The Demand of Forest Bathing in Northern Italy’s Regions: An Assessment of the Economic Value
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt was a pleasure to read a paper on this interesting topic, which is increasingly attracting the attention of the academic public. The authors have presented the results of the paper in a very detailed and structured way, even though the sample is commendably very large. I want to make a few suggestions for further improvement of the paper:
The title is short and clear but describes the paper completely.
The abstract is beautifully written and contains all the necessary elements. It is only necessary to add which method was used and who participated in the research, so that future readers can get all the necessary information from the abstract.
The introduction should be expanded considerably since you do not have a literature review chapter. It is necessary to further clarify the concept of FB in a wider context and emphasize the importance of research, for example for the development of tourism in northern Italy (which aspect is the most important - economic, social...).
I suggest that the objectives of the research should be more clearly defined and that the research hypotheses or research questions should be stated in this chapter.
It is necessary to explain the methodology in much more detail. Why was it chosen to examine the inhabitants of northern Italy, and not, say, tourists who visited this area? Why is the opinion of the local population important? This needs to be explained in detail.
The questionnaire was divided into four thematic sections. The first part of the questionnaire was devoted to a topic that is not covered here (questions from D1 to D11). Unclear sentence, then what is the topic covered by those questions? Explain how exactly the questionnaires were collected? (online or live?)
The pattern description is detailed and beautifully presented.
The results are presented in detail and very structured so that they are easy to follow and understand. Kudos to the authors for being able to present such a large sample and research in a very structured way.
The discussion relies on a comparison with the results of previous studies, which is highly commendable. All important topics mentioned in the paper were discussed.
The conclusion chapter needs to be further expanded. I propose to add theoretical and managerial implications of the work, as well as limitations and suggestions for future research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a review of a manuscript titled “The Demand of Forest Bathing in the Northern Italy’s Regions”. I would recommend making minor revisions. In the title it is advised to be written considering the economic dimensions and the stamen that is included in the conclusions about: “the evaluation was carried out in a hypothetical context” to avoid misleading considerations about the manuscript. It is a very interesting analysis, that needs to consider the psychological effects of forest interactions.
Please find my comments below.
Abstract. It is necessary to include a description of your background, main objectives, the results, and your main findings. Please clarify what the fascination factors are.
Check keywords.
Line 22. It could help to give more information to the reader if you include Shinrin-Yoku in your title and keywords.
Line 36. Please refer to the specific documents that relate to the training programs.
Considering that FB stands for bathing forest, wouldn’t be more accessible for the reader the abbreviation BF?
Line 59. Refer to what type of studies have estimated the demand over area.
Line 62. Mention what type of numerous techniques you observed for determining the value of goods.
Line 100. Please mention the characteristics of the statistical survey firm.
Line 107. Elaborate on the characteristics of the sample where you did the survey.
Line 109. What were the topics covered in the first thematic section, otherwise I don’t recommend mentioning it.
Line 238. The statement about “sufficiently detailed and statistically robust picture” must be implicit in the manuscript.
Line 278. Please name again the 3 subsamples.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAttached , you can find my comments !
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors reviewed in detail and accepted all suggestions as the reviewer said. I suggest that the manuscript be accepted.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for the revisions.
Kind regards,
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript is ok !
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
