Health Impacts of Biophilic Design from a Multisensory Interaction Perspective: Empirical Evidence, Research Designs, and Future Directions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research perspective presented in this paper is intriguing, as perception has always been a crucial lens in exploring both the internal and external spaces of cities. The content of the study, which delves into the multisensory effects of Biophilic Design, demonstrates the potential for a profound understanding of this field. Nevertheless, to enhance the clarity, rigor, and guidance of the article, the following revision suggestions are offered:

1）Adjust the Introduction for a clearer articulation of the research background and objectives.

2）Restructure the Methodology and Summary Section: Begin by summarizing the key findings and then elaborate further. For instance: "We comprehensively analyzed empirical studies investigating the interactions between two and three sensory modalities in Biophilic Design, systematically summarizing the pivotal methods and techniques employed in these experimental studies. These include study types and subject selection, environmental exposure simulations, health benefit assessment indicators, and experimental process design. This analysis not only deepens our comprehension of the health benefits associated with Biophilic Design but also provides methodological insights for future research endeavors."

3）Expand on Specific Research Aspects: As mentioned, by incorporating "subject selection" as a crucial aspect in the discussion of experimental design, as the choice of participants significantly impacts experimental outcomes.

4）Elaborate on Future Research Directions: Provide more concrete and forward-looking perspectives. For example: A) Emphasize the need to quantify both the immediate and long-term effects of multisensory interactions, particularly exploring the underlying neural mechanisms and psychological processes. B) Highlight the value of interdisciplinary collaborations in unraveling the complex impacts of Biophilic Design on human well-being, fostering innovation and advancements in design practices.

5）Refine Language and Logical Flow: Further condense the language to avoid redundancy and repetition. Ensure that paragraph transitions are logical and seamless, allowing readers to follow the research trajectory effortlessly. Enhance sentence clarity and coherence by adjusting sentence lengths and incorporating appropriate connectives such as "particularly emphasizing" and "furthermore."

6）Incorporate Visual Representations and Citations: Where possible, supplement textual explanations with images to visually illustrate research findings or methodologies, thereby enhancing readability and persuasiveness. Ensure all citations are accurate and adhere to the citation norms of the field.

7）Strengthen the Clarity of Purpose: In the conclusion, reinforce the paper's purpose by explicitly stating, "This review advocates for the accumulation of more scientific evidence to quantitatively evaluate multisensory experiences in biophilic environments and their subsequent influence on health and well-being, thereby underscoring the research's value and future orientation."

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript reviews the progress of research related to biophilic design from the multisensory interaction, which is a good reference for future research. However, this manuscript can still be improved in the following aspects:

1) The five common senses of the human body are auditory, olfactory, taste, visual, and haptic. The author analyzes thermal rather than taste; how is this variation considered? Additionally, besides the thermal environment, human sensation may also involve factors such as humidity and air pressure, and there may be interactive relationships between temperature and humidity. How is this aspect considered in this review? Furthermore, with the development of biology, new types of senses have been discovered or defined, such as emotions (e.g., stress, fear), time perception, and spatial perception. Could the author consider introducing more sensory characteristics for future research and preliminarily judge the possible connections between these senses?

2) In Section 2, kindly furnish a meticulous account of the literature count at each procedural juncture, thereby enhancing the transparency and traceability of the research methodology."

3) The manuscript discusses the multisensory interaction, but is there a regulatory effect? For example, in Section 3.1.5, it is mentioned that 'a study found that the aroma of lilac can reduce the annoyance caused by traffic noise in urban streets,' which seems to be more of a regulatory effect.

4) In Chapter 4, it is suggested to include an additional review of the urban or regional settings of the experimental studies, to facilitate the direction of future research in currently unexplored areas.

5) At present, Chapter 6 lacks depth, and the conclusion should be enriched with more nuanced insights. It is advised to provide a comprehensive discussion of the key findings of the study, delineate the distinctive aspects of the current research advancements, highlight the principal areas for improvement, and proffer impactful suggestions for the trajectory of future inquiries.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language quality in the manuscript is commendable and aligns with academic writing standards. The authors have successfully conveyed their concepts in a manner that is both clear and logically structured. Nonetheless, there are minor sections where the language could be further refined for enhanced clarity and impact.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has undergone a significant enhancement after the latest round of revision, exhibiting exceptional academic value. Here is a suggestion for further improvement: In Section 5.2, when discussing factors such as temperature and atmospheric pressure, it is recommended to supplement the discussion with relevant literature evidence.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf