The Impact of Digitalization on the Italian Forestry Sector: An Analysis Based on Socio-Economic Indicators

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

I carefully reviewed the article titled 'The Impact of Digitalization on the Italian Forestry Sector: An Analysis Based on Socio-Economic Indicators.' The study examines the impact of digitalization on the forestry sector in Italy through socio-economic phenomena within a broad framework. The findings indicate a correlation between digitalization and factors such as employment, value added, and certification. It is evident that the study entails significant effort and dedication, and it has the potential to contribute to the literature. However, I have some recommendations to enhance the academic clarity and quality of the study.

Firstly, while the third paragraph provides essential information about the forestry sector in Italy, there are some notable omissions. For instance, the legitimacy of Italy's choice needs to be more robustly justified. Why is Italy a unique case for examining the impact of digitalization on the forestry sector through socio-economic phenomena? This question needs to be addressed.

Secondly, in the third paragraph, the authors highlight the literature gap. However, this gap is not sufficiently clear to the reader. The authors emphasize that there are studies in the existing literature regarding employment and ecosystem services. As the authors point out, it should be more clearly and comprehensively explained how a holistic examination would contribute to the literature.

Thirdly, a minor issue is that the words "effect" and "impact" are used side by side in line 98. This is not a common usage. It may be beneficial to recheck the paper for grammatical accuracy.

Fourthly, the contributions of the findings derived from the three different scenarios to the literature and to policymakers in Italy should be clarified in the introduction section to elucidate the study's contributions.

Fifthly, there is no literature section in the study. Therefore, the previous works related to the topic and what kind of gap exists in the literature cannot be systematically observed. Is there not enough existing work in the relevant literature?

Sixthly, were the socio-economic indicators used in the study selected by the authors or based on previous works? This needs to be clarified.

Seventhly, can the correlation tests provide sufficiently reliable findings? The authors should clarify this situation. Developments in econometrics have led to the emergence of many advanced methods. Therefore, the veil of uncertainty regarding the reliability of the results should be lifted.

Eighthly, the discussion of the results appears quite comprehensive. However, the most significant deficiency is the lack of discussion of the findings based on the literature. This could render the discussion speculative in some respects. Additionally, more of Italy's internal dynamics could be integrated into the discussion section.

Lastly, I recommend shifting the section in the last paragraph of the discussion that offers suggestions for future research to the conclusion. This paragraph should be merged with the section in the conclusion regarding the study's limitations (e.g., the need to add new variables) and recommendations for future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The topic of the article seems relevant. The main focus of the article is an empirical study of the impact of digitalization on the forestry sector in Italy. Particular attention is paid to socio-economic indicators. The paper analyzes socio-economic indicators related to the forestry sector. These indicators were selected from the National Forest Information System. This study answers very important research questions. First, what is the impact of digitalization on forestry and wood product manufacturing? Second, what is the impact of digitalization on the socio-economic indicators of the forestry sector? Third, how can digitalization become an effective driver of productivity, inclusion and efficiency in the forestry industry? These research questions are very important for Italy.

2. There are a number of empirical studies on the level of digitalization, various aspects of productivity and efficiency in the forestry industry. However, there are very few comprehensive studies on the impact of digitalization on the forestry sector. This area has not been sufficiently studied. The merit of the authors of this article is that they conducted a comprehensive study of the impact of digitalization on the forestry sector in Italy. The originality of this paper, in my opinion, is that the authors have shown that in the digital era, the digitalization process itself has become an effective driver of productivity, inclusion and efficiency in the forestry sector. This is of great importance not only for Italy, but for all countries with a significant forestry sector.

3. In my opinion, this article adds some important justifications to the subject area of ​​forestry economics. First. This study substantiates the conclusion that the sustainability and efficiency of the forestry sector are very much dependent on the level of digitalization. In particular, the increase in the number of employees in logging and planing companies, as well as the added value of the wood supply chain, are positively correlated with higher levels of digitalization in the forestry sector. Second. The authors show that the Italian forestry sector exhibits significant gaps in terms of digitalization. At the same time, increasing the level of digitalization is a critical aspect for efficient and sustainable forest management. But the most important conclusion of the study is that the digitalization of the forestry sector has a transformative potential for the transition to sustainable forest management and the forestry sector.

4. I liked the article. To make this article more understandable and more likely to be cited, I would recommend some improvements.

First, I would recommend clearly formulating the research questions, the research hypotheses, and reflecting these methods in the Introduction section.

Second, I would recommend developing a literature review section that would show the current research trends in this area and the level of elaboration of the problem.

Third, I recommend improving the Discussion section. In this section, I recommend analyzing the hypotheses, verifying them with known similar studies, and providing limitations on the use of the research results. At the same time, I recommend transferring various scenarios for the digitalization of forestry in Italy to the Results section.

Fourth, I recommend showing the theoretical and practical significance of the results in the Conclusion section.

5. The conclusions are consistent with the research results. I confirm that the work has yielded significant results. They are provided in the Conclusion.

6. The references are appropriate. The article uses a small array of 42 sources. It is very good that a large proportion of sources are dated to the last five-year period: 2019-2024.

7. All tables and figures in the article are clear and appropriate. The research method is clear, appropriate and well demonstrated in the work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the paper. It was a study I liked and saw potential in during the first round as well. The authors have addressed most of my concerns and improved the quality of the work. The paper is now suitable for publication in its current form.