A Systematic Review of Architectural Atmosphere That Fosters Mindfulness Constructs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript deals with a very interesting and, obviously, increasingly topical theme. The research design was generally well planned, the methodology is clear and well implemented, but some parts of the manuscript seem incomplete (Introduction, Results, Conclusion).

INTRODUCTION

Pointing to the existing research (subsection 1.1), you mention two studies, from 2017 and 2018, and state that they "clearly highlighted the lack of knowledge concerning architecture that supports mindfulness" without further clarification. Please explain the findings of these papers in a little more detail in the context of your research (as you have done below for articles 38 and 49 of which you are the authors).

Since you refer below to the findings of your own research (38 and 49), without the possibility to compare the correctness and accuracy of those findings with some other results, I suggest that you also cover some other research from the period 2018-2023 in this section, which would support your claims in the rest of this subsection.

RESULTS

As you actually crossed the key components of mindfulness (awareness, openness, attention, focus, connection, calmness) and the architectural elements "that play a crucial role on fostering mindfulness" (form, space, movement, light, color, material, object, view, sound, weather) to get the results, it would be useful to show these results in a table (or some graphic illustration), where it would be clear which mindfulness component depends on which architectural elements. From such a table it is possible to extract and explain which architectural elements are significant for how many mindfulness components; which for the most, which for the least, and what does that tell us. Could these be some instructions for architects?

Moreover, it would be useful to analyze the significance of the absence of articles dealing with fostering calmness by the architectural environment. Does this call into question "calmness" as a mindfulness construct and how does this finding affect one of the basic premises of the paper that "architecture can actively support mindfulness" (if we keep in mind that calmness is one of the components of mindfulness)?

CONCLUSION (DISCUSSION)

What seems to me to be missing the most are the concluding remarks in the form of a discussion; we got the result and that's it? What has this research taught us, what to do with these findings, how can we use them purposefully? Can these results be translated into some recommendations for architects - what to pay attention to, which elements to use more or less in their designs?... and all for the purpose of creating an environment that will promote mindfulness.

You should also highlight the weaknesses and limitations of your research (if any), as well as future directions for research.

Specific comments

Lines 75-76: In the text, you refer to the article number 38, which the reference list states is from 2025, while in the text you claim it is from 2023. Is it a typo or did you want to refer to another article at this point?

Line 111: You say "It can be characterized by five key components" but you list six of them; the following text also discusses six key mindfulness constructs.

Lines 143-145: Same as in lines 75-76.

Line 251: You should refer to Figure 4 in the text.

Line 252: Here you say "...an overview of the 52 selected articles" and there are actually 53 of them.

Lines 289-292: By mistake, you have again provided the text related to "Country of Publication", and you should provide information related to "First Author Affiliation Country".

Line 304: Same as in line 252.

Line 427: Instead of 5.4. it should read 5.5.

Reference number 67 is suspicious. Please check the entry.

For some references you accessed online, you did not provide the year of publication (14, 16, 17, 19, 69, 74, 74).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. The revisions are summarized as follows:

1. We have incorporated additional references, specifically articles 38 and 49, as recommended.

2. We have included comparisons with studies conducted in years closely related to our research.

3. We have added an Appendix to present the results of our data analysis in greater detail.

4. We have expanded the discussion by incorporating relevant literature on tranquility and have provided recommendations for future research.

5. We have further summarized and elaborated on the discussion of the results.

6. Additionally, we have thoroughly reviewed and revised the content and references throughout the manuscript.

We appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which has helped us improve the quality of our work.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Mental health and well-being have emerged as significant topics within architectural design research. This study examined the interplay between architectural atmosphere and mental health, with a particular emphasis on how architectural atmosphere contributes to the cultivation of mindfulness—a contemporary and practically relevant area of inquiry. The paper employed a systematic review methodology to elucidate the effects of architectural atmosphere on mental health through the lens of mindfulness construction. However, some revisions in the following areas would enhance the clarity, precision, and academic rigor of the manuscript.
1. While the article offers a comprehensive theoretical analysis via a systematic review, it lacks empirical evidence to substantiate the proposed hypotheses. The authors are encouraged to elaborate on the architectural elements that influence each dimension of mindfulness construction through more detailed case studies.
2. Although the article addresses various characteristics of architectural atmosphere pertinent to mindfulness, it does not sufficiently explore certain attributes, such as tranquility, awareness, openness, and focus.
3. The literature sources reflect regional cultural disparities; the influence of architectural atmosphere on mindfulness may differ across various regions, cultural contexts, and religious backgrounds, thereby necessitating additional cross-cultural research to bolster the findings.
4. The definition of architectural atmosphere presented in the article is overly broad, encompassing numerous architectural elements without providing a detailed explanation of their interrelations.
5. The "components" referenced in the definition of mindful architecture, as well as the "architectural elements" that affect each aspect of mindfulness construction in the results, require clarification regarding their interconnections.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to express our sincere appreciation for your valuable comments. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with your suggestions. The details of the revisions are as follows:

1. We have expanded the discussion on architectural elements that contribute to mindfulness by providing a revised summary, a comparative table, and additional discussion. These enhancements aim to clarify the relationships between the contributing factors for the readers.

2. We have added a summary of the regional origins of each study included in the review to help inform future research directions.

We are grateful for your thoughtful feedback, which has greatly contributed to improving the clarity and quality of our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-structured review exploring how architectural atmosphere relates to mindfulness constructs. The multi-theory approach is appreciated, and the literature is rich. To improve the paper, please consider adding a summary visual mapping of atmosphere-to-mindfulness links, clarifying some definitions, and discussing practical design implications. A minor language edit is also suggested. With these improvements, this paper will offer strong value to both theory and practice.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to sincerely thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with your comments. The revisions are summarized as follows:

1. We have provided a more detailed explanation of the literature review findings.

2. We have revised and refined the summary and discussion of the results.

3. We have created a table to clearly present the results of the analysis.

We greatly appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which has helped improve the clarity and quality of our work.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The article explores an important and timely topic: the relationship between architectural atmosphere and mindfulness, particularly in the context of mental health. The significance of this research is clear, as mindfulness is a well-established method for improving mental health outcomes, and there is growing interest in how the built environment may support this. The research focus is relevant, and the review is timely considering the increasing mental health crisis globally. While the study does a good job identifying key aspects of mindfulness constructs (awareness, openness, attention, focus, connection, and calmness), the review falls short in adequately analyzing and synthesizing existing research findings. Many of the selected studies focus primarily on providing descriptive information about mindfulness or architectural design rather than empirical findings that explore the connection between the two. As a result, the review lacks the depth of discussion expected for a systematic review.
There is a lack of critical discussion surrounding the findings of the reviewed articles. The review often summarizes individual studies without providing a deeper analysis or synthesis of the broader implications of these findings. For example, the article lists the number of studies focusing on each mindfulness construct but does not explore how these findings align or contrast with each other. More discussion is needed on the quality of studies reviewed, their methodologies, and the consistency of their findings. It would be helpful to discuss the potential gaps in existing literature, what is still missing, and what future research might focus on. The conclusion should be more than just a summary; it should critically engage with the literature and propose directions for future studies.  

One of the key observations in the article is that no studies were found on how architectural atmosphere fosters calmness. This is a notable gap that should be further explored. A deeper discussion of why this construct might be under-researched and how architectural atmosphere could potentially contribute to fostering calmness would be valuable. Consider expanding the section discussing "calmness," including potential explanations for the lack of studies on this aspect and suggesting avenues for future research.

A significant issue with the review is the lack of integration of findings across studies. While the article provides a breakdown of the number of studies on each construct (e.g., awareness, attention), it does not synthesize the findings into broader themes or patterns. Such integration is essential for a systematic review, as it helps in drawing meaningful conclusions about how architectural atmosphere influences mindfulness. Try to group the findings into broader thematic categories. For example, are there specific architectural features (e.g., lighting, space layout, natural elements) that more strongly influence certain mindfulness constructs (e.g., focus, connection)? What are the relationships between these constructs? A more detailed synthesis will improve the article’s contribution to the field.

The article presents an important review of the role architectural atmosphere plays in fostering mindfulness, yet there are several areas where it falls short. By providing a more detailed analysis of the literature, clarifying methodology, and offering deeper discussions of the findings, this review could make a more substantial contribution to the field. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to sincerely thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with your comments. The revisions are summarized as follows:

1. We have revised the summary and discussion of the results.

2. We have created a table to clearly present the results of the analysis.

3. We have revised the literature review section.

We truly appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which has been very helpful in improving the quality of our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors largely followed the reviewers' suggestions. Unfortunately, their answers were not given in accordance with the instructions, point by point, so it is difficult to see the changes for the purpose of improving the manuscript.

However, what should be further improved is the clarity of the presented results. The table found in Appendix E should appear in the results section. Also, the importance of those findings should be commented in the text of this section, according to the guidelines from the first round of the review. At the same time, I would instruct the authors to be more careful when writing entries in the table, as certain dependencies between key components of mindfulness and architectural elements are omitted.

Lines 112-114 (previously 100-102): you refer to paper number 38 and say in the text that it is research from 2025, but it is actually from 2023; if you refer to another paper, then write the adequate reference number.

Line 331 (previously line 304): you mention 52 selected articles and there are actually 53 of them.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you once again for your valuable suggestions, and we sincerely apologize for the errors that occurred.

Response 1: To improve clarity, we have revised the Conclusion to better guide readers in understanding the content of Appendix F. While the specific architectural characteristics that support each mindfulness construct are thoroughly presented in the Results section, those qualities inferred to support multiple constructs and regarded as particularly significant are highlighted in the Conclusion and summarized in the table provided in Appendix F.

Response 2: We have reviewed and revised accordingly.

Response 3: We have completed the revisions.

We appreciate the valuable feedback provided and hope that the revised manuscript now meets the standards for publication.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer:Accept after minor revisions

1. For the charts, it is hoped that distinct symbols can be used to differentiate or highlight the annotations. The horizontal and vertical coordinates of the bar chart should be marked more clearly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Reviewer:Accept after minor revisions

1. The choice of words could be further optimized by using more specialized vocabulary. The conclusion part could also be more concise.
2. It is suggested that some polishing could be done. The spelling should be checked more carefully as there are spelling errors in some words.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to sincerely thank you once again for your valuable suggestions. We have carefully considered your comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly, as follows:

Response 1: We have revised the presentation of the charts to improve clarity and readability.

Response 2: We have thoroughly reviewed and made the necessary corrections in English language usage.

We appreciate the valuable feedback provided and hope that the revised manuscript now meets the standards for publication.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A Systematic Review of Architectural Atmosphere that Fosters Mindfulness Constructs," demonstrates commendable progress in addressing previous feedback. Most queries and suggestions have been effectively incorporated through clearer explanations, additional references, and strengthened arguments, enhancing both the clarity and depth of the work. The paper's structure, coherence, and flow have significantly improved, with a more comprehensive literature review and a more clearly presented methodology, boosting overall readability and academic rigor. While substantial revisions have been made, further refinement of the discussion section could offer greater insight, particularly by expanding on the nuanced implications of how architectural atmospheres foster mindfulness. Nonetheless, the manuscript has made major improvements and is now much stronger, making it a valuable contribution to the field. It is recommended for publication, with the possibility of minor additional revisions to the discussion section

Author Response

First of all, we would like to sincerely thank you once again for your valuable suggestions. We have carefully considered your comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly, as follows:

To improve clarity, we have revised the Conclusion to better guide readers. While the specific architectural characteristics that support each mindfulness construct are thoroughly presented in the Results section, those qualities inferred to support multiple constructs and regarded as particularly significant are highlighted in the Conclusion and summarized in the table provided in Appendix F. 

In addition, we have included the limitations of this study to provide guidance for future research.

We appreciate the valuable feedback provided and hope that the revised manuscript now meets the standards for publication.

Sincerely,