The Use of Camouflage Colours to Reduce the Visual Impact of Industrial Facilities on Open Landscape

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Research methodology and text editing have not been sufficiently improved. The idea of using military camouflage on industrial civilian buildings was not justified. A simple summation of the expert assessment and the assessment from the questionnaires is not a comparison of the results. The main aim and the object of the study remain unclear in the context of paper content. Is the object of the study respondents' preferences regarding the use of military camouflage on industrial facilities, is the object of the study the effect of the camouflage on the open landscape, or is the object of the study the method of their studying?

The article is too long, contains irrelevant fragments for declared aim (to analyse the influence of military camouflage on mitigation the visual impact) and repetitions.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your work and time in completing the reviews and the suggestions contained in them. We have addressed all the comments made in the reviews in an effort to incorporate them into the article. We have added corrections in the text of the article according to the comments of the Reviewers, and below we refer to other issues and comments made by the Reviewers.

Our kind regards,

Kamila Pawłowska, Otylia Serwatko, Bartosz Jawecki

Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland

Research methodology and text editing have not been sufficiently improved. The idea of using military camouflage on industrial civilian buildings was not justified.

The aim of using camouflage is to reduce the impact on the landscape and to blur the object so that it does not have features that dominate and disharmonise the landscape.

A simple summation of the expert assessment and the assessment from the questionnaires is not a comparison of the results.

The summary and discussion have been revised, and a table summarising the findings has been added.

The main aim and the object of the study remain unclear in the context of paper content. Is the object of the study respondents' preferences regarding the use of military camouflage on industrial facilities, is the object of the study the effect of the camouflage on the open landscape, or is the object of the study the method of their studying?

The subject of the study was the respondents assessment of the impact of the use of camouflage on the perception of industrial facilities in camouflage colours on the open landscape, i.e. whether, in the opinion of the respondents, camouflage has the effect of reducing the visibility of the landscape of the surveyed facilities. As described in the excerpt ‘Scope, methodology and objective of the study’.

The article is too long, contains irrelevant fragments for declared aim (to analyse the influence of military camouflage on mitigation the visual impact) and repetitions.

Unnecessary parts of text were cut from the article, deviating from the purpose.

Regarding comments: English language and style - Thank you for your comment, the translation was made by a professional translator.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer’s Comments

1.      Line # 10: This line ….

2.      Line # 11: patterns

3.      Line # 16: Results of the present study were used to compare ……

4.      In introduction section merge number of paragraphs to only two paragraphs

5.      Sub-paras 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 merge these under sub-para (History, Types and Patterns of Camouflage) because brevity is the soul of wit.

6.      Line # 179,180: check reference numbers

7.      Line # 277: instead of warming climate use “due to warm climate”

8.      Line # 279: for “The use of universal colours that overlap for most of the year will be more economical” use the sentence “Use of overlapping universal colours will be more economical to be use for most of the year”

9.      Line # 290: Use abbreviations after the words

10.  Line # 603: Use abbreviation SAPs

11.  Line #713: Just use the word Discussion and delete the words summary and conclusions

12.  Kindly summarize the results in tabular form

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your work and time in completing the reviews and the suggestions contained in them. We have addressed all the comments made in the reviews in an effort to incorporate them into the article. We have added corrections in the text of the article according to the comments of the Reviewers, and below we refer to other issues and comments made by the Reviewers.

Our kind regards,

Kamila Pawłowska, Otylia Serwatko, Bartosz Jawecki

Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland

Reviewer’s Comments

1. Line # 10: This line

We are very sorry, but we do not understand the meaning of this comment. We cannot find such a passage.

2. Line # 11: patterns

It has been corrected as suggested.

3. Line # 16: Results of the present study were used to compare ……

It has been corrected as suggested.

4. In introduction section merge number of paragraphs to only two paragraphs

It has been corrected as suggested.

5. Sub-paras 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 merge these under sub-para (History, Types and Patterns of Camouflage) because brevity is the soul of wit.

It has been corrected as suggested.

6. Line # 179,180: check reference numbers

It has been corrected as suggested.

7. Line # 277: instead of warming climate use “due to warm climate”

It has been corrected as suggested.

8. Line # 279: for “The use of universal colours that overlap for most of the year will be more economical” use the sentence “Use of overlapping universal colours will be more economical to be use for most of the year”

It has been corrected as suggested.

9. Line # 290: Use abbreviations after the words

It has been corrected as suggested.

10. Line # 603: Use abbreviation SAPs

It has been corrected as suggested.

11. Line #713: Just use the word Discussion and delete the words summary and conclusions

After the discussion, however, a number of conclusions were drawn, and we therefore decided to title the chapter "discussion and conclusions".

12. Kindly summarize the results in tabular form

The summary and discussion have been revised, and a table summarising the findings has been added.

Table 3. Comparison of the total score of the impact of the surveyed sites with and without camouflage on the open landscape (for the total score of the landscape impact categories, mean values have been rounded to whole values, category colours according to the expert method, see Total score for sectors, Fig.16, Fig.17, Fig.18)

* analysis and evaluation of the panoramas with the best rated camouflage.

In the case of the expert assessment of Object 1 without camouflage, the average value can be assigned to categories 3-4 (Total score for sectors, Fig.16, Fig.17, Fig.18) adding camouflage increased the average value of the scores received, but the category did not. In the case of the respondents' assessment, Object 1 received an average score classifying it in the „poor” category, while the addition of camouflage increased the average value and the overall score changed to „good”, thus changing the category of the site two classes higher. The average value of the rating for Object 2 in the expert assessment increased after the addition of camouflage by half a point, which was enough to raise the category by one class. The results of the ratings from the surveys without and with camouflage differed by 1.7 points, which raised the class by 2 values, from „poor” to „good”. With the addition of camouflage, the average rating in the expert method of Object 3 increased by only 0.25 points, while raising the class by 1. Despite the increase of 0.40 points in the average rating of the respondents, the class of the object did not change. The evaluation carried out using the expert method showed that the mean score and the overall rating increased due to the camouflage. Only in the case of object 1 did the overall assessment category not change significantly. In contrast, the surveys showed that the addition of camouflage to the surveyed objects resulted in a higher average point value and an increase in the overall rating (e.g. from bad to good). Site 3 remained in the same category, but the average values were highest compared to the other sites. Both in the expert assessment as in the survey assessment, the camouflage applied positively influenced the overall rating at the object located at a distance of 1000m from the observer where the overall rating increased by 1 (expert assessment) or 2 categories (survey assessment). In contrast, the site closest to the observer (500m) remained in the same category in the expert assessment and the survey assessment increased by 2 categories. For the site furthest away (1500m), the situation was reversed, with the overall rating increasing by 1 category in the expert method and remaining the same in the survey method. For sites further away from the observer, the ratings were higher.

Regarding comments: English language and style - Thank you for your comment, the translation was made by a professional translator.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The use of camouflage colours to reduce the visual impact of industrial facilities on open landscape

Review Report

This study is interesting as it analyzes the influence of the application of military camouflage patterns on industrial facilities to reduce their visual impact on the surrounding landscape.

What are the benefits of the study in reality?  I mean how camouflage colors could be used in reality, not just a simulation?

For your literature review, you went too deep in presenting the types and the development of camouflage. Please reduce and simplify it and make it very brief. 

Merge the literature review in the introduction smoothly without a subtitle.

From line 242 to line 247: (To this end, the visual impact of the…..industrial facilities on open landscape), all this should move to the methodology.

Put your objective at the end of your introduction without a subtitle.

From line 247 to line 251: (The conducted studies and analyses verified the research hypothesis that the application of masking with use of selected military camouflage patterns has a positive influence on landscape, because it allows large-capacity objects to blend in with the panorama of scenic landscape). This should be moved to the result and conclusion.

Put the scope of the study in your methodology without subtitles.

How many samples did you take for each category? For objects 1, 2, and 3?

From line 292 to line 295: (The questionnaire contained photos of selected objects taken from various distances: for object 1 the panorama was taken at a distance of approx. 500 m, object 2 was presented from a distance of approx. 1000 m an object 3 from approx. 1500 m. It also contained photos with camouflage patterns applied on the analysed buildings). Where are these pictures in your article? Are they in figures 2, 4, and 6, or those in figures 16 to 18? You should show and mention the figure numbers.

I agree with the previous reviewer that the manuscript should be reduced.

Why did take an overhead photo, not a side photo, although people look at these facilities from its side, not from above? Give a logical and convincing explanation.

Why you made two similar sections: (Discussion Summary and conclusions) and (Summary and conclusions) just make the first section a Discussion and the last one as conclusions.

Your discussion is just a literature review, in the discussion section, you should describe, analyze, and interprets your findings. The discussion is a much more thorough and rigorous examination of the results. You should show how or why your results are the way, they are.

In your paper, do not cite the article by its title just mention the authors and follow the instruction of the journal in reference citations.

From line 757 to line 758, do not say: (The exceptions from this rule are light-coloured patterns in distant panoramas) but say (The exceptions to this rule are light-coloured patterns in distant panoramas).

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your work and time in completing the reviews and the suggestions contained in them. We have addressed all the comments made in the reviews in an effort to incorporate them into the article. We have added corrections in the text of the article according to the comments of the Reviewers, and below we refer to other issues and comments made by the Reviewers.

Our kind regards,

Kamila Pawłowska, Otylia Serwatko, Bartosz Jawecki

Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland

This study is interesting as it analyzes the influence of the application of military camouflage patterns on industrial facilities to reduce their visual impact on the surrounding landscape.

Thank you very much for your kind feedback. We appreciate it.

What are the benefits of the study in reality?  I mean how camouflage colors could be used in reality, not just a simulation?

A potential benefit is the possibility to change the traditional colour scheme of the buildings (white, grey) to colours that match the colour of the surroundings and landscape. When designing the colour and appearance of the facade of the facilities, an analysis of the existing colours and greenery in the surroundings of the project should be carried out in order to select suitable camouflage colours. For this reason, it is possible to draw on the military's many years of experience and knowledge in the selection of such colours. The result should be to paint the façade with colours that camouflage the object with its surroundings.

For your literature review, you went too deep in presenting the types and the development of camouflage. Please reduce and simplify it and make it very brief.

It has been revised and shortened as suggested.

Merge the literature review in the introduction smoothly without a subtitle.

It has been corrected as suggested.

From line 242 to line 247: (To this end, the visual impact of the…..industrial facilities on open landscape), all this should move to the methodology.

It has been corrected as suggested.

Put your objective at the end of your introduction without a subtitle.

It has been corrected as suggested.

From line 247 to line 251: (The conducted studies and analyses verified the research hypothesis that the application of masking with use of selected military camouflage patterns has a positive influence on landscape, because it allows large-capacity objects to blend in with the panorama of scenic landscape). This should be moved to the result and conclusion.

It has been corrected as suggested.

Put the scope of the study in your methodology without subtitles.

It has been corrected as suggested.

How many samples did you take for each category? For objects 1, 2, and 3?

The questionnaire was prepared based on the study by Krok (2015).The survey was conducted on 102 participants of various ages and educational background (details on page 6).

From line 292 to line 295: (The questionnaire contained photos of selected objects taken from various distances: for object 1 the panorama was taken at a distance of approx. 500 m, object 2 was presented from a distance of approx. 1000 m an object 3 from approx. 1500 m. It also contained photos with camouflage patterns applied on the analysed buildings). Where are these pictures in your article? Are they in figures 2, 4, and 6, or those in figures 16 to 18? You should show and mention the figure numbers.

They can be found in Figures 16, 17 and 18. Due to their small size, the figures are difficult to see (in the survey they were available in an electronic version allowing the appropriate size to be set), moreover, in these figures with the camouflage applied, the surveyed objects are not visible, which confirms that the camouflage fulfils its role. As the distance between the observer and the building increases, the effectiveness of camouflaging objects in the landscape increases. Images have been added as separate attachments, we hope that there was an opportunity to view them in a larger format.

I agree with the previous reviewer that the manuscript should be reduced.

It has been revised and shortened as suggested.

Why did take an overhead photo, not a side photo, although people look at these facilities from its side, not from above? Give a logical and convincing explanation.

All the images analysed were taken from the position of a person looking straight ahead (16, 17, 18). Orthophotos from the aerial view (2, 4, 6) were used to present the location of objects in the field. The photographs in front of the subjects were taken at eye level, by a 170cm tall person.

Why you made two similar sections: (Discussion Summary and conclusions) and (Summary and conclusions) just make the first section a Discussion and the last one as conclusions.

It has been corrected as suggested. After the discussion, however, a number of conclusions were drawn, and we therefore decided to title the chapter "discussion and conclusions".

Your discussion is just a literature review, in the discussion section, you should describe, analyze, and interprets your findings. The discussion is a much more thorough and rigorous examination of the results. You should show how or why your results are the way, they are.

The summary and discussion have been revised, and a table summarising the results of the study has been added.

Table 3. Comparison of the total score of the impact of the surveyed sites with and without camouflage on the open landscape (for the total score of the landscape impact categories, mean values have been rounded to whole values, category colours according to the expert method, see Total score for sectors, Fig.16, Fig.17, Fig.18)

* analysis and evaluation of the panoramas with the best rated camouflage.

In the case of the expert assessment of Object 1 without camouflage, the average value can be assigned to categories 3-4 (Total score for sectors, Fig.16, Fig.17, Fig.18) adding camouflage increased the average value of the scores received, but the category did not. In the case of the respondents' assessment, Object 1 received an average score classifying it in the „poor” category, while the addition of camouflage increased the average value and the overall score changed to „good”, thus changing the category of the site two classes higher. The average value of the rating for Object 2 in the expert assessment increased after the addition of camouflage by half a point, which was enough to raise the category by one class. The results of the ratings from the surveys without and with camouflage differed by 1.7 points, which raised the class by 2 values, from „poor” to „good”. With the addition of camouflage, the average rating in the expert method of Object 3 increased by only 0.25 points, while raising the class by 1. Despite the increase of 0.40 points in the average rating of the respondents, the class of the object did not change. The evaluation carried out using the expert method showed that the mean score and the overall rating increased due to the camouflage. Only in the case of object 1 did the overall assessment category not change significantly. In contrast, the surveys showed that the addition of camouflage to the surveyed objects resulted in a higher average point value and an increase in the overall rating (e.g. from bad to good). Site 3 remained in the same category, but the average values were highest compared to the other sites. Both in the expert assessment as in the survey assessment, the camouflage applied positively influenced the overall rating at the object located at a distance of 1000m from the observer where the overall rating increased by 1 (expert assessment) or 2 categories (survey assessment). In contrast, the site closest to the observer (500m) remained in the same category in the expert assessment and the survey assessment increased by 2 categories. For the site furthest away (1500m), the situation was reversed, with the overall rating increasing by 1 category in the expert method and remaining the same in the survey method. For sites further away from the observer, the ratings were higher.

In your paper, do not cite the article by its title just mention the authors and follow the instruction of the journal in reference citations.

It has been corrected as suggested.

From line 757 to line 758, do not say: (The exceptions from this rule are light-coloured patterns in distant panoramas) but say (The exceptions to this rule are light-coloured patterns in distant panoramas).

It has been corrected as suggested.

Regarding comments: English language and style - Thank you for your comment, the translation was made by a professional translator.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article requires minor revisions to improve consistency.

Correct the line numbering.

Part 3

p.5, line 8 - remove redundant "and objective of the study"; lines 18-23 - this is a repetition to be removed

p.6, lines 1-3 - repeat to be removed

Part 4

Show the locations of objects in one graphic. Pictures 2,4,6 do not add anything to the argumentation - they can be removed. It would be more interesting to mark the observation points on a common graphic. Results illustrated withfigures can be presented in tables (in the entire text), obtaining an immediate effect of comparing them and reducing the volume of text.

p.18, lines 3-10 - change the font

line 11 - to be deleted

Consider changing the direction of the description in Table 2. It is currently hard to read.

Part 6

Insert citations after authors' names.

p.25, lines 8-11 are out of place.

Table 3 and its description belongs to the results. Their interpretation belongs to Discussion. How do the results of the method comparison affect recommendations for further research? Do you see the more universal significance of your research in planning and landscape design?

Author Response

The article requires minor revisions to improve consistency.

Correct the line numbering. 

The numbering has been corrected

Part 3

p.5, line 8 - remove redundant "and objective of the study"; lines 18-23 - this is a repetition to be removed

There must be a file read error. In the version on my computer it looks different from the version downloaded from the website. Below is the docx document I am editing and the pdf downloaded from the website. Consequently, it is hard to correct in the word document as these errors are not present.

p.6, lines 1-3 - repeat to be removed

Part 4

Show the locations of objects in one graphic. Pictures 2,4,6 do not add anything to the argumentation - they can be removed. It would be more interesting to mark the observation points on a common graphic. Results illustrated withfigures can be presented in tables (in the entire text), obtaining an immediate effect of comparing them and reducing the volume of text.

The comment and the idea are interesting, we will use them in future publications. However, at this stage we would like to leave it as it is. Such a significant change would require a rewrite of the entire article. However, we have taken the suggestion and created a common graphic for all sites.

p.18, lines 3-10 - change the font;  line 11 - to be deleted

Similar problem as above. The editable document does not have these errors.

Consider changing the direction of the description in Table 2. It is currently hard to read.

I changed the direction of the numerical values, the headings had to stay as they were, as they would not fit in the table or I would have had to split it into three separate tables. In addition, to make the table easier to read, I divided the object results with vertical lines and added shading every second column.

Part 6

Insert citations after authors' names.

The citation has been corrected.

p.25, lines 8-11 are out of place.

Table 3 and its description belongs to the results. Their interpretation belongs to Discussion. 

The table has been moved.

How do the results of the method comparison affect recommendations for further research? 

The perception of the landscape is an individual feeling of the observer, depend on the observer's judgement, hence the expert method made by specialists differs from the landscape assessment made by ordinary non-expert observers  Hence, it seems advisable in landscape research to simultaneously use expert and survey methods based on observer assessments. 

Do you see the more universal significance of your research in planning and landscape design?

In general, visual surveys of the open landscape for planned investments should take into account the colouring of the surroundings leading to an appropriate selection of façade colours that will reduce the negative impact of cubic investments in the open landscape. This can be an effective method in planning the location of developments. An idea for future research is to use the method in different climatic and vegetation zones.

We sincerely thank you for all your comments and suggestions. They have been very helpful to us in improving our work and research.

Our kind regards,

Kamila Pawłowska, Otylia Serwatko, Bartosz Jawecki

Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Recommendation to Accept the paper

Author Response

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 made every effort to ensure that the text succinctly describes the thesis we have set out and the research presented in the article. We hope that with the corrections made, the quality of the article has been enriched.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

We have tried to support our research with literature sources. Even older items, which are a very good source of knowledge concerning the history of the introduction of camouflage colours.

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

We have tried to improve both the research, the thesis, the purpose of the research and the description of the method to make it as clear, concise and informative as possible. We hope that with the corrections and suggestions applied, the descriptions are of better quality.  

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

This chapter has been revised by us. Unnecessary, repetitive passages have been removed and a concise conclusion and summary have been added.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Elements summarising and explaining the empirical research have been added.

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

This chapter has been revised again by us and, in our opinion, improved. Both the summary elements and the conclusions. We would therefore like to thank you for any suggestion relating to Chapter 6.

We sincerely thank you for all your comments and suggestions. They have been very helpful to us in improving our work and research.

Our kind regards,

Kamila Pawłowska, Otylia Serwatko, Bartosz Jawecki

Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf