Indicators of the Psychosocial and Physiological Effects of Forest Therapy: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The article is noticeably improved. Only a few further points:

Abstract

The first two sentences of the abstract could improve:

Research on forest therapy and health outcomes are insufficient; and involves limited unification of various health indicators. As suggestion.

Results:

Line 262-264: The findings do not indicate that only narrow leaved forests reduce depression from forest activity; instead that these are the studies made available. 

Line 430: Or determine if different forest vegetation; types significantly influence health outcomes according to forest therapy/activity. Line 495-496: How does this limitation consider findings from broad leaf compared to narrow leaf forests?

Conclusion could better describe significant findings from discussion; limitations and strengths and message.

Line 518-519: include as in line 461-462. 

Present significant findings and subsequent recommendations: Line 426; 430-431; 460-462; 466-468; 487-489 (more specific terms of findings for future studies); Findings for future studies; Line 439-441: Results facilitate planning of programs.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

- The manuscript has significantly improved.

- A lesson that we can certainly learn from this review: works completed in approx. the same research field (forest therapy), following a similar schedule (forest intervention and measurement of the effect) are very diverse and it is extremely difficult to homogenize them (see the difficult interpretation of study numbers and percentages in the tables).

- Table 4 (and Table 3) are the major results of this article.

- The review is overall a bit overcomplicated but the revised version is much easier to understand.

- The lines given in brackets in the reviewer response are incorrect (they refer neither to the revised file nor to the version with track change).   STILL ONE THING TO CORRECT: - Table 4, Immunity: what are "Ts lymphocytes"?? I guess they are Tc (citotoxic)!

Minor mistakes (sometimes singular / plural are not matched).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)

Thanks for your careful revisions. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Overall assessment 

In the manuscript titled Indicators of the psychosocial and physiological effects of forest therapy: A systematic review,Hae-ryoung Chun, Yoon Young Choi, Inhyung Cho, Hee-kyoung Nam, Geonwoo Kim, Su-jin Park, and Sung-il Cho examines natural therapeutic elements of the forest-environment program and health outcomes.

 

This study provides a systematic review of the health outcomes of forest therapy from 2010 to 2021 by analysing 29 articles. The overall structure of the essay is stable and the language flows relatively smoothly and logically.

 

 

Major commends:

The study summarises the discourses related to the themes, but in part lacks a summative evaluation. The authors present their themes with relative clarity, but there are sections that do not explain their value well. The revision needs to be completed by the publication deadline.

 

 

Minor commends:

Line 12-226

For each part of the data cleaning, a summary should be made. For instance,  Characteristics of forest-therapy programs, which well describes their effects, methods, etc., but a summary of the results of this data is missing. And so on.

 

Line 251-406

The table clearly shows the assessment of the literature analysis, the paragraph descriptions could be more concise

Fluent in English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a review on the mental and physical health outcomes of forest therapy and it presents an analysis of 27 published articles .

Overall, I cannot find any significant contributions of this work over and above a previous paper on the same topic:

 Rjoo, Karam and Abdullah (2020), The physiological and psychosocial effects of forest therapy: A systematic review, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 55, 126744.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper represents a significant contribution to the field of forest therapy.  The systematic review process was followed in a thorough and valid manner.  Appropriate metrics were measured in the authors' review of the 27 papers, and logical conclusions were reached on each of the measures.  I particularly appreciated their statement, "The ideal forest-therapy program should involve 61–90 min of physical activities and 10–20 min of walking, meditation, and viewing." 

Areas of concern: I question the authors' use of the term 'Therapeutic Elements' to describe meteorological and vegetative elements associated with the studies.  I feel that the title for this section should be changed.

Overall, the use of English is good, but some terms should be changed; e.g., the term "needle leaves and broad leaves forests" (introduced on lines 22-23) should be changed to "narrow- leaved and broad-leaved forests."  Use of "psycho" (line 24) should be changed to "psychological." A complete copy editing by an native English speaker is warranted before publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract requires re write. Line 22 delete walking and physical activity. Line 23-26: simplify sentences as each sentence explains needle and broad leaf.

Include consideration of climates of each forest type and if it is a significant factor for your study as influential to therapeutic and health outcomes. And as influential to activities and exercise or therapy type most commonly used.

Line 386-481: discussion: broad leaves and cardiovascular and if association is due to type of exercise or activity.

Line 394-396: is this finding more relevant to most common exercise or activities in the different needle or broad leaf forest.

Line 461-463: how viewing, or forest therapy is different in outcomes to non forest. How is it different by activity or exercise type.

Line 485-494: associate with prominent health conditions positively associated with health indicators used in study.

Line 473-482: limitations in regard to higher proportion of broad leaf to needle leaf forest environment articles and if influential to findings.

Provide recommendations for future studies as a section for the article or in conclusion.

The discussion and following sections could improve or simplify according to information provided.

Reviewer 4 Report

I have attached a separate file.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. My report is attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf