Forest- and Nature-Based Recreation for Older Adults: Preferences, Well-Being, and the Need for Inclusive Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author

1.  Delineate the literature review more explicitly and provide a critical analysis of conflicting or inconclusive evidence, especially regarding universal design in forest vs. urban contexts.

2.  Discuss the potential bias introduced by non-probabilistic, snowball sampling in more depth. Include justification for the sample size and, if possible, an appendix with the full survey instrument.

3. Provide more detailed statistical analysis, including effect sizes and multivariate models, to enhance interpretive rigor.

4.  Discuss how cultural or environmental differences might affect the applicability of findings in other countries or contexts. Suggest specific steps for participatory implementation of inclusive infrastructure, possibly involving co-design with older adults.

5. Expand on methodological limitations and provide concrete suggestions for future research, such as longitudinal designs or intervention studies.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions:

1. Delineate the literature review more explicitly and provide a critical analysis of conflicting or inconclusive evidence, especially regarding universal design in forest vs. urban contexts.

Thank you for this important comment. We have added explicit discussion contrasting universal design in urban environments versus natural forest contexts. This addition can be found in the Introduction, page 2, paragraph beginning 'In this context...', final sentence: 'While universal design has been widely discussed in urban planning and architecture, its application in natural settings such as forests requires careful adaptation due to uneven terrain, conservation constraints, and minimal intervention principles (Persson et al., 2015; Gupta et al., 2025).' This addresses the differences and planning implications as requested.

2.Discuss the potential bias introduced by non-probabilistic, snowball sampling in more depth. Include justification for the sample size and, if possible, an appendix with the full survey instrument.

Thank you for this valuable observation. We revised Section 2.2 (Sampling and Data Collection), page 6, final paragraph, to explicitly discuss the bias introduced by non-probabilistic sampling and justified the sample size of 446 participants as sufficient for exploratory social research. The sentence added reads: 'While the sampling was non-probabilistic and based on snowball methods, which may introduce selection bias, it allowed access to a diverse segment of the older population, including those who are not frequent forest users. This introduces some limitations in generalizability, but the sample size of 446 participants is considered sufficient for exploratory statistical research in the social sciences.' In addition, the full survey instrument is now included as Appendix A, as requested (right before the refernces).

3. Provide more detailed statistical analysis, including effect sizes and multivariate models, to enhance interpretive rigor.

Thank you for this comment. No additional statistical tests were added to the manuscript. The analysis remains exploratory, as stated in Section 2.4 and 3.3. We acknowledge this limitation in Section 4.2 (Methodological Challenges and Future Research).

4. Discuss how cultural or environmental differences might affect the applicability of findings in other countries or contexts. Suggest specific steps for participating in the implementation of inclusive infrastructure, possibly involving co-design with older adults.

Thank you for this suggestion. We addressed this point in Section 4.1 (Theoretical and Practical Implications), page 9, after the sentence discussing practitioner engagement. The following was added: 'In different cultural or geographic contexts, preferences for forest design features may differ significantly due to climate, vegetation, accessibility norms, and leisure habits (Wen et al., 2018). To ensure such differences are meaningfully addressed, future planning should incorporate co-design processes that engage older adults directly.' This aligns with your recommendation for context-sensitive design and participatory planning.

5. Expand on methodological limitations and provide concrete suggestions for future research, such as longitudinal designs or intervention studies.

Thank you. The limitations section (Section 4.2, pages 9-10) has been expanded to reflect these concerns. We included explicit mention of the cross-sectional design, potential recall bias, and the absence of proximity and duration measures. We also added that future research should include longitudinal and qualitative designs such as interviews and experimental interventions to strengthen evidence-based planning.

Thank you very much for your contribution, thanks to you, this article is now much better.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, Your manuscript is well-written and addresses an important topic for an aging society. However, to better meet the aims of the journal I suggest the following minor revisions are suggested:

• Lines 42 – 48: The differentiation between forest bathing and forest therapy (as something that is accompanied by a professional) must be made clearer and appropriate literature cited.
• Results: Were any questions asked on how long (e.g. in hours) the respondents spend in forests or how far they currently live from forests?
• Results: Is there information on the infrastructure currently available to respondents in forests?
• The discussion needs a greater reflection on the importance of the results for practitioners and management to better align with the journal’s aim. Lines 328 ff (section 4.1.): The information that elderly populations appreciate and require accessibility is known (as mentioned in L331-332). This section can be strengthened through a deeper discussion of the importance of the survey results for implementation and the meaning for practitioners in forest settings specifically:
  • Are there standards or indicators that can be suggested based on the results?
  • Are there known barriers to implementing the suggested infrastructure and signage?
  • How is the importance of ecological sustainability (leaving natural environments as in tact as possible) weighed against social sustainability (accessibility and care of the elderly)?

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions:

1. Lines 42 – 48: The differentiation between forest bathing and forest therapy (as something that is accompanied by a professional) must be made clearer and appropriate literature cited.

Thank you for this observation. The distinction has been clarified in the Introduction, page 3, second paragraph. We now state: 'An increasingly recognized form of nature-based recreation is “forest bathing” (shinrin-yoku), which involves passive, mindful immersion in forest environments to enhance psychological well-being. In contrast, “forest therapy” typically refers to structured programs led by trained guides, often used as preventive or complementary health interventions (Chen et al., 2025; Paletto et al., 2024).'

2. Results: Were any questions asked on how long (e.g. in hours) the respondents spend in forests or how far they currently live from forests?

Thank you for this question. This question was not included in the survey. This limitation is now explicitly acknowledged in Section 4.2 (Methodological Challenges): 'The survey did not include questions about the respondents' proximity to forest areas or the duration of their visits, which could be addressed in future studies.'

3. Results: Is there information on the infrastructure currently available to respondents in forests?

The survey focused on users’ preferences and importance ratings rather than on mapping actual infrastructure conditions. This is stated indirectly in Section 3.3 (Preferences for Forest Infrastructure), page 6. A clarification was added to emphasize that infrastructure preferences were collected via self-report using structured items grouped under 'infrastructure importance'.

4. The discussion needs a greater reflection on the importance of the results for practitioners and management to better align with the journal’s aim. Lines 328 ff (section 4.1.): The information that elderly populations appreciate and require accessibility is known (as mentioned in L331-332). This section can be strengthened through a deeper discussion of the importance of the survey results for implementation and the meaning for practitioners in forest settings specifically

Thank you for this suggestion. Section 4.1 (pages 8-9) was expanded to include a deeper practitioner-focused interpretation. After the sentence on nature-based programming, we added: 'Practitioners can directly use these findings to prioritize shaded seating, clear signage, and accessible restrooms as minimum baseline standards…' and follow-up sentences proposing practical design standards based on user preferences.

5. Are there standards or indicators that can be suggested based on the results?

Thank you. We now provide practical indicators in Section 4.1, pages 8-9, stating: 'Based on user preferences, basic inclusive indicators in forest planning could include: 1) presence of shaded benches with back support; 2) clean, accessible restrooms; 3) clear wayfinding signage; and 4) designated quiet zones for sensory-sensitive visitors.'

6. Are there known barriers to implementing the suggested infrastructure and signage?

Thank you. A sentence was added to Section 4.1, page 9: 'However, implementation of these infrastructures may face challenges such as terrain-related constraints, ecological preservation mandates, and budget limitations in public land management.'

7. How is the importance of ecological sustainability (leaving natural environments as in tact as possible) weighed against social sustainability (accessibility and care of the elderly)?

Thank you for the chance to clarify. this tradeoff is addressed in Section 4.1, page 9: 'Planners must therefore balance ecological integrity, such as limiting paved surfaces or minimizing habitat disturbance, with the need for socially sustainable access for older and less mobile populations.'

Thank you very much for your contribution, thanks to you, this article is now much better.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on exploring inclusive design for forest recreational areas catering to older adults. The research topic is highly socially relevant and holds significant practical value, addressing the urgent need for public space planning in the context of global population aging. The study adopts a solid theoretical framework (Universal Design Principles and Active Aging Theory) and employs a quantitative survey method to collect extensive empirical data from 446 older participants. The results clearly reveal key preferences of older adults regarding forest infrastructure—such as site cleanliness, shaded seating, accessible restrooms, and clear signage—and confirm the positive relationship between inclusive infrastructure and the positive emotions and well-being of older adults. Moreover, the study highlights the heterogeneity within the older population and offers differentiated planning recommendations for visitors of varying age groups and health conditions.

Despite the study's notable strengths, there are areas in data presentation and methodological description that require clarification and improvement to further enhance the rigor and readability of the article.

 

Major Revision Suggestions:

1. Methodology Section – Clarity of Sampling and Data Collection Description:

   （1）In Section 2.2, the description of the data collection process shows clear editing remnants, resulting in unclear and awkward phrasing. For example: “Data collection was conductedwere collected” and “combineddual sampling strategy.”

   （2）The text states: “First, a small number of surveys (n = 24) were administered in person... Due to logistical constraints and interruptions in fieldwork, this subset was not statistically significant and therefore was not analyzed separately. Only survey items completed by the full participant set were included in the final analysis.” This implies that the initial 24 in-person surveys may not have been included in the final sample of 446, or at least were not analyzed separately. If these 24 surveys were included in the final dataset, the authors should clarify how the issue of “not statistically significant” was addressed. As it stands, it appears that the final sample was mainly obtained through digital snowball sampling.（3）Suggestion: Please carefully proofread and reorganize the wording of Section 2.2 to improve clarity and flow. Clearly state the composition of the final 446-sample dataset and how the two sampling methods were combined, or which method contributed most to the final sample.

2. Results Presentation – Consistency and Completeness of Statistical Data:（1）In Section 3.1, when describing the relationship between age and health status, a significant negative correlation is reported. However, the means and standard deviations for each age or health group are not provided, making it difficult for readers to visually assess the extent of differences.（2）In Section 3.3, there are obvious formatting errors in the R² values. For example, “R² = 24.5” and “R² = 34.4” should be presented as percentages or decimals (e.g., 0.245 and 0.344), since R² values should fall within the range of 0 to 1.（3）Suggestions:For the ANOVA results, please provide the means and standard deviations for each group to enhance interpretability.Correct all R² values to decimals (e.g., 0.245 or 0.344) to conform to standard reporting practices.

3. Depth of Discussion and Linkages to Literature:（1）The discussion refers to the three-tier model of older adults (“empty-nest elderly,” “younger seniors,” and “older seniors”) and compares findings to previous research. However, the discussion could delve deeper into how the specific findings of this study relate to these models and existing literature. For example, the paper notes that “occasional visitors” pay more attention to quietness, seating, shade, and food and beverage options. How do these preferences specifically align with the needs of “older seniors” or those in poorer health?（2）Suggestion: Further elaborate on the heterogeneity within the older adult population, and more explicitly compare the observed visitor groups (e.g., frequent vs. occasional visitors) to the three-tier model introduced in the introduction, thus strengthening the theoretical contribution of the study.

Minor Revision Suggestions:

（1）Consistency in Citation Formatting: Check the consistency of in-text citation formatting, for example, differences between (p. 4) and other usages, as well as how (p.1) is referenced in the discussion. Even if this variation aligns with the journal’s style, internal consistency is preferable.

（2）Alignment Between Abstract and Main Text: The abstract mentions that older adults highly value “shaded seating,” but in the results section (Section 3.3, Table 1), the item “Picnic tables and seating areas” is rated 4.68, without explicitly mentioning “shaded.” If supported by data, please clarify the importance of “shaded seating” in the results section.

（3）Terminology and Wording Refinement: Review the entire manuscript to refine phrasing for conciseness and clarity. For example, the phrase “The contents of Na+ and K+ contents” refers to a previous review but serves as a reminder that language flow and grammar checks remain useful for the current paper.

（4）Figure/Table Quality: Ensure that all figures and tables are clear, professional, and easy to interpret. For instance, the standard deviation column in Table 1 should provide values consistently for all items.

Thank you to the authors for their efforts. I look forward to seeing the revised manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language of the paper is generally clear and easy to understand, effectively conveying the research content and findings. However, there are some areas that require improvement to further enhance its rigor and readability.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions:

1. Methodology Section – Clarity of Sampling and Data Collection Description:

Thank you. Section 2.2 (Sampling and Data Collection) has been revised for clarity and flow. The paragraph now clearly states how the 24 in-person surveys and 422 online surveys were handled, and that only items answered by the full sample were analyzed. This revision appears on page 5.

2. Methodology Section – Clarity of Sampling and Data Collection Description:（1）In Section 2.2, the description of the data collection process shows clear editing remnants, resulting in unclear and awkward phrasing. For example: “Data collection was conductedwere collected” and “combineddual sampling strategy.”

Thank you for spotting these issues. The sentence in question was rewritten, and the final manuscript contains no such errors. The updated paragraph appears in Section 2.2, page 5, and has been carefully proofread to eliminate leftover editing fragments.

3. Methodology Section – Clarity of Sampling and Data Collection Description（2）The text states: “First, a small number of surveys (n = 24) were administered in person... Due to logistical constraints and interruptions in fieldwork, this subset was not statistically significant and therefore was not analyzed separately. Only survey items completed by the full participant set were included in the final analysis.” This implies that the initial 24 in-person surveys may not have been included in the final sample of 446, or at least were not analyzed separately. If these 24 surveys were included in the final dataset, the authors should clarify how the issue of “not statistically significant” was addressed. As it stands, it appears that the final sample was mainly obtained through digital snowball sampling.（3）Suggestion: Please carefully proofread and reorganize the wording of Section 2.2 to improve clarity and flow. Clearly state the composition of the final 446-sample dataset and how the two sampling methods were combined, or which method contributed most to the final sample.

Thank you. This is now explicitly stated in Section 2.2, page 5: 'Although this subset was not analyzed separately due to its small size, their data were included in the full dataset.' The final sample of 446 respondents is now clearly described.

4. Results Presentation – Consistency and Completeness of Statistical Data:（1）In Section 3.1, when describing the relationship between age and health status, a significant negative correlation is reported. However, the means and standard deviations for each age or health group are not provided, making it difficult for readers to visually assess the extent of differences.

Thank you for this observation. You are correct that subgroup means and standard deviations by age and health group are not reported in Section 3.1. this is because they are "scale" variables and not specific numbers (we don’t know specific age – but group). These values were not calculated in the original dataset.  We acknowledge the reviewer’s request for group-level descriptive statistics. As these were not calculated in the original dataset, we now explicitly note this limitation at the end of the relevant paragraph in Section 3.1, page 6.

5. Results Presentation – Consistency and Completeness of Statistical Data:2）In Section 3.3, there are obvious formatting errors in the R² values. For example, “R² = 24.5” and “R² = 34.4” should be presented as percentages or decimals (e.g., 0.245 and 0.344), since R² values should fall within the range of 0 to 1.

Thank you for this important correction. All R² values have been reformatted to decimal notation in Section 3.3 (page 11). For example: R² = 0.245 and R² = 0.344.

6. Results Presentation – Consistency and Completeness of Statistical Data: 3）Suggestions: For the ANOVA results, please provide the means and standard deviations for each group to enhance interpretability. Correct all R² values to decimals (e.g., 0.245 or 0.344) to conform to standard reporting practices.

Thank you. R² formatting has been corrected as noted above. Group-level means and standard deviations were not calculated for the ANOVA analysis and are not reported. We can add a clarification to the manuscript if requested by the editor. If it is requested, we will add in the text: While ANOVA testing confirmed significant group-level differences, subgroup means and standard deviations are not reported separately due to the analysis structure and format of the current dataset. Because it has been stated to an extent earlier (see 2 comments above) we thought it is better to state it here. Let us know if further revision is needed.

7.  Depth of Discussion and Linkages to Literature:（1）The discussion refers to the three-tier model of older adults (“empty-nest elderly,” “younger seniors,” and “older seniors”) and compares findings to previous research. However, the discussion could delve deeper into how the specific findings of this study relate to these models and existing literature. For example, the paper notes that “occasional visitors” pay more attention to quietness, seating, shade, and food and beverage options. How do these preferences specifically align with the needs of “older seniors” or those in poorer health?

We expanded Section 4 (Discussion), page 8, to more explicitly connect our findings to the three-tier model of older adults. We added the following sentence: “These differences correspond to the three-tier model: younger seniors (65–79) are more frequent visitors and report fewer barriers, while older seniors (80+) emphasize rest, shade, and quiet due to physical limitations.” In addition, we inserted a follow-up sentence: “This finding is consistent with the literature indicating that ‘older seniors’ and individuals in poorer health tend to prioritize comfort, safety, and restfulness in outdoor settings (Möller et al., 2007).” These additions clarify how our user segments align with prior research and the model and of course are supported by literature.

8.  Depth of Discussion and Linkages to Literature: 2）Suggestion: Further elaborate on the heterogeneity within the older adult population, and more explicitly compare the observed visitor groups (e.g., frequent vs. occasional visitors) to the three-tier model introduced in the introduction, thus strengthening the theoretical contribution of the study.

Thank you. Section 4 (Discussion), page 8, now explicitly aligns our observed visitor groups with the three-tier model introduced earlier. For example, occasional visitors reflect the needs of older seniors, while frequent visitors correspond more closely with younger seniors. In addition, we added a sentence clarifying the internal heterogeneity of the older adult population, emphasizing that varying health and mobility levels require differentiated infrastructure responses.

9. Minor（1）Consistency in Citation Formatting: Check the consistency of in-text citation formatting, for example, differences between (p. 4) and other usages, as well as how (p.1) is referenced in the discussion. Even if this variation aligns with the journal’s style, internal consistency is preferable.

Thank you. The entire manuscript was carefully reviewed for citation style consistency. All in-text citations now follow journal style, e.g., (Author, Year).

10 .Minor（2）Alignment Between Abstract and Main Text: The abstract mentions that older adults highly value “shaded seating,” but in the results section (Section 3.3, Table 1), the item “Picnic tables and seating areas” is rated 4.68, without explicitly mentioning “shaded.” If supported by data, please clarify the importance of “shaded seating” in the results section.

Thank you. This is now clarified in Section 3.3 (page 6): 'Picnic tables and seating areas also ranked highly (mean = 4.68), and survey items related to infrastructure explicitly included shade as part of the evaluated features.'

11.Minor（3）Terminology and Wording Refinement: Review the entire manuscript to refine phrasing for conciseness and clarity. For example, the phrase “The contents of Na+ and K+ contents” refers to a previous review but serves as a reminder that language flow and grammar checks remain useful for the current paper.

Thank you. The full manuscript has undergone careful proofreading. Language was revised for clarity and flow, and phrasing inconsistencies were corrected (e.g., removal of 'conductedwere' and unclear compound terms).

12. Minor（4）Figure/Table Quality: Ensure that all figures and tables are clear, professional, and easy to interpret. For instance, the standard deviation column in Table 1 should provide values consistently for all items.

Thank you. This has been corrected. All standard deviation values in Table 1 (page 7) are now displayed using consistent formatting (three decimal places), including the entry for 'Picnic tables and seating areas' (now SD = 0.038).

Thank you very much for your contribution, thanks to you, this article is now much better.