Development and Application of a Sustainability Indicator (WPSI) for Wood Preservative Treatments in Chile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

Be more concise in the introduction: The initial sentences describing the wood construction sector's reliance on preservative treatments and the demand for sustainable solutions can be combined or simplified. The focus should quickly shift to the main objective of the study.

Highlight the research's originality earlier: The abstract mentions the development of the Wood Protection Sustainability Index (WPSI). It would be beneficial to emphasize the originality or unique contribution of the WPSI and the analysis of the two scenarios right at the beginning, to immediately capture the reader's interest in your research's innovation.

 

Introduction

Here are five suggestions to improve the introduction of your paper:

Strengthen the Problem Statement and Research Gap: While the introduction outlines the problem (reliance on CCA and the need for sustainability), it could more explicitly articulate the specific gap that the WPSI aims to fill. Instead of simply stating, "This study developed a Wood Protection Sustainability Index (WPSI)...", it would be more effective to emphasize the absence of a comprehensive and standardized evaluation tool before introducing the WPSI, thereby establishing the "why" of the research earlier.

Optimize Global Context and Transition to Local Focus: The introduction dedicates a considerable portion to global climate initiatives (e.g., Paris Agreement). While relevant, this section could be more concise or directly link how these global pressures specifically translate into an urgent need for action in Chile, rather than presenting them as general background. This would improve flow and maintain a tighter focus on the Chilean context.

More Cohesively Integrate ESG/SDG Discussion: The discussion on ESG criteria and SDGs appears somewhat separated towards the end of the introduction. Given that the WPSI incorporates these aspects, the importance of ESG and SDGs could be woven in earlier and more directly as drivers for the need for a new evaluation tool, rather than a separate justification.

Refine the Introduction of OEES and its Relevance: The "Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Scale (OEES)" is presented as a foundational framework for the study. While its definition of sustainability through attributes (effectiveness, efficiency, and adaptability) is provided, the introduction could clarify why OEES was chosen over other frameworks, or how its attributes are particularly well-suited to the context of wood preservatives in Chile.

Clearly Differentiate Study Scope from Previous Work: The sentence, "In our previous work [21], we identified that several modern wood preservatives and modification technologies align with ESG and SDG principles," is present. While citing previous work is good, the introduction could benefit from a clearer statement distinguishing the current study's novel contribution from this prior research. What new insights or methodologies does this paper bring beyond the identification mentioned in the previous work? This would emphasize the current research's unique value.

 

Results and discussion

More Deeply Integrate the Discussion of Economic Viability (Section 3.2): Section 3.2 is quite concise and primarily serves as an introduction to the SWOT analysis. The economic viability findings from the expert interview and regulatory review could be discussed in more detail here. For instance, what specific market barriers were identified? What costs make CCA favorable, as mentioned in the abstract and Table 5? Detailing these aspects would add more depth to the discussion.

Elaborate on the "Why" Behind Scenario 1's WPSI Results: The text states that CCA performs comparably in Scenario 1 due to being "well-established, readily available, and facing no restrictions for use in construction." The discussion could delve deeper into the historical, economic, or logistical reasons why these factors allow it to "outperform" safer alternatives in a scenario that doesn't heavily prioritize sustainability. This would provide richer context beyond just the numerical results.

Provide More Nuance in the Discussion of Low Sustainability Adoption: Section 3.3 mentions "insufficient adoption of sustainability practices, largely due to the absence of laws or regulations" and a "prevalent belief that natural wood is the optimal environmental choice." The discussion could explore these points with more detail. Are there specific cultural, economic, or historical reasons for this belief in Chile? Are there industry-led initiatives, even without mandates, that could be highlighted or contrasted? This would add depth to the analysis of the current state.

Strengthen the Connection Between SWOT and WPSI Findings: The SWOT analysis (Section 3.4) is comprehensive, but the "Discussion" part could more explicitly link the findings from the WPSI (Scenarios 1 and 2) to the various elements of the SWOT. For example, how do the WPSI results directly inform the "Weaknesses" (e.g., "ongoing use of toxic preservatives") or the "Opportunities" (e.g., "global shift towards sustainable construction")? Explicitly connecting these points would make the discussion more integrated and impactful.

Expand on Practical Implications and Recommendations Based on Findings: While the conclusion touches upon this, the "Discussion" section could offer more detailed and actionable recommendations based on the findings from all sections (WPSI, economic viability, ESG/SDG alignment, and SWOT). For instance, specific policy recommendations for Chile, suggestions for industry stakeholders, or areas for future research could be elaborated here, stemming directly from the evidence presented in the results. For example, how can the WPSI specifically guide "fast-tracking μCA (copper-azole) in class 4 uses" or "piloting acetylated radiata pine" as mentioned in Table 6?

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a manuscript on the development and application of a sustainability indicator (WPSI) for wood preservative treatments in Chile. The manuscript is well written. I invite the authors to consider the following points.

1. Line 120. Define SDG at its first occurrence in the text.
2. Table 2. It is difficult to identify the level corresponding to each attribute. You should add horizontal lines in the table to facilitate its interpretation. How are the different levels (high, moderate, low) determined? Where the Likert scale comes from? (give reference)
3. Equation 1 was used to calculate the WPSI. How the factors S, PT, WD, RS were determined? The authors seem to change them arbitrarily (lines 269 - 274) without a sound justification (or I did not understand the approach...). Please be more transparent about this and explain how you determined these factors.
4. Figures 2 and 3. Is there a level of uncertainty associated with these results? Given that equation 1 seems to be an approximation, it is surprising to see discrete numbers instead of WPSI classes in the figures. 
5. How does the work presented apply to countries other than Chile? The manuscript focuses on the local situation in Chile. Could you broaden the scope of the study ?
6. Table A1. It is unclear which species correspond to each category. You should use horizontal lines in the table (see comment no 2).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made adequate adjustments to the manuscript following my comments.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer´s comments.