Identification of Hiking Target Groups Based on Physical Fitness Levels in Forest Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for the opportunity to read an interesting paper that may hold considerable practical value. Although the manuscript is well written and structured, I would like to offer several suggestions that could further enhance its quality:

• The definitions and typologies are partially duplicated, with similar ideas recurring in multiple sections. The paragraphs discussing the typologies by Hose, Grant, and Molokáč should be consolidated to avoid repetition and to create a logical progression leading to the hypotheses.
• At the end of the introduction, a concise research gap statement is missing—specifically, what is still unknown (the relationship between measurable physical fitness and trail selection in forest environments) and why the UNIFIT and Ruffier tests were chosen.
• The three distinct data collection segments—somatometric measurements with UNIFIT and Ruffier tests, field walking, and the online survey—should be clearly separated. At present, it is unclear whether the same participants took part in all segments.
• Since human participants were involved (biometric measurement, endurance testing, and field walking), Forests requires a clear Ethical Statement. It is also necessary to include a Data Availability Statement.
• The authors are kindly asked to verify the reported p-values and ensure that they are written correctly.
• For Hypothesis 2, it is recommended to present more explicitly the statistical analysis of differences in walking times among groups G1–G3.
• The authors should more clearly emphasize both the theoretical and practical implications of the study. It is suggested (though not mandatory) to include them as separate sections at the end of the paper.
• Figures 8 and 9 should be checked and the red underlined markings within the figures removed.
• There are several typographical errors such as “I tis.” The authors are advised to thoroughly proofread the entire manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your time and for all the comments and suggestions that will help improve our manuscript. We hope that the revisions we have made are in line with your suggestions and remarks.

• The definitions and typologies are partially duplicated, with similar ideas recurring in multiple sections. The paragraphs discussing the typologies by Hose, Grant, and Molokáč should be consolidated to avoid repetition and to create a logical progression leading to the hypotheses.

Several paragraphs from different authors have been consolidated, and the introductory section has been revised accordingly. We have aimed to present literature that is essential for formulating the research hypotheses. The Introduction has been revised and reorganized into two parts—Introduction and Theoretical Background.

• At the end of the introduction, a concise research gap statementis missing—specifically, what is still unknown (the relationship between measurable physical fitness and trail selection in forest environments) and why the UNIFIT and Ruffier tests were chosen.

The research gap has been supplemented in the Introduction part and in the newly created Theoretical Background section, we have elaborated on the somatometric measurements and the rationale for their selection,

• The three distinct data collection segments—somatometric measurements with UNIFIT and Ruffier tests, field walking, and the online survey—should be clearly separated. At present, it is unclear whether the same participants took part in all segments.

This has been added in subsection 2.2. Characteristics of the Research Sample.

• Since human participants were involved (biometric measurement, endurance testing, and field walking), Forestsrequires a clear Ethical Statement. It is also necessary to include a Data Availability Statement.

The ethical statement has been added below the conclusion of the article.

• The authors are kindly asked to verify the reported p-values and ensure that they are written correctly.

The p-values have been verified and are presented in the article in Section 3, Results.

• For Hypothesis 2, it is recommended to present more explicitly the statistical analysis of differences in walking times among groups G1–G3.

Yes, we agree with you that conducting a statistical analysis of the differences between G1 and G3 would be appropriate. However, our intention was to create three categories of tourists that are sequentially related. The analysis of time differences between G1 and G3 was therefore not essential for the formation of these categories. The percentage differences in times between G1 and G3 were obtained by summing the percentage differences between G1 and G2, and between G2 and G3.
• The authors should more clearly emphasize both the theoretical and practical implications of the study. It is suggested (though not mandatory) to include them as separate sections at the end of the paper.

We have added this to the Conclusion section.

• Figures 8 and 9 should be checked and the red underlined markings within the figures removed.

Figures 8,9,10 were revised.

• There are several typographical errors such as “I tis.” The authors are advised to thoroughly proofread the entire manuscript.

We appreciate the comment. All typographical errors, including “I tis,” have been corrected following a careful proofreading of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear researchers,

Congratulations on your work. Here are my comments and suggestions:

1.- Introduction

Lines 33–40. This information is coherent in itself, but it is too much information to use on a website (which no one can guarantee will remain online for long). Another relevant point is that the title of the article highlights “variables” that have not been addressed in the introduction in a sequential and logical manner, or are addressed too late.

Lines 41–43. I tried to find the quote used in this idea. However, I only get several pages and information about what has been included in the reference. Is it a book? Is it a website? I ask this question because when I copy and paste this information into search engines, Google Scholar profiles and university pages, among others, appear.

Matlovičová, K. Geografia turizmu. Grafotlač Prešov, Prešovská univerzita: Prešov, Slovakia. 2013.

On the other hand, there are several studies in scientific literature that describe the characteristics of geotourism. However, this definition is very ambiguous. Could you provide a more practical or specific definition? This idea (which is isolated) should be connected to the following idea, which accurately defines geotourism.

Lines 52–57. This information is consistent and coincides with the ideas in the previous paragraphs. However, is this based on your experiences or on some author? Because this account is making many assumptions, such as “geological structures” or “cultural development.” How can you be sure that this is the case?

Lines 58–67. This information should go at the beginning of the introduction, and then move on to “geotourism” as a different form of tourism.

General comments

This is a very lengthy introduction. The information it contains needs to be revised, as many of the paragraphs repeat the same information but in different words. In addition, subheadings are developed that are mentioned at the beginning of the introduction and then “addressed in greater depth.” I suggest immediately reorganizing the subheadings of the variables, as well as clearly highlighting what the “problem” is for the development of the study.

Materials and methods

Normally, the objective of the research is stated in the last paragraph of the introduction. This section should also include the order in which the following elements should appear: “design, sample, instruments, procedures, ethical aspects, data analysis,” among others.

 

 

 

What is the design?

How were the participants selected? What were the criteria? What was the average age of each group created? What were the characteristics of each group, why were they created, and what was the difference between each one?

Figure 1 is unclear; the letters are difficult to read and the image quality is poor. For example, does it say “CIEL”? What do the numbers represent?

Results

There are six working groups, but what criteria have they used to compare them? The years were not listed above.

Discussion

I suggest presenting the discussion in order with subtitles according to the results presented, as well as strengths, limitations, practical implications, and/or future lines of research.

Please note that although this section provides space for reflection, you should also use citations and references to support your narrative.

Conclusions

I believe it is important that all information unrelated to the conclusions be addressed in the discussion, such as the limitations presented here.

References

I understand that you have used references specific to your country, but let us remember that we must use a common language, which is English.

Author Response

Please, see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a very interesting approach to the topic of active tourism and adapting tourist activity to various physiological factors.

Overall, I was favourably impressed by the article due to the difficulty and laborious nature of conducting all the research and testing on the selected research group. However, I have a few comments that could contribute to improving the text itself.

First and foremost, the introduction chapter provides a very broad description of geotourism—definitions, concepts, and characteristics—which, in my opinion, does not fully reflect the research itself (the remainder of the article discusses only one geotourism attraction, and the path chosen for the physical activity test runs through a forest, so we are dealing here with biodiversity rather than geodiversity and geoheritage). In my opinion, it would be better to generalize the geotourism issues and focus on the definitions and concepts stemming from sustainable tourism and ecotourism, which is primarily based on active tourism.

I believe that this change to the introduction chapter will better introduce the reader to the subject matter of the article. In its current form, after reading the introduction, the reade expects the research to be conducted in the spirit of activities related to climbing or hiking in mountainous areas rich in geoheritage elements.

Secondly, the methodological description lacks any information regarding the method used to select the research group. Were they random individuals, volunteers, or perhaps members of some tourism associations?

The results and discussion are presented clearly and address the research hypotheses. However, I would also suggest referencing sustainable tourism and ecotourism in general, rather than limiting the discussion to geotourism.

Finally, two minor linguistic errors: lines 89 and 201 - it says "I tis...", but it should be "It is..."

In summary, the article is a very good presentation of the relationships resulting from tourists' physical condition and their choice of activities in the context of tourism. It may be helpful in the future in making new trails accessible and adaptable to specific groups, or in providing information about the physical limitations that must be overcome to complete a given section of the trail.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your time and for all the comments and suggestions that will help improve our manuscript. We hope that the revisions we have made are in line with your suggestions and remarks.

 

First and foremost, the introduction chapter provides a very broad description of geotourism—definitions, concepts, and characteristics—which, in my opinion, does not fully reflect the research itself (the remainder of the article discusses only one geotourism attraction, and the path chosen for the physical activity test runs through a forest, so we are dealing here with biodiversity rather than geodiversity and geoheritage). In my opinion, it would be better to generalize the geotourism issues and focus on the definitions and concepts stemming from sustainable tourism and ecotourism, which is primarily based on active tourism.

I believe that this change to the introduction chapter will better introduce the reader to the subject matter of the article. In its current form, after reading the introduction, the reade expects the research to be conducted in the spirit of activities related to climbing or hiking in mountainous areas rich in geoheritage elements.

We sincerely thank you for your comment. Your observations have been incorporated into the Introduction, which has been revised and divided into two separate parts. Based on the feedback from the editor and other reviewers, we have adjusted the section accordingly, focusing it primarily on the forest environment.

Secondly, the methodological description lacks any information regarding the method used to select the research group. Were they random individuals, volunteers, or perhaps members of some tourism associations?

We have added this information to the Materials and Methods.

The results and discussion are presented clearly and address the research hypotheses. However, I would also suggest referencing sustainable tourism and ecotourism in general, rather than limiting the discussion to geotourism.

We agree that it is important to note that the participants in our sample were geotourists, as the study aimed to identify target groups within geotourism. While it is true that some of these findings could be generalized to all tourists, our sample specifically consisted of geotourists; therefore, the conclusions were oriented toward this group.

Finally, two minor linguistic errors: lines 89 and 201 - it says "I tis...", but it should be "It is..."

We have revised this linguistic errors.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
I believe your proposed article is interesting for its tourism management tools and supporting statistical methodology (despite the limitations of the statistical sample used, which you yourself have stated).
However, in my opinion, your manuscript presents a substantial problem regarding its application context. You mention "Forest Environment" in the title and "Forest Utilization" in the keywords, but in the text and bibliography your references are almost exclusively to geotourism, which concerns specifically geological or geomorphological attractions. The only part of the text where you mention the forest is paragraph "2.1.3. Field Walking," but the references are extremely general and insufficient to envision specific applications for "forest" tourism.
Perhaps you should submit your article to another journal more focused on geotourism or, more generally, on tourism management. If you want to stay within Forests, I believe you should indicate a different application context for your tools, one more focused on the forest environment, or at least on the forest environment as well as the geological one. I'll try to offer you some suggestions along these lines. The broadest reference could be that of cultural ecosystem services, recreational activities (which has been strongly emphasized with the COVID experience) and the growing demand for forest trails. A particular type of forest trail that is increasingly widespread and that you could suggest as a useful application for your tools is forest bathing.
Below you can find some useful bibliographic references for constructing this different contextualization of your work, some of which are in Forests itself:

• Peng, J., Li, J., Peng, L., & Zhang, Y. (2025). Forest Ecosystem Conservation Through Rural Tourism and Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review. Forests, 16(10), 1559
•  Pueyo-Ros, J. (2018). The role of tourism in the ecosystem services framework. Land, 7(3), 111. - Poehler, P., & Bachinger, M. (2024). Recreation in Forests: Implications from the COVID-19 Pandemic. In Sustainable Tourism: Frameworks, Practices, and Innovative Solutions (pp. 79-104). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Bamwesigye, D., Fialova, J., Kupec, P., Yeboah, E., Łukaszkiewicz, J., Fortuna-Antoszkiewicz, B., & Botwina, J. (2023). Urban Forest Recreation and Its Possible Role throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic. Forests, 14(6), 1254.
• Bamwesigye, D., Fialová, J., Kupec, P., Łukaszkiewicz, J., & Fortuna-Antoszkiewicz, B. (2021). Forest recreational services in the face of COVID-19 pandemic stress. Land, 10(12), 1347.
• Farkic, J., Isailovic, G., & Taylor, S. (2021). Forest bathing as a mindful tourism practice. Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights, 2(2), 100028.
• Pérez-Calderón, E., Miguel-Barrado, V., & Rodríguez-Rangel, M. C. (2024). Forest bathing and tourism: A bibliometric analysis. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 14673584241304294.
• Paletto, A., Notaro, S., Sergiacomi, C., & Di Mascio, F. (2024). The Economic Value of Forest Bathing: An Example Case of the Italian Alps. Forests, 15(3), 543.

Regarding bibliography, about a third of the publications are in Czech.
In my experience, this is a bit too much for an international publication.
In my opinion, you should look for other English-language publications to complement or replace the Czech ones.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable and precise comment. We have incorporated several of the recommended references on forest environment into the text, specifically within the Introduction section.

We have added more than 30 new references throughout the manuscript, the majority of which are in English.

We hope that the revisions we have made are consistent with your recommendations.