Biophilic Architecture in the Livable City of Melbourne CBD

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

The evaluated manuscript aims to address the two questions: How prevalent is Biophilic architecture in the CBD of the liveable city of Melbourne; What are the attributes of biophilic architecture in the CBD of the liveable city of Melbourne? The buildings exhibiting characteristics of Biophilic architecture were surveyed, and photographs capturing the most representative aspects of each building were documented and statistically analysed. The study found that Biophilic architecture is extremely rare in Melbourne’s CBD, with only four of 6,375 properties (0.06%) identified as such.

General Comments

Generally, this manuscript holds a great potential to contribute the advancement of knowledge in the chosen thematic area. The authors identified a very important research gap and illustrated it with the Melbourne case. The methodology is also appropriate for the research questions, and the discussion is elaborate and convincing. However, some aspects of the paper need some clarity.

First, the literature review will benefit from a more elaborate discussion on the values of biophilic architecture for liveability in urban spaces. In the current paper, the authors only emphasize the definition of what constitute biophilic architecture. What do we know in literature on the connections between liveability of cities and biophilic architecture (what is the state of the art)? Are there case studies that can be cited as best practice? Are there similar cities ranked in the Economist Intelligence Unit where biophilic architecture played a considerable role?

Second, since the authors’ central argument is that architecture plays a significant role in  liveability of cities and the  results have demonstrated that biophilic architecture plays no significant role in the Melbourne experience, I think this paper will benefit from more elaborate discussion on the implication of results, instead of simply avoiding the critical discussion by calling on further research in this direction.  The conclusion section could be significantly improved with such discussions. 

Final note: I am convinced the paper holds huge potentials, if these areas that require clarity can be improved and resubmitted.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

 

First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable comments and constructive suggestions, which have greatly encouraged us and guided us in improving our manuscript. After carefully considering the comments from all reviewers, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below is a summary of the major revisions we have made in response to your feedback.

 

1. We have completely restructured the manuscript to ensure it better aligns with the conventions of scientific research writing.
2. The Literature Review section has been revised to include additional content relevant to predicting the potential impacts of biophilic design on urban liveability.
3. The Methodology section has been expanded to provide more detailed explanations of the research procedures and measures employed in the study.
4. The Discussion section has been revised to present more comprehensive conclusions and interpretations. A Limitationsubsection has been added to clearly specify the study’s constraints, and the Conclusion section has been fully rewritten.
   
   Addressing the Reviewer’s Comments

Comment 1: The values of biophilic architecture for liveability in urban spaces
Response 1: We have added further explanation and discussion regarding this point in Section 2.1.

Comment 2: Connections between liveability of cities and biophilic architecture
Response 2: We have linked this concept more clearly throughout Sections 2.1–2.3.

Comment 3: Similar cities ranked in the Economist Intelligence Unit where biophilic architecture played a considerable role
Response 3: After re-examining the literature, we found no cities with sufficient evidence or documented cases demonstrating such potential. Therefore, we did not add further discussion on this aspect.

Comment 4: Discussion on the implication of results that biophilic architecture plays no significant role in the Melbourne experience
Response 4: We have clearly addressed this issue in the Discussion section and incorporated additional observations from previous studies to help interpret and explain the possible reasons behind this outcome.

 

Finally, we sincerely hope that the revisions made in this version have strengthened our manuscript and made it suitable for consideration and acceptance for publication in your esteemed journal.

 

Thank you very much for your time and valuable feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Evaluation

The manuscript presents an empirical exploration of biophilic architecture in Melbourne’s Central Business District, aiming to assess its prevalence and defining features in relation to urban liveability. The topic is relevant to Sustainability’s scope, linking architectural design, livability, and urban sustainability. However, the current version has substantial structural and methodological weaknesses that limit its academic contribution. Major revisions are required before further consideration.

1. Structure and Section Organization

The overall structure does not follow standard academic conventions and resembles more a project or field report.

• The section naming and logic need major revision. What is now presented as “Section 2. Biophilic Architecture for Liveable City” is essentially a literature review synthesizing conceptual foundations; it should be renamed to “Literature Review” or “Theoretical Framework.”

• Similarly, the current “Section 3. Prevalence of Biophilic Architecture in Melbourne CBD” and “Section 4. Characteristics of Biophilic Architecture in Melbourne CBD” should be unified under a broader “Materials and Methods” and “Results” structure, respectively.

• The writing style and transitions should also shift toward an academic tone — currently, the manuscript reads like a descriptive report rather than a scholarly article.

2. Research Design and Methodology

The research appears to rely primarily on a survey conducted by the authors themselves, who also served as evaluators of the photographed buildings. This raises issues regarding sampling representativeness, bias, and reproducibility.

• The survey population seems to be limited to researchers or architecture students. The authors must clarify why this group is representative and discuss potential bias. Since the paper argues that biophilic architecture concerns the whole society, the evaluation process should reflect broader perspectives or, at minimum, provide justification for limiting the assessment to experts.

• The data collection process—photographing façades and then coding characteristics—should be better explained. Were standardized observation points used? How was inter-rater reliability ensured beyond “percentage of agreement”? The authors should consider including reference to established visual or perception-based survey methodologies used in similar urban or architectural studies.

• The coding procedure should be described with more transparency. How were the frameworks operationalized? How were “points” counted in Tables 3–23? Without methodological rigor, the statistical summaries are not meaningful.

3. Literature Foundation

While the manuscript cites many sources, much of the review is descriptive rather than analytical. The authors could strengthen it by:

• Critically summarizing how prior studies have quantified or assessed biophilic design in urban contexts, especially using visual observation or perception-based methods.

• Positioning their work more explicitly within the existing literature gap: Is this study proposing a new measurement framework, a replication, or a case-specific mapping exercise?

4. Discussion and Conclusion

Both sections are overly brief and lack interpretive depth.

• The Discussion should go beyond repeating numerical results. The authors should interpret what these findings mean for urban livability theory and for the implementation of biophilic design in dense urban contexts.

• The Conclusion should identify more explicitly the academic contribution and practical implications. Currently, the conclusion only restates findings without clarifying their generalizability, limitations, or policy relevance.

• The authors should discuss limitations (e.g., narrow sample, researcher bias, single-case city) and outline clear directions for future work, including possible comparative studies or quantitative perception-based validation.

5. Presentation and Technical Issues

• Figures are clear but would benefit from more integrated interpretation within the text. The captions could better explain why each example is representative.

• Statistical tables (Tables 3–23) could be consolidated or summarized to improve readability.

• Minor stylistic inconsistencies exist in the referencing format and capitalization of section headings. Please align with Sustainability author guidelines.

6. Contribution and Novelty

The study offers potentially useful empirical documentation but, in its current form, does not provide sufficient conceptual innovation or methodological rigor to justify publication. A thorough restructuring and deeper analytical engagement are essential for the paper to contribute meaningfully to research on biophilic design and urban sustainability.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable comments and constructive suggestions, which have greatly encouraged us and guided us in improving our manuscript. After carefully considering the comments from all reviewers, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below is a summary of the revisions we have made in response to your feedback.

Comment 1. Structure and Section Organization

Response 1. We have completely restructured the manuscript to ensure it better aligns with the conventions of scientific research writing. 

 

Comment 2. Literature Foundation

Response 2. The Literature Review section has been revised to include additional content relevant to predicting the potential impacts of biophilic design on urban liveability.

 

Comment 3. Research Design and Methodology

Response 3. 

• The Methodology section has been expanded to provide more detailed explanations of the research procedures and measures employed in the study. 
• We have clarified the measures used for image selection and provided the rationale for conducting the coding process by the research team.
• This decision was made because the analysis involved counting observable objects rather than interpreting subjective meanings.
• Additionally, we have included references to previous studies that employed similar methods.

 

Comment 4. Discussion and Conclusion

Response 4.

• The Discussion section has been revised to present more comprehensive conclusions and interpretations. We have clearly addressed this issue in the Discussion section and incorporated additional observations from previous studies to help interpret and explain the possible reasons behind this outcome.
• A Limitations section has been added to clearly specify the study’s constraints.
• The Conclusion section has been entirely rewritten.

We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestion. However, the statistical tables have been kept separate to ensure clarity and allow readers to follow each architectural attribute more easily. The figures were retained as presented initially, as they capture key visual elements documented directly by the research team.

Finally, we sincerely hope that the revisions made in this version have strengthened our manuscript and made it suitable for consideration and acceptance for publication in your esteemed journal.

Thank you very much for your time and valuable feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept but please double check the format. There are still some unnecessary spaces and typos.