Effect of Thinning on Forest Scenic Beauty in a Black Pine Forest in Central Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with effects of thinning on forest scenic beauty in a study area of black pine plantation in Central Italy. The paper is well written, and acceptable for publishing with two minor comments.  

Thinning scenarios were well explained, but they would be much easier to visualise if survey is attached as well, at least the part that includes photos. If possible, include the questionnaire in the supplementary data or appendix.

Line 271-272: what is the value of 3 in 5-point Likert scale?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We attached the cover letter with responses to your comments and suggestion.

Kind regards

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript demonstrates visitor preferences for forest structure and composition in Tuscany, Italy – in the Pratomagno forest region, including examining how different treatment types are perceived for three main recreational uses by visitors. This is a case study that adds to existing literature on perceptions of forest management. The manuscript as written could benefit from revisions to the text and tables to both clarify presentation of findings and to more strongly connect this manuscript to existing literature, so as to demonstrate how this case study adds to the broader perceptions literature around forest management.

Overall:

Need to include more background on other studies that have examined preferences for thinning/ forest treatments in the introduction, not just in discussion. For example, here are a couple of articles where similar work has been done in other locations. Consider adding these, similar papers, and some of the papers you cite in the discussion into a background section so the reader knows what already is known about this area of research prior to reading your results.

Arnberger, A., Ebenberger, M., Schneider, I.E., Cottrell, S., Schlueter, A.C., von Ruschkowski, E., Venette, R.C., Snyder, S.A. and Gobster, P.H., 2018. Visitor preferences for visual changes in bark beetle-impacted forest recreation settings in the United States and Germany. Environmental management, 61(2), pp.209-223.

Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H. and Kolehmainen, O., 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 1(3), pp.135-149.

Also consider and write into the paper more on the following question- How does this research build on those papers? Revise the introduction and discussion accordingly. Also, the conclusion should restate critical findings and summarize the implications of these findings. Finally, if the main objective of this study is to increase knowledge available to forest managers – how will/was this information shared with managers?

 

Line by line comments:

106 - Please provide more information on the ownership of the forest. Are there existing visitation data, by demographics? If so, you can compare your responses, to see if they represent visitor demographics. If there are no such data, please include in the manuscript.

267-269 – How were these 3 categories selected? Include justification.

274 – 276 What was the scale for these 5 point Likert scales? More suitable photo A to more suitable photo B? You have a lot of detail about other aspects of the survey but this is just implied.

314 – How do demographics of your respondents relate to demographics of the area?

320 “both males and 25-year-old” This is an assumption. It is just one possible reason for the low response rate. Please revise accordingly.

323 – 338 Any known bias in who refused your survey?

334- 335 “It’s interesting” Contractions are not appropriate for manuscripts. This sentence is also speculation – not appropriate for a results section – come back to in the discussion if needed.

346 – better to state there was no significant relationship in preferences by demographics for forest type / species composition.

Table 1 – reformat to include composition and structure side by side to shorten table length.

339 – 406: Because there are no significant differences in structure, composition, and treatment by demographics, discuss totals only when it comes to preferences. Add totals to Table 1. Since results are not statistically significant, no need to present results beyond:

• Overall preference
• Results of statistical tests – even better to include these in the table rather than just the text
• Table 1 and 2

417 – This would be better presented as a table, including the test statistic as well as the p-value. All results should be reported, not just those that are significant. As presented, I was confused by the results; it is not clear why you would use the Mann-Whitney test when you could use the Kruskal Wallis test, as there are 3 types of treatment. Please clarify in the manuscript.

447 – 449 – include this in the study area section – the reader should know the non-plantation forest types in the region earlier in the manuscript

465-472 – unnecessary discussion – could cut

Style/formatting

A fluent English reader should review this document carefully. There are grammatical errors and choices that make reading the manuscript and interpreting the authors’ intent challenging.

Define abbreviations.

Two sentences are not a paragraph. Consider combining shorter paragraphs together.

Figure 1 is fuzzy. Please provide a higher quality image with villages/locations more clearly named in larger font.

Figure 3 – label Y axis

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we attached the Cover letter with the answers to your suggestions and comments.

Regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx