Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Evaluation of Urban Landscape Outdoor Advertisement Signboards Using Virtual Reality

Land 2020, 9(5), 141; https://doi.org/10.3390/land9050141

by Young-Woo Lee¹ and Jun-Ho Huh^2,*

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Land 2020, 9(5), 141; https://doi.org/10.3390/land9050141

Submission received: 2 March 2020 / Revised: 27 April 2020 / Accepted: 28 April 2020 / Published: 7 May 2020

(This article belongs to the Section Landscape Ecology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting. However, there are some parts that should be improved:
(1) The authors should make some clarification in the methodology part:

figure 5- there are duplicate categories: dark-bright (2X) and oppressive-non oppressive vs oppressive-cheerful (it seems duplicate but also different). It is necessary to be consistent in the categories! Also there are some categories in the tables 6,7,8 (dynamic/static) which are not presented in figure 5 where authors represented rating scale of all categories.
It is not clear why the authors choose to make experiment on 2 different groups of respondents - the results that show positive correlation were more than expected
Although authors emphasized in the paragraph 4 that pictures ares taken in a way that surrounding conditions can be recognized sufficiently, with a 180 central focus on the road, results can differ considering the observer distance from the wall/building, because elements in wider picture can influence the oppressive feeling

(2) The literature review in discussion is poor (authors must compare their findings to similar research and other findings)

(3) Please elaborate how the categories of the oppressive feeling have been chosen; how eg big/small or colourful/plain or dark/bright or warm/cold can represent adequate category? They are structural characteristics that cannot be evaluated through the feelings because they depends on their design, spatial allocation and surroundings, as authors concluded in the lines 302-304.

(4) It is not clear where did the conclusion (lines 368-370) come from, it seems like the personal opinion of the authors not result of the research

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting. However, there are some parts that should be improved:

(1) The authors should make some clarification in the methodology part:

figure 5- there are duplicate categories:

dark-bright (2X) and oppressive-non oppressive vs oppressive-cheerful (it seems duplicate but also different).

It is necessary to be consistent in the categories!

-----

Reply -----

-----

First of all, thank you for reviewing our paper in detail and giving us an appropriate comment. The first author [1], first author, [2] are majoring in Graphic theories for HCI. Although one of the drawbacks of the computer engineering-related studies is that the descriptions and explanations can be quite lengthy, but their advantage is that the contents of the proposal can be understood clearly just by reading them.

[1] Jun-Ho Huh

https://scholar.google.co.kr/citations?user=cr5wjNYAAAAJ&hl=ko

[2] Young-Woo Lee

https://scholar.google.co.kr/citations?user=r6nBfx0AAAAJ&hl=ko

It was our intention to validate the proposed mathematical theories by performing simulations. At the same time, to cover the drawbacks, the contribution parts have been included in every possible section while correcting the contents with the help of a native English speaker to improve readability within a limited time frame. It seems that the special edition ‘Mathematics and Engineering [3]’, to which we’ve submitted our study, was to provide some understanding to the engineers studying computer engineering from the mathematical point of view. Thus, we’ve included relevant discussions to make the paper more meaningful. The revised or added parts are being highlighted in red for your possible re-review.

1.Also there are some categories in the tables 6,7,8 (dynamic/static) which are not presented in figure 5 where authors represented rating scale of all categories.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for your good comment. The manuscript has been revised to enhance readability and meaning by deleting the oppressiveness and non-oppressive measures in the tables 6, 7 & 8.

Since Table 6, 7, and 8 are associated with the factor analysis that checks the validity of whether the 14 independent variables excluding oppressiveness (dependent variable) can be properly loaded or not, a total of 14 resulting values have been presented.

It is not clear why the authors choose to make experiment on 2 different groups of respondents - the results that show positive correlation were more than expected

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for the appropriate comment. The 27 landscapes presented in this experiment could be unfamiliar to the foreigners (Kreans or Chines) as they were taken from the Japanes urban sceneries. We attempted to perform factor analysis by separating the subjects into Japanese and foreigner groups.

Although authors emphasized in the paragraph 4 that pictures ares taken in a way that surrounding conditions can be recognized sufficiently, with a 180 central focus on the road, results can differ considering the observer distance from the wall/building, because elements in wider picture can influence the oppressive feeling

-----

Reply -----

-----

Your comment is appreciated and we agree with it. All the buildings or outdoor advertisement signs might look different depending on the positions of people watching them so that in this ecperiment, their photographes were taken from the sidewalk across the street where they could be most visible because people passing the downtown areas ususally set eyes on the signs placed on their left or right side while walking down the street.

(2) The literature review in discussion is poor (authors must compare their findings to similar research and other findings)

-----

Reply -----

------

There are many structures in an urbanscape and it is clear that the sense of openness or oppressiveness they provide is an important factor. Taeyon Hwang et al. (2009) devised the criteria for measuring oppressiveness and openness according to the solid angle of an object, which was used to check the limit in using solid angle as an index of evaluating the physical oppresivenss or openness. Also, Kurotaki et al. (2005) performed a research on the sense of opressivenes provided by the skyscrapers by conducting impirical analysis on whether the subjects actually felt opressveness from the highrise building selected. The street space in an urbanscape is known as an important key element so that Munakata et al. (2008) conducted a reaserch on the factors involving oppressiveness and openness of urban street spaces considering regionality.

[27] Taeyon H., Kyeonghwa B., Nozomu Y., Jun M. Kotaroh H., “A Study of Allowable Value of the Sense of Physical Oppression and the Sense of Openness by Solid Angle: A study on the sense of physical oppression and the sense of openness created in urban spaces Part 3,” J. Environ. Eng., AIJ, Vol. 78 No. 688, 2013, pp.437-444. (in Japanese)

[28] Hwang, T., Byun, K., Yoshizawa, N., Munakata, J., & Hirate, K.; “An experimental study on evaluating the indicators of the sense of physial oppression created in urban space.” Journal of Environmental Engineering, 74(640), 2009, 659-666. (in Japanese)

[28] K. Hidenori, I. Yuusuke, K. Yukihiro, Y. Noriyoshi, O. Tatuso, “A study on the oppresive feeling by the very high buildings,” Journal of Environmental Engineering (Transactions of AIJ), Vol.2005, 2005, pp.799-800 (in Japanese)

[29] M. Jun, Y. Nozomu, K. Takaya, T. Hiroaki, I. Norimitsu, K. Wataru, H. Kotaroh, “Factors of Oppression and Spaciousness of Townscape Considering the Differnce of the Type of the Street,” Journal of Environmental Engineering (Transactions of AIJ), Vol.627, 2008, pp.687-693. (in Japanese)

[30] http://www.law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%EA%B2%BD%EA%B4%80%EB%B2%95/ (accessed on 29 March 2020). (in Korean)

[31] Kyousei publisher, “Knowledge of outdoor advertising”, Kyousei publisher, 2019 (in Japanese)

[32] Haruka A., Hiroshi H., Nobuyuki S., Kazuya S., Young-Woo Lee and Masaru S., “Impression evaluation of virtual environment on hemispherical visual display system-Analysis of length and depth perception on CyberDome system,” 2006, pp.51-54. (in Japanese)

[32] Haruka A., Hiroshi H., Nobuyuki S., Kazuya S., Young-Woo Lee, Hiroyuki I. and Masaru S., “Impression evaluation of virtual environment on hemispherical visual display system-Analysis of interior space perception on CyberDome system,” 2007, pp.66-69. (in Japanese)

(3) Please elaborate how the categories of the oppressive feeling have been chosen;

how eg big/small or colourful/plain or dark/bright or warm/cold can represent adequate category?

They are structural characteristics that cannot be evaluated through the feelings because they depends on their design, spatial allocation and surroundings, as authors concluded in the lines 302-304.

-----

Reply -----

------

Thank for your appropriate comment. This study shows the correlations between the proportion of an outdoor advertisement signboard and oppressiveness: higher proportion provides higher visual oppressiveness and vice versa as the graph of all the advertising signs (wall, rooftop, and protruded) turns to the positive direction to a varying degree.

(4) It is not clear where did the conclusion (lines 368-370) come from, it seems like the personal opinion of the authors not result of the research

-----

Reply -----

-----

We appreciate your comment. After considering that the communication with readers was not adequate, the contents have been proofread by several native English speakers and revised to enhance readability. The addtions and changes made in the manuscript are being highlighted in red. The views in this study have been drawn fom the situation analysis of a simple surroundings of a landscape.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper focuses on an assessment of visual oppressions due to outdoor advertising signs. The topic is interesting and deserves to be addressed, but the authors fail in providing a well-structured manuscript, and the method is poorly described and lacks in terms of scientific references. The manuscript shows weaknesses that the authors should address. Please see the detailed report below. In my opinion, the manuscript should be deeply revised by the authors and it is not ready for publication. I would like to suggest the rejection of the manuscript.

Major issues

Section 1 “Background and Objective of Research”
The aims are clear and the section provides enough background.

Section 2 “Related Research”
The references described in this section are relevant to the reader. Are these references related to the method the authors use in their manuscript?

Line (L.) 115: “In the Landscape Act”. It is unclear which Landscape Act the authors refer to. Please consider providing references and more details.

L. 142: “Outdoor Advertisement Act”. What is the Outdoor Advertisement Act? Please consider providing references and more details. The reference [22] refers to a Doctoral Dissertation.

Section 3 “Research Plan”
Section 3 “Research Plan” might be replaced with Section 3 “Method”.

I would suggest the authors clearly describe the method in this section. The method should be rooted in scientific basis, and the authors should support their choices with proper scientific references. In this section, the authors could summarize the contents of Section 4, 5, and 6.

Section 4 “Taking Landscape pictures and Selecting Experimental Samples”
“The landscape samples are shown in Figure. 2 where a number of urban districs have been selected for taking pictures with a digital camera (Nikon D100) during the period from 19 to 21. The picture (image) data was inputted by using Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1J while capturing landscape images with a setting 72pixel /inch;1024 pixel×1024 pixel size. The individual landscape images are shown Figure. 2.”

“A tripod was used and the level and vertical alignment were adjusted at the height of 130cm. As the landscapes to be presented to the subjects, 15, 6, and another 6 pictures containing wall advertisements, rooftop advertisement, and projecting signboards were selected respectively (total 27) pictures ares taken in a way that surrounding conditions can be recognized sufficiently, with a central focus on the road.”

In my opinion, the authors should provide reasons for their choices. In other words, I would suggest the authors claim if their choices (digital camera, software, and so on) are (or are not) rooted in previous studies.

L. 170-171: “where a number of urban districs have been selected for taking pictures with a digital camera (Nikon D100) during the period from 19 to 21”. Where and when were the pictures taken? Were the pictures taken always at the same time?

Section 5 “The Situational Analysis of Outdoor Advertising Signs in Sample Pictures”
L. 183-184: “The outdoor advertising signs in the selected sample pictures were analyzed by items Distance, Proportion, and Color(s) (base and medium)”.

The authors provide information concerning Distance, Proportion, and Color(s), but I would suggest the authors provide much more details in that a reader might not be aware of the meaning of the terms. The main concern of this reviewer is related to the term “Color(s)”. What is the “Munsell color system” (L. 192)? The authors did not provide any reference or proper description. What are the meanings of “base and medium”?

Table 1, 2, and 3 are lacking in terms of comments. In other words, I would suggest the authors provide proper comments which describe the tables. What is important for the reader? What are the figures relevant to the readers and why are the figures important? The columns concerning the colors need to be explained by the authors.

Section 6 “Impression Evaluation Test”
What is an “Impression Evaluation Test”? The authors do not provide enough information and any reference.

L. 206-208: “Although it would be most desirable to conduct the test directly at the street sights for the impression evaluation of landscapes including outdoor advertising signs, most of the preceding studies used slides, PC monitors, or printed pictures do it”. The authors refer to “preceding studies”, but they do not provide any reference.

Was the “3D cyber dome” (L. 208-209) used and validated in previous scientific research? The authors did not report on any previous study about the 3D cyber dome.

Figures 3 and 4 need to be properly described by the authors.

L. 222-225: “Among the preceding studies in the field of architecture, 15 categories which have been considered to have a deep relationship with the impression evaluation of landscapes being tested in this study were selected from the rating scales associated with ‘Oppressive Feeling’ and presented to the subjects”.

The authors refer to “preceding studies in the field of architecture” but do not provide any reference. I would suggest the authors report on key references that support their choices. Do the authors refer to the references in “Section 2. Related Research”?

Figure 5 lacks an adequate description.

Section 7 “Comparison between Japanese and Foreigners”
Table 4, Table 5, and Figure 6 lack an adequate description.

L. 253: “Factor analysis was”. The authors perform a factor analysis, but they do not describe it in proper way and do not report on any similar study that uses the factor analysis.

L. 255: “major factor method [...] varimax method for Kaiser normalization [...] rotation method”. The authors should properly describe the methods.
Table 6 and 7 lack an adequate description.

Section 8 “Analysis of Characteristics of Oppressive Feeling”
Figure 7, Figure 8, and Table 9 lack an adequate description.

Other
Findings and discussion appear mixed each other. I would suggest the authors provide findings and discussion of the findings in two different sections. The discussion of the findings should report on a critical assessment of the results also in the light of previous international studies.

Minor issues
L. 39: “has a relatively a large extent”. Please check.
L. 76: “Changwon City”. Where is Changwon City?
L. 82: “Seongangil road”. Where is Seongangil road?
L. 91: “Cheonan and Asan Cities”. Where are Cheonan and Asan Cities?
L. 146: “and play an important in providing”. Please check.
L. 148: “becoming larger and larger and colors”. Please check.
L. 170: “urban districs”. Please check.
L. 180: “pictures ares”. Please check.
L. 240: “This the correlations”. Please check.
L. 329: “advertising sings”. Please check.

Author Response

Major issues

Section 1 “Background and Objective of Research”

The aims are clear and the section provides enough background.

Section 2 “Related Research”

The references described in this section are relevant to the reader. Are these references related to the method the authors use in their manuscript?

-----

Reply -----

-----

We appreciate your comment. Similar to our research, most of the previous studies performed analysis of landscapes based on a quantitative evaluation method and proposed an improvement plan. Also, it was considered that using VR to create an environment much like reality for the evaluation of a landscape was significant when the situation did not allow actual evaluation on site. Such a method was also used in these research works.

The ‘Landscape’ defined in the Article 2 of Chapter 1 of Korean Landscape Act refers to the regional characteristics consisted of natural and artificial elements with the boundary of people’s life. The details can be found in the website below [17-18, 30].

There are many structures in an urbanscape and it is clear that the sense of openness or oppressiveness they provide is an important factor. Taeyon Hwang et al. (2009) devised the criteria for measuring oppressiveness and openness according to the solid angle of an object, which was used to check the limit in using solid angle as an index of evaluating the physical oppresivenss or openness [27]. Also, Kurotaki et al. (2005) performed a research on the sense of opressivenes provided by the skyscrapers by conducting impirical analysis on whether the subjects actually felt opressveness from the highrise building selected [28]. The street space in an urbanscape is known as an important key element so that Munakata et al. (2008) conducted a reaserch on the factors involving oppressiveness and openness of urban street spaces considering regionality [29].

Line (L.) 115: “In the Landscape Act”. It is unclear which Landscape Act the authors refer to. Please consider providing references and more details.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for your comments.

The ‘landscape’ defined in the Article 2 of Chapter 1 of Korean Landscape Act refers to the regional characteristics consisted of natural and artificial elements with the boundary of people’s life. The details can be found in the website below:

http://www.law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%EA%B2%BD%EA%B4%80%EB%B2%95/

142: “Outdoor Advertisement Act”. What is the Outdoor Advertisement Act? Please consider providing references and more details. The reference [22] refers to a Doctoral Dissertation.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Your comment is appreciated. The outdoor advertising signs mentioned in [22] by the first author Yeong-Woo Lee are being mentioned in the page 10 of his doctoral thesis and the page 9 of the Understanding of Advertisement, defining them as the “ones that are continuously shown to the public for a certain period of time or at all times and can be seen at the places where they can travel freely”.

Section 3 “Research Plan”

Section 3 “Research Plan” might be replaced with Section 3 “Method”.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for your comment. We’ve tried to enhance readability by adding the explanations for the contents in Chapter 4, 5, and 6.

The research plan covers basic on-site investigations, analysis of outdoor advertising sign s, and landscape evaluations. Also, the landscape evaluation was performed after separating subjects into Japanese and foreigners but both parties were considered to be the same population as the analysis result did not show any significant differences. The plan was carried out with a method similar to the one that had been mentioned in Yeong-Mi Kim’s doctoral thesis ‘Research on Control of Urbanscape Images’ published in 1997’.

Section 4 “Taking Landscape pictures and Selecting Experimental Samples”

“The landscape samples are shown in Figure. 2 where a number of urban districs have been selected for taking pictures with a digital camera (Nikon D100) during the period from 19 to 21. The picture (image) data was inputted by using Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1J while capturing landscape images with a setting 72pixel /inch;1024 pixel×1024 pixel size. The individual landscape images are shown Figure. 2.”

-----

Reply -----

-----

We appreciate your comment. The reason for setting the height at 130cm by using a tripod when shooting the landscapes was that we speculated that the average camera view of Asians would be about 130cm even though their respective physical heights may be different. Also, the reason for choosing more wall advertising sign pictures (wall 15, rooftop 6, and outdoor 6) was that they are included in the majority of urbanscapes. Meanwhile, it was important to set the resolution at 72-pixel and size at 1024 x 1024 when creating a 3D cyberdome to make the picture seem real. Photoshop was used to edit the pictures even though other graphic programs could have been used as well.

L. 170-171: “where a number of urban districs have been selected for taking pictures with a digital camera (Nikon D100) during the period from 19 to 21”. Where and when were the pictures taken? Were the pictures taken always at the same time?

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for the appropriate comment.

The pictures used in this study were taken at Fukuoka town in 2017.

Were the pictures taken always at the same time? Sure.

Section 5 “The Situational Analysis of Outdoor Advertising Signs in Sample Pictures”
183-184: “The outdoor advertising signs in the selected sample pictures were analyzed by items Distance, Proportion, and Color(s) (base and medium)”.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Your comment is appreciated. The Munsell color system was devised by Albert Henry Munsell in the early 20th century and adopts shade, brightness, and chroma to represent a space. After being adopted as an official color system for the study of soils in the 1930s, it is being used for the evaluation of Asian urbanscapes mainly.

The Ground Color refers to the base color of an outdoor advertising sign whereas Medium refers to the color(s) of letters or characters.

Table 1, 2, and 3 are lacking in terms of comments. In other words, I would suggest the authors provide proper comments which describe the tables. What is important for the reader? What are the figures relevant to the readers and why are the figures important? The columns concerning the colors need to be explained by the authors.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for your appropriate comment.

In Table. 1, the distance between the wall advertising signs and camera was from 5 to 25m whereas the proportion and the number of wall advertising signs were from 0.5% to 12% and 1 to 50, respectively. For the wall advertising signs, a variety of ground colors such as red, blue, yellow, green, white, black were used as a base color but the white color was used mainly. For the same kind of signs, the colors for the letters were also in variety but the major color was black or white.

Meanwhile, in Table. 2, the distance between the rooftop advertising signs and camera was from 10 to 21m whereas the proportion and the number of wall advertising signs were from 1.5% to 6% and 1 to 3, respectively. Similar to the wall advertisement signs, a variety of ground colors were used as a base color but the white color was used mainly as well. Also, the many colors were used for the letters but the major color was black or white.

In table. 3, the distance between protruded advertising signs and camera was from 4 to 13m whereas the proportion and the number of wall advertising signs were from 1% to 4.5% and 2 to 24, respectively. The colors such as white, black, blue, red, yellow, green, purple were used as a ground color or medium but the majority were white.

Section 6 “Impression Evaluation Test”

What is an “Impression Evaluation Test”? The authors do not provide enough information and any reference.

L. 206-208: “Although it would be most desirable to conduct the test directly at the street sights for the impression evaluation of landscapes including outdoor advertising signs, most of the preceding studies used slides, PC monitors, or printed pictures do it”. The authors refer to “preceding studies”, but they do not provide any reference.

-----

Reply -----

-----

We appreciate your appropriate comment. Several previous studies have been introduced additionally to improve readers’ understanding along with their descriptions which are being highlighted in red. Thus, we respectfully request your re-review if possible.

Was the “3D cyber dome” (L. 208-209) used and validated in previous scientific research? The authors did not report on any previous study about the 3D cyber dome.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Your comment is highly appreciated.

Research on the depth of objects in the cyberdome was performed first to find out whether it was possible to evaluate the landscapes by using a 3D cyberdome. This was an experiment to investigate whether the distance presented in the cyberdome corresponded with the perceived distance psychologically as much as the physical aspect. As a result, it was confirmed that the matching accuracy was higher when the distance was close (10 to 40m). This finding was used to perform a 3D cyberdome-based urbanscape evaluation.

Figures 3 and 4 need to be properly described by the authors.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for your appropriate comment.

The explanation for Figure. 3 is as in the following: the two beam projectors positioned at the top of the cyberdome project separate images and they are reflected in a plane mirror to create VR images in the dome to be seen by the subject wearing a pair of polarizing lens. In this case, one eye catches the image projected by one of the two projectors whereas another eye catches the image projected by the different projector. Also, to avoid subject’s head from interfering the images, he/she keeps the distance of 65cm while maintaining his/her eye-level at 130cm from the ground.

Picture (a) in Figure. 4 portrays the scene captured from the top of the 3D cyberdome whereas picture (b) shows the scene from the side.

222-225: “Among the preceding studies in the field of architecture, 15 categories which have been considered to have a deep relationship with the impression evaluation of landscapes being tested in this study were selected from the rating scales associated with ‘Oppressive Feeling’ and presented to the subjects”.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Your appropriate comment is appreciated. 15 scale items were selected from the studies conducted for the correlations between structures and psychological oppressiveness [Tae-Yon Hwang et al. (2009), Kurotaki et al. (2005), and Munakata et al. (2008)] focusing on the oppressiveness/openness in an urbanscape and the oppressiveness provided by the skyscrapers.

[30] http://www.law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%EA%B2%BD%EA%B4%80%EB%B2%95/ (accessed on 29 March 2020). (in Korean)

[31] Kyousei publisher, “Knowledge of outdoor advertising”, Kyousei publisher, 2019 (in Japanese)

Figure 5 lacks an adequate description.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for your appropriate comment. The scale items for the oppressiveness (Figure. 5) have been selected based on the research works mentioned in the above (13).

The scale items for oppressiveness have been selected based on the work described in No. 13 above [Figure. 5]. These items include evaluation, competency, and emotional content. As mentioned earlier, the scale items have been extracted from the previous studies associated with structures and urbanscapes to investigate visual psychology – oppressiveness.

Section 7 “Comparison between Japanese and Foreigners”

Table 4, Table 5, and Figure 6 lack an adequate description.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Your comment is highly appreciated. For the item Oppresiveness in Table. 4, the correlations were the same (0.918) between Japanese and foreigners and considered to be quite high. Also, their graphic representation showed that they were distributed in a positive direction (Figure. 6). The correlations with the other evaluation items were also high (0.838) between these parties, as shown in Table. 5.

L. 253: “Factor analysis was”. The authors perform a factor analysis, but they do not describe it in proper way and do not report on any similar study that uses the factor analysis.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Your appropriate comment is appreciated. The reason for separating the subjects into Japanese and foreigners when perfoming factor analysis was as in the following: the 27 landscapes presented in this study were from a Japnanes city so that their familiarity with those scenes could be quite different and the analysis result might produce varying results.

L. 255: “major factor method [...] varimax method for Kaiser normalization [...] rotation method”. The authors should properly describe the methods.

Table 6 and 7 lack an adequate description.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for your appropriate comment. Since an exploratory factor analysis is being perfomed in this research, the most universal factor rotation ‘verimax rotation’ was used. Table. 6 is showing the factor analysis result for the Japanese subject whereas Table. 6 is for the foreigners. After comparing the correlations in each items, which were in a positively high level (Table. 7), we’ve decided to treat these groups as the same.

Section 8 “Analysis of Characteristics of Oppressive Feeling”

Figure 7, Figure 8, and Table 9 lack an adequate description.

-----

Reply -----

-----

We appreciate your comment. Figure. 7 is showing the distribution of correlations according to the individual scores obtained between oppressiveness and evaluation factor which is the first factor. Meanwhile, Figure. 8 is showing the distribution of correlations according to the individual scores obtained between oppressiveness and competency factor which is the second factor whereas Figure. 9 represents the correlations between oppressiveness and each factor. The resulting values for the evaluation factor, competency factor, and emotional factor (third factor) were -0.736, 0.562, and 0.302, respectively.

Other

Findings and discussion appear mixed each other. I would suggest the authors provide findings and discussion of the findings in two different sections. The discussion of the findings should report on a critical assessment of the results also in the light of previous international studies.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for your appropriate comment. The following was added to the conclusion part: for most urbanscapes, it was confirmed that the correlation between the proportion of rooftop advertising signs and oppressiveness was positively related and this was true in the previous studies except in special cases.

The significance of Chapter 4 Add: The pictures of 27 urbanscapes including the typical wall, rooftop, and protruded advertising signs were taken from the viewpoint of the pedestrians walking on a sidewalk to conduct impression evaluation for the outdoor advertising signs. The pictures were then reproduced in the 3D cyberdome and the resulting urbanscapes were quite similar to the real ones as the images had been recreated in three dimensions.

The significance of Chapter 5 Add: The situation analysis was conducted against the sample pictures taken in a downtown area. The information regarding the distance, proportion, number, and color of individual outdoor advertising signs was collected and they played an important role in understanding the visual oppressiveness.

The significance of Chapter 6 Add: an empirical test was performed for the subjects by using the realistic 3D urbanscape images which were quite immersive.

Minor issues
39: “has a relatively a large extent”. Please check.

Reply -----

Thank you very much. We check it.

76: “Changwon City”. Where is Changwon City?

Reply -----

Thank you very much.

at Republic of Korea

82: “Seongangil road”. Where is Seongangil road?

Reply -----

Thank you very much.

at Republic of Korea

91: “Cheonan and Asan Cities”. Where are Cheonan and Asan Cities?

Reply -----

Thank you very much.

at Republic of Korea

146: “and play an important in providing”. Please check.

Reply -----

Thank you very much. We check it.

148: “becoming larger and larger and colors”. Please check.

Reply -----

Thank you very much. We check it.

170: “urban districs”. Please check.

Reply -----

Thank you very much. We check it.

180: “pictures ares”. Please check.

Reply -----

Thank you very much. We check it.

240: “This the correlations”. Please check.

Reply -----

Thank you very much. We check it.

329: “advertising sings”. Please check.

Reply -----

Thank you very much. We check it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The literature review in discussion has been improved.

There is still category (dynamic/static) in the tables 6,7,8 which is not presented in figure 5 where authors represented rating scale of all categories. Also, in figure 5- there are still duplicate categories:
dark-bright (2X) and oppressive-non oppressive vs oppressive-cheerful (it seems duplicate but also different).

It need to be consistent, because they are categories on which this research is based on. The authors' reply does not refer to the issue mentioned.

It is elaborated much better how (based on what research) the categories of the oppressive feeling have been chosen (288-296).

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The literature review in discussion has been improved.

There is still category (dynamic/static) in the tables 6,7,8 which is not presented in figure 5 where authors represented rating scale of all categories. Also, in figure 5- there are still duplicate categories:

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for pointing out an error. [Dark-Bright] in Fig. 5 has been corrected as [Dynamic-Static].

As Table. 6,7 & 8 were associated with verifying whether the 14 independent variables excluding oppressiveness had been loaded properly, their respective resulting values were presented in them.

dark-bright (2X) and oppressive-non oppressive vs oppressive-cheerful (it seems duplicate but also different).

-----

Reply -----

-----

Your comment is highly appreciated.

[Oppressive-Cheerful]-> [Uncheerful-Cheerful]

It need to be consistent, because they are categories on which this research is based on. The authors' reply does not refer to the issue mentioned.

It is elaborated much better how (based on what research) the categories of the oppressive feeling have been chosen (288-296).

-----

Reply -----

-----

Your comment is highly appreciated.

[1] Jun-Ho Huh

https://scholar.google.co.kr/citations?user=cr5wjNYAAAAJ&hl=ko

[2] Young-Woo Lee

https://scholar.google.co.kr/citations?user=r6nBfx0AAAAJ&hl=ko

It was our intention to validate the proposed mathematical theories by performing simulations. At the same time, to cover the drawbacks, the contribution parts have been included in every possible section while correcting the contents with the help of a native English speaker to improve readability within a limited time frame. It seems that the ‘S: Landscape Ecology’, to which we’ve submitted our study, was to provide some understanding to the engineers studying computer engineering from the Landscape point of view. Thus, we’ve included relevant discussions to make the paper more meaningful. The revised or added parts are being highlighted in Green for your possible re-review.

Add 1)

Related Research

2.3. Virtual Reality and Landscape

As an important part of visualization technique, virtual reality (VR) is being utilized in a variety of industries and has been studied widely for its applications. Some of the interesting aspects of VR can be found in a journal such as Environmental Communication [31] or landscape and Urban Planning (to be published soon). A series of notable research works were introduced in these journals: the VR-based visualization techniques for environmental communications and the same for a specific object such as a showcase, respectively. While they all had described applications, or new technological dimensions of visualization technique/technology, a common element was the construction or utilization of VR (e.g., Ball, Capanni, & Watt, 2008 [32]; Bishop, Wherrett, & Miller, 2001 [33]; Ghadirian & Bishop, 2008 [34]; Lange, 2011 [35]; Paar, 2006 [36]; Portman, 2014 [37]).

Different from 'visibility', 'visuality' is what connects between visualization and VR and it has become a significant factor in today's communication technology: Tufte (1990) [38] claimed that visualization was a more effective and efficient method when representing a huge volume or complex data compared to the traditional method of representation often used for the text or voice.

Some of the researchers (Bruce, Green, & Georgeson, 1996 [39]; Rose, 2012 [40]) claim that the sense of sight is superior to the other human senses in terms of perception and being recognized as the most popular sense for modern scientific observation as most of objects, phenomena, graphics, images, or the data or tables relevant to those can be visualized for easier understanding by the viewers (Hansen & Machin, 2013 [41]; Valiela, 2009 [42]; Ware, 2013 [43]). VR is not limited to providing a realistic view or experience but offers more functions when it is used for a designing purpose that requires flexibility or imaginative skills.

Adopting various types of simulation technologies when developing a universal virtual platform or application for a particular industry (e.g., game, automation, communication industry, etc.) attracted some of the researchers engaged in the field of design (e.g., Koutsabasis, Vosinakis, Malisova & Paparounas, 2012 [44]). The visual quality of VR in an online game such as World of Warcraft or Second Life is superior to the ones that are being used in the other games or developed by many professional VR research institutions, but still, a collaborative research effort among the design professions or institutions/labs to improve the level of VR-construction skills has not been performed enough despite its importance in the field of visual design (Gill et al., 2013 [45]; Paar, 2006 [46]; Silvestri, Motro, Maurin, & Dresp-Langley, 2010 [47]). This problem might be related to the fact that the definition of VR has not been properly established or the issues of to which part the visualization technique should be focused on, Visuality or Reality.

Simpson (2001) [48] had once searched the cases involving the application of simulation technologies (visual simulations) in urban planning tasks and introduced an urban landscape simulation methodology used by one of the regional development and planning labs as an example of adopting a computer-aided and GIS-supported technology. However, he pointed out that such a case requiring an interdisciplinary collaboration was still rare and difficult to achieve because of the costs involved in it.

Meanwhile, Pietsch (2000) [48] had also claimed that most of the urban planning authorities or research institutions in his time did not have sufficient knowledge on such technology but as it is continuously evolving and becoming easily available, more efforts should be put into researching it. In other words, interdisciplinary research is essential for the development of visual simulation techniques/technologies and needs to be performed in parallel with the other types of research tasks associated with visual communication technology.

Following the rapid development of the VR-based visualization technologies, a question pertaining to the level of the reality that can be provided by VR has emerged. The level may vary depending on its application range but in most cases, the users expect it to be as real as possible. Especially, the VRs used in the medical and science fields must be highly realistic.

One of the examples of requiring such a level of visualization can be found in the field of 'telemedicine' which includes real-time medical consultations or on-line remote surgery (Millesi et al., 1997 [49]) and such an application can be found in the cases of treating the PTDS of overseas combat vets or performing a brain surgery for them (Rizzo, Reger, Gahm, Difede, & Rothbaum, 2009 [50]), during which a high-resolution VR or a highly 'realistic' VR can play a vital role. On the other hand, the use of a low-grade (unrealistic) VR would lead to a misdiagnosis or malpractice as they will not be able to make a proper judgment on a patient's condition and respond to it accordingly. In this aspect, an unrealistic VR or a low-performance VR system would serve little purpose when evaluating a landscape as the level of its representation will not be as satisfactory as it should be (Daniel & Meitner, 2001 [51]). In the end, however, determining an agreeable level of abstraction for each application is what really matters (Lange, 2002 [52]) (Portman et al 2015 [53]).

Add 2)

For No.1 (Tab. 6), Good-Bad, Pretty-Ugly, Dislike-Like, Pleasant-Unpleasant, Appropriate-Inappropriate, and Unfriendly-friendly were loaded in that sequence with a contribution ratio of 49.7%, whereas for No. 2, the loading sequence was Weak-Strong, Conspicuous-Inconspicuous, Colorful-Plain, Dark-Bright, Big-Small, and Dynamic-Static and the resulting contribution ration was 23.26%. The loading sequence for No. 3 was in sequence of Warm-Cold and Oppressive-Cheerful, revealing a contribution ration of 10.81%.

Also, for No.1 (Tab. 7), Good-Bad, Pretty-Ugly, Dislike-Like, Pleasant-Unpleasant, Appropriate-Inappropriate, Unfriendly-friendly, Weak-Strong, Conspicuous-Inconspicuous, and Colorful-Plain were loaded in that sequence with a contribution ratio of 52.71%, whereas for No. 2, the loading sequence was Dark-Bright, Big-Small, and Dynamic-Static and the resulting contribution ration was 23.90%. The loading sequence for No. 3 was in sequence of Warm-Cold and Oppressive-Cheerful, revealing a contribution ration of 8.55%.

Add 3)

Meanwhile, the loading sequence for No.1 (Tab. 8) was as follows: Good-Bad, Pretty-Ugly, Dislike-Like, Pleasant-Unpleasant, Appropriate-Inappropriate, Unfriendly-friendly, and Weak-Strong, with a contribution ratio of 50.87%, whereas for No. 2, Conspicuous-Inconspicuous, Colorful-Plain, Dark-Bright, Big-Small, Dynamic-Static, and Warm-Cold were loaded in that order and the resulting contribution ration was 25.39%. Only Oppressive-Cheerful was loaded No. 3 with a contribution ratio of 9.47%. Thus, we’ve attempted to set a facor name for No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 as Evaluation, Capacity, and Emotion, respectively.

Add 4)

It was found that there was a positive correlation between oppresiveness and proportion so that the former would increase when the latter is high or vice versa. However, as pointed out in the consideration, there were some cases that did not follow such a tendency and it will be necessary to check the correlations between other elements. A further validation work will be performed in the future research work.

First, in this study, a 3D-cyberdome was used for the evaluation of outdoor advertising signs in a downtown area and this was to utilize it as a measure to overcome the limitations in the evaluation by offering more scalability. Second, this study made it possible to move one step closer to identifying the relationship between the proportion of an outdoor advertising sign and visual-psychological “oppressiveness” in urbanscapes. We intend to further the effort through continuous research from this point. Third, it would be poosible to use a visual-psychological element referred as “oppressiveness” felt by humans from the outdoor advertising signs when defining “outdoor advertising sign”. The necessity of researching smilar elements in details is rising currently. Fourth, we consider that controlling the outdoor advertising signs based on such visual-psychological oppressiveness would heighten the level of comfort in an urbanscape. And last, this study presents the results obtained from the Asian research subjects (Japanese, Korean, and Chines) in the downtown areas of Japan and we would like to note that they can be varied depending on the subject’s nationality.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version of the manuscript has improved. However, the manuscript is not ready for publication and requires major revisions. Please see the detailed report below.

In Figure 5, “Dark-Bright” has been written twice, while “Dynamic-Static” is missing. Is “Oppressive-Not oppressive” a typo? Tables 6, 7, and 8 include 14 rating scales: is it correct?

In the manuscript (lines 335-338) the authors said: “The reason for separating the subjects into Japanese and foreigners when perfoming factor analysis was as in the following: the 27 landscapes presented in this study were from a Japnanes city so that their familiarity with those scenes could be quite different and the analysis result might produce varying results”. This reviewer was asking to be clearer about the factor analysis, providing more details about it. Furthermore, please check “perfoming” and “Japnanes”.

Line 51: the authors said: “Outdoor Advertisement Act”. This reviewer asked for a reference, but it seems the authors did not provide any reference to the “Outdoor Advertisement Act”. Do the references [22, 31] refer to the “Outdoor Advertisement Act”?

Lines 144-148: the paragraph needs to be revised to fix several typos.

Line 151: “Outdoor advertisement signboard: In the Outdoor Advertisement Act”. Please consider removing “Outdoor advertisement signboard:”.

Line 189: please consider revising the caption. Suggestion. “The pictures used in this study [...]”.

Line 296: “mentioned in the above (13)”. Did the authors mean “mentioned in the above [13]”?

Lines 332 and 340: “varimax” or “verimax”? Please check.

Line 341: “Table. 6”. Please check.

Tables 6, 7, and 8. The last three columns show different headings. Tables 6 and 7 report on: “No. 1 No. 2 No. 3”, while Table 8 reports on “Evaluation Capacity Emotion”. Then, the authors provide unclear information. Please consider using the same headings in Table 6, 7, and 8. Table 8 is clearer than Table 6 and 7.

Lines 369. What is the “competency factor”? The authors introduce the “competency factor” without any description. Do the authors refer to the “Capacity factor”?

Lines 378-379. The sentence is unclear. Please consider rephrasing.

Lines 473-474: “[...] advertising signs and oppressiveness was positively related and this was true in the previous studies except in special cases”. The authors refer to “previous studies except in special cases” but the statement lacks references.

Lines 480-482: “Regarding the relationship between oppressive feeling and proportion, there was a positive relationship between them as a higher (lower) proportion resulted in a higher (lower) sense of pressure”. Please consider rephrasing.

The manuscript is lacking in terms of critical thinking. In other words, in the light of previous studies, the authors do not clarify what is their contribution in the international scientific panorama. Then, the discussion of the findings is weak. Furthermore, the authors did not point out the relevance of the study for the international audience.

In the cover letter (page 10) the authors said: “The plan was carried out with a method similar to the one that had been mentioned in Yeong-Mi Kim’s doctoral thesis ‘Research on Control of Urbanscape Images’ published in 1997’”. It appears the reference to “Research on Control of Urbanscape Images’ published in 1997” is missing in the manuscript. Furthermore, in the manuscript Figure 1 is poorly readable. I would suggest the authors provide a clearer Figure 1.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the manuscript has improved. However, the manuscript is not ready for publication and requires major revisions. Please see the detailed report below.

-----

Reply -----

-----

[1] Jun-Ho Huh

https://scholar.google.co.kr/citations?user=cr5wjNYAAAAJ&hl=ko

[2] Young-Woo Lee

https://scholar.google.co.kr/citations?user=r6nBfx0AAAAJ&hl=ko

It was our intention to validate the proposed Landscape theories At the same time, to cover the drawbacks, the contribution parts have been included in every possible section while correcting the contents with the help of a native English speaker to improve readability within a limited time frame. It seems that the ‘S: Landscape Ecology’, to which we’ve submitted our study, was to provide some understanding to the engineers studying computer engineering from the Landscape point of view. Thus, we’ve included relevant discussions to make the paper more meaningful. The revised or added parts are being highlighted in Green for your possible re-review.

2.In Figure 5, “Dark-Bright” has been written twice, while “Dynamic-Static” is missing. Is “Oppressive-Not oppressive” a typo? Tables 6, 7, and 8 include 14 rating scales: is it correct?

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for pointing out an error. [Dark-Bright] in Fig. 5 has been corrected as [Dynamic-Static].

As Table. 6,7 & 8 were associated with verifying whether the 14 independent variables excluding oppressiveness had been loaded properly, their respective resulting values were presented in them.

In the manuscript (lines 335-338) the authors said: “The reason for separating the subjects into Japanese and foreigners when perfoming factor analysis was as in the following: the 27 landscapes presented in this study were from a Japnanes city so that their familiarity with those scenes could be quite different and the analysis result might produce varying results”. This reviewer was asking to be clearer about the factor analysis, providing more details about it. Furthermore, please check “perfoming” and “Japnanes”.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for your appropriate comment. For No.1 (Tab. 6), Good-Bad, Pretty-Ugly, Dislike-Like, Pleasant-Unpleasant, Appropriate-Inappropriate, and Unfriendly-friendly were loaded in that sequence with a contribution ratio of 49.7%, whereas for No. 2, the loading sequence was Weak-Strong, Conspicuous-Inconspicuous, Colorful-Plain, Dark-Bright, Big-Small, and Dynamic-Static and the resulting contribution ration was 23.26%. The loading sequence for No. 3 was in sequence of Warm-Cold and Oppressive-Cheerful, revealing a contribution ration of 10.81%.

Line 51: the authors said: “Outdoor Advertisement Act”. This reviewer asked for a reference, but it seems the authors did not provide any reference to the “Outdoor Advertisement Act”. Do the references [22, 31] refer to the “Outdoor Advertisement Act”?

-----

Reply -----

-----

We appreciate your point: Guessing that you are referring to [Line 151], it was changed into [22, 30], it was a mistake.

Lines 144-148: the paragraph needs to be revised to fix several typos.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Your comment is highly appreciated.

Also, Kurotaki et al. (2005) performed a research on the sense of oppressiveness provided by the skyscrapers by conducting empirical analysis on whether the subjects actually felt oppressiveness from the highrise building selected [28]. The street space in an urbanscape is known as an important key element so that Munakata et al. (2008) conducted a research on the factors involving oppressiveness and openness of urban street spaces considering regionality [29].

Line 151: “Outdoor advertisement signboard: In the Outdoor Advertisement Act”. Please consider removing “Outdoor advertisement signboard:”.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Your comment is highly appreciated.

We delete “Outdoor advertisement signboard:”.

Line 189: please consider revising the caption. Suggestion. “The pictures used in this study [...]”

-----

Reply -----

-----

Your comment is highly appreciated. We revising the caption

Line 296: “mentioned in the above (13)”. Did the authors mean “mentioned in the above [13]”?

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you very much.

It is

mentioned in the above [13].

Lines 332 and 340: “varimax” or “verimax”? Please check.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for your correction. It should have been “Varimax”.

Line 341: “Table. 6”. Please check.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for your appropriate comment.

We check it.

Tables 6, 7, and 8. The last three columns show different headings. Tables 6 and 7 report on: “No. 1 No. 2 No. 3”, while Table 8 reports on “Evaluation Capacity Emotion”. Then, the authors provide unclear information. Please consider using the same headings in Table 6, 7, and 8. Table 8 is clearer than Table 6 and 7.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for your appropriate comment. Your point is appreciated. Since Tab. 6 & 7 were the process of deducing the results in Tab. 8, they were marked as No. 1, 2, & 3. However, as you’ve pointed out, we are changing Tab. 6 & 7 to make them consistent with Tab. 8 to allow the readers to have a better understanding.

Lines 369. What is the “competency factor”? The authors introduce the “competency factor” without any description. Do the authors refer to the “Capacity factor”?

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for your appropriate comment.

Lines 378-379. The sentence is unclear. Please consider rephrasing.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for your appropriate comment.

Lines 473-474: “[...] advertising signs and oppressiveness was positively related and this was true in the previous studies except in special cases”. The authors refer to “previous studies except in special cases” but the statement lacks references.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Following your appropriate comment,

For most urbanscapes, it was confirmed that the correlation between the proportion of rooftop advertising signs and oppressiveness was positively related and this was true in the previous studies except in special cases. [29]

Lines 480-482: “Regarding the relationship between oppressive feeling and proportion, there was a positive relationship between them as a higher (lower) proportion resulted in a higher (lower) sense of pressure”. Please consider rephrasing.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Your appropriate point is appreciated. The following was cited from one of the related works:

The manuscript is lacking in terms of critical thinking. In other words, in the light of previous studies, the authors do not clarify what is their contribution in the international scientific panorama. Then, the discussion of the findings is weak. Furthermore, the authors did not point out the relevance of the study for the international audience.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Following your appropriate comment, we’ve detailed additional research implications as in the following:

In the cover letter (page 10) the authors said: “The plan was carried out with a method similar to the one that had been mentioned in Yeong-Mi Kim’s doctoral thesis ‘Research on Control of Urbanscape Images’ published in 1997’”. It appears the reference to “Research on Control of Urbanscape Images’ published in 1997” is missing in the manuscript. Furthermore, in the manuscript Figure 1 is poorly readable. I would suggest the authors provide a clearer Figure 1.

-----

Reply -----

-----

Thank you for your comment. An effort was made by making Fig. 10 and citation clearer to make the manuscript more readable. We would like request your re-review if possible.

Young-Mee Kim, A Study on a Control Method for Image in landscape Environment. Kyushu University PhD thesis, 1-45, 1997 https://catalog.lib.kyushu-u.ac.jp/opac_detail_md/?reqCode=frombib&lang=1&amode=MD823&opkey=&bibid=2732&start=

Also,

Add) 2. Related Research

2.3. Virtual Reality and Landscape

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, the manuscript has significantly improved and might be accepted for publication once the Authors address minor revisions. Please see below.

Lines 398-409 and lines 427-433: the Authors provided clearer explanation concerning the meaning of No.1, No.3, and No.3; then, they might (suggestion) re-introduce “No.1, No.3, and No.3” in the headings of Tables 6 and 7, as in the previous version of the manuscript.

Line 412: “Table. 6 is for the foreigners”. Please check (Table 7 is for the foreigners [...]).

Line 432: “set a facor name”. Please check.

Line 567: “it would be poosible”. Please check.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the manuscript has significantly improved and might be accepted for publication once the Authors address minor revisions. Please see below.

Reply-

Thank you for reviewing our paper in detail again and correcting our errors.

We also agree with your point that the following changes would be appropriate for the research content and enhance its readability by allowing readers to grasp the research flow: Indicating Evaluation, Capacity, and Emotion as No.1, No.2, and No. 3, respectively, and using these designations for Table 6 & 7 but returning to the original terms for Table 8.

The revised or added parts are being highlighted in Blue/Wine color for your possible re-review.

Line 412: “Table. 6 is for the foreigners”. Please check (Table 7 is for the foreigners [...]).

Reply-

We appreciate your appropriate comment. In the phrase, “Table 6 is for the foreigners”, the table number was actually 7 and the correction was made accordingly.

Line 432: “set a facor name”. Please check.

Reply-

Thank you for pointing out an error.

factor names

Line 567: “it would be poosible”. Please check.

Reply-

Thank you for pointing out an error.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Article Menu

Evaluation of Urban Landscape Outdoor Advertisement Signboards Using Virtual Reality

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI