Social Acceptability of a Sustainable Forestry Industry in Puerto Rico: Views of Private, Public, and Non-Profit Sectors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- "the private focus group" or the "private sector focus group"? Check again for such slight ommissions

-“I think the cooperative setting would work if the State is willing to let farmers have access to existing wood resources”. Too vague/trivial. Interpret/ utilize more insightfully or delete it.

- in table 2, what's the sense of comparing the three scenarios with weather, market and locations?

- clarify more how the three scenarios came up

- the discussion is too long. Either shorten or structure it in sub-chapters

- in conclusions point out the most non-trivial findings of the research.

- In general, please take into account that qualitative research is difficult to differ from a journalist work. Try to make it look different and more "scientific".

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper describes the social acceptability of a sustainable forestry industry in Puerto Rico by convening a set of local expert representing different focus group. The authors analyse 3 different scenarios characterized by different elements of sustainability. However, in my opinion this approach is false, because the analysed scenarios seem not to be exclusive and could be performed simultaneously in Puerto Rico (for example in different parts of the country). Thus, all good elements of each scenario could contribute to sustainable development of the country, while risks and failures could be omitted or minimised at the same time. I don’t really see the reason for differentiating and ranking the scenarios. I think, that more useful it will be some kind of a SWOT analysis for this purpose. However, I don't know in detail the Puerto Rican context. Maybe some extra explation in this regards should be added in the text.

Also, I have learned about 3 different scenarios, but in fact there are no data or information how sustainable they are in real. According to the common definition, the goal of sustainable forest management is to ensure sustainable ecosystem services and viable forest-based economies while maintaining ecological integrity and social equity. The opinions of different focus groups is very valuable, however they don’t ensure that the performance of a given scenario is sustainable. The research, although methodologically correct, doesn’t bring an answer in this area.

Despite those critical remarks, I think the paper can be interesting to a wider audience. Probably we could expect some discussion with this research by other authors in the future.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presented for review concerns the issue of social acceptability of a sustainable forestry industry in Puerto Rico. This team is in line with the thematic scope of the journal. In addition, issues regarding social acceptability and sustainable forestry industry are important topics and more and more often discussed in the scientific literature.

Introduction: it is written well, although detailed maps, charts and tables on the Puerto Rico issue are lacking.

Material and methods: Since the authors of the manuscript worked with questionnaires, these questionnaires should be added (for example as supplementary materials). There is no information on the application / application of statistical analyzes.

Results: in my opinion, they contain too much text, some of the results should be presented graphically. Statistical analysis is missing.

Discussion and Conclusions: are acceptable. 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors did not fully take into account my comments, but rather ignored them.

The attached map is not of a cartographic nature, it adds nothing and is of poor quality. Where are the forests marked? Where are the test sites marked? Some little gray plane is a joke of the readers. 

Material and methods:  There is no information on the application / application of statistical analyzes.

Results: in my opinion, they contain too much text, some of the results should be presented graphically. Statistical analysis is missing.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf