The Importance of Forest Management in Psychological Restoration: Exploring the Effects of Landscape Change in a Suburban Forest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The results and discussion sections are well-connected, especially in the analysis of PANAS, ROS, SVS, and POMS scales. However, there are some repetitions in the text, such as "contact with nature, with nature," which should be corrected. Additionally, the limitations section raises several important points but could provide a more detailed explanation of how these limitations affect the study's results, offering better guidance for future research.

2.The study contributes to the literature by assessing psychological health across different forest types, addressing a gap in existing research. The use of psychological scales such as PANAS, ROS, SVS, and POMS for comparative analysis is innovative. However, the discussion could more explicitly highlight the unique contributions of this study compared to previous research. For instance, further elaboration on why mature forests have a more significant positive impact on psychological health than second-growth forests and clear-cut areas could reveal new theories or mechanisms.

3.he language used is generally clear and understandable, but some sentences are long, which may hinder comprehension. It is recommended to break down complex sentences into shorter, more concise ones. For example, "It would be worthwhile to determine in future studies whether longer exposure to the forest landscape produces the same benefits," could be simplified to, "Future studies should determine whether longer exposure to the forest landscape yields similar benefits."

4.The terminology is mostly consistent, but terms like "tupu spaces" are not clearly defined or explained, which might confuse readers. It is advisable to provide a definition when the term first appears.

5.There are some spelling and grammatical errors that need to be corrected, such as the term "tupu spaces," which should be reviewed for accuracy. Minor errors like "we can't exclude that" should be revised to more formal language, such as "we cannot exclude the possibility that."

6. The research question in the text concerns the impact of different types of forest management (mature forest, second-growth forest, and clear-cutting areas) on health benefits. However, the introduction of this research question feels somewhat sudden. It would be beneficial to include a brief description of these different forest types in the background section and to more clearly guide the reader to understand why these forest types are significant to the study.

7.The text discusses the changing social demands in current forest management and mentions some ecosystem services related to health and recreation. This is a current research hotspot, but the expression of innovation in the text is not sufficiently highlighted. Although several related studies are cited, it is not clearly stated how this study expands upon or innovates based on existing research. For example, has the relationship between management intensity and forest landscape been extensively explored in other studies? Does this study offer a unique perspective in its methodology or research subjects? Further elaboration on these aspects would help to emphasize the innovation of the research.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your insightful and valuable comments. Below is a list of the changes made as suggested by the reviewer;

 

1.The results and discussion sections are well-connected, especially in the analysis of PANAS, ROS, SVS, and POMS scales. However, there are some repetitions in the text, such as "contact with nature, with nature," which should be corrected. Additionally, the limitations section raises several important points but could provide a more detailed explanation of how these limitations affect the study's results, offering better guidance for future research.

Response: We have corrected the repetitions in line 320 and expanded the content of the Limitation chapter in lines 437-449

 

2.The study contributes to the literature by assessing psychological health across different forest types, addressing a gap in existing research. The use of psychological scales such as PANAS, ROS, SVS, and POMS for comparative analysis is innovative. However, the discussion could more explicitly highlight the unique contributions of this study compared to previous research. For instance, further elaboration on why mature forests have a more significant positive impact on psychological health than second-growth forests and clear-cut areas could reveal new theories or mechanisms.

Response: Thank you very much for this comment, in the discussion we have tried to present our position, to justify the results obtained. We have completed the description in lines 349-353 and 386-391.We hope that the changes made will be welcomed by the Reviewer

 

3.he language used is generally clear and understandable, but some sentences are long, which may hinder comprehension. It is recommended to break down complex sentences into shorter, more concise ones. For example, "It would be worthwhile to determine in future studies whether longer exposure to the forest landscape produces the same benefits," could be simplified to, "Future studies should determine whether longer exposure to the forest landscape yields similar benefits."

Response: Thank you very much for this comment. We have reviewed the manuscript again with this in mind. We have corrected the construction of the indicated sentence line 452-453.

 

4.The terminology is mostly consistent, but terms like "tupu spaces" are not clearly defined or explained, which might confuse readers. It is advisable to provide a definition when the term first appears.

Response: Thank you very much for this comment, we apologise for the oversight on our part. In the new version of the manuscript, we have removed the erroneous expression - line 324

 

5.There are some spelling and grammatical errors that need to be corrected, such as the term "tupu spaces," which should be reviewed for accuracy. Minor errors like "we can't exclude that" should be revised to more formal language, such as "we cannot exclude the possibility that."

Response: We have removed the errors identified by the reviewer. The correction concerns the lines 324 and 461-462

 

 

6. The research question in the text concerns the impact of different types of forest management (mature forest, second-growth forest, and clear-cutting areas) on health benefits. However, the introduction of this research question feels somewhat sudden. It would be beneficial to include a brief description of these different forest types in the background section and to more clearly guide the reader to understand why these forest types are significant to the study.

Response: Thank you very much for this comment, we have added a few sentences (line 93-98) preceding the research questions, with the hope that now the transition to the research questions is smoother.

 

7.The text discusses the changing social demands in current forest management and mentions some ecosystem services related to health and recreation. This is a current research hotspot, but the expression of innovation in the text is not sufficiently highlighted. Although several related studies are cited, it is not clearly stated how this study expands upon or innovates based on existing research. For example, has the relationship between management intensity and forest landscape been extensively explored in other studies? Does this study offer a unique perspective in its methodology or research subjects? Further elaboration on these aspects would help to emphasize the innovation of the research.

Response: The reviewer's remark is pertinent, although we find it very difficult to emphasise the innovation of our research. Nevertheless, we have revisited the manuscript. And in the discussion section, we have tried to highlight what we think makes this work stand out. We have added text at lines 349-353 and 384.

 

Thank you again for all your valuable and pertinent suggestions, we hope that the proposed changes will satisfy the reviewer

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1)      The two hypotheses are too vaguely formulated. Please reformulate

2)      “students of the Warsaw University of Life Sciences”.

Extending the research to students (or professionals) of other sectors (Philology, Law, Physics, Economics, Engineering, Agriculture or Forest Sc.) or to non-students or non-scientific professionals, as well as considering variables such as rural or urban origin, age, gender, family socio-economic status, parents education level etc might have enriched the research with many more interesting results. Pose such a future research challenge/question at the end.

3)      “Volunteer students who agreed to participate in the research were informed about the study goals as well as the procedure of its conduct prior to the beginning of the experiment”

In what details were they informed? If the interviewees are informed in details about the research goal, then they may answer tactically and insincerely. Give an argument about it.

4)      “Unhealthy adults with mental or physical diseases or metabolic syndromes were excluded from the study.” Nevertheless, such groups could perhaps produce really innovative and trans-disciplinarily interesting results. Pose it as a challenge/question for future research

5)      In the section 2.2, there are too many descriptive eco-physiological data. Are they really necessary?

6)      “ Contact with nature, with nature,”

The text should be checked again for such strange formulations and slight improvements

7)      “The visual appearance of a forest is important because people experience the environment visually, and aesthetics is the most fundamental dimension of human-landscape interaction [42]. People tend to prefer forest scenery that has a large number of large trees of different ages and species, and the understory consists of low, sparse ground vegetation [43].” ….

“Exposure to a clear cutting area leads to a decrease in positive feelings and an increase in negative feelings. Only contact with a mature forest stand guaranteed a marked improvement in mood, an increase in positive feelings and a decrease in negative feelings, especially when compared with clear cutting area.” ……

“Clear-cutting area has significantly inferior restorative properties compared to mature forest stands and second growth forest. This observation is important for managing forests within city limits and in the suburban zone of large cities”

Etc etc etc….

Many of things you mention are too self-evident. Aren’t they? Make the self-evident parts more concise and start with the comment “Of course it is self-evident even without research that… However……” in order to anticipate such devaluing criticism about triviality and try to emphasize what innovative you found out. The triviality is not the main problem only of your paper but of what we call “science” and “research” at the universities worldwide nowadays.

8)      “find ways to modify harvesting methods” is a little bit more substantial but still too vague

 

In general, as said, what you have found is not “a big finding”. However, no “big finding” is nowadays achieved through university research. Considering triviality of many other papers which are published in many journals (even in “reputable” ones appearing in ISI and Scopus) and either they do not even present a quantitative analysis and thus are not really differentiated from an over-simplified or outdated journalist work or even from an over-simplified pupil work at school or they are characterized by extremely and possibly unnecessarily complicated quantitative methods producing no really innovative conclusions, it would be quite unfair to reject the particular paper only blaming it for triviality of results. At least, the particular one presents a quantitative approach which can serve as a springboard to a wider and more elaborated and challenging interdisciplinary research in future (medicine, forest science, biology, sociology, psychology etc). Apart from that, this paper is not badly written and it is easy to be read. Its research topic is challenging, its possible function of “springboard” is quite important and thus may also attract many citations for possible future research (if citations should also be regarded as a formal goal of publishing).

Thus, I suggest publication after minor revision.

In any case, we should not forget that the only certain results are the trivial ones and these can always be rejected because they are trivial while innovative results can also be always rejected as uncertain or occasional ones.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have corrected the text according to the reviewer's suggestions. We have made the following changes;

 

1)      The two hypotheses are too vaguely formulated. Please reformulate

1. Response: We have reformulated the research hypotheses. We hope that they are now in line with the reviewer's suggestion. The current wording of the hypotheses presented in lines 104-115 are:

H.1. Contact with the landscape of a commertial forest has a positive effect on people’s psychological relaxation, expressed in terms of an increase in perceived regenerative outcomes, subjective vitality and positive emotions and a decrease in negative emotions.

H.2.  Greater relaxation benefits are obtained from exposure to a forest landscape percived as close to natural. Exposure to clear-cutting area and second growth forest leads to a reduction in the regenerative value of the forest.

2)      “students of the Warsaw University of Life Sciences”.

Extending the research to students (or professionals) of other sectors (Philology, Law, Physics, Economics, Engineering, Agriculture or Forest Sc.) or to non-students or non-scientific professionals, as well as considering variables such as rural or urban origin, age, gender, family socio-economic status, parents education level etc might have enriched the research with many more interesting results. Pose such a future research challenge/question at the end.

Response: Thank you very much for this comment. We include this research strand in the Limitation chapter at lines 437-441. It inspires us to undertake further research in terms of the therapeutic potential of various forest landscape features.

 

3)      “Volunteer students who agreed to participate in the research were informed about the study goals as well as the procedure of its conduct prior to the beginning of the experiment”

In what details were they informed? If the interviewees are informed in details about the research goal, then they may answer tactically and insincerely. Give an argument about it.

Response: Answering the reviewer's question: Volunteers were given background information to the extent necessary to decide whether they wanted to participate in the experiment voluntarily. They knew that the study was to find out how the forest was affecting them, how long the experiment would last. They were also informed that all the information we were acquiring about their wellbeing was confidential (anonymously completed questionnaires). We have added this information in the revised version of the manuscript at lines 123-126.

 

4)      “Unhealthy adults with mental or physical diseases or metabolic syndromes were excluded from the study.” Nevertheless, such groups could perhaps produce really innovative and trans-disciplinarily interesting results. Pose it as a challenge/question for future research

Response: Certainly, this type of research could be very interesting, although extremely difficult, especially with regard to the participation of mentally ill people. Nevertheless, thank you very much, a mention of the need for such research appeared in the Limitation chapter in the revised version of the manuscript at lines 441-449.

 

5)      In the section 2.2, there are too many descriptive eco-physiological data. Are they really necessary?

Response: Thank you for your comment, we may indeed have shown the forest features in too much detail. We have shortened the description of section 2.2. as suggested by the Reviewer, leaving only the data we consider necessary to approximate the characteristics of the study plots.

 

6)      “ Contact with nature, with nature,”

The text should be checked again for such strange formulations and slight improvements

Response: Thank you very much for your attention, we have corrected the unnecessary repetition in line 320 in the new version of the manuscript

 

 

7)      “The visual appearance of a forest is important because people experience the environment visually, and aesthetics is the most fundamental dimension of human-landscape interaction [42]. People tend to prefer forest scenery that has a large number of large trees of different ages and species, and the understory consists of low, sparse ground vegetation [43].” ….

“Exposure to a clear cutting area leads to a decrease in positive feelings and an increase in negative feelings. Only contact with a mature forest stand guaranteed a marked improvement in mood, an increase in positive feelings and a decrease in negative feelings, especially when compared with clear cutting area.” ……

“Clear-cutting area has significantly inferior restorative properties compared to mature forest stands and second growth forest. This observation is important for managing forests within city limits and in the suburban zone of large cities”

Etc etc etc….

Many of things you mention are too self-evident. Aren’t they? Make the self-evident parts more concise and start with the comment “Of course it is self-evident even without research that… However……” in order to anticipate such devaluing criticism about triviality and try to emphasize what innovative you found out. The triviality is not the main problem only of your paper but of what we call “science” and “research” at the universities worldwide nowadays.

Response: Thank you very much for this comment, indeed in retrospect all these findings we are writing about seem trivial. We have made changes, in chapter 4.1 that will help pre-empt the devaluing criticism of triviality and emphasise the innovation of our approach.

8)      “find ways to modify harvesting methods” is a little bit more substantial but still too vague

Response: We have removed the sentence mentioned by the reviewer from the conclusion section. Indeed, leaving it would have required an elaboration of the thoughts, and there is usually no space for this in a summary.

 

Once again, thank you very much for all your comments and suggestions. We hope that the corrections made will be positively received by the reviewer.

 

In general, as said, what you have found is not “a big finding”. However, no “big finding” is nowadays achieved through university research. Considering triviality of many other papers which are published in many journals (even in “reputable” ones appearing in ISI and Scopus) and either they do not even present a quantitative analysis and thus are not really differentiated from an over-simplified or outdated journalist work or even from an over-simplified pupil work at school or they are characterized by extremely and possibly unnecessarily complicated quantitative methods producing no really innovative conclusions, it would be quite unfair to reject the particular paper only blaming it for triviality of results. At least, the particular one presents a quantitative approach which can serve as a springboard to a wider and more elaborated and challenging interdisciplinary research in future (medicine, forest science, biology, sociology, psychology etc). Apart from that, this paper is not badly written and it is easy to be read. Its research topic is challenging, its possible function of “springboard” is quite important and thus may also attract many citations for possible future research (if citations should also be regarded as a formal goal of publishing).

Thus, I suggest publication after minor revision.

In any case, we should not forget that the only certain results are the trivial ones and these can always be rejected because they are trivial while innovative results can also be always rejected as uncertain or occasional ones.

Response: Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and recognising the innovation of the experiment we conducted. In our study, we focused on measuring the restoration values of three different plots in a commercial forest that differed markedly in their vertical structure (tall trees - mature forest stand, low 2-year-old plants - second-growth forest and a plot without trees - clearcutting area). We are unable to carry out additional analysis based on the Reviewer's guidance. In the case of clearcuts it is not possible to determine tree species, leaf area index, tree age, as this is a completely treeless area. Similarly, we cannot operate on variables such as age, education, income of respondents. This is mainly because our study involved students in a similar age range of 19-24 years, all with secondary education level. They were full-time students, which basically excludes the possibility of having a permanent job, thus earning a regular income. Nevertheless, it is worth including other social groups in future research. We find the reviewer's observation very inspiring. In the limitations chapter, there is a mention of the need to continue research in this particular direction. Thank you once again for your kind and constructive comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Forest visual landscape is an important information source for the public to evaluate the sustainability of forest resource management.The study shows that not all commercial forest landscapes have a regenerative effect on people, which can be measured by an increase in positive emotions, a decrease in negative emotions, an increase in subjective vitality, and an improvement in mood.The research is innovative to a certain extent, but the experimental design and data analysis are a little simple. Can you detail various indicators of the participants in the questionnaire (such as age, gender, education background, income, etc.) and then conduct group analysis?Or according to the tree indicators (tree species, leaf area index, tree age, etc.) group analysis.

In a word, this is a very meaningful study, but unfortunately, the process and results I have seen are not rich enough. Could you give me a more detailed analysis?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English of the manuscript needs to be further improved to avoid some grammatical errors.

Author Response

Forest visual landscape is an important information source for the public to evaluate the sustainability of forest resource management.The study shows that not all commercial forest landscapes have a regenerative effect on people, which can be measured by an increase in positive emotions, a decrease in negative emotions, an increase in subjective vitality, and an improvement in mood.The research is innovative to a certain extent, but the experimental design and data analysis are a little simple. Can you detail various indicators of the participants in the questionnaire (such as age, gender, education background, income, etc.) and then conduct group analysis?Or according to the tree indicators (tree species, leaf area index, tree age, etc.) group analysis.

In a word, this is a very meaningful study, but unfortunately, the process and results I have seen are not rich enough. Could you give me a more detailed analysis?

Response: Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and recognising the innovation of the experiment we conducted. In our study, we focused on measuring the restoration values of three different plots in a commercial forest that differed markedly in their vertical structure (tall trees - mature forest stand, low 2-year-old plants - second-growth forest and a plot without trees - clearcutting area). We are unable to carry out additional analysis based on the Reviewer's guidance. In the case of clearcuts it is not possible to determine tree species, leaf area index, tree age, as this is a completely treeless area. Similarly, we cannot operate on variables such as age, education, income of respondents. This is mainly because our study involved students in a similar age range of 19-24 years, all with secondary education level. They were full-time students, which basically excludes the possibility of having a permanent job, thus earning a regular income. Nevertheless, it is worth including other social groups in future research. We find the reviewer's observation very inspiring. In the limitations chapter, there is a mention of the need to continue research in this particular direction. Thank you once again for your kind and constructive comments.