Biophilic Urbanism Across Scales: Enhancing Urban Nature Through Experience and Design
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) Title, text, conclusion, It is not clear the specification “from Macro to Micro”. Explain better.
2) What the BU “elements” are? In what do they consist?
Write a short list of those “elements”.
3) The paper needs a more general flow-chart diagram.
In fact, Figure 4 is only about the workshop and the experience cards. A more detailed scheme (step by step) of the whole methodology is necessary.
4) I can’t find some tables mentioned in the text. E.g.: Table 1S (lines 357; 455); Table 2S (line 367); etc. – Where they are?
5) improve the quality of Figures and Tables.
6) Figure 5 is illegible. Find other solutions and put this elaboration in the additional materials or as annexes.
7) sequences of Figures and tables is not coordinate with the writing. E.g.: reading the text we find the reference to Table 3 before to Table 2.
8) in Table 3 we read Psychological/Social (Benefits) BUT Psychological and Social are thing very different.
Author Response
Reviewer #1 (Comments to the Author):
Thank you for your valuable and helpful observations. We generally agree with them, as reflected in our feedback provided below in response to each of your comments.
Comments 1: Title, text, conclusion, It is not clear the specification “from Macro to Micro”. Explain better.
Response 1: To clarify the expression 'from macro to micro,' we have more frequently used the phrase 'across scales' both in the title and throughout the text. We made more explicit references to the different scales (micro, meso, macro) of the case studies used as contextual settings for testing on-field biophilic experiences and their related effects.
Comments 2: What the BU “elements” are? In what do they consist? Write a short list of those “elements”.
Response 2: BU is expressed through the biophilic experience framework, which consists of three sub-tables, added to the main text: (1) Biophilic benefits resulting from human-nature interaction, matched to benefit dimensions and corresponding colors; (2) Biophilic features (or elements) of the urban scenario, listed under four categories of the cityscape types; (3) Ways to experience nature in the city, with examples of outside/inside biophilic experiences involving both sensory and intangible interactions.
Comments 3: The paper needs a more general flow-chart diagram. In fact, Figure 4 is only about the workshop and the experience cards. A more detailed scheme (step by step) of the whole methodology is necessary.
Response 3: To make the methodology clear, understandable, and reproducible in future research, we used a numbered bullet-point structure, described in section 2.2 as Research Design, and illustrated in Figure 1. This is because the methodology used in the paper strictly follows the structure of the workshop: the biophilic experiences lived in different settings, scales, times, and modalities (first-hand experience at the micro-scale in the present time, experience from the past at the macro-urban scale, and biophilia experienced in the design process at the meso-scale). To avoid repetition and highlight the content provided in the workshop, we used a single figure to represent the research design. The methodology also includes data processing, which was differentiated based on the main data collected (Experience dataset, BEC dataset, Design & Discussion dataset). Although not illustrated, the analysis of these data is described in detail in sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2, and 2.3.3, respectively.
Comments 4: I can’t find some tables mentioned in the text. E.g.: Table 1S (lines 357; 455); Table 2S (line 367); etc. – Where they are?
Response 4: In accordance with the author guidelines, we have added an 'S' to the mentioned tables (Table 1S, Table 2S) as they are part of the Supplementary Materials. However, some of them (e.g. Table 1S) have been relocated among the figures in the main text (now Table 1) to ensure greater clarity and understanding of the manuscript.
Comments 5: Improve the quality of Figures and Tables.
Response 5: We carefully reviewed all Figures and Tables in light of your suggestion. Based on the positive feedback from other reviewers regarding their clarity and quality, we made only minor adjustments (e.g., we adjusted Figure 5 as you recommended; we have also enlarged Table 2 and Table 3, now titled Table 3 and Table 4 respectively) to ensure consistency and readability. We believe the current presentation meets publication standards, but we remain open to further specific recommendations if needed.
Comments 6: Figure 5 is illegible. Find other solutions and put this elaboration in the additional materials or as annexes.
Response 6: Figure 5 has been updated and replaced. To make it more legible, we edited the text in black and kept only the graphical part (dotted lines) in the main colors associated with each benefit domain. The caption specifies the reasons behind the larger dots and the four labeled experiences.
Comments 7: Sequences of Figures and tables is not coordinate with the writing. E.g.: reading the text find the reference to Table 3 before to Table 2.
Response 7: In section '2.3.3. Design and Discuss Dataset', Table 2 (new Table 3) is mentioned for the first time before Table 3 (new Table 4), according to the writing. The positioning of the figures depends on their size and the format of the journal, so, as in this case, they are often placed somewhat far from the point where they are cited. S-coded table S-coded follow the order of the Supplementary Materials. The general order of the figures has been revised based on new additions or relocations.
Comments 8: In Table 3 we read Psychological/Social (Benefits) BUT Psychological and Social are thing very different.
Response 8: Table 3 (new Table 4) associates the results of the workshop analyzed through Atlas.ti, matching the six design tools (Figure 2S) implemented in each team’s project with the biophilic experience framework in the form of ‘biophilic features’ and ‘experiences and benefits’ (Table 1, 'a' and 'c'). The latter refer to literature references that links the ways to experience nature in the city as Psychological/Cultural/Social, which is why we matched psychological and social experiences and benefits together. Based on this, the corresponding caption has also been updated.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have addressed many questions and suggestions throughout the text, most of them concerning the real benefit of BU in urban planning, including the similarities (and differences) with other approaches such as Nature-based solutions.
I would like to put other questions:
1. is there any app that identifies human mood according to city locality? This could help in address some initiative for urban planning.
2. Which are the proposed BU initiatives in each locality suggested by people during interviewers?
3. Do you thinn that a sample of 45 people can be significant in relation to the population? What about the socioeconomic reality of this group?
4. Why do not consider disservices and negative aspects of biodiversity and human-nature interactions in BU?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer #2 (Comments to the Author):
I have addressed many questions and suggestions throughout the text, most of them concerning the real benefit of BU in urban planning, including the similarities (and differences) with other approaches such as Nature-based solutions.
We truly appreciate all of your questions and suggestions throughout the text. We have made an effort to address each of them in order to improve our manuscript. Please find below our responses to each of your comments.
Comments 1: I would like to put other questions: is there any app that identifies human mood according to city locality? This could help in address some initiative for urban planning.
Response 1: To our knowledge, no such application currently exists, and if it did, it might not align with the biophilic criteria guiding our research. In light of this, we translated the results of the BEC into a biophilic map of Amsterdam to identify connections between four-dimensional human benefits or moods and specific urban settings.
Comments 2: Which are the proposed BU initiatives in each locality suggested by people during interviewers?
Response 2: Figure 5 summarizes the top ten ranked biophilic locations from BEC data processing (new Table 2S), associating each with a cityscape category (Greenscape, Landscape, Waterscape, Living Beings), types of experiences, and specific benefits. All results from personal biophilic experiences were gathered in the BEC dataset and elaborated in detail in the Supplementary Materials (Table 2S).
Comments 3: Do you think that a sample of 45 people can be significant in relation to the population? What about the socioeconomic reality of this group?
Response 3: The sample size is expressly mentioned as a limitation in the discussion. However, this did not discourage us; on the contrary, we consider our research insights as a pilot study to further explore the existing gaps in the application of BU in our cities. We considered the workshop participants' background relevant to our study, but not their socioeconomic status, as we mapped all of Amsterdam without distinguishing districts based on that factor.
Comments 4 (including final remarks on the Discussion section, line 500): Why do not consider disservices and negative aspects of biodiversity and human-nature interactions in BU? The authors address many positive aspects of biophilia human-nature interactions. However, negative outcomes are also identified. It is surprising that no participants have mentioned such ones but, even if it was not the case, how BU can deal with this? See: Soga, M., & Gaston, K. J. (2022). The dark side of nature experience: Typology, dynamics and implications of negative sensory interactions with nature. People and Nature, 4, 1126–1140. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10383
Response 4: As our approach focuses on the benefits and positive aspects of biophilia, we did not analyze the negative aspects resulting from human-nature interaction, such as 'biophobia.' However, no negative outcomes emerged from the data processing of the across-scale biophilic experiences proposed during the workshop. Nevertheless, we have acknowledged this as a limitation in the research (Discussion). In fact, we considered these aspects in opposition to biophilia in previous insights developed as part of the same research project.
Comments 5 (incorporated directly into the text, line 32): Maybe this assumption deserves some caution and not be generalized. Depending on the locality/city, air pollution outdoor is higher than indoor.
Response 5: Although this sentence sounds strong, it references to evidence-based research (cited as the in-text references.
Comments 6 (incorporated directly into the text, line 34): Tree canopy
Response 6: Added ‘tree’ (line 35).
Comments 7 (incorporated directly into the text, line 35): Please, refer the variables behind 3-30-300.
Response 7: We added an brief explanation of the variables behind 3-30-300 rule (lines 35-37).
Comments 8 (incorporated directly into the text, line 36): How climate change can change canopy in urban areas?
Response 8: Climate change is one of the main causes of deforestation, even in urban areas. In fact, it is closely linked to the rise in temperatures and the effects of urban heat islands, along with the reduction of water resources that support the green canopy, and the spread of diseases and pests that decimate existing plant resources.
Comments 9 (incorporated directly into the text, line 38): Investing
Response 9: We changed the structure of that sentence related to ‘green urbanism’ and the verb tense accordingly to better convey the general meaning (lines 41-42).
Comments 10 (incorporated directly into the text, line 46-48): Which are the differences between BU and other urbanistic initiatives such as green/blue/brown architecture or Nature-based Solutions?
Response 10: We further introduced BU, explained its foundational approach, and highlighted the difference between it and other urban trends in lines 49-56.
Comments 11 (incorporated directly into the text, line 50): The micro and macro spatial scales.
Response 11: We replaced this formula with ‘across urban scales’ (lines 57-58).
Comments 12 (incorporated directly into the text, line 54-58): Consider also these references: McCloy MWD, Andringa RK, Maness TJ, Smith J and Grace JK (2024) Promoting urban ecological resilience through the lens of avian biodiversity. Front. Ecol. Evol. 12:1302002. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2024.1302002
Conservation Letters. 2023;16:e12946. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12946
Response 12: We appreciate your thoughtful suggestions. However, we noticed that two in-text references [18, 22] were inadvertently omitted. These references are both relevant for the lines addressing BU, urban policies, management approaches, and ecological trends or initiatives aimed at preserving biodiversity in cities. For this reason, we decided to retain our original references, which are highly regarded and central to the discussion, rather than incorporating the two proposed ones.
Comments 13 (incorporated directly into the text, line 64-65): Not true: please, see these references: Jha, S., Egerer, M., Bichier, P., Cohen, H., Liere, H. & Lin, B. et al. (2023) Multiple ecosystem service synergies and landscape mediation of biodiversity within urban agroecosystems. Ecology Letters, 26, 369–383. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14146.
Egerer, M., Karlebowski, S., Conitz, F., Neumann, A. E., Schmack, J. M., & Sturm, U. (2024). In defence of urban community gardens. People and Nature, 6, 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10612
Response 13: Thank you for your suggestions. However, both references pertain to urban gardens, which are considered formal green spaces in urban environments. In contrast, our research focuses on valuing informal and leftover green spaces to highlight their underestimated potential in implementing BU, enhancing ecosystem services, and facilitating the transformation of cities as climate-resilient organisms. That is why, we chose not to include your additional references, as they are not directly relevant to the highlighted lines.
Comments 14 (incorporated directly into the text, line 72-73): What is this?
Response 14: We rephrased that expression adding ‘in processes of urban or spatial transformation’ to makes it clearer that we refer to multiple or broader types of changes in urban or spatial environments (lines 83-84).
Comments 15 (incorporated directly into the text, line 76): Is this the same as biodiversity or wildlife?
Response 15: By the general term 'urban nature,' we refer to everything it encompasses, including biodiversity and wildlife. Since it is part of a research question (RQ), we preferred to keep it more concise (line 87).
Comments 16 (incorporated directly into the text, line 80): Which workshop?
Response 16: As this is the first time we mention the workshop on which our research is built, we used 'a' to introduce it (line 93).
Comments 17 (incorporated directly into the text, line 117-119): Not clear: which kind of questions and answers?
Response 17: To clarify this part, we added further details on the on-field biophilic experience engaging workshop participants (lines 143-147).
Comments 18 (incorporated directly into the text, line 121-123): How?
Response 18: We further specified how to experience biophilia in lines 150-152.
Comments 19 (incorporated directly into the text, line 130): Explain.
Response 19: We briefly explained the ‘Living Lab methodology’ in lines 161-164.
Comments 20 (incorporated directly into the text, line 148-149): What is this? Which scale?
Response 20: We specified both the scale and the design tools guiding these low-impact design interventions in lines 193-200.
Comments 21 (incorporated directly into the text, line 175): Explain.
Response 21: To clarify ‘the diversity of their backgrounds,’ we added further explanation, stating ‘based on expertise or familiarity with the research field.’ Moreover, the following sentence further describes the composition of the workshop participants (lines 216-217).
Comments 22 (incorporated directly into the text, line 431): What means each individual squares/location?
Response 22: We rephrased the caption and clarified in parentheses that each preference is indicated by an individual square (lines 479-48).
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall an interesting approach to conducting workshops and eliciting information from participants on how they experience nature by using experiential learning at micro and macro scales. I do think some aspects of the methods and results, particularly the “Design” and “Discussion” steps could be explained better, and benefit from examples. Some of the conclusions also seem overreaching, or unclear, based on what the analysis results actually showed.
Detailed comments below.
Line 29 – this sentence may be too strongly worded to imply this is always the case. I can’t access this paper [1], but from abstract it seems they provide examples of dense urban cities that ARE livable;
Line 35 – What is the 3-30-300 rule?
Line 37 – Need more of a short explanation here (Without reader having to go find [6]) – I’m not sure what is meant by these cost-effective interventions – I assume you mean something related to non-GREEN interventions but that is not clear.
Line 38 – Here also, I don’t think it is clear to a reader what “Green urbanism” is and why it would not “prioritize vegetation”… I assume you mean that they prioritize choosing vegetation that has good carbon sequestration over vegetation that is aesthetically pleasing or native species (for example). Just think this sentence (37-40) is worth explaining more clearly as it is a big part of motivating a more biophilic approach.
Line 48 – “substantiating”
Line 57 – not sure what is meant by “overestimated spaces driven by green gentrification”
Line 58 – “These” – I assume this refers to “leftover spaces” – or does this refer to overestimated spaces; wasn’t sure what “these” was referring to here. Same with “they” in the following sentence;
Line 64 – this sentence is surprising to me, as I would think “landscape design” is inherently a small-scale thing (a yard, a city park); Think I’m not understanding what is meant here.
Line 97 – I would think by definition 100% of ‘gardens’ would include greenery – so think I’m not understanding either what you mean by “garden” or by “greenery”
Line 97 – Are “the city”, and “the area” the same defined spatial area?
Line 99 – How far below 30%? I think give the actual value too
Line 173 – So six total workshops (one morning/one afternoon x 3) – or three All day workshops?
Line 173 – is use of the word “sessions” here the same as the Figure 2 legend to mean the “steps”; Oh I see later it is not – maybe choose a different word so as not to confuse ‘sessions’ here vs. sessions as steps
Line 182 – acronyms TUD and WUR should be defined somewhere
Line 205 – So to confirm, the ‘data’ from each participant was just one single keyword, correct? (as opposed to trying to infer additional keywords or context from the common roundtable discussion?)
Line 207 – I think just clarify this was done post-meeting and not live during the meeting (I assume)
Line 212 – “…by having participants complete BEC…”
Line 244 – Complete 3 cards for the same location? Or 3 different locations?
Lines 323- I’m struggling a bit to understand the distinction between Table 2 vs. Table 5S; Table 2 is what they say they used, vs. Table 5S is based on your thematic interpretation of their explanation of their design?
Line 327 – Are you using ‘correlation’ in a loose sense that two things commonly co-occurred, or is this a statistical test that assigns a p-value?
Line 329 – So to clarify, the “Discuss” session was like a post-activity report out by all the different teams about their Design ideas, and the facilitators took notes on that discussion?
Line 339 – Where are the results of this “Discuss” analysis in the Results? I am seeing the results of the “Design” part in Section 3.3, but not this? Or is this part in Section 4 Discussion? Since it is part of your methods framework, I think it should be presented as results.
Line 358 – Are the words in parentheses here the exact words of participants?
Figure 3 – Don’t really think this figure is necessary as these values are also stated in the text
Line 465 – What does ‘partially employed’ mean? Pariticularly given Table 2 shows no distinction between fully vs. partially;
Line 467-468 – I’m not quite understanding the point being made here
Line 473 – I am not quite following here how this coding is different than the prior paragraph; Particularly as “Appropriation” is identified as common here, but not in the prior paragraph; Is the prior paragraph what the participants ‘say’ they used, but the second based on your interpretation of what they actually used based on their explanation of their design?; I think the distinction could be better made both here and in the methods.
Line 481-488 – As a reader, this is a bit hard to digest all these relationships and what they mean without seeing examples. I think it would be insightful to provide brief descriptions of the 14 project ideas, and how the elements of project design were coded, so that it is easier to interpret what a connection between ‘greenspace’ and ‘cue for care’ means.
Table 2 – are these the results of the thematic coding? I thought Atlas was used for the thematic (Line 316), so I am confused on the distinction between the numbers in Line 459 vs. 473; What is the difference between this vs. Table 5S
Table 3 – I don’t follow why the rows or columns don’t add up to the Groundedness numbers; There were 62 quotations about greenspace, but only 23 mentioned in combination with the tools? 14 mentioned about appropriation, but 19 mentioned in combination with features or benefits (assume there is double counting going on there); just overall struggling a bit with exactly how this design analysis was done that could use additional explanation in methods;
Line 497 – what is the difference between the light grey and dark grey in Table 3?
Line 497 – by “significant” you mean based solely on the counts; I am not seeing that you tested for statistical significance – or does Atlas.ti do that for you?
Line 522 – “virtuous mobility trajectories”? what is this? Seems an overly complicated way of saying this.
Line 525 – statements like this would be more strongly supported if you presented the numbers in the results to back this up (Line 396)
Line 528 – hmmm…. But what kind of workshop result would have demonstrated that it is Not? I guess if they refused to fill out the BEC cards because they couldn’t think of any locations; or identified only a few locations; or only identified a few benefits, rather than all 4 categories; or that they didn’t disagree with the ‘site-experience-benefit’ perspective you imposed? Sorry being a bit nitpicky, but you didn’t really ‘test’ for biophilic vs. not;
Line 529 – ‘adopted’ by the participants? or that you “imposed” on the workshop? This seems more something applied and assumed by the authors, rather than rose organically from the workshop participants (they just did what you told them to do)
Line 530 - Again – it is an interesting analysis, but I’m not sure how what you did can make the leap that the city should be a candidate for the Biophilic City network; I mean it seems you could do the same kind of workshops Anywhere, and get similar results (any city residents anywhere can pick park locations people like to go to and receive well-being benefits) – that doesn’t mean that any city should be a candidate for a Biophilic City network?
Line 546-547 – Did you evaluate this? Did you ask the participants this? Seems you are presuming this to be the case.
Line 549- “experienced positive effects from BU while playing roles” - it seems you are presuming this, but didn’t evaluate it. Did participants tell you this?
Line 569- If you had expectations or hypotheses for these relationships, probably worth mentioning them in the methods; Would also help to motivate the co=occurrence analysis (line 327)
Line 569-573 – I think more description of these in the methods, and more details on the proposed project designs in the results to help explain and illustrate the co-occurences, would help to make these points stronger and more clear
Line 586 – I am not following how the map output reveals this; the opposite seems true as the participants identified dozens of locations;
Line 596 - Was low? Compared to what? 53 locations seems good/high? And weren’t you previously advocating the results showed Amsterdan is a biophilic city? This seems opposite to that.
Supplementary Tables
Could an additional table similar to the ones in 1S be provide to help explain and provide language examples for the Design tool categories?
Tables 3S-5S – It would be preferable to provide these as actual text tables, rather than images;
Table 4S,5S – I have never used Atlas.ti and don’t really understand what is meant by groundedness or ‘document group’ as was applied to your study; I think this could be rephrased in a less technical way;
Table 4S – Difficulty following this table. There were 37 quotations from Project W2_1_M, and 10 of those quotations mentioned something about ‘design tools’?
If possible, I think it would be insightful to provide a very brief description of each of the 14 design project ideas; As a reader, it is a bit hard to interpret these concepts in abstract;
Author Response
Reviewer #3 (Comments to the Author):
Overall an interesting approach to conducting workshops and eliciting information from participants on how they experience nature by using experiential learning at micro and macro scales. I do think some aspects of the methods and results, particularly the “Design” and “Discuss” steps could be explained better, and benefit from examples. Some of the conclusions also seem overreaching, or unclear, based on what the analysis results actually showed. Detailed comments below.
Thank you for your valuable and helpful observations. We generally agree with them, as reflected in our feedback provided below in response to each of your comments.
Comments 1: Line 29 – this sentence may be too strongly worded to imply this is always the case. I can’t access this paper [1], but from abstract it seems they provide examples of dense urban cities that are livable.
Response 1: We have slightly changed the structure of the sentence. However, the tone remains somewhat the same, as it is the opening statement intended to shed light on the current issues that inspired our research/work. It is still supported by the relevant literature.
Comments 2: Line 35 – What is the 3-30-300 rule?
Response 2: As suggested by Reviewer #2 as well, we added an brief explanation of the variables behind 3-30-300 rule (lines 35-37).
Comments 3: Line 37 – Need more of a short explanation here (Without reader having to go find [6]) –I’m not sure what is meant by these cost-effective interventions – I assume you mean something related to non-GREEN interventions but that is not clear.
Response 3: To explain this expression, we linked it to 'green gentrification,' a well-known phenomenon of urban speculation that exploits natural capital or green spaces (lines 39-41).
Comments 4: Line 38 – Here also, I don’t think it is clear to a reader what “Green urbanism” is and why it would not “prioritize vegetation”… I assume you mean that they prioritize choosing vegetation that has good carbon sequestration over vegetation that is aesthetically pleasing or native species (for example). Just think this sentence (37-40) is worth explaining more clearly as it is a big part of motivating a more biophilic approach.
Response 4: We clarified the subject of the two opposing approaches applied by cities using urban nature, initially by introducing the term 'natural capital' (line 39). To contrast the two trends (green gentrification and green urbanism), we highlighted how a biophilic model differs from them in the following sentence (lines 43-46). As for the esthetical use of urban greenery, we refer to it later in the text (line 62).
Comments 5: Line 48 – “substantiating”
Response 5: We rephrased the entire sentence (lines 56-58).
Comments 6: Line 57 – not sure what is meant by “overestimated spaces driven by green gentrification”
Response 6: We intended to highlight the opposition between overdeveloped spaces driven by green gentrification and leftover, underused spaces, despite both having the potential to provide ecosystem services (lines 66-70).
Comments 7: Line 58 – “These” – I assume this refers to “leftover spaces” – or does this refer to overestimated spaces; wasn’t sure what “these” was referring to here. Same with “they “in the following sentence;
Response 7: Both ‘these’ and ‘they’ refer to “leftover spaces”. To avoid any misunderstanding, we also added ‘latter’ in the first sentence (line 67).
Comments 8: Line 64 – this sentence is surprising to me, as I would think “landscape design” is inherently a small-scale thing (a yard, a city park). Think I’m not understanding what is meant here.
Response 8: To further clarify this concept, we integrated the text with locutions such as “landscape design and planning” and “climate-adapted cities” (lines 71-73).
Comments 9: Line 97 – I would think by definition 100% of ‘gardens’ would include greenery – so think I’m not understanding either what you mean by “garden” or by “greenery”.
Response 9: We added further information and corrected the percentages of public green spaces by identifying them in such a way as to reach 100% of these areas (lines 109-112).
Comments 10: Line 97 – Are “the city”, and “the area” the same defined spatial area?
Response 10: We adjusted the related sentences and clearly distinguished the description of the city's areas from the quantity of green spaces in Amsterdam (lines 109-112).
Comments 11: Line 99 – How far below 30%? I think give the actual value too
Response 11: We added specific values from recent studies to substantiate our statement, indicating how far Amsterdam is from reaching the 30% canopy cover (lines 113-115).
Comments 12: Line 173 – So six total workshops (one morning/one afternoon x 3) – or three All day workshops?
Response 12: We conducted a total of three workshops held on different dates, organized as morning or afternoon sessions. To clarify this, we added a few key words in the relevant lines (211-212).
Comments 13: Line 173 – is use of the word “sessions” here the same as the Figure 2 legend to mean the “steps”; Oh I see later it is not – maybe choose a different word so as not to confuse ‘sessions’ here vs. sessions as steps
Response 13: Based on your helpful suggestion, we removed the word ‘step’ to prevent any confusion, referring to workshop sessions only.
Comments 14: Line 182 – acronyms TUD and WUR should be defined somewhere.
Response 14: As the both acronyms show up here for the first time, we included the extended terms aimed to explain them (lines 224-225).
Comments 15: Line 205 – So to confirm, the ‘data’ from each participant was just one single keyword, correct? (as opposed to trying to infer additional keywords or context from the common roundtable discussion?)
Response 15: To offer greater clarity, we rephrased the entire sentence regarding the sequence of actions requested from participants over time (lines 247-250).
Comments 16: Line 207 – I think just clarify this was done post-meeting and not live during the meeting (I assume)
Response 16: Even in this case, the progression of actions was further detailed by adding timing references, as recommended (lines 251-252).
Comments 17: Line 212 – “…by having participants complete BEC…”
Response 17: We re-edited the sentence (line 257).
Comments 18: Line 244 – Complete 3 cards for the same location? Or 3 different locations?
Response 18: Thanks to your comment, we had the opportunity to further detail several options for choosing and completing the BEC (lines 292-295).
Comments 19: Lines 323 - I’m struggling a bit to understand the distinction between Table 2 vs. Table 5S; Table 2 is what they say they used, vs. Table 5S is based on your thematic interpretation of their explanation of their design?
Response 19: Table 2 (now Table 3) and Table 5S (now Table 4S) are correlated but present different content. The first table provides an overview of how the six design tools were applied across the various design entries. Its purpose is to highlight the trends in the adoption of these design tools by each work team, expressed through quantitative metrics via frequency of occurrence values (gray cells). In contrast, Table 5S (now Table 4S) details the frequency of quotation of the six design tools in each team’s project (lines 388-394).
Comments 20: Line 327 – Are you using ‘correlation’ in a loose sense that two things commonly co-occurred, or is this a statistical test that assigns a p-value?
Response 20: We used ATLAS.ti to conduct a co-occurrence analysis, identifying the frequency with which two or more codes appear together in the same segment of data, helping to uncover relationships or patterns in qualitative data. We employed this tool to process the results from the design sessions. To do this, we developed a codebook based on core aspects of BU (biophilic benefit dimensions, biophilic categories and features, biophilic experiences; Table 1), matching the Design Toolbox (Figure 2S) to assess the reciprocal frequency of occurrences in the teams' projects. Thus, our qualitative analysis assigned a code, rather than a p-value, to each output from the co-design process.
Comments 21: Line 329 – So to clarify, the “Discuss” session was like a post-activity report out by all the different teams about their Design ideas, and the facilitators took notes on that discussion?
Response 21: That is correct. Based on your doubt, we rephrased the beginning of that paragraph for greater clarity (lines 395-396).
Comments 22: Line 339 – Where are the results of this “Discuss” analysis in the Results? I am seeing the results of the “Design” part in Section 3.3, but not this? Or is this part in Section 4Discussion? Since it is part of your methods framework, I think it should be presented as results.
Response 22: Since the Discuss dataset is derived the Design session, their outcomes were integrated and jointly analyzed using qualitative methods in ATLAS.ti. We clarified this in the ‘Materials and Methods’ section (lines 403-404) and ‘Results’ section (line 517). Furthermore, Discuss dataset was used to inform the final discussion.
Comments 23: Line 358 – Are the words in parentheses here the exact words of participants?
Response 23: That is correct. That is why we reported them as relevant, consistent, and reliable feedback.
Comments 24: Figure 3 – Don’t really think this figure is necessary as these values are also stated in the text Line.
Response 24: All results from the main operative sessions (Experience, Map, Design) are visualized through graphics and figures, with commentary provided in the text as part of the analysis.
Comments 25: Line 465 – What does ‘partially employed’ mean? Particularly given Table 2 shows no distinction between fully vs. partially;
Response 25:
Table 2 (now Table 3), with gray and white cells, shows the distinction between ‘fully’ and ‘partially’ employed design tools. Moreover, as explained in the text, the numerical values under the ‘Totals’ column substantiate this distinction, with particular reference to the lower values associated with three tools (Appropriation, Cue for Care, Diverse Habitat Conditions).
Comments 26: Line 467-468 – I’m not quite understanding the point being made here.
Response 26: The last sentence is a consideration arising from the results highlighted in the penultimate sentence. It not only relates to the design tools that were less employed in the teams' projects, but also their applicability and compatibility under BU principles, as indicated in lines 545-547.
Comments 27: Line 473 – I am not quite following here how this coding is different than the prior paragraph; Particularly as “Appropriation” is identified as common here, but not in the prior paragraph; Is the prior paragraph what the participants ‘say’ they used, but the second based on your interpretation of what they actually used based on their explanation of their design?; I think the distinction could be better made both here and in the methods.
Response 27: As anticipated at the beginning of the paragraph (lines 471-474), the results from the Design and Discuss sessions were first evaluated based on the application of the six design tools in each team’s project (Design Tools Application). They were then assessed through Thematic Coding Quotation, which expresses the frequency of quotations for the same design tools (Table 4). As noted in the text, it is methodologically interesting that, by changing our analytical approach, a single tool (e.g., Appropriation) yields different results within the same sample of design projects.
Comments 28: Line 481-488 – As a reader, this is a bit hard to digest all these relationships and what they mean without seeing examples. I think it would be insightful to provide brief descriptions of the 14 project ideas, and how the elements of project design were coded, so that it is easier to interpret what a connection between ‘greenspace’ and ‘cue for care’ means.
Response 28: We completely rephrased the paragraph (lines 481-489). While we retained some of the 'quantitative' correlation data supported by Table 3 (now Table 4), we also clarified the co-occurrence qualitatively, connecting the analytical parameters (Features, Experiences and Benefits, Design Tools) with specific project ideas (described in the new Table 3S, Supplementary Materials). This aims to offer a clearer understanding of their practical implications.
Comments 29: Table 2 – are these the results of the thematic coding? I thought Atlas was used for the thematic (Line 316), so I am confused on the distinction between the numbers in Line 459 vs. 473; What is the difference between this vs. Table 5S.
Response 29: As anticipated at the beginning of the paragraph (lines 524-527), datasets from the Design and Discuss sessions were processed using ATLAS.ti. The latter was employed to develop a 3-step qualitative analysis consisting of Design Tools Application, Thematic Coding Quotation, and Co-occurrence Analysis. As mentioned in a previous comment, Table 2 (now Table 3) and Table 5S (now Table 4S) are correlated but present different content. Table 2 (now Table 3) shows the results from the Design Tools Application; Table 5S (now Table 4S) summarizes the outcomes from Thematic Coding Quotation applied to the Design Tools related to the team projects; Table 4S (now Table 5S) extends the application of Thematic Coding Quotation to Features, and Experiences and Benefits for each team’s project; finally, Table 3 (now Table 4) shows the Co-occurrence Analysis, summarizing and correlating the outcomes of all Thematic Coding processes related to Features, Experiences and Benefits, and Design Tools.
Comments 30: Table 3 – I don’t follow why the rows or columns don’t add up to the GroundedNess numbers; There were 62 quotations about greenspace, but only 23 mentioned in combination with the tools? 14 mentioned about appropriation, but 19 mentioned in combination with features or benefits (assume there is double counting going on there); just overall struggling a bit with exactly how this design analysis was done that could use additional explanation in methods.
Response 30: We examined the Atlas file, and the data were confirmed to be correct. Regarding the Greenspace features, they were widely utilized by participants, including elements such as trees, bushes, and grassland. However, not all of these planting measures were explicitly aligned with the concepts embedded in the Design Tools we introduced. In response to the question about Appropriation, we identified 14 design implementations. It is notable that, in some cases, a single Appropriation design implementation contributed to both physical benefits (e.g., enabling people to engage in gardening) and psychological benefits (e.g., fostering social connections). As a result, the co-occurrence value exceeds the number of quotations counted.
In terms of methods, Table 3 (now Table 4) shows the Co-occurrence Analysis, summarizing and correlating the outcomes of all Thematic Coding processes related to Features, Experiences and Benefits, and Design Tools. The groundedNess for each category under Features or Experiences and Benefits was processed in relation to the team’s projects, but the individual values do not appear in Table 4S (now Table 5S). Conversely, the numerical values of groundedNess referring to the Design Tools in Table 3 (now Table 4) correspond to those shown in Table 5S (now Table 4S).
Comments 31: Line 497 – what is the difference between the light grey and dark grey in Table 3?
Response 31: Table 3 (now Table 4) shows the results from the co-occurrence analysis conducted using ATLAS.ti. The most significant correlations are highlighted in two shades of gray: darker gray indicates the highest value, and mid-gray represents the second highest value for the corresponding ‘feature’ or ‘experience and benefit’. ‘Gr’ indicates the groundedness of a code (number of quotations associated with that code).
Comments 32: Line 497 – by “significant” you mean based solely on the counts; I am not seeing that you tested for statistical significance – or does Atlas.ti do that for you?
Response 32: We appreciate that you mentioned 'statistical significance,' but to prevent any misunderstanding, we have rephrased the caption (lines 590-596). The most relevant values highlighted in gray refer to the groundedness of a code (Gr), an essential ATLAS.ti metric indicating the frequency with which a particular code appears in the dataset.
Comments 33: Line 522 – “virtuous mobility trajectories”? What is this? Seems an overly complicated way of saying this.
Response 33: We simplified the sentence by rephrasing that expression (line 624).
Comments 34: Line 525 – statements like this would be more strongly supported if you presented the numbers in the results to back this up (Line 396).
Response 34: This statement is well-supported by the results from the Map session, as presented in the text (Biophilic Amsterdam par.) and illustrated through several data visualization graphics (Figures 4-5-6), with further details provided in the Supplementary Materials. For consistency, all results discussed in the Discussion do not explicitly refer to tables and figures that have already been mentioned in the Results section.
Comments 35: Line 528 – But what kind of workshop result would have demonstrated that it is Not? I guess if they refused to fill out the BEC cards because they couldn’t think of any locations; or identified only a few locations; or only identified a few benefits, rather than all4 categories; or that they didn’t disagree with the ‘site-experience-benefit’ perspective you imposed? Sorry being a bit nitpicky, but you didn’t really ‘test’ for biophilic vs. not;
Response 35: Thank you for your insightful comment. We understand your point about the need to demonstrate what would indicate that Amsterdam is not biophilic. Since one of the city’s priorities in the global urban agenda is to address the climate crisis using sustainable strategies, we designed our workshop methodology to guide participants in testing the potential of Amsterdam as a biophilic city, based on a large body of scientific literature that proves the pivotal role of BU in achieving this goal. Given Amsterdam's natural capital and current policies aimed at increasing investment in it for climate resilience, we opted for a series of systematic analyses to investigate the positive impact of biophilia by recognizing biophilic settings across the city, in order to highlight the multiple benefits resulting from human-nature interactions. While we did not specifically test for the opposite, the absence of identifiable locations, minimal identification of benefits, or resistance to the 'site-experience-benefit' perspective would indeed have been valuable indicators of a less biophilic environment. As you rightly pointed out, these factors could have provided a clearer contrast, and we will consider refining our approach to more explicitly test for both biophilic and non-biophilic outcomes in future studies.
Comments 36: Line 529 – ‘adopted’ by the participants? or that you “imposed” on the workshop? This seems more something applied and assumed by the authors, rather than rose organically from the workshop participants (they just did what you told them to do)
Response 36: Thank you for your observation. As recommended, we replaced the term 'adopted' with 'introduced,' as it seems more appropriate (line 632). In the study, we used a special 'site-experience-benefit' approach to design a participatory workshop aimed at promoting BU. All methods, instructions, materials, and toolkits were intended to increase participants' knowledge of BU principles and enabling them to easily complete the individual or group tasks required in each workshop session (e.g., identifying biophilic settings and related positive effects, mapping biophilic experiences, etc.). Through the informed consent provided at the beginning of the workshop, participants were informed about the research subject and purpose, and were invited to participate freely, voluntarily, and anonymously. The positive feedback received at the end of all three workshops encouraged us to repeat this methodology and publish its findings.
Comments 37: Line 530 - Again – it is an interesting analysis, but I’m not sure how what you did can make the leap that the city should be a candidate for the Biophilic City network; I mean it seems you could do the same kind of workshops Anywhere, and get similar results (any city residents anywhere can pick park locations people like to go to and receive well-being benefits) – that doesn’t mean that any city should be a candidate for a Biophilic City network?
Response 37: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We adopted a case study approach using Amsterdam to illustrate the potential of any city to become a biophilic city. This directly supports our research aim (RQ1): to promote Biophilic Urbanism (BU) as a sustainable and ecological model that enhances livability and contributes to climate adaptation by leveraging urban natural capital. Our goal was not to evaluate whether Amsterdam qualifies as a biophilic city or to propose it for inclusion in the Biophilic Cities network. Instead, we aimed to highlight how urban nature, in all its forms (public parks, leftover spaces, etc.), is often undervalued, despite its wide-ranging benefits for individuals, society, and the environment, a condition common to many cities. We also sought to foster a biophilic mindset and raise awareness about the importance of caring for urban nature as a path to its long-term conservation. Our findings showed that participants mainly associated benefits with familiar spaces like parks, overlooking the broader range of features and experiences outlined in our biophilic experience framework, which includes diverse indoor and outdoor experiences and four benefit dimensions. This confirmed a gap in public awareness, reinforcing our aim to engage citizens more actively with their natural surroundings. For this reason, we applied a citizen science approach in designing the workshop. Furthermore, we have tested similar workshop formats in other cities worldwide, with differing outcomes. As noted in the Conclusions, a comparative study would be a valuable direction for future research.
Comments 38: Line 546-547 – Did you evaluate this? Did you ask the participants this? Seems you are presuming this to be the case.
Response 38: The Psychological Well-being benefits listed in the text are part of our biophilic experience framework (Table 1), which was provided to complete the BEC during the Map session. As such, they were explicitly cited by the workshop participants while filling out the BEC. We quantitatively, qualitatively, and spatially processed the BEC dataset (Table 2S) and illustrated the results in Figures 4, 5, and 6.
Comments 39: Line 549 - “experienced positive effects from BU while playing roles” - it seems you are presuming this, but didn’t evaluate it. Did participants tell you this?
Response 39: We revised the sentence to avoid any misunderstanding. Thus, we clarified that during the Design session, participants had the opportunity to indirectly experience the positive effects of BU by applying its principles 'through the co-design process,' while assuming roles as urban planners or city-makers (lines 655-656).
Comments 40: Line 569 - If you had expectations or hypotheses for these relationships, probably worth mentioning them in the methods; Would also help to motivate the co=occurrence analysis (line 327).
Response 40: We completely rephrased this paragraph, based on the co-occurrence analysis outcomes which were earlier re-edited in the Results (676-687). Using these outcomes to support our discussion, we directly referred to the correlations stemming from the project designs, as described in the new Table 3S (Supplementary Materials).
Comments 41: Line 569-573 – I think more description of these in the methods, and more details on the proposed project designs in the results to help explain and illustrate the co-occurrences, would help to make these points stronger and more clear.
Response 41: Based on your helpful recommendation, we added the new Table 3S that summarizes and describes the 14 design team projects, including their identification number, name, main concept, short description, and their correlation with the four benefit dimensions defined in the biophilic experience framework (Table 1). Building on that, we re-edited the text referring to the co-occurrence analysis both in the Results (lines 564-589) and in the Discussion (676-687). Additionally, we updated Table 2 (now Table 3), Table 4S (now Table 5S), and Table 5S (now Table 4S), resulting from the Desing an and Discuss dataset processing, so that they now display the identification number and name for each team’s project.
Comments 42: Line 586 – I am not following how the map output reveals this; the opposite seems true as the participants identified dozens of locations.
Response 42: As recommended, we have revised this paragraph to clarify the cultural impact of BU. A specific reference to how the Map outputs confirm that biophilic culture is still poorly understood can be found in referred in lines 618-622. In this regard, both the workshop and its related findings contribute to advancing the relatively recent field of BU research (lines 697-704).
Comments 43: Line 596 - Was low? Compared to what? 53 locations seems good/high? And weren’t you previously advocating the results showed Amsterdam is a biophilic city? This seems opposite to that.
Response 43: As already mentioned in the text, we consider the total number of biophilic settings in Amsterdam to be 'relatively low' when compared to the number of collected BEC data and the resulting biophilic settings mapped. Additionally, we integrated the text to explain why that this number of settings can be considered quite low, given the potential existing biophilic indoor and outdoor locations in Amsterdam, as well as its natural capital in blue-green infrastructure, which is expressed numerically in the study area (lines 710-713).
Comments 44: Could an additional table similar to the ones in 1S be provide to help explain and provide language examples for the Design tool categories?
Response 44: The Design Toolbox (now Figure 2S) served as a guideline for participants to apply BU principles in their design projects (Design session). It is part of a more extensive theoretical framework provided during the workshop. For the sake of brevity, we have reduced the information contained in the paper. However, all the tools provided are intended solely to ensure the paper’s comprehension and replicability in methods.
Comments 45: Tables 3S-5S – It would be preferable to provide these as actual text tables, rather than images.
Response 45: The tables in the manuscript and the Supplementary Materials were initially provided as figures to better align with the journal layout (both in and out of the text column). However, they are clear, readable, and meet the author’s guidelines. Since they were created in Excel, they can be edited upon the editor's request.
Comments 46: Table 4S,5S – I have never used Atlas.ti and don’t really understand what is meant by ‘groundedness’ or ‘document group’ as was applied to your study; I think this could be rephrased in a less technical way.
Response 46: As indicated in both captions related to Table 4S (now Table 5S) and Table 5S (now Table 4S), the groundedness of a code represents the frequency with which a particular code appears in the dataset corresponding to a single design project, while 'GS' stands for the number of documents in a document group, categorized into thematic or contextual clusters relevant to the study.
Comments 47: Table 4S – Difficulty following this table. There were 37 quotations from Project W2_1_M,and 10 of those quotations mentioned something about ‘design tools’?
Response 47: To clarify the content of Table 4S (now Table 5S), we improved the recognizability of each team’s project by adding an identification number and name. Since 'Gr' is associated with blended codes included in the ATLAS.ti model processing, we suggest reading the table based on the numerical values associated with each 'thematic coding' category (Design Tools, Expediencies and Benefits, Features), with their mutual relation expressed by their total (sum of the individual category values).
Comments 48: If possible, I think it would be insightful to provide a very brief description of each of the 14 design project ideas; As a reader, it is a bit hard to interpret these concepts in abstract;
Response 48: In the Supplementary Materials, we included a new table (Table 3S) that summarizes and describes the 14 design team projects, including their identification number, name, main concept, short description, and their correlation with the four benefit dimensions defined in the biophilic experience framework (Table 1). Moreover, they are mentioned in the text between lines 518-521.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study explores the potential of BU in enhancing urban livability and renewing urban landscapes. The experimental design is well-conceived and represents an interesting exploration.
Line 50: The authors briefly mention research gaps in the existing literature, but these have not been sufficiently developed. It is suggested that the authors more clearly identify the knowledge gaps in the current research field and provide additional literature to support their claims.
Line 70: This paragraph focuses on the current situation of green spaces, but it is not clear whether the main goal of using the BU method is to create new green spaces or to transform existing ones. It is recommended that the authors clarify the relationship between the BU method and the increase in green spaces.
Line 85: The phrase “from the macro to the micro-scale” is repeatedly mentioned throughout the article. It is suggested that the authors clearly explain the practical application of this approach across different scales in the "design" section, especially with regard to spatial planning and design details.
Line 344: As noted by the authors, the number of participants in the workshop was small, and participants were divided into several groups, each with a small sample size. Could this have influenced the research results? Further discussion is needed on this issue.
Line 507: The discussion section is currently quite complex and lacks clear structure, with some logical inconsistencies. It is advised that the authors streamline the content and include subheadings for better clarity.
Line 632: It is recommended that the "discussion" and "conclusion" sections be integrated to avoid redundant statements.
Line 543: The discussion of the "macro" and "micro" scales is not closely tied to the experimental results. In this study, which research questions pertain to the macro level and which to the micro level? The authors should provide a more detailed explanation of this distinction.
Author Response
Reviewer #4 (Comments to the Author):
This study explores the potential of BU in enhancing urban livability and renewing urban landscapes. The experimental design is well-conceived and represents an interesting exploration.
We really appreciate all of your comments and are in agreement with most of them as they will help improve our manuscript. Please find below our feedback on each of them.
Comments 1: Line 50: The authors briefly mention research gaps in the existing literature, but these have not been sufficiently developed. It is suggested that the authors more clearly identify the knowledge gaps in the current research field and provide additional literature to support their claims.
Response 1: Our introduction tries to condense the issue inspiring the research insight from lines 29 to 76, highlighting the pivotal role of urban nature in the city and the benefits from biophilia applied to the built environment for improving the quality of life for citizens. In addition, we mention actual gaps in urban policies not considering these aspects properly, excluding BU principles. We cite up to 24 references dealing with these issues. To provide further clarification, we recap the related knowledge gaps that the paper addresses from lines 77 to 81 as a direct link to the following RQs.
Comments 2: Line 70: This paragraph focuses on the current situation of green spaces, but it is not clear whether the main goal of using the BU method is to create new green spaces or to transform existing ones. It is recommended that the authors clarify the relationship between the BU method and the increase in green spaces.
Response 2: From lines 61 to 81, we explain that urban nature and green spaces are underutilized and undervalued for various reasons (political, economic, procedural, etc.), despite the positive impact they could have on urban livability. These issues are also related to the lack of application of BU in actual urban planning, which has the potential to both value existing green spaces and support the creation of new ones (lines 80-81).
Comments 3: Line 85: The phrase “from the macro to the micro-scale” is repeatedly mentioned throughout the article. It is suggested that the authors clearly explain the practical application of this approach across different scales in the "design" section, especially with regard to spatial planning and design details.
Response 3: To clarify the expression 'from macro to micro,' we have more frequently used the phrase 'across scales' both in the title and throughout the text. We made more explicit references to the different scales (micro, meso, macro) of the case studies used as contextual settings for testing on-field biophilic experiences and their related effects.
Comments 4: Line 344: As noted by the authors, the number of participants in the workshop was small, and participants were divided into several groups, each with a small sample size. Could this have influenced the research results? Further discussion is needed on this issue.
Response 4: The sample size is already explicitly mentioned as a limitation in the discussion. However, this did not discourage us; on the contrary, we consider our research insights as a pilot study to further explore the existing gaps in the application of BU in our cities. To optimize the time and outputs of the co-design process, the workshop participants were divided into smaller groups. While ensuring a mix of different backgrounds in each work team, this may have further affected the research results: we have also added this aspect in the Discussion (lines 706-710).
Comments 5: Line 507: The discussion section is currently quite complex and lacks clear structure, with some logical inconsistencies. It is advised that the authors streamline the content and include subheadings for better clarity.
Response 5: The Discussion section has been structured in relation to the references cited in the introduction, the knowledge gaps highlighted there, and the research questions (RQs). As in the rest of the text, here we also relate the results of the various biophilic experiences over time (real-time, past, future) and in space across different scales (micro, meso, macro), as outlined at the beginning of the paragraph (lines 605-607).
Comments 6: Line 632: It is recommended that the "discussion" and "conclusion" sections be integrated to avoid redundant statements.
Response 6: They are typically divided into Land. In the discussion, we refer to the research questions (RQs) and knowledge gaps outlined in the Introduction. The conclusions include a study recap, an overview of its innovations, and future insights. Since we do not find any existing overlap, we have chosen to keep the two sections distinct in accordance with the journal's layout.
Comments 7: Line 543: The discussion of the "macro" and "micro" scales is not closely tied to the experimental results. In this study, which research questions pertain to the macro level and which to the micro level? The authors should provide a more detailed explanation of this distinction.
Response 7: To further clarify the methods, results, and discussion, we linked each biophilic experience proposed during the workshop (on-field research, mapping, and design process) with three main urban scales (micro, meso, macro). These correlations are explained in lines 645-654. As mentioned in the Research Design section, to address RQ1, we refer to all these experiences at different scales, while in response to RQ2, we specifically organized a co-design session.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has been sufficiently improved. Thank you for your effort.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe answers were addressed accordingly. I would like to make just a final comment. In lines 719-722, after answered for a review question, authors afirm that "As our approach focused on the positive aspects of biophilia, we did not explore the negative aspects resulting from human-nature interaction, such as biophobia. However, no negative outcomes emerged from the data processing." I still see these findings intriguing and seem that questionnaires were biased towards a positive aspect of BU or a neglected characteristics of human-nature interations that can have important consequences for urban planning.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI am not a native English for such judgement.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPrior comments have been addressed.
