Architectural Multispecies Building Design: Concepts, Challenges, and Design Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled "Architectural multispecies building design: concepts, challenges, and design process” presented concepts of multispecies design in architecture building. The context is very interesting, and its contribution should be promising. However, some improvement points should be made before the article can be accepted. The comments include:

1. Line 1: This work seems to be “review,” not research article?

2. Abstract: the term “review” should be added

3. Line 65..: The “multispecies” should be defined.

4. Add Method Section: How did the authors obtain and screen out the references?

5. Line: 409: Change “diagram” into “Figure 1.” Also, the rest should be revised.

6. Line 661-678: Technical development, manufacturing and construction

            It is believed that additive manufacturing in construction and digital fabrication can also well suitable regarding the multispecies building design. The adoption of 3D printing textured wall and façade is matched with this design. The authors should include this part in this Section. It is also seen that BIM and parametric studies can also be used for design nowadays. Please refer to these articles:

- https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020429

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110006

- https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000485

- https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92294-2_12

7. Section 6: The future works should be discussed in two perspectives also

            - design towards digital construction

            - design for flood mitigation and water management

8. Add table summarized the finding from the references

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article "Architectural multispecies building design: concepts, challenges, and design process" touches on the important topic of architectural design, taking into account nature and other species of animate nature (other than humans), as well as the search for ways to adapt building structures to accommodate animals, birds, and insects. The article presents the concept of a new type of residential building, consisting of an external casing as a system intended for the colonization of various organisms, developed by students. The presented case studies and conceptual proposals, which are the most important part of the manuscript, unfortunately, do not have a research structure. There is a lack of purpose and description of the research method and conclusions appropriate to the purpose and method. The article is not suitable for publication. The text contains general information.

Comments:

1. The summary does not contain the purpose of the work, a description of the research method used, or the results of the work. The summary must be completed.

2. The goal statement is not correct. What do the Author(s) understand by the presented statement of purpose: (lines 86-87) "(...) is to examine the challenges and gaps associated with the transition multispecies design at the architectural building towards scale." How do the Author(s) intend the challenges and gaps to be examined? What research method? The goal needs to change.

3. The article completely ignores the state of research and, consequently, the identification of the research gap.

4. The article lacks a presentation of the research method. A description of the article's chapters is provided (lines 92 - 101), which does not explain the selected methodology of the research.

The research method must be matched to the purpose of the research.

5. The introduction does not specify what the term "multispecies building design" means and how to classify/select the species that participate in the process of using architectural objects.

6. In Chapter 5, Multi-species design in practice - case study, you should indicate how many conceptual designs have been made and describe various variants of external structures proposed by students.

7. In the summary it is noted that the article is part of a broader research project (lines: 956-957), it is worth providing a short description of this project in the introduction.

8. The analysis of existing concepts of "multispecies" design combined with the analysis of conducted scientific research (p.2.1) makes it impossible to understand the research problem. Is the research problem theoretical or practical? It is worth distinguishing the state of scientific research in order to precisely argue the research gap.

9. In section 6. Future work and roadmap indicated that "The research aimed to elucidate the main concepts of multispecies architectural design, to define the challenges and the knowledge gaps in this field and to develop a road map towards a successful paradigm shift toward establishment of biocentrism of multispecies design as the leading state of practice approach to architectural design.” (lines: 871-874), which does not correspond to the goal stated in the introduction (lines: 86-87). It is worth clarifying this goal.

10. The conclusions note that the study identified a gap in the existing literature (line: 959), but no chapter in the article specifically pointed out this gap, apart from the lack of ecological knowledge among designers.

11. The conclusions of the study are so general that they do not correspond to the purpose of the article. It is worth indicating and structuring directions for future research, and marking whether the article fills gaps in knowledge or design. Conclusions should refer to the research conducted.

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The version of the paper can be published. 

Yes

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made corrections in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions. The article has become more readable. The article has been significantly improved.