Transaction Costs and Investment Interest in the U.S. South and the Pacific Northwest Timberland Regions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of your manuscript and your analysis seem very interesting to me. However here are some observations and recommendatios that could help to improve it: (Please see the attached file)
Lines 34-35: clarify your redaction. ..."there"... where do you mean?
Line 89: do you mean "who utilize"?
Lines 112-115: try improving redation to avoid repetition.
Line 116: Change "in" to "is".
Line 120 and 129: do you mean "in the"?
Line 160-161: improve redaction.
Line 200-201: you say: "..., a respondent's view of transaction costs in both regions and their experience in owning or operating in the same region are of note". Please improve redaction to explain better why such statement.
Line 204, 209 and 210: Improve redaction.
Line 222: Leave just Table 1 or Figure 1. They show the same information.
Lines 225-226: improve redaction.
Line 247: Place Figure 3 after this first mention (not before the first mention).
Lines 247-249: Your explanation is confusing, since there were a total of 102 respondents (100%)..., but for 63% (64 respondents) their highest investment priority is the U.S. South and for 55% (56 respondents) their highest priority is the Pacific Northwest... But the sum amounts to 120 respondents (without including yet the other two regions). So, please explain how you made your calculations.
Lines 250 and 254: Improve your redaction.
Line 263: The mention to all of these Figures and Tables is fine. However, particular mentions and explanations to the respective Tables and Figures are needed before presenting each Table or Figure. That helps the reader better understand what you are showing in each Table or Figure.
Lines 264-267: This type of explanation must be included in each Table or Figure when needed, since each Table or Figure must be self-explainable.
Line 267- 268: Move Table 2 between these two paragraphs.
Line 271: Consider changin the word "noticeable" to "significant".
Lines 280-281: Since Figure 4 is the last that has been SPECIFICALLY mentioned, I think it would be better to rearrange the placement of the Figures so that they appear in a better order in the text.
Lines 282-283: There is an incomplete idea.
Table 2: Write the respective hypotheses. In this column you have enough space. And, at the bottom of each Table describe the meaning of every abbreviations used in the Table (like PNW). And, since the name of the test (Likelihood ratio Chi-squared) is the same in all cases, it can be included in the Table´s head.
Figure 4: Add a legend with the meaning of the colors in the figure (I think it should be included instead of the scale on the rigth vertical axis). And..., please include here in the Figure's foot an example of the interpretation of the Figure.
Table 3: Before presenting a Table or Figure, please include at least a short paragraph describing what you are showing in the Table or Figure. In this case, that paragraph should describe wheather the information in Table 3 is the same as that shown in Figure 5...
Figure 5: The following recommendations apply to all the Mosaic plots in the manuscript:
Add a legend with the meaning of the colors in the figure (I think it should be instead of the scale on the rigth vertical axis). And..., please include here in the Table's foot an example of the interpretation of the Figure.
Table 4: I consider that Table 4 is not necessary, since the same information is contained in Table 3.
Figure 6: I consider that Figure 6 is not necessary, since the same information is contained in Figure 5.
Table 5: Before presenting a Table or Figure, please include at least a short paragraph describing what you are showing in the Table or Figure. Besides, This Table 5 does not contain U.S. South information. please correct the Table and the corresponding Figure (which is the Figure?).
Figure 7: Which contingency table shows the information of Figure 7?
Table 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10: Which Figure shows the information contained in thess contingency tables? Please explain it in a previous paragraph.
Line 347: which company are you referring to?
Line 395: improve redaction.
Line 405: Consider changing the word "resulted".
Lines 418, 420, 425 and 420: Improve redaction.
Line 430: "endemic to the region"... what do you mean?
Lines 444-445: Improve your redaction.
Lines 451-458: This section does not seem to be a conclusion from the results and discussion of your research.
Line 452: Do you mean "transaction cost of the transactions?"
Line 452: what do you mean with "almost one order of magnitude"?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
I consider that the quality of English used is good. However can be improved based on my observations made, line by line, in the previous section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1) The method choice should be more grounded. Are there any alternatives?
2) line 195 "the response variable has K values". I'd suggest replacing confusing "K" with "ranked multiple values" or smth more clear.
3) Pp. 9-15 are hard to read. I'd suggest to consider moving some of the tables or graphs in the Appendix section
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors!
The issue addressed in the paper discusses transaction cost dilemmas and investment interest in the southern U.S. and Pacific Northwest regions. The relationships between: (1) transaction costs associated with forest land; (2) investment interest; and (3) prior experience in owning, investing in or managing forest land in one of the selected regions - were validated.
First of all, I find that an important topic, compatible with the journal's scope, was considered.
I also recommend several corrections to improve the quality of this paper:
1) Such studies are partially analysed in literature. It would be worth presenting the state of the art in a broader way. I suggest a more dilligent, comparative description of other scientific research from the literature (please complete section 1).
2) The study set up three hypotheses. However, the analysis scenario (i.e., the step-by-step procedure for verifying the hypotheses ) is poorly described. The methodological part of the paper should be clear and enable the reader to repeat (replicate) the procedure proposed by the authors. This needs to be supplemented (section 2)!
3) Please remember that the formulated objectives - find a clear answer in the conclusion of the study. Is this really the way it works? Does the conclusion answer all the questions posed at the beginning of the paper (expressed in objectives and hypotheses)? It is also a great idea to present these most important [already sorted, synthetic] results in a clear way (maybe in section 4? the Authors forgot this section, or is it invisible?).
4) I also strongly suggest that recommendations for specific, practical, not only general (and not entirely clear) applications of this research shall be provided (please complete section 5).
The language of this paper is relatively correct, however some descriptions would benefit from being more concise. I recommend that the authors cooperate with a native speaker to improve the text of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Editors and Authors,
The draft is very well done. The problem is topical and certainly its results are indicative of other regions of the US and the world. In order to improve the article, I make the following recommendations:
1. Of all 50 questions asked in the survey (lines 174-179), are only three included in the current draft (lines 185-190)? If so, why?
2. Table 2 shows that the variables used are like not to be as previously described. Formulated regression models should be clearly presented in order the reader to be clear about the dependent variables.
I am recommending minor revisions because I think here is all about better explanations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors!
Thank you for improving the paper. Your corrections are acceptable. I believe that you have taken up an important topic, in line with the journal profile. I leave final decision in the editor’s hands.
