Review Reports

1.   The abstract is very clear. However, the discount rate should be always told when talking about NPV. Otherwise NPV does not have a clear meaning for the reader.

The discount rate of 10% was added in the abstract.

2.   Introduction is short and clear. At the end of the introduction the authors introduce the concept of bioeconomy. However, they do not come back to this concept later in the paper. That is why I recommend removing this paragraph from the introduction.

The concept was removed from the introduction

3.   Study area(s) are clearly introduced. However, the data collection and analysis (2.2) should be elaborated. The data concerning the respondents of the semi-structured interview sessions is almost missing; how many interviews were done, what was asked, how long time did it typically take to have an individual interview sessions etc.

In all the territories, the semi-structured interviews were conducted in 1 hour. Therefore, technical visits were conducted in the restoration sites with the landowners to collect further data, which took 3 hours. As for the composition of the models, one producer was interviewed for each model, totaling 12 interviews.

4.   Analysis of the interview data is not introduced at all. What kind of analysis method was used?

With the interview data, we organized the models’ costs and income data in a spreadsheet, which was used as input for the benefit-cost analysis. Further explanations can be found on the reviewed paper.

5.   The economic analysis should be more carefully introduced. First, it is not clear whether nominal or real interest rates, prices and costs were used.

The interest rate used was real, and the Brazilian monetary inputs collected on 2018 were brought to 2019, using the Extended National Consumer Price Index (IPCA) from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE).

6.   Second, it could be more clearly said whether the NPVs were calculated by using perpetual time horizon or a fixed time time horizon (only one 30 years period)? I assume the second one.

We used a fixed time horizon of 30 years in all the models.

7.   However, the restorer has a standing forest after 30 years. Is the value of this forest somehow included in the calculations? 

No, the forest value in this study was expressed as the income from NTFP and crops sales from the 30 years perspective.

8.   In the results, the cash flows are not actually introduced so that one could easily evaluate whether the values of financial indicators in the table 5 are calculated in right way or not. An illustrative way would be to introduce initial investments, yearly costs and revenues (and the value of forest at the end of the 30 years period?) by using monetary units. Then it would be easy for a reader to check the calculations.

In this review, we present the cash flows for each model in TableS1. In addition, we have noticed some inconsistencies in the models, which have been corrected in the new version of the article.

9.   The IRR 22% in average indicates a very high profitability level for this kind of business. An explanation for this - also mentioned by the authors -   is an obvious outlier case (model 11, Peru) among the data when calculating the IRR and the values of other financial criteria. It would give a more realistic view of the profitability if the results were calculated with and without the outlier case separately.

We presented the scenario, in this review, without model 11 (which is the outlier). The corrected IRR would be of 18.5%. Please note that the IRR mentioned is expressed in median, as the average value would be largely affected by the outlier.  

10.The results are discussed quite profoundly. However, methodological issues are not discussed at all. For example 10% as a (real?) discount rate indicates quite a high minimum acceptable rate of return for this kind of business? How was this level selected? Basically, the risk level of business is mentioned as a criteria for setting the discount rate, but this issue is not discussed.

The discount rate used was based on similar studies, as cited on the reviewed version of this paper.

11.The data collection method should be also discussed. How did the semi-structured interview as a data collection method actually met the needs of the study? Were there problems when collecting data, what is the quality of the data etc.

A semi-structured interview was used in our study, to capture productivity and prices, and expected changes in those parameters over time.  

1.   Abstract: Please add data sources and the number of interviewees

In total, 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted. As for the prices that the producers did not know, specialized stores were consulted.

2.   What was the source of data related to the costs such as fence installation, technical assistance, and other activities? I believe this data was collected through semi-structured interviews.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted on specialized shops to assess for the prices that farmers couldn’t determine. As for the technical assistance costs, it was collected on local forest technical assistance through semi-structured interviews.

3.   Did the author compare survey data to real market data?

Yes, real market data was used to validate the collected interview data. 

4.   How many interviewees participated in the interview process? Please specify. This information should be explained explicitly in the data collection section.

In total, 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted with farmers, one for each model. This information was added on the abstract and methods section.

5.   After I read the result section, I came to know that authors used mean (or average value) value for costs and median for NPV. The average value for costs is affected by outliers and how the authors dealt with this. Also, were those weighted average or just average?

In this case, we used just average, with the available cost range to give readers further information about the values used. We are also creating a new Annex with the income, costs, and cash flow detailed information.

6.   Data Collection and Analysis: I suggest authors write the equations of the NPV, IRR, and B/C ratio used in the analysis.

The equations were written in each section.

7.   Table 4 is not clear. What are the prices in 2018/19 (USD)? Are those prices per kg or the total price?

Every price can be found in a specific unit for each crop. Table 4 was disposed in a different organization, to improve its understanding.

8.   In addition, what comma says in between the number, for instance, “0,49”?  Please use consistency.

9.   Specific Comments:

These were corrected.

10.Line 71: It should be a “benefit cost ratio.” Follow consistency throughout the manuscript.

11.Line 167: It should not be “Annex I.”

These were corrected.

12.I am not sure what h^-1 is in Table 3.

13.Table 5: Please correct the caption and heading in the table, such as Investment/ h^-1 and others.

In those cases, we meant “ha”, as an abbreviation for hectare. This was addressed in the reviewed paper.

14.Line 356-357: Citation needed.

15.Line 377: Typo NVP

The citation was inserted in the reviewed version of the paper, as for the correction in line 377.

16.Line 366: Scientific name should be italicized

It was addressed.