PONE-D-24-25074Exploring the impact of nature connectedness on well-being among urban youth from 25 most populated cities in IndiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bapat,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 15 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Weicong Li, P.hD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

4. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods).

Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

7. Please upload a new copy of Figures 3 and 4 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: 

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

Additional Editor Comments: 

Please note that I have acted as a reviewer for this manuscript, and you will find my comments below, under Reviewer 4.

The authors need to address the following issues:

1. please elaborate on the sample selection strategy in the Methods section and explore the impact of this distribution on the findings in the Discussion section.

2. strengthen the theoretical support for the hypotheses, particularly by discussing the basis for the hypotheses in the context of the existing literature.

3. explain the data collection process and bias control measures in more detail in the Methods section.

4. insufficient explanation of the negative correlation between blue space and mental health.

5. discuss the limitations of cross-sectional study design and uneven sample distribution.

6. Add a comparative analysis with international studies to clarify the unique contribution of this study in a global context.

7. Define the scope of “natural connections” and explain why these cities were selected and their value for other urban studies.

8. Add specific recommendations for urban planning and policy applications and expand the literature review to include more indigenous Indian studies and regional data.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I reviewed the article titled "Exploring the impact of nature connectedness on well-being among urban youth from 25 most populated cities in India". It contributes significantly to the scientific literature in several ways:

1- This study addresses the lack of research on the relationship between nature connectedness and well-being among urban youth in India, a region where such studies are scarce. By focusing on a large and diverse sample from 25 major cities, the research provides a comprehensive understanding of how nature connectedness influences the mental health of urban youth in a rapidly urbanizing country.

2- The study employs robust statistical methods, including multivariate and logistic regression analyses, to explore the impact of residential exposure to green and blue spaces, frequency of recreational visits, and time spent indoors on well-being. This multifaceted approach offers nuanced insights into the various factors that contribute to mental health outcomes.

3- The findings have significant implications for urban planning and public health policies. By demonstrating the positive effects of proximity to green and blue spaces and frequent interaction with nature on mental well-being, the study advocates for the development of more parks and green spaces in urban areas. This evidence can be used to inform policies aimed at improving the mental health of urban populations, particularly the youth.

4- While the study is region-specific, its findings contribute to the broader global literature on the benefits of nature connectedness. By providing empirical evidence from a developing country context, the research adds a valuable perspective to the existing knowledge, which is predominantly based on studies from Western countries.

5- The study’s results can be used by educators, mental health professionals, and urban planners to design interventions that promote nature connectedness as a means of enhancing mental well-being among youth. This practical application further underscores the importance of the research.

Based on the review of the study, below are the overall weaknesses identified which need the author(s) attention:

1- The study is based on responses from 25 cities, but the number of responses per city is uneven, ranging from 6 in Rajkot to 415 in Delhi. This uneven distribution could lead to sampling bias and may not accurately represent the youth populations in all cities.

2- The study uses a cross-sectional design, which limits the ability to draw causal inferences. It only captures a snapshot in time rather than observing changes over time, which could provide more robust evidence for the relationships explored.

3- The data relies entirely on self-reported measures, which can be prone to biases such as social desirability bias and recall bias, potentially leading to inaccurate reporting of nature connectedness and well-being.

4- Since the data collection was conducted through an online survey, there is no way to validate the accuracy of the responses, leading to potential inaccuracies in the data.

5- Some survey questions are described as ambiguous, which could lead to misinterpretation by participants and affect the validity of the results.

6- The study focuses only on youth aged 18-25 years. This narrow age range limits the generalizability of the findings to other age groups, such as younger adolescents or older adults.

7- The study is limited to urban areas in India, and the findings may not be generalizable to rural areas or other countries with different cultural and environmental contexts.

8- The study does not account for seasonal variations, which could affect outdoor activities and nature connectedness. For instance, participants might engage more with nature during certain seasons, influencing their well-being.

9- The study finds that proximity to blue spaces has an unexpected negative impact on well-being, but this result is not deeply explored. The lack of blue spaces in the sample could have skewed the data, but this issue is not adequately addressed.

10- While the study includes various covariates, it may not account for all potential confounding factors, such as socio-economic status, existing mental health conditions, or environmental factors unrelated to nature that could influence well-being.

11- Although some limitations are acknowledged, the discussion might not be comprehensive enough, leaving out other potential weaknesses that could impact the study’s validity.

12- The study relies heavily on quantitative data, with little to no qualitative insights that could provide a deeper understanding of the subjective experiences of nature connectedness and its impact on well-being.

13- With 2,283 participants responding to an online survey, there is a risk of survey fatigue, where participants may not fully engage with the later questions, leading to incomplete or less thoughtful responses.

14- The study may focus heavily on statistically significant results without thoroughly considering the practical significance or the effect sizes, which might be small even when statistically significant.

In addition to the weaknesses mentioned above, below are suggested area of improvement divided section by section:

1- Title : Consider rephrasing the title to include the terms "urban mental health" or "youth well-being" to better capture the essence of the study.

2- Abstract: Add a brief mention of key limitations in the abstract to provide a more balanced overview of the study’s contributions and its constraints.

3- Introduction: Expand the discussion on how this study differs from or builds upon previous research in other countries. This will help clarify the novelty of the study and its contribution to the global literature. Provide a more detailed explanation of how each hypothesis is derived from the theoretical framework or past studies to strengthen the foundation of the research.

4- Materials and Methods: Acknowledge the sampling bias more explicitly in this section and discuss potential strategies for mitigating this issue in future studies, such as stratified sampling or oversampling underrepresented cities. Include a discussion on the cultural relevance of the WHO-5 and NIS scales in the Indian setting and any modifications made to ensure their validity and reliability. Suggest alternative or complementary data collection methods, such as observational data or longitudinal tracking, to strengthen the study's validity and reduce reliance on self-report. Provide a more detailed justification for the inclusion of specific covariates and discuss any additional variables that might have been considered.

5- Results: Include more context or commentary on the significance of the descriptive statistics, especially how they relate to the urban youth population in India. Expand the discussion on the counterintuitive results, such as the negative association with blue spaces, by exploring potential cultural or environmental factors specific to the Indian context. Discuss the limitations of the city-specific analysis due to uneven sample sizes and consider recommending further research to validate these findings with more balanced samples.

6- Discussion: Provide a more in-depth discussion of the limitations, particularly the sampling bias and the reliance on cross-sectional data, and suggest ways these could be addressed in future research. Include a more comprehensive comparison with international studies, highlighting both the similarities and differences, and discuss the implications for cross-cultural research on nature connectedness. Provide more concrete examples of how urban planners and policymakers can use the findings to design interventions that promote nature connectedness among urban youth.

7- Conclusion: Streamline the conclusion to emphasize the key contributions and their implications for both the scientific community and policymakers. Propose specific future research directions that address the study’s limitations, such as exploring seasonal variations, using a longitudinal design, or incorporating qualitative methods.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript demonstrates technically sound scientific research, with data to support the conclusions presented. The experiments were conducted rigorously, using appropriate controls, replication and adequate sample sizes, allowing conclusions to be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

The conclusions are carefully drawn from the data presented and corroborate the initial hypotheses. The study shows that residential proximity to green spaces, frequent recreational visits to these spaces and a strong connection with nature are significantly associated with better mental well-being, while spending more time indoors has a negative impact on mental health. some pointers to improve the manuscript can be found in the attached documents

Reviewer #3: This manuscript explores an interesting question—the relationship between nature connectedness and the mental health of urban adolescents in India. From my personal perspective, considering the accelerated process of urbanization and the exacerbation of adolescent mental health issues in the post-pandemic period, this study holds certain practical significance.

1. Although the study is methodologically well-structured and employs multiple regression and logistic regression models, there are some shortcomings in the hypothesis section. The research could strengthen its hypotheses by providing more detailed theoretical foundations. Furthermore, the discussion on the negative correlation between blue spaces (e.g., bodies of water) and mental health is rather superficial. It is recommended to delve deeper into the possible reasons for this result in the discussion section, such as the impact of urban geographical location, urban planning, or other socio-cultural factors, and to cite more relevant literature to support this discussion. This would make the conclusions more reasonable and convincing.

2. The study is based on self-reported survey data, which introduces potential biases and challenges in validation. As the authors have mentioned, the sample distribution across different cities is uneven, and the sample size in some cities is too small, which may affect the generalizability of the research results. Uneven sample distribution among different cities may impact the generalizability of the results, especially in cities with extremely small sample sizes. It is suggested to explain the sample selection strategy in detail in the methods section and to further discuss in the limitations how this issue affects the research results. Future research could consider allocating samples more evenly across different cities.

3. Since this manuscript is based on self-reported data, there may be biases. Incorporating more indigenous studies on the mental health of urban adolescents in India and their connection with nature would further enhance the background and relevance of the research. Although the citation of global studies is sufficient, the article could improve its quality by integrating more regional data and research. For example, providing more explanations about the data collection process, questionnaire design, and how biases were controlled, and including key questions from the questionnaire in the appendix, would further enhance the transparency of the data and the scientific rigor of the research.

Reviewer #4: 1. Please define the scope of 'natural connection', what does it include? This will help the understanding of scholars not in the field.

2. please provide justification for the choice of this city.

3. is the study of India useful for urban studies in other countries?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Abdullah Addas

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Recomendations.pdf

PONE-D-24-25074R1Exploring the impact of nature connectedness on urban mental health and well-being among youth from 25 most populated cities in IndiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bapat,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 28 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Weicong Li, P.hD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments :

Please find my comment in reviewer 4. The manuscript has research value, but still needs to address the following major issues. See my comments.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: the authors responded to requests to adjust the text with significant additions and improvements to the work.

Reviewer #4: 1. Please improve the quality of all Figures. the text in Figure 8 is too small, making it difficult to read the content.

2. “age”, “gender”, “education”, and “profession” in the bar chart can be used as subfigures to form a completed chart.

3. Please check the spelling of the second author in References 59.

4. It is recommended that an academic contribution map be drawn in “Discussions” to illustrate the contribution of the research to the field as a whole.

5. Also, in Discussions, explain how the research will be replicated and disseminated. Include the study in the local area, as well as the impact on the global scale.

6. Integrate theoretical frameworks, such as the Biophilia Hypothesis or Attention Restoration Theory, in the Introduction section as theoretical support for subsequent research.

7. Refine the logical relationship between “natural connectivity” and “mental health” and explain its possible mediating or moderating variables.

8. How is the variable “indoor time” defined and measured? The authors may add to the list.

Compare and contrast the results of domestic and international studies, analyze the possible reasons behind the differences, and highlight the academic contributions of this study.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Weicong Li

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Exploring the impact of nature connectedness on well-being and mental distress among urban youth: Evidence from 25 most populated cities in India

PONE-D-24-25074R2

Dear Dr. Bapat,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Weicong Li, P.hD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: