The authors gave the reason after the sentence in Page 4, Line 173-174 of the original manuscript “Second, the authors neglect seven design patterns from the 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design which are not representative of the workplace design.” to explain why the seven of the patterns from the 14 patterns of biophilic design were discarded: For instance, the patterns “Presence of Water”, “Prospect”, “Refuge”, “Mystery”, and “Risk” (i.e., itemized patterns 5, 11, 12, 13, and 14 in Column B) are recommended but not demonstrative in this building typology (workplace). Those are usually applicable in other building typologies, such as hotels or residential. To further explain why these patterns are recommended but are discarded: 1) First, these design patterns (i.e., the seven discarded patterns of the 14 biophilic design patterns) are recommended because they are proofed that benefits health. 2) However, these patterns are not common in most offices. For instance, in most cases, the employers would not create an office environment that makes the workers feel “Prospect”, “Refuge”, “Mystery”, and “Risk”. 3) Therefore, we only included those biophilic design patterns that relatively easy to apply in the workplace (e.g., greenery, natural light, artworks), and discard those which are not representative in an office design. And the sentences are revised to further explain the discard of the seven patterns. Please see the revised contents in the updated manuscript below: Revision in Page 5 Line 191-197: “For instance, the patterns “Presence of Water”, “Prospect”, “Refuge”, “Mystery”, and “Risk” (i.e., itemized patterns 5, 11, 12, 13, and 14 in Column B) are recommended because they are proofed that benefits health. For instance, in most cases, the employers would not create an office environment that makes the workers feel “Prospect”, “Refuge”, “Mystery”, and “Risk”.” Point 9:
Response 2: All the photos in Table 6 are taken by the designers.