Review Reports - Integrating Urban Design, Healthy Habits, and Socio-Ecological Networks: A One Health and Well-Being Framework for Sustainable Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I am pleased to have been selected as a reviewer for an interesting paper such as yours.

The manuscript is well-structured, but I would still like to offer a few specific comments.

- The abstract is well written and contains all the necessary information. However, I would kindly ask you to present the main objectives of the paper more clearly and effectively in the abstract, in order to highlight their importance.

- In the Introduction, you state the need to develop the research work of new indicators through three converging opinions. Later in the manuscript, you clearly identify and describe these three converging opinions in detail. I believe that the description provided in lines 81–115 is unnecessary at this point in the Introduction, as it is thoroughly explained in the main body of the text. Therefore, I suggest that in the Introduction, you only list the three converging opinions without elaborating on them.

- I kindly suggest that you expand subsection 3.1 The First Pillar: Physiology, by including more examples related to the promotion of physical and overall physiological health in the human population. I find this part to be rather brief, despite its significant importance for the overall contribution of this review paper.

- The sentence found between lines 402–409 is too long and therefore difficult to follow. This may make it harder for readers to fully understand the content. I kindly suggest that you rephrase and divide it into two or more shorter, clearer sentences to improve readability and comprehension.

- The text between lines 418–425, under the subsection The Third Pillar: Nutrition, is not adequately aligned with the topic of the subsection and does not effectively describe the third pillar, Nutrition. Please review this section and revise it so that the content corresponds appropriately to the subsection title.

- The section in subsection 3.4 The Fourth Pillar: The Environment, around line 434, addresses the importance of trees for human health but does so rather briefly. I kindly ask you to expand this part by adding several sentences that further explain the significance of trees for human health, particularly emphasising their role in urban environments..

- Since this is a review paper, the Discussion section should be expanded to provide readers with a comprehensive analysis, synthesis, and critical reflection on the results obtained through the literature review. I suggest using the current Discussion text as an introductory part, to which you can add the following elements.

First, summarise all the key findings in a way that reflects the main theme of the paper which is interaction between social and ecological 2 networks to promote health and well-being. Then, discuss the broader implications of these findings: how do the scientific studies you reviewed agree or differ? Highlight the significance of this research and explain why it is important for readers to understand the topic of urban design and its impact on human health.

Provide recommendations for science, practice, and policy based on the results. Additionally, emphasise any gaps or limitations you identified during the literature review and synthesis. Finally, reflect on the objectives related to rethinking cities as living systems, where biotic and abiotic components interface and integrate, and briefly explain whether and how these objectives have been met.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you deeply for taking the time to review this manuscript and provide us with valuable comments and suggestions to improve the paper. Please find the detailed responses below and the revised version of the manuscript with tracked changes in the re-submitted file.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: The abstract is well written and contains all the necessary information. However, I would kindly ask you to present the main objectives of the paper more clearly and effectively in the abstract, in order to highlight their importance.

Response 1: Thank you for highlighting the need to present the research aim of the paper which is now clearly stated in the abstract.

Comment 2: In the Introduction, you state the need to develop the research work of new indicators through three converging opinions. Later in the manuscript, you clearly identify and describe these three converging opinions in detail. I believe that the description provided in lines 81–115 is unnecessary at this point in the Introduction, as it is thoroughly explained in the main body of the text. Therefore, I suggest that in the Introduction, you only list the three converging opinions without elaborating on them.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing out the redundant part of introduction - it is updated as proposed.

Comment 3: I kindly suggest that you expand subsection 3.1 The First Pillar: Physiology, by including more examples related to the promotion of physical and overall physiological health in the human population. I find this part to be rather brief, despite its significant importance for the overall contribution of this review paper.

Response 3: We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful suggestion to expand subsection 3.1 on Physiology. We fully agree that this pillar is crucial for the overall coherence of the One Health model, and we would have indeed welcomed the opportunity to explore it further through additional examples and urban applications. However, due to space constraints and the need to maintain a balanced discussion across all four evolutionary pillars, we opted for a more concise treatment of each.

In fact, within this framework, physiology does not assume a greater centrality than the other three pillars—nutrition, psycho-relational well-being, and environment—which are equally foundational and interdependent. If anything, the environmental pillar received more elaboration in our manuscript, as it provided the strongest anchor to the broader ecological and urban design themes of the paper. That said, we truly value your feedback and recognize the potential of a more in-depth exploration of physiological aspects in future work or extended versions of this study.

Comment 4: The sentence found between lines 402–409 is too long and therefore difficult to follow. This may make it harder for readers to fully understand the content. I kindly suggest that you rephrase and divide it into two or more shorter, clearer sentences to improve readability and comprehension.

Response 4: We have revised the sentence between lines 402–409 to improve clarity and readability by dividing it into shorter, more accessible sentences. We trust that the new version now facilitates better comprehension for the reader.

Comment 5: The text between lines 418–425, under the subsection The Third Pillar: Nutrition, is not adequately aligned with the topic of the subsection and does not effectively describe the third pillar, Nutrition. Please review this section and revise it so that the content corresponds appropriately to the subsection title.

Response 5: We appreciate your observation regarding the misalignment of the content between lines 418–425 with the intended focus of the subsection on Nutrition. Upon review, we discovered that the original text written by the author for this section was inadvertently replaced or displaced during the manuscript consolidation process - we sincerely regret this oversight. To address this, we have now restored and revised the full subsection dedicated to Nutrition, ensuring that it accurately reflects both the scientific foundation and the practical implications of this pillar within the Healthy Habits model. In doing so, we also took into account the valuable feedback provided by reviewers, including the need for clearer urban applications and links to public food environments. We believe the revised version now offers a more coherent, complete, and relevant treatment of the topic, aligned with the structure and intent of the paper.

Comment 6: The section in subsection 3.4 The Fourth Pillar: The Environment, around line 434, addresses the importance of trees for human health but does so rather briefly. I kindly ask you to expand this part by adding several sentences that further explain the significance of trees for human health, particularly emphasising their role in urban environments.

Response 6: Thank you for this valuable comment. Within the limits of the available space, we have taken this suggestion into account and expanded the relevant section to better illustrate the relationship between trees and human health. In particular, we have added content that emphasises the multiple health-related functions of trees in urban environments, including air purification, temperature regulation, and their impact on psychological well-being.

Comment 7: Since this is a review paper, the Discussion section should be expanded to provide readers with a comprehensive analysis, synthesis, and critical reflection on the results obtained through the literature review. I suggest using the current Discussion text as an introductory part, to which you can add the following elements.

Response 7: Thank you for the constructive feedback and thoughtful suggestions for enhancing the discussion. The initial discussion text was used to update the introduction section, therefore the discussion section has been rewritten completely.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents an ambitious and valuable synthesis linking biodiversity, urban planning, and public health through the lens of the One Health approach and the Healthy Habits model. It makes a compelling argument for integrated thinking in designing resilient and health-promoting cities. However, several improvements are needed before publication:

Abstract & Introduction:
The abstract is too vague and lacks methodological and empirical grounding. The introduction provides important context, but would benefit from a clearer research question or objective.
Conceptual Sections (Sections 2–4):
While rich in theoretical framing, these sections often suffer from repetition and over-reliance on policy documents. Streamlining the content and strengthening links between theory and practice would greatly enhance readability and coherence.
Healthy Habits Model (Section 3):
This section is one of the strongest conceptually, but the discussion remains largely descriptive. Consider including a diagram of the model and clarifying whether it has been tested or is purely theoretical.
Discussion & Conclusion:
Both sections would benefit from deeper analytical insight. The discussion should engage more critically with challenges and limitations. The conclusion should better highlight the manuscript’s unique contributions and implications for future research or policy.
Language and Style:
The manuscript would greatly benefit from language editing to improve clarity, reduce redundancy, and make the content more accessible to an international audience.

With these revisions, the paper has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to interdisciplinary urban studies. Please find attached a document with detailed section-by-section suggestions for improvement, which I hope will be helpful to both the authors and the editorial team.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1a: Abstract & Introduction:
The abstract is too vague and lacks methodological and empirical grounding. The introduction provides important context, but would benefit from a clearer research question or objective.

The abstract presents an interesting and timely perspective, but it remains too vague and conceptually dense. Key methodological details are missing – there is no mention of how the Healthy Habits model was developed or applied, nor of any empirical evidence supporting the claim. Additionally, the language is overly abstract (‘living systems’, ‘adaptive approaches’) without clarifying what these mean in practical or design terms. The lack of a clear research question or concrete results makes it difficult to grasp the paper’s scientific contribution.

Suggested improvements:

Clarify the research aim and methods.

Add a brief mention of key findings or case insights.

Use more precise and grounded language.

Follow a clearer structure: aim, method, result, implication.

Response 1a: Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback. In response, we have revised the abstract to better clarify the aim of the article, the methodological grounding, and the practical relevance of the Healthy Habits model. We have also refined the language to reduce conceptual density and better connect key terms to their urban planning implications. These revisions aim to improve clarity and highlight the scientific contribution of the paper in a more structured manner.

Comment 1b: Abstract & Introduction:

The introduction provides a well-articulated context regarding the Natura 2000 network and the need to bridge biodiversity conservation with human well-being. The link between urban green spaces and health is relevant and aligns with current EU strategies. However, several issues limit the effectiveness of this section:

While the text offers a broad historical and conceptual background, it fails to clearly define the specific research problem or gap the paper seeks to address. The reader is left uncertain about what is being investigated or why it is novel.

Suggestion: Clearly articulate the main research question or the gap in existing literature that the paper intends to fill, ideally in the final paragraph of the introduction.

Some portions, particularly the explanations about Natura 2000 and biodiversity, are overly detailed and could be condensed without loss of meaning. For instance, lines 45 67 repeat concepts that are later reiterated.

Suggestion: Tighten the prose and focus on how this background supports the upcoming discussion on urban health and social-ecological integration.

The final part of the introduction (lines 79-114) introduces the paper’s internal sections, but this is done as a list without explaining their interconnections or the logic of progression.

Suggestion: Briefly explain how each part builds on the previous one, and how they together contribute to the paper’s overall objective.

Phrases like ‘rising’ (line 66) are unclear and likely a translation artifact. Similarly, the term ‘biocenoses’ (line 71) is highly technical and not contextualized for broader readership.

Suggestion: Replace unclear or overly specialized terms with more accessible alternatives, or briefly define them.

Response 1b: Thank you for the constructive feedback on enhancing the Introduction chapter. The Introduction has been revised, cleared from redundancies and highly technical terms, as well as updated with the research gap, followed by concise methodology and proposed conclusion.

Comment 2: Conceptual Sections (Sections 2–4):

While rich in theoretical framing, these sections often suffer from repetition and over-reliance on policy documents. Streamlining the content and strengthening links between theory and practice would greatly enhance readability and coherence.

Response 2: Thank you for the thoughtful suggestions to streamline the content of conceptual sections. The over-reliance on the policy document has been revised and the links between theory and practice have been strengthened.

Comment 2a: Section 2: The Evolution of European Environmental Policies

This section provides a comprehensive historical overview of European environmental policy development and its influence on urban planning. The chronological structure (three evolutionary phases) is clear and useful. However, several aspects limit its effectiveness as part of a research paper:

The section reads more like a policy report or historical review than an academic argument. It covers too much ground, often at the cost of analytical depth or synthesis.

Suggestion: Reduce the excessive detail (e.g., long lists of projects, policies, and architects) and focus on how these developments specifically relate to the paper’s core thesis - integrating health, biodiversity, and urban design. The connection between this history policy review and the ‘Healthy Habits’ model or One Health framework is not made explicit.

Suggestion: Conclude each sub-section with a few sentences explaining how that policy phase shaped, enabled, or limited health-oriented urban planning. While the section is rich in content, it lacks critical engagement with the limitations, contradictions, or implementation gaps in EU environmental policy.

Suggestion: Briefly discuss tensions between high-level environmental rhetoric and the actual integration of these principles into urban planning practice. Some details such as full architectural credits for park projects or general philosophical statements – feel peripheral to the paper’s core.

Suggestion: Retain only what is analytically relevant and redirect energy toward synthesizing lessons learned from each phase

Response 2a: Thank you for the constructive feedback and thoughtful suggestions for enhancing the section on evolution of environmental policies and its influence on urban design. The chapter has been deeply revised, reduced from the excessive details and focused on the connection between environmental policies evolution and the integration of health, environmental protection, and urban design. It is updated with the conclusions of each sub-section / phases to provide critical engagement.

Comment 3: Healthy Habits Model (Section 3):
This section is one of the strongest conceptually, but the discussion remains largely descriptive. Consider including a diagram of the model and clarifying whether it has been tested or is purely theoretical.

Response 3: Thank you for your positive feedback and helpful suggestions. To strengthen this section and provide greater clarity, we have included two infographics that visually represent the structure and logic of the Healthy Habits model. In addition, we have integrated a concise description of the empirical case study carried out in the Republic of San Marino. This allows us to clarify the methodological aspects and demonstrate that the model has been tested in real-world settings, rather than remaining purely theoretical.

Comment 3a: Section 3: Healthy Cities and the Four Pillars Model

This section presents a compelling and original integration of health science, behavioral theory, and urban design. The One Health-based ‘Helthy Habits’ framework is clearly articulated, and the four pillars provide a promising structure for urban interventions. However, the section would benefit from several critical improvements.

Several concepts, especially the definition of the four pillars and the general benefits of urban greenery are repeated almost verbatim in different subsections (e.g., lines 353 356 and 418 421).

Suggestion: Consolidate introductory and concluding parts to reduce redundancy and improve

flow. Although the section discusses scientific evidence, it’s unclear whether the arguments stem from original research, a conceptual synthesis, or a systematic literature review.

Suggestion: Briefly clarify the methodological approach, how was this model developed through empirical data, or is it purely theoretical?

The ‘Environment’ and ‘Physiology’ pillars are extensively developed, while ‘Nutrition’ is disproportionately brief and somewhat repetitive of earlier lines.

Suggestion: Either expand the Nutrition section with concrete urban applications (e.g., food environments, access to healthy food) or merge it with other content if it cannot be sufficiently developed.

The narrative is rich in scientific findings but lacks a critical reflection on limitations, trade-offs, or real-world implementation barriers (e.g., equity in access to green spaces, urban density constraints).

Suggestion: Add a brief paragraph acknowledging challenges in applying the model in diverse urban contexts.

The language occasionally shifts from analytical to rethorical or promotional e.g. ‘four fellow travellers’, ‘forward-looking-investement’), which reduces perceived scientific objectivity.

Suggestion: Use more neutral, academic phrasing to maintain a consistent tone.

Response 3a: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have consolidated overlapping parts, clarified the methodological nature of the Healthy Habits model (including the San Marino case study which serves as a concrete illustration of how the model was implemented and evaluated), and significantly expanded the Nutrition section with concrete urban applications. We also added a short reflection on implementation challenges and adjusted the language to ensure a more neutral, academic tone.

Comments 4: Section 4: Healthy Cities, Social Networks, and Nudges

This section addresses an important and often overlooked aspect of urban health: the social dimension and the role of public space in fostering relationships and community resilience. The integration of complexity theory, social network theory, and behavioral economics provides a rich interdisciplinary framework. However, the section would benefit from greater focus, synthesis, and grounding.

The section reads more like an extended essay than a focused academic argument. The theoretical references (Luhmann, Castells, Simmel, De Certeau, etc.) are abundant but not clearly integrated into a central thesis.

Suggestion: Reorganize content into clear thematic sub-sections (e.g., urban complexity, social networks, ecological integration, nudging) and make explicit how each supports the paper’s main argument about urban health.

The references to sociological and philosophical figures, while intellectually rich, often lack clear translation into urban design implications.

Suggestion: For each cited thinker (e.g., Simmel, Castells), briefly explain how their ideas relate concretely to urban planning or healthy social behavior in public space.

The final part introduces ‘nudges’ as an actionable strategy, but this is underexplored. Ther is little detail on how nudges might be physically or communicatively implemented in cities.

Suggestion: Provide examples of successful nudge-based interventions in urban design (e.g., signage, path design, behavioral prompts) and how they could be used to foster ‘healthy social networks’.

The section is heavily conceptual and references many abstract frameworks, but lacks case studies or data to support claims.

Suggestion: Introduce one or two short, real-world examples or pilot projects (e.g., community gardens, participatory urban design) that illustrate how social interaction and ecology have been integrated successfully.

The language is dense and filled with jargon, which may reduce accessibility for interdisciplinary readers (e.g., urban planners, public health professionals).

Suggestion: Simplify where possible and use clear, plain language to explain core ideas (especially in the nudge and social practice discussions).

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestions to make the text more understandable for readers from various scientific fields. The chapter is updated with an attempt to simplify some theoretical passages (even eliminating some sections) and to supplement the reflections with some practical examples. The city visions of some authors (e.g., Castells) have been added. We have attempted to better explain the suggestion of using nudges as a valid tool for developing social health networks, including with some examples. However, we have left some theoretical insights, of a sociological and philosophical nature, as starting points for basic reflection. These insights are not related to city design, but rather serve as a theoretical framework that can suggest possible, new, and original solutions.

Comment 5: Discussion & Conclusion:
Both sections would benefit from deeper analytical insight. The discussion should engage more critically with challenges and limitations. The conclusion should better highlight the manuscript’s unique contributions and implications for future research or policy.

Response 5: The discussion section has been rewritten completely, and the conclusion has been significantly updated to provide clearer implication for future research and policy.

Comment 5a: Section 5: Discussion

This discussion effectively reiterates the article’s core premise: that human and ecological health are deeply interconnected and can be mutually reinforced through thoughtful urban design. The integration of behavioral insights (e.g., nudges) and cross-sectoral collaboration is well noted. However, the section remains underdeveloped and lacks the analytical depth expected in a discussion section of a scientific paper.

The section largely rephrases previous content without offering deeper interpretation, critique, or theoretical implications of the findings.

Suggestion: Go beyond restating evidence. Discuss the limitations of the proposed framework, possible barriers to implementation, and the broader implications for urban policy.

There is no critical engagement with potential trade-offs, such as gentrification risks, social equity in access to green spaces, or the cost and feasibility of implementing systemic design changes.

Suggestion: Acknowledge challenges and tensions that might arise when integrating health, environment, and design (e.g., balancing ecological goals with urban density).

While the suggestion to develop measurable indicators is valuable, it remains vague.

Suggestion: Propose specific types of indicators (e.g., green space accessibility metrics, longitudinal health outcomes, biodiversity indexes in urban zones), or reference existing frameworks that could be built upon.

The section does not mention any limitations of the research approach, which is critical for transparency and scholarly rigor.

Suggestion: Briefly acknowledge if the work is theoretical/conceptual in nature, or if empirical testing is pending, and outline how these limitations affect interpretation.

Response 5a: Thank you for the constructive feedback and thoughtful suggestions for enhancing the discussion. The discussion section has been rewritten completely, including the limitations of the study as well as potential field of further research.

Comment 5b: Section 6: Conclusion

The conclusion successfully restates the main thesis of the paper: the integration of human and ecological health through urban planning, guided by the One Health framework and European policy initiatives. The emphasis on measurable, integrated indicators is timely and important. However, the section lacks impact and could do more to articulate the paper’s broader significance and originality.

The conclusion mainly echoes previous sections without offering new insight or a compelling final message.

Suggestion: Use the conclusion to clearly articulate the novel contribution of this paper. What does this work offer that others do not? What is the main takeaway for policymakers or practitioners?

The section presents an optimistic vision but omits potential barriers to implementation (e.g., institutional inertia, unequal access to green spaces, funding limitations).

Suggestion: Briefly acknowledge such challenges to offer a more realistic and grounded conclusion.

The tone remains neutral and descriptive, missing an opportunity to end with a strong, proactive message.

Suggestion: End with a forward-looking statement or a clear call to action for urban designers, researchers, or public institutions.

Response 5b: Thank you for the constructive feedback and thoughtful suggestions for enhancing the conclusion section. The conclusion has been significantly updated to provide a forward-looking statement.

Comment 6: Language and Style:
The manuscript would greatly benefit from language editing to improve clarity, reduce redundancy, and make the content more accessible to an international audience.

Response 6: The language and style of the manuscript have been significantly revised, to reduce redundancy, improve clarity, and make the content comprehensible to international audience from various fields.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a highly relevant and topical issue by linking urban design with health and biodiversity. However, the text contains redundancies and excessive description in several sections, while the inclusion of visual resources such as graphs, tables, maps, or conceptual diagrams that summarize key ideas is lacking. Furthermore, the absence of bibliometric and scientometric analyses limits the strength of this review in terms of identifying research trends and knowledge gaps. To strengthen the quality and impact of the work, I would like to offer a series of major comments that should be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

General comments

C1. The main concern is that the novelty of the research is not fully clear. The manuscript lacks a clear and compelling statement about the originality of the study.

C2. The manuscript lacks visual resources and complementary analyses that could reinforce its scientific review nature. There are no graphs, maps, comparative tables, or conceptual diagrams that summarize the information presented. Likewise, it would be highly recommended to include bibliometric or scientometric analyses (e.g., publication trends, co-authorship networks, citation maps), which would allow for a quantitative assessment of research trends in urban planning, ecology, and health. These elements would not only enrich the methodological soundness of the review, but also offer the reader a visual and objective overview of scientific production on the subject.

C3. Please, look at your Discussion, is there a real comparison to other researchers of your results? It is necessary to carry out a thorough comparison, I recommend to include some relevant references, in order to improve the discussion on the novelty of your study, comparing to the others.

*The answer to these questions should be reflected in the manuscript*

Specific comments

Line 45: The reference to Natura 2000 is good, but the authors should enrich it with recent examples of urban implementation (e.g., post-2020 green infrastructure projects in European cities, SDG 2030).

Line 73: Here, the separation between actions for humans and nature is mentioned. The authors should cite recent literature on Nature-based Solutions (NbS) that precisely integrates both dimensions.

Line 118–139: The section on the Stockholm Declaration is very descriptive. A comparative table with policy evolution phases (1970–1987, 1987–2006, post-2007) should be added.

Line 187-198: The examples of rehabilitated industrial parks are relevant, but the authors should include more recent references.

Line 189-197: The examples of urban renewal projects (“Parc de La Villette,” “Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord”) are good for illustrating the materialization of policies in design. The authors should explicitly link each example to the policy phase it represents (e.g., Duisburg-Nord with the integrated/systemic phase).

Line 269: The description of the different types of “urbanism” (Everyday) is good. For greater clarity, the authors should add a brief definition of “Landscape Urbanism” as the paradigm that best embodies the holistic phase, before listing the others.

Line 270: Excellent summary of the shift towards a holistic vision. However, criticism is lacking: what limitations have these frameworks had when implemented in medium-sized and small cities?

Line 329: The case of “National Park City” in London is relevant, but the authors should expand on quantitative results of impacts (citizen participation, urban biodiversity).

Lines 346-349: The transition to Chapter 3 is a bit abrupt. A connecting sentence linking the evolution of policies (Chapter 2) to the need for a new operational model for planning would be useful.

Line 353: There is repetition of phrases in lines 418–420 (duplicate text). Remove redundancy.

Line 365: Reference 47 is missing.

Line 381. The authors should provide a specific example of an urban “nudge” applied to physical activity (e.g., markings on the ground that encourage exercise, musical stairs).

Line 389: It appears that the authors did not read the author guidelines, as this is not the correct way to cite.

Line 395: What new studies? Add relevant references.

Line 427: Excellent argument about vegetation and health. It would be advisable to include data on urban heat islands post-2020, given the increase in heat waves in Europe.

Line 454: Meta-analyses of mortality are mentioned, so it is important to specify the sample size and regional limitations.

Line 472: The concept of biophilic design is well presented, but it should be linked to implementation metrics (e.g., tree density, access to parks).

Line 492: The discussion on complexity is robust, but somewhat theoretical. I suggest adding how these theories have been applied in recent urban cases (e.g., Barcelona, Milan).

Line 533: The idea of physical relationships in contiguous natural spaces is very apt, but it should be reinforced with empirical evidence.

Line 591: The section on nudges is interesting but somewhat abstract. To make it more powerful, 2-3 concrete and specific examples of how an urban nudge can catalyze a healthy social network or sustainable practice would be needed (e.g., community gardens with signage that encourages interaction, an app that rewards the use of green spaces, bench design that encourages conversation).

Lines 618–633: The discussion adequately summarizes the findings, but it would be stronger if it explicitly compared these results with the existing literature. In particular, it would be useful to clarify what the four-pillar framework contributes compared to other established approaches, such as the WHO Healthy Cities program. It would also be valuable to acknowledge the study's limitations, such as its emphasis on the European context and the lack of quantitative empirical evidence to fully support the proposed model. Although the need for indicators is noted, no specific tools are suggested. In this regard, it would be useful to propose a methodological framework that includes indicators of subjective well-being, metrics of urban biodiversity, and emissions reduction. Finally, the section could conclude with a future research agenda addressing how to measure social-ecological coevolution in urban environments.

Line 651: It is recommended to specify which controls were applied to avoid bias.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: The main concern is that the novelty of the research is not fully clear. The manuscript lacks a clear and compelling statement about the originality of the study.

Response 1: Thank you for constructive feedback. The originality of the study is addressed in the abstract as well as in the introduction, highlighting the aim to present new connections between the three converging and complementary approaches to social and ecological well-being - urban planning, health, and sociology.

Comment 2: The manuscript lacks visual resources and complementary analyses that could reinforce its scientific review nature. There are no graphs, maps, comparative tables, or conceptual diagrams that summarize the information presented. Likewise, it would be highly recommended to include bibliometric or scientometric analyses (e.g., publication trends, co-authorship networks, citation maps), which would allow for a quantitative assessment of research trends in urban planning, ecology, and health. These elements would not only enrich the methodological soundness of the review, but also offer the reader a visual and objective overview of scientific production on the subject.

Response 2: Thank you for this important observation. For the Healthy Habits (HH) section, we have included two infographics that help visually convey the structure and conceptual logic of the model, which we believe already offer a strong illustrative complement to the narrative. Additionally, we are currently working on structured projects aimed at developing systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses to further explore the scientific implications of the HH approach in greater depth. These will support future publications with a stronger quantitative and comparative foundation.

Comment 3: Please, look at your Discussion, is there a real comparison to other researchers of your results? It is necessary to carry out a thorough comparison, I recommend to include some relevant references, in order to improve the discussion on the novelty of your study, comparing to the others.

Response 3: Thank you for the constructive feedback for enhancing the discussion. The discussion section has been rewritten.

Comment 4: Specific comments that address the individual lines of the manuscript.

Response 4: The responses to specific comments are reflected in the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article intends to offer a review. However, for a scientific article, it is not adequately structured and referred. Regardless the relevance of the idea, the execution of the idea should be rethought and replanned.

I strongly recommend to read other review articles already published by Sustainability journal in order to get the proper structure.

The article does not present an adequate Methodological section.

If this intends to be a review, whate were the key expressions and the procedures adopted to produce such a review?

I recommend to rewrite and resubmit.

I have attached some further comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: The article intends to offer a review. However, for a scientific article, it is not adequately structured and referred. Regardless the relevance of the idea, the execution of the idea should be rethought and replanned.

I strongly recommend to read other review articles already published by Sustainability journal in order to get the proper structure.

The article does not present an adequate Methodological section.

If this intends to be a review, what were the key expressions and the procedures adopted to produce such a review?

I recommend to rewrite and resubmit.

I have attached some further comments.

Response 1: Thank you for the concise and constructive feedback, and the recognition of the relevance of the topic. The manuscript was extensively revised in terms of structure and content, as well as revised in terms of used references. All the chapters have been significally updated and rewritten, and the Methodology chapter has been inserted.

The specific comments that were attached to the review are addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for providing corrections to my suggestions.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your support in the review process. We have continued the work on the manuscript, so you can follow the progress in the updated version.

Best regards, Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript represents a substantial improvement over the initial submission. The abstract and introduction are clearer, the Healthy Habits model is now supported with visualizations and a case study, and the conceptual sections have been streamlined. The discussion and conclusion are more analytical, with added reflections on limitations and policy implications. Please refer to the attached file for additional suggestions to further improve the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you deeply for taking the time to review the revised version o the manuscript and provide us with valuable comments and suggestions to improve it. Please find the detailed responses below and the revised version of the manuscript with tracked changes and added illustrations in the re-submitted file.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: Abstract & Introduction

The abstract is now more structured, presenting aim, methodological grounding, and key results. The introduction is more focused, with redundant details removed and a clearer articulation of the research gap. Language has been simplified in several parts, making the section more accessible.

While improved, the abstract could still highlight more explicitly the unique contribution of the Healthy Habits model compared to other frameworks in urban health. In the introduction, the logic of progression between subsections is clearer, but the narrative flow from historical background to the Healthy Habits framework could be slightly tightened to avoid residual digressions.

Response 1: Thank you for highlighting the need to further enhance the Abstract and Introduction. Introduction is updated with the state-of-the-art based on the semantic review (Ericit), and the Abstract is updated according to all updates of the manuscript.

Comment 2: Conceptual Sections

The authors have substantially streamlined these sections, reducing policy-report style lists and strengthening links between theory and practice. References to EU policies are now followed by reflections on their implications for urban design, which improves analytical depth. The addition of examples and case insights enhances readability.

Some passages still lean heavily on descriptive policy review. Shortening these further and emphasizing critical synthesis would sharpen the academic argument. In Section 4, the integration of sociological thinkers is improved, but a few theoretical digressions remain abstract; linking them more explicitly to practical urban design implications would enhance accessibility for interdisciplinary readers.

Response 2: Thank you for drawing our attention to the need to further enhance conceptual sections. The dependence on policy review is reduced, as well as theoretical digressions. Links between theories and practical urban design are enhanced, and also presented in Table 1.

Comment 3: Healthy Habits Model (Section 3)

This section shows the most significant improvement. The inclusion of infographics and the San Marino case study makes the model more concrete and empirically grounded. The Nutrition pillar has been expanded with relevant urban applications, addressing the imbalance noted in the first review.

While the infographics are valuable, their interpretive guidance could be enhanced—brief captions or textual explanations of how to read the diagrams would aid clarity. Additionally, acknowledging potential limitations of the model’s applicability in different urban contexts (e.g., dense metropolitan areas vs. small cities) would add scholarly transparency.

Response 3: We sincerely thank the reviewer for these constructive comments. In the revised version, we have substantially enriched the interpretive and contextual dimensions of the Healthy Habits (HH) model, in line with the feedback provided.

Infographic interpretation: Both diagrams have been accompanied by new explanatory text clarifying their conceptual meaning and how to read them. Figure 1 (“The Four Pillars of Human Evolution”) is now introduced as the systemic representation of the HH framework, while Figure 2 (“The Line of Life”) illustrates the longitudinal trajectory of human functionality shaped by daily habits. Their contents are further detailed and operationalised through Table 1 and Table 2, which expand on the infographics with specific variables, health mechanisms, and urban design indicators.

Contextual limitations and applicability: A new paragraph has been added discussing the model’s context-dependent implementation, including challenges related to urban density, socio-economic disparities, and governance fragmentation. This section explicitly distinguishes between compact metropolitan areas and smaller or low-density cities, thereby increasing the model’s scholarly transparency and applicability.

Empirical grounding: The San Marino case study remains a key empirical example, now explicitly connected to the four pillars of the HH model and to the broader One Health framework, reinforcing its practical relevance.

We believe these additions clarify the interpretive function of the visual materials and strengthen the analytical and contextual robustness of Section 3.

Comment 4: Healthy Cities, Social Networks, and Nudges

The section has been reorganized with clearer sub-themes, and the inclusion of practical examples of nudges and community-based projects significantly strengthens the link between theory and practice. The language has been simplified, with reduced jargon.

While improved, some subsections still risk appearing like an “extended essay.” A tighter focus on how each conceptual framework directly supports the paper’s core argument about urban health would enhance coherence. The examples of nudges could be expanded with comparative evidence from international urban contexts to broaden the section’s relevance.

Response 4: We are very grateful to the reviewers for their suggestions aimed at facilitating the reading and improving understanding of the intersection of sociology, urban design, and Healthy Habits. Specifically, part 5 has been modified in an attempt to reduce the theoretical and essayistic parts and increase the references corresponding to urban design. In addition, the examples of nudges at the international level have been enriched, also seeking connections with the Healthy Habits approach.

Comment 5: Discussion

The discussion has been thoroughly reworked. It now includes limitations of the study, reflections on implementation challenges, and directions for future research. This marks a substantial step forward from the earlier version, which was largely descriptive.

The discussion could still benefit from more critical engagement with trade-offs, such as gentrification risks, resource constraints, or policy inertia. While limitations are acknowledged, a more nuanced reflection on equity and inclusivity in applying the Healthy Habits model would be valuable for strengthening the policy relevance of the paper.

Response 5: Thank you for the incentive to further enhance the discussion chapter. Some of the critical trade-offs are addressed, as well as application challenges of the Healthy Habits model.

Comment 6: Conclusion

The conclusion is now more forward-looking, articulating implications for policy and practice, and ending with a stronger message. It avoids the purely repetitive tone of the earlier version.

To maximize impact, the conclusion could explicitly state the novel contribution of the Healthy Habits framework in one or two concise sentences. Additionally, mentioning specific avenues for future research (e.g., cross-city comparative studies, longitudinal health outcomes) would increase the conclusion’s scholarly weight.

Response 6: The conclusion is enhanced with the contribution of the Healthy Habits framework. Also, the possibilities of future research are also opened in Conclusion.

Comment 7: Language and Style

The manuscript’s language has been significantly revised, with redundancies removed and technical jargon reduced. The flow is smoother and more accessible to a broad interdisciplinary readership.

A final light language polish could still be helpful, particularly to ensure consistent academic tone (avoiding occasional rhetorical or promotional expressions) and to refine sentence structure in a few dense passages.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing out the need to further polish the language and ensure consistency of academic tone. The language updates are done throughout the paper with other updates.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I acknowledge the effort made by the authors in addressing the comments. However, after evaluating the revised manuscript draft and the responses, several issues remain:

Visual resources: the authors state that two infographics have been added, but no figures, tables, maps, or conceptual diagrams are visible in the manuscript resubmitted to the platform or on the platform itself. In a review article, the inclusion of such resources is not optional but essential, as they synthesize and clearly communicate the proposed framework.
Bibliometric/scientific analysis: The response indicates that such analyses will be carried out in future projects. While this is valuable for future work, it does not address the weakness of the current manuscript. A review article is expected to provide at least a minimal quantitative overview of research trends to reinforce its methodological soundness. Include in the current manuscript.
Discussion and novelty: The discussion has been expanded, but the comparison with existing frameworks remains largely descriptive and lacks critical and systematic confrontation. Furthermore, the specific contribution of the proposed four-pillar framework is not clearly distinguished from other established models.
Other issues: Some redundancies remain, certain references are incomplete or duplicated, and no methodological framework of indicators is proposed, despite the recognition of its necessity.

Therefore, although the manuscript shows improvements, the level of compliance with the requested revisions is partial. The absence of the infographics promised in the presentation, the postponement of bibliometric/scientific analyses to future work, and the lack of a clear methodological framework mean that the main concerns from the first round remain unresolved. Therefore, the manuscript still requires MAJOR REVISIONS before it can be considered for publication.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

Dear Reviewer,

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: Visual resources

The authors state that two infographics have been added, but no figures, tables, maps, or conceptual diagrams are visible in the manuscript resubmitted to the platform or on the platform itself. In a review article, the inclusion of such resources is not optional but essential, as they synthesize and clearly communicate the proposed framework.

Response 1: Thank you for insisting on the need to involve infographics - figures and tables into the manuscript. Tables are implemented in chapters 3 and 4, thus providing synthesis of proposed research. Figures are added to chapter 4, further explaining the Healthy Habits framework.

Comment 2: Bibliometric/scientific analysis

The response indicates that such analyses will be carried out in future projects. While this is valuable for future work, it does not address the weakness of the current manuscript. A review article is expected to provide at least a minimal quantitative overview of research trends to reinforce its methodological soundness. Include in the current manuscript.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing out the need to enhance methodology with quantitative overview of research trends. From a methodological point of view, we added a semantic literary review (Elicit) for the period from 2010 to 2025 to our paper, which allowed us to identify some quantitative trends, as well as qualitative considerations on the topics covered by our studies. Thanks to this scientific review, we have also identified in greater detail the salient features of the topic reviews and the gaps in the state of the art of research.

Comment 3: Discussion and novelty

The discussion has been expanded, but the comparison with existing frameworks remains largely descriptive and lacks critical and systematic confrontation. Furthermore, the specific contribution of the proposed four-pillar framework is not clearly distinguished from other established models.

Response 3: Thank you for the constructive comment to further enhance the Discussion. It has been updated with relation of research results with existing framework. Also, The Healthy Habits framework is additionally explained in the discussion.

Comment 4: Other issues

Some redundancies remain, certain references are incomplete or duplicated, and no methodological framework of indicators is proposed, despite the recognition of its necessity.

Response 4: All identified redundancies are removed, references are checked and updated, as well as methodological framework is enhanced.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current version of the article has changed in significant way compared with previous one. In the beginning, since the Abstract, it is clear that the authors intend to convey a position paper, because it is stated in the Abstract, that it is based "in three opinions". This is conflicting with a research paper or a review paper in which a topic, or a set of topics, is/are developed based on a literature review, a methodology, followed by results, discussion and conclusion.

In the current version, there is no clear methodological procedures. It is assumed that failures in the human-environmental integration can be addressed through the articulation between urban planning, sociology, and human health (One Health) fields.

The motivation of the article seems to be the highlight and discussion of failures that lead to separation between human needs and human intervention in nature and the balance between human activities and the natural environment. Nonetheless, it is widely known through many documents cited (environmental policy statements, conference documents etc) and others not cited (as Limits to Growth) that the conflicts between human beings and nature have been addressed in terms of the physical limits of the planet versus the increasing pressures of human activities (economic activities and growth, resources depletion etc).

One question that could be posed is why urban planning, sociology, and health were chosen as the main fields to underpin the positions assumed in the article.

I do not think that the text is a typical article because it does not present a structure of article with Introduction, Methodology, Findings, Discussion and Conclusion. Although such sections are provided, they do not present typical requirements as systematic scientific rigor - mainly concision and traceability.

What is the Methodology adopted and what are the traceable procedures that enabled to deliver this text?

The Introduction (at the end) does not present the following sections.

The second section is an extension of the Introduction, however it does not offer a Methodological path to guide the extant of the article.

In the section 3, there are many assumptions not due referred in the academic literature. In the subsections of the section 3, many documents were not referred as the US EPA body of knowledge that evolved since 1969 with the Environmental Impact Assessment creation. Also, the Rio 92 conference, which was the most important of the United Nations global conferences about sustainable development, with three main outcomes as climate change convention, forestry/biodiversity convention, and indigenous people convention, is not mentioned. I mean here is that the authors has chosen topics on their own because they did not follow a clear methodology to justify their choices. Otherwise if they did it, perhaps would be acceptable their "roadmap" from section 3 to the end of the article.

Each section from 3 to 5 opens a new topic without closing previous ones. The following sections (6 and 7) are not concise and clear to address proper conclusions.

There is only one gap identified in the lines 695-698, about "the difficulties to establish a comparison with the state of the art of current urban planning practice..."

My recommendation is to find a proper Methodology and rewrite it.

Otherwise, it can be an opinion paper that is out of the scope of the journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor review in the English is recommended, please see line 33.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4

Dear Reviewer,

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1:

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out the need to further enhance the methodological procedure. From a methodological point of view, we added a semantic literary review (Elicit) for the period from 2010 to 2025 to our paper, which allowed us to identify some quantitative trends, as well as qualitative considerations on the topics covered by our studies. Thanks to this scientific review, we have also identified in greater detail the salient features of the topic reviews and the gaps in the state of the art of research.

Comment 2:

Response 2: Thank you for highlighting the relevant topics - these are integrated into the updated manuscript.

Comment 3:

One question that could be posed is why urban planning, sociology, and health were chosen as the main fields to underpin the positions assumed in the article.

Response 3: Thank you for the constructive comment to further explain the incentive for choosing expertise from the thematic review. As it is explained in the introduction, fields of urban planning, health, and sociology are recognised as disciplines essential for the sustainable management of urban environments, integrating socio-ecological networks and healthy habits of its inhabitants.

Comment 4:

What is the Methodology adopted and what are the traceable procedures that enabled to deliver this text?

Response 4: The response is given in the Response 1.

Comment 5:

The Introduction (at the end) does not present the following sections.

The second section is an extension of the Introduction, however it does not offer a Methodological path to guide the extant of the article.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing out the shortcomings of the Introduction and Methodological sections. The Introduction is updated with the followup to the thematic research chapters. Methodological path is also updated.

Comment 6:

Response 6: Thank you for drawing our attention to the relevant resources literature. All have been incorporated into Chapter 3.

Comment 7:

Each section from 3 to 5 opens a new topic without closing previous ones. The following sections (6 and 7) are not concise and clear to address proper conclusions.

Response 7: In updating the manuscript, more connections between the different parts of the paper have been enhanced.

Comment 8:

There is only one gap identified in the lines 695-698, about "the difficulties to establish a comparison with the state of the art of current urban planning practice..."

Response 8: Thank you for pointing out the need to highlight the research gap. It has been enhanced in the Introduction chapter.

Comment 9:

My recommendation is to find a proper Methodology and rewrite it.

Otherwise, it can be an opinion paper that is out of the scope of the journal.

Response 9: The methodology is updated as well as the manuscript.

Comment 10:

Minor review in English is recommended, please see line 33.

Response 10: Line 33 is corrected.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have successfully addressed the comments raised in previous rounds of review. The revised manuscript shows improvement in structure, clarity, and methodological consistency. The inclusion of visual aids and tables has strengthened the synthesis of concepts.

The discussion now offers a clearer articulation of the healthy habits framework and its relationship to existing approaches, improving understanding of its novelty and contribution to the field. References and redundancies have been revised, and the overall presentation meets the standards expected of a scientific review article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your support in the review process. We have continued the work on the manuscript, so you can follow the progress in the final version.

Best regards, Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article, in the current version, proposes to review studies in order to propose a framework integrating urban design, socio-ecological networks, and healthy habits as means for a healthy human life. In the Abstract, the proposal shifts to urban palnning, public health, and sociology.

I recommend to align the title with the Abstact.

However, it is not clear how the articles were selected or excluded, what were the criteria employed for exclusion/inclusion. It is not clear what are the 40 articles that underpin the review. What were the titles the authors input to Elicit that resulted in a four dimension framework (Figure 1)?

I understand that the scoping review was in fact performed for public health/one health, urban design and socio-ecological networks, but the thematic review is not so clear with respect to the presented results. While in lines 112-133, the authors present "urban form", "socioecological networks", and "public health outcomes", in the line 120 they shift the expressions for "urban planning", "health" and "sociology".

Given that a framework is proposed, it is necessary to unify the expressions, avoiding confusion.

The results of the thematic review were not clearly presented.

What is the jsutification for the choice of the periods 1970-1987, 1987-2006 and 2006 on? What are the relationships between the choices of these periods and the proposed thematic review?

In the Section 4, the authors decide to set up four pillars for One Health model without presenting the origins of such pillars - whether they are or not part of the scoping or part of the thematic review. Please, explain it.

The Tables are presented without previous information. I recommed the tables should be presented after the respective explanation.

What are the relationships between the pillars (physiology, psycho-relational wellbeing, nuitrition and environment) and the themes that emerged in the selection of 40 articles from Elicit?

Is the section 4 the results of the thematic review?

Please, indicate what stahds for NCD - table 2, and GAS - line 600.

In summary: I think the current version is better than the previous one.

I recommend the authors explicitly show the scoping review and the thematic review, discussing both and explaining how these reviews related to each other.

I understand that the main message of the article stands in the four pillars shown in the Figure 1 and that the previous sections indicating the periods 1970-87, 1987-2006, and 2007-on are results of the scoping review, however, it must be clear in the article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you deeply for the time and effort to review the revised version of the manuscript and provide us with additional comments and suggestions to improve it. Please find the detailed responses below and the revised version of the manuscript with tracked changes and added illustrations and tables in the re-submitted file.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1:

Response 1: Thank you for your thorough reading and for your suggestion to be more precise. We have aligned the naming of the frameworks in the Abstract to the title of our research.

Comment 2:

The article employs a scoping review and a thematic review with the aim to deepen the analysis of the elements of the chosen framework. The authors selected 486 articles from literature review, and refined to 40 using Elicit (Artificial Intelligence resource). However, it is not clear how the articles were selected or excluded, what were the criteria employed for exclusion/inclusion. It is not clear what are the 40 articles that underpin the review. What were the titles the authors input to Elicit that resulted in a four dimension framework (Figure 1)?

Response 2: We took the opportunity to respond to this comment by better describing the methodology, the scoping and the thematic review. We have introduced new tables (Table 1. And Table 2.) to make the methodological steps more understandable. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are listed. For the complete list of 40 publications and the detailed PRISMA protocol, please refer to the documents attached to the article, available as supplementary files.

Comment 3:

Response 3: Thank you also for this valuable suggestion. In this revised version of the article, we have paid greater attention to explaining the methodologies and results of the scoping review and the thematic review, correlating the findings with the proposed frameworks, and standardizing the language to avoid confusion. We hope this will make the text more understandable.

Comment 4:

What is the justification for the choice of the periods 1970-1987, 1987-2006, and 2006 on? What are the relationships between the choices of these periods and the proposed thematic review?

Response 4: The three evolution periods of the European environmental policies are elaborated in the Table 3, supported by the thematic review of the theoretical review - relevant academic studies (SCOPUS) and policy documents (EC, CoE, UN) - and examples of practical applications in the Chapter 3.

Comment 5:

Response 5: We appreciate this observation. The four evolutionary pillars—Physiology, Psycho-relational Well-being, Nutrition, and Environment—derive from the conceptual foundation of the Healthy Habits (HH) approach, which has been developed and empirically validated through multi-year applications in schools, workplaces, and community environments. The HH model is scientifically grounded in the growing body of epigenetic and preventive health research demonstrating how lifestyle and environmental factors influence gene expression, systemic inflammation, and longevity (Blackburn et al., 2012; Furman et al., 2019). These studies provide the scientific rationale for structuring health promotion around these four interdependent dimensions.

Comment 6:

The Tables are presented without previous information. I recommend the tables should be presented after the respective explanation.

Response 6: Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we revised the structure of Section 4 to improve clarity and narrative coherence between the text, figures, and tables. Each figure is now introduced by a short explanatory paragraph that clarifies its analytical purpose and connection to the preceding content.

Comment 7:

What are the relationships between the pillars (physiology, psycho-relational wellbeing, nutrition and environment) and the themes that emerged in the selection of 40 articles from Elicit?

Response 7: The Elicit-based thematic review did not generate the four pillars but confirmed their relevance across the reviewed literature. Specifically, the main themes emerging from the 40 selected articles correspond to each HH pillar:

Physical activity and the built environment → Physiology
Social cohesion and mental health → Psycho-relational Well-being
Food environments and dietary behaviour → Nutrition
Exposure to natural and biophilic ecosystems → Environment

This correspondence reinforces the scientific validity and interdisciplinary coherence of the HH framework within the One Health paradigm.

Comment 8:

Is the section 4 the results of the thematic review?

Response 8: Section 4 should be interpreted as a conceptual synthesis, not as a direct presentation of the review’s results. It translates insights from the thematic review into the operational model of the Healthy Habits (HH) approach, illustrating how its four pillars can guide One Health-oriented urban and architectural design.

Comment 9:

Please, indicate what stahds for NCD - table 2, and GAS - line 600.

Response 9: We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to detail. Both acronyms will be defined at first appearance to ensure clarity for interdisciplinary readers.

Text added:

In Table 2 footnote: NCD = Non-Communicable Diseases.
In line 600 (first occurrence): GAS = Solidarity-based Purchasing Groups (from the Italian “Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale”).

Comment 10:

In summary: I think the current version is better than the previous one.

Nonetheless, there are diverse gaps with respect the way in which the methods were applied and how they appear in the results and discussion. The Discussion section refers to the thematic review, but the thematic review is not clearly expressed in the results. I recommend the authors explicitly show the scoping review and the thematic review, discussing both and explaining how these reviews related to each other.

Response 10: We followed these recommendations. Thank you very much for your suggestions to make the methodologies, results, and discussions of the two reviews, scoping and thematic, more understandable.