Complementarity with Real Forests: A Conceptual Framework and Narrative Review of Multidimensional Effects in Virtual Forests

Comments 1: In materials and methods section: Is it possible to brief on the components of a forest (e.g. trees, water, air, animals, humans etc.) considered for VR experience in the selected studies?

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. In "Materials and Methods" section, we have added a brief description of the compositions of forests considered for VR experience in the selected studies (Page 4, line 178-183).

Comments 2: In the framework section: Is it possible to suggest some core elements including probable stories of a forest which should be considered while designing VR environments.

Response 2: It is really a great suggestion as you pointed that taking the storytelling of the virtual forest into account in the "Conceptual framework" section. When designing virtual forest environments, the background narrative of the scene may directly affect the experiential benefits. We have added "storytelling" to the "forest" element of the framework (Figure 3). In addition, in section "4.2.2 Forests", we have added a description of some of the ways in which virtual forest environments can enhance storytelling and its benefits (Page 9, line 379-385).

Comments 1: The authors state the reasons for the justification of reviewing virtual forests by criticism the lack of existing literatures, such as on line 107-108 and those on line 115-116. The authors need to state positively about the reason why comprehensively knowing the multidimensional effects for virtual forests are important and essential. Here is to suggest the authors to add some positive rationale for this review.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. In the "Introduction" section, we have added reasons why a comprehensive understanding of the multidimensional effects of virtual forests is important and necessary in academia, planning, healthcare, and more (Page 3, line 123-131).

Comments 2: The authors classify the review components of this study as core elements, experience, effects and circulation without the explanation why such classification for group of literatures is appropriate. It seems the part of core elements take very large part of the content, experience takes the second, effects are the third and only few sentences for the circulation component. It is important to give a guideline for all four elements before each part of the literatures appear. Without such guideline the readers will loss in each part of the literature.

Response 2: Considering your suggestion , we have added in the "Conceptual framework" section the reason why it is divided into these four steps and the logical relationship between these four components (Page 5, line 198-203). In addition, a guideline is given before each section in the "Results" so that the reader doesn't get lost in each part of the literature (line 224-229, line 420-425, line 511-517, line 584-588).

Comments 3: The section of “Conceptual Framework” seems the summary of the previous section of “Methods and Materials.” I will suggest the author reverse these two sections. The conceptual framework is supposed to construct with filling different types of literatures (the materials). Otherwise, when the framework appears the authors have to explain each part of the component once again briefly. The authors cannot explain the framework in details as all the literatures just appear in the previous section. If the authors revise these two sections then such problem will then be resolved.

Response 3: We agree with your constructive suggestions. In order to avoid repeating the previous section when explaining the framework, we have inverted the "Conceptual framework" and "Results" sections, which makes for a good solution to the problem (see revised manuscript for details).

Comments 4: The review type of study does not need discussion as the study without any

theoretical and/or empirical results. Part of discussion is just repeated contents in section “Methods and Materials” in which most of the literatures appears. The most obvious part is for component circulation in subsection 3.5 and subsection 5.4. What this section need is the future research directions in this section if the authors insist to have section of “Discussion.”

Response 4: Thank you for the comment. We have incorporated the four sections from the original "Discussion" into the previous "Results" section. However, the "Discussion" section was retained, and the content of this section was kept as a discussion of future research directions and practical implications, rather than repeating the content of the "Results" section (see revised manuscript for details).

Comments 5: It is suggested to move the subsection of “limitation” to section of Conclusion.

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. We have merged the subsection on "limitations" into the section of "Conclusions" (see revised manuscript for details).

All page numbers and lines are from the file "Reversed Manuscript (with track changes).doc".