Economic Analysis of Cedar Plantation Management and Mega-Solar Replacement
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Area-specific this type of study is essential. The current manuscript has still a scope to improve in the following areas.
Avoid personal indication in the paper.
DBH range of table 1…In the range, what is considered…lower or upper bound?
Equation 1, L110-118 rearrange the variable according to their representation. e.g. I didn’t find the variable that given in line 115, instead found it L116. I must say, this is not the scientific way to represent model equations.
In equation 2, it is so far I know the dominant tree height is first given by Richards FJ (1958), and later different authors applied it in their analysis. However, how Yoshimoto et al. [16] used the function to calculate dominant tree height, it is not known to me.
H=a(1-e -b.t)c
So what is a, b,c parameters that come into the current manuscript as 24....that should be explained clearly.
In equation 6, L 188, stands for JL is missing.
Equation 5 value of capital A is missing.
L203 what is small i.
The current study findings need different study supports in the discussion section.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments.
The manuscript was proofread by a native English speaker (EnagoJapan) because you required moderate English change.
The changed words, sentences are written in red in the PDF file of “forests_revise_itaka_red.pdf,“ and the line number in this letter is cited from this PDF.
Based on the comments, the following points have been revised.
Point 1. Avoid personal indication in the paper.
Response 1. I checked the manuscript once again to make sure that abbreviations and symbols were explained correctly.
Point 2. DBH range of table 1…In the range, what is considered…lower or upper bound?
Response 2. I changed table 1 to make it understandable. The range of DBH is greater than or equal to “d_min” and less than “d_max”.
Point 3. Equation 1, L110-118 rearrange the variable according to their representation. e.g. I didn’t find the variable that given in line 115, instead found it L116. I must say, this is not the scientific way to represent model equations.
Response 3. I changed the order of the explanation so that you can understand them in order. (L119-122)
Point 4. In equation 2, it is so far I know the dominant tree height is first given by Richards FJ (1958), and later different authors applied it in their analysis. However, how Yoshimoto et al. [16] used the function to calculate dominant tree height, it is not known to me.
H=a(1-e -b.t)c
So what is a, b, c parameters that come into the current manuscript as 24....that should be explained clearly.
Response 4. The parameters for the Richards function were estimated by the generalized nonlinear mixed-effects model by Yoshimoto et al (2007). I rewrote the explanation of the tree-hight equation. I showed first the equation of Richard function and then explained the used parameters.
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
(L125-137)
A forest stand growth model that incorporates the thinning amount is needed if an optimal forest management plan is to be determined. I used numerical calculations from stand density control diagrams of Japanese cedar \cite{ref-book1}. If the total number of trees and tree heights can be determined using the density control diagram, timber volume can be calculated using that information. Regarding tree height, I used the tree height growth model created by the Richard growth function {\cite{ref-journal21}. The equation of Richard growth function is shown as follows:
H = a (1 - e^{b})^{c}.
I used parameters a, b and c for the Richard growth function as calculated by Yoshimoto et al. \cite{ref-journal19} on the forests in Hoshino village in Yame city, Fukuoka Prefecture that have not been thinned for 23 years. Yoshimoto et al. \cite{ref-journal19} used 30 thinned trees for the stem analysis and estimated the parameters for Richards function by a generalized nonlinear mixed-effects model. The estimated parameters are 24.9506, 0.06438, and 1.97360 for a, b and c, respectively.
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
Point 5. In equation 6, L 188, stands for JL is missing.
Response 5. I added JL and also rewrote some explanations more understandable.
JL: the lower heating value (MJ/year) (L208)
Point 6. Equation 5 value of capital A is missing.L203 what is small i.
Response 6. “A” and “i” were in the manuscript by mistake. I erased them.
Point 7. The current study findings need different study supports in the discussion section.
Response 7. I rewrote the discussion part and added the conclusion part. I tried more deeply to discuss why forest lands are replaced with solar-panel, the need for the incentive to protect forests, and the importance of the regional land-use plans. (L326-439)
others
Point 1. Authority on Latin binomial should be provided after each common name the first time referred to in the text. (from Editor)
Response1. I inserted the Latin name of cedar as “Cryptomeria japonica”. (L5 and 64)
Point 2. The number of significant digits should be based on the precision of the analytical method and be rounded accordingly, and the variables presented should be correct and consistent. (from Editor)
Response 2. I checked all numbers in the manuscript and corrected some digits of numbers.
Point 3. Conclusions: this section is mandatory and should be added to the manuscript. (from Editor)
Response 3. I added the conclusions part.
Point 4. L55-59 I cited another study because it is clear to understand.
Point 5. I found a mistake in the calculation. I corrected the result of the electric power amount from wood chips and replaced figure1a and 2a.
Point 6. Abbreviations were added at the end of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Economic Analysis of Cedar Plantation Management and Mega-Solar Replacement” as mentioned in title consist of two parts of analysis: 1) cedar plantation management, 2)mega solar power plant from economic and power supply point of view.
General remarks
The methodology, data and results are proper for conducting/perform analysis for point 1 and 2 but “replacement” is questionable.
The problem of possible replacement of some forest (agriculture or other use) land by solar plant should be solved in the light of sustainable development of region taking into account economical, ecological and social balance of total land use. In the theory of production outputs increased when inputs increased. Income from mega solar plant is much higher (0.8-3.9 MM JPY) than from forest 29,862 JPY but capital input in plant is also much higher than in forest management. When we replace forest by high-technology plant the income will be much higher. Forest provide others outputs so deforestation and simple “replacement” only in economic assessment is probably not sufficient analysis. Result of this study indicated that production of power from wood chips is economically not profitable in these particular circumstances so solar power plant has also some positives .
Conclusion – manuscript deal with interesting and important issue, results are important and could be interesting for Forests readers but the idea of “simple conversion of forest into mega-solarpower plant” should be rethinking or presented in border considerations.
Particular remarks:
Line 1 increase of renewable energy resources is in general positive so “ dramatically” is probably not proper in this contest.
Line 11 JPY should be explained
Line 74 “…of,time period for, and …” it should be corrected
Line 136 It should be Thinning cost instead “Thinningcost “
Line 337-338 “Further research is also needed to consider the cost of afforestation following clear-cutting in managed forests.” – afforestation costs are described in this manuscript by formula nr 3 and text line 155-160.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments.
The changed words, sentences are written in red in the PDF file of “forests_revise_itaka_red.pdf,“ and the line number in this letter is cited from this PDF.
General remarks
The methodology, data and results are proper for conducting/perform analysis for point 1 and 2 but “replacement” is questionable.
The problem of possible replacement of some forest (agriculture or other use) land by solar plant should be solved in the light of sustainable development of region taking into account economical, ecological and social balance of total land use. In the theory of production outputs increased when inputs increased. Income from mega solar plant is much higher (0.8-3.9 MM JPY) than from forest 29,862 JPY but capital input in plant is also much higher than in forest management. When we replace forest by high-technology plant the income will be much higher. Forest provide others outputs so deforestation and simple “replacement” only in economic assessment is probably not sufficient analysis. Result of this study indicated that production of power from wood chips is economically not profitable in these particular circumstances so solar power plant has also some positives .
Conclusion – manuscript deal with interesting and important issue, results are important and could be interesting for Forests readers but the idea of “simple conversion of forest into mega-solarpower plant” should be rethinking or presented in border considerations.
Response
I agree with your opinion; “The problem of possible replacement of some forest (agriculture or other use) land by the solar plant should be solved in the light of sustainable development of region taking into account economical, ecological and social balance of total land use. In the theory of production outputs increased when inputs increased.”
I believe that land use planning should be based on consensus building with local residents, taking into account the economic, ecological, and social balance from the perspective of sustainable development of the region, and my research is limited to the conversion of forest land into solar-panels.
I have added to the discussion part based on your comments. Basically, what is important is land use planning that takes into account the economic, ecological, and social balance from the perspective of sustainable development of the region. However, due to the severe forestry situation in Japan, unbalanced conversions are taking place, so we provided basic information to create incentives to prevent unbalanced development.
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
(L383-X396)
In this study, the simulation applies to a limited situation wherein forests are converted to mega-solar power plants. However, the land use planning should be considered from the perspective of sustainable development of surrounding areas including forests. Angelstam et al. (2018) \cite{ref-journal29} assessed regional profiles of benefits from forest landscapes in several countries that have different types of land ownership and political cultures and emphasized the need for an evidence-based collaborative learning processes that include both different academic disciplines as well as stakeholders that represent different sectors and levels of governance. Regarding the installation of mega-solar power plants after deforestation, many complaints have been received due to landscape and landslide hazards \cite{ref-url20}, and there has been a movement against mega-solar power plants \cite{ref-url21}. Land-use planning should be developed across different academic disciplines and stakeholders, taking into account the economic, ecological, and social balance. Various laws, penalties, taxes, subsidies, etc. should then be formulated, as necessary, to prevent unbalanced development from occurring.
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
Particular remarks
Point 1. Line 1 increase of renewable energy resources is in general positive so “ dramatically” is probably not proper in this contest.
Response 1. I erased the word “dramatically”.
Point 2. Line 11 JPY should be explained
Response 2. I added the explanation for JPY (Japanese Yen). (L11 and 147)
Point 3. Line 74 “…of,time period for, and …” it should be corrected
Response 3. I rewrote the sentence.
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
(L75-80)
Among these methods, dynamic programming and forest growth prediction models have been used to optimize the amount, time period, and frequency of management actions (e.g., thinning and harvesting) that influence forest growth rates and devise effective management systems for timber production.
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
Point 4. Line 136 It should be Thinning cost instead “Thinningcost “
Response 4. I corrected it from italic to roman.
Point 5. Line 337-338 “Further research is also needed to consider the cost of afforestation following clear-cutting in managed forests.” – afforestation costs are described in this manuscript by formula nr 3 and text line 155-160.
Response 5. Yes, I described the cost of the afforestation. I erased this sentence.
others
Point 1. Authority on Latin binomial should be provided after each common name the first time referred to in the text. (from Editor)
Response1. I inserted the Latin name of cedar as “Cryptomeria japonica”. (L5 and 64)
Point 2. The number of significant digits should be based on the precision of the analytical method and be rounded accordingly, and the variables presented should be correct and consistent. (from Editor)
Response 2. I checked all numbers in the manuscript and corrected some digits of numbers.
Point 3. Conclusions: this section is mandatory and should be added to the manuscript. (from Editor)
Response 3. I added the conclusions part.
Point 4. L55-59 I cited another study because it is clear to understand.
Point 5. I found a mistake in the calculation. I corrected the result of the electric power amount from wood chips and replaced figure1a and 2a.
Point 6. Abbreviations were added at the end of the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Point 1. Avoid personal indication in the paper.
Response 1. I checked the manuscript once again to make sure that abbreviations and symbols were explained correctly
- The article is still inactive form. It is just my opinion that avoiding I in the sentence is a much more scientific way to write a manuscript. Now it is up to the journal format. If the editor accepts the document in its current form, I do not have any objection.
Point 2. DBH range of table 1…In the range, what is considered…lower or upper bound?
Response 2. I changed table 1 to make it understandable. The range of DBH is greater than or equal to “d_min” and less than “d_max”.
- I understood that DBH is in between “d_min” and “d_max”. Table is much clear than before.
Confusion is how author decided the range of dmin and dmax. If the value is 15, will it be decided as dmin or dmax. Make the range as 9-15, 15.01-20...so on, so that it becomes meaningful.
- Equation 4 and L188 needs corrections.
It cannot be written like this, EV = EW/VM/1,000
From the equation, it is not clear how the equation should be calculated and mathematically it is wrong way to express the relationship. Author should use an extra bracket.
- Check the other equations also carefully
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments.
The changed words, sentences are written in red in PDF file of “forests_rivise2_itaka_red.pdf,“ and line number in this letter is cited from this PDF.
Based on the comments, the following points have been revised.
Point 1. Avoid personal indication in the paper.
Response 1. I misunderstood the meaning of your comment in the last Revise. I rewrote to avoid personal indication for the manuscript.
Point 2. DBH range of table 1…In the range, what is considered…lower or upper bound?
Previous response: I changed table 1 to make it understandable. The range of DBH is greater than or equal to “d_min” and less than “d_max”.
- I understood that DBH is in between “d_min” and “d_max”. Table is much clear than before.Confusion is how author decided the range of dmin and dmax. If the value is 15, will it be decided as dmin or dmax. Make the range as 9-15, 15.01-20...so on, so that it becomes meaningful.
Responce 2. I used to distinguish between ≤ and <. I wanted to say, for example; 9 ≤ DBH < 15 means greater than or equal to 9 (9 is included), less than 15 (15 is not included). However, I changed < to ≤ and rewrote like 9 ≤ DBH ≤ 14.9, to avoid confusion.
Point 3.
- Equation 4 and L188 needs corrections.
It cannot be written like this, EV = EW/VM/1,000
From the equation, it is not clear how the equation should be calculated and mathematically it is wrong way to express the relationship. Author should use an extra bracket.
- Check the other equations also carefully
Response 3. I rewrote equations more in detail. L 109-119, L166 and L 181-194 were changed.
Others:
I made a few English corrections, because of the spelling mistake, etc.
