Evaluation and Optimization Paths of Design Elements of Underground Building Atria Based on IPA–Kano Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors propose a systematic approach to the analysis of underground atriums of buildings. It is an innovative study, but, still, the importance of such analysis should be better highlighted by the authors.

Specific comments/suggestions

Shouldn’t the first paragraphs be integrated into a section called Introduction?

In the first paragraph, the authors must define POPS.

In the second paragraph of page 2, the authors should consider removing “importance-performance analysis” after IPA, as it is a repetition: “The satisfaction and importance perception means of each metric of IPA are projected in the form of coordinates (…)”.

In the same paragraph, the word “performance” is repeated in the following sentence.

In section 1.1, “(4) it is often” is repeated when describing each point.

In section 1.2, it would probably be better to use “(…) and proposed four major indicators: B1 (…)” instead of referring to the four major indicators only at the end of the sentence.

Figure 4 should be referred to as a Table.

The caption of Table 1 refers to APQ and MQ. Do the authors mean SQ and IQ?

Consider dividing the paragraph in section 2.1 into two paragraphs.

In section 2.1, at the end of the paragraph, the word “significantly” seems to be repeated.

Author Response

1. Point 1: Shouldn’t the first paragraphs be integrated into a section called Introduction?

Response 1: We have organized the first 3 paragraphs into an Introduction section.

2. Point 2: In the first paragraph, the authors must define POPS.

Response 2: We have defined POPS in the first paragraph of the introduction.

3. Point 3: In the second paragraph of page 2, the authors should consider removing “importance-performance analysis” after IPA, as it is a repetition: “The satisfaction and importance perception means of each metric of IPA are projected in the form of coordinates (…)”.

Response 3: This part has been adjusted to to the first paragraph of 2.1, and the redundant "importance-performance analysis"" has been removed.

4. Point 4: In the same paragraph, the word “performance” is repeated in the following sentence.

Response 4: This part has been reorganized to the first paragraph of 2.1, and the repeated "performance" has been deleted.

5. Point 5: In section 1.1, “(4) it is often” is repeated when describing each point.

Response 5: This part has been adjusted to the first paragraph of 3.1 and reorganizes the content.

6. Point 6: In section 1.2, it would probably be better to use “(…) and proposed four major indicators: B1 (…)” instead of referring to the four major indicators only at the end of the sentence.

Response 6: This part has been reorganized into the second paragraph of 3.1 and uses the form "B1 (...)" to express the 4 indicators.

7. Point 7: Figure 4 should be referred to as a Table.

Response 7: The original Figure 4 has been corrected to Table 2.

8. Point 8:The caption of Table 1 refers to APQ and MQ. Do the authors mean SQ and IQ?

Response 8: The original Table 1 has been corrected to Table 3 and redrawn with the English abbreviations removed.

9. Point 9: Consider dividing the paragraph in section 2.1 into two paragraphs.

Response 9: The section has been adjusted to 4.1 and divided into 2 paragraphs.

10. Point 10: In section 2.1, at the end of the paragraph, the word “significantly” seems to be repeated.

Response 10: This section has been adjusted to 3.1 to remove errors while the content has also been adjusted.

Reviewer 2 Report

Three underground building atriums in the main city of Chongqing are taken as the research object in the paper. The IPA-Kano model is used to identify three types of elements that have different impacts on the atrium of underground buildings. By integrating these three types of elements and their actual performance, the optimization path of atrium design elements for underground buildings was established. Design elements such as the number of lounge seats, wall forms and changes in ground floor height are priority elements to ensure enhanced user satisfaction. The IPA-Kano model is used to help architects and designers in the design phase of a project in the programmatic design refinement. It can also be useful to decision makers in determining how to allocate resources to create a better atrium for underground buildings during renovation projects. The authors show also some limitations in the research method.

I have some comments on the text:

Present the workflow, methodology, make a block diagram which can improve the clarity of the article. Is it possible to group the initial assumptions, the research and calculation tools, optimization conditions, the ways of reaching the results, the steps of the analysis, the effects?

Is it possible to group of the variables and estimate their weights, that have been assumed to define the atrium environment?

I cannot assess the correctness of the numerical results, because no rules and formulas have been given. Are they calculated by a computer program, and the person operating the program does not need to know the rules for creating and describing the observed dependencies?

Once the above deficiencies are corrected, the article can be read and understood, and then published.

Author Response

1. Point 1: Present the workflow, methodology, make a block diagram which can improve the clarity of the article.

Response 1:  We have added "Figure 4. Experimental technique route" in 2.3 to improve the clarity of the article.

2. Point 2: Is it possible to group the initial assumptions, the research and calculation tools, optimization conditions, the ways of reaching the results, the steps of the analysis, the effects?

Response 2: We have made adjustments to the article paragraphs. We have integrated the "IPA-Kano model", "Optimization methods" and "Experimental procedures" into Chapter 2 "Methods". At the same time, we have integrated the "Designing Indicators", "Questionnaire Setting", and "Study Cases and Data Collection" into Chapter 3 "Indicator and Data". We hope that with this adjustment, the structure of the article can be more clear.

3. Point 3: Is it possible to group of the variables and estimate their weights, that have been assumed to define the atrium environment?

Response 3: This part has been adjusted to 3.1, and we have classified it at the end of the first paragraph of 3.1, and have conducted preliminary research to estimate the approximate weights of the four indicators of "public facilities, physical environment, spatial interface and spatial form".

4. Point 4: I cannot assess the correctness of the numerical results, because no rules and formulas have been given. Are they calculated by a computer program, and the person operating the program does not need to know the rules for creating and describing the observed dependencies?

Response 4: We improved the experimental procedure of 2.3 and added relevant calculation formulas.

(1) We have calculated the mean score of each factor based on the recovered questionnaire data.

(2) We have performed bivariate correlation analysis of importance and attribute performance and extracted correlation coefficients as invisible importance. The calculation formula has been added to this part.

(3) The IPA-Kano model quadrant diagram has been drawn, and we have averaged the mean of explicit and implicit importance of the 33 factors as the central coordinates, and corresponded each element to the quadrant diagram separately.

(4) We have discussed the optimization paths based on the results of the 33 element quadrant distribution, combined with the attribute performance ranking of each element .

Reviewer 3 Report

To investigate the design elements of underground building atriums, the authors implemented a set of questionnaire-based discussions from three case studies. However, several questions should be answered to make the work readable: 

1. The contribution of this work is not clear. The presented work has demonstrated that the performances of design elements in underground atriums are not consistent and vary a lot in different cases, so how do the authors claim in the Abstract and Conclusion that this research can be used as a reference for decision-makers? 

2. As mentioned above, this paper is a questionnaire-based work, but the details of these questionnaires are not clear. How is the construction of the questions, how are the answerers consisted of, how many questions, etc.?  

3. More explanation is required for determining basic/important/charisma elements (Figure 8) in section 2.3.  

4. Please use the same terminologies in the text, figures, and tables. For example, “Attractive element” in Table 2 and “charming elements” in Section 2.3, “wall openings” in Section 2.2, and “ratio of door and window openings” in Table 2. There are a number of similar issues. 

5. Please identify “importance” and “satisfaction” in Figure 6. Also, does a higher number in this questionnaire represent “more agree”? 

6. Figure 7 needs to be reorganized. It’s missing the y-axis and unit. The three cases are not identified in this figure. 

7. The names of the three cases should be mentioned prior to Table 1. 

8. What is the meaning of “APQ” and “MQ” in Table 1? Meanwhile, please add more details about “Cronbach Alpha value” and “Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin/Bartlett Sphere Test”. 

9. Please convert Figure 4 to a table. 

10. There are lots of grammatical issues. A native and/or professional English editor is strongly recommended to thoroughly edit the manuscript. 

Author Response

1. Point 1: The contribution of this work is not clear. The presented work has demonstrated that the performances of design elements in underground atriums are not consistent and vary a lot in different cases, so how do the authors claim in the Abstract and Conclusion that this research can be used as a reference for decision-makers? 

Response 1: We have adapted to make clear in the abstract the contribution of this study, which is to inform operators of user preferences and the current state of project operation, while providing a methodological and data base for proposing optimization paths for specific projects.

2. Point 2: As mentioned above, this paper is a questionnaire-based work, but the details of these questionnaires are not clear. How is the construction of the questions, how are the answerers consisted of, how many questions, etc.?  

Response 2: We have added 3.2 Questionnaire design, a paragraph that explains the details of the composition of the questionnaire, the number of questions, etc. In addition, we have adjusted paragraph 2 in 3.3 specifically to answer the number, composition of participants.

3. Point 3: More explanation is required for determining basic/important/charisma elements (Figure 8) in section 2.3.  

Response 3:  The first paragraph of the original 2.3 has been adjusted to the first paragraph of 2.2, and we have added an explanation of why we should focus on the basic, importance and attractiveness elements.

4. Point 4:Please use the same terminologies in the text, figures, and tables. For example, “charming element” in Table 2 and “charming elements” in Section 2.3, “wall openings” in Section 2.2, and “ratio of door and window openings” in Table 2. There are a number of similar issues. 

Response 4: We have fixed the error mentioned above. And the naming has been unified throughout the text.

5. Point 5: Please identify “importance” and “satisfaction” in Figure 6. Also, does a higher number in this questionnaire represent “more agree”? 

Response 5: We have labeled which graphs are represented by "importance" and "attribute performance" in Figure 6. Also, the questionnaire design in 3.2 indicates that the higher the value, the higher the satisfaction (importance).

6. Point 6: Figure 7 needs to be reorganized. It’s missing the y-axis and unit. The three cases are not identified in this figure. 

Response 6:  Figure 7 has been redrawn with the addition of the y-axis and unit. The figure is a test of the importance and attribute performance of the same design elements for the three cases, so the figure name "Significance Statistics of Importance and attribute performance" has been modified.

7. Point 7: The names of the three cases should be mentioned prior to Table 1. 

Response 7: We have restructured the article to place 3.3Research Cases in front of Table 1.

8. Point 8: What is the meaning of “APQ” and “MQ” in Table 1? Meanwhile, please add more details about “Cronbach Alpha value” and “Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin/Bartlett Sphere Test”. 

Response 8:  The original Table 1 has been corrected to Table 3 and redrawn with the English abbreviations removed. And, we have added details about "Cronbach Alpha Value" and "Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin/Bartlett Sphere Test" to the table.

9. Point 9: Please convert Figure 4 to a table.

Response 9: The original Figure 4 has been corrected to Table 2.

10. Point 10: There are lots of grammatical issues. A native and/or professional English editor is strongly recommended to thoroughly edit the manuscript. 

Response 10: We have thoroughly re-edited the full text through professional English editor.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors' answer to my doubts is rather convincing. I understood the methodology the authors used. The article seems to be ready to publish.

Author Response

Point 1: The authors' answer to my doubts is rather convincing. I understood the methodology the authors used. The article seems to be ready to publish.

Response 2: We sincerely thank the judge for their comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have addressed most of my comments and this article has been improved. The paper is clearly structured with a clear scientific question and scientific contribution. Before moving forward to the publication procedure, two minor issues should be addressed: (1) the authors do not need to repeatedly mention “atrium of the underground building” or similar phases throughout the manuscript. Please concisely using “atrium” in the middle and latter parts. (2) A table or a figure to show the age and gender distributions of the questionnaires is required. Also, a brief discussion about how ages and genders affect the answers should be added. If the authors can address these two issues, I am fine with publication.

Author Response

1. Point 1: The authors do not need to repeatedly mention “atrium of the underground building” or similar phases throughout the manuscript. Please concisely using “atrium” in the middle and latter parts.

Response 1: In the middle of 3.1 of the article, we marked "hereinafter referred to as atrium" and replaced "atrium of underground building or underground building atrium" with "atrium" in the subsequent text (except for the figure、table and title).

2. Point2: A table or a figure to show the age and gender distributions of the questionnaires is required. Also, a brief discussion about how ages and genders affect the answers should be added. 

Response 2: We have added Figure 3 to show the distribution of participants by age and gender. We have also added the differences in opinions on design elements by age and gender to the beginning of each paragraph in 4.1.