The Potential of Co-Designing with Living Organisms: Towards a New Ecological Paradigm in Architecture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is extremely interesting and presents relevant and well-organized case studies and analysis. I think it would benefit from some changes:

. Shortening section 2 "Living Organisms as Part of Designs" (L119 and following) quite a bit. It is not necessary to be so exahusive to provide the proper context for the article.

. The article would benefit from more tables such as Table 2 or explanatory diagrams in which the research and its results are explained graphically and quickly. 

. Revise the text to better fit the format of the journal.

I hope this will help to improve the paper.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2721524

13/12/2023

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Firstly, we would like to thank you for your time and constructive advice. We have taken your suggestions into consideration and, accordingly, we respond and propose some modifications to suit all the reviewers’ comments (there are four reviewers for this paper).

Best regards,

Natasha Heil, Thibaut Houette, Özge Demirci and Lidia Badarnah

 

Reviewer 1

The article is extremely interesting and presents relevant and well-organized case studies and analysis. I think it would benefit from some changes:

-Shortening section 2 "Living Organisms as Part of Designs" (L119 and following) quite a bit. It is not necessary to be so exhaustive to provide the proper context for the article.

-Thank you for your advice, we have largely shorten the section 2

-The article would benefit from more tables such as Table 2 or explanatory diagrams in which the research and its results are explained graphically and quickly. 

-We have added an explanatory diagram to explain the research methodology and steps (Figure 8)

-Revise the text to better fit the format of the journal.

-We have revised the text to fit the format of the journal

 

I hope this will help to improve the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

The topic you have chosen is very interesting and actual.

The title is somehow misleading Designing with Living Organism is not the aim nor the result of the research it is understanding, thinking, potential of or etc. In that respect I would suggest a slight change. The other part is excellent

The abstract and introduction lack the very aim of the research . it says in the abstract that the objective is to investigate and see the impact on raising ecological awareness. It seems to me that the aim is to understand the frame, the scope and possible complexity of introducing living organisms into design process, which by the way is much more than what you have proposed. This humble way is not a good way. In that respect, be precise in both abstract in one sentence and later in introduction (just before the last paragraph that explains the structure of the article) through a paragraph explaining the problem of integration and as well problem of interdisciplinarity and longevity of the process referring also to the results.

Section 2 is too long in my opinion. If possible and if not reluctantly try to shorten it as the reader gets exhausted. Usually, the audience for this particular topic already knows something about it.

Section 3, first paragraph needs an info on weather there were more examples to choose from and if so why you have decided on those ones.

After Table 1. Elaborate on aims (a brainstorm on what we want to understand). It would be better to give certain values that you already recognized through studying cases in section 3. that to offer a set of criteria being typology, multidisciplinarity, ethical values etc. later used in section 4.

Section 4 need small concluding discussions at the end of 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 as an intro to the overall discussion at the end.

Also, think about adding in conclusion a paragraph on advantages and disadvantages, potential and obstacles referring to the aim in the introduction part of the article.

 

      

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2721524

13/12/2023

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Firstly, we would like to thank you for your time and constructive advice. We have taken your suggestions into consideration and, accordingly, we respond and propose some modifications to suit all the reviewers’ comments (there are four reviewers for this paper).

Best regards,

Natasha Heil, Thibaut Houette, Özge Demirci and Lidia Badarnah

 

Reviewer 2

The topic you have chosen is very interesting and actual.

The title is somehow misleading. Designing with Living Organism is not the aim nor the result of the research it is understanding, thinking, potential of or etc. In that respect I would suggest a slight change. The other part is excellent

-Thank you for your advice, we have slightly modified the title to: The potential of co-designing with living organisms towards a new ecological paradigm in architecture

 

The abstract and introduction lack the very aim of the research. It says in the abstract that the objective is to investigate and see the impact on raising ecological awareness. It seems to me that the aim is to understand the frame, the scope and possible complexity of introducing living organisms into the design process, which by the way is much more than what you have proposed. This humble way is not a good way. In that respect, be precise in both abstract in one sentence and later in introduction (just before the last paragraph that explains the structure of the article) through a paragraph explaining the problem of integration and as well the problem of interdisciplinarity and longevity of the process referring also to the results.

-We appreciate that you help to point out the aim of this research. We have added the main objectives on the understanding of interdisciplinary framework and the complexity of co-designing with the living organisms, both in the abstract and in the introduction.

Section 2 is too long in my opinion. If possible and if not reluctantly try to shorten it as the reader gets exhausted. Usually, the audience for this particular topic already knows something about it.

-We have largely shorten the section 2

Section 3, first paragraph needs info on whether there were more examples to choose from and if so why you have decided on those ones.

-We add the reasons why we have selected these three case studies.

After Table 1. Elaborate on aims (a brainstorm on what we want to understand). It would be better to give certain values that you already recognized through studying cases in section 3. that to offer a set of criteria being typology, multidisciplinarity, ethical values etc. later used in section 4.

-We add the criteria that we discovered from the case studies. We explain that we also used these criteria to design interview questions that led to a comparative analysis in section 4.

Section 4 needs small concluding discussions at the end of 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 as an intro to the overall discussion at the end.

-We add an overall small conclusion of the analysis and the result that leads to the discussion.

Also, think about adding in conclusion a paragraph on advantages and disadvantages, potential and obstacles referring to the aim in the introduction part of the article.

-We precisely add the advantage, disadvantage, potential and constraint on using living organisms in architectural design and construction.

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Non-anthropogenic design related to plants and animals has a great future and is an interesting topic related to various trends in contemporary design. The article is an interesting presentation of research, but requires a few corrections.

The introduction provides the research background but should be supplemented with information related to the legislative agenda at EU and global levels. This would allow us to outline the issues in more detail. It would also be advisable to supplement this chapter with the structure of the article and a clear statement of the purpose. The article lacks a clearly defined research methodology. It would also be advisable to have a diagram showing the individual stages.

The photos and tables are interesting, but require in-depth commentary in the text.

The abstract should specifically indicate what is the purpose and result of the research. It's too general for now.

The article should also be supplemented with clearly separated discussion and conclusions. The results would also require a summary and clearly defined recommendations.

The currently presented material is very interesting, but requires significant organization and transformation into a full-fledged scientific article that meets established standards. I consider it necessary to supplement it with methodology, discussion and conclusions with recommendations. I recommend the article for publication, but only if these expectations are met.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2721524

13/12/2023

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Firstly, we would like to thank you for your time and constructive advice. We have taken your suggestions into consideration and, accordingly, we respond and propose some modifications to suit all the reviewers’ comments (there are four reviewers for this paper).

Best regards,

Natasha Heil, Thibaut Houette, Özge Demirci and Lidia Badarnah

 

Reviewer 3

Non-anthropogenic design related to plants and animals has a great future and is an interesting topic related to various trends in contemporary design. The article is an interesting presentation of research, but requires a few corrections.

The introduction provides the research background but should be supplemented with information related to the legislative agenda at EU and global levels. This would allow us to outline the issues in more detail. It would also be advisable to supplement this chapter with the structure of the article and a clear statement of the purpose. The article lacks a clearly defined research methodology. It would also be advisable to have a diagram showing the individual stages.

-We have added texts and references related to EU legislative agenda at beginning of the introduction

-We have added an explanatory diagram to explain the research methodology and steps (Figure 8)

The photos and tables are interesting, but require in-depth commentary in the text.

-We have added commentaries on the images and tables

The abstract should specifically indicate what is the purpose and result of the research. It's too general for now.

-We have modified the abstract to precise better the objectives and the findings

The article should also be supplemented with clearly separated discussion and conclusions. The results would also require a summary and clearly defined recommendations.

-We precisely add the advantage, disadvantage, potential and constraint on using living organisms in architectural design and construction.

The currently presented material is very interesting, but requires significant organization and transformation into a full-fledged scientific article that meets established standards. I consider it necessary to supplement it with methodology, discussion and conclusions with recommendations. I recommend the article for publication, but only if these expectations are met.

-This paper is between a review article and a scientific article, the results/findings present in qualitative literature format. In any case, as mentioned above We added an explanatory diagram to explain the scientific research methodology and steps (Figure 8)

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We thank the authors for submitting the study to the journal. The topic is interesting and calibrated in current research in the field.  For the purpose of completing the article, we ask you to better argue the building applications of the materials presented, including technical drawings or specifications with dimensions, thicknesses, etc. where possible.

- We would also suggest making tables 1 and 2 more readable.

- We would suggest to better calibrate the keywords, those inherent to 'Architecture and Construction', perhaps by inserting the diction sustainability and/or building construction etc.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

nothing to observe

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2721524

13/12/2023

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Firstly, we would like to thank you for your time and constructive advice. We have taken your suggestions into consideration and, accordingly, we respond and propose some modifications to suit all the reviewers’ comments (there are four reviewers for this paper).

Best regards,

Natasha Heil, Thibaut Houette, Özge Demirci and Lidia Badarnah

 

Reviewer 4

We thank the authors for submitting the study to the journal. The topic is interesting and calibrated in current research in the field.  For the purpose of completing the article, we ask you to better argue the building applications of the materials presented, including technical drawings or specifications with dimensions, thicknesses, etc. where possible.

- We would also suggest making tables 1 and 2 more readable.

-We have modified the tables and the text to suit the journal format

- We would suggest better calibrating the keywords, those inherent to 'Architecture and Construction', perhaps by inserting the diction sustainability and/or building construction etc.

-We have modified the keywords, according to the new title of the article, thank you for the advice

-We have also modified the title, abstract, introduction to precise better our objectives and findings

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current form of the article is much more refined. The introduction was expanded to include research background relating to global regulations related to the topic discussed. The objectives of the presented research were clearly emphasized, which made the structure of the text more clear. The graphics are very impressive. All figures are refined and complement the text well. One thing that is missing are conclusions that, given such a broad analysis, would be indicated, for example, in the form of recommendations relating to the presented research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added advantage/disadvantage and recommendations based on our the findings of our selected case studies. 

(PDF revision round 2, attached)

Thank you for your pertinent advice, 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf