Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript claims to be a systematic review of materials on visual pollution or visual contamination published in outlets indexed in WoK, Scopus, and Google Scholar. This reviewer found some merit in the analysis; however, not all search results could be verified as mentioned. Furthermore, the criteria for exclusion need further disclosure to fully understand the motivation employed to arrive at only 41 selected titles. Said criteria is flawed and double standard as we are told that book chapters (which not all are grey literature as the authors claim) and papers in proceedings of conferences were discarded, but then several of the final 41 papers under scrutiny are IPO conference papers and Procedia. At times, the level of source aggregation is quite high (e.g. l.227; l.343; l.366, and also Table 3). There is too much emphasis on visual pollution and visual contamination and practically nothing on the regulatory aspects of visual aesthetics, scenic views, view sheds, signage, billboards, advertisement practices, zoning ordinances, dark skies ordinances to reduce light pollution, public service announcements, etc. The authors are correct that visual pollution creates a poor urban environment in cities; however, the physiological health effects of visual pollution are not as severe as those resulting from air and noise pollution. The level of generalization in certain passages of the paper is rather high and makes the reader question the validity of the claims without the specification of the geographic region(s), dominant language(s), culture(s), and religion(s) of the world being discussed. In a post-Fordist and Postmodern era, the paper would do well to also acknowledge that in certain cases livelihoods are dependent of work done in the promotional and advertising industries. In other cases, promotion and marketing services contribute to defraying the costs of providing public services. This reviewer agrees that the industry needs to be regulated (see e.g. clean city law in São Paulo, Brazil), but not everything that appears visual pollution is actual contamination of the urban environment. Other elements of the urban environment, which damage the quality of urban life, perhaps even more than visual pollution, go undiscussed in the manuscript; for instance, the incessant roaring and speedy movement of motorization (autos, heavy trucks, motorcycles, buses) not only create sickening noise and vibration levels but also cause traffic accidents and pollute the air we breathe.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

n/a

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

please check the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “A Systematic Literature Review and Analysis of Visual Pollution: Types, Location, Factors, and Methods” by Hangyu Gao, Shamsul Abu Bakar, Suhardi Maulan, Mohd Johari Mohd Yusof, Riyadh Mundher , Yu Guo and Benxue Chen is an interesting and relevant addition to the Land journal. 

 

The authors mention that rapid urbanization brought new pollution problems, among which visual pollution is particularly prominent. Indeed, visual pollution affects the visual environment and psychology of the public and impairs their aesthetic ability. There is not enough comprehensive knowledge and awareness of this problem. 

The article is written as a systematic review of existing literature (41 articles) to explore and understand further visual pollution, published between 2013 and 2023 using three journal databases: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The review is indeed thorough and consistent, even if only English references were used at this point, which is mentioned by the authors as a limitation.

 

The results of the study showed the types and characteristics of visual pollutants, the locations where visual pollution exists, the various factors contributing to visual pollution, and the methodologies employed to study visual pollution. This study does indeed enhance professionals' comprehension of visual pollution and its effects on the visual environment, equipping them to implement effective measures to reduce its impact and preserve visual quality in both urban and natural areas.

 

Nevertheless, the conclusions (starting at line 493) are too vague, and rather general, avoiding to go into much preciser insights. The conclusions seem to be defined from the beginning and are not properly going into the very contents of the article review. Can different approaches to visual pollution be differentiated or categorised in the review of articles? What is the value of each approach and can they be interpreted, compared, etc? The conclusion should be elaborated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some spelling errors (line 476), repetitions (line 18 and 19) etc.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

please check the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate authors efforts to carry out a systematic literature review on the topic visual pollution based on their kinds, sites, determinants, and methods. The topic is contemporary indeed and relevant to planners, policymakers, and environmental experts, it can also increase awareness among community members.

However, I observed following weaknesses in it:

- Authors admitted non-existence of a standard approach to quantify visual pollution, it means that making a comparison of the findings of this study to other studies is not possible.

-In fact, measurement of visual pollution is fundamentally subjective, and I observed that authors did not fully address how they managed it in their entire review process.

-Though it is a systematic review, a 10-year coverage from 2013 to 2023 may hamper its importance as exclusion of previously published studies may skip the historic evolution of the concept.    

-The study has its focus on urban area, what about the visual pollution in rural areas, and less developed areas?

-I feel that deployment of qualitative analysis may not fully capture the severity of the problem.

-Authors recommended for future studies to overcome the limitations, however, they did not give a full roadmap how these limitations can be addressed in future studies.

-Review is limited to English language that may exclude relevant studies which are published in other languages.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

please check the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review article explores visual pollution as a very important and relevant theme of concern in urban as well as natural environments. And 

I hope below concerns may contribute to improve the manuscript: 

1. The title is to be revised in with little (or no) punctual signs, and reflecting the main concept and content of the review. 

2. Keywords are to be re-written. 

3. How does Cultural aspects affect the perception of people (in different contexts) regarding the visual pollution? (Ex: graffities in public spaces are favorite and very common in Latin countries, but unpleasant in many other parts.)

4. How do you evaluate the methodologies that have been implemented in the reviewed studies? (What is the gap in this regard?) It is to be inserted to the manuscripts. 

5. How is the geographical distribution of the reviewed articles? Where (in which countries) has been done these studies? (To follow the impact of the context on each study)  

6. What are your suggestions for further studies? (Not only further reviews)   

7. Number of the selected references does not look sufficient for this review paper.            

8. Drawing a conceptual diagram based on the objective would contribute to better presentation of the review.

9. How does Conditions (ex: lights, etc.) besides the Features (ex: OA that is mentioned in the manuscripts) affect the visual environment based on your review of the visual pollution?

10. Have you studied about Social aspects behind the visual pollution? (ex: Vandalism, scratching public spaces, etc.)  

 

Regards 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

please check the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing some of the suggested improvements. However, this reviewer was unable to replicate the study utilizing the search criteria (strings and exact fields) provided. The authors are encouraged to disclose as much information about the search criteria utilized (fields: title?, topic?, abstract?, etc.) in order to enable someone else to verify the purported results obtained. Without such replicability, the review paper cannot be peer reviewed.

Author Response

Dear reviewer: 

Please check with attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the corrections and changes. 

(Please adjust Figure 1 in the page 5, so it would appear completely). 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

I have done based on your comments. thanks.