Trauma-Informed and Healing Architecture in Young People’s Correctional Facilities: A Comparative Case Study on Design, Well-Being, and Reintegration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has undergone significant improvements and can be accepted after revisions. Charts should be formatted to fit journal publication.

Author Response

The manuscript has undergone significant improvements and can be accepted after revisions. Charts should be formatted to fit  journal publication.

Respond: Thank you for your positive evaluation of the manuscript. I appreciate your feedback and will ensure that all charts are reformatted according to the journal’s publication requirements. And I sincerely thank you, reviewer, for your constructive comments, which have taught me a great deal and helped me significantly improve the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides a well-structured and timely exploration of trauma-informed and healing-centred architectural design, yet several limitations reduce the overall strength of its contribution.

First, the study relies exclusively on secondary data. Although triangulation is used to strengthen validity, the absence of primary data collection, such as site visits, interviews, or post-occupancy evaluations, raises concerns about the reliability and depth of the findings. 

Second, while the authors adopt a mixed-methods approach, the methodological depth remains limited. Much of the analysis is descriptive, and the statistical components are presented only at a basic level. For example, regression models are used to illustrate variance explained but do not engage with interaction effects or the complexities of causal pathways. 

Third, the discussion of cultural differences, particularly the emphasis on Indigenous spatial sovereignty, is rich in descriptive case material but remains relatively surface-level in analysis. The challenges of applying culturally specific design principles across divergent justice systems and contexts are not fully explored. 

Fourth, the paper’s theoretical contribution is limited. The discussion primarily applies existing frameworks, such as Stress Reduction Theory and the Sanctuary Model, to the case studies, but it does not build toward new conceptual insights or theoretical innovation. 

Finally, while the policy recommendations are ambitious, they remain overly broad. The call for a “global standard” is compelling in principle, but the paper does not sufficiently address how such standards could be adapted to the constraints of specific institutional or socio-economic contexts, especially in developing countries or resource-limited regions. 

Author Response

First, the study relies exclusively on secondary data. Although triangulation is used to strengthen validity, the absence of primary data collection, such as site visits, interviews, or post-occupancy evaluations, raises concerns about the reliability and depth of the findings.

Response 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this thoughtful observation. We acknowledge that primary data collection (e.g., site visits, interviews, or post-occupancy evaluations) would have enriched the analysis. However, such approaches are significantly constrained by the high-security nature of correctional facilities, where ethical considerations and restricted access limit feasibility. To address this limitation, we employed a rigorous secondary data strategy, systematically prioritising studies with transparent methodologies, validated instruments, and cross-institutional comparability. This methodological choice reflects established practices in correctional research, where reliance on secondary evaluations is widely recognised as both feasible and ethically appropriate. Although the absence of primary data remains a limitation, the robustness of our triangulated protocol enhances the reliability and validity of the findings (see lines 248–258). Examples: Ethical Prison Architecture: A Systematic Literature Review of Prison Design Features Related to Wellbeing, DOI: 10.1177/12063312221104211.

Improving Mental Health in Prisons Through Biophilic Design. Prison,https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885517734516

Comment 2:

Second, while the authors adopt a mixed-methods approach, the methodological depth remains limited. Much of the analysis is descriptive, and the statistical components are presented only at a basic level. For example, regression models are used to illustrate variance explained but do not engage with interaction effects or the complexities of causal pathways.

Response 2:

We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback. To strengthen validity, we triangulated results across multiple outcome domains (recidivism, anxiety, cultural engagement) and explicitly linked them to theoretical frameworks. We acknowledge that the current statistical analysis remains at a descriptive level. As noted in the revised text, future work will extend this approach through advanced methods such as multilevel regression and structural equation modelling (SEM), once larger and more standardised datasets are available (see lines 347–355).

Comment 3:

Third, the discussion of cultural differences, particularly the emphasis on Indigenous spatial sovereignty, is rich in descriptive case material but remains relatively surface-level in analysis. The challenges of applying culturally specific design principles across divergent justice systems and contexts are not fully explored.

Response 3:

We agree with the reviewer that our original discussion required deeper analysis of cross-cultural transferability. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the Discussion to address these challenges more explicitly. We now examine issues of transferability, risks of tokenism, institutional resistance, and policy constraints, emphasising that Indigenous principles must be adapted through participatory and context-sensitive processes rather than applied wholesale. This addition enhances the analytical depth of the cultural framework and clarifies its implications for global correctional design (see lines 181–189, 273–284, 312–319).

Comment 4:

Fourth, the paper’s theoretical contribution is limited. The discussion primarily applies existing frameworks, such as Stress Reduction Theory and the Sanctuary Model, to the case studies. Still, it does not build toward new conceptual insights or theoretical innovation.

Response 4:

We appreciate the reviewer for highlighting this point. In revision, we have expanded the abstract and Conclusion to articulate the paper’s theoretical contribution more clearly. Specifically, we introduce the Trauma-Informed Healing Architecture (TIHA) framework, which integrates trauma-informed design, healing-centred approaches, and Indigenous spatial sovereignty within a sustainability-oriented perspective. This framework positions architecture as an active determinant of justice outcomes and aligns rehabilitative design with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We believe this represents a substantive theoretical advancement, bridging environmental psychology, criminology, and architectural practice (see lines 28-34, 835–848).

Comment 5:

Finally, while the policy recommendations are ambitious, they remain overly broad. The call for a “global standard” is compelling in principle. Still, the paper does not sufficiently address how such standards could be adapted to the constraints of specific institutional or socio-economic contexts, especially in developing countries or resource-limited regions.

Response 5:

We appreciate this constructive comment. In the revised Policy Implications section, we distinguish between universal minimum standards (e.g., safety, cultural dignity, access to daylight) and scalable adaptations (e.g., advanced biophilic technologies, renewable systems) that can be tailored to local resources. We also emphasise the role of participatory governance and community co-design in ensuring cultural and institutional fit. These revisions provide a more pragmatic roadmap for applying trauma-informed and healing-centred architectural principles across diverse socio-economic contexts, including resource-limited regions(see lines 108-113, 796-813).

I sincerely thank you, reviewer, for your constructive comments, which have taught me a great deal and helped me significantly improve the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a compelling argument regarding the transformative role of architecture in youth justice. Its originality lies in the innovative integration of trauma-informed design and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within a comparative global framework. The manuscript is well structured, guiding the reader through complex material with clarity.

However, the scientific rigour is somewhat limited by the methodological constraints inherent in the comparative case study design. Consequently, several aspects of the manuscript require clarification and improvement:

1. Causality vs. Correlation: The manuscript currently implies a causal relationship between architectural interventions and outcomes. However, the comparative case study design cannot account for numerous confounding variables. Facilities such as Halden (Norway) or Te Puna Wai (NZ) exist within broader justice ecosystems that differ substantially from others (e.g., U.S. models) in terms of:

- Staff training and ratios: Higher staffing levels and specialised therapeutic training are known to be primary factors in reducing incidents.

- Underlying socio-political philosophy: Differences between welfare-state versus more punitive justice models.

- Program funding and duration: Variations in the quality and intensity of vocational or therapeutic programs.

- Post-release support systems: Differences in access to housing, employment, and mentorship.

Please explicitly acknowledge that architecture is a contributing factor within a broader rehabilitative framework, and adjust language throughout the manuscript (particularly in the Abstract, Results, and Discussion) to reflect Correlation rather than direct Causation.

2. Data Aggregation and Transparency: Aggregating data from disparate sources currently hides critical details, limiting the reader’s ability to evaluate the validity of reported metrics. For example:

- Sample sizes: Key statistics such as "0% recidivism among graduates" at Halden are reported without indicating the cohort size (n=?), which is essential for interpreting significance.

- Measurement timeframes: Recidivism is measured inconsistently across studies (e.g., 3-year vs. 5-year rates), making aggregated statistics such as "32% reduction" methodologically unsound.

- Baseline definitions: It is unclear whether comparisons are made against national averages, regional figures, or pre-renovation facility data.

Please provide a supplementary table or expand Table 2 to include, for each facility, the sample size for each metric, the exact recidivism timeframe measured, and the baseline used for comparison.

3. Over-reliance on Isolated P-Values: The manuscript imports p-values from underlying studies without context, which may create a false impression of robustness. Small pre-studies or post-studies conducted within single facilities do not carry the same weight as larger, controlled studies. Reporting effect sizes and confidence intervals, where available, would provide a more accurate assessment of impact. Please focus on the magnitude of observed effects and clearly discuss limitations in the methodology section rather than relying solely on p-values.

4. Treatment of Indigenous Frameworks: While the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives is a strength, quantifying outcomes (e.g., "78% increase in cultural identity strength") risks oversimplifying complex cultural practices. Qualitative insights are powerful, and highlighting them allows the cultural and community context to remain central rather than being reduced to numerical metrics. Please qualitatively frame outcomes, emphazing insights from community-authored reports rather than presenting precise percentages that may imply false precision.

5. Justification of SDG connection: Some linkages between design features and SDGs appear tenuous. For example, linking "relational justice circles" primarily to SDG 13 (Climate Action) via low-VOC paints overlooks the more direct social impact of these interventions (SDG 16). Please explicitly describe the mechanism connecting design features to SDGs. Also, for each design intervention in Table 2, provide a brief rationale explaining the primary mechanism linking it to the cited SDG.

6. Others:

- In the methodology, the text mentions 14 facilities across 8 countries, and Table 6 mentions 15 global facilities, but its notes indicate 14. Also, in the text, 3 case studies are often explained as examples of Halden Prison, the Missouri model and Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo. The authors should verify the total number of facilities, the selection process based on the three criteria (line 148) for each case study, and whether a subset of case study representatives, such as Halden Prison, Missouri Model and Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo, was analysed in depth. 

- The analytical methods, including ANOVA and regression models, appeared only once in the results. This information must be described in the methodology section (3.5 Analytical methods) to ensure transparency, reproducibility, and proper evaluation of the study’s approach. 

- Table 6 presents an empirical comparison across case studies but only cites results from 3, making it unclear how these results were selected from the full sample. The text and table primarily describe the data without providing the additional context needed to understand how the outcomes are representative.

- The reference list requires correction to maintain academic accuracy. Some URLs link to general homepages rather than specific reports, making verification difficult, for example:

[4] Open Society Institute links to a general publication

[9] Kellert et al.’s ResearchGate URL, please list the publisher 

[25] Justice Policy Institute links to the institute homepage instead of the report "The Costs of Confinement"

[36] New Zealand Ministry of Justice and [37] Australian Capital Territory Government link to general corporate pages rather than the specific report

Author Response

This paper presents a compelling argument regarding the transformative role of architecture in youth justice. Its originality lies in the innovative integration of trauma-informed design and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within a comparative global framework. The manuscript is well structured, guiding the reader through complex material with clarity.

However, the scientific rigour is somewhat limited by the methodological constraints inherent in the comparative case study design. Consequently, several aspects of the manuscript require clarification and improvement:

1. Causality vs. Correlation: The manuscript currently implies a causal relationship between architectural interventions and outcomes. However, the comparative case study design cannot account for numerous confounding variables. Facilities such as Halden (Norway) or Te Puna Wai (NZ) exist within broader justice ecosystems that differ substantially from others (e.g., U.S. models) in terms of:

- Staff training and ratios: Higher staffing levels and specialised therapeutic training are known to be primary factors in reducing incidents.

- Underlying socio-political philosophy: Differences between welfare-state versus more punitive justice models.

- Program funding and duration: Variations in the quality and intensity of vocational or therapeutic programs.

- Post-release support systems: Differences in access to housing, employment, and mentorship.

Please explicitly acknowledge that architecture is a contributing factor within a broader rehabilitative framework and adjust language throughout the manuscript (particularly in the Abstract, Results, and Discussion) to reflect Correlation rather than direct Causation.

Respond1: Thanks to the reviewer for this important observation. In the revised manuscript, we have adjusted the language throughout the Abstract, Results, and Discussion to clarify that architecture is a contributing factor within a broader rehabilitative framework, and that our findings demonstrate correlations rather than direct causal relationships. We believe this adjustment strengthens the scientific rigour and transparency of the manuscript.

Comment 2: Data Aggregation and Transparency: Aggregating data from disparate sources currently hides critical details, limiting the reader’s ability to evaluate the validity of reported metrics. For example:

- Sample sizes: Key statistics such as "0% recidivism among graduates" at Halden are reported without indicating the cohort size (n=?), which is essential for interpreting significance.

- Measurement timeframes: Recidivism is measured inconsistently across studies (e.g., 3-year vs. 5-year rates), making aggregated statistics such as "32% reduction" methodologically unsound.

- Baseline definitions: It is unclear whether comparisons are made against national averages, regional figures, or pre-renovation facility data.

Please provide a supplementary table or expand Table 2 to include, for each facility, the sample size for each metric, the exact recidivism timeframe measured, and the baseline used for comparison.

Respond2:  We thank the reviewer for emphasising the importance of methodological transparency. In the revised manuscript, Table 2 has been expanded to include sample sizes, exact measurement timeframes, and baseline definitions wherever reported. Where such information was unavailable in sources, we have clearly indicated “Not reported (NR)” to maintain transparency. These revisions, supported with primary government evaluations and peer-reviewed references, ensure that readers can assess the validity of reported outcomes and better understand the variability in cross-national comparisons.

To improve transparency, this study reports for each facility the available sample size, timeframe of measurement, and baseline used for comparison (see revised Table 2). Where data were not disclosed in original reports, this is indicated explicitly as ‘Not reported.’ This ensures that the aggregated results remain interpretable while acknowledging variability across studies.  (see line numbers 259- 263,340-347,724-729)

Comment 3: Over-reliance on Isolated P-Values: The manuscript imports p-values from underlying studies without context, which may create a false impression of robustness. Small pre-studies or post-studies conducted within single facilities do not carry the same weight as larger, controlled studies. Reporting effect sizes and confidence intervals, where available, would provide a more accurate assessment of impact. Please focus on the magnitude of observed effects and clearly discuss limitations in the methodology section rather than relying solely on p-values. 

Respond3: In revision, we have restructured the Methods sections to prioritise the reporting of effect sizes and confidence intervals wherever available, as these provide a more accurate reflection of the magnitude of observed effects. Where such data were not reported, we now present descriptive findings with explicit notes on limitations (e.g., small sample sizes, single-facility studies). We have also expanded the Discussion to acknowledge these limitations and clarify that the findings should be interpreted as indicative rather than definitive causal results. See (line numbers 335-339 p-values)

Comment 4: Treatment of Indigenous Frameworks: While the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives is a strength, quantifying outcomes (e.g., "78% increase in cultural identity strength") risks oversimplifying complex cultural practices. Qualitative insights are powerful, and highlighting them allows the cultural and community context to remain central rather than being reduced to numerical metrics. Please qualitatively frame outcomes, emphasising insights from community-authored reports rather than presenting precise percentages that may imply false precision.

Respond4: In the revised manuscript, we have reframed outcomes for facilities such as Te Puna Wai, Kawerau, Calgary, and Parkville to emphasise qualitative insights from community-authored reports (e.g., youth testimonies, cultural engagement narratives) rather than precise numerical metrics. Where percentages are reported in official evaluations, we now present them as illustrative rather than definitive and highlight that cultural outcomes are best understood through qualitative accounts. This adjustment strengthens the artistic integrity of the manuscript and prevents the impression of false precision. ( line numbers 273-284)

Comment 5: Justification of SDG connection: Some linkages between design features and SDGs appear tenuous. For example, linking "relational justice circles" primarily to SDG 13 (Climate Action) via low-VOC paints overlooks the more direct social impact of these interventions (SDG 16). Please explicitly describe the mechanism connecting design features to SDGs. Also, for each design intervention in Table 2, please provide a brief rationale explaining the primary mechanism linking it to the cited SDG.

Respond 5: Thank the reviewer for drawing attention to the need for more apparent justification of SDG connections. We have revised Table 2 to include an explicit “Mechanism → SDG rationale column. Each design intervention is now linked to SDGs through its primary causal pathway (e.g., relational justice circles → inclusive governance → SDG 16), with environmental interventions (e.g., solar panels, passive design) clearly connected to SDG 7/13. Additionally, Table 2 has been revised to include a “Mechanism → SDG Rationale” column, where we provide a brief explanation of the specific causal pathway by which each intervention contributes to its cited SDG.

This adjustment improves interpretability, avoids overstatement, and ensures conceptual alignment between architectural interventions and the SDG framework ( line numbers 263-272). Also, Table 2 is revised.

Comment 6:- In the methodology, the text mentions 14 facilities across 8 countries, and Table 6 mentions 15 global facilities, but its notes indicate 14. Also, in the text, 3 case studies are often explained as examples of Halden Prison, the Missouri model and Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo. The authors should verify the total number of facilities, the selection process based on the three criteria for each case study, and whether a subset of case study representatives, such as Halden Prison, Missouri Model and Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo, was analysed in depth.

- The analytical methods, including ANOVA and regression models, appeared only once in the results. This information must be described in the methodology section (3.5 Analytical methods) to ensure transparency, reproducibility, and proper evaluation of the study’s approach.

- Table 6 presents an empirical comparison across case studies but only cites results from 3, making it unclear how these results were selected from the full sample. The text and table primarily describe the data without providing the additional context needed to understand how the outcomes are representative.

- The reference list requires correction to maintain academic accuracy. Some URLs link to general homepages rather than specific reports, making verification difficult, for example:

[4] Open Society Institute links to a general publication

[9] Kellert et al.’s ResearchGate URL, please list the publisher

[25] Justice Policy Institute links to the institute homepage instead of the report "The Costs of Confinement"

[36] New Zealand Ministry of Justice and [37 the Australian Capital Territory Government link to general corporate pages rather than the specific report

Respond6: We have addressed each of these concerns as follows:

Facility count – Verified and standardised as 15 across eight countries. We clarified that three exemplar facilities (Halden, Missouri, Te Puna Wai) were analysed in greater depth.

Analytical methods – Section 3.5 has been revised to describe the use of ANOVA and regression models fully, ensuring methodological transparency and reproducibility.

Table 6 – Clarified that it presents exemplar case findings, while Table 2 includes outcomes for all 15 facilities. The Results text has been adjusted accordingly.

References – Corrected to ensure accuracy and traceability. General homepages and ResearchGate URLs have been replaced with full citations to the specific reports or published works (e.g., Open Society Institute [4], Kellert et al. [9], Justice Policy Institute [25], New Zealand Ministry of Justice [36], and ACT Government [37]).

I sincerely thank you, reviewer, for your constructive comments, which have taught me a great deal and helped me significantly improve the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No additional comments

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents an investigation into how trauma-informed and healing-centered architectural strategies can influence outcomes in youth correctional environments. Drawing from a wide array of international case studies, the authors attempt to synthesize empirical findings regarding environmental design, psychosocial well-being, and reintegration outcomes. The topic is highly valuable, and the integration of psychological, cultural, and architectural theory is commendable. However, the study currently faces several methodological, conceptual, and structural limitations that diminish the clarity and generalizability of its contributions. Below is a set of 16 specific and constructive comments designed to guide substantive revisions.

1. The title provides a meaningful academic framework; however, it would benefit from simplification, clearer conceptual focus, and clarification of terminology. In particular, the concurrent use of “trauma-informed” and “healing” is potentially redundant. The justification for using both terms together should be explicitly stated, or one should be prioritized to avoid conceptual overlap and repetition.
2. References [8] and [7] appear out of numerical order and should be corrected for consistency in citation.
3. The statement “Some correctional facilities that adopt these approaches report reductions of up to 30–40% in violent incidents [11]” appears to be unsupported by the cited source. Additionally, the DOI associated with reference [11] points to an unrelated publication and should be corrected.
4. A considerable number of references in the introduction do not strongly support the claims they are linked to. These citations fail to provide adequate empirical grounding and thus weaken the scientific coherence of the manuscript. For example, reference [27] is misaligned with the argument it supports. Unfortunately, other similar cases are also present.
5. Reference [39] could not be located in any academic database and appears to be missing or misattributed.
6. The structure and coherence of the introduction could be improved. The narrative becomes cluttered in parts due to thematic redundancies (e.g., repeated discussions of the psychological impacts of biophilic design across different paragraphs). A more grouped and streamlined structure would help foreground the central argument and make the text more accessible.
7. The transition from theoretical framework to practical application needs to be made clearer. Although the terms “trauma-informed design” and “healing-centered architecture” are defined, the manuscript lacks concrete spatial examples or typological distinctions that would help the reader understand how these two concepts differ or converge in practice.
8. The exclusive reliance on secondary data introduces potential limitations related to data reliability and standardization. In comparative cross-national research, data harmonization and contextual variation are critical issues. The methods section should clearly explain how the authors ensured comparability and how cultural/structural contextual differences were accounted for in the analysis.
9. While the manuscript incorporates both quantitative and qualitative data, it does not adequately explain how these two data types were integrated. In particular, the connection between thematic analysis of qualitative findings (e.g., ethnographic narratives) and statistical indicators is unclear. A diagram or process flow outlining the data integration would improve transparency and replicability.
10. Although the authors present data from multiple international case studies, the manuscript's claim to perform a "comparative analysis" remains underdeveloped at the empirical level. While numerous metrics are presented, causal explanations or context-specific interpretations are lacking.
11. The findings section presents too many themes simultaneously—biophilic design, cultural participation, sustainability, staff engagement, energy efficiency—which makes it difficult for readers to identify the manuscript’s central analytical focus.
12. Although theoretical models (e.g., Attention Restoration Theory, Biophilic Hypothesis, Environmental Control Psychology) are listed for each facility, the links between these frameworks and the findings remain mostly superficial or merely descriptive. For example, statistics such as “25% reduction in anxiety” lack clear information about the time frame, sample size, and presence of control groups, making it difficult to evaluate the robustness of the claims.
13. The “Discussion” heading is formatted inconsistently, and several references cited in the discussion are not found in the reference list.
14. The discussion section presents a strong theoretical argument; however, it contradicts the title’s exclusive focus on “youth correctional facilities.” Several of the analyzed facilities do not serve youth populations specifically.
15. While the authors construct a solid interdisciplinary discussion based on the findings, it appears that some of the case study facilities (e.g., Bastøy Prison) serve adult or mixed populations rather than strictly youth. This raises concerns about the validity of generalizations made under a “youth correctional” framework. Suggestion: Either limit the scope of discussion to youth-specific facilities or revise the title and framing of the manuscript accordingly.
16. The conclusion fails to adequately address the contextual limitations of the study. Specifically, it does not consider how the diversity of the case study contexts (in terms of national systems, age groups, and cultural infrastructure) affects the generalizability of the results. Given that youth correction is highly context-sensitive, the heterogeneity of the sample poses challenges for broad generalizations. Furthermore, many conclusions are presented as universal despite being drawn from isolated case data without a clear comparative framework.

Author Response

Reviewer Comment: 1. The title provides a meaningful academic framework; however, it would benefit from simplification, clearer conceptual focus, and clarification of terminology. In particular, the concurrent use of “trauma-informed” and “healing” is potentially redundant. The justification for using both terms together should be explicitly stated, or one should be prioritized to avoid conceptual overlap and repetition.

Response 1 : We thank the reviewer for raising these two critical points. To address the first concern, we have now included a paragraph in the Key Terminology section (page 3, lines 105–109). Therefore, while TID focuses on mitigating harm, healing-centred architecture seeks to restore identity, build community, and support post-release reintegration through spatial and cultural continuity. Both approaches reject institutional aesthetics but differ in emphasis: one focuses on trauma mitigation, while the other emphasises holistic flourishing. However, if a simplified title change is still recommended, then we would suggest: “Youth Correctional Design and Healing: A Comparative Study on Trauma-Informed Spaces and Reintegration Outcomes.”

Reviewer Comment: 2. References [8] and [7] appear out of numerical order and should be corrected for consistency in citation.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency. We have corrected the reference numbering so that all sources now appear in numerical order based on their first mention in the text. References [7] and [8] have been renumbered accordingly, and the reference list has been updated.

Reviewer Comment: 3. The statement “Some correctional facilities that adopt these approaches report reductions of up to 30–40% in violent incidents [11]” appears to be unsupported by the cited source. Additionally, the DOI associated with reference [11] points to an unrelated publication and should be corrected.

Response3: The citation [11] referred to: Alvarsson, J. J., Wiens, S., & Nilsson, M. E. (2010). Stress Recovery During Exposure to Nature Sound and Environmental Noise. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(3), 1036–1046. DOI:10.3390/ijerph7031036. This reference mentions several studies reporting substantial gains from biophilic and nature-based environments, with stress recovery improving by 9–37%. The statement suggesting 30–40% was our interpretation, which we have now removed.

Reviewer Comment: 4. A considerable number of references in the introduction do not strongly support the claims they are linked to.

Response 4 : We have corrected misaligned citations, including citation 27 (Mendel, 2020), and replaced others to ensure an appropriate and strong source supports each claim. Detailed changes have been made in the Introduction, as outlined in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer Comment: 5. Reference [39] could not be located in any academic database and appears to be missing or misattributed.

Response 5: This reference has now been replaced with an accessible and appropriate source.

Reviewer Comment: 6. The structure and coherence of the introduction could be improved. The narrative becomes cluttered in parts due to thematic redundancies (e.g., repeated discussions of the psychological impacts of biophilic design across different paragraphs). A more grouped and streamlined structure would help foreground the central argument and make the text more accessible

Response 6: We have restructured the introduction to reduce thematic redundancies and improve narrative flow. The revised version appears on pages 2 and 9–10 of the manuscript.

Reviewer Comment: 7. The transition from theoretical framework to practical application needs to be made clearer. Although the terms “trauma-informed design” and “healing-centred architecture” are defined, the manuscript lacks concrete spatial examples or typological distinctions that would help the reader understand how these two concepts differ or converge in practice.

Response 7: We have added a paragraph in the Key Terminology section (page 3, lines 119–124) illustrating typological distinctions between TID and healing-centred models, with concrete spatial examples.

Reviewer Comment: 8. The exclusive reliance on secondary data introduces potential limitations related to data reliability and standardization. In comparative cross-national research, data harmonization and contextual variation are critical issues. The methods section should clearly explain how the authors ensured comparability and how cultural/structural contextual differences were accounted for in the analysis..

Response 8 : We have clarified in Methods (3.2, page 4, lines 166–177) how we addressed cross-national data heterogeneity, prioritised youth data in mixed-population sites, and acknowledged the limits of generalisation.

Reviewer Comment: 9. While the manuscript incorporates both quantitative and qualitative data, it does not adequately explain how these two data types were integrated. In particular, the connection between thematic analysis of qualitative findings (e.g., ethnographic narratives) and statistical indicators is unclear. A diagram or process flow outlining the data integration would improve transparency and replicability.

Response 9 : We added a 'Mixed-Methods Integration Strategy' section (3.5.3, page 6, lines 266–290) explaining our convergent mixed-methods approach and provided Figure 1 to illustrate the process.

Reviewer Comment: 10. Although the authors present data from multiple international case studies, the manuscript's claim to perform a "comparative analysis" remains underdeveloped at the empirical level. While numerous metrics are presented, causal explanations or context-specific interpretations are lacking.

Response 10 : We strengthened empirical grounding in Research Design (3.1), Procedure & Data Reliability (3.4), Mixed-Methods Integration Strategy (3.5.3), and expanded discussion to provide causal explanations and context-specific interpretations.

Reviewer Comment: 11. The findings section presents too many themes simultaneously—biophilic design, cultural participation, sustainability, staff engagement, energy efficiency—which makes it difficult for readers to identify the manuscript’s central analytical focus.

.

Response 11: We reorganised findings into four distinct subsections: Environmental and Psychological Design Effects (4.1), Cultural Identity and Program Engagement (4.2), Institutional Functionality and Staff Outcomes (4.3), Sustainability and Operational Efficiency (4.4).

Reviewer Comment: 12. Although theoretical models (e.g., Attention Restoration Theory, Biophilic Hypothesis, Environmental Control Psychology) are listed for each facility, the links between these frameworks and the findings remain mostly superficial or merely descriptive. For example, statistics such as “25% reduction in anxiety” lack clear information about the time frame, sample size, and presence of control groups, making it difficult to evaluate the robustness of the claims.

Response 12: We added methodological details in Results (page 10, lines 383–395) specifying time frames, measurement instruments, and relevant theoretical frameworks for key statistics.

Reviewer Comment: 13. The 'Discussion' heading is formatted inconsistently, and some references are missing.

Response 13: We corrected formatting and replaced missing or incorrect references with appropriate citations.

Reviewer Comment: 14 The discussion section presents a strong theoretical argument; however, it contradicts the title’s exclusive focus on “youth correctional facilities.” Several of the analyzed facilities do not serve youth populations specifically.

Response 14 : We clarified in Research Design (3.1) that mixed-population sites were included only when their trauma-informed or healing-centred principles were directly relevant to juvenile rehabilitation, and youth data were prioritised.

Reviewer Comment: 15While the authors construct a solid interdisciplinary discussion based on the findings, it appears that some of the case study facilities (e.g., Bastøy Prison) serve adult or mixed populations rather than strictly youth. This raises concerns about the validity of generalizations made under a “youth correctional” framework. Suggestion: Either limit the scope of discussion to youth-specific facilities or revise the title and framing of the manuscript accordingly.

Response 15: To address the concern, we have now added a paragraph ın 3.1. Research Design

While the primary focus was on youth correctional and rehabilitation facilities, a limited number of sites included in the study—such as Bastøy Prison and the Bonython Centre—serve mixed or transitional populations, including young adults [12]. These were included due to their significant application of trauma-informed or heal-ing-centred architectural principles directly relevant to juvenile rehabilitation goals. In such cases, data relating to youth or young adult populations were prioritised in the analysis [36]. page 4 line 166-171

Reviewer Comment: 16. The conclusion fails to adequately address the contextual limitations of the study. Specifically, it does not consider how the diversity of the case study contexts (in terms of national systems, age groups, and cultural infrastructure) affects the generalizability of the results. Given that youth correction is highly context-sensitive, the heterogeneity of the sample poses challenges for broad generalizations. Furthermore, many conclusions are presented as universal despite being drawn from isolated case data without a clear comparative framework.

Response 16: We revised the conclusion (page 16, lines 638–643) to discuss variability in baseline conditions, national systems, and cultural contexts, cautioning against overgeneralisation.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for your research
Sorry, but in my opinion this article is not suitable for this scientific journal
either it is necessary to improve the focus on the direct architectural design of these institutions - present examples, photographs, plans, discuss all this in the results and discussions or try to publicate in journals of social science , because in this state the document will not be particularly interesting for the readers of Buildings journal.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your research
Sorry, but in my opinion this article is not suitable for this scientific journal
either it is necessary to improve the focus on the direct architectural design of these institutions - present examples, photographs, plans, discuss all this in the results and discussions or try to publicate in journals of social science , because in this state the document will not be particularly interesting for the readers of Buildings journal.

We thank the reviewer for their observation and respectfully note that architectural research extends beyond the presentation of floor plans or technical drawings. Contemporary architectural scholarship increasingly integrates interdisciplinary evidence—environmental psychology, spatial behaviour studies, material performance, and sociocultural design impacts—to evaluate how built environments function and influence human well-being. In this manuscript, we approach architecture as both a spatial and experiential discipline, examining how design strategies—such as trauma-informed layouts, biophilic integrations, material choices, and culturally responsive spaces—affect measurable rehabilitation outcomes in youth correctional settings. This architectural lens, supported by empirical findings, reflects a broader understanding of architecture as a synthesis of form, function, and human-centered performance, aligned with the scope and readership of buildings.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article takes adolescent correctional institutions as the research object, and through comparative analysis of 15 international cases, explores the influence of trauma informed and healing architectural design. It points out that traditional institutions emphasize imprisonment control, which can exacerbate trauma, while designs that incorporate pro biological elements, cultural response spaces, etc. can promote adolescent mental health, reduce recidivism rates (60% of facilities have this effect), and sustainable design has both environmental and health benefits. Although there are some issues that need to be corrected, overall it is a very good article.
1. Through the building framework centered on TID and healing, the recidivism benchmark has decreased, which seems to be good evidence for the results of this article. However, the initial situation of different facilities is different, and what impact will it have on the results? However, the recidivism rate benchmark for these facilities before the implementation of TID was not mentioned, and this 60% does not seem to be an accurate boundary between good and bad. The author needs to supplement and explain this aspect.
2. Regarding cultural responsiveness design, the article points out that the indigenous led model can significantly enhance the sense of identity among young people. I have doubts about this. How can indigenous people lead? How to balance the relationship between text specific design and standardized correction objectives?
3. The article mentions ethical issues with technological innovations such as VR simulation and biometric technology, but does not provide a solution to address them
What are the evaluation criteria for the measurable health benefits of sustainable building strategies?
How will the experiment be implemented in underdeveloped areas and will economic development affect this model?
How to solve it economically? Will the economic cost increase. The article only mentions that sustainable design can reduce operating costs, without mentioning initial costs and long-term maintenance costs. This is where I have doubts.
7. The question repeatedly mentions that building facilities have improved mental health and employee well-being, but is this long-term effective? If the environment changes, will there be any changes? Is this short-term or long-term?
How to grasp the weight of the interdependence between architectural design, treatment plan quality, employee culture, and other factors?
9. We know that there is a definition standard for teenagers, which covers a wide range of age groups. Will age differences have a certain impact? Do architectural space designs need to be modified? This type of architectural framework still has a positive feedback on the overall correction of adolescents.

Author Response

Comment 1: Through the building framework centred on TID and healing, the recidivism benchmark has decreased, which seems to be good evidence for the results of this article. However, the initial situation of different facilities is different, and what impact will it have on the results? However, the recidivism rate benchmark for these facilities before the implementation of TID was not mentioned, and this 60% does not seem to be an accurate boundary between good and bad. The author needs to supplement and explain this aspect.

Response 1 : We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point. Page 4 line 144,149

Comment 2: Regarding cultural responsiveness design, the article points out that the indigenous led model can significantly enhance the sense of identity among young people. I have doubts about this. How can indigenous people lead? How to balance the relationship between text specific design and standardized correction objectives?

Response2 : To address the first concern, we have now included a paragraph Page 14 line 521-527

Comment 3: The article mentions ethical issues with technological innovations such as VR simulation and biometric technology, but does not provide a solution to address them. What are the evaluation criteria for the measurable health benefits of sustainable building strategies? How will the experiment be implemented in underdeveloped areas and will economic development affect this model? How to solve it economically? Will the economic cost increase? The article only mentions that sustainable design can reduce operating costs, without mentioning initial costs and long-term maintenance costs. This is where I have doubts.

Response 3: To address the first concern, we have now included a paragraph in the Discussion section (page 7, lines 304-310)

Comment 7: The question repeatedly mentions that building facilities have improved mental health and employee well-being, but is this long-term and effective? If the environment changes, will there be any changes? Is this short-term or long-term? How to grasp the weight of the interdependence between architectural design, treatment plan quality, employee culture, and other factors?

Response 7: To address the first concern, we have now included a paragraph (page 14-15, lines 559–568)

Comment 9: We are aware that there is a standard definition for teenagers, which encompasses a wide range of age groups. Will age differences have a certain impact? Do architectural space designs require modification? This type of architectural framework still has a positive feedback on the overall correction of adolescents.

Response 9: To address the first concern, we have now included a paragraph (page 15, lines 569–577) .

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper proposes a study that aims to answer the question of how a trauma-informed, healing architecture design approach in youth correctional facilities impacts rehabilitation outcomes and successful community reintegration.

In this regard, the authors state that the integration of sustainability into correctional design further strengthens the connection between ecological justice and human dignity.

The issue has an interdisciplinary nature. Nevertheless, the introduction provide a quite sufficient background and include many relevant references.

Instead, the subsection "Key Terminology" introduces some important terminology without any reference to the scientific literature. I suggest that the authors fill this gap precisely because of the interdisciplinary nature of the study, which does not allow for certain scientific references.

The research design is clear. The study employed a comparative case study design to evaluate outcomes across 15 trauma-informed and healing-centred youth correctional facilities.        

However, it is not entirely clear how many samples were studied before choosing the 15, just as the criteria used for their selection are not well explained.

The results are clearly presented.        

The conclusions are extremely brief and should be better argued.

Finally, from a scientific perspective, it would be very important for the authors to state what other activities and research upgrades are planned or would be necessary to make the study even more impactful for the scientific community and civil society.

Author Response

Comment 1: "Key Terminology" introduces some important terminology without any reference to the scientific literature. I suggest that the authors fill this gap precisely because of the interdisciplinary nature of the study, which does not allow for certain scientific references.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important omission. To address this concern, we have now included relevant references to the scientific literature within the “Key Terminology” section to provide stronger academic grounding, especially given the interdisciplinary scope of the study. Specifically:
- Bloom’s Sanctuary Model is now cited as [38] Bloom (2013).
- Biophilic design is now cited as [9] Kellert et al. (2008).
- Indigenous spatial sovereignty is now cited as [14] Kingi (2018) and [15] Yazzie & Zion (2016).

Comment 2 : However, it is not entirely clear how many samples were studied before choosing the 15, just as the criteria used for their selection are not well explained.

Response 2 : We appreciate the reviewer’s request for clarification. To address this concern, we have now included a detailed explanation in the methodology section (page 4, lines 158–165) outlining the sampling process and selection criteria. This paragraph explains the number of facilities initially reviewed, the filtering process applied (including the requirement for publicly available post-occupancy or evaluation data), and the rationale for the final selection of the 15 case studies included in this analysis. This addition enhances transparency and strengthens the methodological robustness of the study.

Comment 3 : The conclusions are extremely brief and should be better argued.

Response 3 : We acknowledge the reviewer’s observation and have substantially expanded the conclusion section (page 16, lines 612–647). The revised conclusion now provides:
- A more thorough synthesis of key findings.
- Reflection on theoretical contributions to environmental psychology, trauma-informed practice, and juvenile justice reform.
- Consideration of contextual limitations that may affect generalisability.
- Clear recommendations for policy, practice, and design interventions.

Comment 4 : From a scientific perspective, it would be very important for the authors to state what other activities and research upgrades are planned or would be necessary to make the study even more impactful for the scientific community and civil society.

Response 4 : We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. To address it, we have included a new paragraph in the conclusion section (page 16, lines 638–643) outlining future research directions. This includes:
- Recommendations for longitudinal and mixed-methods studies.
- The inclusion of physiological and psychological outcome measures.
- Participatory design processes involving incarcerated youth, staff, and community stakeholders.
- Context-specific cost-benefit analyses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
Several improvements have been made in areas such as terminology clarification, citation order, removal of unsupported claims, and restructuring of the introduction. However, aspects of the methodology, comparative analysis, and the alignment between the title and the actual scope of the dataset require further refinement. The “youth correctional” framing would be strengthened by ensuring that all included facilities are consistent with this focus.
In addition, the numbering of subheadings in Section 4 appears inconsistent and should be reviewed for accuracy and coherence.
Sincerely,

Author Response

1 Comment:

“The numbering of subheadings in Section 4 appears inconsistent and should be reviewed for accuracy and coherence.”

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for identifying this formatting issue. The numbering of all subheadings in Section 4 has now been carefully reviewed and corrected to ensure consistency and coherence throughout the manuscript. line number :368

2. Comment: aspects of the methodology, comparative analysis, and the alignment between the title and the actual scope of the dataset require further refinement. The “youth correctional” framing would be strengthened by ensuring that all included facilities are consistent with this focus.

Author Respond:

The revised title has been chosen to reflect the scope and focus of the study clearly. By specifying “young people’s correctional facilities,” the title eliminates any ambiguity about the age group under consideration and distinguishes the research from studies on adult prisons. The terms “trauma-informed” and “healing architecture” highlight the theoretical framework guiding the analysis, while “design, well-being, and reintegration” signal the three key outcome domains explored. This ensures alignment with the journal’s readership by emphasising architecture as a driver of measurable social and psychological outcomes in young people's correctional settings.

Review marked. introduction, results, and conclusion must improve

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In response, we have undertaken a careful revision of the Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion to ensure stronger coherence and alignment throughout the manuscript.

1. Introduction: The section has been reorganised to follow a clear problem–evidence–gap–aim sequence. It begins with the global shift from punitive to rehabilitative youth justice, then outlines the evidence base from environmental psychology, trauma-informed care, and biophilic design. The gap in the literature is clearly identified as the lack of comparative analyses of facilities for young people, in contrast to the adult-focused literature. The aim of the study is now clearly articulated, with conceptual definitions included in Table 1 for clarity.

2. Discussion: The discussion was strengthened to interpret the results through established theoretical frameworks directly. For example, findings on reduced recidivism are linked to small-scale, trauma-informed environments; improvements in mental health are interpreted through stress reduction and sanctuary models; and cultural identity outcomes are tied to Indigenous frameworks. This ensures that the discussion clearly supports the empirical results presented in Section 4.

2. Conclusion: The conclusion was revised to explicitly mirror the main discussion points, namely: the role of small-scale units, cultural safety, trauma-informed spaces, and sustainability. It now expressly demonstrates how the results and discussion converge to answer the research question. In addition, limitations (secondary data, cross-national heterogeneity) and implications for future research are clearly acknowledged, further strengthening the section.

We believe these changes directly address the reviewer’s concern and ensure that the introduction sets up the study appropriately, the discussion fully supports the results, and the conclusion reflects and extends the debate coherently.

Review marked. The table must improve.

The tables are clear,

We have revised all tables (Tables 2–6) and added clear explanatory notes beneath each, ensuring that the results are not only presented but also interpreted, making the findings more transparent.

Table 2. Comparative Facilities

This table shows that different design strategies—such as biophilic features, small-unit layouts, and Indigenous cultural spaces—consistently improve outcomes in rehabilitation, mental health, sustainability, and cultural belonging.

Table 3. Recidivism and Reintegration

This table demonstrates that decentralised, small-unit facilities achieve significantly lower recidivism, higher vocational completion, and stronger family engagement than traditional models.

Table 4. Mental Health and Emotional Well-Being

This table highlights how biophilic and trauma-sensitive design reduces anxiety, PTSD, and behavioural incidents while strengthening cultural responsiveness and emotional stability.

Table 5. Cultural Identity and Community Participation

This table shows that culturally grounded and community-linked facilities foster higher Indigenous engagement, greater program participation, and improved staff retention.

Table 6. Cross-Facility Validation

This table summarises consistent improvements across 14 facilities, confirming that trauma-informed and healing-centred architecture reduces recidivism, lowers behavioural incidents, and increases cultural engagement across diverse contexts.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

sorry, but in the first revision of this manuscript I recommended that this manuscript not be published in this journal and the authors have not made any significant changes to change my opinion.
I believe that this research is beyond the scope of "Buildings" journal and should be published in a more appropriate journal.

Author Response

Comment: I believe that this research is beyond the scope of "Buildings" journal and should be published in a more appropriate journal.

Author Response:
We respectfully thank the reviewer for their comments, but must clarify why we believe the manuscript is both architecturally scoped and suitable for Buildings. While we acknowledge that architectural drawings and plans are one way of presenting architectural research, they are not the only valid method. The present study investigates how specific architectural strategies—such as decentralised layouts, biophilic features, trauma-informed design elements, and cultural spaces—affect the rehabilitation, well-being, and reintegration of young people in correctional environments. The emphasis is on the architectural interventions themselves and their measurable impact, rather than on reproducing building plans.

The tables presented in this study do not replace architectural drawings but instead serve as structured comparative tools that synthesise architectural features, interventions, and outcomes across multiple international facilities. Each table connects physical design strategies to both quantitative outcomes (recidivism, anxiety reduction, energy performance) and qualitative dimensions (cultural identity, emotional safety). This comparative approach is essential in architectural research when assessing how design decisions translate into social, psychological, and environmental performance outcomes.

Furthermore, Buildings has published numerous contributions that do not rely on architectural plans but instead analyse the relationship between design strategies and human outcomes. For example:

Mohammed Abdulla Mohammed, Selecting Key Smart Building Technologies for UAE Prisons by Integrating Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy-TOPSIS. Buildings 2022, 12(12), 2074; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122074

 Tekin et al. (2025) present an analysis of trends and gaps in biophilic design research, systematically reviewing spatial interfaces between humans and nature—highly relevant to your design framing. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15142516

Our manuscript extends this tradition by focusing specifically on young people's correctional facilities, an area that has been underrepresented in the architectural literature. We deliberately excluded adult-only institutions to keep the focus on young people (12–25), where design interventions play a critical role in development, identity formation, and rehabilitation.

For these reasons, we believe the manuscript is within the scope of the readership of Buildings, as it contributes a comparative, youth-focused perspective on how trauma-informed and healing-centred design can create safer, more sustainable, and more rehabilitative environments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The additions are correct and appropriately complete the paper.