The Perception and Self-Concept of Suburban Foresters in Their Role as Forest Recreation Managers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting and attempts to analyze the perception and self-concept of the role of forest managers in recreation areas in suburban forests. However, I think that the objective is confusing in some parts, since self-concept is mentioned on one hand and perception on other occasions, and even one of the two is omitted in others. The most important thing is to really be clear about how the survey was designed, since it covers different aspects that do not go according to the number of interviews used. For example, the study includes employers but with different profiles, the types of forest are diverse and for a change there are 2 types of tourist load. The above does not go according to the sample size that is suggested, since the same quotes that the authors suggest are of the non-statistical type and for samples with little diversity, which does not seem to be the case. The way in which the results are shown leaves much to be desired, it is very descriptive and is not supported by a more robust analysis. For the above, it seems to me that the work should be revised and restructured.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The article is interesting and attempts to analyze the perception and self-concept of the role of forest managers in recreation areas in suburban forests.

However, I think that the objective is confusing in some parts, since self-concept is mentioned on one hand and perception on other occasions, and even one of the two is omitted in others.

Answer:

Thank you for your insightful feedback. I understand the confusion about the use of the terms "self-concept" and "perception" in the article. The intent was to analyze how forest managers perceive their roles (self-concept) while also examining how they perceive the external expectations and challenges associated with managing recreation in suburban forests (perception).

However, I acknowledge that these distinctions may not have been consistently followed throughout the text, which may have led to confusion. To address this, the text was carefully reviewed and attempts were made to either clarify or unify terminology to provide a clear and coherent narrative. I hope that the text is now clearer.

 

The most important thing is to really be clear about how the survey was designed, since it covers different aspects that do not go according to the number of interviews used. For example, the study includes employers but with different profiles, the types of forest are diverse and for a change there are 2 types of tourist load. The above does not go according to the sample size that is suggested, since the same quotes that the authors suggest are of the non-statistical type and for samples with little diversity, which does not seem to be the case.

Answer:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. I appreciate your concerns about the diversity of the sample and the proposed methodological approach. I would like to clarify some key aspects of the study design and the rationale for our approach:

It is true that the respondents (employers and employees) came from different profiles and organisations, but all the selected locations were tourist active. The focus was on locations close to urban agglomerations that consistently experience recreational use. We deliberately did not include remote or unused forest areas. Although the staff was not the same in all locations, the similarity of the locations (proximity to urban centers and tourist activity) ensured a coherent sample.

The perceived tourist load of individual sites, as shown in the table, was based on the subjective assessment of the foresters themselves. While it is true that some foresters perceived a greater tourist burden than others, all respondents reported experiencing similar problems such as litter and occasional conflicts with visitors. This consistency in the problems described by respondents suggests that the sites were not as diverse as they might at first appear.

 

Although the study did not strive for statistical representativeness, the consistency of themes across interviews and the repetition of the same data illuminated the saturation of the data. This approach is in line with recommendations for qualitative research, which favours depth over breadth, especially when addressing a focused topic.

 

The way in which the results are shown leaves much to be desired, it is very descriptive and is not supported by a more robust analysis. For the above, it seems to me that the work should be revised and restructured.

Answer:

Thank you for your valuable comments on the results section. We appreciate your comments. Due to the length and descriptiveness of the results, we have added a table with key findings to the results. 

The primary aim of our research was to explore how forest managers view their roles (self-concept) and how they perceive external expectations and challenges associated with recreational management in suburban forests (perception). During our coding and thematic analysis, we identified numerous interesting topics that extended beyond our initial research objectives. For example, several respondents indicated that they would prefer working in less touristically burdened locations if given the opportunity. However, we intentionally excluded such findings from the results, as these would require a different research design focusing on personal preferences and career decisions, which were not the primary objectives of our study.

 

As this is an initial study, we have focused primarily on describing key findings directly related to the research objectives. A more thorough and extensive analysis would inevitably include topics that are not as relevant to our current objectives, which could dilute the focus of our study. In the future, we are considering expanding our research to include these broader aspects, such as the personal characteristics of foresters and their preferences for the work environment.

We acknowledge that the results are currently descriptive, but this was a deliberate choice to ensure that the findings were closely related to the specific research objectives. Including a broader analysis would require additional data collection. which we are considering in the future with a slightly different focus on the resulting data.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful suggestions, which will undoubtedly help us refine and improve our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read the manuscript with great interest. I’m sorry, but the method of analysis leaves me perplexed. It would be appropriate, I think, to at least attach the answers of the 15 respondents so that we can better understand their content. The answers are divided into single parts, which could also be interpreted in an instrumental way.     

1. The study examines the role of forest workers, who manage forests on the one hand and have experiences of recreation in the forest on the other. The manuscript assumes that foresters have the expertise to provide guidance on recreational forests and thus can provide useful information for forest policy.

2. I think the subject is very relevant, but the question arises as to whether the forestry workers involved have adequate training in this area.

3. Authors have integrated their analysis with other scientific publications.

4. The Authors stressed that the analysis would be carried out with a qualitative method, and this choice would be accompanied by specific literature. I do not have the information to assess the methodology, which is said to be well established. The weakness I observe is that, compared to the 15 foresters interviewed, in the analysis phase the evaluations were provided by single individuals. Having used a qualitative methodology, I take note of this, but a quantitative analysis would have been appropriate.

5. The conclusions are in line with the analysis developed by

6. The bibliography is consistent

7. The work does not include tables and images

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I read the manuscript with great interest. I’m sorry, but the method of analysis leaves me perplexed. It would be appropriate, I think, to at least attach the answers of the 15 respondents so that we can better understand their content. The answers are divided into single parts, which could also be interpreted in an instrumental way.     

1. The study examines the role of forest workers, who manage forests on the one hand and have experiences of recreation in the forest on the other. The manuscript assumes that foresters have the expertise to provide guidance on recreational forests and thus can provide useful information for forest policy.

Answer:

Thank you for your insightful comments and for taking the time to carefully review our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the points you raised and to provide additional context regarding our approach and findings.

The full transcripts of the interviews are indeed extensive, and while it would be possible to include every respondent's specific input for each theme, this would lead to an unwieldy manuscript. Instead, we have presented selected excerpts as illustrative examples of the broader patterns identified through thematic coding. The coding process allowed us to systematically analyze the data and return to the transcripts when needed to ensure accurate representation of the themes.

We acknowledge that in qualitative research, the researcher plays a key role in interpreting the data, which introduces potential bias. This limitation is addressed in the manuscript, and we also emphasize that repeated iterations of analysis and reflection are essential to minimize these risks and ensure robust findings.

While we discuss the gap in institutional support for foresters managing recreational functions (61-66), we recognize that the manuscript may not sufficiently clarify the specific situation in the Czech Republic.

In the Czech Republic, there is no specialized education or training specifically focused on public engagement or recreational forest management. While forestry schools offer optional courses such as forest pedagogy, there is no comprehensive curriculum dedicated to recreational management. Foresters, therefore, often learn how to manage recreational functions and interact with the public "on the job," relying on their personal experience.

This lack of structured education contributes to the challenges foresters face in balancing the productive and non-productive functions of forests, as the primary emphasis of their education remains on traditional forestry practices.

The recommendations presented in the manuscript are based on data collected from experienced forestry practitioners who are currently involved in recreational management. These recommendations could significantly contribute to improving the current situation faced by Czech forestry practitioners. It can be assumed that additional institutional and educational support aimed at preparing foresters for specific localities might be beneficial in the future, although this cannot be conclusively stated based on the interview data.

From their perspective, foresters believe they are fulfilling their roles well and see opportunities for improvement specifically in the recommendations outlined at the end of the article. These recommendations represent a key step toward enhancing the management of recreational functions and better addressing the challenges of balancing productive and non-productive forest functions, grounded in practice and the perspectives of forestry practitioners.

We hope these clarifications address your concerns, and we look forward to your additional feedback.

 

2. I think the subject is very relevant, but the question arises as to whether the forestry workers involved have adequate training in this area.

Answer:

Thank you for your follow-up comment. I hope that I have sufficiently addressed this question in my previous response. If there are any additional aspects you would like me to clarify or expand upon, please do not hesitate to let me know.

 

3. Authors have integrated their analysis with other scientific publications.
4. The Authors stressed that the analysis would be carried out with a qualitative method, and this choice would be accompanied by specific literature. I do not have the information to assess the methodology, which is said to be well established. The weakness I observe is that, compared to the 15 foresters interviewed, in the analysis phase the evaluations were provided by single individuals. Having used a qualitative methodology, I take note of this, but a quantitative analysis would have been appropriate.
5. The conclusions are in line with the analysis developed by
6. The bibliography is consistent
7. The work does not include tables and images

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: The Perception and Self-Concept of Suburban Foresters in Their Role as Forest Recreation Managers

 The work seeks to describe how foresters in the Czech Republic conceptually relate to their functions in relation to the management of forest recreation. By employing qualitative methods, spearheaded by semi-structured interviews conducted with fifteen respondents, it discovers both the conducive and unfavorable factors affecting their work.

 Areas of Possible Improvement:

 Sample: Given the small sample of fifteen respondents, the study lacks generalizability. While the qualitative approach allows for an in-depth understanding, a larger sample would have provided deeper validation and applicability of these conclusions to a wider population of foresters.

 

Level of Insight: The study cites relevant literature, but there could be stronger and more thorough examination of differing perspectives or contrasting views on the forest recreation management discourse. Better engagement with the conflicting theories or examinations could allow a firmer analysis about the subject.

 

 Public Engagement: The study notes difficulties of interaction between the forest authorities and the general public, especially in creating awareness about forest management practices. Yet, it fails to suggest concrete techniques on how to embark on the improvement of such public engagement and the capacity for creating a more substantial connection to the perception of the role of the foresters in managing recreational spaces.

Conclusion

Overall, the study contributes valuable insights into the role of foresters in managing recreational takes. While these objectives have, no doubt, been convincingly implemented with sufficient findings, work could further improve on aspects of sample size and public involvement in such exercises. Future studies might capitalize on the findings of this one for more in-depth exploration into the intricacies of forest recreation management.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is good.

Author Response

Title: The Perception and Self-Concept of Suburban Foresters in Their Role as Forest Recreation Managers

 The work seeks to describe how foresters in the Czech Republic conceptually relate to their functions in relation to the management of forest recreation. By employing qualitative methods, spearheaded by semi-structured interviews conducted with fifteen respondents, it discovers both the conducive and unfavorable factors affecting their work.

 Areas of Possible Improvement:

 Sample: Given the small sample of fifteen respondents, the study lacks generalizability. While the qualitative approach allows for an in-depth understanding, a larger sample would have provided deeper validation and applicability of these conclusions to a wider population of foresters.

 Answer:

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and for highlighting the importance of sample size in qualitative research. We fully acknowledge that the relatively small sample of fifteen respondents limits the generalizability of the findings. However, we observed significant data saturation during the study, as similar themes and patterns consistently emerged across the interviews. This indicates that the core themes relevant to our research objectives were comprehensively captured within this sample.

That said, we recognize the potential value of expanding the research in the future. We are open to broadening the scope to include a larger and more diverse sample of foresters, potentially focusing on other aspects or exploring regional variations. Such an expansion could provide even deeper insights and enhance the applicability of the conclusions to a wider population.

We greatly appreciate your suggestion, which aligns with our long-term vision for this research area. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

 

 

Level of Insight: The study cites relevant literature, but there could be stronger and more thorough examination of differing perspectives or contrasting views on the forest recreation management discourse. Better engagement with the conflicting theories or examinations could allow a firmer analysis about the subject.

 Answer:

We agree that engaging more thoroughly with differing perspectives or contrasting views on the subject could enrich the analysis and provide a more robust framework for understanding these issues.

 

Moving forward, future research could build on this foundation by incorporating a broader range of theories and conflicting perspectives. This would not only strengthen the discourse but also help to contextualize the findings within a wider academic and practical framework. We believe this initial exploration sets a solid groundwork for such further studies.

 

 Public Engagement: The study notes difficulties of interaction between the forest authorities and the general public, especially in creating awareness about forest management practices. Yet, it fails to suggest concrete techniques on how to embark on the improvement of such public engagement and the capacity for creating a more substantial connection to the perception of the role of the foresters in managing recreational spaces.

Answer:

Thank you for your insightful feedback. We appreciate your observation regarding the need for concrete techniques to improve public engagement and strengthen the connection between the role of foresters and recreational space management.

In the recommendations section of the manuscript, we included suggestions based on the perspectives of the foresters themselves. A key focus, as highlighted by the respondents, is the importance of education as a tool for fostering better public awareness and engagement. This includes educational initiatives targeted at diverse age groups, from children to adults, aimed at promoting understanding of sustainable forest management practices and the challenges faced by foresters.

These recommendations reflect practical insights from the respondents’ experience in managing public interactions and emphasize the potential of forest pedagogy and long-term awareness campaigns to bridge the gap between the public and forest authorities. We believe this approach offers a meaningful starting point for addressing the challenges you have raised.

Thank you again for your valuable input, and we look forward to any further suggestions you may have.

 

 

Conclusion

Overall, the study contributes valuable insights into the role of foresters in managing recreational takes. While these objectives have, no doubt, been convincingly implemented with sufficient findings, work could further improve on aspects of sample size and public involvement in such exercises. Future studies might capitalize on the findings of this one for more in-depth exploration into the intricacies of forest recreation management.

Answer:

Thank you for your encouraging feedback and for recognizing the value of our study in contributing to the understanding of the role of foresters in managing recreational spaces.

 

We appreciate your suggestions regarding sample size and the inclusion of greater public involvement. While this study focused on capturing the perspectives of foresters, we agree that future research could build upon these findings to delve deeper into the complexities of forest recreation management. Expanding the sample size and incorporating the perspectives of the general public would indeed provide a more holistic view and further enrich the discussion on this important topic.

 

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your constructive comments and thoughtful recommendations.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed or responded to the comments and queries raised in the review. The new version has a better structure and could therefore continue with the publication process.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for comments, which helped to raise the quality of the paper when it was revised.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the  revisedmanuscript  and I the revisions are now satisfactory. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have reviewed the  revisedmanuscript  and I the revisions are now satisfactory. 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for comments, which helped to raise the quality of the paper when it was revised.