Physiological and Psychological Benefits of Exposure to Nature During Work in a Military Bunker—A Pilot Experimental Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments on the manuscript;

The Idea of the manuscript is interesting: “Physiological and psychological benefits of exposure to nature 

during work in a military bunker – a pilot experimental study” . The author tried to make a different article but unfortunately still need hardwork. The author mention many things restorative environment  as well as improvements in physical health and well-being, attention restoration theory and stress recovery theory, biophilic design or architecture, attention restoration and stress reduction theories, here because of confusion an author should draw a diagram for  research design method combine these all and how are they used and evaluated in research papers. On the other side just two sample of military bunker with 10 participant in five days applied, the qeustion is that is it possible to see changes in human physically and psychology in five days? The fatiques release and stress release is something need time to release? Minimum 21 days, what about physical health is it possible to see changes in this short time ? . In addition in method author applied many approach in which the measurmenet of each different for example heart rate and questionnaire , how author match them and present in one table? but the result too short and general. In abstract the method should identify clearly not as general (quantitative measure).

Specific Comments on the Manuscript;

• Introduction section: the author should here combined introduction and literature review presented many parameters and theories, here need a research method design diagram what are exactly used in the research papers, it will be great the author combine theory with biophilic design.
• Lines 35-36 and line 148-149 These theories could be integrated with the biophilic design theory, which is employed in research rather than being mentioned.
• Line 78-150 which start of literature review, the author explain many principles and parameters specifically biophilic design . In which the author, based on the title, only concentrated on "nature"; this is why the author should construct a diagram mentioning everything but extracting what they need for their research paper and explaining why.
• In introduction the author should clearly mention what do they mean by physiological (the author mentioned physical health but what are these? (line 223-226 explained but should be clear in introduction too) and psychological everything related to mental health like emotion and stress release, explained clearly.
• Materials and Methods section:
• Lines 185-198 the sample size too small, and duration to get result for five days is less for either physical or psychological change to see effect and benefit from nature too short?!!!!!!!!!!, The method should be revised (repeated with extension duration minimum 21 days)
• The author used multiple approach but in result we just see general for example line 227-230, is a different evaluation from line 231 , questionnaire , how the author match these two in one table???? The author should present separately ,explain which showed change, and finally combined as in table 1.
• Line 235-236, demographic data is crucial since the authors in title “Physiological and psychological benefits of exposure to nature” is the participant have any physical health or not, how the author want to proof the title, and mention in results.
• Line 238-291. The author mention many checklist for evaluation of Positive and negative perceived emotions are indicators of well-being, why the result did not show separately? By diagram the author can make this clear either combined or used final update of scale.
• Line 292-296, The statistical analysis is the exclusive approach offered in the results and explained.
• Result section ; Based on the title and materials and techniques section, the results did not support the title, because what physical changes occurred when exposed to nature? For psychological purposes, an answer may be provided, but what about combining the two benefits for human health. All results for techniques should be given separately and then merged using statistical analysis.
• Discussion section : This section should match results; in the result, provide general results, but in the discussion, explain in more detail, for example:
• Line 389-390 is emotional well-being related to psychological or physiological? It is very crucial  at begining in either introduction or literature review mention what author mean by each keywords used in title in order to avoid confusion. But in line 223-226 say another things.
• Line 418-431, the discussion about psychological or physiological, is the participant have any physical disease (line 223-226) ? presenting socio-demographic data in result are curcial. In addition ,in result table 1, give general idea about sound, but in discussion explained more specifically, bird sound (line 426) , water sound (Line 427).

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and provide your comments. Please find detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted file.
Question	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Can be improved	Introduction have been improved, and references list revised
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
Is the research design appropriate?	Must be improved	Research design description was revised
Are the methods adequately described?	Must be improved	Methods description had been improved
Are the results clearly presented?	Must be improved	Results presentation have been revised
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Can be improved	Conclusions have been revised
Point-by-point response to Your Comments and Suggestions
·                 General comments on the manuscript The Idea of the manuscript is interesting: “Physiological and psychological benefits of exposure to nature during work in a military bunker – a pilot experimental study” . The author tried to make a different article but unfortunately still need hardwork.   Response: Thank you for pointing these out.   ·                 The author mention many things restorative environment as well as improvements in physical health and well-being, attention restoration theory and stress recovery theory, biophilic design or architecture, attention restoration and stress reduction theories, here because of confusion an author should draw a diagram for research design method combine these all and how are they used and evaluated in research papers. Response: Thanks for emphasizing the importance of integrating coherently the different theorical facets underlying the study. We have, accordingly, included a combined diagram – Figure 1 (line 158).   ·                 On the other side just two sample of military bunker with 10 participant in five days applied, the qeustion is that is it possible to see changes in human physically and psychology in five days? The fatiques release and stress release is something need time to release? Minimum 21 days, what about physical health is it possible to see changes in this short time ? . Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We provide more information on response to stress (ex. Line 211-214).   ·                 In addition in method author applied many approach in which the measurmenet of each different for example heart rate and questionnaire , how author match them and present in one table? but the result too short and general. In abstract the method should identify clearly not as general (quantitative measure). Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Both the physiological outcome (heart rate) and the psychometric outcomes (affective state, perceived restorative environment, and work performance) are quantitative measures and we measured them each of the 5 days of the study. Because each day represents a specific experiment condition, the results of the different outcomes are present by condition. All outcomes presented in the same table intend to provide a multi-dimensional overview of the results, by exposure condition. The study measures are now identified in the abstract, lines 14-15.   Specific Comments on the Manuscript; ·                  Introduction section: the author should here combined introduction and literature review presented many parameters and theories, here need a research method design diagram what are exactly used in the research papers, it will be great the author combine theory with biophilic design. Response: Thanks for reemphasizing this point. We included a combined diagram in revised manuscript, as already referred.   ·                 Lines 35-36 and line 148-149 These theories could be integrated with the biophilic design theory, which is employed in research rather than being mentioned. Response: Thanks for the suggestion. During revision, we tried to mention theoretical issues in an integrated manner as much as possible.   ·                 Line 78-150 which start of literature review, the author explain many principles and parameters specifically biophilic design . In which the author, based on the title, only concentrated on "nature"; this is why the author should construct a diagram mentioning everything but extracting what they need for their research paper and explaining why. Response: Thanks again for the suggestion. As referred before, we include a combined diagram, in the revised version of the paper.   ·                  In introduction the author should clearly mention what do they mean by physiological (the author mentioned physical health but what are these? (line 223-226 explained but should be clear in introduction too) and psychological everything related to mental health like emotion and stress release, explained clearly. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. First paragraph of the Introduction (line 42; 44-45) now specifies the type of physical health, mental health and well-being outcomes.   Materials and Methods section: ·                  Lines 185-198 the sample size too small, and duration to get result for five days is less for either physical or psychological change to see effect and benefit from nature too short?!!!!!!!!!!, The method should be revised (repeated with extension duration minimum 21 days) Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have already answered the question concerning outcomes such as heart rate and emotions response time. Concerning sample size, please see lines 464-491.   The author used multiple approach but in result we just see general for example line 227-230, is a different evaluation from line 231 , questionnaire , how the author match these two in one table???? The author should present separately ,explain which showed change, and finally combined as in table 1. Response: We agree with your question, and we separate the graphs into two figures (one for the physiological measure, Heart rate, and the other for the subjective measures, to allow more clarity into results visualization. Since the main objective was to compare different workplace conditions, we decide to maintain results of the multiple outcomes together in one single table.   Line 235-236, demographic data is crucial since the authors in title “Physiological and psychological benefits of exposure to nature” is the participant have any physical health or not, how the author want to proof the title, and mention in results. Response: We agree, demographic data is crucial. Since we were dealing with a specific population or sample, involving secrecy, we did not present demographic results that could break in anyway this crucial rule of secrecy, and health related data from a specific military staff could be seen as a sensitive issue. So, participants physical or mental health information was not obtained for the purpose of the study, which of course could be seen as a limitation into significance of results. What we know is that military organizations have restricted rules concerning staff’ physical and mental health. Anyway, the word “Physiological” (benefit) referred in our title directly reports to the physiologic outcome, to Heart rate results we obtained, indicator of (physiological) well-being, not pretended to be an indicator of physical health. Assessing physical health benefits was not the aim of the study.    ·                  Line 238-291. The author mention many checklist for evaluation of Positive and negative perceived emotions are indicators of well-being, why the result did not show separately? By diagram the author can make this clear either combined or used final update of scale. Response: Explanation of how results on positive emotions and negative emotions were obtained is explained in lines 229-237. Since the scale being used (from López et al.) is a 20-item version, comprising 10 negative emotions and 10 positive emotions, with a bifactorial solution, it is mostly used to present results of their application by dimension (negative emotions and positive emotions), as we did. Presenting every 10 negative emotions and every 10 positive emotions separately will done an overcharge on results presentation that does not seem relevant for the purpose of the present study.    ·                  Line 292-296, The statistical analysis is the exclusive approach offered in the results and explained. Response: Yes, we collected quantitative data on different workplace conditions (controls and with simulated nature), and applied statistical testing to compare the conditions, which was the aim of the study.   ·                  Result section; Based on the title and materials and techniques section, the results did not support the title, because what physical changes occurred when exposed to nature? For psychological purposes, an answer may be provided, but what about combining the two benefits for human health. All results for techniques should be given separately and then merged using statistical analysis. Response: Thanks for reappointing this out. The title refers to physiological benefits of exposure to nature because in fact beneficial physiological changes, i.e. heart rate reduction, during exposure to nature conditions were observed in our study. As we mentioned before, the word “Physiological” in our title reports to the Heart rate results, as it is considered a physiological indicator of well-being. We did not used or referred to heart rate as indicator of physical health.   ·                  Discussion section : This section should match results; in the result, provide general results, but in the discussion, explain in more detail, for example: ·                  Line 389-390 is emotional well-being related to psychological or physiological? It is very crucial  at begining in either introduction or literature review mention what author mean by each keywords used in title in order to avoid confusion. But in line 223-226 say another things. Response: Thanks for pointing this out. Perceived emotions report directly to psychological or emotional well-being. Perception of restorative qualities of the environment also being considered psychological-related variables. As suggested, we revised introduction to clarify.   -                  Line 418-431, the discussion about psychological or physiological, is the participant have any physical disease (line 223-226) ? presenting socio-demographic data in result are curcial. In addition ,in result table 1, give general idea about sound, but in discussion explained more specifically, bird sound (line 426) , water sound (Line 427).
Response: Yes, we agree that demographic/physical disease data should be crucial, but we do not have that information available. We have already comment about this above.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is an experimental study focusing on the impact of simulating natural environments in highly confined military bunkers on workers’ physiological and psychological well-being. The topic is innovative, the research content is substantial, the structure is complete, and both the introduction and discussion sections are rich. Only a few issues need to be addressed:

1. In the introduction, after stating the research aim, it is recommended that the research question be explicitly defined.

2. In the methods section, it is advisable to include a technical roadmap to help readers better understand the experimental procedure. Additionally, scenario images of the experimental operations and example images of the stimulus materials should be provided.

3. The author has extended the non-significant findings on work performance in a positive light. It is advised to clearly acknowledge the lack of significant improvement in work performance and discuss possible reasons to avoid overinterpretation of non-significant results.

4. In the discussion section, it is suggested to add theoretical and practical implications of the study. For example, integrating the biophilia hypothesis to deeply explain how the innate human need for nature influences physiological and psychological restoration; and to offer specific design recommendations for enclosed environments such as military facilities or underground workplaces.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and sending us your valuable comments and suggestions. Please find detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted file. We sincerely hope that our revision meets your requests.
Question	Your Evaluation	Response
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes	Introduction and references had been revised
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
Is the research design appropriate?	Can be improved	Description of research design was improved
Are the methods adequately described?	Can be improved	Methods description had been improved
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes
Are the conclusions supported by the results? Figures and tables	Can be improved	Conclusions had been revised Tables and figures have been improved
Point-by-point response to Your Comments and Suggestions

 

• This paper is an experimental study focusing on the impact of simulating natural environments in highly confined military bunkers on workers’ physiological and psychological well-being. The topic is innovative, the research content is substantial, the structure is complete, and both the introduction and discussion sections are rich. Only a few issues need to be addressed:

1. In the introduction, after stating the research aim, it is recommended that the research question be explicitly defined.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree and tried to define research questions more explicitly (lines 142-147).

 

2. In the methods section, it is advisable to include a technical roadmap to help readers better understand the experimental procedure. Additionally, scenario images of the experimental operations and example images of the stimulus materials should be provided.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out and your suggestions. The revised manuscript includes a diagram – line 158, for a better understanding of the experimental procedure and their relation to research questions. We also include an image of the workplace, with the simulated “nature view” (line 173).

 

3. The author has extended the non-significant findings on work performance in a positive light. It is advised to clearly acknowledge the lack of significant improvement in work performance and discuss possible reasons to avoid overinterpretation of non-significant results.

Response: We agree and revised the manuscript accordingly. We make it clear the lack of significant improvement in work performance.

 

4. In the discussion section, it is suggested to add theoretical and practical implications of the study. For example, integrating the biophilia hypothesis to deeply explain how the innate human need for nature influences physiological and psychological restoration; and to offer specific design recommendations for enclosed environments such as military facilities or underground workplaces.

Response: Thank you for the suggestions. We tried to emphasize these points more clearly (integrating the biophilia hypothesis to explain how the innate human need for nature influences physiological and psychological restoration; and offer specific design recommendations for enclosed environments such as military facilities or underground workplaces - lines 492-504.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments The paper reports an experimental study of the impact of simulated nature experience on worker physiological and psychological well-being in a small windowless military bunker. The research employs an experimental design with introduction of audio and visual stimulation of nature on alternate days, with control and experiment conditions contrasted for heart rate, affective state, perceived restorative environment, and work performance. The theme is current, addressing the call to improve occupational health and wellbeing in extreme or confined environments, and aligns well with biophilic design literature. The article is clearly organized, provides significant context, and details methodology and findings with attention, so it is applicable to both scholarly and practical audiences. 1. The title is precise and appropriate 2. The abstract is comprehensive, well-written, and well-organized. 3. The paper is organized using the IMRAD format. 4. References are adequate and up-to-date Strength Points 5. Relevance and Originality: The research bridges a gap by considering confined workplaces (military bunker) where nature exposure in its actual form is out of the question, and the evidence for biophilic interventions within extreme environments. 6. Methodological Clarity: Using both quantitative physiological (heart rate) and subjective psychometric measures provides a strong, multi-dimensional measure of outcomes. 7. Scholarly Literature Review: The introduction is well-grounded, presenting a detailed account of past research on restorative environments, biophilic design, and workplace stress issues. 8. Statistical Transparency: The paper openly addresses statistical data, small sample size limitation, and non-parametric testing, which adds to credibility. Weak Points 9. Sample Size: The pilot study design, with just ten participants, sacrifices generalizability and statistical power, casting doubt on reliability of some findings. 10. Performance Outcome Ambiguity: Results pertaining to work performance are non-conclusive, showing no significant differences; explanations of possible influences are largely speculative. 11. Instrumentation Details: Data collection for heart rates with participants' own smartwatches creates uncontrolled variability, which is acknowledged but not sufficiently addressed. 12. Manuscript Structure/Language: Some sections (especially the discussion and introduction) might be condensed for concision without losing depth. Suggestions to Improve the Paper 13. Make Figures and Tables More Clear: Ensure all tables and figures (e.g., Figure 1) are clearly referred to and fully labeled, preferably with legends that make them self-explanatory to readers. 14. Style and Language: Conduct a detailed language and grammar review, to enhance readability and professionalism. 15. Reduce Long Chunks: Possibly reduce background literature and direct the discussion more clearly to how the research contributes to knowledge or practice within tight spaces. 16. Guidance on Future Directions: While limitations are noted, more specific ideas for future research and practical action (e.g., comparing different nature stimuli or dosage effects) would make the difference. This review will be constructive, acknowledging the innovative context and comprehensiveness while highlighting areas of improvement and greater impact.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer   Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and sending us your valuable comments and suggestions. Please find detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file. We sincerely hope that our revision meets your requests.
Question	Your Evaluation	Response
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Can be improved	Introduction had been improved and reference list revised
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes	Methods description had been improved
Are the results clearly presented?	Can be improved
Are the conclusions supported by the results? Figures and tables	Can be improved	Conclusions had been revised Tables and figures revised
Point-by-point response to Your Comments and Suggestions   General Comments The paper reports an experimental study of the impact of simulated nature experience on worker physiological and psychological well-being in a small windowless military bunker. The research employs an experimental design with introduction of audio and visual stimulation of nature on alternate days, with control and experiment conditions contrasted for heart rate, affective state, perceived restorative environment, and work performance. The theme is current, addressing the call to improve occupational health and wellbeing in extreme or confined environments, and aligns well with biophilic design literature. The article is clearly organized, provides significant context, and details methodology and findings with attention, so it is applicable to both scholarly and practical audiences. 1. The title is precise and appropriate 2. The abstract is comprehensive, well-written, and well-organized. 3. The paper is organized using the IMRAD format. 4. References are adequate and up-to-date Strength Points 5. Relevance and Originality: The research bridges a gap by considering confined workplaces (military bunker) where nature exposure in its actual form is out of the question, and the evidence for biophilic interventions within extreme environments. 6. Methodological Clarity: Using both quantitative physiological (heart rate) and subjective psychometric measures provides a strong, multi-dimensional measure of outcomes. 7. Scholarly Literature Review: The introduction is well-grounded, presenting a detailed account of past research on restorative environments, biophilic design, and workplace stress issues. 8. Statistical Transparency: The paper openly addresses statistical data, small sample size limitation, and non-parametric testing, which adds to credibility.   Response: Thank you very much for providing such positive feedback and for pointing out the strengths of our work.   Weak Points 9. Sample Size: The pilot study design, with just ten participants, sacrifices generalizability and statistical power, casting doubt on reliability of some findings.   Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We add a sentence on reliability of the findings in discussion (lines 485-486).   10. Performance Outcome Ambiguity: Results pertaining to work performance are non-conclusive, showing no significant differences; explanations of possible influences are largely speculative.   Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree and have made modifications to let the non-significancy of performance results be clear enough.   11. Instrumentation Details: Data collection for heart rates with participants' own smartwatches creates uncontrolled variability, which is acknowledged but not sufficiently addressed.   Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree and try to better address this issue in lines 372-398.   12. Manuscript Structure/Language: Some sections (especially the discussion and introduction) might be condensed for concision without losing depth.   Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We followed your suggestion and during the revision process we tried to condensed information without losing depth. We hope the revised version meets your concern.   Suggestions to Improve the Paper 13. Make Figures and Tables More Clear: Ensure all tables and figures (e.g., Figure 1) are clearly referred to and fully labeled, preferably with legends that make them self-explanatory to readers.   Response: Thanks for emphasizing this aspect. We have revised tables and figures, to ensure they are adequately labeled and clear for readers.   14. Style and Language: Conduct a detailed language and grammar review, to enhance readability and professionalism.   Response: Agree. We have, accordingly, conducted a language and grammar review.   15. Reduce Long Chunks: Possibly reduce background literature and direct the discussion more clearly to how the research contributes to knowledge or practice within tight spaces.   Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We agree and make a revision on references and citations and revised discussion taking this into account.   16. Guidance on Future Directions: While limitations are noted, more specific ideas for future research and practical action (e.g., comparing different nature stimuli or dosage effects) would make the difference. This review will be constructive, acknowledging the innovative context and comprehensiveness while highlighting areas of improvement and greater impact.

Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestions. We tried to accommodate these points on revised discussion.

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. - English was revised.

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study looks into the impact of natural components in constructed settings on users, including unique research participants and experimental technique. However, as a scientific work, there is still space for advancement. The following suggestions are presented to serve as reference:

1. The author's relevant research review should explicitly highlight the study's breakthrough as compared to existing studies.
2. It is suggested to summarize the theory by identifying the fundamental perspectives of existing theories and highlighting their application boundaries in this study setting. Second, rather than merely listing literature, it is encouraged to adopt a logical chain of "domain status - conflict focus - solution path" for practice reviews.
3. Although the sample and space venue is highly unique, the number of personnel samples is somewhat constrained because of the small sample experiment conducted in a unique working environment. It is advised to include a control group to represent both the typical open and closed working environment scenarios in order to guarantee the study's scientific validity.

4. When it comes to regard to the experiment's scale, it is advised to give detailed justifications for its removal and optimization in order to increase the modified scale's suitability for the experimental setting.

5. Given the distinctive characteristics of air force bases, general public readers may not be able to enter the workplaces or completely comprehend the scenarios chosen by the author for the experiment. To fully display the spatial features of the experimental scenario while adhering to confidentiality agreements, floor plans, elevation drawings, photographs, and 3D modeling approaches are advised.

6. The author examined the experimental results and mechanisms in the Discussion section, although the content organization is a little sloppy. Consider using subheadings and a hierarchical and categorized approach to carefully organize the discussion topics. This not only improves the clarity of the chapter layout, but it also allows readers to understand the main results more quickly.

7. It is recommended that the discussion section include a paragraph on research limitations. And clearly illustrate the limits of the research (such as sample size and methodological restrictions) and ideas for improvement.

8.  Although the research is quite intriguing, it is advised that more visual diagrams and tables be included in the results presentation to help readers figure out the findings better.

9. What is the practical significance of this study? Is the proposed technical technique transferable, meaning it may be applied to other domains or scenarios?

10. Suggestions to streamline references：

    It is recommended to discard literature with poor relation to the core topic of this study, retaining highly referenced authoritative research from the previous five years, merging repeated references to the same author, and adding 2-3 classic literature on the technique of this study.

     

Author Response

Dear reviewer,   Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and sending us your valuable comments and suggestions. Please find detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file. We sincerely hope that our revision meets your requests.
Question	Your Evaluation	Response
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Can be improved	Introduction had been improved
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
Is the research design appropriate?	Can be improved	Research design description revised
Are the methods adequately described?	Can be improved	Methods description had been improved
Are the results clearly presented?	Must be improved	Results had been revised
Are the conclusions supported by the results? Figures and tables	Can be improved	Conclusions had been revised Tables and figures revised

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.  English have been revised.

 

Response to your comments and suggestions:

This study looks into the impact of natural components in constructed settings on users, including unique research participants and experimental technique. However, as a scientific work, there is still space for advancement. The following suggestions are presented to serve as reference:

1. The author's relevant research review should explicitly highlight the study's breakthrough as compared to existing studies.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We revised introduction and tried to better clarify our study specific contribution on the field (lines 129-140)

 

2. It is suggested to summarize the theory by identifying the fundamental perspectives of existing theories and highlighting their application boundaries in this study setting. Second, rather than merely listing literature, it is encouraged to adopt a logical chain of "domain status - conflict focus - solution path" for practice reviews. 

Response: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we revised introduction and state-of-the-art and tried to accommodate your useful suggestion. We also included a diagram which to illustrate research linkages and clarify study aim (line 158).

 

3. Although the sample and space venue is highly unique, the number of personnel samples is somewhat constrained because of the small sample experiment conducted in a unique working environment. It is advised to include a control group to represent both the typical open and closed working environment scenarios in order to guarantee the study's scientific validity. 

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. This experimental study is a longitudinal controlled study: same group of people submitted to different conditions on consecutive labor days. Therefore, instead of using a control group, we used a control condition (no exposure to nature, or absence of nature related stimulus at the work setting) and the validity of the study was guaranteed by including control condition assessment. To reinforce, we had two controls (before and after the experiment), and tested differences for both, which is not common. Thanks for the suggestion to use a control group, a group of workers from confined closed settings. We will take it into account in future developments (line 489-490).

 

4. When it comes to regard to the experiment's scale, it is advised to give detailed justifications for its removal and optimization in order to increase the modified scale's suitability for the experimental setting. 

Response: Thanks for point this out. We did apply the self-reported scales/instruments in their original Portuguese version (JAWS; ROS; work performance), without modifying it; and, concerning PRSS, the Portuguese version applied in the study was obtained by translation and back-translation procedure from the original English version (the 9 items retained).

 

5. Given the distinctive characteristics of air force bases, general public readers may not be able to enter the workplaces or completely comprehend the scenarios chosen by the author for the experiment. To fully display the spatial features of the experimental scenario while adhering to confidentiality agreements, floor plans, elevation drawings, photographs, and 3D modeling approaches are advised. 

Response: Yes, we agree, and accordingly we included photographs (Figure 2) to bring some light into the nature of the bunker working scenario.

 

6. The author examined the experimental results and mechanisms in the Discussion section, although the content organization is a little sloppy. Consider using subheadings and a hierarchical and categorized approach to carefully organize the discussion topics. This not only improves the clarity of the chapter layout, but it also allows readers to understand the main results more quickly.
   

Response: Thanks very much for the suggestion. We agree that discussion looks little organized. We reorganized discussion using a hierarchical and categorized approach to topics, without including subheadings.

 

7. It is recommended that the discussion section include a paragraph on research limitations. And clearly illustrate the limits of the research (such as sample size and methodological restrictions) and ideas for improvement.

 Response: We agree. The first version of the manuscript already had a paragraph on research limitations; we revised it to get more emphasis on this point.

 

8. Although the research is quite intriguing, it is advised that more visual diagrams and tables be included in the results presentation to help readers figure out the findings better.

 Response: Yes, we agree, and modified the previous figures and tables, and introduced a new diagram (Figure 1).

 

9. What is the practical significance of this study? Is the proposed technical technique transferable, meaning it may be applied to other domains or scenarios?

 Response: Thanks for these valuable questions. We revised Discussion to get those points clearer (lines 496-505).

 

10. Suggestions to streamline references：

It is recommended to discard literature with poor relation to the core topic of this study, retaining highly referenced authoritative research from the previous five years, merging repeated references to the same author, and adding 2-3 classic literature on the technique of this study.

 Response: Thanks for the suggestions. We agree and accordingly have revised references list and citations in the text.

 

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research on the cognitive situation of people working in confinement is worth it in terms of new knowledge, which has the potential to transfer to similar situations, such as working conditions that lack windows due to design. There are other possibilities, such as what happens to general health as natural light is mandatory for eyes and skin in a normal condition. Deficiencies in vitamin D and other skin health depend on the actual environment, not a simulated environment. 

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer,   Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find our responses below. Revisions made in the manuscript are highlighted in the re-submitted file.
Question	Your Evaluation	Response
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes	Introduction had been improved
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes	Methods description had been improved
Are the results clearly presented?	Can be improved	Results had been revised
Are the conclusions supported by the results? Figures and tables	Can be improved	Conclusions had been revised Tables and figures had been improved

Your Comment: The research on the cognitive situation of people working in confinement is worth it in terms of new knowledge, which has the potential to transfer to similar situations, such as working conditions that lack windows due to design. There are other possibilities, such as what happens to general health as natural light is mandatory for eyes and skin in a normal condition. Deficiencies in vitamin D and other skin health depend on the actual environment, not a simulated environment. 

Response: Thank you for pointing out and acknowledging this. We agree that work setting conditions such as natural lightning is of utmost importance to employee’s health related issues, such as Vitamin related processes. Unfortunately, confined workplaces as bunkers totally lack natural light, and virtual or simulated nature too. The better we were able to do was tried to simulate, across the day, the gradual natural daily change of light in the landscape being projected in a Plasma TV.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your answer to comment and revised manuscript precisely.

Wish you success in your research field.

Best Regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for revised our manuscript ones again, and for your positive feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the revised version meets the criteria for publication. I endorse acceptance for publication

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for revised the manuscript again and for your positive evaluation.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has thoroughly modified the manuscript as required, greatly improving its logical consistency and academic depth. The author has produced a really interesting and useful study that will appeal to both environmental behavior/psychology researchers and ordinary readers alike. To more thoroughly highlight the scientific contributions, the following minor suggestions are made for further refinement:

1. The author's experimental setting and subjects are extremely intriguing, which may draw readers in. It is suggested that the author assemble publicly available data at the end of the manuscript, presenting readers with vivid features such as auditory and visual parameters to spark their imagination.
2. Given the presence of control conditions (no exposure to nature or nature-related stimuli in work environments), it is suggested augmenting the study with longitudinal comparison data by presenting environmental factors before and after the experiment in a comparable table format. This strategy would improve methodological rigor and allow for a clearer interpretation of outcomes.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks so much for revising our article ones again and provide us with your valuable comments.

Your comment 1 - The author's experimental setting and subjects are extremely intriguing, which may draw readers in. It is suggested that the author assemble publicly available data at the end of the manuscript, presenting readers with vivid features such as auditory and visual parameters to spark their imagination.

We agree with your comment. The individuals and work setting being studied should seems quite intriguing for most of the readers. To help readers to figure the place and situation being studied, the manuscript has already two images (figure 2) aimed to illustrate the confine work environment, and it also refers a few characteristics of the employees involved in the present study  – lines 178-181. Anyway, following your suggestion we introduce a new table (lines 219-221) in the manuscript to better describe auditory and visual characteristics of the work setting (as usual and during exposure to nature).

Your comment 2 - Given the presence of control conditions (no exposure to nature or nature-related stimuli in work environments), it is suggested augmenting the study with longitudinal comparison data by presenting environmental factors before and after the experiment in a comparable table format. This strategy would improve methodological rigor and allow for a clearer interpretation of outcomes.

Thanks for this comment. We agree that the description of the main environmental factors (sound and visual setting) before and after the experiment in a comparable table format would allow for a clearer comprehension of physical context and interpretation of outcomes. So, following your suggestion, we introduced a new table (lines 219-221) about environmental main characteristics of the work setting under different conditions.