Evaluating the Landscape Quality of Residential Communities: A Case Study of the Chinese City Yangling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comment

The reviewed manuscript concerns the landscape and environmental quality of China`s residential communities. The authors are using well known (L142-149) AHP method to investigate the citizens‘ expectations. This is not an innovation, however, fits well with the journal's aims and scopes and may be useful for China–oriented studies.

Unfortunately, the article title suggests two kinds of quality assessment – the landscape and the environment; in practice, Table 1 title suggest, only the former. This indicates an imprecise understanding of the landscape quality term.  Please clearly split the landscape and environment assessment.

One more comment concerns the proposed methodology - how was the "visual quality" explained to the respondents? Did they have freedom in the meaning of this term? Was the assumption, that respondents understand “visual quality” the same way, correct? Maybe the lack of such information results in relatively low visual quality ratings (result section, L246-248). Please explain.

Regarding the results - the AHP weighting seems to be correct, thus the obtained results provide a solid basis for drawing the environmental and landscape conclusions.

Minor comments

The reference style has to be adjusted to the journal guidelines

Explain, why 1-9 scale was used (L155-156) and support it with proper references; the survey uses Liketr - does it connect somehow?

How visual quality (of the landscape) can be explained by plant morphology (Table 1) - are there any preferences or literature on this issue? Or maybe just the design of Table 1 needs to be improved.

Author Response

General comments

The reviewed manuscript concerns the landscape and environmental quality of China`s residential communities. The authors are using well known (L142-149) AHP method to investigate the citizens’ expectations. This is not an innovation, however, fits well with the journal's aims and scopes and may be useful for China–oriented studies. Unfortunately, the article title suggests two kinds of quality assessment – the landscape and the environment; in practice, Table 1 title suggest, only the former. This indicates an imprecise understanding of the landscape quality term. Please clearly split the landscape and environment assessment.

We agree that only the landscape quality assessment have been conducted in practice. However, we did not clearly explain it in the previous manuscript. After studied on published scientific papers, we found that the academic research on landscape quality was relatively broad, involving many aspects. Now, we use the word “landscape quality” in the manuscript.

One more comment concerns the proposed methodology - how was the "visual quality"explained to the respondents? Did they have freedom in the meaning of this term? Was the assumption, that respondents understand “visual quality” the same way, correct? Maybe the lack of such information results in relatively low visual quality ratings (result section, L246-248). Please explain.

It is important to concern about the confidence of data collected. We have added some information in section 3.2 to explain how the questionnaire survey was conducted. When conducted the questionnaire survey, we expressed the questions in a way that respondents can understand easily. 

Regarding the results - the AHP weighting seems to be correct, thus the obtained results provide a solid basis for drawing the environmental and landscape conclusions.

Thank you.

Minor comments

The reference style has to be adjusted to the journal guidelines

The formatting has been revised accordingly.

Explain, why 1-9 scale was used (L155-156) and support it with proper references; the survey uses Likert - does it connect somehow?

The proper reference has been added in the manuscript. It was not clearly explained before. Now, we have revised the manuscript. The 1-9 scale was used to calculate the weight of experts’ perceptions, while the Likert scale was used in the questionnaire survey with residents.

How visual quality (of the landscape) can be explained by plant morphology (Table 1) - are there any preferences or literature on this issue? Or maybe just the design of Table 1 needs to be improved.

Thanks for the comments. We think it is due to the uncorrected words we used. We have change it into “trimmed shape of plants”. Accordingly, we have revised the words carefully used in table 1 and other parts of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The title of the manuscript 'Evaluating the Environmental and landscape Quality of Residential Communities' suggests a broader content than is actually described. In this case, the environmental quality of residentil communities was not assessed. The environment has been included as part of the landscape. The main question is what the authors understand by the term landscape – it is defined differently in different sciences.

1. Introduction - lines 45-46 - the authors write that 'However, these strategies cannot be adapted directly by developing countries'. Justify why not. It is not known why they cannot be adapted.

The fourth paragraph (lines 69-83) discusses references to research in different countries. The fifth paragraph (lines 84-98) discusses references to research in China. It lacks consistency – either the authors should discuss research conducted in different countries or limit references to China.

2. Case selection - usually a map showing the location of the study area (cities and analyzed residential communities) is placed. It would also be advisable to include exemplary photographic documentation of the analyzed residential communities (at least 1 photograph for each).

3. Method - table 1 - on what basis were the 15 analyzed features selected? There is no such explanation. How do Traffic patents and Safety of lighting affect landscape quality? I don't understand.

Did the Questionnaire survey contain questions about age, gender, material status, etc. – perhaps this influenced the answers.

4. Results - Table 2 and Figure 1 show the same information. A choice must be made - either a table or a figure.

5. Conclusion - it should be emphasized what new the article brings to the knowledge in a given area.

6. In many places in the manuscript there are references to experts (ten experts), but who they were was not explained.

Technical notes refer to the formatting of the manuscript - the manuscript was not formatted in accordance with the instructions for authors (in-text references, literature formatting, etc.).

Author Response

1. The title of the manuscript 'Evaluating the Environmental and landscape Quality of Residential Communities' suggests a broader content than is actually described. In this case, the environmental quality of residential communities was not assessed. The environment has been included as part of the landscape. The main question is what the authors understand by the term landscape – it is defined differently in different sciences.

Thanks for the comments. We were also torn between the words “environment and landscape” or “landscape”. We were afraid that the word “landscape quality” would be too broad for the readers. Based on study of previous published scientific papers, we found that the academic research on landscape quality was relatively broad, involving many aspects. Now, we have chosen the word “landscape quality” and provided a limited research area in the manuscript to help readers to understand.

2. Introduction - lines 45-46 - the authors write that 'However, these strategies cannot be adapted directly by developing countries'. Justify why not. It is not known why they cannot be adapted.

The authors also realized that this sentence is not suitable to put here. We deleted it.

3. The fourth paragraph (lines 69-83) discusses references to research in different countries. The fifth paragraph (lines 84-98) discusses references to research in China. It lacks consistency – either the authors should discuss research conducted in different countries or limit references to China.

An interesting comment. Actually, in the fifth paragraph, we did not mean to discuss cases only from China. The original aim was to introduce that there was research regarding residential landscape evaluation. However, what a coincidence, all the references in the fifth paragraph were from China. Now, we have revised the texts.

4. Case selection - usually a map showing the location of the study area (cities and analyzed residential communities) is placed. It would also be advisable to include exemplary photographic documentation of the analyzed residential communities (at least 1 photograph for each).

We agree. We have added the photographic. We also added one figure to show the information of the case residential communities.

5. Method - table 1 - on what basis were the 15 analyzed features selected? There is no such explanation. How do Traffic patents and Safety of lighting affect landscape quality? I don't understand.

The 15 selected analyzed features were referred on previous published papers. We have added one sentence in the manuscript “The selection of the factors was adapted from (Su, 2017)” to make it more clear how the factors were selected. In addition, we revised the word we used in the manuscript. We think that the “traffic patency” and “safety of lighting” did not clearly express what we would like to say. We have changed these two factors into “good organization of residential roads and pedestrian system (C1)” and “good functional of lighting facilities (C5)” in the manuscript.

6. Did the Questionnaire survey contain questions about age, gender, material status, etc. – perhaps this influenced the answers.

This is an interesting comment. We did not think about and analyzed the influence of factors e.g., age, gender, etc. before, although we indeed included them in the questionnaire survey. This might be a limitation of the research. We have added this limitation in the conclusion part.

7. Results - Table 2 and Figure 1 show the same information. A choice must be made - either a table or a figure.

We agree. The figure has been deleted.

8. Conclusion - it should be emphasized what new the article brings to the knowledge in a given area.

It is an important advice. We have added one paragraph to explain the contributed of the paper to the body of the knowledge. The paper can be a reference for city managers, urban planners, and landscape architects on how to improve the landscape quality in residential communities and urban renewal in developing counties.

9. In many places in the manuscript there are references to experts (ten experts), but who they were was not explained.

Thanks for the comments. We added the information in section 3.1 and 8 professors from several Chinese Universities and 2 landscape architects from design companies.  

10. Technical notes refer to the formatting of the manuscript - the manuscript was not formatted in accordance with the instructions for authors (in-text references, literature formatting, etc.).

The formatting has been revised accordingly.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did not mark the changes made in the text (for example, red font, yellow underline). It is difficult to compare the first and the revised versions accurately. Please send the corrected text again, indicating the changes introduced.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thanks for your comments.

Now, we have marked the revised text in red font in the manuscript. We also pointed where (in lines) the manuscript has been revised according to your suggestions.

1. The title of the manuscript 'Evaluating the Environmental and landscape Quality of Residential Communities' suggests a broader content than is actually described. In this case, the environmental quality of residential communities was not assessed. The environment has been included as part of the landscape. The main question is what the authors understand by the term landscape – it is defined differently in different sciences.

Thanks for the comments. We were also torn between the words “environment and landscape” or “landscape”. We were afraid that the word “landscape quality” would be too broad for the readers. Based on study of previous published scientific papers, we found that the academic research on landscape quality was relatively broad, involving many aspects (See lines 89-93). Now, we have chosen the word “landscape quality” and provided a limited research area in the manuscript to help readers to understand.

2. Introduction - lines 45-46 - the authors write that 'However, these strategies cannot be adapted directly by developing countries'. Justify why not. It is not known why they cannot be adapted.

The authors also realized that this sentence is not suitable to put here. We deleted it.

3. The fourth paragraph (lines 69-83) discusses references to research in different countries. The fifth paragraph (lines 84-98) discusses references to research in China. It lacks consistency – either the authors should discuss research conducted in different countries or limit references to China.

An interesting comment. Actually, in the fifth paragraph, we did not mean to discuss cases only from China. The original aim was to introduce that there were research regarding residential landscape evaluation. However, what a coincidence, all the references in the fifth paragraph were from China. Now, we have revised the texts (See lines 78-80).

4. Case selection - usually a map showing the location of the study area (cities and analyzed residential communities) is placed. It would also be advisable to include exemplary photographic documentation of the analyzed residential communities (at least 1 photograph for each).

We agree. We have added the photographic (See figure 1, lines 127-133). We also added one figure to show the information of the case residential communities (See Figure 2 Lines 189-190).

5. Method - table 1 - on what basis were the 15 analyzed features selected? There is no such explanation. How do Traffic patents and Safety of lighting affect landscape quality? I don't understand.

The 15 selected analyzed features were referred on previous published papers. We have added one sentence in the manuscript “The selection of the factors was adapted from (Su, 2017)” to make it more clear how the factors were selected (See lines 145). In addition, we revised the word we used in the manuscript. We think that the “traffic patency” and “safety of lighting” did not clearly expressed what we would like to say. We have changed this two factors into “good organization of residential roads and pedestrian system (C1)” and “good functional of lighting facilities (C5)” in the manuscript (see table 1 lines 154-155).

6. Did the Questionnaire survey contain questions about age, gender, material status, etc. – perhaps this influenced the answers.

This is an interesting comment. We did not think about and analyzed the influence of factors e.g., age, gender, etc. before, although we indeed included them in the questionnaire survey. This might be a limitation of the research. We have added this limitation in the conclusion part (See lines 326-331).

7. Results - Table 2 and Figure 1 show the same information. A choice must be made - either a table or a figure.

We agree. The figure has been deleted.

8. Conclusion - it should be emphasized what new the article brings to the knowledge in a given area.

It is an important advice. We have added one paragraph to explain the contributed of the paper to the body of the knowledge. The paper can be a reference for city managers, urban planners, and landscape architects on how to improve the landscape quality in residential communities and urban renewal in developing counties (See lines 90-93).

9. In many places in the manuscript there are references to experts (ten experts), but who they were was not explained.

Thanks for the comments. We added the information in section 3.1 and 8 professors from several Chinese Universities and 2 landscape architects from design companies (See lines 146-147 and lines 150-151).  

10. Technical notes refer to the formatting of the manuscript - the manuscript was not formatted in accordance with the instructions for authors (in-text references, literature formatting, etc.).

The formatting has been revised accordingly.

for the final  comments：

Since receiving your comment, we have tried to start to analyze the influence of demographic information of respondents towards the landscape evaluation. However, after we red some scientific papers, we realized that maybe it is not necessary to do the analysis. We found that analyzing the demographic information of respondents is always conducted in research like landscape satisfaction and landscape preference surveys (Lee and Kim, 2018; Andrade and Hondula, 2021). In research regarding landscape evaluation based on analytic hierarchical process, the analysis of demographic information of respondents is few. We think it is maybe due to the difference between a landscape evaluation and a landscape satisfaction survey. In landscape satisfaction survey, the steps are first sending questionnaires to tourists for subjective scoring, and then analyzing the influence of demographic information of respondents towards landscape satisfaction. The characteristics of respondents indeed have influence on landscape satisfaction survey. However, in this study, the AHP method was used to conduct the landscape evaluation, and establishing a hierarchical model was the first step. In the hierarchical model, we first classified the landscape features, and then invited experts to determine weights of each indicator. The respondents’ characteristics were not classified as landscape characteristics, and which were not included in the analytic hierarchy evaluation system.  

Reference

Lee, J. H., & Kim, S. (2018). Extraction of essential design elements for urban parks-Based on the analysis of 2017 satisfaction survey of park Use in Seoul. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture, 46(6), 41-48.

Andrade, R., Hondula, D. M., Larson, K. L., & Lerman, S. B. (2021). Landscaping preferences influence neighborhood satisfaction and yard management decisions. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 59, 126983.