Confirmative biophilic framework for heritage management

Hung-Ming Tu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0266113

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 5, 2021
26 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Editor PONE-D-21-25347Confirmative Biophilic Framework for Heritage ManagementPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hung-Ming Tu, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 12 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf”. 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “The author is sincerely grateful to the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) in Taiwan for its full support (Project No. MOST 107-2410-H-005-028-MY3).” We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “Hung Ming Tu MOST 107-2410-H-005-028-MY3 Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) in Taiwan https://www.most.gov.tw/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. Additional Editor Comments: Dear author, your manuscript is interesting and useful for the tourism economy. I suggest you attend to the comments of the reviewers in order to improve the quality of your manuscript. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: A study of how biophilic design influences heritage architecture and sites. Extremely important for the tourist industry and local economy. Questionnaires created by the author gave statistical data of preferences. Please indicate at the beginning of this paper where this study was done! A more serious omission is the author's lack of literature knowledge. He/she focuses upon natural elements, and does not delve into the biophilic design elements due to the materials and building details and geometry, which is the most relevant to heritage structures because those are higher there than in any recent buildings. This conceptual gap needs to be filled in before the paper is ready for publication, otherwise it is misleading. Other than this additional descriptive explanation, the technical analysis of data is fine. Finally, the Conclusion needs to be re-written and expanded. A reader cannot gain an understanding of the general problem or the result from reading the present vague and brief text. This is an important topic, and the author needs to help the reader understand what this is about -- from the Conclusion. Some relevant references: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/2/823 http://www.biourbanism.org/the-biophilic-healing-index-predicts-effects-of-the-built-environment-on-our-wellbeing/ https://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Biophilia-Healing-Environments-Salingaros-p.pdf Reviewer #2: The document is well written, it presents solids in the discussion. For the author, I suggest that he reinforce the discussion with more sources to support the results. Be very careful with repeated phrases in the document. As far as the statistical analysis is concerned, the document presents a good analysis. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266113.r001
Revision 1
9 Mar 2022 Author Response Submission ID PONE-D-21-25347 Confirmative Biophilic Framework for Heritage Management Additional Editor Comments: Dear author, your manuscript is interesting and useful for the tourism economy. I suggest you attend to the comments of the reviewers in order to improve the quality of your manuscript. 【Our responses】: We thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We are grateful for the reviewer’s comments and suggestions, which significantly contributed to improving the quality of this paper. Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes 【Our responses】: We thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We are grateful for the reviewer’s comments and suggestions, which significantly contributed to improving the quality of this paper. 5. Review Comments to the Author Comments from the Reviewer 1 A study of how biophilic design influences heritage architecture and sites. Extremely important for the tourist industry and local economy. Questionnaires created by the author gave statistical data of preferences. Please indicate at the beginning of this paper where this study was done! A more serious omission is the author's lack of literature knowledge. He/she focuses upon natural elements, and does not delve into the biophilic design elements due to the materials and building details and geometry, which is the most relevant to heritage structures because those are higher there than in any recent buildings. This conceptual gap needs to be filled in before the paper is ready for publication, otherwise it is misleading. Other than this additional descriptive explanation, the technical analysis of data is fine. Finally, the Conclusion needs to be re-written and expanded. A reader cannot gain an understanding of the general problem or the result from reading the present vague and brief text. This is an important topic, and the author needs to help the reader understand what this is about -- from the Conclusion. Some relevant references: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/2/823 http://www.biourbanism.org/the-biophilic-healing-index-predicts-effects-of-the-built-environment-on-our-wellbeing/ https://www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Biophilia-Healing-Environments-Salingaros-p.pdf 【Our responses】: Thank you for your comments and suggestions, which enabled us to enhance the quality of this paper. We added the references to discuss building details and re-written the conclusion. The natural light, bright colors, rich borders, frames, moldings, ornaments, natural materials, balanced curves, water, plants, and non-threatening animals are important considerations for a biophilic design in the built environment [23-25]. In the heritage architecture dimension, natural fractal patterns may play an important role in visual feeling. A natural fractal pattern is a special type of complexity that produces a positive effect on aesthetic experience, preference, emotion, and stress reduction [26]. This is because our ancestors may have identified the non-fractal patterns of animals to avoid dangerous situations and thereby adopted a sensitivity toward natural fractal patterns [26]. In a built environment, the architecture, flooring design, windows, and decorations also use natural fractal patterns to promote an aesthetic experience and preference [26]. For example, the representations of plants, animals, and people in the built environment through photographs, paintings, or sculptures contribute to biophilia [23,24]. The designs of several classical architecture ornaments are derived from leaves, flowers, and animal skins [27]. However, modern architecture often portrays minimalism to erase biophilic features [23,24], which may lead to a reduction in an individual’s positive reflection on preference and emotion. (Lines 108-121). Vernacular architecture often presents the richness and variety of biophilic features to produce a healing effect due to the complex geometry of the neurobiological system's preferences [23]. (Lines 122-123). The elements of architecture and its beautification are consistent with the considerations of biophilic design. Natural fractal patterns and representations of plants, leaves, flowers, animals, and people should be considered to promote biophilic experiences and health [26]. (Lines 309-312) Traditional Japanese gardens present small-scale biophilic interventions in people’s doorways [27]. (Lines 315-316) Considering their effectiveness, cost, and benefit-cost ratio, Xue et al. indicated that natural window views, natural ventilation, and natural landscape promotion with minimal management are the three most essential strategies in a built environment from the perspective of stakeholders [63]. This study also supported the proposition that heritage architecture sites should consider natural window views and natural landscape promotion. One study indicated that the natural environment should not obstruct the view of historical structures at the cost of promoting landscape preferences [64], implying that the aesthetic and natural view of historical structures should be an important consideration while undertaking heritage greening activities. Interestingly, natural decoration and ornamentation are not considered cost-effective or favored in the general built environment by stakeholders [63]. This study suggested that heritage decoration and ornamentation are important considerations for heritage tourism. Therefore, the decoration of natural fractal patterns should be considered for heritage protection or tourism. (Lines 347-358) This kind of restorative experience also contributes to tourists’ positive emotions, life satisfaction, and intention to revisit [70]. (Lines 383-384) This study provides a confirmative framework for the motivation of biophilic heritage tourism. The heritage tourism motivation framework consisted of a second-order six-factor structure with high validity and reliability, following the CFA process, including heritage architecture, art activity, wide nature, regional attraction, recreational benefits, and long-term values. In the heritage architecture dimension, heritage architecture, the beautification of heritage architecture, and heritage architecture style should be considered for protection or representation. In the art activity dimension, heritage sites should hold dynamic and static art activities and holiday markets to promote their critical intangible cultural elements and increase tourism motivation. Natural elements and natural and wide landscapes are critical elements to improve a heritage structure’s environment. The regional attractions were also found to be important elements for heritage tourism, including historical streets, cultural heritage sites, and recreational attractions. The novel and fun experience, sharing of travel experiences, promoting interaction with family and friends, feeling a sense of achievement, promoting a good life, and improving health were observed as the recreational benefits and long-term values associated with heritage tourism, reflecting the intrinsic motivation for tourists to visit these sites and satisfy their biophilic requirements. These six dimensions reflected the biophilic requirements and thereby provided a biophilic planning principle to achieve sustainable heritage management to satisfy participants’ needs. The second-order model’s confirmation allows the use of an overall score to assess the potential of sustainable heritage development and determine the selection of heritage reuse. Heritage tourism with the above six dimensions will have a higher potential for attracting tourists. (Lines 428-447) References: [23] Salingaros NA. Biophilia and healing environments: Healthy principles for designing the built world. Metropolis and Terrapin Bright Green. LLC; 2015. [24] Salingaros NA. The biophilic healing index predicts effects of the built environment on our wellbeing. J. Biourbanism. 2019;8(1):13-34. [25] Gillis K, Gatersleben B. A review of psychological literature on the health and wellbeing benefits of biophilic design. Buildings. 2015;5(3):948-963. doi:10.3390/buildings5030948 [26] Taylor RP. The potential of biophilic fractal designs to promote health and performance: A review of experiments and applications. Sustainability. 2021;13(2):823. doi:10.3390/su13020823 [27] Ryan CO, Browning WD. Biophilic Design. In: Loftness V. (ed.) Sustainable Built Environments. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology Series. Springer, New York, NY; 2020. doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-0684-1_1034 [63] Xue F, Gou Z, Lau SSY, Lau SK, Chung KH, Zhang J. From biophilic design to biophilic urbanism: Stakeholders’ perspectives. J. Clean Prod. 2019;211:1444-1452. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.277 [64] Pardela Ł, Lis A, Iwankowski P, Wilkaniec A, Theile M. The importance of seeking a win-win solution in shaping the vegetation of military heritage landscapes: The role of legibility, naturalness and user preference. Urban Landsc. Plan. 2022;221:104377. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104377 [70] Backman SJ, Huang YC, Chen CC, Lee HY, Cheng JS. Engaging with restorative environments in wellness tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2022;1-18. doi:10.1080/13683500.2022.2039100 Comments from the Reviewer 2 The document is well written, it presents solids in the discussion. For the author, I suggest that he reinforce the discussion with more sources to support the results. Be very careful with repeated phrases in the document. As far as the statistical analysis is concerned, the document presents a good analysis. 【Our responses】: Thank you for your comments and suggestions, which enabled us to enhance the quality of this paper. We added the references to reinforce discussion section. The natural light, bright colors, rich borders, frames, moldings, ornaments, natural materials, balanced curves, water, plants, and non-threatening animals are important considerations for a biophilic design in the built environment [23-25]. In the heritage architecture dimension, natural fractal patterns may play an important role in visual feeling. A natural fractal pattern is a special type of complexity that produces a positive effect on aesthetic experience, preference, emotion, and stress reduction [26]. This is because our ancestors may have identified the non-fractal patterns of animals to avoid dangerous situations and thereby adopted a sensitivity toward natural fractal patterns [26]. In a built environment, the architecture, flooring design, windows, and decorations also use natural fractal patterns to promote an aesthetic experience and preference [26]. For example, the representations of plants, animals, and people in the built environment through photographs, paintings, or sculptures contribute to biophilia [23,24]. The designs of several classical architecture ornaments are derived from leaves, flowers, and animal skins [27]. However, modern architecture often portrays minimalism to erase biophilic features [23,24], which may lead to a reduction in an individual’s positive reflection on preference and emotion. (Lines 108-121). Vernacular architecture often presents the richness and variety of biophilic features to produce a healing effect due to the complex geometry of the neurobiological system's preferences [23]. (Lines 122-123). The elements of architecture and its beautification are consistent with the considerations of biophilic design. Natural fractal patterns and representations of plants, leaves, flowers, animals, and people should be considered to promote biophilic experiences and health [26]. (Lines 309-312) Traditional Japanese gardens present small-scale biophilic interventions in people’s doorways [27]. (Lines 315-316) Considering their effectiveness, cost, and benefit-cost ratio, Xue et al. indicated that natural window views, natural ventilation, and natural landscape promotion with minimal management are the three most essential strategies in a built environment from the perspective of stakeholders [63]. This study also supported the proposition that heritage architecture sites should consider natural window views and natural landscape promotion. One study indicated that the natural environment should not obstruct the view of historical structures at the cost of promoting landscape preferences [64], implying that the aesthetic and natural view of historical structures should be an important consideration while undertaking heritage greening activities. Interestingly, natural decoration and ornamentation are not considered cost-effective or favored in the general built environment by stakeholders [63]. This study suggested that heritage decoration and ornamentation are important considerations for heritage tourism. Therefore, the decoration of natural fractal patterns should be considered for heritage protection or tourism. (Lines 347-358) This kind of restorative experience also contributes to tourists’ positive emotions, life satisfaction, and intention to revisit [70]. (Lines 383-384) References: [23] Salingaros NA. Biophilia and healing environments: Healthy principles for designing the built world. Metropolis and Terrapin Bright Green. LLC; 2015. [24] Salingaros NA. The biophilic healing index predicts effects of the built environment on our wellbeing. J. Biourbanism. 2019;8(1):13-34. [25] Gillis K, Gatersleben B. A review of psychological literature on the health and wellbeing benefits of biophilic design. Buildings. 2015;5(3):948-963. doi:10.3390/buildings5030948 [26] Taylor RP. The potential of biophilic fractal designs to promote health and performance: A review of experiments and applications. Sustainability. 2021;13(2):823. doi:10.3390/su13020823 [27] Ryan CO, Browning WD. Biophilic Design. In: Loftness V. (ed.) Sustainable Built Environments. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology Series. Springer, New York, NY; 2020. doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-0684-1_1034 [63] Xue F, Gou Z, Lau SSY, Lau SK, Chung KH, Zhang J. From biophilic design to biophilic urbanism: Stakeholders’ perspectives. J. Clean Prod. 2019;211:1444-1452. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.277 [64] Pardela Ł, Lis A, Iwankowski P, Wilkaniec A, Theile M. The importance of seeking a win-win solution in shaping the vegetation of military heritage landscapes: The role of legibility, naturalness and user preference. Urban Landsc. Plan. 2022;221:104377. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104377 [70] Backman SJ, Huang YC, Chen CC, Lee HY, Cheng JS. Engaging with restorative environments in wellness tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2022;1-18. doi:10.1080/13683500.2022.20391007 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 22_MOST_first_part3_Response to Reviewers-R1-0309.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266113.r002
15 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Editor Confirmative Biophilic Framework for Heritage Management PONE-D-21-25347R1 Dear Dr. Hung-Ming Tu, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): I have reviewed that you have improved the quality of your manuscript by incorporating the comments of the reviewers. My sincerest congratulations. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266113.r003
Formally Accepted
21 Mar 2022 Acceptance Letter - Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Editor PONE-D-21-25347R1 Confirmative Biophilic Framework for Heritage Management Dear Dr. Tu: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Prof. Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266113.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .