Young Generations’ Perception of the Role of Deadwood in Forests: Comparison between Italy and Türkiye
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents the results of the questionnaire with the students in Italy and Turkiye on the perception of deadwood in the forest. Deadwood in the forest is on the one hand seen as beneficial and a part of sustainable forest management, however, on the other hand leaving deadwood in the forest could be seen as mismanagement and hinder aesthetic properties of the forest. It is interesting to see the differences among students' perceptions of the issue as presented within this manuscript.
Overall, the authors did a really good job with this manuscript, however, I do have some minor issues with regard to the manuscript that I would like to emphasise.
- Since bioenergy production is listed in the questionnaire as one of the variables on which students could rank their opinion maybe it would prove beneficial to include a reference in the Introduction part of the manuscript about the role of deadwood in the production of bioenergy.
- Being a part of an NGO was used as a potential predictor of certain perceptions is it possible for authors to elaborate on why did they choose this specific category?
- Legend in Figure 2 is too small in my opinion and is barely readable. I would suggest that authors enlarge it a bit if possible.
- In the Results section the authors report the results of the Chi-squared test that they did, however, they did not mention using that test in the Materials and Method part of the manuscript.
- Table 5 - I would suggest rephrasing the title of the table to make it a bit more clear for the reader
- In the Conclusions part of the manuscript authors address certain limitations of the study. In my opinion, addressing Limitations in a separate paragraph could be more appropriate. I would suggest that the authors think about this possibility in a review of their paper.
The quality of English Language is rather high. However, I would suggest that the authors do one more check of the manuscript for minor issues such as spelling and verb conjugations.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your comments and observations.
In attachment the revised manuscript and response to your comments.
Regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your interesting study on young generations’ perception and preferences towards deadwood in forests.
In my view the study is clearly presented and well structured. I see no issues worthy of specific comments and no typos were found. I only have two generic suggestions to leave at your consideration:
In lines 87 to 91 of the introduction you mention that "...no study has focused on the differences between age groups (...) towards crucial and actual issues related to natural resources maintenance and biodiversity conservation...".
It is hard to sustain such claim. On a very quick search at the scientific literature I found:
Janeczko E, Bielinis E, Tiarasari U, Woźnicka M, Kędziora W, Przygodzki S, Janeczko K. How dead wood in the forest decreases relaxation? the effects of viewing of dead wood in the forest environment on psychological responses of young adults. Forests. 2021 Jul 1;12(7):871.
Luo F, Wang C, Lei H, Xiao Z. Young Adults’ Perception of Forests Using Landscape-Image-Sketching Technique: A Case Study of Changsha, Central China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023 Feb 8;20(4):2986.
Hegetschweiler KT, Wartmann FM, Dubernet I, Fischer C, Hunziker M. Urban forest usage and perception of ecosystem services–A comparison between teenagers and adults. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2022 Aug 1;74:127624.
Jean R, Naka K, Christian CS, Gyawali BR, Bowman T, Hopkinson S. Identifying Primary Drivers of Participants from Various Socioeconomic Backgrounds to Choose National Forest Lands in the Southeastern Region of the US as a Travel Destination for Recreation. Land. 2022 Aug 12;11(8):1301.
Also, you later mention one such study in lines 397-401 of this manuscript.
Maybe it would be better to point out the low number of studies approaching that issue, and some disagreement (and knowledge gaps) among the published material so far.
Finally, can you comment a little on your decision to present no option for a 'traditional strategy' regarding the substantial (if not complete) removal of both standing dead trees and lying deadwood, just as means to check if there would be any respondents inclined to keep using this management strategy (and maybe adopt other biodiversity conservation strategies, like creating inside clearings) for the forest?
No further comments. Thank you and good luck.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your comments and observations.
In attachment the revised manuscript and response to your comments.
Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The description of the four strategies ipresented n table 1 shall be simplfied, there are too wordy. use more bullets and less verbs.Don't repeat `this strategy'. Actually the last strategy refferes to as "Island of aging forest" , which is based, according to my knowledge, on French experience, in late 80s. The concept was coined by a canadian researcher, if I'm not wrong. This term is important because FSC auditors have a problem with hisolated trees for biodiversity (you call it habitat tree, it doesn't matter).
I didn't find anything important to highlight.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your comments and observations.
In attachment the revised manuscript and response to your comments.
Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
The topic addressed is interesting and appropriate to the profile of the journal, and the approach is pertinent from a methodological point of view.
To increase the quality of the article proposed for publication, please take into account the following suggestions/requirements:
Line 95: Please enter some information about the LIFE SPAN project, if you link the study you are presenting to it.
Lines 171-172: Please specify, if possible, the majors of the student respondents. Please also specify that the questionnaire was not intentionally addressed to students in study programs in the field of Forestry.
Lines 387-389: Could you formulate a hypothesis regarding the cause of this ethnic differentiation? (Why Turkish university students exhibit a more positive perception towards both components of deadwood compared to Italian students?)
Lines 397-428: The relationships between the results obtained and the literature in the field should be presented more clearly, point by point (which result matches which study mentioned).
Much success!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your comments and observations.
In attachment the revised manuscript and response to your comments.
Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
