Computer-Aided Automated Greenery Design—Towards a Green BIM

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 

Thanks for giving me the chance to read this manuscript, " Computer-aided automated greenery design - towards a Green BIM ". The current paper tries to examine how intrinsic motives drive consumers (referred to as users in this study) to propose a new complex digital method of selection and design of greenery based on a new parameters spreadsheet. The proposition is supported by the review and investigation of the software used by designers identifying a range of tools for the design of greenery.

This is an interesting topic in the field of automatic design and I am an expert in this field. However, there are major issues, especially for the contribution, in the current manuscript that should be carefully addressed to be further considered.

 

Literature

 

The most significant issue is the theoretical contribution stated in this study. I acknowledged that computer-aided automated greenery design might be very helpful for automated plant selection and variations of possible greenery scenarios in the design process. It focused more on the practical implication, rather than the theoretical contribution. A more appropriate theoretical allocation is strongly needed for this study.

 

The authors are advised to further discuss their work with the related design practice.

 

Reference:

Luo, J., Zhang, Y., & Song, Y. (2022). Design for Pandemic Information: Examining the Effect of Graphs on Anxiety and Social Distancing Intentions in the COVID-19. Frontiers in Public Health, 10.

Qin, Z., & Song, Y. (2022). Symbol Matters: A Sequential Mediation Model in Examining the Impact of Product Design with Buddhist Symbols on Charitable Donation Intentions. Religions, 13(2), 151.

 

 

Language

 

Authors are advised to carefully proofread the current version since there are many typos in it. For example, in the section of “abstract”, there is “::”

 

 

 

To sum up, I personally like this paper. However, the problems should be addressed in order to be further considered. Hope these suggestions help.

Author Response

We would like to thank the Editor and Reviewers for all the valuable remarks. After a careful analysis of all the comments, we have made the necessary corrections. We hope that the current text will respond to all the comments.

 

Could be improved:

 

 

• Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

We have improved the context and extended the theoretical framework.

• Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

We have added additional references and reviewed the previously selected ones.

• Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

We have developed the discussion with a focus on the theoretical framework.

• For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

  We have cleared the theoretical structure and strengthened the hypothesis and research questions to present the research better. Moreover, we have decided to support the discussion with a broader theoretical framework.

• Is the article adequately referenced?

We have added additional references and reviewed the previously selected ones.

 

Must be improved:

 

• Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

We have strengthened the research questions and hypotheses in the added paragraph:

In the era when automation processes are entering the discipline of architecture, the question should be posed, whether there are any automation processes for greenery design already incorporated into the software used by architects and landscape planners?

 If not, the first general question appears whether the new digital methods related to automation of processes can be applied in greenery design. If so, what kind of environmental and vegetation parameters should be considered in the development of an automation model for greenery.

 

We have strengthened the research questions and hypotheses in the added paragraph:

In the era when automation processes are entering the discipline of architecture, the question should be posed, whether there are any automation processes for greenery design already incorporated into the software used by architects and landscape planners?

 If not, the first general question appears whether the new digital methods related to automation of processes can be applied in greenery design. If so, what kind of environmental and vegetation parameters should be considered in the development of an automation model for greenery.

 

28. Fernandez-Mora, V.; Navarro, I.J.; Yepes, V. Integration of the structural project into the BIM paradigm: A literature review, Journal of Building Engineering, Volume 53, 2022, 104318
29. Chong, H.; Lee, C.; Wang, X; A mixed review of the adoption of Building Information Modelling (BIM) for sustainability: Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 142, 2017, 4114-4126.
30. Nyka, L.; Cudzik, J.; Urbanowicz, K. The CDIO model in architectural education and research by design: World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, Volume 18, 2020; 85-90
31. Wei, X., Bonenberg, W., Zhou, M., Wang, J. Application of BIM Simulation and Visualization in Landscape Architecture Design: Advances in Human Factors in Architecture, Sustainable Urban Planning and Infrastructure, Volume 1214, 2020, doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51566-9_29’’

 

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

 

  We have cleared the theoretical structure and strengthened the hypothesis and research questions to present the research better. Moreover, we have decided to support the discussion with a broader theoretical framework.

 

 

In general:

 

The most significant issue is the theoretical contribution stated in this study. I acknowledged that computer-aided automated greenery design might be very helpful for automated plant selection and variations of possible greenery scenarios in the design process. It focused more on the practical implication, rather than the theoretical contribution. A more appropriate theoretical allocation is strongly needed for this study. The authors are advised to further discuss their work with the related design practice.

 

Reference:

 

• Luo, J., Zhang, Y., & Song, Y. (2022). Design for Pandemic Information: Examining the Effect of Graphs on Anxiety and Social Distancing Intentions in the COVID-19. Frontiers in Public Health, 10.
• Qin, Z., & Song, Y. (2022). Symbol Matters: A Sequential Mediation Model in Examining the Impact of Product Design with Buddhist Symbols on Charitable Donation Intentions. Religions, 13(2), 151
• .

Thank you for the remark. We have added the reference and extended the theoretical allocation:

The currently proposed model is limited to selected parameters but in future research, the approach can be broadened by the consideration of various environmental issues. For example, the impact of vegetation design parameters on air quality should be taken into account [48–51]. In particular, the aerodynamic and deposition effects of vegetation should be considered [48,53,54]. This can pertain to the selection of vegetation species most efficient in pollution deposition but also to selecting vegetation design characteristics so that it does not obstruct airflow, especially in densely built-up urban areas and street canyons [54–56]. In many cities, the scientific knowledge on these processes is already disseminated in the form of practical guidelines [57,58]. However, it is still not widespread among planners and designers and therefore not commonly applied in practice [48,59]. Therefore, design-support tools which facilitate the consideration of the impact of vegetation on local air quality, especially alongside other issues, are required.

The selection of plants should also consider such factors as the lifecycle of plants, the waste that is produced as well as the contribution of a specific type of greenery to the local CO2 balance. The design should also consider the three R’s concept (reduce, reuse, recycle) applied to the greenery as an important component of the architectural and urban project [60]. It is also crucial to develop the system for lifecycle management with a focus on environmental performance. In this matter, redevelopment of existing structures and strategies for heritage buildings should be considered with the availability to improve the analysis of existing buildings and their maintenance [28]. The new experience coming from the recent pandemic shows the need to include in future automated models for greenery design, factors related to the prevention of widespread diseases, peoples anxiety, social distancing intentions, cultural differences [61-62], healing properties of plans and their impact on humans wellbeing.

 

Moreover we have supported the general framework with additional references and directions of development:

• Luo, J., Zhang, Y., & Song, Y. (2022). Design for Pandemic Information: Examining the Effect of Graphs on Anxiety and Social Distancing Intentions in the COVID-19. Frontiers in Public Health, 10.
• Qin, Z., & Song, Y. (2022). Symbol Matters: A Sequential Mediation Model in Examining the Impact of Product Design with Buddhist Symbols on Charitable Donation Intentions. Religions, 13(2), 151
• Badach, J.; Dymnicka, M.; Baranowski, A. Urban vegetation in air quality management: A review and policy framework. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1258.
• Badach, J.; Voordeckers, D.; Nyka, L.; Van Acker, M. A framework for Air Quality Management Zones - useful GIS-based tool for urban planning: Case studies in Antwerp and Gdańsk. Build. Environ. 2020, 174, 106743.
• Bottalico, F.; Chirici, G.; Giannetti, F.; De Marco, A.; Nocentini, S.; Paoletti, E.; Salbitano, F.; Sanesi, G.; Serenelli, C.; Travaglini, D. Air Pollution Removal by Green Infrastructures and Urban Forests in the City of Florence. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016, 8, 243–251.
• Baldauf, R. Roadside vegetation design characteristics that can improve local, near-road air quality. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 52, 354–361.
• Buccolieri, R.; Santiago, J.L.; Rivas, E.; Sanchez, B. Review on urban tree modelling in CFD simulations: Aerodynamic, deposition and thermal effects. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 31, 212–220.
• Janhäll, S. Review on urban vegetation and particle air pollution - Deposition and dispersion. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 105, 130–137.
• Voordeckers, D.; Meysman, F.J.R.; Billen, P.; Tytgat, T.; Van Acker, M. The impact of street canyon morphology and traffic volume on NO2 values in the street canyons of Antwerp. Build. Environ. 2021, 197, 107825.
• Xue, F.; Li, X. The impact of roadside trees on traffic released PM10 in urban street canyon: Aerodynamic and deposition effects. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 30, 195–204.
• Buccolieri, R.; Gromke, C.; Di Sabatino, S.; Ruck, B. Aerodynamic effects of trees on pollutant concentration in street canyons. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 5247–5256.
• Baldauf, R. Recommendations for Constructing Roadside Vegetation Barriers to Improve Near-Road Air Quality. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency 2016, 600/R–16/0.
• Greater London Authority Using Green Infrastructure to Protect People from Air Pollution Available online: https://www.london.gov.uk/WHAT-WE-DO/environment/environment-publications/using-green-infrastructure-protect-people-air-pollution (accessed on Aug 5, 2020).
• Badach, J.; Dymnicka, M.; Załęcki, J.; Brosz, M.; Voordeckers, D.; Van Acker, M. Exploring the Institutional and Bottom-Up Actions for Urban Air Quality Improvement: Case Studies in Antwerp and Gdańsk. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11790.
• Kwok Wai Wong, J.; Zhou, J. Enchencing environmental sustainability over building life cycles through green BIM: A review, Automation in Construction, Volume 57, 2015, 156-165.
• Fernandez-Mora, V.; Navarro, I.J.; Yepes, V. Integration of the structural project into the BIM paradigm: A literature review, Journal of Building Engineering, Volum 53, 2022, 104318

 

 

Language

 

Authors are advised to carefully proofread the current version since there are many typos in it. For example, in the section of “abstract”, there is “::”

 

We have reviewed the text and proofread the current version to avoid such situations.

 

 

To sum up, I personally like this paper. However, the problems should be addressed in order to be further considered. Hope these suggestions help.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The paper is in the line of previous work of the authors. Contributing, from my point of view, in this case, the comparison of different computer programs with respect to BIM.

 Abstract: I would put bim with a capital BIM, I would put the meaning the first time it appears in the text. Too many ":"

 

 Page 2 end of second paragraph left over “.”

 

The word automation, I would put automation.

 The paper is a bit long. I would summarize several sections (if the authors deem it convenient). In the revision I would try to leave only the BIM programs or for which there are BIM utilities. But only if the authors consider it necessary.

 

 Some images, such as figure 5, have to reduce the graphic part and increase the size of the text.

 

 Figure 6 is not visible, would it be possible to make it in two parts or landscape?

 

 From figure 8 it goes to 10. Figure 7 is repeated. Check it, coordinate with the text.

 

 Although aspects related to sustainability are outlined in the discussion:

 

“An interesting issue is also taking into account aspects related to fauna and its requirements, such as maintaining green corridors or maintaining biodiversity, which in turn strongly influences the development of greenery as a complete structure. Providing an appropriate environment for birds or insects in the city has a positive effect on the development of plant tissue and increases its importance in the entire ecosystem”

 I think that in addition to the selection of plants, according to climatic requirements, we must also consider, as they say, the fauna. But there are other aspects that facilitate sustainability, such as the life cycle of plants (trees, shrubs, herbaceous plants, etc.), what to do or recycling with the waste that is produced (mainly cutting and pruning, as well as dead plants) , how to replace dying plants, as well as the contribution to the CO2 balance (including maintenance tasks) of the environment in which the plantation is located.

 

 

These papers can be interesting for the authors, they analyze the state of the art from another point of view:

Johnny Kwok Wai Wong, Jason Zhou.

Enhancing environmental sustainability over building life cycles through green BIM: A review.

Automation in Construction.

 

Victor Fernandez-Mora, Ignacio J. Navarro, Victor Yepes.

Integration of the structural project into the BIM paradigm: A literature review.

Journal of Building Engineering.

 

 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the Editor and Reviewers for all the valuable remarks. After a careful analysis of all the comments, we have made the necessary corrections. We hope that the current text will respond to all the comments.

 

Could be improved:

 

• Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

We have strengthened the research questions and hypotheses in the added paragraph:

In the era when automation processes are entering the discipline of architecture, the question should be posed, if there are any automation processes for greenery design already incorporated into the software used by architects and landscape planners?

 If not, the first general question appears whether the new digital methods related to automation of processes can be applied in greenery design. If so, what kind of environmental and vegetation parameters should be considered in the development of an automation model for greenery.

 

• Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

We have cleared the theoretical structure and strengthen the hypothesis and research questions to present the research balanced and compelling.  Moreover we have decided to support the discussion with broader theoretical framework.

 

In general:

 

1)  Abstract: I would put bim with a capital BIM, I would put the meaning the first time it appears in the text. Too many ":"  Page 2 end of second paragraph left over “.”

The word BIM was explained - Building Information Modelling and written in keyword with capital letters. We have also decided to change the character of some paragraphs to avoid unnecessary enumerations. Moreover, we have reviewed the text and proofread the current version to avoid minor spelling and punctuation mistakes. 2) The word automation, I would put automation.
The word is the same. We cannot refer to this comment.

3) The paper is a bit long. I would summarize several sections (if the authors deem it convenient). In the revision I would try to leave only the BIM programs or for which there are BIM utilities. But only if the authors consider it necessary.

The authors find it important to present and discuss the general scope of available software applied in the greenery design not only the BIM programs or ones with BIM utilities. This is because automation processes can be applied in most software due to the possibility of creating plug-ins and add-ons to meet the specific needs of users. However, we strongly support the idea of a complex approach to the design issues with BIM-based solutions taking into account the complexity of the entire design and management process

4) Some images, such as figure 5, have to reduce the graphic part and increase the size of the text.

We have edited the figures 1 and 5 to make them more readable.

 5) Figure 6 is not visible, would it be possible to make it in two parts or landscape?

We have edited and simplified figure 6 to make it more readable.

6) From figure 8 it goes to 10. Figure 7 is repeated. Check it, coordinate with the text.

The numbering of figures was corrected and coordinated with the text

 

7) Although aspects related to sustainability are outlined in the discussion:“An interesting issue is also taking into account aspects related to fauna and its requirements, such as maintaining green corridors or maintaining biodiversity, which in turn strongly influences the development of greenery as a complete structure. Providing an appropriate environment for birds or insects in the city has a positive effect on the development of plant tissue and increases its importance in the entire ecosystem”

I think that in addition to the selection of plants, according to climatic requirements, we must also consider, as they say, the fauna. But there are other aspects that facilitate sustainability, such as the life cycle of plants (trees, shrubs, herbaceous plants, etc.), what to do or recycling with the waste that is produced (mainly cutting and pruning, as well as dead plants), how to replace dying plants, as well as the contribution to the CO2 balance (including maintenance tasks) of the environment in which the plantation is located.

These papers can be interesting for the authors, they analyse the state of the art from another point of view:

Kwok Wai Wong, J., Zhou, J. (2015), Enhancing environmental sustainability over building life cycles through green BIM: A review, Automation in Construction, Volume 57, 2015, 156-165.  

Victor Fernandez-Mora, Ignacio J. Navarro, Victor Yepes. Integration of the structural project into the BIM paradigm: A literature review. Journal of Building Engineering.

Thank you for the remark. We have added the reference and extended the theoretical allocation:

 

The currently proposed model is limited to selected parameters but in future research, the approach can be broadened by the consideration of various environmental issues. For example, the impact of vegetation design parameters on air quality should be taken into account [48–51]. In particular, the aerodynamic and deposition effects of vegetation should be considered [48,53,54]. This can pertain to the selection of vegetation species most efficient in pollution deposition but also to selecting vegetation design characteristics so that it does not obstruct airflow, especially in densely built-up urban areas and street canyons [54–56]. In many cities, the scientific knowledge on these processes is already disseminated in the form of practical guidelines [57,58]. However, it is still not widespread among planners and designers and therefore not commonly applied in practice [48,59]. Therefore, design-support tools which facilitate the consideration of the impact of vegetation on local air quality, especially alongside other issues, are required.

The selection of plants should also consider such factors as the lifecycle of plants, the waste that is produced as well as the contribution of a specific type of greenery to the local CO2 balance. The design should also consider the three R’s concept (reduce, reuse, recycle) applied to the greenery as an important component of the architectural and urban project [60]. It is also crucial to develop the system for lifecycle management with a focus on environmental performance. In this matter, redevelopment of existing structures and strategies for heritage buildings should be considered with the availability to improve the analysis of existing buildings and their maintenance [28]. The new experience coming from the recent pandemic shows the need to include in future automated models for greenery design, factors related to the prevention of widespread diseases, peoples anxiety, social distancing intentions, cultural differences [61-62], healing properties of plans and their impact on humans wellbeing.

Moreover we have supported the general framework with additional references and directions of development:

 

• Kwok Wai Wong, J.; Zhou, J. Enchencing environmental sustainability over building life cycles through green BIM: A review, Automation in Construction, Volume 57, 2015, 156-165.
• Luo, J., Zhang, Y., & Song, Y. (2022). Design for Pandemic Information: Examining the Effect of Graphs on Anxiety and Social Distancing Intentions in the COVID-19. Frontiers in Public Health, 10.
• Qin, Z., & Song, Y. (2022). Symbol Matters: A Sequential Mediation Model in Examining the Impact of Product Design with Buddhist Symbols on Charitable Donation Intentions. Religions, 13(2), 151
• Badach, J.; Dymnicka, M.; Baranowski, A. Urban vegetation in air quality management: A review and policy framework. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1258.
• Badach, J.; Voordeckers, D.; Nyka, L.; Van Acker, M. A framework for Air Quality Management Zones - useful GIS-based tool for urban planning: Case studies in Antwerp and Gdańsk. Build. Environ. 2020, 174, 106743.
• Bottalico, F.; Chirici, G.; Giannetti, F.; De Marco, A.; Nocentini, S.; Paoletti, E.; Salbitano, F.; Sanesi, G.; Serenelli, C.; Travaglini, D. Air Pollution Removal by Green Infrastructures and Urban Forests in the City of Florence. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016, 8, 243–251.
• Baldauf, R. Roadside vegetation design characteristics that can improve local, near-road air quality. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 52, 354–361.
• Buccolieri, R.; Santiago, J.L.; Rivas, E.; Sanchez, B. Review on urban tree modelling in CFD simulations: Aerodynamic, deposition and thermal effects. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 31, 212–220.
• Janhäll, S. Review on urban vegetation and particle air pollution - Deposition and dispersion. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 105, 130–137.
• Voordeckers, D.; Meysman, F.J.R.; Billen, P.; Tytgat, T.; Van Acker, M. The impact of street canyon morphology and traffic volume on NO2 values in the street canyons of Antwerp. Build. Environ. 2021, 197, 107825.
• Xue, F.; Li, X. The impact of roadside trees on traffic released PM10 in urban street canyon: Aerodynamic and deposition effects. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 30, 195–204.
• Buccolieri, R.; Gromke, C.; Di Sabatino, S.; Ruck, B. Aerodynamic effects of trees on pollutant concentration in street canyons. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 5247–5256.
• Baldauf, R. Recommendations for Constructing Roadside Vegetation Barriers to Improve Near-Road Air Quality. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency 2016, 600/R–16/0.
• Greater London Authority Using Green Infrastructure to Protect People from Air Pollution Available online: https://www.london.gov.uk/WHAT-WE-DO/environment/environment-publications/using-green-infrastructure-protect-people-air-pollution (accessed on Aug 5, 2020).
• Badach, J.; Dymnicka, M.; Załęcki, J.; Brosz, M.; Voordeckers, D.; Van Acker, M. Exploring the Institutional and Bottom-Up Actions for Urban Air Quality Improvement: Case Studies in Antwerp and Gdańsk. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11790.
• Fernandez-Mora, V.; Navarro, I.J.; Yepes, V. Integration of the structural project into the BIM paradigm: A literature review, Journal of Building Engineering, Volum 53, 2022, 104318

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed most of my concerns. I am happy to recommend it for publication.