The 15-MinuteCampus: Exploring the Potential Impacts on Biodiversity, Health and Wellbeing of Co-Creating 15-Minute City Design Principles on University Campuses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments on the manuscript;

The Idea of the manuscript is interesting: “15-Minute-Campus: Exploring the Potential Impacts on Biodiversity

, Health and Wellbeing of Co-creating 15-Minute-City  Design Principles on University Campuses.”

It's crucial to make research encourage health and well-being in the design process, and extract strategies for designers, stakeholders, and users to use. There is inconsistency in the content of research, confusing readers with many things, but only a number of them are used; for example,  the 15-Minute City concept has four main cornerstones (proximity, diversity, density, and digitalisation). But the author used in this way  (Ecology: for a green and sustainable city; Proximity: to live with reduced distances to other activities; Solidarity: to create links between people;  and Participation: to engage citizens in the transformation of their neighbourhoods), line 53-54.

The author should make clear to the reader, if there are several references used by other authors, each of them used and extracted according to the aim of the research used and arranged, and the author should show why and how they obtained these parameters. A diagram is needed to clarify the concept.

There is consistency between the abstract and conclusion, but in the Introduction, the material and methods, results and discussion say many things that confuse the reader.

The concept of the 15-minute city gives the idea of active travel, which is extracted from active design theory. This theory created a number of strategies accepted by LEED (Fitwell) and BREAM (Sport England). They added to their checklist, to create a healthy lifestyle for residents to walk 15 minutes to their needs to be healthy and have good well-being. But the content of the research paper on the 15-minute campus gives the idea of active students; an active community by encouraging them through activities to get active travel rather 15-minute walk to their service and need. And the author mentioned in lines 33-38.

As I read the title, I assumed the author would illustrate strategies for creating an urban morphology of campus layout, design, land use, and street connectivity that would result in a 15-minute university campus, offering numerous possibilities for a 15-minute walk. Instead, it's about how you motivate students to be active, emphasising the importance of student activities.

 

Specific Comments on the Manuscript;

• Abstract: There is no result line 26-28; add result and conclusion
• Introduction section: in the structure of the introduction, the author should explain clearly what is 15-minute city the main focus is on active travel (which they did); then the need for a university campus for this idea; in the end gap; aim and purpose. (Here literature review is combined with the introduction; they can add a section for literature review in the title. “Need for 15-minute university campus” mentions how this is important to university users, mentioning the advantage, as there are many studies that give importance to biodiversity, health and well-being of students on campus.
• Lines 47; Figure 1. There are five main features of the 15-minute city of Paris, and each one mentions active travel. It is unclear what the main goal of this study will be.
• Line 49-57; in the end, the author mentioned “This research enacts the principles, including the often-overlooked principles of solidarity and participation”. Although the author only uses three principles, the title conveys the idea of how to apply a regenerative strategy to move from a 15-minute city to a 15-minute campus. The author should choose which parameters and which direction to concentrate on in order to achieve outcomes. All four principles, however, are stated in lines 110–111. reader who is confused. Rewrite and correct.
• Line 75-84 ; here the author explain clearly what 15-minute university campus mean if transfer the idea in contrast to line 54-55; here talk about four principles and inclusive design (which is another key words - author one time talk about 15 minute city model; then active travel; and inclusive campus how relate these confusing reader dont know what to do). The author should explain and write in this way (by applying 15-minute city model to university campus will achieve may things for example active travel “line 116”; inclusive design; sustainability; biophilic design; sustaianbility; well-being; biodiversity and health, by one model you get many advantages).
• Lines 119-120 tell other things.
• Lines 122-124, the author explains 8 principles of regenerative; but the author used three principles (story of place, shared future metaphor, backwards mapping). To transfer the 15-minute city model to a 15-minute university campus. Why just these three?
• Line 128-131, this speech is inverse to line 55-57

The author should rearrange the introduction's structure. When we consider the concept of a 15-minute campus, the first things that come to mind are layout, land use, proximity, and the metaphorical shape of campus planning and urban design; however, in this case, they only concentrate on the necessity of the campus, the designer's storytelling, and the impact on users. In order to demonstrate how the author establishes the correlation between the 15-minute city model and the campus, a diagram is required.

• Materials and Methods
• Line 168, here the author should add a research design diagram (representing how you extracted these ideas into one) and use regenerative principles.
• Lines 178-198, here, the method and application that are used to create a new idea are interesting. If this workshop design process were included would be much stronger rather than a solution idea separately, not whole.
• At line 199, the author should add a diagram comparing between 15-minute city model to the 15-minute university campus through the three principles of regenerative.
• Result section: The author, on line 273, through the process of the workshop, generated a set of ideas, but each of them works separately, not as a whole. Most of them focus on land use programs and activities that need to be implemented, and encourage students to be active. Here, the author should explain about impact of biodiversity and how health and well-being can be achieved. For example:
• Line 277; here, just three principles of regenerative are used to get these ideas through workshops the outcomes are categorised into five key aspects, rather than the eight principles of regenerative. How can the model of the 15-minute city be transferred to the 15-minute campus model “comparison”
• Line 282-303; is this control the proximity to the 15-minute university campus? Here, just explain about activities, and the main road should be pedestrianised. What about proximity? Here is mostly about land use.

The result should represent the aim of the study and title “15-Minute-Campus: Exploring the Potential Impacts on Biodiversity, Health and Wellbeing of Co-creating 15-Minute-City  Design Principles on University Campuses” how the well-being and health will be achieved by transforming the 15-minute city model to a 15-minute university campus model.

For example, One of the main elements influencing students' health and well-being, for instance, is walking. The main notion is that 15 minute university campus, and some services will be far from the students' dorms. We suppose that the library is 30 minutes away. This is the idea; as a designer, how will this problem be resolved in the workshop? One of the solutions is the "E-scooter" station on campus, which is located close to the main library and the dorms. It takes 15 minutes to walk there and is free for students, who can use it for five minutes. Here during using “E-scooter” to library, they can enjoy the biodiversity of nature, which makes them feel happy and excited and has a new effect on their psychology by encouraging them to be active.

• Analysis and Discussion section: Impacts on Biodiversity, Health, and Well-being

      Here, a diagram is needed to identify the correlation between outcomes and biodiversity, health and well-being parameters. It can be called the 15-minute university campus model to achieve Biodiversity, Health, and Well-being; all key factors should be identified.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is good, but the structure of the writing paragraph sequences should be improved, as many terms in one paragraph can confuse the reader, and the reader does not know where to go. For example, in one paragraph, say research participatory design approach (line 140), inclusive approach (line 148), regenerative approach (line 162), regenerative principles, the author could mention in this way: a regenerative approach applied, composed of eight principles, through a workshop the participantoray designed in this way...........etc. control many terminologies in a consistent sequence, all on the as approach which approach?

Author Response

Responses to review 1:

Thankyou for your very useful comments. Our responses and additionas are outlined in red below your comments.

The Idea of the manuscript is interesting: “15-Minute-Campus: Exploring the Potential Impacts on Biodiversity, Health and Wellbeing of Co-creating 15-Minute-City  Design Principles on University Campuses.”

It's crucial to make research encourage health and well-being in the design process, and extract strategies for designers, stakeholders, and users to use. There is inconsistency in the content of research, confusing readers with many things, but only a number of them are used; for example,  the 15-Minute City concept has four main cornerstones (proximity, diversity, density, and digitalisation). But the author used in this way  (Ecology: for a green and sustainable city; Proximity: to live with reduced distances to other activities; Solidarity: to create links between people;  and Participation: to engage citizens in the transformation of their neighbourhoods), line 53-54.

We refer directly to Carlos Moreno’s 4 guiding principles for the 15 minute city as outlined in the texts referred to. It is a bit of a slippery concept and we have tried to clarify this in our literature review 131-145

The author should make clear to the reader, if there are several references used by other authors, each of them used and extracted according to the aim of the research used and arranged, and the author should show why and how they obtained these parameters. A diagram is needed to clarify the concept.

We have added a diagram to explain see fig 1 line 208

There is consistency between the abstract and conclusion, but in the Introduction, the material and methods, results and discussion say many things that confuse the reader.

We have aligned the language to better cohere between sections throughout.

The concept of the 15-minute city gives the idea of active travel, which is extracted from active design theory. This theory created a number of strategies accepted by LEED (Fitwell) and BREAM (Sport England). They added to their checklist, to create a healthy lifestyle for residents to walk 15 minutes to their needs to be healthy and have good well-being. But the content of the research paper on the 15-minute campus gives the idea of active students; an active community by encouraging them through activities to get active travel rather 15-minute walk to their service and need. And the author mentioned in lines 33-38.

We have very much worked with the broad principles of the 15 minute city as outlined by Moreno and the C40 cities network. We are not solely focussed on active travel but rather take on the broader principles of the approach. The concept was used as creative prompts for co-creators to re-design the campus from. Since it was a co-creative process, inspired by a broad interpretation of the 15 minute campus project – we agree that the proposals have gone beyond a focus on residents walking 15 minutes to their needs, as this is no longer the sole focus of the 15 minute city movement. We hope that the literature review also helps to emphasise this angle.

As I read the title, I assumed the author would illustrate strategies for creating an urban morphology of campus layout, design, land use, and street connectivity that would result in a 15-minute university campus, offering numerous possibilities for a 15-minute walk. Instead, it's about how you motivate students to be active, emphasising the importance of student activities.

You are right it is about engaging with a much broader understanding of the 15-minute-city – very much as discussed by Moreno in our starting text. Because the research was undertaken as a co-creative design process, co-creators were free to really respond to the agendas raised by the 15 minute city and regenerative principles prompts in whatever ways they wanted. Hopefully this is clearer in the text now.

Specific Comments on the Manuscript;

• Abstract: There is no result line 26-28; add result and conclusion done - see
• Introduction section: in the structure of the introduction, the author should explain clearly what is 15-minute city the main focus is on active travel (which they did); then the need for a university campus for this idea; in the end gap; aim and purpose. (Here literature review is combined with the introduction; they can add a section for literature review in the title. “Need for 15-minute university campus” mentions how this is important to university users, mentioning the advantage, as there are many studies that give importance to biodiversity, health and well-being of students on campus. Added 28-32
• Lines 47; Figure 1. There are five main features of the 15-minute city of Paris, and each one mentions active travel. It is unclear what the main goal of this study will be. We deleted this image as it is confusing.
• Line 49-57; in the end, the author mentioned “This research enacts the principles, including the often-overlooked principles of solidarity and participation”. Although the author only uses three principles, the title conveys the idea of how to apply a regenerative strategy to move from a 15-minute city to a 15-minute campus. The author should choose which parameters and which direction to concentrate on in order to achieve outcomes. All four principles, however, are stated in lines 110–111. reader who is confused. Rewrite and correct. Done – hopefully the focus on the 4 principles and how these differ to others is clearer now. 131-145
• Line 75-84 ; here the author explain clearly what 15-minute university campus mean if transfer the idea in contrast to line 54-55; here talk about four principles and inclusive design (which is another key words - author one time talk about 15 minute city model; then active travel; and inclusive campus how relate these confusing reader dont know what to do). The author should explain and write in this way (by applying 15-minute city model to university campus will achieve may things for example active travel “line 116”; inclusive design; sustainability; biophilic design; sustaianbility; well-being; biodiversity and health, by one model you get many advantages). Added from line 579-601
• Lines 119-120 tell other things. This has been expanded in the literature review. 131-145
• Lines 122-124, the author explains 8 principles of regenerative; but the author used three principles (story of place, shared future metaphor, backwards mapping). To transfer the 15-minute city model to a 15-minute university campus. Why just these three? Added a diagram and an explanation of why these three – figure 1 and line 243-245
• Line 128-131, this speech is inverse to line 55-57 this has been reframed

The author should rearrange the introduction's structure. When we consider the concept of a 15-minute campus, the first things that come to mind are layout, land use, proximity, and the metaphorical shape of campus planning and urban design; however, in this case, they only concentrate on the necessity of the campus, the designer's storytelling, and the impact on users. In order to demonstrate how the author establishes the correlation between the 15-minute city model and the campus, a diagram is required. We have restructured the introduction as per this suggested structure and added explanatory diagrams and a literature review section.

• Materials and Methods
• Line 168, here the author should add a research design diagram (representing how you extracted these ideas into one) and use regenerative principles. Added see fig 1.
• Lines 178-198, here, the method and application that are used to create a new idea are interesting. If this workshop design process were included would be much stronger rather than a solution idea separately, not whole. Added a diagram see fig 4
• At line 199, the author should add a diagram comparing between 15-minute city model to the 15-minute university campus through the three principles of regenerative. We hope that this is dealt with through the additional literature framing the 15 minute city literature evolution, and ind diagram 1
• Result section: The author, on line 273, through the process of the workshop, generated a set of ideas, but each of them works separately, not as a whole. Most of them focus on land use programs and activities that need to be implemented, and encourage students to be active. Here, the author should explain about impact of biodiversity and how health and well-being can be achieved. For example: We have added text to each of the sections to further clarify and added a diagram figure 10.
• Line 277; here, just three principles of regenerative are used to get these ideas through workshops the outcomes are categorised into five key aspects, rather than the eight principles of regenerative. How can the model of the 15-minute city be transferred to the 15-minute campus model “comparison”. We hope that the additional diagrams have clarified this.
• Line 282-303; is this control the proximity to the 15-minute university campus? Here, just explain about activities, and the main road should be pedestrianised. What about proximity? Here is mostly about land use. The results are a summary of the design ideas which emerged through the co-creative process (proximity seemed to be of less interest to co-creators) – we have attempted to relate these back to the four 15-minute-city principles in a table see figure 10.

The result should represent the aim of the study and title “15-Minute-Campus: Exploring the Potential Impacts on Biodiversity, Health and Wellbeing of Co-creating 15-Minute-City  Design Principles on University Campuses” how the well-being and health will be achieved by transforming the 15-minute city model to a 15-minute university campus model.

For example, One of the main elements influencing students' health and well-being, for instance, is walking. The main notion is that 15 minute university campus, and some services will be far from the students' dorms. We suppose that the library is 30 minutes away. This is the idea; as a designer, how will this problem be resolved in the workshop? One of the solutions is the "E-scooter" station on campus, which is located close to the main library and the dorms. It takes 15 minutes to walk there and is free for students, who can use it for five minutes. Here during using “E-scooter” to library, they can enjoy the biodiversity of nature, which makes them feel happy and excited and has a new effect on their psychology by encouraging them to be active.

• Analysis and Discussion section: Impacts on Biodiversity, Health, and Well-being

      Here, a diagram is needed to identify the correlation between outcomes and biodiversity, health and well-being parameters. It can be called the 15-minute university campus model to achieve Biodiversity, Health, and Well-being; all key factors should be identified. Thankyou this is a really useful suggestion and we have added a diagram which we hope does this.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is good, but the structure of the writing paragraph sequences should be improved, as many terms in one paragraph can confuse the reader, and the reader does not know where to go. For example, in one paragraph, say research participatory design approach (line 140), inclusive approach (line 148), regenerative approach (line 162), regenerative principles, the author could mention in this way: a regenerative approach applied, composed of eight principles, through a workshop the participantoray designed in this way...........etc. control many terminologies in a consistent sequence, all on the as approach which approach? We have carefully gone through to improve the paragraph structures.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented article discusses the interesting issue of implementing the 15-minute city concept on a university campus. However, for someone unfamiliar with the context of the site, such as its location within the city, the campus's urban layout, the development of its recreational areas, transportation, etc., the presentation of the discussed idea is unclear. Therefore, I would suggest presenting the current situation of the campus and the situation after the changes were implemented. A map would be helpful here. The "main university street" mentioned in line 287 would be more visible, and its role better understood, on a map of the entire campus. The work's graphic design is interesting, but it lacks, for example, photos/visualizations of the campus currently and after the changes. The presented drawings do not take into account the context of the site, making the impression of the presented research rather superficial.

Furthermore, the suggested changes, such as food production, were not satisfactorily justified. While the idea of using natural energy sources doesn't require explanation, the location, specificity, and care for the food produced do.

I also suggest checking line 145, where the date given in parentheses is incomplete.

Author Response

Responses to review 2:

Thankyou for your very useful comments. Our responses and additions are outlined in red below your comments.

The presented article discusses the interesting issue of implementing the 15-minute city concept on a university campus. However, for someone unfamiliar with the context of the site, such as its location within the city, the campus's urban layout, the development of its recreational areas, transportation, etc., the presentation of the discussed idea is unclear. Therefore, I would suggest presenting the current situation of the campus and the situation after the changes were implemented. A map would be helpful here. The "main university street" mentioned in line 287 would be more visible, and its role better understood, on a map of the entire campus. The work's graphic design is interesting, but it lacks, for example, photos/visualizations of the campus currently and after the changes. The presented drawings do not take into account the context of the site, making the impression of the presented research rather superficial.

We have added figure 3 to clarify the location

We have added a ‘before’ image (figure 8) to come before the main street image to make the changes clearer.

Furthermore, the suggested changes, such as food production, were not satisfactorily justified. While the idea of using natural energy sources doesn't require explanation, the location, specificity, and care for the food produced do.

Although we totally agree, we are just at this stage presenting the design outcomes of the participatory process so do not feel it is appropriate to justify this further at this stage. It is simply an idea that was generated by co-creators.

I also suggest checking line 145, where the date given in parentheses is incomplete.

Thankyou this is corrected now

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf