There are general biophilic design frameworks (e.g., the 24 Biophilic Design Attributes and the 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design) and green building, healthy building standards (e.g., WELL v2 and Singapore Green Mark) that include biophilia into the certification systems in nowadays. And the issue raised by the authors is that these biophilic design frameworks (design guidelines or standards) are general design frameworks (design guidelines or standards) which can be applied to all building typologies (i.e., residential buildings, workplaces, retails, etc). Further research needs to be conducted to develop the design guideline specific for workplace. The sentence was rewritten to demonstrate this argument. Revision in Page 2 Line 56-61: “Although the importance of biophilic design seems to be well-acknowledged, and some international or regional green building and healthy building standards incorporate biophilic design elements into the rating system, such as WELL building standard version 2 and Singapore Green Mark [53]. However, further research on developing building typology-based biophilic design guidelines and assessment methods are necessary.” Point 4:
P2, 47-53: Although in the past there were few guidelines, nowadays, there may be more standards that focus on nature integration within the built environment. WELL v2 has several features for Nature and Mind, and Biophilia – Parts I and II, with quantitative assessment methods provided. Similarly, the Green Mark system uses the green plot ratio, assigning credits to greenery provision to enhance biodiversity and visual relief. Other standards likely incorporate biophilic elements in building architecture and could be worth highlighting. The general issue raised by the authors do not necessarily imply a lack of guidelines for biophilic design, since there are several readily available, but may point toward prioritization or emphasis of criteria to meet certain varying expectations, which was alluded to on lines 52-53. If the authors agree with this, perhaps this could be revised here to reflect this.