The quality of the data from the next reporting round could be improved if the need to specify this information is made clearer in the reporting form: a) the area of forest and other wooded land covered by the estimate, b) the definition of visits that was used, and c) the primary data sources. Assuming countries provide this information, when this indicator is written up in SOEF 2015, it would also be worth highlighting which estimates for “intensity of use" referred to subsets of total forest cover, and quoting this area in the text Otherwise, the variations in intensity of use between countries are likely to be misinterpreted. For this reason, it would be worth examining the primary sources. This would also allow existing figures to be checked, and some of the assumptions to be clarified.