Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present submission contains a well-documented account of an application example of present-day soundscape analysis based on the relevant ISO guidelines.

The authors use and emphasize the holistic approach to the topic.

Given the multitude of publications on this topic, it is difficult to be original. The work is careful and circumstantial but not very focused and in that sense rather documentary in its approach. It is up to the editor to decide whether such content belongs in the journal.

Language, illustrations, references are in order. 

+ Correction: author Coensel should be De Coensel 

+ Interesting additional reference:

Kang, J. Soundscape in city and built environment: current developments and design potentials. City Built Enviro 1, 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44213-022-00005-6

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

 

Author Response

Response:

Thank you very much for your thoughtful evaluation of our paper. We appreciate your recognition of our careful and well-documented account of a present-day soundscape analysis application based on relevant ISO guidelines.

We would like to highlight that the originality and focus of our work lie in the development of a novel dual approach that integrates two key components:

• A multidimensional experimental setup comprising complementary devices for quantitative soundscape characterization. This includes acoustic and psychoacoustic measurements through ambisonics, stereo audio, 360° video recordings, as well as immersive 3D visualization and analysis of the captured soundscapes.
• A qualitative in-situ human-based evaluation of the soundscape environment through a carefully designed questionnaire. This questionnaire adapts the standard soundscape assessment protocol to our specific urban context, focusing on the key perceptual dimensions of pleasantness and eventfulness.

The integration of these quantitative and qualitative components in a unified framework is a key methodological contribution of our work. It allows us to cross-compare the objectively measured soundscape properties with subjective human perceptions, revealing valuable insights into the complexities of soundscape experience in real-world urban settings.

Furthermore, the application of this dual approach to the case study of Sidi Bou Said demonstrates its practical utility for urban soundscape planning and design. The rich multidimensional data collected through our experimental protocol can inform evidence-based interventions to enhance the sonic environment of cities.

We believe this integrated and human-centric methodology goes beyond the documentary, offering an innovative and actionable framework for soundscape research and practice in urban planning. It aligns with the emerging trends in soundscape research highlighted in the seminal review paper by Kang (2023) that you kindly suggested, which we have now cited in our revised manuscript.

We have also corrected the typo in the author’s name "De Coensel" as you pointed out.

Thank you once again for your valuable comments and suggestions that have helped us improve our paper.

In the revised version of our paper, changes are highlighted in blue. All figures will be uploaded in high quality in a separate file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article emphasizes the categorization of sound sources and the criteria used to evaluate soundscapes. It appears that the manuscript has undergone some improvement since the previous review (such as green markers,) although there are still issues left like additional French words, and abbreviations in the illustrations, figures, as well as incorrect literature sources without citations (XXXX, 2021). What is the main purpose of Fig. 3? However, it's not clear how it directly relates to the topic. I am unable to interpret or assess the information presented in Figure 20, which appears to be about questionnaire answers or the taxonomy of the urban environment. The quality of Figures 9, 11, 13, and 22 is poor, making it difficult to analyze the information they present. The length of the article is 26 pages. In my opinion, a lot of additional information is presented, that could be eliminated Figures with QR links seem useful and may provide additional details about the analyzed environment after access, but their relevance in scientific articles is unclear

 

 

 

Author Response

We made every effort in the revised version to withdraw pending French words whenever possible and improve references as suggested. Additional details have been given to Figure 3 and the quality of all figures has been improved.  QR codes have been removed and transformed as www links as suggested.  Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the Figures with QR links for Figure 14 "Immersive and panoramic analysis," we have replaced the QR code with a direct link to the video demonstration, which is now provided in the caption below the image.  The video itself showcases our innovative tool for analyzing immersive and panoramic soundscapes, which is a key aspect of our research. By providing direct access to this demonstration, we aim to enhance the understanding and appreciation of our work, as readers can witness firsthand the capabilities and potential applications of this powerful analysis tool. The demonstration highlights the spread of ambisonic sound recorded in the environment, providing a visual representation of the spatial location and distribution of various sound sources. By presenting this information clearly and intuitively, the video enhances the analysis and understanding of complex acoustic scenes.

Finally, all references have been checked and correctly formatted, replacing the "XXXX" placeholders that were used for the initial blind review.

Changes in the revised version of our paper are highlighted in blue font. All figures will be uploaded in high-quality in a separate file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction and related work reviews are sufficient to present a new-improved framework for the evaluation of urban soundscapes, but:

it seems no essential differences and improvements between ISO 12913 and the complicated framework proposed in the article (Figure 1, 4, 21, 22);

unnecessary or unreasonable to present the features changing with the locations (p1-p16) in radar visualisations (Figure 15, 16, 18, 19);

and some mistakes or misrepresentations like, Leq should be LAeq, Pleasure-displeasure or pleasant-unpleasant? 

Author Response

Thank you for your positive evaluation of our work and your insightful comments. We would like to address the points you raised and clarify the contributions of our proposed framework.

1 Differences and improvements compared to ISO 12913:

While our framework is indeed based on the principles outlined in the ISO 12913 series, it extends and complements these standards in several key aspects. Firstly, our approach integrates a comprehensive set of quantitative and qualitative methods, including acoustic and psychoacoustic measurements, 360° audio-visual recordings, and subjective questionnaires. This multi-dimensional approach allows for a more holistic characterization of urban soundscapes, considering both physical and perceptual aspects. Secondly, our framework proposes novel data analysis and visualization techniques, such as immersive 3D auralizations and soundscape maps, which provide a more intuitive and engaging way to explore and communicate soundscape data. Finally, we demonstrate the practical application of our framework through a case study in a complex urban environment, showcasing its potential for informing urban planning and design decisions.

2 Relevance of radar visualizations (Figures 15, 16, 18, 19):

The radar visualizations presented in these figures serve to illustrate the spatial and temporal variability of soundscape features across the different measurement locations (p1-p16). By presenting the data in this format, we aim to highlight the heterogeneity of urban soundscapes and the importance of considering location-specific characteristics in soundscape assessments. The radar plots allow for a quick and intuitive comparison of multiple soundscape attributes across different sites and time periods, which can be valuable for identifying patterns and informing targeted interventions. However, we acknowledge that the effectiveness of these visualizations may depend on the specific context and research questions, and we will consider alternative or complementary data presentation methods in future work.

3 Terminology and corrections:

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistencies in terminology. We would like to clarify that in the manuscript, the terminology used is correct. However, in some of the figures, a typing error may have occurred, for which we apologize. This will be corrected in the revised version. Regarding the "Pleasure-displeasure" and "Pleasant-unpleasant" terms, we have opted to use "Pleasant-unpleasant" consistently, as it more accurately reflects the bipolar nature of the subjective soundscape assessment scales used in our study.

Changes in the revised version of our paper are highlighted in blue font. All figures will be uploaded in high-quality in a separate file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author response can be accepted.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Thank you to the authors for their submission of the manuscript entitled “A quantitative and qualitative experimental framework for the evaluation of urban soundscapes: Application to the city of Sidi Bou Saïd”. This paper presents the authors’ method for combined quantitative and qualitative soundscape data collection, incorporating questionnaires, acoustic measurements, and ambisonic recordings. In addition, the authors begin with an overview of the ISO 12913 standard on soundscape assessment and a review of related works and demonstrate the use of the data collection in a city in Tunisia. While it appears the method discussed is unique for this journal and other geo-information focussed journals and it has been applied to an understudied region and context, I’m afraid its novelty within the field of soundscape is limited.

Introduction

Despite citing several relevant publications, the Introduction (1) and Review (2) sections have several mistakes and omissions in how they discuss the state-of-the-art for soundscape data collection and analysis. The introduction seems confused, referencing several conflicting definitions of the concept of soundscape ( (Brown, 2012); (Oliveros, 2005) (Stansfeld & Matheseon, 2003) (Hammer, Swinburn, & Neitzel, 2014)  and ISO 12913-1) without discussing these conflicts or clarifying which meaning the authors are using. Is a soundscape the ‘waveforms transmitted to our audio cortex’ as in (Oliveros, 2005) or is it the perception of the sounds themselves as in (Brown, 2012)? Are the authors following ISO 12913-1 in differentiating between the soundscape (perceptual construction) and the acoustic environment (physical phenomenon)? Acknowledging these various definitions is good, but it should be clear what the reader should then make of them and how the authors are using them. (Also note, (Brown, 2012) is incorrectly cited as (Lex, 2012) – the author’s name is A. Lex Brown - and does not appear in the list of references).

Likewise, it appears several references are used incorrectly:

-          Line 101 discusses the idea that ‘qualitative perceptions of a soundscape...should complement quantitative measures' with reference to (Russell, 1980). (Russell, 1980) (which, again, is missing from the list of references) makes no reference to soundscape and is a primary reference for the circumplex model of affect which is not directly discussed.

-          Line 241 discusses personal and contextual characteristics in soundscape with reference to (Lionello, Aletta, & Kang, 2020) and (Tarlao, Steffens, & Guastavino, 2020). Lionello makes some reference to personal and contextual characteristics, but in this context (Erfanian, Mitchell, Aletta, & Kang, 2021) is much more appropriate.

The data collection method presented

Since the aim of the paper is primarily focussed on the data collection method, rather than the results themselves, I will give special attention to this section. I feel that the method bears strong resemblance to several other such protocols without appropriate reference given or significant advancement. The primary focus of the experimental protocol is stated as: “(1) physically integrate soundscape data according to the acoustics and psychoacoustics dimensions, (2) complement them with 3-dimensional videos that materialises the physical environment, and (3) a series of complementary visualisations that analyse the specific properties that emerge according to several spatial temporal and semantics dimensions”, “The International Soundscape Database” (Mitchell et al. 2021), “How to analyse and represent quantitative soundscape data” (Mitchell et al., 2022), “Using a virtual soundwalk approach” Oberman et al. 2020) and works from several other teams over the last several years. Most notably:

-  In the realm of virtual soundscape evaluations: (Echevarria Sanchez, Van Renterghem, Sun, De Coensel, & Botteldooren, 2017); (Hong, He, Lam, Gupta, & Gan, 2017); (Hong, et al., 2018); (Durbridge & Murphy, 2022)

-          In the realm of combined qualitative/quantitative soundscape data collection, both standalone methods papers and research articles with relevant methodologies: (Kogan, Arenas, Bermejo, Hinalaf, & Turra, 2017); (Bild, Steele, Pfeffer, Bertolini, & Guastavino, 2018); (Engel, Fiebig, Pfaffenbach, & Fels, 2018);  (Giannakopoulos, Orfanidi, & Perantonis, 2019)

-          In the realm of geo-spatial characterization: (Alvares-Sanches, Osborne, White, & Bahaj, 2019)

I believe that the close similarity between this manuscript and the work of Mitchell & Oberman in particular calls into question the novelty of this work. In addition, the review and discussion of the data collection methods do not engage sufficiently with the existing state-of-the-art methods to provide the necessary context for a new data collection method. Where the work slightly deviates from existing standard methods like ISO 12913 and (Axelsson, Nilsson, & Berglund, 2010) (i.e. Section 3.2 Questionnaire), it is not made clear why these changes were made. The authors initially state in line 344 that the questionnaire follows the guidelines given in ISO 12913-2, however the attributes used differ from the ISO – this should be made clear and justified. Likewise, the attributes are then grouped into bipolar factors in a way I have not seen before and with no reference to their initial derivation from the soundscape circumplex ( (Axelsson, Nilsson, & Berglund, 2010) and ISO 12913-2) – what is the basis for this and why is the circumplex not used? Again, this could be fine, but closely using the attributes from the previous literature and disregarding their theoretical basis would require an acknowledgement and justification.

The questionnaire itself, as presented to participants, should be included verbatim as supporting material. If the questions were translated into or from another language the translated version should also be included.

Modelling

I’m unclear what the authors mean by Psychoacoustics modelling (Section 3.1.2). If they are referring to predictive modelling based on psychoacoustic features, then several key points are missing. (Lionello, Aletta, & Kang, 2020) is a key review of predictive models (both psychoacoustic and spectrogram-based) before 2020 (none of which are discussed here and few are referenced) and a great deal of advancement has been made even since then – see (Ooi, Hong, Lam, Ong, & Gan, 2020), (Ooi, Watcharasupat, Lam, Ong, & Gan, 2022), etc. If they are instead referring to psychoacoustics for the analysis and characterisation of soundscape recordings, but not predictive modelling, then again several much more recent works have not been considered. Although the authors refer to ‘the substantial amount of recent works’ in line the references provided (with exception of ISO 12913-2) are from 17 years ago. In addition to the above referenced papers, I would point to (Hall, 2013); (Yang, 2013); (Aletta, 2017); (Millan-Castillo, Martino, Morgado, & Llorente, 2022); (Lawrence, 2022);

Formatting and Figures

The manuscript suffers from several presentation issues – many of the figures are unreadable or difficult to interpret, there are numerous citation errors, and the structure and language of the paper would need to be greatly improved. Figure 1 is generally confusing to follow and has a few typos (e.g. ‘amiconic’ -> ambisonic). Figures 10 – 13 are intended to demonstrate data collected from the 3 case study sites but it is impossible to read any of the data (such as loudness/sharpness levels or spectrogram features). If his is intended to show the type of data collected using the protocol, this should be made clearer and is already better achieved in Figure 3. If they are intended t provide useful information about the sites then the information would need to be clearly summarised and/or included in more detail in an appendix or supplementary material. Figures 15a, 17, and 20 are impossible to read as presented.

The radar plots featured in Figures 15b, 16, 18, and 19 are again difficult to read, mix different styles while showing similar information, and I believe radar plots are an inappropriate visualisation method for the data presented. Radar plots can easily lead to misinterpretations as they imply a particular relationship between the attributes (in this case, I believe these are locations?) displayed (i.e. orthogonality between the attributes at 0 degrees and 90 degrees, an inverse relationship between 0 degrees and 180 degrees, and so on). Slight changes in reordering the arrangement of the attributes can also drastically change the overall shape and area of the radar plots, biasing how the plot is interpreted.

 

References

Aletta, F. a. (2017). Dimensions underlying the perceived similarity of acoustic environments. Frontiers in Psychology.

Alvares-Sanches, T., Osborne, P., White, P., & Bahaj, A. (2019). Spatial Variation in Sound Frequency Components Across an Urban Area Derived from Mobile Surveys. Future Cities and Environment.

Axelsson, o., Nilsson, M., & Berglund, B. (2010). A principal components model of soundscape perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

Bild, E., Steele, D., Pfeffer, K., Bertolini, L., & Guastavino, C. (2018). Activity as a Mediator Between Users and Their Auditory Environment in an Urban Pocket Park. Advances in Civil and Industrial Engineering.

Brown, A. L. (2012). A review of progress in soundscapes and an approach to soundscape planning. The International Journal of Acoustics and Vibration. doi:10.20855/ijav.2012.17.2302

Durbridge, S., & Murphy, D. (2022). Soundscape Evaluation In The Virtual Reality: Tools for the creation of soundscape studies. Audio Engineering Society Conference: 2022 AES International Conference on Audio for Virtual and Augmented Reality.

Echevarria Sanchez, G., Van Renterghem, T., Sun, K., De Coensel, B., & Botteldooren, D. (2017). Using Virtual Reality for assessing the role of noise in the audio-visual design of an urban public space. Landscape and Urban Planning.

Engel, M., Fiebig, A., Pfaffenbach, C., & Fels, J. (2018). A Review of Socio-acoustic Surveys for Soundscape Studies. Current Pollution Reports.

Erfanian, M., Mitchell, A., Aletta, F., & Kang, J. (2021). Psychological well-being and demographic factors can mediate soundscape pleasantness and eventfulness: A large sample study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 101660.

Giannakopoulos, T., Orfanidi, M., & Perantonis, S. (2019). Athens Urban Soundscape (ATHUS): A Dataset for Urban Soundscape Quality Recognition. International Conference on Multimedia Modeling.

Hall, D. A.-J. (2013). An exploratory evaluation of perceptual, psychoacoustic and acoustical properties of urban soundscapes. Applied Acoustics.

Hammer, M. S., Swinburn, T. K., & Neitzel, R. L. (2014). Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States: Developing an Effective Public Health Response. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115--119.

Hong, J., He, J., Lam, B., Gupta, R., & Gan, W.-S. (2017). Spatial Audio for Soundscape Design: Recording and Reproduction. Applied Sciences.

Hong, J., Lam, B., Ong, Z.-T., Ooi, K., Gan, W.-S., Kang, J., . . . Tan, S.-T. (2018). Quality assessment of acoustic environment reproduction methods for cinematic virtual reality in soundscape applications. Building and Environment.

Kogan, P., Arenas, J., Bermejo, F., Hinalaf, M., & Turra, B. (2017). A comprehensive methodology for the multidimensional and synchronic data collecting in soundscape. Science of The Total Environment.

Lawrence, B. a. (2022). A widened array of metrics (WAM) approach to characterize the urban acoustic environment; a case comparison of urban mixed-use and forest. Applied Acoustics.

Lionello, M., Aletta, F., & Kang, J. (2020). A systematic review of prediction models for the experience of urban soundscapes. Applied Acoustics.

Millan-Castillo, R., Martino, L., Morgado, E., & Llorente, F. (2022). An Exhaustive Variable Selection Study for Linear Models of Soundscape Emotions: Rankings and Gibbs Analysis. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

Mitchell, A., Aletta, F., & Kang, J. (2022). How to analyse and represent quantitative soundscape data. JASA Express Letters, 037201..

Mitchell, A., Oberman, T., Aletta, F., Kachlicka, M., Lionello, M., Erfanian, M., & Kang, J. (2021). Investigating urban soundscapes of the {COVID}-19 lockdown: A predictive soundscape modeling approach. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

Oliveros, P. (2005). Deep Listening: A Composer's Sound Practice. iUniverse, Inc.

Ooi, K., Hong, J., Lam, B., Ong, Z., & Gan, W.-S. (2020). A deep learning approach for modelling perceptual attributes of soundscapes. INTER-NOISE 2020.

Ooi, K., Watcharasupat, K., Lam, B., Ong, Z.-T., & Gan, W.-S. (2022). Probably Pleasant? A Neural-Probabilistic Approach to Automatic Masker Selection for Urban Soundscape Augmentation. ICASSP 2022 - 2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP).

Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1161.

Stansfeld, S. A., & Matheseon, M. P. (2003). Noise pollution: non-auditory effects on health. British Medical Bulletin, 243--257. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldg033

Tarlao, C., Steffens, J., & Guastavino, C. (2020). Investigating contextual influences on urban soundscape evaluations with structural equation modeling. Building and Environment.

Yang, M. a. (2013). Psychoacoustical evaluation of natural and urban sounds in soundscapes. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Throughout both the figures and the body text, there are several typos and difficult to follow sentences. Please see the detailed comments given in the general review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work presented in this paper proposes a framework for evaluating urban soundscapes using acoustics and psychoacoustics. The authors defend that they integrated both methods, but I am not sure that this works. More evidence is needed for the paper to be accepted.

 

I include a pdf file with most of the format comments.

I will now address content:

The motivation and context is well introduced. However, some issues need clarification and that is requested in the pdf attachment.

The issues in the paper are related to the experiment and how it is presented to the reader. It needs to provide more detail and be described more generically and clearly. Please address the following:

1.       Explain how do you make sure that was is measured is actually what the panelists heard? The times/dates may be different and there is no evidence to say that the experiences were actually the same.

2.       Moreover, how do you consider subjectivity of the listener ? How do you measure that and how relevant is it?

3.       Include, in the paper, information about the structure of the database thart stores the soundscape data. What processes does it go through?

4.       The word course is used, and it is not clear what it refers to.

5.       Data integration is very unclear. There was an effort to make users listen to measured sounds and fill the questionnaire afterwards, but this evaluation does not measure integration. The defended integration needs to be supported and sustained by evidence. It is not clear.

6.       The content of figure 8 needs to be explained and described in the text.

7.       Figures 11, 12 and 13 are not readable. Authors need to come up with a more abstract representation that is clear and can be compared.

8.       The critical analysis is not completely sustained and justified. This must be improved.

9.       The authors should not use imprecise language such as “It appears that most of the sounds were identified by the people questioned.” Results must be completely evaluated,

10.   Results in figures 20 and 21 must be explained. What do they represent and what do they mean? Is this soundly produced?

11.   The last paragraph in page 18 refers to this place. What does it refer to?, explain the setting.

12.   Some of the assertions in the discussion are not sufficiently supported or not clear. Improve the presentation.

13.   The conclusions are also too forward as they refer to results that are not sufficiently sustained. The authors must provide more evidence or clarify what they have written. They must also improve sentences that are not well written and thus not comprehensible.

 ---

Figures – Many figures are too large and thus not sufficiently readable. Either generate more abstract figures that can be read or create more detailed figures.

Moreover, some of the figures are not completely described in the text and this should be improved, for example Figure 6 and 8.

The text in some figures is in French and needs to be translated.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper needs a complete review of English. Although is not very bad, many of the sentences are not clear and need to be re-written.

The problem is mainly, I believe, on the lack of re-reading of the paper and on using sentences that are too long and thus become difficult to understand. Some of these sentences are identified in the attached pdf.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Regarding the questionnaire, it is important to take in consideration that the "Pleasure" / "Displeasure" sentiments produced by sound are related to cultural and anthropological issues. I suggest to the authors to take into account these aspects in future surveys.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper mainly introduces soundscape survey methods with reference to the ISO 12913 series, with survey examples. Perhaps because the main purpose of the paper is to introduce the survey method, the description of the data analysis method and the format of the figures and tables do not seem to meet a standard for a scientific paper. Please revise this paper according to the following comments.

Section 3.2
- The seven attribute scales used in this survey should be presented here.
- The model for obtaining four ratings from A1 to B2 from the ratings of the seven attribute scales is not presented throughout the paper. If this has been published in another paper, cite that paper. If it has not been published, state it in this section or section 4.3.
- If the model is one of the novelties of this paper, please explain why such a model was necessary (why not the pleasantness and eventfulness model described in ISO 12913-3).
- The information presented here leads me to misunderstand that A1 to B2 were obtained from not seven but eight attribute scales. There is also a discrepancy with the attribute scales used to derive A1 to B2 given in Section 4.3.

Section 4.3
- Section 3.2 and this section should be revised so that the contents of these sections does not overlap.

Section 4.5
- Figure 15(a) and 15(b) are duplicates. Only (b) is sufficient.
- Replace "the equivalent continuous level of weighted sound pressure" with "the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level" according to ISO 1996-1.

Section 4.6
- The authors said, "Moreover, the café in point 7 reflects an important value of loudness in the middle of the day", but is it not daytime but evening? In general, the correlation between LAeq and loudness will be higher, but the evening loudness of P7 appears to be an outlier when compared with Figure 15.

Section 4.7
-Is the y-axis in Figure 17 the median value of the five point ratings given by the 172 respondents?
- In Section 4.3, the respondents were categorised from A to C. How was this categorisation taken into account in the results of the analysis in this section?
- There is a discrepancy between the seven attribute scales shown in the caption of this figure and those given in Line 343. Please check them.
- Are these seven attribute scales in accordance with ISO 12913-2 and 12913-3, with "vibrant" as "excitng", and "eventful" and "uneventful" combined into one? If so, please explain.
- Please add a reference to what A1-B2 means, e.g. (see section 3.2).

Section 4.8
- Replace "Leq in dB (A)" with "LAeq (dB)". "Leq (dBA)" in Fig. 21 should also be replaced with "LAeq (dB)".
- The description of models of A1 to B2 is also included in Fig. 21. They should be consistent with the description elsewhere in the paper.
- Please state what rules were used to determine the A1 to B2 labels in the Questionnaire column in Fig. 21.
- In Line 477, replace "this place" with "P6".
- Why were P6 and P7 both rated "Extremely Noisy" on the evening, but P7 was rated "B2" while P6 was rated "A2"? It seems to me that the main point of this paragraph would be strengthened if these were discussed in comparison.

Figures and Tables
- Not of the quality used in general scientific papers. Figures 10, 11, 13, 20 and 22 are acceptable in their current state as conceptual illustrations of the data visualization. However, Figures 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21 are considered to have scientific value as summaries of this survey. They should be revised to have a quality that would withstand publication in a scientific journal. Please refer to figures and tables found in the many relevant papers cited by the authors.
- The problems are listed below.
-- Not translated into English.
-- Text labels are too small to read.
-- Unnecessary coloring. For example, Figures 15 and 16, is it necessary to change the color between symbols and lines for the same category?
-- Some figures have shadows. It looks as if the figures are taken directly from the slides for oral presentation. It is not appropriate as a figure to be published in a scientific paper.
-- There is too much difference in the format of Fig. 18 and Fig. 19. Please align format.