation related to the young adult group participant recruit in methodology section. In limitation section, we also added the potential limitation regarding only young responders involvement.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLAND-3128565
Exploring the impact of visual and aural elements in urban parks on human behavior and emotional response
This is a well written article on multisensory assessment of an urban park. Minor suggestions for improvement of the article are made to the author.
Introduction
Line 166- need to delete (Maas et al 2006; Barten and Petty 2010)
Materials and Methods
Line 184 On- suggest that the authors add a figure to display measurement methods in step-by-step fashion.
Line 254- what was the source for the ethical approval? It is important to document this.
Results
Lines 309 on Table 1- need a key at the bottom of the table for all the horizontal variables
Lines 389 Figure 6- colors for the ecological conservation area and traffic activity area are too close
Line 427 Table 3- need a key at the bottom of the table for all the horizontal variables
Discussion
In the last paragraph the authors discuss park management actions needed to ameliorate or improve multisensory park experiences. Rather than state specific actions- a better strategy would be to use the predictive model to test possible management and design actions.
At the end authors should state what future research is needed
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English language usage it fine-only minor editing is needed.
Author Response
Thank you so much for pointing the issues out. We agree with them and have revised accordingly.
Comment 1: Introduction
Line 166- need to delete (Maas et al 2006; Barten and Petty 2010)
Response 1: We have reorganise the introduction part and checked the reference style.
Comment 2: Materials and Methods
Line 184 On- suggest that the authors add a figure to display measurement methods in step-by-step fashion.
Line 254- what was the source for the ethical approval? It is important to document this.
Response 2: We have added a figure to display the research process in methodology section. As for the ethical approval, we have emailed the editor ethical approval record and it has been accepted.
Comment 3: Results
Lines 309 on Table 1- need a key at the bottom of the table for all the horizontal variables
Response 1: A key with explanations for all the horizontal variables has been added at the bottom of the table.
Lines 389 Figure 6- colors for the ecological conservation area and traffic activity area are too close
Response 2: The colors for the ecological conservation area and traffic activity area have been adjusted to provide better distinction.
Line 427 Table 3- need a key at the bottom of the table for all the horizontal variables
Response 3: We have added keys at the bottom of table 1 and 3 for horizontal variables.
Comment 4: Discussion
In the last paragraph the authors discuss park management actions needed to ameliorate or improve multisensory park experiences. Rather than state specific actions- a better strategy would be to use the predictive model to test possible management and design actions.
At the end authors should state what future research is needed.
Response 4: We have revised the analysis substantially based on other reviewers’ comments. Therefore, the strategy in discussion has been revised substantially accordingly. Based on your kind suggestion, we have stated the future research.
