Biophilia and Adolescents’ Sense of Place in Australian Vertical Schools

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REVIEW

The text addresses a relevant and widely discussed topic: the impact of biophilic design in schools and its contribution to students' place experiences. Initially developing the concept of Biophilia, its approaches in the field of architecture and more precisely in school design, the manuscript then looks at its relationship with the place theory and the understanding of adolescent place relationships. The research question “How do adolescent students experience a sense of place in Australian vertical schools?” was investigated through the analysis of two case studies (two Australian vertical schools) employing the photovoice method for data collection. Thirteen students took part in five workshops where they created and shared photo essays to detail personal reflections on their school as place and the meaning associated with it. 

The topic is pertinent. The Biophilic approach not only enhances well-being and enriches the values and meanings of a place but also significantly mitigates the effects of climate change. When applied in school settings, it can contribute to greater environmental literacy.

In my opinion, the paper should be published. Changes are suggested to better explain some topics.

 

Research Question:

It seems to me that the research question (How do adolescent students experience a sense of place in Australian vertical schools?) is too broad for the focus of the study. The title and contents of the paper are orientated towards the dimension of biophilic design in schools and its contribution to the values and meanings of the school space as read from the students' perspective. I suggest that the focus on the Biophilic approach is made explicit in the research question.

In addition, the abstract mentions that the article “provided insights into students’ place experiences, the values they associate with their school as place, and the types of relationships that exist between students and their school’s physical attributes”. Once again, the study mentions these points but focuses on the biophilic-design perspective, without addressing other dimensions for the proposed analysis.

 

Biophilic design:

The theoretical component of the article is well-supported by leading authors in the field (Fromm, Kellert, Browning & Ryan, Dovey among others), enhancing the study's rigor. However, the interpretation of the term Biophilic design in the article and how this concept is read in the two case studies (schools) is unclear and even seems a little reductive to me. In my opinion, this has to do with two points that could be clarified in the article:

1.     in the chapters presenting the results of the implementation of the methodology in the schools, (from chapter “Biophilia and adolescents’ sense of place in vertical schools” onwards) the term biophilic design is often associated with "green", "gardens adjacent to their school" or "plants". The literature review tells us that this concept goes beyond the placement of green elements in the built environment, acquiring a more comprehensive interpretation (creation of integrated ecological settings, nature experiences across diverse environments, strengthening human-nature relations, minimizing environmental impacts). 

2.     There is no description of the schools under study in relation to the Biophilic design approach. And why the design of these schools is considered to follow the principles of Biophilic design. The lack of this information somewhat compromises the reading of the results, which is sometimes a little simplistic. Including images with school plans and areal views also allowed a better understanding of how the concepts of Biophilic design were incorporated.

 

Structure (format issues):

The text is easy to follow and its structure is coherent. However, the lack of clear hierarchy between chapters and sub-chapters can sometimes make it difficult to read. Clarifying this issue is recommended.

 

Conclusions:

The conclusions could be expanded to include: 1) a deeper reflection on the implementation of the methodology, including an extended study universe, constraints and benefits of its application, complementary methodological approaches; 2) a critical analysis of the biophilic design approach in the case studies, highlighting the lessons learned from these analyses.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see atached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This piece reports a phenomenological study of youth experiences relative to biophilic elements in two urban Australian schools. The work makes an interesting and potentially important contribution to our understanding of the psychological experience of urban academic settings that lack the space and surrounding vegetation of suburban schools. This was a well written and enjoyable piece to read given the unique combination of theories and the emphasis on the youth voice.

My questions and concerns relate to theoretical framing, methods and presentation of results; however, I should share my position as a mixed-methodologist in the social sciences who does not have personal experience in phenomenology. If my advice is contradictory to reviewers/editors with more experience in this domain, I would defer to their insights.

Abstract: The abstract is heavy on theory but light on results and implications of the study.

Literature Review

Overall, there are too many theories presented for one small-scale study. ‘Biophilic place relationships’ seems to be the phenomenon at the heart of the study. However, there are in-depth discussions of identity formation, becoming, and place assemblage as complex adaptive system.  Figure 1 seems to be the theoretical framing of the analysis, but is under-described with new terms that have not been unpacked in the narrative. If this is the a priori framework used in analysis, I suggest building the literature review around this Figure. However, this figure does not marry biophilic place relationships with ideas of becoming, so the reader easily becomes lost in the phenomenon under examination. Further, we are told in methods that a case study school was excluded because it did not illuminate biophilic place relationships, which signals that this construct is important enough to be a criterion for case selection. The data seems better suited to biophilic place relationships, and less convincing in the areas of becoming and identify formation. I suggest streamlining and minimizing the literature review while continually connecting review themes to the topic of your investigation. I can appreciate the challenge of narrowing a dissertation down to the size of an article. Some of the items that are cut here would be rich directions for a separate manuscript.

Methods

The convoluted theories are followed by a thin methods section that blurs the line between literature review and methods.  I suggest keeping the theoretical framework in its own section and then refer to it in the context of analysis (if appropriate). Conversely, you could pull this theory down into a discussion section (missing?) if it emerged from the analysis.

The research question (line 303) appears too broad and contributes to reader confusion about the phenomenon that bounded this study. Is this about sense of place broadly or biophilic place relationships? Were ideas around identity and becoming a question at the beginning of the investigation or emergent research questions?

Please tell us more about your schools. For an international audience, it will be helpful to know what “prep” (line 314) means and what ages relate to the years in the Australian school system. Are these public schools? Do they have guiding educational philosophies that relate to sustainability or nature (or not?) What are the school populations/demographics? Who were your participants (gender, age, grade, etc)? Did participants self-select and did Photovoice occur as an extracurricular activity or within formal instruction? Overall, please help us understand better what voices you heard and maybe which ones are missing (e.g., it can be hard to recruit student athletes into afterschool projects).

The Photovoice method is an appropriate and compelling approach. Please share more about how the workshops ran and what values/ideas may have been introduced to students in the sessions. What was the exact wording of the prompt/assignment students were given? This is essential to understanding their photos later. Also, for “visual essays,” did students do any companion writings with their photographs? It may help to share snapshots of your raw data to help the reader understand an exemplar visual essay (in include in supplemental materials). Please also help us understand the role of photographs in the process. Were they used in the focus group setting to catalyze conversation? Were they analyzed by the researcher?

A description of data analysis seems to be completely missing. How did the researcher prepare and analyze the data? Was it a manual or digital process? Was it a grounded analysis open to emergent themes? Was there a guiding framework? Did the researcher holistically analyze transcripts, photos, and student writings? Were there researcher memos and observations? Was member checking (line 350) done formally resulting in additional transcripts for analysis? Please also share the approaches to research validity appropriate to phenomenological research.

The photos and quotes are difficult to interpret without knowing what questions students were asked (the photovoice prompt and the focus group questions, which could be attached as supplemental information). The focus group as data collection seems a bit problematic in this study given the likelihood that students in this age group may tend to latch on and repeat ideas from peers. There was a lot of agreement and a few instances of disagreement. How did the researcher ensure that students were comfortable sharing and disagreeing in front of each other and that the sessions were not dominated by a few strong opinions?

No study limitations are shared in the manuscript.

Results

The student photographs are an excellent and helpful addition to this section. They bring this unusual typology – the vertical school – to life for the reader.

The results are redundant in places. Sometimes the same point is made on different pages, other times the same student quote is used more than once.

The student quotes are chopped into phrases in reporting and the missing portions are paraphrased by the researcher. This is a bit problematic because the reader does not see the full quote by the participant to understand that the data matches the researcher interpretation. For example, the researcher interprets students as expressing that the building had power over them, but this was not always clear in the quotations provided. In phenomenological reporting, I would expect to see long, rich participant quotations and perhaps dialog between participants in the focus group setting. Evidence for student “identity” and “becoming” in connection to the biophilic elements was thin. Place theory did not come through strongly in the presentation of results.

Discussion/Conclusion

I did not see a discussion section that weaves the findings of this study back into relevant literature.

A more robust conclusion with clearer implications is needed.

Minor

Is this a journal article or chapter? I was wondering if the word “chapter” was appropriate here.

Introduction: The introduction is well-written and builds the argument nicely. The paragraphs starting on line 72 broaden the argument back out to “sense of place” instead of tightening the focus. I suggest reviewing the flow of the introduction to present ideas broad to specific, leading to the lens for the current study.

The bullet point list that starts on line 144 would benefit from a little more context for the studies (e.g., location, age group) so that we understand how/if this precedent work relates to your study context. You might want to check out Beth McGee’s work on Biophilic Design. Her early work addressed youth environments.

Check spaces between headings in some places (e.g., line 81)

Please define “manufactured parts” phrasing used in the results section

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf