Eye-Tracking and Visual Preference: Maybe Beauty Is in the Eye of the Beholder?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research aims to demonstrate CIM can be better understood with the use of eye-tracking method. The study is conducted by graduate students, in the paper two or three examples from each study in presented.

A key point is that when collecting landscape scenes for a CIM analysis, it is important to move beyond random sampling and instead intentionally select scenes that represent the diversity of landscapes in the study area to ensure a comprehensive analysis. The author could discuss how this insight can inform landscape planning and design practices, highlighting the potential benefits and the practical implications of this selection.

As the author claims, further studies are needed to understand the utility of eye-tracking for landscape planning and design. This could include investigating the effectiveness of different eye-tracking techniques, exploring the relationship between eye movement patterns and landscape preferences, or examining the impact of visual stimuli on decision-making in landscape design.

I suggest to include more references about eye-tracking technology. This would enhance the paper's literature review and provide with a deeper understanding of the subject. The author could include references to studies that have used eye-tracking in similar contexts or that have explored the theoretical foundations of eye-tracking methodology. This could help to strengthen the research paper and provide valuable insights into the potential applications of eye-tracking in CIM analysis and landscape planning.

There is a repetition "it should" in line 102 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer-

Thank you very much for your helpful comments.  I agree with all your comments and have made changes in the paper (see lines143 - 165 and lines 381 to 383).  It is a better paper now. 

Thank you,

Patrick

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Dr. Miller,

the paper is very interesting and well-written, however, there is some minor editing that can be done for the final submission.

Below you can find some comments and suggestions, referred to the specific text line:

25. change "Many of us involved [...]" to impersonal;

39-40. repetition of "landscape";

48-49. Better not to put paper aims/ objectives in the Literature Review section, you can delete the sentence "this paper demonstrates...";

102. typing error: "it should it should";

102. repetition, random sample is repeated two times close to each other. Please rephrase;

109. Change "[...] but it is my impression [...]" to impersonal;

153. do you mean "couldn't"?

226. Change: "I was skeptical [..]" to impersonal;

239. delete "and";

336-341. This part sounds redundand, can you condensate it?

Kind regards

Author Response

Reviewer 2, thank you for the 10 suggested edits to my paper.  You have a very keen eye, certainly better than mine, and I appreciate and agree with all of your suggested edits.  I have made each change (10 total) as you suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf