Recommendations for Implementing Therapeutic Gardens to Enhance Human Well-Being
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle: Ok
Abstract/Conclusions:
L. 13-14; 496-497: How can therapeutic gardens contribute to mitigating climate change? What references confirm this? My suggestion is to focus on human well-being rather than climate change or other ecological issues.
Introduction:
L.41-43: What do the authors mean by “ancient times”? What references are used to demonstrate this relationship between health and well-being and nature? In Brazil, there is a significant cultural difference in the health-nature relationship between the original communities and those of European descent. See BALÉE, W. Footprints of the Forest. Ka'apor Ethnobotany: The historical ecology of plant utilization by an Amazonian people. 1st. ed. [s.l.] Columbia University Press, 1994. 416 p.
L. 55-65; 57-58: Suggestion: Draw a parallel between therapeutic gardens and shinrin-yoku, or 'forest bathing'.
L. 80-82: Objective: "Guidelines for implementing therapeutic gardens in health institutions, schools and squares." What would be the main differences between therapeutic gardens in a health institution, a school or a square? What therapeutic functions would each of these gardens have?
Results and discussion:
L.174-181: Since the topic of therapeutic gardens is treated in most articles as synonymous with other types of urban green areas, wouldn't it be better to include these other types in the sample? Perhaps the lack of reference to SDG is associated with the sample being restricted to therapeutic gardens.
L. 188-193: Do the authors agree that health is the main objective of allopathic medicine? Or is allopathy simply associated with “healing” diseases through drugs and surgery? What is the concept of health in regards to the proposal for green areas, just cure or prevention?
L. 238-244: How do the authors analyze this issue in relation to nature deficit disorder? See LOUV, R. (2016). The Last Child in Nature. São Paulo: Aquariana.
L. 250-254: How does this statement interact with the need to rethink urban spaces in terms of environmental regeneration or mechanisms to prevent degradation caused by urban sprawl?
L. 278-293: What about setting up and maintaining these gardens, is there no possibility of this being considered a therapeutic activity?
L. 295-303: Do the authors observe this separation in nature? Is there a different nature for children, adults and the elderly? What is the therapeutic need to separate them?
L. 354: How do the authors interpret this passivity/activity? What level of therapeutic interaction do users have with the garden? Can they be builders and maintainers of the garden or just contemplators? How can users benefit, for example, by picking aromatic herbs, teas or fruit? How can users be protagonists of the garden, planting, pruning and maintaining its cleanliness?
Figure 8: Is this an indoor area of a therapeutic garden? What are the towels for?
L.423-448: What ecological aspects should be observed in relation to the desired therapeutic goals? What relationships should be fostered between users and the garden beyond the contemplative? As proposed in this topic, it looks more like an ordinary urban garden than a garden for therapeutic purposes.
L. 451-480: What is the therapeutic purpose of the garden if it will be maintained by people other than the users and beneficiaries?
L.461: "What activities could be performed in these spaces?" This seems to be the most important question before planning a therapeutic garden. It shouldn't just be answered during maintenance. How do the authors see this question throughout the process? What does the word “activities” mean in therapeutic terms?
Conclusions:
L.494-497: The authors believe that therapeutic gardens as presented in this literature review “...can contribute not only to the achievement of SDG 3 ‘good health and well-being’, but also to other goals such as SDG 13 ‘climate action’, SDG 11 ‘sustainable cities and communities’, and SDG 15 ‘terrestrial life’? What results presented in the reviews demonstrate this? The gardens presented in this review contribute to the well-being of those who are ill or need to be in contact with beautiful, wooded outdoor environments, nothing more. Climate, sustainability or biodiversity issues will never be solved with therapeutic gardens. Be careful not to be seduced by a “green discourse”. The environmental crisis we are experiencing is very deep and requires changes in values that go far beyond the creation of therapeutic spaces. But this doesn't diminish the authors' work, it's just a warning not to fall into a trap.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Best regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper systematizes information about therapeutic gardens in scientific literature. The authors draw on a systematic review and synthesize findings to create practical recommendations valuable for practitioners and policymakers. The paper presents an original contribution to the field by developing a framework for implementing therapeutic gardens, which appears to address a gap in the literature. The argument is generally well conducted, anyway, there could be more critical engagement with counterarguments or potential limitations of therapeutic gardens. This would add depth to the analysis, especially in the Conclusion section, and demonstrate a more balanced approach to the topic.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Best regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Lines 30-45, citations in the main text should not use both formats at the same time, only one of them can be retained. In addition, for Lines 198-207, two citation formats appear in the same paragraph, please check for similar problems in the manuscript and make a modification.
2. Line 246, it is suggested to change the “garden” to “therapeutic gardens” to avoid ambiguity.
3. Figure 4, please indicate each stage in the figure to correspond to the titles of 3.3.1-3.3.6 for increased readability.
4. Table 1, both of the second and third steps are “Execution Project”, please verify and revise it.
5. Section 3.3.4, this section has a strange relationship to the preceding paragraph, and it should be better served as a separate section.
6. It is suggested not to mix the section of results with the discussion, and please strengthen the discussion of this paper. For example, at present, most of the existing studies and cases of therapeutic gardens are for healthcare institutions. Then, compared with hospitals, what are the focuses of constructing therapeutic gardens in different places (such as schools, nursing homes, public spaces, etc.)? And what is the difference in the design framework?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Best regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI congratulate the authors of the manuscript “Recommendations for implementing therapeutic gardens to enhance human well-being” for focusing on a topic of utmost importance for the integral well-being of all contemporary human societies, but unfortunately very little known by decision-makers and urban planners.
They carry out a meta-analytical review of the multidisciplinary literature on previous experiences of implementing therapeutic gardens worldwide, and finally present a proposal with criteria and protocols for their implementation; these are a very valuable tool. The article has clear objectives and is presented in an understandable manner. The supplementary material included is extremely useful.
However, there are several errors in the citations of the scientific literature used, as well as the reference to them in "References", which must be resolved:
- The citation of literature is combined with numbers (as requested by the scientific journal) and the citation with the authors' surnames (e.g. Pires et al., 2020; Marcus and Barnes, 1999; Pouya and Demirel, 2017; Berg et al., 2021, etc.).
- There are errors in the citation, for example literature cited in line 33 should be Scholes et al. 2018 in References.
- All references should have DOIs.
- There are sources of literature on the Internet that cannot be found (e.g. 28, 29, 31, 35), the Internet directions should be included.
- In line 367, the cited literature in the text is not included.
Figures can be improved.
- In Figure 3, the circles referring to countries with 1 or 2 studies are confused. Improve by adding different sizes and/or colors.
-Figure 4 should be explicitly related to the "Stages" explained in the text.
- In Figure 5 justify the text in the green box to the left.
Address number 4 is not related to any author (line 10)
Finally, find a suitable term in English for "Caramanchon"
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Best regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors Line 522-523: "These benefits are manifold and can contribute not only to the achievement of SDG 3 “good health and well-being." I don't think that sentence makes sense because it leaves the feeling of a missing complement. Thanks.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Best regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made acceptable revisions on most of my comments. However, with regard to question 6 in the previous round of comments, separating the results and discussion is a small proposal that can be combined if it conforms to the journal format. While, the main problem is that further discussion on the following issues needs to be strengthened, and the authors have not revised and responded to this issue.
Please strengthen the discussion form the following aspects: At present, most of the existing studies and cases of therapeutic gardens are for healthcare institutions. Then, compared with hospitals, what are the focuses of constructing therapeutic gardens in different places (such as schools, nursing homes, public spaces, etc.)? And what is the difference in the design framework?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Best regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
