The Current State of the Finnish Cottage Phenomenon: Perspectives of Experts
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Currently, the purpose of the study is blurred by several rambling statements. Spell out the study's objectives conspicuously. What is the impetus of conducting the surveys?
- Remove redundancy in the text; the authors repeat the same messages unnecessarily.
- The methodology is incomplete. We need more information about the interviewees, counts, ages, gender, occupations, and the like.
- Stress the usefulness of results and potential uses of these findings.
- Overall, the report on findings is fragmented. Base discussion on a strong structure.
- Please structure the findings based on the survey questions, preferably in a summary table format.
- An elaborate discussion on the market and cottage prices is lacking.
- Watch for grammatical errors (e.g., employed tenses).
- Give photos due to credits.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper presents a very interesting overview of Finnish trends on the cottage phenomenon. The Finnish context (both empirical and literature studies), trends and data from the interviews are very relevant to the current debate. The study present high overall merits.
The paper can be eligible for publication after some further developments.
Introduction
- the study should be positioned within the Nordic and international debate. There are very limited references within the text to the Swedish and Norwegian context and local trends in the introduction and some in the discussion. Despite the differences among the Nordic studies, as the authors mentioned, a more general debate on the phenomenon (international and Nordic references) can better show the contribution of this paper to the current scientific discussion.
-In addition, the impacts of the COVID-19 and its implications for the cottages (prolonged time of using them and for job-related reasons) can help to highlight the relevance and need for this study.
Methods
As far as I understood the collected 46 answers -if this not the case, please clarify it. The authors should add a paragraph about data analysis- I guess they used a qualitative content analysis - (some references to the method would be necessary) - how did they analyse the data?
They should also clarify how they come up with the categories. It looks an inductive way rather than deductive - but some explanation about the method is needed -perhaps a table which shows the content analysis. First, how they grouped the answers under each category, and how they coded and so on under each category. If they use any software or manually....
The categories should be presented in a clearer way both in the methods and results. -thus, a more consistency between data collection, analysis and results is needed.
Discussion
See my notes – about the Nordic studies.
Conclusions- there are some parts which fit better into the discussion. In the conclusions, some more implications of this study after the COVID-19 can be presented.
Best regards,
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No Comments
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I have read your revised version with a lot of interest. The additional parts really contribute to positioning your study within the Nordic and international debate. The methods sections is very well explained now, so the reader can easily understand how you have conducted the interviewees and analysed data. The discussion and conclusions are more coherent with the introduction and well connected with the pandemic effects and future implications.
The paper is eligible for publication.
