Evaluating Perceptions of the Natural Environment in Relation to Outdoor Activities for a Healthy and Sustainable Life: A Delphi Methodological Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

First of all, I'd like to congratulate you on your work, which tackles a subject of great relevance and importance in today's context: the impact of nature on well-being and sustainable behavior in the context of outdoor activities. Your use of the Delphi method and an interdisciplinary panel of experts brings an interesting depth to the analysis. 

However, I would like to make a few suggestions to strengthen the scope of your article.

First of all, I recommend a more in-depth discussion of the methodological limitations, particularly with regard to the Delphi method and snowball sampling. Although useful for reaching specific populations, this method can introduce representativeness biases that would benefit from further explanation, with avenues to remedy in future studies (a comparison of opinion with another socio-professional category would be interesting in order to locate distortions of interest). 

Just a note, I found your introduction based on references a little dated, with practically only one article dating back to 2020 (Referenced 3), whereas the second part of the article's references are more recent. A fairer balance would have enriched the article more in the confrontations between the introductory references and those in the discussion. Let's just say that there seems to be a temporal imbalance.

Secondly, your results would benefit from being put more into perspective with the existing literature (even if you explain the specificity of your study), by citing similar or divergent studies to better anchor your conclusions in the current scientific corpus.

In addition, the study would benefit from a more developed reflection on the practical implications of the results, proposing, for example, concrete recommendations for decision-makers in public health, urban planning or education. This could include specific proposals for designing spaces that encourage contact with nature (its vision, but also its sounds - deforestation, for example, is generating a progressive and irremediable disappearance of natural sounds), or for raising awareness among individuals of the benefits of natural environments. 

Finally, a more explicit integration of figures and tables in the text would reinforce their contribution to the overall argument.

With these adjustments, your article would have an even greater impact, both for the scientific community and for those working in the field.

Yours sincerely

PhC

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your indications to improve our paper.

In response to your comments, we have made the following additions:

We have incorporated the limitations of the methodologies used in the study.

More recent references have been added in both the introduction and the discussion.

Some recommendations for decision-makers have been incorporated in the discussion.

The figures and tables have been further explained.

You can see the changes and new texts and references are in green colour.

Thank you very much for your help

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review the article. I would like to offer the following suggestions for the reviewed article:

 Linie   36-53

I'd like to go into more detail about the benefits of outdoor activities, including the physical, emotional, social, psychological and existential benefits.

See for example:

Eigenschenk, B.; Thomann, A.; McClure, M.; Davies, L.; Gregory, M.; Dettweiler, U.; Inglés, E. Benefits of Outdoor Sports for Society. A Systematic Literature Review and Reflections on Evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 937. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060937

 Line 54-67

Furthermore, it is possible to discuss the negative consequences of human interaction with the natural environment, including phenomena such as floods, tornadoes and droughts.

 Line 68

You could mention shortly the criticism of Gibson's theory.

 Line 127

a some error (the [26] )

 Line 134

You write as follows:

The research seeks the analysis of the contact of nature as a moderator and mediator 134 through outdoor activities in comprehensive well-being... and Line  141: is written: Studies with mediators are very practical ….. Add word: moderator after word mediator (mediator and moderator are not the same thing)

 Line 159-162

Add information about the negative aspects of the online test

 Line 193-207.

You presented data on experts by gender. Why was the gender distribution of experts presented and not their age or other variables?

 Line 240-241

You can use a statistical non-parametric test (Chi statistic) to test whether there are any statistically significant differences between the experts (not obligatory)

 Line 310-365

It would be beneficial to have access to more sophisticated statistical tools for measuring differences in expert responses, such as one-way variance analysis (not obligatory)

 Line 366-434

Add information about the limitations of the study, what are its weaknesses, what research can still be carried out using the methodology used. Can the results obtained be generalised to other populations?

Kind regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your indications to improve our paper.

In response to your comments, we have made the following additions:

We have been included with more recent references.

We have explained how the paper is oriented towards a positive vision and the negative consequences of human interaction has not been taken into consideration.

The explanation of this Gibson's theory has been reduced.

The error (the [26] ) has been corrected

The moderator word has been included.

We have incorporated the limitations aspects of the online test.

The profile of experts has been included: “The experts who have collaborated are Spanish professionals over the age of 45, who have obtained a university education and hold doctoral degrees”. Other characteristics of the experts have not been collected

In regard to statistical issues: The statistical analysis is descriptive, as parametric tests cannot be performed, due to the scalar nature of the variable and the fact that the number of experts is less than 30, making it impossible to apply the central limit theorem. The chi-square test cannot be used either, as the expected frequencies are less than 5 in the categories of the variable, so the test result is not reliable.

We have incorporated the limitations of the methodologies used in the study and what to do in future lines of work.

You can see the changes and new texts and references are in green colour.

Thank you very much for your help.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your work.  I have provided some comments on the manuscript that I hope you'll find helpful.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It was quite difficult to follow. I think it might be useful to invest in the journal's resource for English editing, as that may help with some of the comments and improve readability and expression of ideas.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We have revised the title and paper according to your instructions.

In the introduction we have revised and clarified the objectives of the study.

More than twenty recent references have been incorporated.

The limitations of the methodologies used have been added.

The changes are in green.

We will make a revision of the English when we have finished with all the revisions.

Thank you very much for your help.