We believe that there is no conflict between the different classifications. The same parameters (e.g., daylight, thermal comfort, and air-quality, office layout and building form) can be classified in different classifications (i.e., the traditional POE frameworks and the biophilic design frameworks) by different perspectives. 1) From perspective of building science, building performance, and traditional POE, these parameters (e.g., daylight, thermal comfort, and air-quality) are considered as indoor environment parameters, and office layout and building form are considered a physical and architectural parameters. 2) On the other hand, from the perspective of biophilia and biophilic design, (e.g., factors workers’ satisfaction and productivity), these parameters are re-classified and defined as the factors affecting workplace health. Both classifications validated by previous literatures.
P4, L180-183: In traditional POE studies and general building science research, daylight, thermal comfort, and air-quality, would be considered as indoor environment parameters (as examples, please see refs. in comment #4), while office layout and building form would be considered a physical and architectural parameters. Reading further to page 5, lines 189-192, the authors begin to suggest to this, but referred to them and others indoor environmental parameters as factors for the workplace. I would suggest better rationalising the connections between the nine design parameters to biophilia to make these more overt.