Rural Local Landscape Perception Evaluation: Integrating Street View Images and Machine Learning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for sharing your work for evaluation. It is certainly an interesting advance in the field of automatic detection of image elements to evaluate urban landscapes. 

Congratulations for your work. 

Best regards.

Author Response

Comments 1:Thank you very much for sharing your work for evaluation. It is certainly an interesting advance in the field of automatic detection of image elements to evaluate urban landscapes.

Response 1: Thank you for your recognition. We will optimize and adjust the content based on the opinions of the other reviewers, and we will continue to conduct in-depth research in related fields in the future.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the introduction, the authors mention that "Existing studies have primarily focused on the perception of landscape form and component elements, while landscape color and style have received limited attention". This argument needs to be supported by citing previous scholars who have studied this particular area.

This research is of high quality and offers a substantial contribution to the field, especially through its analytical methodology.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: In the introduction, the authors mention that "Existing studies have primarily focused on the perception of landscape form and component elements, while landscape color and style have received limited attention". This argument needs to be supported by citing previous scholars who have studied this particular area. This research is of high quality and offers a substantial contribution to the field, especially through its analytical methodology.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added references to the relevant content and cited additional relevant research in the Conclusion and Discussion sections to help readers better understand the contributions of this study. We will also pay attention to the above issues in future research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I consider the article presented for review to be a very important voice in the discussion of rural landscape design. The attempt to parameterize the assessment of views and visual perception of the rural landscape can be an argument in discussions with planners and designers operating in this landscape. I encourage the continuation of the research outlined by the authors in the conclusion. I agree that, at this stage, complicated calculations may discourage widespread implementation of the method.

A few minor comments do not detract from my positive assessment of the proposed method.

Line 198-215 In my opinion, there was a lack of specification of what characterizes style.  Style is one of the basic conditions for order in the rural landscape. In my opinion, the other elements, it should be subordinated to. This is apparent comes out in the 3. Experimental process and analysis of results  chapter. What is missing is an explanation of what elements characterize all the selected styles: European, Chinese, Modern, Hybrid. By what we recognize them in this stage of research.

Chapter 4 Discussion in my opinion lacked a broader view and reference to research conducted in other countries , on other continents. The problems of shaping the rural landscape, signaled by the authors in Chapter 1. Introduction are the same all over the world.

Author Response

Comments 1: Line 198-215 In my opinion, there was a lack of specification of what characterizes style.  Style is one of the basic conditions for order in the rural landscape. In my opinion, the other elements, it should be subordinated to. This is apparent comes out in the 3. Experimental process and analysis of results chapter. What is missing is an explanation of what elements characterize all the selected styles: European, Chinese, Modern, Hybrid. By what we recognize them in this stage of research.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In section 2.3.2, specific definitions of European style, Chinese style, modern style, and mixed style have been added: Referring to relevant literature [23,24] and the local characteristics of Chongming's rural landscape, the landscape styles are classified as follows: European style (featuring Western columns, decorative lines, European patterns, etc.), Chinese style (using white walls, blue-tiled sloping roofs, Chinese classical patterns, etc.), modern style (adopting simple shapes, glass curtain walls, steel frame structures, etc.), and mixed style (a fusion of the above styles). For specific methods, please refer to the relevant flowcharts and text.

Comments 2: Chapter 4 Discussion in my opinion lacked a broader view and reference to research conducted in other countries , on other continents. The problems of shaping the rural landscape, signaled by the authors in Chapter 1. Introduction are the same all over the world.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. we have refined specific solutions by incorporating measures proposed in the existing relevant literature for similar issues, as well as existing relevant planning and policies. For further details, please refer to Section 4.1. We will also continue to address similar issues in future related research.

In the introduction, this paper discusses rural issues that are prevalent in China today and are also common in rural areas around the world, thereby highlighting the importance of “local” research. At the same time, Section 2.1 details the specific issues of the research area, guiding the study of the rural landscape of Chongming and proposing targeted optimization recommendations, which can serve as a reference for other regions in China and around the world in addressing similar rural landscape issues.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article holds significant importance in this field of research. The review process revealed the author's high level of professional competence and research effort, particularly the impressive presentation of charts and graphs, which left a strong impression on the reviewers. However, the paper contains several issues that require major revisions. The following are specific suggestions proposed by the reviewers.

1. While integrating subjective and objective perceptions to assess rural landscapes in the field of spatial perception is a promising research direction, this paper does not sufficiently highlight its academic originality or specific theoretical contributions. Some content appears to be an extension or application of existing frameworks, but the innovative points or differences compared to existing research are not clearly articulated. It is recommended to clearly explain how this paper breaks through existing theories or previous literature findings and clarify its academic novelty and contributions.

2. While the research methods section describes the technical processes for using VGG16, Mask R-CNN, and DeepLabv3-Plus, it lacks a clear explanation of why these methods were chosen and how they specifically address the research objectives. The combination of subjective and objective indicators is a key focus of the study, but the explanations and operational details regarding data preprocessing, model validation, and error analysis are overly brief. It is recommended to further elaborate on the rationale for method selection and supplement the procedures for data cleaning, model validation, and error analysis. In particular, the reasons for selecting specific machine learning models and methods must be explained, and the data preprocessing and validation steps must be supplemented.

3. The discussion section in Section 4 is too brief and fails to engage in-depth dialogue with existing literature, as well as lacking in-depth interpretation of the research findings. It is recommended to compare the research findings with related studies and strengthen the implications for rural landscape planning and policy.

4. It is recommended to strengthen the discussion in Section 4, engage in dialogue between the research findings and existing literature, and explain the implications for policy or practice.

5. The conclusion is too brief and fails to integrate the key findings of the entire study. It also does not adequately align with the research objectives and research questions. It is recommended to revise this section.

6. While the English is generally fluent, there are still many lengthy sentence structures and repetitive descriptions. It is recommended to seek professional English editing services for revision, particularly to simplify sentence structures and avoid redundant wording.

 

Author Response

Comments 1：

While integrating subjective and objective perceptions to assess rural landscapes in the field of spatial perception is a promising research direction, this paper does not sufficiently highlight its academic originality or specific theoretical contributions. Some content appears to be an extension or application of existing frameworks, but the innovative points or differences compared to existing research are not clearly articulated. It is recommended to clearly explain how this paper breaks through existing theories or previous literature findings and clarify its academic novelty and contributions.

Response 1:Thank you very much for your constructive comment and for highlighting the need to more clearly articulate the academic originality and theoretical contribution of our study. We sincerely appreciate your attention to this important aspect of our work. In response, we have revised both the end of the Introduction and the Conclusion to explicitly emphasize the theoretical and methodological innovations of our work. Specifically:

1. In the fourth paragraph of the Introduction, we have added a review of the existing research on objective perception and subjective perception, including a summary of existing gaps in this work. On this basis, the specific innovations this study makes in terms of objective perception are proposed: the colors, styles, and elements selected are closely related to the objective perception of rural landscapes, and this study creates a new method for landscape color perception assessment and landscape style extraction. In terms of subjective perception, this study selects senses of aesthetics, tradition, belonging, attraction, vitality, and security, which all have a high degree of correlation with local characteristics and objective perception.
2. In the final paragraph of the Introduction, we now frame our study within the broader problem of fragmented perception in rural landscape studies, and we further highlight the novelty of our Rural Local Landscape Perception Evaluation Model (RLLPEM). This model integrates subjective and objective indicators using street view imagery and machine learning, enabling large-scale, multi-dimensional evaluations of rural landscape perceptions.
3. In the Conclusion, we have added a concise summary paragraph to reinforce the model’s academic contributions. We emphasize that RLLPEM offers a scalable and data-driven method for linking physical landscape features with emotional and cultural responses, and that it provides new insights into the mechanisms by which visual spatial characteristics influence rural residents' perceptions. This positions the work as not only a technical advancement, but also as a theoretical extension of landscape perception research.

We hope that these revisions address your concerns and help clarify the scholarly value of our work. Thank you again for your insightful suggestion.

 

Comments 2：While the research methods section describes the technical processes for using VGG16, Mask R-CNN, and DeepLabv3-Plus, it lacks a clear explanation of why these methods were chosen and how they specifically address the research objectives. The combination of subjective and objective indicators is a key focus of the study, but the explanations and operational details regarding data preprocessing, model validation, and error analysis are overly brief. It is recommended to further elaborate on the rationale for method selection and supplement the procedures for data cleaning, model validation, and error analysis. In particular, the reasons for selecting specific machine learning models and methods must be explained, and the data preprocessing and validation steps must be supplemented.

Response 2:Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We fully agree that clarifying the rationale for method selection and elaborating on the model validation procedures is essential to improve the methodological rigor and transparency of the study. In response, we have made the following major revisions:

1. Justification of model selection: At the beginning of Section 2.3 (Research Methods), we have added a new paragraph to explain why Mask R-CNN, DeepLabv3-Plus, and VGG16 were selected. These models were chosen based on their strong performance in segmentation, classification, and perceptual prediction tasks, and they are all well-suited to the goal of evaluating both objective spatial features and subjective landscape perception.
2. Model validation and evaluation procedures: In Sections 2.3.2, 2.3.3, and 2.3.4, we have expanded the descriptions of model validation strategies. For each model, we now detail the training-validation-testing split and performance metrics used (e.g., accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, R²), and we also provide a brief discussion of the observed results and potential sources of error. These revisions offer a more comprehensive and transparent account of how model performance was assessed.
3. Clarification on data preprocessing: As the Baidu 360° Street View images used in this study are of consistently high quality, we have clarified that no additional image preprocessing (e.g., filtering, resizing) was required prior to model training.

We sincerely appreciate your suggestion, which has helped us improve the clarity and completeness of our methodology.

 

Comments 3：The discussion section in Section 4 is too brief and fails to engage in-depth dialogue with existing literature, as well as lacking in-depth interpretation of the research findings. It is recommended to compare the research findings with related studies and strengthen the implications for rural landscape planning and policy.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In response to the various issues identified in this study regarding the analysis of rural landscape color, style, elements, subjective perception, and relevance, we have refined five specific solutions by incorporating measures proposed in the existing relevant literature for similar issues, as well as existing relevant planning and policies. For further details, please refer to Section 4.1. We will also continue to address similar issues in future related research.

 

Comments 4：It is recommended to strengthen the discussion in Section 4, engage in dialogue between the research findings and existing literature, and explain the implications for policy or practice.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Based on existing issues and relevant plans, policies, and research, detailed solutions have been proposed. Please refer to Section 4.1 for further details. Similar issues will also be addressed in future related research.

 

Comments 5：

The conclusion is too brief and fails to integrate the key findings of the entire study. It also does not adequately align with the research objectives and research questions. It is recommended to revise this section.

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have now adjusted the content of the Conclusion section to include the significance of the innovative model and a summary of the overall points of innovation. We will also pay attention to similar issues in related research in the future.

 

Comments 6: While the English is generally fluent, there are still many lengthy sentence structures and repetitive descriptions. It is recommended to seek professional English editing services for revision, particularly to simplify sentence structures and avoid redundant wording.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestions regarding the language. We have made professional revisions to the English, simplifying sentence structure and repetitive descriptions. We will also be attentive to related issues in subsequent research. Moreover, during the revision process, we have also proactively modified some inappropriate expressions and issues in the images in order to improve the overall quality of the article.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have thoroughly addressed all the reviewers' comments and made substantial revisions to the manuscript. The paper can now be accepted for publication.