In this revised version, we further explain the lack of scales for biophilic design evaluation. Please find the revised sentences as below: Revision in Page 3 Line 122-128: “Actually, these are standard research methods of investigative POE; nevertheless, there are no existing POE scales that focus on biophilic design in the workplace. According to the research objectives of this study (i.e., evaluate the subjective health impacts of biophilic design in workplace), we need to refer the well-developed scales from other disciplinary (e.g., Environmental Psychology). And finally, a scale that integrated health evaluation and building environment evaluation (i.e., POE) is developed for investigation.” Point 2: In consideration to their response #8, I understood and agreed with why half the seven of the 14 papers were discarded, but it did not provide much insight into why the Patterns of Biophilic Design was still used.
For their response to comment #6, while I generally agreed with the authors, I felt that it didn’t quite address what I tried to originally convey. POE scales do not likely target biophilic elements in architectural designs directly, since a direct question (e.g., how satisfied are you with the biophilic features) may not accurately depict every beneficial nuance they offer (e.g., psychological recovery). Mayer’s connectedness to nature scale) to help measure them. My generally feeling is that scales, from other domains (i.e., outside of POE studies) have been adopted for this reason, and a short sentence explaining the rationale supporting the lack of scales for biophilic design could be provided to briefly mentioned this. Instead studies may elect to use, for example, other relatable scales, which may not have originally been designed for POE surveys (e.g.