Use of Measurement Tools to Validate the Health Effects of Forest Healing Programs: A Qualitative Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, authors evaluated the suitability of health measurement tools used in forest healing research through the use of qualitative analysis methods, including FGI and IDI. Findings from this study will serve as a valuable reference in selecting measurement tools that will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of forest healing interventions. Generally, the article is suitable for publication in this journal, but some issues need to be addressed.

1.     Abstract: Generally, this section is presented as a single paragraph. Some obvious errors appeared such as "Correspondence: were collected during". Additionally, when MAXQDA first appeared, please describe it in its entirety.

2.     Materials and Methods: In the section of 2.4. Analysis, it is necessary to consistently report the aberrations of authors "HR C, I C, YY C, HR, IH, YY".

3.     Results: Table 1 contains some errors, for example, the line below sex is incorrect.  The 3.3 and 3.4 need to be rewritten. It is not like a typical results section. It is recommended that sentences regarding "participants (A, B, C...)" and "forest healing instructor" be presented in tables.

4.     Author Contributions: This information is missing.

5.     Other suggestions: Check the entire manuscript carefully. Several errors occur in the details, particularly in the References. Please also restructure the article in accordance with the MDPI format. As an example, the author uses an incorrect style of citation in the text (i.e., Author, published year), such as “(Chun, 2023)”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Overall, this manuscript is well written and might spot interest in the reader. I have only some suggestions related to this manuscript.

Title

The title is an accurate presentation of the manuscript content. However, Authors could replace confusing words such as ‘verify’ from the title.

Abstract

The abstract provides a clear overview of the manuscript. However, Authors could add more values when introducing the results to the reader.

Main text

Background of the study is rather short. Authors are recommended to elaborate on different important concepts related to this manuscript. Also, does the motivation have any important role on health indicators in this context? The motivation has gained increasing attention in health studies. Authors are recommended to elaborate on that.

Methods

Methods are described in a great detail.

Results

Results are also well described.

Discussion

There is one reference issue in the discussion, please check that out.

Authors are recommended to add more practical implications of their study.

Also, please add more limitations of this study as well as suggestions for future research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The level of English is good.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a great paper and a good evidence towards making tools to assess forest therapy program. However, there are a few items that must be addressed.

1. Literature review: The literature base is weak. There is little discussion of theories regarding forest therapy and landscape and human health. Stress reduction theory, attention restoration theory, dose of nature, etc. are not present. 

2. Methods: Methods are sufficient. However, please explain how the data are analyzed and how the biases may be balanced or discussed-- both during data collection and analysis. 

3. Results: Results lack overall description. Please make sure to explain the frequency or intensity of the items expressed and how you categorized them this way.

Thank you for making such work. I'd love to see it published soon. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-Why did you choose 99 participants? Generally, public surveys require more than 200 people to be statistically significant.

-Please mention that the site and date of manufacture of equipments.

-When did the interviewer use Zoom?

-Too many abbreviations interfere with reading.

-'Korean word' vs 'Original word'. I think this non-English material can be attached instead of in main body.

-The analysis and description of the results are inadequate. You have got a wealth of data, but it is not presented. And I did not find it in the discussion part. Perhaps present more figures or table.

-Conclusions should be rewritten

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper concerns the problem of relatationship between human health, mainly self-assessed health status, and forest influence (forest teraphy) on human healthy feeling. It is an important and current problem in the era of fragmentation of areas with natural ecosystems and the decrease of bidiversity, as well ecosystem services effectiveness. The presented research concentrates on health indicators and measurements tools possible to use. As previous research results show, this issue is generally difficult to measure, so the research task taken by the Authors is justifiable. 

The authors have studied and tested some tools of evaluation of health status, indicating advantages and disadvantages and possible improvement of these tools. So, the most interesting is the methodical approach (presented in the paper) which is considered as partially innovative (including 5 mental health questionnaires - propesed by the Authors) - original tools implemented in qualitative analysis based on focus group interviews and in-depth interviews (at the same time - this approach is relatively easy in implementation). It is a contribution to the methodology in this field of research.

In my opinion, the interest of readers will be high.

Detailed comments:

Ad Abstract - abstract should be better tidied up: starting from general problem of research, through clearly formulated aim of research, the most important research results and usefulness of the findings. The second paragraph: "Correspondence: were..." (somthing is wrong...) and "The program participants..." - please, try to reformulate to make it clear...

Ad 1. BCKGROUND - I suggest change into 1. INTRODUCTION. The last pargraph: "We investigated the utility..." change into: "Various tools were investigated ...". 

Ad 4. DISCUSSION - it is written  well (interesting comments), but more citations of other scientific works (results of these works) should be introduced.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As above: a few grammatical corrections were indicated in the Abstract and in the subsection 1. Background.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have done well job on revising the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Accept in present form