Access to Nature Fosters Well-Being in Solitude

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you very much for the interesting read. The paper is very well written, clear, well backed with literature. Methods are well described and limitations of the study due to resreach design is clearly outlined and for retracing and reproducing, supplementary material is provided. Here, try to have the key materials such as the information about interviewees and set of questions used somewhere within the mdpi system or as an appendix for the final publication instead of the osf sharefile.

My only very small point is that a bit more clearly is needed about how you collected the participants. You write:  "Participants were recruited through both advertisements within the community and Prolific Academic."  - this sounds a bit cloudy to me. So it would good to a bit better explain in two or three sentences how you reached out for the participants in a bit more detail. Was it asking colleagues and friends, asked persons in the street or did you distribute leaflets with contact information or put a note at the university campus notification boards?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Access to Nature Fosters Well-Being in Solitude” refers to an interesting study, with somewhat already known arguments. It follows a sound methodological qualitative approach, although somewhat short on detail and outcomes, and the overall results are coherent and interesting.

It is not a ground breaking study but it does contribute positively to a growing and needed approach to valuing nature in the context of the present climate emergency and human health. All in all, it’s a fairly interesting study and I do think it is worth publishing. I would, nevertheless, urge the authors to explore the heterogeneity of their sample, as it would improve the overall outcome of the study.

Specific comments:

Method:

Lines 101-102: Please describe Prolific Academic.

Results:

Line 143: the authors, when referring to the 5 overarching themes, should briefly mention them. It would help the reader to more easily follow each one. 

The participants’ demography should have been considered in the results. The wide demographic heterogeneity may well be ‘hiding’ some important insights.

Minor comments:

line 318: shouldn’t it be ‘in the form of gardens’?

Lines 353-361: the first mention to the Sustainable Development Goals should have the acronym (SDG) after the description.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I found this article very interesting and innovative and of interest from different subject areas. I have only a few clarifications which I will explain later. 

Abstract: 

It may not be specified that the analysis was conducted by two architects.

Introduction:

This part should be inserted at the end of the introduction: Much is known about the well-being outcomes of everyday nature connection,  but little about how nature connection manifests when it is employed as a psychological  resource during periods of stress or adjustment, and particularly when individuals connect to nature as they spend time in solitude, on their own. The current project was aimed at closing this gap, and extending our understanding of the impact of access to natural spaces by exploring its role as a resource to improve time spent alone, in solitude,  in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

In introduction expand theme of nature and connection with nature. Since something is mentioned in the current study but some review of the literature previously regarding these aspects that are key in your work needs to be done. In introduction also I would refer to the perception of loneliness in different countries during lockdown (some reference of the literature) as the fact of having done the research during this particular time is central to your research although correctly it has been cited as a limitation as it does not allow generalization of the results.

Participants:

Some data should be included in this section with reference to, for example, the number of participants differentiated by gender and by country of origin.  In addition, it is relevant to specify the type of sampling (snowball?).

Procedure

Specify from what period to what period did you do interviews from what month to what month of the year 2020?

 

Limitations:

 An important limitation of your work and one that has not been mentioned is the fact that you did not assess whether the person interviewed lived in a setting surrounded by nature or in an urban setting. The results are discussed with reference to urban and work context, but was this considered? Since it could skew the results and then it should be specified in the limitations.

 

The results are clearly and comprehensively presented with scientific rigor, and likewise the discussion is clear and supported by the scientific literature.  

Overall, I find it to be a very nice article and enjoyable to read. Good luck with the edits. I look forward to reading the final version.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf