Harvesting Atmospheres—Exploring Atmospheric Elements in Spatial Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an interesting approach to studying interiors atmospheres through sensory data harvesting and participatory observation. The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods is valuable and provides useful insights into how spatial perception can be understood as a dynamic and embodied experience. The article is well structured and the topic aligns closely with current debates in sensory and atmospheric design.

That said, a few aspects could be refined to improve clarity:

Abstract/The research question should be clearly articulated within the abstract. At present, the abstract outlines the theme but does not state the main research question (line 51) guiding the work.

Introduction/ Can you explain more clearly the notion of “intuitive atmospheric approaches” and how does “intuition” operate in this context? (line 30)

Similarly, the concept of “transitions between atmospheric modalities” - important in the narrative of the paper - would benefit from further clarification or an example (line 33).

Section 2.1/ First line, The sentence beginning “In Ottolini” - do you mean Ottolini in Canepa.

Sections 2.2–2.3/ The text here is informative but quite dense in places. It might have to do with the wordcount but consider simplifying some sentences or breaking long passages into shorter paragraphs to improve readability.

Line 116/ It would help to explain more explicitly how the two methodological approaches (i / ii) were selected and operationalised.

Section 2.3/ consider a simple diagram or visual summary of the methodological framework

Section 2.5/ Please clarify who the participants were (students, staff, or general public “passers-by”) and how they were recruited. Indicate whether any inclusion criteria or ethical protocols were followed beyond the consent form noted later in the text.

Figures and References/Please check that all figures are correctly referenced in the text. For instance, Figure 1(c) appears not to be explicitly mentioned.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title can rephrased to be a bit longer

1. Expanding Design Implications and Guidelines

The paper states it aims "to reveal the possibilities of intuitive atmospheric approaches to architectural design processes" and invites reflection on "designing for atmospheres as fluid domains" Treacy, 2025. To strengthen this aspect, the author could:

• Offer more explicit design guidelines: While the paper discusses the theoretical implications, providing more concrete examples or actionable recommendations for designers based on the findings would be highly beneficial. For instance, how can designers specifically apply the understanding of "atmospheric interrupters" Treacy, 2025in their practice?

• Discuss application in diverse architectural contexts: The study takes place in specific "rooms" Treacy, 2025. Expanding on how these findings might translate to different types of built environments (e.g., public spaces, residential, healthcare facilities) could broaden its relevance.

2. Deeper Exploration of Elusive Atmospheric Boundaries

The research highlights that "the boundary of the atmosphere became elusive and difficult to define" due to "interrupting elemental changes" Treacy, 2025. This is a profound finding, and further exploration could include:

• Categorizing types of elusiveness: Are there different qualities or conditions under which boundaries become more or less elusive? A more detailed typology could provide deeper theoretical insights.

• Methodological refinements for capturing elusiveness: The paper's novel methods successfully identified this elusiveness. A discussion on how future research might be specifically designed to better "capture the nuanced and fleeting nature of the atmospheric event" Treacy, 2025 could be valuable.

3. Consideration of Long-term or Repeated Exposure

The study focuses on real-time, temporal changes in atmosphere Treacy, 2025. While valuable, an area for future consideration or a brief discussion within the paper could be:

• Effects of prolonged or repeated exposure: How do human perceptions of atmosphere change over longer periods or with repeated exposure to specific environments and their "interrupting elements" Treacy, 2025? Does the "unpredictable change" that is "unsettling" for some Treacy, 2025 become more or less so over time?

4. Discussion of Broader Participant Demographics and Individual Differences

The study noted that individuals' prior environments influenced their engagement Treacy, 2025. While the paper queries "whether environmental sensitivity ‘band widths’ can be found or established" Treacy, 2025, elaborating on this could be beneficial:

• Acknowledging demographic diversity: Discussing how findings might vary across a more diverse participant pool (e.g., age, cultural background, sensory sensitivities) could strengthen the generalizability of the research.

• Further insights into "environmental sensitivity": If space permits, a more in-depth exploration of the concept of "environmental sensitivity band widths" Treacy, 2025 could open avenues for future research and personalized design.

By addressing some of these points, the author could further solidify the paper's theoretical contributions and practical applicability within the academic discourse.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf