Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this is a useful paper which adds to the existing literature. A few comments and suggestions for manuscript improvement are as follows:

Introduction:

The introduction utilises the key literature in this field, however, would benefit from revisions to enhance structure and reduce repetition. Having the hypothesis integrated with this made it more difficult to understand and interrupts the clarity of the introduction for the reader.

It would be good to define nature connectedness in more detail and how this is different to time spent in nature.

Methods:

Population - it would be good to describe the population in terms of their baseline engagement with nature - are these people who are engaging in nature anyway, or not? What does the sample look like in this respect. While you have T1/T2/T3, a general understanding of what this population looks like in terms of this would be helpful context.

Define how nature connectedness is promoted (you've got great detail in terms of the activities included in the camping, but making this link would be helpful for the reader).

Results: These are clear and detailed.

Discussion: 

4.1 missing capital to start sentence

Recommendations should be revised to highlight further limitations of this study, highlighting the nature connectedness aspect which is different to time spent in nature. This influences what you can really claim with your findings i.e., participants in your study spent a few days in nature (long exposure, nature connectedness), some of your recommendations read as things which would not meet these parameters i.e., short exposure, time in nature compared to nature connection. We know from research these two concepts are different, particularly when it comes to health outcomes and impact.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you so much for your time!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well done and well filled out paper. The information is not new in terms of NBI boosting well-being. It’s an interesting approach with the camping element of the students. The entire manuscript would benefit from more concision as it is long and easy to lose focus as a reader. I would recommend editing it and cutting down manuscript to Increase readability. It is well written, and the arguments are sound. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you so much for your time and effort!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx