Spearman’s correlation test was conducted, and the revised contents are shown in the updated version. Revision in Page 17 Line 440: “Second, Spearman's correlation analysis is utilized to examine the correlation between three subscales.” Revision in Page 21 Line 472-483: 4.2. Intercorrelation between the three subscales (GH, NR, BDE) “According to Table 10, Spearman's correlations indicate that works' nature relatedness (NR) was positively correlated with self-evaluated GH (r = .264**, p < .01). This result also confirms the previously obtained results that people who had a higher evaluation in nature relatedness are also had a higher evaluation on their health. When the occupants feel that they have a strong sense of relationship with nature, it is observed that the biophilic environment would have positive impacts on their health. More importantly, significant correlation is also found in between biophilic design evaluation and self-reported health (GH), r=.270**, p < .01, indicating that office biophilic design has positive values on workers’ psychological health.” Table 10. Intercorrelations between responses of three subscales. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Point 18: P18, L448-450: Please check whether the sentence is accurate and correct the table caption numbers; I believe these should be Tables 10 and 11 and 12, not 1, 2 and 3.
P18, section 4.2: Similar to comment #13, the data may be more suited to a Spearman’s correlation test, instead of the Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Due to the reasonable size of the dataset collected, it may not change the interpretation, but would help improve the analytical rigour.