European Union’s Last Intact Forest Landscapes are at A Value Chain Crossroad between Multiple Use and Intensified Wood Production
, Johan Svensson 2, Grzegorz Mikusiński 3,4, Michael Manton 5 and Per Angelstam 4,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper contains new information but it is based on statistical data only (no field research, validations etc. are included). The methods are not explained in details (data processing, interpretation systems etc.).
Details:
Intact forest: please define it for the whole paper (eg. could it be exploited in the past?),
42-43: „biodiversity conservation and wilderness as a base for rural development“, please explain (the species richness does not mean higher value or good potential for development directly, e.g. high diversity of weeds, invasive plants etc.),
45-46: too much keywords,
51: historical „intensive forest management“ can be (!) a good practice in some cases of forest management (oaks and ground flora conservation in oak coppice forest of central Europe, cf. Fehér 2018: Vegetation history and cultural landscapes, Springer),
137-139: Fig. 1 – is it own result or not? Source?
122-161: How the source data have been processed?
162: the results are based on simply visualised statistics with rather low share of creative results,
173: please check the spelling: set asideareas,
176: Tab.1: voluntary set aside: define it!
273: non-productive forest land: define it!
323: Anok case: it is mentioned in the methods but not explained methodically,
485-486: „threatened ownership rights“ – I propose to emphasize it!
References: quite good.
Author Response
Changes made by authors
- We appreciate this opportunity to clarify the results of our work; the revision has been done as a collective effort involving all co-authors. For specific changes relating to the comments provided by the reviewers, see below
- We made a careful revision of the language throughout the MS. In some cases, the revision is very comprehensive, and for these sections we provide the new text (in red) without track changes.
- We have scrutinized all figures and made slight modifications. However, Fig 1 and 6 are new versions with Fig 1 describing the study area and Fig 6 addressing harvest rates in different regions of Sweden.
- An extensive revision of the Discussion based on the general comment provided by Ref#2 has been made. This includes a reorganization of the discussion, which is slightly shortened and we feel with a more condensed and better structured outline, and a final section about ways out of the deadlock been different views on how to handle the EU’s last intact forest landscapes.
Review #1
Authors’ replies in red
The paper contains new information but it is based on statistical data only (no field research, validations etc. are included). The methods are not explained in details (data processing, interpretation systems etc.).
That the study includes already available and public data is correct. However, the data have been compiled and presented to highlight the topics of interest for the current study. Data processing is evident from the ways in which the tables and figures have been created and the results presented (e.g., Figure 6 and the associated text). Interpretation of the results is found in the discussion.
Details:
Intact forest: please define it for the whole paper (eg. could it be exploited in the past?),
This term is widely used internationally, see e.g., Potapov, P., Yaroshenko, A., Turubanova, S., Dubinin, M., Laestadius, L., Thies, C., Aksenov, D., Egorov, A., Yesipova, Y., Glushkov, I. and Karpachevskiy, M., 2008. Mapping the world’s intact forest landscapes by remote sensing. Ecology and Society, 13(2).
Nevertheless, we added “with limited human influence” to the first sentence and believe that with this addition “intact forest areas and landscapes” are defined. Clearly, humans have been present, but by comparison to limited degree. We further describe details on human land use later in the Introduction
42-43: „biodiversity conservation and wilderness as a base for rural development“, please explain (the species richness does not mean higher value or good potential for development directly, e.g. high diversity of weeds, invasive plants etc.),
We consider “biodiversity” as encompassing much more than just species richness and including natural processes and structures, i.e. forest ecosystems in their (near-)natural state. This is indeed a key asset for development of for example nature-based tourism. However, we have changed “biodiversity” to “nature” to meet the reviewers concern
45-46: too much keywords,
We corrected the key words in order to meet the maximum number of allowed key words (10)
51: historical „intensive forest management“ can be (!) a good practice in some cases of forest management (oaks and ground flora conservation in oak coppice forest of central Europe, cf. Fehér 2018: Vegetation history and cultural landscapes, Springer),
Oak coppice is for sure not “intensive forest management” compared to industrial even-aged forestry methods. Although certain forest management can be compatible with aspects of biodiversity, the sentence highlights that certain species cannot cope with current intensive forest management. For these species natural forests and intact landscapes are crucial. Hence we wish to maintain the current wording.
137-139: Fig. 1 – is it own result or not? Source?
Figure 1 is a figure that presents the different study regions for which data are presented. These are based on different regions depicting the mountain forests, NW Sweden’s 15 municipalities and the informal Norrland region. We also added an inset showing Sweden in an EU and Pan-European context.
122-161: How the source data have been processed?
Source data has been compiled from a range of different sources (listed in methods) and synthesized to provide the necessary information for the study. No additional statistical analyses have been made because the data are not samples, but complete counts (e.g., Figure 6 with all of Sweden).
162: the results are based on simply visualised statistics with rather low share of creative results,
Correct. The novelty of this study is to compare policy developments with the consequences for forests and different forest benefits. All data in the paper are based on official statistics and remote sensing data, but compiled to illustrate the forest conditions in the study region. The result section has been revised to increase clarity, particular concerning our review of the policy processes.
173: please check the spelling: set aside areas,
Corrected
176: Tab.1: voluntary set aside: define it!
New text added in the table footnote
273: non-productive forest land: define it!
Definition of productive and non-productive forests is added to the “study area”.
323: Anok case: it is mentioned in the methods but not explained methodically,
The Änok case is based on a review of relevant documents that summarize the judicial process. We present the case to highlight the social-ecological complexity of mountain forest policies. Additional text in the methods section has been added relating to our review of the policy review and key aspects of the social system.
485-486: „threatened ownership rights“ – I propose to emphasize it!
We have added their right to manage forest to the sentence to further emphasize their perceived concerns.
References: quite good
Reviewer 2 Report
Very much promising paper but a better presentation and certain improvements are necessary.
See file attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.doc
Author Response
Changes made by authors
- We appreciate this opportunity to clarify the results of our work; the revision has been done as a collective effort involving all co-authors. For specific changes relating to the comments provided by the reviewers, see below
- We made a careful revision of the language throughout the MS. In some cases, the revision is very comprehensive, and for these sections we provide the new text (in red) without track changes.
- We have scrutinized all figures and made slight modifications. However, Fig 1 and 6 are new versions with Fig 1 describing the study area and Fig 6 addressing harvest rates in different regions of Sweden.
- An extensive revision of the Discussion based on the general comment provided by Ref#2 has been made. This includes a reorganization of the discussion, which is slightly shortened and we feel with a more condensed and better structured outline, and a final section about ways out of the deadlock been different views on how to handle the EU’s last intact forest landscapes.
line | How it is now | How it is recommended to be | Comments | Authors reply |
28 | economical | Economic | Changed | |
39-40 | Regulation of ...to non-mountain forests. | This is the only promising point for providing some policy analysis insights in the abstract. Try to develop it. | Abstract has been revised | |
40-44 | The conclusions are in part trivial and in part normative. Give highlighted insights so as to enable citing from the abstract. | We believe that the three key conclusions of the study relate to; i) the unique value of the mountain forests, ii) the alternatives to wood-based forestry as the usual method in Sweden, and iii) the needs of local authorities to deliver sustainable land use. | ||
45-46 | Too many keywords | We corrected the key words in order to meet the maximum number of allowed key words (10) | ||
49 | near-natural | Clarify | The use of “near-natural” is used to emphasize that not only truly pristine forests are relevant as such are extremely rare. We have added “with limited human influence” to better explain why we use “natural and near-natural” throughout the paper. | |
56 | “cool forests” | Try to clarify the policy- or ecological relevance of this term in the paper. | The term “cool forest” is used as a reference to the special issue of the journal that this paper is a part. They are “cool” both from a metaphorical sense and a climate perspective. | |
61 | mountains | Specify how “mountainous” forest or community is defined (e.g. Is there any altitude limit you adopt here? Who defines it? You (and how)? The legislator? An academically defined criteria system? Or what else?). It is quite important to clarify this. | This is in reference to the Scandinavian mountain range. Changed in text, and show this in Figure 6. | |
80-81 | indigenous Sami ... Sami and non-Sami farming | You say that “historic Sami land use” encompasses “Sami and non-Sami farming”. Is it conceptually convenient? If possible, give some more info about the cultural ecology of Sami. Is there any interaction between their culture and the natural environment. What is the differenc e between Sami and non-Sami farm systems regarding the impacts on forest? You describe non-Sami activity but not the Sami activity. What is the origin of non-Sami farming? If nothing of these is relevant to the objectives of the paper, then delete the info of Sami or non-Sami. | We have removed “Sami” from the sentence as it is not needed and also the use of Sapmi may be confusing.
The Sapmi land-use history is an issue in itself and could be extensively expanded. However, we do not see this as central to the current study and hence beyond highlighting that humans have used the area, still prefer to keep this section short. Yet we would like to keep this as a part of the overview of historical land use in the study region. | |
81 | This use was complex,... | Which use? Sami’s or non-Sami’s? | Both, which we believe now is evident. See also comment above | |
119 | economical | economic | Changed | |
140 | 2.2. Forest data | 2.2. Forest data sources | Changed | |
141-152 | Explain to what extent “forest” is here a) defined on the basis of jurisdictional decisions or of natural-scientific criteria and b) by politico-administrative or academic-research actors. I think that this is always a central question about the exact “forest area” and thus it should also be stated in the limitations of the research and connected with future research questions. | In Sweden forest land are based on the FAO forest definition but subsequently divided into productive and non-productive land. This has been added to section 2.1. (Study area) | ||
157 | emergence | What did “emerge”? | Sentence reworded to provide clarity | |
164-5 | although the fraction is lower above the mountain forests border (MFB) (54 %; Table 1). | Unclear. Additionally, one would expect to see here a further clarification of the terms “protected area” and “voluntary set aside area”. | Sentence made clearer. Text on protected forests is given later in the result section | |
173 | asidearea | aside area | Think also whether “voluntary” or “voluntarily” set aside is grammatically more appropriate in the particular context. I feel that “voluntarily” is correct like in line 267. | “aside area” corrected Voluntary vs voluntarily. We use “voluntary set-aside” as a parallel to formally protected, while the comment is correct whenever it relates directly to the choice made by a land-owner. We have checked this throughout the manuscript |
213 | unprotected productive forests | Is the specification “unprotected” appropriate here? I suppose that productive forests are also protected in a certain way by the law and managed according to legal and rational plans. Aren’ t they? | The context here is in relation to formal and voluntary protection. We have added “remaining” to even further highlight that it is in contrast to forest set-aside for conservation reasons. | |
218-9 | Comparable fractions on all forest land are 0.6%, 0.6% and 4.1%. | Unclear | Sentence reworded to provide clarity | |
255 | Clarify in the legend in what units the mean annual forest loss | New figure and figure legend has been added that address this concern | ||
354-370 | Some parts of the results should be transferred to the discussion section. I think this passage (354-370) is such an example and should be incorporated in the discussion. In general, try to shorten Results text and to transfer passages to Discussion. | We see the Results having three parts with the aim to provide a basis for the discussion; i) a description of the forest area under consideration ii) the policies that shape/d past and current land-use and iii) a case that illustrate how these policies has played out in practice. Although the Änok case may use a language that resembles “discussion” we still consider this to be a key aspect of the analysis we have done, thus belonging to the results. Also we strongly believe that the whole description of Änok should be kept together and not split between Results and Discussion | ||
493 | conservation qualities | conservation standards | Is this what you mean? | Rather “value”. Changed in the text |
498 | and other stakeholders. | Too vague. Specify. | Added examples of stakeholders | |
512-4 | Remnant ...human footprints. | Too trivial. Try to start the conclusions highlighting an innovative finding of your research. | First two sentences removed | |
525 | economical | economic | Changed | |
528 | cultural consequences | Are you sure that such consequences have been discussed? | No, and this is precisely one of our points. The consequences of different land-use alternatives need to be analysed, including cultural consequences. |
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
everything ok
