Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper needs a good editing. Not so much the English language usage (but this could use some improvement) but a structural editing: focus on the objective of the paper, and have everything in the paper support meeting that objective. As is, there is literature review of cascade studied in various countries, (weak) arguments in favor of cascading systems, unclear explanations of how to create a national cascade model in circumstances of lacking/inaccurate data (the objective?), speculation on how to increase cascade dynamics.

I suggest you begin with your objective statement and then rework the paper, eliminating anything that does not support meeting your objective

Specific comments, noted when reading the manuscript:

L22 – difference of 27% - difference of what? Input vs output?

L81 – UBA?

L100 – multiple use does not guarantee efficiency. Depends on the system and what you are trying to be efficient with.

Up to l140 – lots of repetitive discussion of how cascading wood use is good. Should instead focus on the subject of the paper – need for accurate data? How to get the data?

Up to l177 – see previous comment – this a literature review of cascade studies in different countries – not focused on/setting up the need for your study

L184 – this is your objective – the introduction should be revised to support your objective – show the need for your study.

Up to L221/material and methods. As the reader, I am wanting to know if these data sources that you used are different/worse than others have used in different countries. This explanation may come later but should be introduced also in the introduction. What is it about the Czech data situation that is worse than in other countries?

L240 not clear - you are excluding furniture and construction, or you are excluding construction that uses roundwood directly i.e. log cabin?

L246 – as a reader not already familiar with cascading use models, I am curious how the ‘downfall’ at each conversion is handled  - e.g. lumber processing residues can go to internal/external biofuel, paper raw material, etc. Maybe this is what you are trying to explain L259-264?

L403 dtd?

L420-440 clearest explanation so far of what this paper is about.

L451-454. Aside from being beside the main point of your paper (how to calculate the cascade of wood uses in the situation where data are incomplete) these points are questionable, and based on a simple belief that multiple uses of wood – within a national border – are always better. Maybe the most ‘efficient’ use of wood involves exporting from a wood-rich country to elsewhere; maybe it is more efficient to burn wood than, for example, spending energy on it to convert to particleboard before burning it. The fact that log exports and raw wood biofuel harvests exist indicate that they are “efficient” processes within current markets. Efficiency needs to be carefully defined, to see if current practices, and potential alternatives, are more/less efficient.

Author Response

Please see response in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The role of forests and wood products in the circular bioeconomy is immense and this paper does a good job of highlighting that significance. I am happy with the general layout and flow of the paper. I believe this paper will be of interest to the readership of the journal. I have one the following comment that may improve the comprehensiveness of the paper. You may want to address all the aspects of the harvest residue, including its potential underutilization. The detail comment follows: This article aims at presenting a comprehensive picture of the flow of biomass from the forest through the economy and its corresponding cascading effects. The paper also covers the mill residue (produced during production process) well. However, the 1.9 million m3 of felling residue for 17 million m3 of roundwood is rather low. This accounts for only 11% of the aboveground biomass. It may be noted that this number is generally in the 30% range (see Figure 2 of https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/11/2/194). The low number quoted in this paper may be due to the fact that a significant proportion of the harvest residue is not collected, due to economic reasons. I would recommend that the authors highlight the potential lost opportunity of not collecting this residual biomass, which could feed into the bioenergy or other similar sectors.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: This article aims at presenting a comprehensive picture of the flow of biomass from the forest through the economy and its corresponding cascading effects. The paper also covers the mill residue (produced during production process) well. However, the 1.9 million m3 of felling residue for 17 million m3 of roundwood is rather low. This accounts for only 11% of the aboveground biomass. It may be noted that this number is generally in the 30% range (see Figure 2 of https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/11/2/194). The low number quoted in this paper may be due to the fact that a significant proportion of the harvest residue is not collected, due to economic reasons. I would recommend that the authors highlight the potential lost opportunity of not collecting this residual biomass, which could feed into the bioenergy or other similar sectors.

 

Response 1: The presented volume of the harvest residues is the only one official published information within statistical data in the Czech Republic. Reasons of absence of this data in statistical data collection have a formal character due to present methodology of the Czech Statistical Bureau.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The objective of the paper is to analyze wood flows based on cascading use of wood in the situation of incomplete input data. This paper presents a good literature review on the cascading use of wood in European countries. Significant information has been collected on the production and use of wood in the Czech Republic. The results of the study do not provide a good representation of the cascading use of wood in the Czech Republic. The discussion should compare the results obtained with similar studies.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Point 1: The results of the study do not provide a good representation of the cascading use of wood in the Czech Republic. The discussion should compare the results obtained with similar studies.

 

Response 1: We provide additional comments to cascading use of wood in results. In the discussion part, there is a formulation of problems in wood utilization in the Czech Republic based on a comparison with other studies. Comparison of findings in the presented cascade use of wood in the Czech Republic with studies in other countries is beyond the objective of paper, but a good inspiration for next study – a comparison of  cascade wood use efficiency.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The spirit of my previous comments remain unanswered by your revisions. I repeat: focus on the objective of your paper, and exclude that which is not strictly relevant. You may believe that cascading use of wood is, by definition, a good thing but this opinion is not relevant to meeting your objective.

Specific comments:

L80 – this is the assumption that I question – that cascading usage necessarily increases resource efficiency. If “resources” includes energy (which it should in my opinion), then it is NOT a given that reworking wood into, say particleboard, is more efficient than burning it for energy. Assuming that ‘better’ usage is simply maximizing economic value added (and only within a country!) is a highly fraught assumption.

L82 keep raw material consumption …. What?

Introduction up to L131: much of this is unnecessary – include only that which is needed to provide a context for your objective. You should not attempt to do a literature review of the concept of cascading wood use – that would be a separate paper.

L132-l169 This section has a better focus on the needs of this paper

L169-180 Again straying off into generalized, opinion-laden discussion of cascades. Not needed for this paper.

L195-196 strike this sentence.

L444-446 lower than what? Whose desire is this and why? – keep in mind that panel production is relatively (non-renewable) energy intensive.

L450-453 strike these two sentences.

L453-459 sentence is too long!

L473-l480 strike paragraph.

L481-488 I disagree with the assumptions in this statement of your opinion but, regardless, it is not needed to meet the objective of your paper. I suggest you delete it.

L489 this whole paragraph is irrelevant to your objective.

L503-511 this is the objective/point of your paper. Focus on this and cut other parts.

Author Response

Please find the reponses to the comments in attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

the deletions have improved the paper, in my opinion.

Thanks.