Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper has practical significance in studying the challenges faced by the forestry labor force. The investigation process of the paper is standardized and the investigation method is credible.

However, the method used in the paper is descriptive analysis, lacking judgment of causal relationships such as regression analysis. In particular, for various influencing factors that affect the attitude of the forestry workforce, I suggest that an econometric regression model be established for in-depth analysis.

In the discussion section of the paper, the fact that the forestry labor force has declined is still elaborated, but these have already been expressed in the introduction. The discussion in the paper was not in-depth enough or did not find an appropriate topic to discuss.

The description of the nature of forestry work in the paper (lines 44-62) seems too long.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Page 1

Line 27: I’m not sure what “necessary sensitization” is

Line 38-40: Sentence seems a little over the top

Line 41: .. is challenged to obtain…?

Line 42-43: Please define “shortage”, Is there evidence of a “shortage”? Are the same demographic issues facing all skilled and semi-skilled trades?

Page 2

Line 53 does the phrase after “related to” refer only to occupation diseases, pleas clarify

Line 54 I can’t determine what characteristic “most common” refers to

Line 55 There is not a precise precedent for “these jobs” the previous sentence has activities not jobs

Line 60-62 Sentence begins awkwardly

Line 63 delete “mostly”

Line 64-68 I don’t understand the connection between the first statement (63) and overall trends in urbanization. Won’t workers still be rural?

Line 89-91, sentence hard to follow, please simplify

Line 96-98, perhaps the phrase starting with factors could be a new sentence

Page 3

Line 99 I’m not sure what “necessary sensitization” is

Line 111-113, can that one be identified here C# ?

Line 118, is a county= canton?

Line 125-126, how were they selected, randomly?

Page 4

Line 135 “thereat”?\

Line 136 “good” vs “well”

Line 124-136 – its still not clear to me how participants were selected and how they were given and returned the survey (it sounds like their supervisor handed it to them and collected them).

Line 151. 162 -  That’s a big survey. is there any precedent for that? Did you do anything to ensure reading/language comprehension to match the audience

Page 5

Line 185-189, Could it also represent the demographics of the communities or working age males?

Line 197-201, can you explain that anova? And present the anova statistics. The dependent variable appear to be categorical or binomial (prefer A or B)

 

Page 6

Line 209 . What is a syndicate?

 

Page 9

Figure 2, can something be added to make the breaks between categories more distinct (and the others like it)

Page 12

Line 354 “greater”

Page 15

Line 407. In this section please describe what a “shortage” is and how there might be evidence for one. If workers are leaving and the industry revenues can’t support better conditions under current or expected prices, that is an industry in decline not a worker shortage.

 

Thanks for doing a worker survey, these are greatly needed

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper contributes a timely analysis of the declining workforce in forestry/logging in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This paper is well-written with sound methodology and analysis but would benefit from editing related to translation. For example, lines 124-136 are difficult to follow. 

Are 9 state and 26 private companies representative of the number of state and private enterprises?  If not, how were the private companies selected for your sample?  Is this part of your purposeful sampling? Clarification (language and content) is needed. We workers recruited through their employers?  If so, do you think this introduced biased responses? 

Lastly, I would have like to see some discussion related to mostly insignificant  health issues compared with high concern with possibility of injury on the job.

Well done.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The modifications are sufficient and I agree to publish.