Investigating the Integration of Biomimicry and Eco-Materials in Sustainable Interior Design Education

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The title and section 1. Introduction and Literature Review, refer to biomimicry and eco-materials to achieve sustainable interior design. The theme is relevant given the limited discourse on sustainability within interior architecture. The paper presents a study-unit methodology to introduce the theme into architectural education. The methodology is grounded in the principles of biomimicry. While certain aspects of the approach require further clarification, the theoretical framework guiding students from concept development to 3d printing and visualisations of interior architectural applications is valid.

Response 1: We appreciate the acknowledgment of the paper’s relevance in addressing sustainability within the field of interior architecture, an area that remains underexplored. We also recognize the need for further clarification in certain aspects of the proposed methodology. In the revised version, we will elaborate on these elements, particularly by outlining the implementation stages in greater detail and including more concrete examples of student work to enhance clarity and depth.

Comments 2: However, beyond a general discussion of biomaterials' benefits, it remains unclear how these materials are integrated into the study beyond a general discussion on their benefits. The only material explicitly discussed is the one used for 3d printing students' prototypes (described on page 6). It is unclear whether the same material is intended for full-scale proposals, nor how it would achieve the biomimetic objectives outlined, such as heat and moisture management, air filtration, responsive glass, and fluorescence.

As a result, the discussions on eco-friendly materials in section 6. Results, 7. Discussion, and 8. Conclusions are not fully grounded in the study outcomes described in sections 4 and 5. Key areas for improvement include conciseness and focused argumentation in section 1. Introduction and Literature Review, and the structured presentation of case studies in section 5. Examples from Case Studies.

Response 2: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful feedback regarding the integration of eco-friendly materials and biomimetic objectives in our study. Below, we outline the revisions made to address these concerns:

We have clarified in the revised manuscript (see pages 6–10) that all student case studies used 3D-printed prototype models made from a custom filament of shredded plastics and wood fibers, emphasizing sustainability through material upcycling.

We have specified that this recycled filament was used for all prototypes and is proposed for further development in full-scale applications, subject to additional testing.

The Results, Discussion, and Conclusions sections have been updated to directly link the use of this material to the project’s sustainability and basic biomimetic objectives, while also outlining plans for future exploration of more advanced biomimetic functions.

The Introduction and Literature Review have been streamlined for focus, and the case study presentations have been made more structured and explicit regarding material use and learning outcomes.

Comments 3: The paragraph spanning lines 63–67 is ambiguous and potentially irrelevant. Moreover, its reference (14. H. Habuka, Japan’s Approach to AI Regulation and Its Impact on the 2023 G7 Presidency, 2023) does not appear to connect with the paragraph or broader discussion.

Some sentences, including those in lines 174–176, 189–190, and 249–250, seem unnecessary or disconnected from the central argument.

Some terms appear misused and should be reconsidered for accuracy and relevance. These include: “salting” (line 166), “huge” (line 359), “Brazil” (line 429), “packaging” (line 443), and “baccalaureate” (line 448). Several terms require definition or clarification, such as “Breathing Window” (line 37), “facts and figures” (line 56), and both “portfolio apparatus” and “portfolio program” (lines 466 and 472). Recommendations on page 15 should be a separate subsection.

Response 3: Irrelevant paragraph is deleted. We have revised or removed these sentences to ensure that each part of the manuscript directly supports the main objectives and maintains a clear and focused narrative throughout.

Comments 4: Abstract The final sentence should move beyond a generic claim of educational benefits. Instead, it should specify these benefits and how the proposed methodology supports them, effectively summarizing section 8. Conclusion.

Response 4: Abstract revised to be more specific

Comments 5: Introduction and Literature Review The section would benefit from a more concise discussion and a clearer argumentative thread, particularly between lines 23 and 68. The writing improves significantly from line 69 onward. The definition of biomimicry (currently at lines 178–180) should be relocated to the opening paragraph of this section.

Response 5: Thanks for the valued comments.

Its considered.

Comments 6: Biomimicry in Design The text in Figure 1 is difficult to read. It would be more effective if the figure were adapted to focus on aspects directly relevant to the discussion, omitting information that, while interesting, is not tied to the research argument.

Response 6: We have removed Figure 1 to improve clarity and ensure that the focus remains on information directly relevant to the research argument.

Comments 7: Design by Nature The first paragraph should be removed. Its first sentence is overly obvious. The second sentence fits better in Section 4.1.2, and the last belongs in the opening paragraph of Section 1.

The final paragraph of sub-section 3.1. Eco-friendly Materials in Interior Design discusses materials used in the course for student prototypes and is better placed in the subsequent section that describes the course

Response 7: Section 3 “Design by Nature “has been revised, with general information summarized and restructured to improve clarity, coherence, and alignment with the overall research focus.

Comments 8: Materials and Methods The section requires revision for clarity and specificity. A new title that more accurately reflects its contents is also recommended. The first paragraph should provide a textual explanation of the study methodology represented in Figure 4 to ensure reproducibility and clarity. The caption for Figure 4 should read “Study” rather than “Paper”. The section should include a complete description of the Interior Environment course: is it a study unit or a design studio? How long is it? What is the student level (e.g., BSc or MArch) and year?

Response 8: Figure 4 has been replaced with an improved version that includes the previously missing data, ensuring greater clarity and completeness

Comments 9: Section 4.1 (Case Study) outlines the course assignment. Its title should reflect this. Section 4.1.1 (Phase 1: Concept) is essential for understanding the case studies but is currently unclear. It should explain what students were asked to do and define key terms and activities such as: “cell/unit,” “Determine Nature,” “Design Relationship,” “Direct/Indirect,” and the three biomimicry levels (Organism, Behavioural, and Ecosystem). The section should also present the 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design given to students and clarify their familiarity with them. The focus should remain on biomimicry and avoid unnecessary shifts into biophilic design. In the same way, section 4.1.2 (Phase 2: Visualizations) should define important terms and activities such as “Parametric Form selected (Fractal/Voronoi).” The title of section 4.1.3 (Phase 3: 3D printing) should be expanded to indicate it also involves interior design visualization.

Response 9:

• Section 4.1: The title has been revised to “Course Assignment Overview” for clarity.
• Section 4.1.1: We have clarified the assignment instructions, defined all key terms and activities (including “cell/unit,” “Determine Nature,” “Design Relationship,” “Direct/Indirect,” and the three biomimicry levels), and explained how the 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design were presented to students and their prior familiarity. The section now maintains a clear focus on biomimicry.
• Section 4.1.2: Definitions and explanations for terms such as “Parametric Form,” “Fractal,” and “Voronoi” have been added.
• Section 4.1.3: The title now reads “Phase 3: 3D Printing and Interior Design Visualization” to reflect its full scope.

Comments 10: Subheadings should follow the format: 5.1 Example 1, 5.2 Example 2, etc., linking each to the section title for clarity. The lack of structural rigour in presenting each example (case study) results in ambiguity regarding how the investigated biomimetic principles are translated into architectural concepts. It is unclear whether the focus is primarily on visual exploration and geometric abstraction or whether these geometric outcomes are intended to achieve specific architectural functions. Furthermore, whether the proposed concepts are realisable with existing materials or rely on speculative material engineering remains uncertain. An alternative interpretation is that the methodology is intended to be intuitive and exploratory, encouraging open-ended experimentation rather than prescriptive outcomes. The authors should clearly state this intention and frame the results accordingly if this is true. However, even within an exploratory framework, a more precise 2 explanation of how biological inspiration informs design logic, material selection, and intended performance is still essential. Each example (case study) should follow the framework established in Section 4.1 to clarify the connection between the biomimetic reference and the proposed architectural application, particularly the geometry (form), material, and performance. Specifically, the following elements should be clearly articulated for each case: ● The biomimetic principle pursued and its biomimicry level (Organism, Behavioural, or Ecosystem), ● The natural model determined, ● The design relationship (Direct or Indirect), ● The geometry selected (Fractal or Voronoi), ● And the architectural function or goal pursued.

Response 10: We agree that a more systematic approach would strengthen the paper and have implemented the following changes:

Structured Case Study Format: Each case study now follows a consistent framework that explicitly articulates:

•            The biomimetic principle pursued and its level (Organism, Behavioral, or Ecosystem)

•            The specific natural model determined

•            The design relationship (Direct or Indirect)

•            The geometry selected (Fractal or Voronoi)

•            The architectural function or goal pursued

Methodology Approach modified in section 4

Comments 11: 5.1 Example (Case) 1: Mimicking Camel’s Eyes Achieving Shade It is unclear how the camel’s triple-eyelid structure is translated into a viable geometry that manages heat and moisture and/or achieves shade. The material choice is unspecified. 5.2 Example (Case) 2: Mimicking Fungi Based in UAE The example references the Turkey Tail fungus as a biological model and the mycelium root substructure to achieve air filtration. It is unclear whether mycelium is used as the primary material to accomplish this, or is this achieved through geometry inspired by the two fungi. 5.3. Example (Case) 3: Mimicking Moon jellyfish interior design The example aims to use the jellyfish as a model for responsive glass. Yet, the design does not clarify how the jellyfish geometry facilitates reactivity or adaptability in material behaviour. 5.4 Example (Case) 4: Mimicking Sidr tree Achieving Adaptability 4: Sidr Tree and Kinetic Design The text discusses the Sidr tree as an inspiration for graphic design elements (colour, texture, and composition) while the title specifies the link to kinetic architecture. 5.5 Example (Case) 5: Mimicking Gecko Achieving Energy Efficiency The example refers to the fluorescence properties of the gecko as a model for improving energy efficiency. However, the description also includes a discussion of adhesives, which seems unrelated to the stated goal. Recommendations for Improvement The examples (case studies) demonstrate that the proposed methodology can foster creativity and innovation, which are critical for advancing sustainable design. However, for this potential to be fully appreciated, the descriptions must be more rigorous, structured, and aligned with the stated framework. If the intention is to maintain an intuitive and exploratory design process, this should be explicitly stated and supported with reflections on how open-ended inquiry contributes to student learning and broader sustainability discourse. The lack of structural rigour in the description of each example (case study) results in a lack of clarity on how the investigated biomimetic principles are achieved as an architectural concept. Is the focus solely on investigating visual appearance and deriving geometric principles, and how does this geometry achieve the pursued architectural concept? Can the architectural concept be achieved with the existing materials or does it require material engineering speculation?

Response 11: Thank you for your detailed feedback. We have revised Section 5 to ensure each case study follows a structured format, explicitly addressing:

• The biomimetic principle and its level (Organism, Behavioral, or Ecosystem)
• The specific natural model
• The design relationship (Direct or Indirect)
• The geometry selected (Fractal or Voronoi)
• The architectural function or goal
• The material used and its feasibility

We have clarified for each example how biological inspiration informs geometry, material selection, and intended performance, and whether the solution is achievable with current materials or represents a speculative approach. Where the process was more exploratory, this is now explicitly stated, along with reflections on how open-ended inquiry contributed to student learning and sustainability discourse.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The manuscript would benefit from improved English language usage to convey the research more clearly. Key areas for improvement include punctuation, sentence structure, conciseness, focused argumentation, and the structured presentation of case studies. Multiple punctuation errors are present, notably in lines 5, 35, 127, 284, and 390. Several sentences are unclear due to length or construction, particularly those in lines 7–9 and 52–55.

Response 1:    We thoroughly revised the manuscript to address issues related to punctuation, sentence structure, conciseness, and focused argumentation. Special attention was given to the structured presentation of case studies.

5. Additional clarifications

[Here, mention any other clarifications you would like to provide to the journal editor/reviewer.]

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Research Framework: Currently, the manuscript resembles a descriptive report of a course rather than a rigorous academic study. Please clearly articulate your research questions, hypotheses, and methodological framework. Provide details on participant selection, data collection methods, and analytical approaches.

Response 1: The research questions and hypothesis have been clearly stated in the introduction to provide a focused framework for the study.

Additional details have been clearly provided in Section 5, prior to the explanation of the detailed case studies.

Comments 2: Literature Engagement: The literature review, while broad, is not sufficiently critical or integrated. Important references seem to be missing or underutilized. Strengthen the theoretical framing by situating your work within recent debates and studies in design pedagogy, biomimicry, and sustainability. The references cited are not always relevant or well-integrated. The literature review lacks critical engagement with foundational and recent scholarships in the fields of biomimicry, sustainable interior design, and design education. Additionally, there are inconsistencies and errors in citation formatting, and some sources seem only tangentially related to the central themes of the paper. Please ensure a more focused and appropriate use of sources, and address citation quality and consistency.

Response 2: We have revised the literature review to more clearly situate our work within current academic discourse, drawing on both foundational texts and recent studies that directly inform our research focus.

We have also ensured that all cited references are directly relevant to the core themes of the paper and contribute meaningfully to the theoretical framework. Additionally, we have reviewed and corrected citation formatting for accuracy and consistency throughout the manuscript

Comments 3: Structure and Logic: The paper needs clearer structure and internal logic. Transitions between sections are sometimes abrupt, and it is not always clear how the literature and empirical observations connect.

The organization of the manuscript is inconsistent, especially in the middle sections (e.g., 'Biomimicry in Design', 'Design by Nature') where general trends and theoretical summaries are abruptly followed by practical course descriptions. This results in a lack of clarity regarding the purpose of each section—whether they are meant to review literature, describe methodology, or analyze outcomes. Figures 1 and 2, while informative, are taken from external sources and do not depict original research stages or findings. Figure 4, titled 'Paper methodology,' lacks scientific precision and should be improved to reflect clearly defined research stages, tools used, and the role of student feedback or evaluation in the analysis.

Response 3: In response, we have revised the manuscript to improve the overall coherence and flow. Transitions between sections have been clarified to ensure smoother progression of ideas, and we have strengthened the connections between the literature review and the empirical findings. These changes aim to create a more logically structured narrative that clearly demonstrates how theoretical insights inform and support the study’s observations and outcomes.

Section 3 “Design by Nature “has been revised, with general information summarized and restructured to improve clarity, coherence, and alignment with the overall research focus.

Figure 1 is deleted, and figure 4 has been replaced with an improved version that includes the previously missing data, ensuring greater clarity and completeness

Comments 4:   Empirical Results: The results section should be expanded with more specific findings from the student work. Currently, it lacks depth and methodological transparency. How were these five projects chosen? What criteria were used for evaluation? The results section should be expanded with more specific findings from the student work. Currently, it lacks depth and methodological transparency. The description of the course lacks crucial details such as the academic level of the students (e.g., undergraduate or postgraduate), the number of tutors or teaching staff involved, the time frame of the course, and the specific program or department at the University of Sharjah. These contextual elements are necessary to evaluate the pedagogical setting and the reproducibility of the teaching approach.

In addition, the method of selecting the five student projects for analysis is not explained. On what basis were they chosen—quality, representativeness, thematic diversity? Without defined selection criteria or a rationale, the representativeness of the case studies remains unclear.

Response 4: More details about the criteria of selection are added ( section 4.2) . The evaluation, and more information about the students, course and the program added.( section 5 ).

Comments 5: Visual and Ethical Elements: Ensure all visuals support the argument and illustrate unique contributions. Please confirm ethical considerations are addressed, especially regarding student contributions and data. Please ensure all visuals support the argument and illustrate unique contributions. Additionally, please clarify whether proper ethical approval and informed consent were obtained for including student work. It is also important to address issues of authorship—if the students generated substantial creative or intellectual content, they should be acknowledged as co-authors or explicitly credited in the text.

Response 5: Informed Consent Statement is added

“All student participants were informed that their design work and participation in this study could be used for academic publication. Verbal consent was obtained prior to the inclusion of their work, and participation was entirely voluntary. No personally identifiable information is published.

Comments 6: Language and Editing: The manuscript would benefit from professional proofreading. Multiple editorial and grammatical issues affect clarity and precision. The manuscript would benefit from professional proofreading. Multiple editorial and grammatical issues affect clarity and precision. Specific examples include punctuation and citation formatting errors such as: "[2].." (double period), "[8]." (double space), "justified. [13]" (incorrect period placement), and "standpoint. men[25], [26]It allows" (ungrammatical and unclear construction). These instances indicate a need for thorough language editing and a careful review of reference formatting. The manuscript would benefit from professional proofreading. Multiple editorial and grammatical issues affect clarity and precision. Specific examples include:

•           "[2].." – use of a double period

•           "[8]." – inappropriate double space before the citation

•           "justified. [13]" – incorrect period placement before the bracket

•           "standpoint. men[25], [26]It allows" – unclear and grammatically incorrect phrasing

•           "students’ designs in the same scope will be discussed thoroughly referring to current practices" – unclear, awkwardly structured sentence

•           inconsistent formatting in tables and figure captions (e.g. “Figure 3. (A) Shredder (B) Dryer…” has uneven capitalization and lacks clarity)

•           inconsistent capitalization and punctuation in section headings (e.g. “Design by nature” vs “Biomimicry in Design”)

Response 6: Thank you for highlighting the language and editing concerns. We have undertaken thorough professional proofreading of the manuscript to address editorial and grammatical issues affecting clarity and precision. Specific errors related to punctuation, citation formatting, and sentence construction have been carefully corrected to improve the overall quality and readability of the paper.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The manuscript contains numerous issues in grammar, punctuation, and syntax that hinder comprehension. Several sentences are awkwardly structured, and some transitions are unclear. Specific problems include inconsistent punctuation in references (e.g., "[2]..", "[8]."), misplaced punctuation ("justified. [13]"), and confusing phrasings ("standpoint. men[25], [26]It allows"). Additionally, section titles vary in capitalization and formatting (e.g., "Design by nature" vs. "Biomimicry in Design"). These errors affect the overall clarity and professionalism of the article. Careful proofreading by a native English speaker or professional editor is strongly recommended.

Response 1:   Thank you for your detailed feedback regarding grammar, punctuation, syntax, and formatting issues. We thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and addressed the awkward sentence structures and unclear transitions.

5. Additional clarifications

[Here, mention any other clarifications you would like to provide to the journal editor/reviewer.]

1. Summary

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We've incorporated your feedback, and you'll find our detailed responses below, with all corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted file

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Multiple punctuation errors remain, notably in lines 450, 451, and 482

Response 1: we've addressed all your comments.

Comment 2 : Several sentences are unclear due to their length or structure, especially those in lines 277–280

Response 2: These sentences have been revised to improve their language