Does Social Distancing Affect the Stress Reduction and Attention Restoration of College Students in Different Natural Settings?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study presents a comprehensive analysis of the restorative effects of natural settings at varying social distances. Future research could explore dynamic social distances and include factors like visitor interaction and scene sounds to further understand their impact on restoration.

I recommend a revision to address several fundamental concerns that, if rectified, could significantly enhance the study's contribution to the field.

The manuscript's title fails to precisely convey the specific dimension of restorative benefits under investigation. The focus, as discerned from the study, is on the psychological aspects, which should be clearly stated in the title to accurately reflect the content and focus of the research. This precision is crucial for setting the correct expectations for the reader and for aligning the study within the broader research landscape.

The conceptual clarity within the paper requires substantial improvement. The term "restorative benefits of natural settings" is central to the study yet remains ambiguously defined. To strengthen the manuscript, the authors should provide a comprehensive theoretical framework that delineates what is encompassed by restorative benefits, the theoretical underpinnings of these concepts, and the expected interrelations among them. Such a framework would not only clarify the study's foundations but also enhance its academic rigor.

The selection of the study's participants presents another significant concern. The exclusive use of college students limits the generalizability of the findings. The inclusion of a broader age range would provide a more robust understanding of how social distancing in natural settings impacts individuals differently across various life stages, although I can agree it might not have been in their scope.

While the manuscript describes the use of five different natural settings in the virtual reality simulations, there is a noticeable lack of consideration for how the intrinsic qualities of these settings might influence restorative outcomes. Future iterations of this research should carefully examine and control for the attributes of the simulated environments to ensure a more nuanced understanding of the findings.

The equivalence between virtual and real natural settings, as claimed in the study, necessitates a more rigorous evaluation. The methodology should include a clear delineation of the criteria used to assess this equivalence, potentially incorporating a comparative analysis with empirical data from real-world settings to substantiate the claim.

The conclusion drawn about the non-significant impact of landscape type on restoration may be prematurely derived, particularly without considering the potential moderating effects of age and individual preferences for different landscapes. These factors should be integrated into the study's analysis to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics at play.

While the study tackles an intriguing and relevant question, its execution requires significant refinement to ensure that the conclusions drawn are robust, generalizable, and grounded in a clear theoretical framework.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript aims to explore the restoration potential of natural environments, assessing and quantifying its variation according to different levels of social distancing and different types of locations, as independent variables.

The article’s focus is very topical for the discourse on the implications of social distances, and it surely meets the journal’s scope.

Overall it is a good research work and it is well positioned in its field; the research questions, data and methods used are clearly stated, the research design is correct and all elements for the reproduction of the experimentation are given.

The results deliver an advancement of knowledge on the restoration potential of natural environments in conditions close to real, filling some gaps related to the implications of human presence, and offer concrete opportunities for application in the sectors of tourism and of natural space fruition and management.

The general structure of the paper is well organized; the engagement with literature sources could be improved, although the current overview is sufficient for the article’s purpose. My suggestion, in any case, is that the literature review should have its own dedicated section, featuring Subsections 1.1 and 1.2, and possibly deepening the analyses.

A better quality of images (e.g. resolution) could improve the clarity and understandability of the presented results, as the contents and labels of diagrams are not fully readable.

The English language is good and understandable overall; however, I suggest a revision, as some little imprecisions or unclear points are present; some examples:

- Lines 18-21: the verb is missing; please, check

- Line 169: there is a repetition (“imported the importation”); please, check

- Line 268: “escorted were”; please, check the words' order.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic and the study's aims are interesting, but there are aspects that should be improved, as I comment below:

-From the initial theoretical argument, hypotheses are derived about the interaction effects between the factors type of environment and social distance, which would justify the application of a Two-way ANOVA. However, after observing the results in which statistically significant interaction effects were not found in any case, it seems that the authors have changed the starting focus and the initial research questions.

-It would have been more interesting to start from specific hypotheses justified according to previous scientific literature to carry out planned contrasts, and not calculate, after obtaining significant main effects, all the possible ones through post hoc tests.

-There is a lack of information on the equivalence of the experimental groups in relation to the variables of interest, both physiological and psychological (stress, anxiety...).

-Taking into account that scenarios created with virtual reality were used, knowing the degree to which the experience was immersive is a fundamental variable to control to ensure the external validity of the experiment and to be able to generalize the results to real environments. It is stated that the subjects were assessed for the authenticity of the scene, but it is not indicated whether that measure was used as an exclusion criterion.

*Results:

-Why were 224 RCS questionnaires administered if only 160 people participated in the experiment? On the other hand, values greater than 0.9 of Cronbach's alpha coefficient indicate redundancy or duplication (that is, that several items are evaluating exactly the same thing). Appropriate values of this coefficient should range between 0.8 and 0.9.

-It would be necessary to include a summary of the most relevant results, since the interpretation of the descriptive analysis, particularly the one represented in Figure 5 in relation to the indicators of psychological restoration, generates confusion. Regarding the presentation of the results of the ANOVA, I suggest including a table of all the results of F, p and effect sizes (which do not appear) and interpreting only those relevant issues in a clearer way, since by including all The results in the text make it difficult to read and understand.

-In relation to the post hoc tests, it would be more convenient to make more general comments emphasizing the differences found, since as stated in the manuscript it generates confusion. In addition, there are results that are commented in duplicate (e.g. line from 318 to 322) and this generates confusion.

- Lines 294-295 and 377-378: it is stated that compliance with the assumption of homogeneity indicates that there are significant differences in the physiological indicators (although they are talking about psychological indicators in the second case), but based on the results of the Levene's test, this statement cannot be made (it can only be said that the variances of the groups being compared are equal).

-Lines 304 and 305: it is indicated that there is a significant effect of the type of landscape, but p=0.305, so that statement is not correct (or there is an error in the data).

*Discussion and conclusion

The discussion seems more like a summary of the results, and few citations to previous scientific literature are included. The understanding of the findings and the contribution of the study would improve if reference were made to the starting hypotheses and compared with the results obtained. In the conclusion it would be necessary to include the limitations of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 4 Report

The thesis topic "Does social distancing affect the restorative benefits of the natural settings?" is innovative and valuable, and has certain practical significance in promoting the progress of resource and environmental management. However, there are major flaws in the paper that I hope the authors can improve. The details are as follows.

1. The title of the paper is inaccurate because it does not express clearly what aspect of the “restorative benefits” is being realized. Judging by the content of the study, it should be psychological.

2. Some concepts in the paper are not clearly expressed and defined. For example, what is meant by restorative benefits of the natural settings? In addition, is the study based on a theory? What elements are included in the restorative benefits of the natural settings? What are the correlations between the elements? It is recommended that the authors construct a theoretical framework to make the conceptual and theoretical issues clear.

3. Subjects were not selected rationally. The experiment included 160 college students as subjects, which did not take into account age differences.

4. The study laid out five natural settings, but did not consider the impact of the quality of the settings themselves on restorative benefits.

5. The authors state that virtual settings constructed in the laboratory are comparable to the real natural settings in terms of the sensory experience they provide. How to evaluate the proximity of these two settings? Is it only based on whether the subject experiences physical discomfort?

6. The study concluded that the effect of landscape type on recovery was not as widespread as thought. Is this related to the age of the subjects? The preference for landscape type varies between different age groups. And is it related to the quality of the constructed settings? After all, no matter how realistic a lab scenario is, there is a difference between the experience it provides compared to the real setting.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

After reviewing the changes you have applied, following my comments and suggestions, I have no other issues to indicate regarding the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind recognition. It is your comments and suggestions that have greatly improved the revised manuscript. We extend our heartfelt gratitude to you.

Thank you so much!

Reviewer 4 Report

The following areas are suggested to further improve the paper.

1. The author has added the words "young adults" to the title. It is recommended that the author explain or define this concept in the text by specifying the age group.

2. Corresponds to the previous recommendation. It is recommended that the age distribution of the respondent population be supplemented to demonstrate the scientific validity of the sample selection.

3. Please improve the quality of the charts. The text in Table 1 is too light in color; the legend text in Figure 3 is too small; and the text in Figure 6 is too small. The above problems affect the readability of the paper.

 It is recommended that the language be further condensed; the current language is slightly wordy.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc