Sustainability 2010, 2(8), 2621-2625; doi:10.3390/su2082621
Reply

Response to Comments of Ben Gunneberg

Thomas J. Straka* email and Patricia A. Laytonemail
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Clemson University, P.O. Box 340317, Clemson, SC 29634-0317, USA
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 18 July 2010 / Accepted: 17 August 2010 / Published: 18 August 2010
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment)
PDF Full-text Download PDF Full-Text [117 KB, uploaded 18 August 2010 14:29 CEST]
Abstract: An unreferenced statement on page 608 is challenged as being incorrect. FSC and PEFC are competitors and issues on the differences between the programs are often arguable. We do agree that a small portion of the statement could have been more clearly stated, but the intent of the statement was essentially correct. The original article contained 80 references and not every sentence could be referenced. We include 18 additional references below to strengthen and clarify our statement.

Article Statistics

Click here to load and display the download statistics.

Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Straka, T.J.; Layton, P.A. Response to Comments of Ben Gunneberg. Sustainability 2010, 2, 2621-2625.

AMA Style

Straka TJ, Layton PA. Response to Comments of Ben Gunneberg. Sustainability. 2010; 2(8):2621-2625.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Straka, Thomas J.; Layton, Patricia A. 2010. "Response to Comments of Ben Gunneberg." Sustainability 2, no. 8: 2621-2625.

Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert