Geospatial Sensing and Data-Driven Technologies in the Western Balkan 6 (Agro)Forestry Region: A Strategic Science–Technology–Policy Nexus Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Several questions and remarks regarding the review by Kuzmanović et al. titled “Geospatial sensing and data driven technologies in Western Balkan 6 (agro)forestry region: the strategic science – technology – policy nexus analysis”.

This paper examines the application of unmanned technology in the Western Balkans 6. However, one must compare the current situation in these countries to that of any other EU country to comprehend the scope of the challenges.

“This dominance is linked to Serbia’s solid research infrastructure, institutional readiness…” (Lines 461-462) This topic has not received adequate attention. Science is made by scientists. There is a simple rule: limited number of scientific institutions - few scientists - little or no research. What is the current state of academic forestry science in these countries?

“2. Methodological Approach and Analytical Framework” Please provide information on the overall number of references analysed. The Web of Science and Scopus do not index juridical local texts. Which databases were searched to find regional legal instruments? Were they government portals of legal information?

Subsec “5.1. Local and National Initiatives” and “5.2. Agroforestry initiatives” To improve information perception, it may be useful to add maps highlighting the places where research using unmanned technology has been conducted.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for their thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all the comments provided and have addressed each one systematically below. We appreciate the opportunity to improve the clarity and scientific rigour of our work.

Comment 1:

“This paper examines the application of unmanned technology in the Western Balkans 6. However, one must compare the current situation in these countries to that of any other EU country to comprehend the scope of the challenges.”

Response 1:

We fully agree that a comparative analysis between the Western Balkan 6 (WB6) region and selected EU countries regarding the application of geospatial sensing and data-driven technologies (GSDDT) in (agro)forestry would offer valuable insights. However, as stated in the revised version of the manuscript (Section 2 Methodological Approach and Analytical Framework, phase 4), the core objective of this paper is to provide a focused, region-specific strategic nexus analysis rather than a transnational comparative study. Integrating such a comparison would significantly expand the paper's scope and length, potentially detracting from its intended contribution. Nevertheless, we have acknowledged the merit of this suggestion in the Methodological Approach and Analytical Framework section as a proposed direction for future research. This feedback is highly appreciated and will guide a potential follow-up study or doctoral-level comparative research project.

Comment 2:

“This dominance is linked to Serbia’s solid research infrastructure, institutional readiness…” (Lines 461-462) This topic has not received adequate attention. Science is made by scientists. There is a simple rule: limited number of scientific institutions - few scientists - little or no research. What is the current state of academic forestry science in these countries?”

Response 2:

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. While the initial comment is somewhat vague, we recognize the relevance of the final question regarding the current state of academic forestry science in the WB6 region. In response, we have included a concise but targeted addition in Section 5.4 that highlights argument of Serbia having relative dominance in applying GSDDT. We agree that a more in-depth, evidence-based assessment of the academic forestry sector, including an inventory of institutions, research output, funding patterns and international collaboration, would be highly valuable for all WB6 countries.

Comment 3:

“Please provide information on the overall number of references analyzed. The Web of Science and Scopus do not index juridical local texts. Which databases were searched to find regional legal instruments? Were they government portals of legal information?”

Response 3:

We thank the reviewer for this methodological observation. In the revised Section 2. Methodological Approach and Analytical Framework, we have specified the total number of analyzed references. While peer-reviewed literature was identified via Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, juridical and strategic policy documents were sourced directly from official portals and legal databases in each WB6 country via Google. Also, we added resources for international legal documents coming from EU and UN in the text. All documents have accompanying links enlisted in Reference section which are leading to them and they are available directly via web browser search. These details have now been explicitly included in the text for transparency and replicability.

Comment 4:

“To improve information perception, it may be useful to add maps highlighting the places where research using unmanned technology has been conducted.”

Response 4:

We appreciate this valuable suggestion regarding the visual presentation of geospatial data, especially unmanned technology. However, given the small number of fully completed case studies and the preliminary nature of some (e.g., CREDIT Vibes and Treesury), a comprehensive and reliable spatial distribution would not yet be representative. As stated in the paper (Section 2, phase 4), many of these initiatives are still in early implementation stages or their data remain unpublished. Therefore, generating a map at this stage may risk misinterpretation or overemphasizing limited data. That said, we have acknowledged the potential value of such a map and indicated our intent to revisit this approach after a 5-year monitoring period when longitudinal data becomes available and the number of case studies increases. We thank the reviewer again for this insight.

Once again, we express our gratitude to Reviewer 1 for their insightful comments, which have helped us to enhance the depth, clarity and methodological robustness of our manuscript. We hope the revised version meets the expectations and contributes meaningfully to the scholarly discourse on GSDDT transformation in the WB6 region.

Sincerely,
On behalf of all authors

Branislav Trudić

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the effort put into assembling this review, and I can see that the authors have compiled a considerable amount of information across six countries with complex forestry and policy environments. That said, as someone who is not a specialist in Balkan (agro)forestry, I found the manuscript quite difficult to read and process. It is extremely long and dense, yet offers relatively few visual aids to help the reader digest the material. The lack of figures, particularly maps, conceptual diagrams, or synthesized overviews of case studies, makes the reading experience tiring. For a review that claims to be strategic and regional in nature, the format leans too heavily on extended narrative descriptions, which tend to repeat without clear argumentative progression.

The STP nexus (science–technology–policy) is mentioned repeatedly as a framework, but it never really takes shape. It's introduced early on, but throughout the text, it functions more as a placeholder than a working analytical tool. As a reader, I was often unsure where a section was headed, or what the key takeaway was meant to be. Many of the case studies are just presented in series, with no real comparative discussion until very late in the paper.

Another issue I encountered is that the paper tries to do too much. It spans technology review, policy analysis, regulatory comparison, environmental risk, and even touches on circular economy and genetics. While these are all important, putting them all into one paper leads to shallow treatment of most and a lack of focus overall. I would recommend either narrowing the scope significantly, or finding a more integrated structure that can handle this breadth.

The tone also occasionally drifts into promotional language, terms like “transformative” or “systemic limitations/constraints/gap” are used without much critical scrutiny. For a scientific review, a more neutral, analytical voice would be more appropriate. It’s okay to advocate for GSDDT, but the case has to be made more clearly and critically.

Finally, the lack of figures really undermines the manuscript. With 22 case studies across six countries, I would expect at minimum a clear map, a timeline, maybe a visual summary of technological types used, or a matrix of challenges vs. countries. Tables help, but they are not a substitute for good visual synthesis.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is readable, but the writing is often wordy and lacks clarity. A professional language edit is recommended to improve flow, tone, and precision.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for their thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all the comments provided and have addressed each one systematically below. We appreciate the opportunity to elaborate the clarity and scientific rigor of our work.

Comment 1:

That said, as someone who is not a specialist in Balkan (agro)forestry, I found the manuscript quite difficult to read and process. It is extremely long and dense, yet offers relatively few visual aids to help the reader digest the material. The lack of figures, particularly maps, conceptual diagrams, or synthesized overviews of case studies, makes the reading experience tiring. For a review that claims to be strategic and regional in nature, the format leans too heavily on extended narrative descriptions, which tend to repeat without clear argumentative progression.

Response 1:

The manuscript follows a methodologically rigorous structure that progresses from introductory and contextual framing to a nexus-based analytical methodology, in-depth country-level and cross-border case study synthesis, and finally, a strategic policy alignment analysis (Section 2 of the paper, revised after review process). This structure ensures both analytical coherence and transparency.

Visual communication is already addressed through eight substantive tables (Tables 1–6 in the paper and 2 in supplementary material) and two conceptual figures (Figure 1 and Figure 2, which is added one after review process). Each table is carefully designed to condense complex data from 25 (3 new were detected during review phase) case studies into comparative, typological or strategic formats, offering the reader both clarity and analytical depth. We found tables particularly convenient for further regional strategic planning processes via structural dialogue with key stakeholders where information extraction and citation of tabelar information in upcoming action plans will be easy to use and follow no matter the facilitators or users’ level of science interpretation competences.

We have opted against further graphical additions because:

The case study sample size (n = 25) is not statistically sufficient to support additional visual generalizations (e.g., maps or matrices), which might mislead more than inform. Tabelar representations are more precise and appropriate for this kind of regional strategic review, especially in policy-technical domains where analytical granularity is preferred over graphical abstraction. Any additional visual material would overburden the manuscript, affecting its balance and conciseness. As a meaningful improvement, we have added a 5-year strategic roadmap at the end of the paper (Figure 2), further reinforcing the strategic narrative requested and enhancing the overall accessibility of policy recommendations.

Comment 2:

The STP nexus (science–technology–policy) is mentioned repeatedly as a framework, but it never really takes shape. It's introduced early on, but throughout the text, it functions more as a placeholder than a working analytical tool. As a reader, I was often unsure where a section was headed, or what the key takeaway was meant to be. Many of the case studies are just presented in series, with no real comparative discussion until very late in the paper.

Response 2:

We assert that the science–technology–policy (STP) nexus is fully operationalized throughout the manuscript, both methodologically and analytically. This aspect is in detail elaborated through entire Section 2 of the paper, being revised and improved after review process (graphically briefly presented on Figure 1 for easier understanding). Nevertheless, we would like specifically to emphasize that STP was implemented through:

• Figure 1 defines the STP nexus as the core analytical framework.
• Section 2 (Methodology) is explicitly structured around a four-phase process, with Phase 3 dedicated to “Strategic Nexus Analysis”.
• As elaborated in Section 2, to enhance clarity and depth, several comparative analyses were conducted and visualized through tables. Table 2 compares GSDDT types and applications across identified case studies. Table 3 provides an overview of national UAV regulatory frameworks in WB6 countries. Table 4 benchmarks each country’s institutional readiness, legal environment and infrastructural support for GSDDT adoption. These structured comparisons provided a cross-national perspective on capacity gaps, innovation potential and systemic constraints.
• Additionally, the two tables presented in the Supplementary File form the core of the STP analysis: Table S1 provides a case-by-case breakdown of the scientific aims, while Table S2 presents a detailed policy analysis categorized by the type of technology used in each case study. This explanation of Supplementary file we added in revised version of the paper. In section 5 each case study was discussed, including its scientific results produced.
• The Policy Alignment Analysis together with Table S2 (Section 7) crosswalks all case studies with EU acquis chapters, SDGs, and Green Agenda pillars- clearly reflecting how science and technology inform and are shaped by policy environments.

Therefore, the STP nexus is not a rhetorical device, but a guiding analytical architecture that enables the integration of empirical data with policy-oriented recommendations. Its presence is both systematic and central.

Comment 3:

Another issue I encountered is that the paper tries to do too much. It spans technology review, policy analysis, regulatory comparison, environmental risk, and even touches on circular economy and genetics. While these are all important, putting them all into one paper leads to shallow treatment of most and a lack of focus overall. I would recommend either narrowing the scope significantly, or finding a more integrated structure that can handle this breadth.

Response:

The strategic nature of the review explicitly requires an interdisciplinary lens. The interplay between GSDDT, legal frameworks, research infrastructure and environmental risks across six countries cannot be meaningfully addressed in isolation.

The technological review and policy analysis are fully integrated into the paper’s core analytical framework—the science–technology–policy (STP) nexus. We successfully examined the technologies applied across GSDDT case studies and, by referencing their documented scientific outcomes, assessed their contributions to international policy goals and their influence on national legal frameworks. Two critical challenges emerged from the analysis of 76 references: the fragmentation of legal frameworks and the issue of circularity (distinct from circular economy). The challenge of circularity—referring to the lack of lifecycle planning and material sustainability in GSDDT hardware—arose organically through the technological assessment of each case study.

Additionally, the paper highlights the underexplored potential of forest genetic monitoring—not to be confused with general forest genetics—as a novel integration point for GSDDT. Based on the identification of two relevant case studies, we aimed to be the first to explicitly recognize and document this emerging innovation. By doing so, we intend to stimulate future discussion on how forest genetic monitoring can evolve through the integration of genetic data with geospatial sensing technologies, ultimately supporting more resilient and evidence-based sustainable forest management systems.

Each thematic dimension (e.g., technology typology, forest genetic monitoring, UAV regulation, circularity) is addressed in proportion to its empirical weight and policy relevance, with references and case studies substantiating each. The decision to include these interconnected elements ensures that no major policy, operational or innovation gap is left unexamined, especially in a region where siloed approaches have historically hindered integration.

This scope reflects the actual complexity of the WB6 region’s (agro)forestry systems and narrowing it would risk omitting crucial interactions between scientific tools and policy reforms that are key to understanding regional digital transitions.

Comment 4:

The tone also occasionally drifts into promotional language, terms like “transformative” or “systemic limitations/constraints/gap” are used without much critical scrutiny. For a scientific review, a more neutral, analytical voice would be more appropriate. It’s okay to advocate for GSDDT, but the case has to be made more clearly and critically.

Response 4:

The tone of the manuscript has been carefully reviewed to ensure terminological accuracy and analytical neutrality. Terms such as “transformative,” “systemic limitations,” or “strategic enablers” are used in direct reference to cited empirical outcomes or strategic planning contexts, consistent with the terminology employed in official EU and UN policy documentation.

At no point are unsubstantiated claims made. Rather, the language reflects the documented potential and systemic barriers to GSDDT adoption, as evidenced by national regulations, case study outcomes and donor-supported capacity-building frameworks. Where appropriate, these terms are supported by policy references or impact-oriented project evaluations.

Moreover, as stated in Aim 3 of our paper, the recommendations provided are intended to serve as a foundation for upcoming advocacy efforts in the WB6 countries—supporting the development of evidence-based national legislation, policy reforms, intersectional collaboration, and the introduction of targeted incentives aligned with forthcoming national action plans on GSDDT. Our intention is for this study to go beyond a conventional review paper and instead serve a concrete, strategic purpose in shaping future policy dialogues, regulatory frameworks, and soft policy instruments.

Given the inherently interdisciplinary nature of both the topic and the analytical framework employed, it is only natural that the manuscript synthesizes the strengths of both scientific and policy domains. In doing so, it offers a strategic narrative that reflects contributions from diverse disciplines and positions itself as a foundational reference for future discussions and decision-making on GSDDT adoption in sustainable (agro)forestry across the region.

Comment 5:

Finally, the lack of figures really undermines the manuscript. With 22 case studies across six countries, I would expect at minimum a clear map, a timeline, maybe a visual summary of technological types used, or a matrix of challenges vs. countries. Tables help, but they are not a substitute for good visual synthesis.

Response 5:

While we acknowledge the general value of visual summaries, we maintain, based on methodological and contextual grounds, that tabelar presentation is more appropriate for the sample size and analytical design of this review. The dataset consists of 25 case studies, which—although rich in qualitative diversity—is not statistically representative across geographies or technological domains. Creating spatial maps or timelines could mislead readers into assuming uniformity or coverage that does not exist and would violate the rigor of evidence-based synthesis.

Instead, the manuscript provides a comprehensive and structured analytical presentation through:

• Figure 1 defines the STP nexus as the core analytical framework.

• Tables 1–6, which synthesize the core findings across technology types, UAV regulations, institutional readiness and innovation trends in the WB6 region;
• Supplementary Tables S1 and S2, which form the backbone of the STP analytical framework—presenting, respectively, the scientific aims of each case study and the corresponding policy linkages classified by technology type;
• A newly added Strategic Roadmap (Figure 2), which lays out concrete five-year policy directions for each WB6 country. This addition responds directly to the request for more strategic orientation and enhances the usability of our findings for policy audiences.

We therefore emphasize that tabelar representation allows for clearer, more precise cross-country comparison and supports the evidence-based and interdisciplinary logic of this paper. The authors would be open for making additional visual solutions if the reviewer could provide exact and detailed information on how to present the above-mentioned aspects of the paper.

The English language of the manuscript was revised and improved following a thorough review by a native English speaker.

Once again, we express our gratitude to Reviewer 2 for their insightful comments, which have helped us to reflect on methodological robustness of our manuscript. We hope the fully revised version meets the expectations and contributes meaningfully to the scholarly discourse on GSDDT transformation in the WB6 region.

Sincerely,
On behalf of all authors

Branislav Trudić

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript (forests-3765117) is well written, the ideas are clearly presented, and it may be of interest within the proposed topic.

I would like to suggest a few minor improvements to the authors. First, consider incorporating additional figures and informative graphs—particularly when presenting numerical or region-specific data—as this would enhance the visual appeal and clarity of the findings.

Furthermore, I recommend including a dedicated section on final remarks and future perspectives. In addition to summarising the key insights of the review, this section could highlight critical gaps that still need to be addressed and suggest pathways for future policy development and technological advancement. What challenges remain unresolved? Which areas are still weak or ambiguous and require further research or innovation? What are the foreseeable developments for the coming years?

Overall, this is a solid and relevant review, but it would benefit from these enhancements to further strengthen its contribution.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As the manuscript is quite lengthy and includes some dense paragraphs, a thorough language revision is needed to improve sentence polish and overall reading fluency. Corrections in grammar, spelling, and verbosity are necessary throughout the entire manuscript.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation and constructive feedback. We are pleased that the manuscript has been recognized as well written, clearly structured and relevant to the thematic scope of the journal. Below, we respond to each of the suggestions raised.

Comment 1:

“Consider incorporating additional figures and informative graphs—particularly when presenting numerical or region-specific data—as this would enhance the visual appeal and clarity of the findings.”

Response 1:

We appreciate the suggestion and fully acknowledge the value of visual tools in enhancing reader engagement. However, we have decided not to include additional figures or graphs and this decision is based on several deliberate and methodological considerations:

• The sample size, number of case studies analyzed (n = 25) is not sufficient to support statistically or spatially representative visualizations without risking oversimplification or misinterpretation of regional heterogeneity.
• Instead, we rely on detailed and structured tabelar representations (Tables 1–6 in the main text and Tables S1 and S2 in the Supplementary File), which allow for precise analytical comparison across technologies, regulatory environments, country readiness levels and innovation types.
• To respond to the request for more visually appealing strategic synthesis, we have added a a graphical presentation of 5-year strategic roadmap (Figure 2), offering country-level guidance for future GSDDT uptake, making the strategic dimension more visible and accessible.

We respectfully believe that adding graphical material at this stage would not enhance, but rather complicate, the clarity and analytical precision of the review.

Comment 2:

“I recommend including a dedicated section on final remarks and future perspectives… What challenges remain unresolved? Which areas are still weak or ambiguous and require further research or innovation?”

Response 2:

We fully agree with the importance of highlighting critical gaps and pathways for future development. The manuscript already addresses this across several dedicated analytical sections, particularly in:

• Section 6, which outlines six core strategic challenges for GSDDT deployment in WB6 in details, including legal fragmentation, lack of circularity, technical and infrastructure capacity gaps, institutional and governance integration issues, financial constraints and sustainability and Pilot vs. Scale issue.
• Sections 7.4 and entire section 8 deals with strategic breakdown of particular and general recommendations of upscaling GSDDT across WB6 countries, including action plans in tables 5 and 6. 
• The newly added Strategic Roadmap (Figure 2) serves as a forward-looking synthesis, laying out tangible country-level priorities for 2026–2030, framed by current limitations and future opportunities.
• As we stated in section 2 of the paper (rows 212-223) the review does not aim to prescribe detailed action plans for the future, but rather to serve as an evidence-based catalyst for future national dialogue and inclusive policy development on GSDDT in the WB6, with Tables 5 and 6 offering strategic orientation while recognizing that operationalization must follow country-specific needs assessments and participatory processes.
• “Final Remarks" section is written within section 8 “Conclusion and Action Plans” in detail.

The English language of the manuscript was revised and improved following a thorough review by a native English speaker.

We thank the reviewer once again for their thoughtful suggestions and positive remarks and we believe that the additions and structure of the revised manuscript fully address the underlying intent of their feedback.

Sincerely,
On behalf of all authors

Branislav Trudić

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the responses and revisions made by the authors are clear, thoughtful, and satisfactory. Thanks to the authors.

Author Response

Thank you dear reviewer for your swift response and great collaboration. Thank you for improving our manuscript.

Best,

Branislav

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is difficult to assess the extent of changes because the revised manuscript does not highlight modifications. This makes it unnecessarily time-consuming to verify whether key reviewer concerns have been addressed.

The text is still very long and heavy, with most content in narrative form or large tables. Adding one conceptual diagram and a “strategic roadmap” does little to improve readability. A clear regional map and some form of visual synthesis of case studies would still be needed.

The STP nexus is described in detail in the methods, but it is hard to see it functioning as an organising framework in the results. Case studies are still presented in sequence rather than as an integrated comparative analysis.

The scope remains too broad, and topics such as circularity and genetic monitoring are only briefly touched upon. Consolidating or cutting peripheral sections would help the paper keep focus.

At this stage, I would still recommend major revision.

Author Response

Reviewer’s comment 1:

“It is difficult to assess the extent of changes because the revised manuscript does not highlight modifications.”

Response 1:

We recognize the reviewer’s note on the difficulty of assessing changes. However, this comment remains vague, as the fully revised manuscript, containing changes made collaboratively by the group of authors, an English-language reviewer and in direct response to all three reviewers, was submitted with visible track changes enabled, making all modifications clearly identifiable in the text itself.

In addition, our first-round response letter provided an explanation of all changes, with elaboration why certain suggestions were not adopted; we also gave clear, evidence-based arguments explaining why those changes were not possible, practical or methodologically reasonable.

Given these measures, we believe that all changes were presented in a transparent and verifiable manner, and we are not aware of any alternative approach that could have made them more visible or easier to assess.

Reviewer’s comment 2:

“The text is still very long and heavy… a clear regional map and some form of visual synthesis would still be needed.”

Response 2:

We have previously explained that the case study sample size (n = 25) is not statistically or spatially representative. Creating a regional map or similar visual synthesis could therefore produce misleading impressions of coverage or homogeneity, particularly given the uneven distribution of projects among WB6 countries.

Our methodological choice to rely on structured, data-rich tables rather than oversimplified visuals is deliberate and grounded in the need to preserve analytical rigor, precision and comparability—qualities that are essential for the policy–technology–science nature of this review.

Specifically:

• Tables 1–4 distil complex, cross-country data into comparative formats that are far more precise than graphical abstractions could provide, covering:
1. Technology types and innovation trends;
2. UAV legal frameworks by country;
3. Country readiness across six criteria;
4. Cross-cutting innovation and institutional capacities.
• Supplementary Tables S1 and S2 form the core of the STP analysis, linking each case study’s scientific aims to its policy implications and technology use—something no single figure could convey with equivalent analytical depth.
• The conceptual STP diagram (Figure 1) and the Strategic Roadmap (Table 5) were both added in direct response to reviewer feedback, ensuring that visual communication is balanced with methodological accuracy. The Strategic Roadmap in particular provides a forward-looking, actionable synthesis that directly addresses the request for greater strategic orientation.

It is important to stress that this is a strategic and policy-oriented review. In such a context, prioritizing tabelar synthesis over additional graphical elements is not a limitation, but a well-reasoned methodological decision to ensure fidelity to the evidence and avoid introducing potentially misleading visual representations. Given these considerations, further visual additions would unnecessarily increase complexity without providing additional analytical value.

In our previous response, we explicitly requested that the reviewer provide specific, detailed guidance on the type and format of visual presentations that could be added without compromising the clarity, precision, and comparability of the data already presented in Tables 1–4 and Supplementary Tables S1–S2. The current feedback again offers only a generic recommendation to add “clear regional map and some form of visual synthesis,” without identifying which data should be visualized, the intended analytical purpose, or how such visuals would enhance interpretation beyond the existing structured tables. In the absence of concrete, evidence-based suggestions—and given our previously articulated methodological rationale for prioritizing tabelar synthesis over potentially misleading graphical representations, the recommendation remains too general to implement in a way that would improve the manuscript’s rigor or utility.

Also, manuscript English language was improved by English native speaker, giving its readability clearness and correctness.

Reviewer’s comment 3:

“The STP nexus is described in detail in the methods, but it is hard to see it functioning as an organising framework in the results.”

Response 3:

               The STP nexus is not merely described in the methodology, it is explicitly operationalized throughout the results and discussion. Its application is evident in:

• Comparative readiness assessment (Table 4), which is structured directly around the STP dimensions of science capacity, technological readiness, and policy alignment to evaluate country-level preparedness.
• Policy Alignment Analysis (Section 7), which integrates case study evidence into EU acquis, SDG, and Green Agenda frameworks—explicitly linking scientific outputs and technology deployment to relevant policy contexts.
• Strategic challenges (Section 6), which distil findings into six overarching barriers framed within the STP logic (regulation, capacity, circularity, governance, funding, scaling).
• Cross-cutting thematic discussions (Sections 5.4–5.5 and 6), which synthesize trends, gaps, and policy implications across multiple case studies, rather than treating them in isolation.

The sequencing of case studies is intentional, preserving the country-specific detail essential for policy applicability, while the comparative and integrative STP-based interpretation is provided in the synthesis sections. This approach is consistent with established practice in strategic regional reviews, where contextual depth is as important as aggregate analysis.

Reviewer’s comment 4:

“The scope remains too broad… topics such as circularity and genetic monitoring are only briefly touched upon.”

Response 4:

The reviewer reiterates concerns about scope that were addressed in detail in our previous response letter. As explained earlier, the interdisciplinary nature of GSDDT adoption in WB6, covering regulatory, technological, environmental, and socio-political dimensions, necessitates the inclusion of themes such as circularity and forest genetic monitoring. These are not peripheral but represent core innovations in this context and cannot be omitted without significantly diminishing the manuscript’s originality and strategic value. Both those sections were additionally enhanced in the first round of review and now, represents clear and integrative parts of the paper, indicating clear innovative themes for the sector of GSDDT.

• Circularity is explicitly identified as one of the six strategic challenges (Section 6) and discussed in depth, with concrete examples relating to material lifecycle limitations in current GSDDT hardware and their alignment with EU policy frameworks.
• Forest genetic monitoring is presented as a novel integration pathway for GSDDT, supported by two documented case studies (one targeted during the first-round review process), and positioned as a unique contribution of this review to the literature. Its inclusion introduces an emerging innovation with clear potential to integrate genetic data into GSDDT-driven monitoring systems for sustainable forest management.

Reducing or omitting these sections would not “tighten” the paper’s scope but would instead weaken its originality, diminish its interdisciplinary value, and reduce its utility as a forward-looking strategic reference for both researchers and policymakers.

We appreciate the reviewer’s engagement in the second round of review. However, we respectfully note that several of the current concerns—particularly regarding the visibility of revisions, scope, and visual representation—were already addressed in detail in our first-round rebuttal and fully implemented in the revised manuscript.

All substantive changes are clearly visible in the tracked manuscript and are supported by explicit, point-by-point explanations. Methodological decisions, including the prioritization of structured tables over additional graphical elements, are grounded in analytical rigor, the nature of the dataset, and the strategic–policy orientation of the paper. Likewise, the inclusion of themes such as circularity and forest genetic monitoring reflects deliberate, evidence-based choices to capture the full interdisciplinary scope of GSDDT in the WB6 and to preserve the paper’s originality.

Given the substantial revisions already made—including the addition of the Strategic Roadmap, the explicit operationalization of the STP nexus throughout the results and discussion, and enhanced synthesis of strategic challenges—we believe the manuscript now meets the standards for publication.