Promoting Mental Health Through Campus Landscape Design: Insights from New Zealand Universities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I absolutely love the idea of this article and want you to push forward with it, but wasn't compelled by the supporting data and research.

- 66 participants is not a large number, especially when that averages out to only 22 per campus. What are the demographics of these people? How many are students? How many staff? Are they undergrads? Grad students? Major? Race? Nationality? I'd like to know more about the population you interviewed, even if it's just shown in a table. You also mention "medical professionals" as one of the groups of people that were interviewed, but there is no further mention of them in the text. Another thing I noticed is that you say that you had further in depth walking interviews with the people who consented after the mind mapping exercise - how many people was that?

- You make several conclusions about the need for staff-specific spaces on campus but you also say how difficult it was to find any staff to talk to. How many did you interview? And can you really draw such broad conclusions based on such a small number of interviews? Alternatively, why do you feel it's necessary to design staff specific spaces rather than improve the design of the "activity centers" so they're more inclusive to a larger variety of students and staff?

- You talk about the different activities that take place outdoors and include passive activities and sports and short walks from one place to another, but I don't see anything about "walks through campus" either as a form of exercise, walking meetings, or simply as a non-passive outdoor activity. Did no one mention that they like to take walks during breaks?

- You list two questions that you asked after the mind mapping interviews, but you never go into the results of those questions. Can you make any generalizations based specifically on the answers people gave you to the questions? There are a lot of quotes to support your conclusions, but you need to also balance that out with some quantitative data/results. It's easy to draw conclusions based on what one person says, but, for example, how many people actually talked about the proximity of the green space to their building? Was it 2 of the 66? Roughly half? Your arguments are supported by the literature review, but I want to hear more about how your particular data supports the literature.

- I'd avoid subjective terms such as the "beloved" Leith river. 

- Furthermore, a significant number of university staff are absent from campus relaxation spaces simply because they are too busy to even pause and relax during lunchtime. 343 However, they could still benefit from spending brief moments looking outside of the 344 window, which they characterised as ‘micro-breaks’.  Can you really make the conclusion that the reason university staff are absent from the spaces is because they're too busy to pause? Maybe they take breaks at a different time than during lunch; maybe they're not in the communal spaces because they're avoiding students. It's a pretty sweeping conclusion without any supporting evidence. And what do you mean about them benefiting by taking breaks by looking outside the window? Did they tell you they're doing that? This whole section about staff is pretty weak and unsupported by any data.

Overall, I think this is a solid start to an interesting observation about the need to consider outdoor biophillic spaces when planning campuses. However, it needs more solid evidence from the case studies to back it up.

Author Response

Please see the attached response to comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the manuscript submitted to Architecture! I find your research idea interesting, as it provides insights into the potential for university campus areas to offer relaxing moments. The main finding suggests that micro, short-term, and long-term breaks can be organized differently within university campus areas. The study primarily illustrates students’ opinions on relaxation spaces, as staff members did not actively participate in the research. The motivation for staff members appeared to be nearly the opposite of that of the students; they preferred not to meet students when seeking relaxation. At the end of the paper, you make general points about the study findings by referring to “participants.” However, it is unclear whether this category includes both students and staff members. One way to streamline the manuscript would be to focus solely on the data from students and consider developing a separate paper for the staff members’ data, should more cases be gathered in the future.

 

Specific Comments

Lines 19-21: Please delete, as staff members were not properly interviewed.

Lines 27-83: The introduction is somewhat old-fashioned and not the best way to introduce the paper. For instance, the results of the study do not clearly support the idea of universities being “anxiety machines.” Moreover, you could take into account the consequences of COVID-19 for teaching: meetings and classes can now be organized online. One could ask how distance work influences the mental health of students and staff members. Distance work outside of the campus can be more enjoyable for some staff members.

Lines 61-63: The list of universities resembles those from the countries of the former British Empire; can you find more universities?

Line 112: “the perspective of a trained landscape architect” - whose perspective is this?

Lines 116-118: Please add information about the data. How many interviews were conducted? How many minutes of recordings were there? Were the interviews transcribed? How did you analyze your transcripts? How many pages of text did you have? How were the mental maps/drawings analyzed? What was the rationale for selecting certain drawings for the article? Who was responsible for what?

Lines 116-118: I am wondering whether you obtained the participants’ informed consent, including their permission to publish their drawings. What about the individuals in the photos? Do you have their consent?

Lines 116-118: Please add some descriptive details about the participants (n=66, age, gender, percentage of students/staff members from different universities).

Suggestion: Perhaps you can add a section on “Analysis.” How was your analysis conducted?

Line 131: “the researcher” - who is this?

Line 144: Please briefly introduce your results before proceeding to section 3.1.

Line 147-: “Participant UA23” - I am not sure how your ID codes should be treated. Instead of the codes, simply state: “Student from the University of Otago.”

Line 172: This is your first extract and gives some indication of what to expect. Here, “moving through spaces” is what makes the student feel relaxed. By contrast, your abstract points out that ‘enjoying nature’ is the most preferred relaxation activity, not moving. Perhaps you could start this section with your strongest case showing how ‘enjoying nature’ is the most preferred activity.

Lines 191-194: This is quite an exceptional event occurring on the campus. Perhaps you could start with a more common event (such as playing sports).

Line 198: “the researcher” - who is this? Is it the same as in line 131?

Lines 317-319: Move these lines to the section on “Analysis.”

Lines 316-345: This section is short and could be deleted as suggested above.

Line 463: “Support” (correct the spelling).

 

Author Response

Please see the attached response to comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, I find this study too basic to be considered for publication in a scientific journal. While it includes some interesting elements, the depth of the discussion is insufficient, and building a paper around just two questions does not reflect an in-depth inquiry. Methodologically, it shows potential, but the reporting is insufficient—it requires greater detail, improved analysis of results, better illustration of response categorization, and a more comprehensive presentation of the findings from the mental mapping exercises. This research certainly has value, but it needs significant revisions to reach publication standards. At present, it is a superficial manuscript, which makes it challenging to evaluate. The effort and capability of the authors are evident, but they have not made strong decisions in how they present their findings.

Author Response

No constructive suggestion to address.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the revised version of your article; it is an improvement over the previous draft. The argument is now stronger, and the contribution to the field is easier to grasp. There are a few details that need your attention, but overall, the article is looking good.

I also have a suggestion for enhancing your academic communication skills, which may be beneficial as part of your PhD training.

Wishing you all the best in your studies!

 

Comments

In your cover sheet, consider starting with a thank you to the reviewers, rather than directly stating, "Disagree as explained in response to reviewer 1." It would be more effective to present your arguments without assuming that the journal will share your responses to all reviewers, which did not happen in this case. As a result, I am unclear about your explanation.

In your abstract, you emphasize the importance of biophilic design principles, yet these principles are not discussed until page 17. For a coherent structure, they should be outlined in the Introduction section at the outset.

Additionally, Tables 1 and 2 contain the same information. Please delete Table 1.

Regarding line 278, are there words missing? It currently reads, “While There are…”

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and for taking the time to review our revised manuscript. We appreciate your insights, which have helped strengthen our argument and improve the clarity of our contribution.

Regarding the point in question, we have provided a detailed explanation in the response below.

As an early-career researcher, I sincerely appreciate your suggestions and constructive feedback on how to respond in a more professional and collegial manner. Your guidance has been invaluable, and I am grateful for it.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Best regards,
Yuqing

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf