Biophilia Upscaling: A Systematic Literature Review Based on a Three-Metric Approach

Response to Reviewer 1

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the related corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file.

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

General Comment:

In this manuscript, the authors provide a systematic literature review focused on the concepts of biophilia, biophilic design and biophilic urbanism by using a 3-metric approach (quality, quantity, application) to answer three research questions: RQ1: What is Biophilia and what are its effects on humans and urban livability? RQ2: How do we measure them? And RQ3: How do we experience them in the built environment? This review was ambitious considering the period searched (60 years) and the vast body of research from various subjects on this field. The manuscript is very long, excessively detailed in some parts and is predominantly descriptive. Apart from this, I congratulate the authors for the enormous and meritorious work of summarizing the content of 97 documents in this detailed, well-written and organized review. Please find below some comments and suggestions that may help in clarifying some issues and in improving the overall high quality of this document.

Comment 1:

Introduction

This manuscript is not the first reviewing the concepts of biophilia, biophilic design and biophilic urbanism. Recently, various papers have been published on these topics such as:

- Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: A critical review. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11(1), 114-141.

- Bridging biophilic design and environmentally sustainable design: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 283, 124591.

- Potential risks and beneficial impacts of using indoor plants in the biophilic design of healthcare facilities: A scoping review. Building and Environment, 110057.

Considering this, i) why these publications were not included in the review since they are completely within the topic of this study? And ii) what this manuscript adds to the existing reviews? The goal of providing additional evidence about “the long-term potential of Biophilic Urbanism (BU)” was promising, but the manuscript explores much more topics. Thus, it is very important to demonstrate the novelty of this review to the existing literature.

Response 1: 

Thank you for your observation. Our review also includes other recent literature reviews relevant to the Biophilia research field (Zhong at al.; Zare at al.; Gillis et al.; Peters et al.; Kavathekar and Bantanur; Mollazadeh and Zhu). Regarding the suggested references to be added:

1) Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: A critical review. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11(1), 114-141. This reference is already included in our reviewed items (No. 46).

2) Bridging biophilic design and environmentally sustainable design: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 283, 124591. As our reviewed items are the result of a specific search that adheres to fixed selection criteria, that is why we are unable to include additional items for analysis. This particular reference may not have been identified in our initial research on the two databases (Scopus, Google Scholar).

3) Potential risks and beneficial impacts of using indoor plants in the biophilic design of healthcare facilities: A scoping review. Building and Environment, 110057. This reference was not included in our items because it doesn’t meet our fixed time selection criterion: our review encompassed literature up to the year 2022, while this publication is dated 2023.

In the ‘Conclusions’ section, we point out the innovation and unique contribution of this paper to advance the Biophilia research field, both conceptually and methodologically. It introduces a novel definition of Biophilia and focuses on its positive (biophilic effects). It adopts a 3-metric approach, underlining the multidimensional and interdisciplinary nature of Biophilia, while addressing three critical gaps in the field: scientific objectivity and validity, measurability, and the upscaling process. Additionally, this method helped us to systematically review materials and analyze the multiple advantages of Biophilia through the lens of quality, quantity, and application (as emphasized on l. 968). Also, we suggest Biophilia Upscaling as a strategy to maximize its direct and indirect benefits related to the Biophilia application across urban scales and promote BU to expedite a paradigm shift in city planning. This method facilitated a systematic review of materials and an analysis of the multiple advantages of Biophilia through the lens of quality, quantity, and application. Finally, we propose Biophilia Upscaling as a strategy to maximize the direct and indirect benefits of Biophilia application across urban scales, such expediting a paradigm shift in city planning.

Comment 2:

Line 116: Why the literature review was only based on these two databases? Why, for example, Web of Science and Medline were not used for searching the literature? The last one could contain some publications focused on the health effects of Biophilia. Please justify the reasons for using Scopus and Google Scholar.

Response 2: 

Since the subject area is quite broad, we established a restriction both in databases and review criteria. We selected Scopus and Google Scholar for our review due to their complementary nature, ensuring comprehensive coverage in the broad subject area. Scopus, as a leading academic publisher, covers a wide range of disciplines simultaneously, while Google Scholar is more accessible and includes a broader range of sources. We excluded Web of Science to avoid replication with Scopus and Medline, as it primarily focuses on medical and healthcare fields.

Comment 3:

Line 130: Please specify these “three metric groups”, otherwise the sentence remains vague. In the first stage, the authors could also explain when the search was made and who was involved in the various phases (screening, eligibility, inclusion).

Response 3: 

The “three metric groups” have been specified (p. 3, par. Review process, l. 142). Further details about the review process can be found in Appendix A, Appendix B and Author Contributions respectively (p. 26, par. Author Contributions, l. 990-91).

Comment 4:

Line 154: The number of listed disciplinary domains apparently are eight and not seven, please check. Biophilic metrics.

Response 4: 

They are seven: Psychology and Neuroscience/P&N; Medicine and Biology/M&B; Architectural-Engineering De-sign and Urban Planning/D&P; Environmental Science/ES; Social Science and Humanities/SSH; Engineering and Computer Science/ECS; Politics and Economics/P&E.

Comment 5

Line 241: In this sentence, I recommend the authors to include a recent literature paper on the health and well-being benefits of using outdoor and indoor vertical greening systems in buildings and urban spaces, which is completely within this topic. Please check the paper: Health and Well Being Benefits of Outdoor and Indoor Vertical Greening Systems: A Review. Sustainability, 15(5), 4107 .

Response 5: 

Even though this reference is very relevant and more recent, it doesn’t meet our fixed time selection criterion (our review encompassed literature up to the year 2022, while this publication is dated 2023).

Comment 6:

Line 260: Please quantify the “substantial portion of Biophilia research originates from the USA and Australia”.

Response 6: 

We added the related percentage at p. 7, par. Qualifying, l. 275. 

Comment 7:

Line 770: The explanation about the colors and bolds used in Table 6 should appear in the end of this table and not in the title. The same comment is valid for the title of Table 7. In Table 7, the description of the first item is doubtful. Regarding proximity to parks and green spaces, what really means: “1 park by 100 m per capita ”?

Response 7: 

Both descriptions related to Table 6 and Table 7 have been placed in their bottoms. All the items and indicators have been reported identically as mentioned by the author in the related works.

Comment 8:

Figure 5: there is a problem in this figure, part of the text is upside-down . Please check and correct.  

Response 8: 

Due to dimensional reasons, we opted to change its reading orientation from right-left to down-up.

Comment 9:

Line 835, Discussion: I recommend the authors to reorganize de discussion around the three research questions or at least to include the three research questions in the discussion. This will make the paper more coherent and objective. In addition, the main limitations of this SLR should be clearly emphasized. For example, the non-inclusion of some type of documents (thesis), databases (Medline) and publications not in English may have influence on the obtained results.

Response 9: 

The ‘Discussion’ section is already set to comply with the three research questions that, in turn, define the paper structure. To make it even more evident, we added an initial clarification (p. 23, par. Discussion, l. 859-61). In the ‘Discussion’ section we also mentioned the opportunities and limitations for each metric analyzed (l. 849). However, the main limitations of our review have been further clarified in the ‘Conclusion’ paragraph, where we added further information, as suggested by reviewer (p. 26, par. Conclusion, l. 959-65).

Comment 10:

Lines 950-951, Conclusion: The manuscript is very long and detailed. However, and surprisingly, the guidelines for future research on this field are restricted to a sentence or so (“we suggest future research in BU and large-scale applications, assessment methods, biophilic strategies for climate resilience, digital and multi-sensorial experiences”). Based on the findings obtained with this SLR, I invite the authors to explore a little more the avenues for future research on this emerging research field, namely in terms of BU. How can these findings help urban planners, decision-makers and researchers in creating more biophilic cities?

Response 10: 

As recommended, we modified the final part of ‘Conclusions’ by stressing on future insights and implications of BD and BU in everyday life (p. 26, par. Conclusion, l. 978-85).

3. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language:

NA

4. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 2

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript.

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

Comments 1:

The paper presents a systematic literature review on the topic of Biophilia Upscaling. It explores the benefits of Biophilic Design (BD) in various domains such as healthcare, education, and workplaces. The Authors highlights the positive impacts of BD on physical health, mental well-being, and cognitive performance, emphasizing the importance of incorporating nature into built environments. They also propose a novel definition of Biophilia that includes its essential aspects (humans, nature,  interactions, effects), emphasizing its benefits for humans and urban livability. The objective and structure of the paper are clear. The research methods are adopted accordingly to the purpose of the paper. Moreover, placing emphasis on Biophilia Upscaling as a strategy to maximize direct and indirect benefits at various urban scales and promoting BU, can significantly enhance urban livability and accelerate a paradigm shift in city planning. The discussion section highlights the existing knowledge gaps.

Response 1:  

Thank you for this positive feedback. We truly appreciate that you have fully understood our intent in terms of objectives, content, method, and structure.

3. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language:

NA

4. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 3

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the related corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file.

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

General Comment:

This paper features rather innovative concepts and ideas. It is believed that the authors have spent quite some effort in gathering the secondary research materials for the literature review. Biophilism in urban planning has been comprehensively reviewed. Most of my comments are concerned with the expression of ideas in this paper.

Comment 1:

Line 21 Quality, quantity and application were the main ideas used in the three-metric approach. It is wondered whether the definition of these three metrics could be provided in the Abstract? 

Response 1: 

The concise nature of an abstract does not allow for the in-depth exploration required, which is then elaborated in the main text. We believe the abstract is sufficiently detailed, and the three metrics are widely recognized concepts that can be briefly elaborated upon.

Comment 2:

Line 21 Should the term "three-metric approach” be used as a replacement of the existing term “3-metric approach ”?

Response 2: 

We disagree; we think the numerical version is more concise, immediate, and impactful.

Comment 3:

Line 25 to 29 The major discoveries of this literature review can be provided before the end of the literature review. Although no original research materials were generated, new perspectives can still be developed.  

Response 3: 

We refer to findings at line 24. For the sake of conciseness, we had to omit many innovative aspects of our research. In the conclusion of the abstract, we intend to emphasize the practical implications that Biophilia has in our everyday lives and how we can benefit from and maximize them through BD and BU.

Comment 4:

Line 40 Does the full form of the term “NBS” mean “nature-based solution ”? This concept is closely related to the concept of biophilism. However, the authors should be careful about the use of similar terms. Distinction should be made.

Response 4: 

We mentioned NBS as an extended term in lines 38-39.

Comment 5:

Line 52 This sentence sounds casual. The authors are encouraged to re-write this sentence. Also, it should be reminded that an objective tone of writing should be maintained throughout the manuscript.

Response 5: 

We rephrased the related sentence in p. 1, par. Introduction, l. 52-54.

Comment 6:

Line 118 to 119 It is appreciated that the authors of this manuscript used the PRISMA protocol for gathering the materials. The steps of the PRISMA can be listed more clearly. However, for the keywords, it is wondered why the term “Biophilia” was omitted from the list of the search box.

Response 6: 

The term Biophilia has been used as one of the keywords in the initial search in Scopus and Google Scholar, as mentioned in Stage 1 (par. Review process, l. 129, as well as in Appendix A).

Comment 7:

Line 139 to 140 The authors may want to elaborate on the criteria of the literature selection. Currently, the classification table seems to be a collection of materials divided by random criteria.

Response 7: 

The literature selection criteria are mentioned in detail in the ‘Review process’ section, Table 1, Appendix A, and Appendix B.

Comment 8:

Line 235 The authors are correct in the sense that past studies were cited for clarifying the abstract meaning of biophilia, biophilic cites, etc.

Response 8: 

No additional comments or changes about that.

Comment 9:

In Table 2, it is believed that the authors are attempted to initiate a semantic discourse of these terms. But it is believed that a more systematic presentation of the long strings of texts could be achieved.

Response 9: 

Since Biophilia is a controversial term with many definitions, in Table 2 we cited the most authoritative sources and attempt to systematize the concept and its related aspects through a chronological reading aimed at highlighting the evolution over time.

Comment 10:

Line 278 There is already an abundance of abbreviations in this manuscript. It is suggested that the authors use the full terms of the followings: - HW - SOC - ENV - ECO - BR - AR - M 

Response 10: 

In a text quite lengthy, abbreviations help make it more concise without adversely affecting overall comprehension and legibility. Where necessary, they have been spelled out in full version.

Comment 11:

Line 281 To improve legibility, please put the legend on the right-hand side of the pie chart in Figure 3.

Response 11:   

The legend position complies with the general rule of placing captions at the bottom right of the figure.

Comment 12:

Line 288 to 324 It is fine for the authors to classify the benefits of biophilic urbanism into different aspect. Yet, in Section 4.1.1, a clear benefit of biophilic urban design is missing, which is thermal comfort . The authors may consider citing these papers for a more comprehensive review :

- Lee, L. S., & Jim, C. Y. (2019). Urban woodland on intensive green roof improved outdoor thermal comfort in subtropical summer. International journal of biometeorology, 63, 895- 909.

- Wang, X., Li, H., & Sodoudi, S. (2022). The effectiveness of cool and green roofs in mitigating urban heat island and improving human thermal comfort. Building and Environment, 217, 109082.

Response 12:   

This aspect is already addressed in the ‘Environmental benefits (ENV)’ section, where both Quality of Indoors (IEQ) and Outdoors (OEQ) are explored in depth as beneficial effects of Biophilia for environment. Also, they are substantiated by other references proving their relevance based on scientific evidence.

Comment 13:

Line 541 to 565 In this sub-section, ecosystem services and biodiversity are reviewed and discussed together. However, it is believed that these two aspects could be classified into two separate sub-sections.

Response 13:   

We dealt with these two aspects jointly as they are closely related compared with the other subsections that make up the same paragraph, that is the reason we prefer to keep them together.

3. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language:

NA

4. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 4

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the related corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file.

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

General Comment:

The submitted manuscript, Biophilia upscaling“ by Lefosse et al. provides a systematic literature review based on a 3-metric approach to promote biophilia for city planning. The main issues of this 31 page manuscript with its 126 references are presented clearly, theoretical introduction and empirical method show high quality. The authors come from MIT and Delft University of Technology urbanism labs.

Comment 1:

One major conceptual shortcoming of this project that the reviewer noted as senior environmental psychologist is that “it stands only on one leg”, focussing on biophilia alone . On page 4 line 182 of the submitted manuscript, the negative opposite of biophilia, biophobia, is linked with Erich Fromm 1964 and necrophilia. Checked against main references on the biophobia concept, this is a gross neglect and reduction. In order to make the author’s literature review more representative with regard to biophilia AND biophobia, the chapter 3 title “biophilia concept” should be expanded to “biophilia & biophobia concepts” citing at least several relevant studies about biophobia:

Ulrich 1993 (Ulrich, R.S. (1993) Biophilia, Biophobia, & Natural Landscapes. In: Kellert, S.R. and Wilson, E.O., Eds., The Biophilia Hypothesis, Island Press, Washington DC, 73-137.) quotes Wilson 1984 as origin of the biophilia concept, an innate human predisposition of nature affiliation. On p.74, Ulrich assumes a genetic base for biophilia AND biophobia under evolutionary perspective postulating a human biophobic responsiveness to certain dangerous nature phenomena.

Pergams and Zaradic 2006 (doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.02.001) noticed a 16 years downtrend in US national park visits (love of nature) which they attribute to a rising preference of electronic media/internet.

Knight 2008 (doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.001) explains how aesthetic and negativistic attitudes interact with species protection support.

Zhang et al. 2014 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.011) presents a Chinese study with N=1119 children citing 68 references.

In a similar approach, Olivos-Jara et al. 2020 (doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00511) report two Spanish children studies about biophilia and biophobia as emotional attribution to nature in 5 year-old children.

Patuano 2020 (doi:10.3390/su12104312) wrote a review in “Sustainability” (which was overlooked by the present authors submitting in the same journal!) presenting “the current state of knowledge on urban biophobia as well as evidence of instances in which built and mixed urban environments were found to be more restorative than natural ones for the urban population”.

Soga et al. 2023 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.12.012) propose a phobia fear-avoidance model leading to nature disgust in progressive urbanisation.

Correia and Mammola 2023 (DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10497) have undertaken a global analysis of internet trends for biophobias.

Norberg et al. 2023 (DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10514) give a review of the phenomenology, aetiology and treatment of animal phobia with insights for biophobia.

By presenting the ambivalence of biophilia and biophobia in the complex phylogenetic human experience of nature phenomena and quoting some of the biophobia references given here, the submitting authors would provide their study with a concept “standing on two legs” epistemologically.

Response 1: 

We examined an extensive subject area that implies several in-depth explorations. This is why we have established a series of restrictions on addressing the topic. As stated in lines 253-55 and our benefit-oriented definition of Biophilia, we centered this review on Biophilia and its positive effects (biophilic effects) in improving urban livability. This ratio and methodological approach does not make this review incomplete (standing on one leg only). Nevertheless, we added some suggested a further reference to biophobia for greater completeness (pp. 6-7, par. Qualifying, l. 250-52). Moreover, the expression ‘indoor generation’ already encompasses the rising preference for indoor activities addressed by technology, interne, and electronic media, without the need to add further references to the existing long list. 

3. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language:

NA

4. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 5

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the related corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file.

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

Comment 1:

It would be appropriate to frame the theory and practices within a large movement of thought which has its origins in the "modernist" culture, with reference to studies on cities and territories, to the pioneering suggestions of Geddes and Mumford first and then of Mc Hargh. The theme, in general, is that of the project with nature, later taken up, for example, by Daniels T. (The Environmental Planning Handbook, 3dr ed: 2017), F. Steiner. The link between biophilia and sustainability and between biophilia and smart city or green city (eco-city) should then be explored further: not all these themes seem to be mutually compatible. Even if this is only the introduction, these references (or similar ones) are believed to be important, even if only cited. NBS cannot be the only field of study mentioned.

Response 1: 

As suggested, we extended the thematic framing of Biophilia and its implications in urban planning and design by supporting contemporary trends or challenges (green urbanism, smart cities, and sustainability), as mentioned in p. 1, par. Introduction, l. 72-76).

Comment 2:

Lines 107-112

The reference to the PRISMA method appears too synthetic and not sufficiently motivated: it could be useful to expand the explanation on this point, possibly adding other citations that give strength to the choice to adopt this meta-analysis tool. Also reference (28) to the work of Yigitcanlar, T.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Fothc, M. should be better framed: was it cited because it is the only study in which a correct SLR is set or are there other studies that could be cited?

Response 2: 

The most common approaches used for literature reviews are systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Sustainability, among others, suggests adopting PRISMA as a method for this type of paper. The cited references (Mora et al; Liberati et al.; Yigitcanlar et al.) are methodologically relevant in relation to the subject, but they are just a few examples of a well-known method that doesn't require further explanations.

Comment 3:

Line 176 and following

The term "biophilia" is the result of the sum of two terms of Greek origin which appeared in Western literature starting from Fromm and Wilson, in the second half of the twentieth century. The reference to Aristotle's ethics (which is based on an interpretation of Aristotelian thought formulated by Santas, 2014, cit. 29) presupposes a discussion on friendship, philia, which Aristotle conceives first and foremost as an inter-human relationship. It is authors like Santas who expand this concept of friendship within a broader theory of interspecies obligation. Aristotle's focus in the Nicomachean Ethics is human relationships, if this feeling can be felt towards other living beings is an interpretation of Aristotle thought.

However, while starting from the hypothesis that this "broadened" idea of friendship (philia) can also be understood to include the interspecies relationship and therefore the more general relationship between man and nature, it would be appropriate for the contribution to be clearer on this point and to establish the boundaries within a "theory of biophilia" can be placed.

The first limit is temporal. This limit concerns the long period of time between Aristotle's thought and Fromm-Wilson's contributions (the first authors to provide a theoretical arrangement to the term biophilia). A time interval where the multifaceted tradition of Western philosophical thought (based on the Judeo-Christian tradition) has developed many suggestions, theories and reflections on the relationship between man and nature: one cannot fail to mention, for example, Christian thought.

The second limit is of a "geographical" nature: all civilizations have developed long reflections on the relationship between man and nature (Indian, Chinese, Persian, etc.). In the contribution there is no trace of the thought of these broad philosophical theories. Nor could it emerge from the proposed literature review, which is based on bibliographic data sets that refer to studies carried out in the English language (Scopus and Google Scholar).

These boundaries of research should be highlighted, inserting at this point even just a few references to fields of study that account for these other cultures and philosophies. (to demonstrate this, the graph in Fig.4 shows the clear "Western" prevalence of the studies cited).

The question arises: is biophilia an only American-European theory? How can it relate to other cultures? Even if these questions are too broad and do not constitute the focus of the contribution, some references could be useful.  

Response 3: 

As the reviewer noticed some questions are too broad and do not constitute the object of the contribution. Despite the etymological and philosophical reference (Aristotle), this review focuses on 60 years (it couldn't cover such vast centuries and cultures). However, the proposed temporal and geographical limits will be declared as part of the limitations in both the ‘Discussion’ and ‘Conclusions’ sections.

Comment 4:

Line 776 and following: Biophilic Urbanism

The authors cited in this paragraph (starting with Beatley) all seem to propose a technocratic vision of biophilia applied to the city. A sort of extension of the green city, very focused on the urban object and not very interested in the political measures to be implemented to achieve the goals that the theory sets itself. It is necessary to specify whether this technical vision is intrinsic to the literature on the topic, or whether the method adopted in the SLR does not limit (does not "see") the approaches of political ecology (which also have a long tradition in urban planning thought). Since every action in the field of urban biophilia must be centered (to respect the theory) on the individuals who live the city and therefore on the community. Perhaps some reference to bioregionalism could be useful.

Response 4: 

As delineated in the 'Biophilic Urbanism' section, Beatley's approach extends beyond the mere expansion of the application scale of Biophilic Design; it encompasses a comprehensive vision aimed at reshaping urban planning through substantial changes in politics and citizen behavior. Furthermore, Beatley is widely acknowledged as a pioneering figure in the field of Biophilic Urbanism at the bio-regional scale, a point that has been consistently emphasized in our review, commencing with the abstract. One of the objective of our review is to elucidate the multifaceted benefits of Biophilia when implemented across different scales within the built environment. We believe that this objective is clearly stated and pursued.

3. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language:

NA

4. Additional clarifications