Forest education is helpful to improve students' learning ability, promote students' physical and mental development and exercise students' ability to solve problems.

Virtual reality technology in forest education uses realistic three-dimensional interactive environment to display teaching content, turns passive transmission learning into active exploration learning that stimulates learning interest and maintains students' attention, effectively improves the quality of education and teaching, helps to cultivate students' imagination, creativity and deep-thinking learning ability, and has a significant impact on students' cognition and emotion.

It is possible to use realistic technology to educate people about forests and make forest education available to people who cannot access forests.

As the first review paper to study the impact of virtual technology on forest education, this paper has significant value.

In this paper, information and data of 6 aspects are extracted from 13 literatures. These include: study information, sample, intervention, outcome, control group, and study design. When analyzing the 13 literatures retrieved, we should consider not only the length of intervention time, but also the number and frequency of intervention.

Among the subjects of the 13 literatures retrieved, 7 studies were conducted specifically for primary school students, and 3 studies were conducted for middle school students and adults. Does this mean that using Reality Technology to carry out forest education has a more significant effect on primary school students?

As mentioned in the article, there is no significant difference between the reality technology-based forest education conducted outdoors and the education conducted indoors. Why make a comparison between these two interventions? The purpose of indoor forest education is to eliminate the limitation of outdoor forest education. Why use reality technology for forest education outdoors?

Is there a certain difference in the selection of forest education content between indoor forest education using Reality Technology and outdoor forest education?

Through the analysis of 13 articles about the application of Reality Technology in forest education, this paper focuses on the impact on the cognition and emotion of the educated. However, the analysis ignores the limitations of Reality Technology.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing my paper.

I revised it as I understood, but it may not be enough.
If my feedback didn't work properly, please tell me again, and I'll make sure to correct it. :)

with all one's heart
From Choi Sunhye

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

This is an interesting topic in forest recreation.

1.In the introduction part, the first sentence of this paragraph is concerned with "climate crisis", which is unnecessary with the topic of this manuscript. So I find there exists many expressions.

2. The aim of this manuscript was "First, we aimed to analyze the effectiveness of reality technology-based education and discuss its value and importance to forest education. Next, we aimed to identify the technical elements necessary for a immersive forest education experience. Finally, we aimed to propose a plan to implement a reality technology-based forest education system after comprehensively considering these factors". From the title of this manuscript, I think that was about the process of the RT in forest education, theories change, detailed case studies, and so on. Of course, the effectiveness of this technology was included into the literature review.

3.In the results of this manuscript, there are a lot of expressions to show the statistical difference in literatures, however, the detailed statement among these literatures should be added in this manuscript.

4.Totally, what is the target of a systematic review? I think it is not just to show what studied in the previous studies, also to show the conceptual framework of this field.

This is an interesting topic in forest recreation.

1.In the introduction part, the first sentence of this paragraph is concerned with "climate crisis", which is unnecessary with the topic of this manuscript. So I find there exists many expressions.

4.Totally, what is the target of a systematic review? I think it is not just to show what studied in the previous studies, also to show the conceptual framework of this field.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

1. in the introduction of this manuscript, the authors should clearly and quickly demonstrate the research questions about why it is necessary to do this research. However, it is so long in this manuscript.

2. the result part, the authors should tell the readers the results of previous studies, not just to show who did some studies.

3.the discussion part, the authors should tell us what is different between this manuscript and the others.

2. the result part, the authors should tell the readers the results of previous studies, not just to show who did some studies.

3.the discussion part, the authors should tell us what is different between this manuscript and the others.

Author Response

Hello. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your in-depth review of my paper.

First, we revised it extensively according to the feedback you gave us.

In the introduction part, unnecessary content was deleted and the sentence was modified concisely. Sentences marked in red are modified(Please see the response paper and revised version of manuscript: line 28-30, 32-40 on page 1, Line 51-55, 60-70, 73-76, 85-93, 99-113 on page 2 )
The Results section has added a clear conclusion. And we added parts where the results of previous studies could appear(Please see the response paper and revised version of manuscrip (line 256-257 on page 6, line 352-355 on page 11, line 398-401, 408-411, 417-421, 428-430, 437-440 on page 12, line 512-515 on page 13)
The Dicussin section describes the significance and differences of this study. (Please see the response paper and revised version of manuscrip (line 660-670 on page 16)

Thank you again for considering our article.
We would be happy to make any further changes that may be required.

Sincerely,

MS. Seon Hye Choi

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

· Given that some limitations of the research were that results should not be generalized in any case, it is necessary to strengthen the research and its results, so it is necessary to carry out a scientific research in the field and not a systematic review

· The discussion requires more strong support including others researchers and experiences related to the topic research in order to strength the discussion and conclusions, including more international and national references.

· What is the true contribution to scientific knowledge and the solution of the real problem?

· What are the practical uses of the results obtained from this study?

Author Response

Hello.
Thank you for your sincere comment. I am sending you the revised in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In today's world, forest education is extremely important as it can be the first step towards forest conservation and sustainable forest management for everyone. At the same time, education programmes are not perfect. This will inevitably affect the state of forests in the future. From this point of view, this paper is relevant because it draws attention to an important issue. The theme of the paper corresponds to the theme of Forests.

Scientific novelty

The scientific novelty lies in analysing the effectiveness of reality technology programmes in forest education by systematically reviewing previous studies that have verified the effectiveness of reality technology-based forest education content.

Scientific and practical significance.

The results obtained are of great importance and can be used as basic data for future research on reality technology-based forest education.

Title

The title corresponds to the content.

Introduction

In the introduction, the relevance of the study is well substantiated and the state of the problem is described. The research objectives are formulated clearly and clearly.

Methodology approaches

The methodology approaches are described in detail. The authors used methods adequate to the tasks set. Adequately selected methods allow us to consider the conclusions justified.

Research results

The research results are illustrated with figures and tables that are informative and do not duplicate each other. The paper contains 5 informative tables and 1 visual figure. The results are presented clearly and clearly.

Conclusions

Conclusions follow from the results and are reasonable. The paper will be of interest to a wide range of readers whose scientific interests are related to forest ecology. Despite the fact that English is not my native language, I read the paper with interest and had no difficulties in understanding. The paper fully corresponds to the subject and level of Forests. It is also possible to discuss limitations in the reliability of conclusions that are associated with a small sample of papers included in the research analysis.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your sincere comment.

We revised it by supplementing the previous research and results and added the limitations of this study.

We will continue to work hard to make a better paper.

Sincerely,
SeonHye Choi

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is very interesting. The authors cover an important, timely topic, as it is expected that in the next few years there will not only be major changes in market conditions, including business models of companies or consumer preferences, but also in formal and informal education systems. Augmented reality (AR) is an example of a technology that will strongly shape our world in the coming decade. I think this is a very well-done article, except that I have a few comments and would like the authors to address them

In the Introduction, the authors provide a definition of forestry education. In Europe, "forest pedagogic" comes under this term. In the 1990s, the Forest Communicators Network (FCN) was established, which operates under the UNECE Tree Committee and the FAO European Forestry Commission. One of the groups in the Forest Communicators Network (FCN) is a group called Forest Pedagogics. The introduction provides a good background for the considerations that follow. Except that forest pedagogic is something else, forest education is something else, and nature education is something else. So I'm not convinced that the direction of exploration that the Authors have taken is entirely appropriate. I think whether it was not better to narrow the title to the area of Asian countries, or de facto Korea. If such a solution is not an option, I would ask that the introduction be rewritten to clarify the differences in the different approaches to education and teaching about the forest in the context of cultural-spatial differences.

Materials and methods-This chapter is very well presented, methodologically flawless. Although among the key words are missing forest pedagogic, forest informal education - both of these terms very often appear in the publications of scientists from Europe. Their absence in the work of the authors makes me worry whether the review of the literature made is certainly complete

Results - please note Table 3 "intervention", didn't this analysis cause the authors concern? Basically there are no forests at all, instead there are: aquatic ecosystem, plants, flora, butterflies, environmental protection and many others, but no strictly forests and forest ecosystems. Which again raises my concern about the title of the manuscript. So maybe forest education should be replaced with the phrase nature education?

These are the main comments I have on the text. The way the results are described and the discussion itself do not raise my concerns. But because of the above in my view important issues, I suggest rewriting the manuscript

Author Response

Hello.
Thank you for your sincere comment. I am sending you the revised in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

n my initial decisión (overall recommendation) , I rejected the manuscript. For this reason, I should not review the manuscript again.

Thanks

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for considering my comment regarding the definition of forestry education

Article Menu

Systematic Review of Research on Reality Technology-Based Forest Education

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI