Making Timber Accessible to Forest Communities: A Study on Locally Adapted, Motor–Manual Forest Management Schemes in the Eastern Lowlands of Bolivia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Language Expression: Some sentences in the article are overly long, which affects readability and makes it difficult to fully understand the author’s intent. It is recommended that the author simplify the language to improve clarity and readability.

Introduction: The innovation of the article, i.e., the existing issues in current research, is based on the statement: “In practice these legal, administrative, and technological challenges turned out unachievable.” However, the reasons why these challenges could not be overcome are not sufficiently explained. This lack of explanation is critical as it serves as the foundation for proposing locally-adapted, motor-manual forest management schemes. It is suggested that the author provide a more detailed analysis from a scientific research perspective and support the conclusion with a review of relevant existing studies. Additionally, the article refers to Bolivia as a typical case in adapting forestry legislation. However, it is crucial to address whether Bolivia’s case is universally applicable. Can Bolivia’s experience represent the situation in most forest communities? This point needs to be further explored.

Results: While the article mentions that the environmental impact of motor-manual harvesting is relatively low, it does not thoroughly investigate the long-term environmental effects. It is recommended that the author include long-term monitoring data on aspects such as forest regeneration, biodiversity, and other related environmental factors.

Discussion: The discussion section reads more like a conclusion, as it systematically summarizes the study’s findings. However, it lacks a comparative analysis with existing research and does not highlight the novel contributions of this paper. It is suggested that the author clearly separate the Conclusion from the discussion and structure these sections into Discussion and Conclusion parts.

Market Development Strategy: The article stresses the importance of local market development but does not provide concrete strategies. It is recommended that the author further explore how to establish connections with urban markets, public procurement projects, and other relevant opportunities, and propose detailed market development strategies.

References: The references should be formatted according to the journal's requirements and listed in the order of appearance in the text. Additionally, it is recommended that the author prioritize recent, high-quality journal articles for citation.

Overall Evaluation: The research theme and methodology have great potential, and the fieldwork is relatively detailed. However, the overall scientific rigor of the paper could be improved, the introduction and discussion sections do not effectively highlight the innovative aspects of the study. And further improvements are needed in areas such as legal analysis, environmental impact, and market strategies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences in the article are overly long, which affects readability and makes it difficult to fully understand the author’s intent. It is recommended that the author simplify the language to improve clarity and readability.

Author Response

See attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The topic of the article seems relevant in the applied analytical aspect. The main focus of the article is the analysis of the profitability of various methods of timber harvesting by forest communities in the eastern lowlands of Bolivia. At the same time, the authors carried out a comparative analysis of various methods of sawing and delivering timber. The research questions of this article are not entirely clear. They are not indicated in the Introduction. I assume that these are questions of economic choice of the optimal timber harvesting strategy that is most suitable for low-income forest communities. These research questions are very important for understanding the financial foundations of the coexistence of indigenous communities in forest areas.
2. There are works devoted to ensuring the availability of forest resources for forest communities in their places of residence. Basically, this is the identification of small-scale timber harvesting methods for the benefit of such communities. Unfortunately, the authors did not conduct a literature review and did not show the degree of elaboration of this topic in relation to other forest communities in other countries.
3. I believe that this article adds certain analytical justifications to the subject area of ensuring the availability of logging for forest communities. First. This study substantiates that motorized manual logging is the most viable and accessible option for forest communities to generate sustainable income from their forests. Second. The authors substantiate that using a cargo bike to transport sawn products to the collection point will be more profitable than using horse traction or manual delivery.
4. The article, in my opinion, has a pronounced analytical nature and will be in demand. However, there are certain comments.
First, I recommend using the generally accepted numbering of references with an increase in the order in which the reference is mentioned in the text of the article from 1, 2, etc.
Second, I recommend identifying the research questions that the authors of the article set for themselves and reflecting them in the Introduction section.
Third, the article does not have a Literature Review section. I think that such a section would help the authors to consider in more detail the elaboration of the research problem and reflect ways of solving the problem in other countries and communities. Fourth, it is not entirely clear whether the sample of respondents for the analysis is representative. Assessing the representativeness of the sample would help improve the perception of the results.
Fifth, I recommend improving the Discussion section and showing in it the confirmation of the hypotheses, verification of the obtained results with known similar works.
Sixth, the article lacks a Conclusion section. I recommend adding a Conclusion section and reflecting in it the theoretical and practical significance of the research results.
5. The article has obtained interesting conclusions. However, the article does not provide a systematic summary of them, since there is no Conclusion section.
6. The references are appropriate. The article uses a sufficient number of 61 sources. A significant part of the sources are dated within the last five-year period.
7. All tables in the article are clear and appropriate.

Author Response

See attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed the study titled 'Making Timber accessible to forest communities: A Study on Locally-adapted, motoR-manual forest management schemes in the Eastern Lowlands of Bolivia.' The study examines how the dependency of local forestry communities in Bolivia on large timber companies can be reduced to enhance productivity and profitability. While the study addresses a significant topic, it is quite complex and at times difficult to understand. I have some major and minor revision requests regarding the study.

Firstly, the abstract provides too much information and distracts the reader from the core of the study. It should be simpler, clearer, and more striking.

Secondly, the study's aim is provided between lines 75-83, but here the literature gap and the potential contributions of the study are missing. The importance of the study can be grounded within the context of local forestry communities in Bolivia, but it is not clear how the results will directly benefit these communities.

Thirdly, why are the legal opportunities provided to local Bolivians not supported by financial means? Could the dependence on timber companies be reduced through low-interest micro-loans provided by the government? Discussions along these lines could be expanded.

Fourthly, the activities related to timber harvesting in the interview could be summarized in a table to make them more comprehensible.

Fifthly, the discussion section is too long and problematic. First, it would be sensible to divide this section into two parts: discussion and conclusion. Then, the discussion of the findings should be presented comparatively with the existing literature. Moreover, there is a lack of substantial literature in the study. Furthermore, the findings should be discussed within the context of Bolivia's real dynamics.

Sixthly, clarify the policy recommendations and provide suggestions for future studies along with the study's limitations. This could serve as a guide for researchers aiming to further develop the field.

Seventhly, I observed minor errors in the study. For example, there is a break in line 128 that needs to be addressed. Additionally, in line 219, the expression 'Error! Reference source not found' has not been deleted. These are significant oversights. Please review the study carefully before submission.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

See attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am pleased to see that the author has made substantial improvements to the manuscript. The academic and practical value of the paper is now better reflected, but there are still some issues that need to be addressed:

Introduction: While the introduction provides a detailed overview of the background and issues, some sections are overly lengthy, particularly the discussion on global forest community issues. These topics are well-known to most scholars and do not require such extensive elaboration. It could be simplified. Additionally, the description of Bolivia’s tropical forest communities should clarify their representativeness, emphasizing that they are indicative of many tropical forest communities, thereby highlighting the broader relevance of the research.

Research Methods: The paper outlines the data collection methods, but certain details are not sufficiently clear. For example, the criteria for sample selection, the specific data collection process, and how data reliability was ensured should be further elaborated.

Discussion: Although the discussion explains the results, the length of the explanation makes it difficult to clearly identify the author’s contribution. The discussion should focus on identifying gaps in the existing research and presenting how this study addresses these gaps. Some key issues are not explored in enough depth. For instance, the paper mentions that the complexity of legal frameworks is a major barrier to communities legally utilizing timber, but there is no in-depth exploration of how these legal frameworks could be simplified.

Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings of the research, but some content repeats what was already discussed in the discussion section. It is recommended that the conclusion be made more concise, emphasizing the core contributions of the study and the policy recommendations.

Language: The language could be made more concise. Some sentences are overly long, affecting the flow of reading. I recommend further refining the language to ensure clarity and brevity.

Author Response

Introduction: While the introduction provides a detailed overview of the background and issues, some sections are overly lengthy, particularly the discussion on global forest community issues. These topics are well-known to most scholars and do not require such extensive elaboration. It could be simplified. Additionally, the description of Bolivia’s tropical forest communities should clarify their representativeness, emphasizing that they are indicative of many tropical forest communities, thereby highlighting the broader relevance of the research.

Response

The introduction has been shortened significantly.

Research Methods: The paper outlines the data collection methods, but certain details are not sufficiently clear. For example, the criteria for sample selection, the specific data collection process, and how data reliability was ensured should be further elaborated.

Response

A few details have been added to explain sample selection.

Discussion: Although the discussion explains the results, the length of the explanation makes it difficult to clearly identify the author’s contribution. The discussion should focus on identifying gaps in the existing research and presenting how this study addresses these gaps. Some key issues are not explored in enough depth. For instance, the paper mentions that the complexity of legal frameworks is a major barrier to communities legally utilizing timber, but there is no in-depth exploration of how these legal frameworks could be simplified.

Response

The Discussion has been adjusted. Its structure is (and was), one paragraph on what are issues debated in the literature, followed by a paragraph of what this paper adds to that debate.

Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings of the research, but some content repeats what was already discussed in the discussion section. It is recommended that the conclusion be made more concise, emphasizing the core contributions of the study and the policy recommendations.

Response

The Conclusion has also been made more concise, pointing out the key conclusions that derive from the paper.

Language: The language could be made more concise. Some sentences are overly long, affecting the flow of reading. I recommend further refining the language to ensure clarity and brevity.

Response

We have once again tried to simplify language. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The analysis of the revised version of the article showed a number of improvements to the article.
1. The numbering of references has become generally accepted with an increase as the reference is used in the text.
2. The authors added several paragraphs that reveal the elaboration of the problem. However, a separate section Literature Review did not appear.
3. The authors added a very good section Discussion. This section significantly improves the perception of the article.
4. The authors added a section Conclusion, in which they summarize the results of the study.

Author Response

The analysis of the revised version of the article showed a number of improvements to the article.
1. The numbering of references has become generally accepted with an increase as the reference is used in the text.
2. The authors added several paragraphs that reveal the elaboration of the problem. However, a separate section Literature Review did not appear.

Response

We thank the reviewer for his positive assessment and feedback. We would like to reiterate that we decided not to include a separate literature review, but did include a section in the introduction that we hope is an adequate substitute.

3. The authors added a very good section Discussion. This section significantly improves the perception of the article.
4. The authors added a section Conclusion, in which they summarize the results of the study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully reviewed the revised version of the manuscript. First and foremost, I must admit that I found the authors’ response to the reviewer comments to be somewhat weak. The explanation provided does not fully address all the concerns raised, and I believe it would be more effective if the specific revisions made to the manuscript were clearly indicated by line numbers. This would allow for easier navigation and a better understanding of how each point was addressed.

That being said, I do recognize that the authors have made substantial improvements to the manuscript. They have successfully incorporated several key suggestions, and the overall quality of the paper has been enhanced.

However, there are still some lingering concerns that I believe need further clarification, particularly in the introduction and discussion sections. While the revisions have improved these areas, there remain aspects that could be strengthened or explained more clearly.

Despite these remaining concerns, I am confident that the manuscript now represents a more polished and coherent piece of work. Therefore, I am pleased to recommend the paper for acceptance.

Author Response

I have carefully reviewed the revised version of the manuscript. First and foremost, I must admit that I found the authors’ response to the reviewer comments to be somewhat weak. The explanation provided does not fully address all the concerns raised, and I believe it would be more effective if the specific revisions made to the manuscript were clearly indicated by line numbers. This would allow for easier navigation and a better understanding of how each point was addressed.

That being said, I do recognize that the authors have made substantial improvements to the manuscript. They have successfully incorporated several key suggestions, and the overall quality of the paper has been enhanced.

However, there are still some lingering concerns that I believe need further clarification, particularly in the introduction and discussion sections. While the revisions have improved these areas, there remain aspects that could be strengthened or explained more clearly.

Despite these remaining concerns, I am confident that the manuscript now represents a more polished and coherent piece of work. Therefore, I am pleased to recommend the paper for acceptance.

Response

We thank the reviewer for the constructive comments and other feedback. We would just like to point out that also in response to other reviewers' suggestions we have once again modified the Introduction, Discussion and Conclusion sections. We hope they now are better appreciated.