If Green Walls Could Talk: Interpreting Building Sustainability Through Atmospheric Cues

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Is there an updated reference for #6. Overall the labeling of a biophilic and green building are problematic. Reframing this as a comparison of two different green buildings would be more appropriate. The clear evaluation of how the biophilic building indeed had "more" is not indicated. The 14 patterns does not offer clear support in this case. The writing and conclusions are helpful as is and do not require differentiation between a biophilic green and green building, since both buildings offer biophilic features (unless this can be more clearly explained as to why the one is scored as higher).

Author Response

Comment 1: Is there an updated reference for #6.

Response 1: Thank you for this comment. We have updated the reference and amended the statistic to reflect that there is a projected growth in the global green building market of 8.2% annually by 2030.

Comment 2: Overall the labeling of a biophilic and green building are problematic. Reframing this as a comparison of two different green buildings would be more appropriate. The clear evaluation of how the biophilic building indeed had "more" is not indicated. The 14 patterns does not offer clear support in this case. The writing and conclusions are helpful as is and do not require differentiation between a biophilic green and green building, since both buildings offer biophilic features (unless this can be more clearly explained as to why the one is scored as higher).

Response 2: We really appreciate this comment. We have clarified in the manuscript (first paragraph of the Materials and Methods) that the buildings are both sustainable (“green”) with varying levels of biophilic design. We have added that the use of Terrapin Bright Green’s 14 patterns of biophilic design was embraced as the core design concept by the design team for the case study building and how implementation of biophilic design strategies contributed to the noticeably different aesthetic impact of each setting. We retained the nomenclature of Green and Biophilic Building and Green Building for reader clarity and to reflect the design intent of the case study building.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

These are included in the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Some of the building users they surveyed can confuse what is a sustainable feature and what is a biophilic feature and how they might reinforce each other or be quite separate. This misunderstanding is to a degree at the heart of this study. Conflating sustainability with biophilia has been addressed by Wijesooriya et al (2020 & 2023).

In one paper by Wijesooriya et al (2020) there was a focus on various BD models and how they might inform ESD. The authors note that the already recently developed strong frameworks for introducing BD into building design has been adopted rapidly, but that the analysis of these BD frameworks has ‘unveiled existing knowledge gaps that hinder the application of BD, and further research on design methodology, natural processes and ESD education will be essential for future integration of BD into ESD’. (Wijesooriya, N. & Brambilla, A.2020. Bridging biophilic design and environmentally sustainable design: A critical review. Journal of Clear production. 283.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124591)

Further, Wijesooriya et al (2023) compare LEED criteria against four different biophilic criteria, and the contrasts are significant. Figure 13 in that article illustrates (below) how biophilic design can assist in meeting sustainable criteria at various levels depending on the biophilic model used. (Wijesooriya, N.; & Brambilla, A. & Markauwskaite, L. 2023.Biophilic design frameworks: A review of structure, development techniques and their compatibility with LEED sustainable design criteria. Clear Production Letters. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clpl.2023.100033)

What these studies suggest is that the authors of the paper being reviewed should have perhaps placed more emphasis on the difference between ESD elements and BD elements at the outset so that the respondents could clarify more readily what elements they were responding to and why. Indeed, the authors conclude this in their Discussion section in lines 498 to 509.

Response 1: We understand the reviewer’s points here and extend our appreciation for the useful resources. We have added the Wijesooriya, N. & Brambilla, A. (2020) reference to the discussion. The distinction between environmentally sustainable design and biophilic design elements was not made for the respondents because doing so would have served an interventional purpose – to interpret sustainable design strategies for occupants. The central goal of this study was to understand how, without any interpretation, do occupants perceive the building? Do they perceive it and understand it to be sustainable? And what environmental cues are informing these conceptions? The respondents were prompted to identify environmentally-friendly building features, which we chose to leave up to their interpretation.

 

Comment 2: The authors seem to conflate Environmentally Sustainable Designed Buildings and Biophilicly Designed Buildings into the inclusive term Green Buildings later in the paper. This makes parsing the later discussion somewhat difficult, at least to this reviewer.

Response 2: We have attempted to distinguish this language throughout the paper, including reference to how we are using the terms “green” and “sustainable” to reflect environmentally-friendly building strategies, while the term biophilic design refers specifically to the 14 patterns of biophilic design proposed by Terrapin Bright Green that includes references to nature, natural patterns, and analogues.

We use environmentally sustainable buildings and green buildings synonymously. We do not include biophilic design as inherently part of green building design, though recognize that sustainable design strategies and biophilic strategies may co-exist and be mutually supportive.

 

Comment 3: Line 67 - ERB or environmentally responsive behaviours is an excellent approach, and there are many articles referencing criteria around this, and the Cole et al (2014) notion of Green Building Literacy is an excellent inclusion. But what Fig 1 in that reference lacks is the inclusion of the many benefits of BD which are largely around Health and Wellbeing. This factor should be included in this article in a more consolidated form early on - it is noted that the word health actually does appear on Pages 2, 18,19,20,21 and 22. Wellbeing has zero mentions. But both should have more than a ‘passing nod’.

Response 3: The term “well-being” (in the hyphenated form) is mentioned four times in the original manuscript on lines 57, 141, 176, and 493. We have added text to the second paragraph of page 2 that identifies multiple sustainable building systems that place greater emphasis on occupant health, comfort, and well-being. While the health and well-being outcomes of sustainable and biophilic buildings are valid and important to highlight in support of increasing adoption of these building strategies, lengthy focus on these outcomes is beyond the scope of the current manuscript, which is concerned with the cues occupants use to assess whether a building is sustainable. We have briefly mentioned these well-being outcomes in the literature review. Additionally, the authors plan to publish a future manuscript on the mentally restorative effects of biophilic design.

 

Comment 4: Line 160 - Cooke et al (2012) is mentioned on page 4 in regard to green building ‘atmospherics’, with the ‘importance of human and environmental needs’. Maybe this could be expanded re health and wellbeing as suggested above?

Response 4: It is our hope that by introducing this topic of green building atmospherics that we introduce the notion that human and environmental needs may be mutually supportive. We return to this theme in the discussion of the paper. However, a lengthy expansion on health and well-being outcomes of inhabiting sustainable buildings is beyond the scope of this paper.

 

Comment 5: I think that Lines 205 to 210 could be reviewed to clarify the categories of green, sustainable and biophilic and how these terms will be used thereafter; or that green will take the place of the other two which seems to be the case in some commentary.

Response 5: Thank you for this suggestion. We have clarified the use of terminology throughout the paper. At the end of the first paragraph on page 2, we state, “In this paper, the terms “green” and “sustainable” are used interchangeably to reflect widely accepted strategies aimed at reducing environmental impact, conserving resources, and promoting ecological responsibility in the built environment.” We have also clarified the language used to describe the case study and control buildings in the first paragraph of the Materials and Methods section.

 

Comment 6: Line 225 - I am not sure how ‘exposed structural materials’ is/are considered to be biophilic? Unless that relates to the use of natural materials?

Response 6: Thank you for catching this error. We have revised the description of the case study building to resolve this issue, including moving discussion of the exposed structural components to a separate sentence.

Comment 7: Line 286 - Figure 1. Were the images used in the survey larger? The images shown here are quite small and I would struggle to answer the survey using some of them.

Response 7: Thank you for this comment. We acknowledge that the images may appear small within the format of the manuscript; however, participants had the capability to increase the size of the images when completing the survey online. We have added a statement to this effect in the description of the Hotspot task within the Methods section.

 

Comment 8: Line 308 - using Terrapin’s 14 patterns is ok, but there are more models with more elements which are easier to follow than Terrapin. But it is what it is now… so leave it be.

Response 8: This is a valid critique. Terrapin’s 14 patterns were used in this work as the designers of the biophilic building specifically chose this framework to guide their design development. We have added language to clarify this decision in the section of the Methods describing how qualitative survey data was analyzed.

 

Comment 9: Line 321 Results - 3.1 Demographics etc. I note the higher uses of both buildings by Females. This should be explained, noting that these were general purpose learning buildings with food and beverage.

Response 9: We have added a sentence in this section noting that the proportion of females in the study was consistent with the enrollment of females on the campus. Highly enrolled majors on campus include dental hygiene and nursing programs, which are largely female-dominated professions.

 

Comment 10: Line 346 - The EDITORS should ensure that Table 2 is not included over 2 pages.

Response 10: Thank you for the comment. We will work with editors to ensure this table displays appropriately during final editing.

 

Comment 11: Lines 408-422. These misunderstanding and confusion could have been addressed at the outset, although the authors may not have discovered the problem until they had analysed the survey and interviews results. This issue has been addressed by this reviewer earlier above.

Response 11: Thank you for flagging this concern in the manuscript. We believe we have addressed the issue through response to previous comments.

 

Comment 12: Line 3.4 RQ4 - this has also been addressed above by this reviewer in the difficulties of conflating green, sustainability and biophilic.

Response 12: Thank you for flagging this concern in the manuscript. We believe we have addressed the issue through response to previous comments.

 

Comment 13: In looking at the Supplementary Survey Questions, some key areas stand out, namely: Values; Environmental Concern; Green Building Literacy; and Environmental Restoration. The questions under those headings could be quite revealing and I would suggest that the authors review those

sections and address the answers in each of those categories as a general commentary on the findings.

Response 13: The results of these factors and relationship to occupants’ ERBs will be topic of a future paper, beyond the scope of the current manuscript.

 

Comment 14: Line 472 - I could comment a lot more on this ie the ‘criticism of the buildings(s) not being sustainable’ by one of the respondents. But rather I would just like to say that nature is not considered enough in the discussion. This is, after all, the main aim of biophilic design - that is to introduce as much nature into and around the building as possible. In so doing, some sustainable features might be enhanced. But LEED focuses on the performance of the building, not the performance of the humans in and around the building. Biophilia is the reverse - all the research is about how the biophilic features enhance human performance through health and wellbeing measures. So, conflating the two performance measures in the context of a ‘green building analysis’ can be complex, as illustrated in the complexity of this paper. NOTE THAT THIS IS COMMENTED ON BRIEFLY BY THE AUTHORS IN LINES 614-630.

Response14: This is a really helpful comment. We have added a sentence to conclude the respondent’s criticism of the other green building and its lack of connection to nature. In the discussion we have added commentary addressing that environmentally sustainable features may or may not include biophilic patterns, but we hope that our results and discussion highlight the salience of biophilic design for enhancing occupant awareness of sustainable design features. Regarding the well-being outcomes of biophilic design, the authors intend to publish the next paper examining how these biophilic environments contribute to occupant perceived restorativeness.

 

Comment 15: Line 566 - I think there should be a Sub-Heading here in the Discussion section entitled ‘Potential Improvements to future studies’.

Response 15: Thank you for this comment. We agree that sub-headings would aid legibility of the paper. Unfortunately, subheadings not allowed in the manuscript template according to the author guidelines. Ideas for future research are discussed in the middle paragraph of page 19, including an analysis of occupant knowledge according to Bloom’s taxonomy and a pre- and post-interventional study to examine occupant understanding of sustainable design strategies.

 

Comment 16: That at line 579, another Sub-Heading could be ‘Future Educational Strategies’.

Response 16: See response above regarding sub-headings.

 

Comment 17: Then at line 611, a further Sub-Heading could be ‘Limitations of the study’.

Response 17: See response above regarding sub-headings.

 

Comment 18: Line 631 - another Sub-Heading ’Future Research’

Response 18: See response above regarding sub-headings. We believe this has been addressed in the middle paragraph of page 19.

 

Comment 19: Issue of occupant misunderstanding could be a topic of future research.

Response 19: See response above regarding sub-headings. We agree and have added this to middle paragraph of page 19.

 

Comment 20: Line 639 - Another Sub-Heading ‘Conclusions’. This might also mention health and wellbeing of the inhabitants as well?

Response 20: See previous response about sub-headings not allowed in manuscript template. The focus of the next manuscript from this study will address occupant health and well-being in sustainable and biophilic buildings. However, it’s beyond the scope of the current paper.

 

 

Comment 21: References: Each reference year for ALL references should either be bold or regular, not using both randomly. Ref 36. The title of this reference seems to be truncated. Ref 50. Give the website for the WELL Institute (as done for LEED). Ref 62. Rather than have et al, just include the last author Papaefthimiou, S.

Response 21: Thank you for identifying these areas for improving the formatting. We have reviewed and corrected all references.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the manuscript, I have certain concerns regarding the objective and methodology of the study, or perhaps more precisely, the interpretation of the results. The authors, in analyzing the findings and engaging in discussion, appear to express significant reservations about the ecological awareness of users and their knowledge of sustainable buildings and biophilic design. Certain features identified by the respondents/observers as indicative of ecological architecture are assessed by the authors as misconceptions about sustainable development. Here, several controversial and debatable examples can be mentioned: "motion-sensor toilets"—after all, they can reduce energy consumption; "water features and potted plants"—as they can purify the air and improve the microclimate; "design features that mimic nature or incorporate natural colors"—since they allow architecture to harmoniously integrate into the surroundings and natural landscape, creating a form of spatial camouflage and thereby contributing to environmental protection (aesthetic sustainability). Such a definitive approach to the topic of sustainable design, which is inherently complex, would require the authors to provide a precise definition and establish clear guidelines for the use of terms such as "sustainable design," "biophilic building," and "green architecture." It would also necessitate the specification of concrete characteristics that define sustainable development in architecture or environmentally friendly architecture. In this regard, I refer the authors to an article that explores this subject in detail: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11080358
It is also important to distinguish between good architecture—one that simply meets user requirements, is designed and executed in accordance with construction principles, best practices, and ergonomics—and architecture that goes beyond standard practice to actively protect or even restore the environment. It seems that architecture designed in compliance with current regulations and certification standards has already become the norm. Moreover, many of the features attributed to contemporary "sustainable architecture" have long been practiced; they were simply not labeled as such in the past.
In my opinion, the authors should adopt a slightly different approach to interpreting the results of their study so that the conclusions drawn can provide tangible benefits not only for future architectural practices but also for the outcomes of these practices in the context of their impact on users and the environment.

Author Response

Comment 1: After reviewing the manuscript, I have certain concerns regarding the objective and methodology of the study, or perhaps more precisely, the interpretation of the results. The authors, in analyzing the findings and engaging in discussion, appear to express significant reservations about the ecological awareness of users and their knowledge of sustainable buildings and biophilic design. Certain features identified by the respondents/observers as indicative of ecological architecture are assessed by the authors as misconceptions about sustainable development. Here, several controversial and debatable examples can be mentioned: "motion-sensor toilets"—after all, they can reduce energy consumption; "water features and potted plants"—as they can purify the air and improve the microclimate; "design features that mimic nature or incorporate natural colors"—since they allow architecture to harmoniously integrate into the surroundings and natural landscape, creating a form of spatial camouflage and thereby contributing to environmental protection (aesthetic sustainability). Such a definitive approach to the topic of sustainable design, which is inherently complex, would require the authors to provide a precise definition and establish clear guidelines for the use of terms such as "sustainable design," "biophilic building," and "green architecture."

Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. We have clarified the use of terminology throughout the paper. At the end of the first paragraph on page 2, we state, “In this paper, the terms “green” and “sustainable” are used interchangeably to reflect widely accepted strategies aimed at reducing environmental impact, conserving resources, and promoting ecological responsibility in the built environment.” Biophilic strategies include design elements that reference nature either directly (through views or physical presence) or indirectly (analogues, forms, colors, etc.) and in this manuscript, refer to the 14 patterns of biophilic design articulated by Terrapin Bright Green, as these were used in the design concept for the case study building. We have also added language to clarify the misunderstanding conveyed in the representative excerpts as part of Table 5.

 

Comment 2: It would also necessitate the specification of concrete characteristics that define sustainable development in architecture or environmentally friendly architecture. In this regard, I refer the authors to an article that explores this subject in detail: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11080358

Response 2: Thank you for this useful reference. We have expanded examples of sustainable development in architecture throughout the manuscript and have added a reference to the cited paper on page 2.

 

Comment 3: It is also important to distinguish between good architecture—one that simply meets user requirements, is designed and executed in accordance with construction principles, best practices, and ergonomics—and architecture that goes beyond standard practice to actively protect or even restore the environment. It seems that architecture designed in compliance with current regulations and certification standards has already become the norm.

Response 3: Thank you for this comment. In the added text at the end of the first paragraph of Page 2, we now state that ecologically responsible practices (like conserving resources, responsible material sourcing and use etc.) are frequently adopted as minimum benchmarks among new construction and renovation building projects on university campuses.

 

Comment 4: In my opinion, the authors should adopt a slightly different approach to interpreting the results of their study so that the conclusions drawn can provide tangible benefits not only for future architectural practices but also for the outcomes of these practices in the context of their impact on users and the environment.

Response 4: Thank you for this really helpful comment. We have added additional commentary in the discussion to emphasize that the sustainable strategies implemented with biophilic design that were identified by the building occupants, also enhance the experience and well-being of building occupants, resulting in architecture that is good for both the planet and people.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Updated to meet the reviewer's comment

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been revised and supplemented according to my suggestions. I appreciate the efforts of the authors to improve the work. I am in favor of publishing the manuscript in the revised version.