Green Finance Empowering Forestry New Quality Productivity: Mechanisms and Practical Paths

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study submitted for review "Study on the mechanism and practical path of green finance to empower forestry new quality productivity" is interesting and once again raises the ever-present question of productivity and the production possibilities frontier. The study deserves to be improved,  in order to do so, some basic additions should be made to it:
1. The term “Forestry New Quality Productivity (FNQP)” needs to be clarified. How was it created, by whom, why is it formulated like this?
2. I ask the authors to make a clear distinction between Forestry New Quality Productivity and Green Total Factor Productivity (GTFP).
3. Please, under the tables with the results of the regression models, indicate what the symbols *, **, *** mean.
4. The sections seem long with repetitive statements, please edit so that the text looks very clear and easy for the reader.

5. Please increase the number of references. Such a study needs a little more scientific argumentation especially when consider terminology.
I believe that the recommendations made can be quickly implemented by the authors and I wish them success with the article.

Author Response

Remarks: The study submitted for review "Study on the mechanism and practical path of green finance to empower forestry new quality productivity" is interesting and once again raises the ever-present question of productivity and the production possibilities frontier. The study deserves to be improved, in order to do so, some basic additions should be made to it:

Response: Thank you for the valuable advice and it is quite helpful for improving the quality of our paper. We have improved the paper carefully. Please see the revised manuscript.

*******************************************************************

Comment 1: The term “Forestry New Quality Productivity (FNQP)” needs to be clarified. How was it created, by whom, why is it formulated like this?

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading and helpful comments. The concept of “new quality productive forces” was first proposed during an inspection visit to Heilongjiang Province in September 2023. New quality productive forces are distinguished by innovation playing a leading role, deviating from outdated conventional economic growth models and paths of productivity development, and emphasizing high technology, high efficiency, and high quality. Forestry new quality productivity (FNPQ) was established under the guidance of new quality productive forces theory [38], representing a new source of development momentum and direction. Its core lies in leveraging disruptive technological innovations like biotechnology and the deep application of new factors (such as data and knowledge-based talent) to drive a qualitative leap in the forestry industry. It aims to break free from traditional dependencies and develop high-tech, high-value-added new business models and for-mats, serving as one of the core driving forces for leading the forestry sector toward high-quality development in the future [39].   

We have carefully revised the definition in the paper based on the comment. The detailed improvements can be seen on p.1-2, remarked by yellow color. Please see the revised manuscript.

References:

38. Luo X.Y., et al. The coupling mechanism, operating mechanism and practice path of the realization of the value of forest ecological product empowered by new quality productive forces of forestry. Prices Monthly 2025, (06), 11-18.
39. Cao Y.K., et al. Development of New Quality Productive Forces in Forestry: Basic Connotation, Theoretical Logic, and Practical Path. Chinese Rural Economy 2025, (07), 23-41.

 

*******************************************************************
Comment 2: I ask the authors to make a clear distinction between Forestry New Quality Productivity and Green Total Factor Productivity (GTFP).

Response: Thanks for the valuable comments.

Green Total Factor Productivity (GTFP) can be regarded as an evaluation system, with its core focus on measuring the comprehensive output efficiency of the forestry economy under the strict inclusion of resource consumption and environmental pollution costs. It addresses how to achieve optimal input-output efficiency under ecological and environmental protection constraints, aiming for sustainable and efficient development.

Forestry new quality productivity, on the other hand, represents a new source of development momentum and direction. Its core lies in leveraging disruptive technological innovations (such as biotechnology, information technology, and artificial intelligence) and the deep application of new factors (such as data and knowledge-based talent) to drive a qualitative leap in the forestry industry. It aims to break free from traditional dependencies and develop high-tech, high-value-added new business models and formats (such as precision forestry, smart forestry operations, and carbon sink economics), serving as one of the core driving forces for leading the forestry sector toward high-quality development in the future.

In summary, one of the objectives of developing forestry new quality productivity as a new driver of development is to enhance green total factor productivity. Developing forestry new quality productivity is both a means and a driver, while improving green total factor productivity is both a goal and an outcome.

To avoid conceptual confusion, we have included clarifications on the concepts of forestry new quality productivity (FNQP) and green total factor productivity (GTFP) in the manuscript. The detailed improvements can be seen on p.1-2, remarked by yellow color. Please see the revised manuscript.

*******************************************************************

Comment 3: Please, under the tables with the results of the regression models, indicate what the symbols *, **, *** mean.

Response: Thanks for the valuable comments, we have annotated the specific meanings of the symbols *, **, *** under each table, remarked by yellow color. Please see the revised manuscript.

*******************************************************************
Comment 4:The sections seem long with repetitive statements, please edit so that the text looks very clear and easy for the reader.

Response: Thanks for the valuable comments, each section has been refined for clarity and simplicity to make it looks clear and easy for the reader.

*******************************************************************

Comment 5: Please increase the number of references. Such a study needs a little more scientific argumentation especially when consider terminology.

Response: Thanks for the valuable comments, we have added the relevant references; please refer to the references for details.

Remarks: I believe that the recommendations made can be quickly implemented by the authors and I wish them success with the article.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in evaluating our manuscript. We look forward to any additional feedback or suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper comes at the right time and is well organized. It looks at how green finance helps the development of better forestry in China. The authors used data from 31 provinces for 2011 to 2022 and applied several statistical methods. The results are strong and useful for future policies. Also, the paper adds something new by looking at indirect effects and how results spread between regions. Still, there are a few things that could be improved:

A) The last section is called Inspiration, but this title sounds too general and not very scientific. It would be better to change it to Policy Recommendations.

B) The methods used are good, but some important details are missing. For example, the authors should mention what software or programs they used, how they built the FNQP index using the entropy method, how they dealt with missing data, how the spatial model was built (rules behind it).

C) It would help if the authors added a short paragraph about the limits of the study.

D) The paper would also be better if the authors compared their results, even briefly, with studies from other countries. This would help to integrate the study into the global picture. Also, in this way the section called Results and Analysis could be renamed Results and Discussion, which is a more common title. Consider adding international more international citations in this context.

E) The title can be better. It begins with Study on..., but it’s not really needed to say it’s a study, people already understand that. A shorter and clearer title would be better.

Author Response

Remarks: This paper comes at the right time and is well organized. It looks at how green finance helps the development of better forestry in China. The authors used data from 31 provinces for 2011 to 2022 and applied several statistical methods. The results are strong and useful for future policies. Also, the paper adds something new by looking at indirect effects and how results spread between regions. Still, there are a few things that could be improved:

Response: Thank you for the valuable advice and it is quite helpful for improving the quality of our paper. We have improved the paper carefully. Please see the revised manuscript.

*******************************************************************

Comment 1: The last section is called Inspiration, but this title sounds too general and not very scientific. It would be better to change it to Policy Recommendations.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading and helpful comments. We have changed the name of the last section to Policy Recommendations, remarked by green color. Please see the revised manuscript.
*******************************************************************

Comment 2: The methods used are good, but some important details are missing. For example, the authors should mention what software or programs they used, how they built the FNQP index using the entropy method, how they dealt with missing data, how the spatial model was built (rules behind it).

Response: Thanks for the valuable comments,

1. This paper mainly uses Stata16 software to analyze the data, we have added an explanation.The detailed improvements can be seen on p.11, remarked by green color. Please see the revised manuscript.
2. We have detailed the calculation process for FNQP below Table 1 and added the units of measurement for the variables in the table. The detailed improvements can be seen on p.8-9, remarked by blue color. Please see the revised manuscript.
3. Any marginal instances of missing data were addressed through linear interpolation methods.The detailed information can be seen on line 423. Please see the revised manuscript.
4. We have introduced the SDM model.The detailed improvements can be seen on p.19, remarked by green color. Please see the revised manuscript.

*******************************************************************

Comment 3: It would help if the authors added a short paragraph about the limits of the study.

Response: Thanks for the valuable comments,

     Two aspects of the study require some caution when interpreting the results. Firstly, due to limitations in data availability, it is difficult to obtain specific data on the application of fiscal expenditures in the forestry sector, which limits the current analysis of the impact of green finance on forestry development. In future research, we will strengthen communication and cooperation with relevant departments to conduct a more detailed and systematic study of the relationship between green finance and the forestry new quality productivity.

    Secondly, the effects of fiscal policy often have a long lag, so some long-term im-pacts may be underestimated or not captured. Therefore, in the future, a policy event timeline can be established to track long-term panel data for a more accurate analysis of the impact of green finance. The detailed improvements can be seen on p.22, remarked by green color. Please see the revised manuscript.

*******************************************************************

Comment 4: The paper would also be better if the authors compared their results, even briefly, with studies from other countries. This would help to integrate the study into the global picture. Also, in this way the section called Results and Analysis could be renamed Results and Discussion, which is a more common title. Consider adding international more international citations in this context.

Response: Thanks for the valuable comments, we have compared our results with studies from other countries as follows,

In this study, we found that positive green finance can significantly promote the development of forestry new quality productivity. The concept of forestry new quality productivity is a distinctive concept proposed based on China's national conditions. While this concept does not yet exist in other countries, there are similar studies being conducted in other nations. Anas et al. found that green finance has a sustained positive impact on the sustainability of forest environments in emerging economies (such as Brazil and India) [42]. This finding suggests that green finance, by providing long-term financial support, can help emerging economies break through the traditional trade-off between forest conservation and economic development, achieving a win-win situation for both ecological and economic benefits.  Su et al. analyzed examples from countries such as the Nether-lands, Brazil and proposed that adequate capital investment is key to the development of the forestry sector and the implementation of sustainable development concepts [43]. However, studies show that deforestation rates have continued to increase during the implementation of green finance in Indonesia. Therefore, the implementation of green finance in the forestry sector must be accompanied by a comprehensive regulatory framework [44]. Although the concept of new-quality productivity in forestry is relatively new, future research can build upon existing studies to explore it in greater depth.

References:

42. Anas, M., Zhang, W., Bakhsh, S., Ali, L., Işık, C., Han, J., ... & Huang, M. Moving towards sustainable environment development in emerging economies: The role of green finance, green tech‐innovation, natural resource depletion, and forested area in assessing the load capacity factor. Sustainable Development 2024, 32(4), 3004-3020.
43. Su, H. Y., Han, Z., Jiang, Y. E., & Qian, W. C. International practices in the green finance for forestry and its inspirations. World Forestry Research 2021, 34(04), 1-7.
44. Nurfatriani, Fitri, et al. Redesigning Indonesian forest fiscal policy to support forest conservation. Forest Policy and Economics 2015, 61, 39-50.

The detailed improvements can be seen on p.20, remarked by green color. Please see the revised manuscript.

*******************************************************************

Comment 5: The title can be better. It begins with Study on..., but it’s not really needed to say it’s a study, people already understand that. A shorter and clearer title would be better.

Response: Thanks for the valuable comments, we have changed the title to Green finance empowering forestry new quality productivity-Mechanisms and Practical Paths. Please see the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text is replete with a large number of abbreviations, the meaning of which is extremely vague: FNQP, GTFP, green productivity. How does FNQP differ from other similar concepts? For example, from sustainable forest management? How do all these new words relate to the established scientific concepts of sustainable development, environmental economics, etc.? Who is the author of the term FNQP? What examples can be given of new quality productivity in forests and old one? In line 149 you state that "FNQP is defined as a more efficient, high-quality, and sustainable form of productivity". How do you measure the growth of efficiency, quality and sustainability to distinguish new from old? 

All these questions need to be answered even before you start exploring the impact of green finance on FNQP in section 2.1. If we haven't clearly defined FNQP, how can we study it?

Section 3 needs to be rewritten. Table 1 and the following description do not provide a clear answer on how exactly the FNQP_it value is calculated. The relationship of the indexes from Table 1 should be written out as a formula. All variables in table 1 should be clearly defined with the units of measurement. 

All non-obvious variables should be explained in detail in the text. For instance, in line 259: "The Rural Digital Inclusive Finance Development Index measured the level of digital development, forestry technological investment evaluated the extent of technological innovation, and the level of financial support for forestry indicated the degree of policy support". Please, explain in detail, how exactly are these variables measured: level of digital development, the extent of technological innovation, the degree of policy support?

line 40 Overview of green finance research. - looks like a subsection?

Author Response

Thank you for the valuable advice and it is quite helpful for improving the quality of our paper. Our point-to-point responses are presented in the following. We hope that the revision would satisfactorily address your comments and concerns.

Comment 1: The text is replete with a large number of abbreviations, the meaning of which is extremely vague: FNQP, GTFP, green productivity. How does FNQP differ from other similar concepts? For example, from sustainable forest management? How do all these new words relate to the established scientific concepts of sustainable development, environmental economics, etc.? Who is the author of the term FNQP? What examples can be given of new quality productivity in forests and old one? In line 149 you state that "FNQP is defined as a more efficient, high-quality, and sustainable form of productivity". How do you measure the growth of efficiency, quality and sustainability to distinguish new from old? 

All these questions need to be answered even before you start exploring the impact of green finance on FNQP in section 2.1. If we haven't clearly defined FNQP, how can we study it?

Response: Thanks for the valuable comments.

    The core difference between forestry new quality productivity and sustainable forest management(SFM) can be simply summarized as follows: the former emphasizes driving improvements in forestry production efficiency and resource utilization quality through scientific and technological innovation (such as genetic breeding and drone monitoring), representing a transformation and upgrade of development drivers; the latter is a management framework for achieving long-term balance among the ecological, economic, and social benefits of forests, focusing on the design of rules for resource protection and rational utilization.

    Forestry new quality productivity, green productivity, and sustainable forest management can all be regarded as sub-goals of sustainable development. SFM is the practical path to sustainable development in forestry; forestry new quality productivity accelerates this process through technological breakthroughs, addressing the bottlenecks of traditional development models. Meanwhile, environmental economics can provide theoretical tools. Its methods, such as resource pricing, internalization of externalities (e.g., carbon trading), and cost-benefit analysis, guide the application of technologies for forestry new quality productivity and green productivity, ensuring that innovation balances ecological thresholds and economic feasibility.  

   To avoid conceptual confusion, we have also included clarifications on the concepts of forestry new quality productivity (FNQP) and green total factor productivity (GTFP) in the manuscript. The detailed improvements can be seen on p.1-2, remarked by yellow color. Please see the revised manuscript.

    For the purposes of this study, FNQP is defined as a more efficient, high-quality, and sustainable form of productivity. Specifically, in terms of efficiency, the contribution of science and technology to total factor productivity has significantly increased, replacing the traditional model dominated by human and resource inputs. In terms of quality, the added value per unit of forest land has increased, and the proportion of ecological services has also increased. In terms of sustainable development, growth has been decoupled from degradation. For example, as timber production increases, carbon sequestration also increases synchronously. The detailed improvements can be seen on p.4, remarked by blue color. Please see the revised manuscript.

*******************************************************************

Comment 2: Section 3 needs to be rewritten. Table 1 and the following description do not provide a clear answer on how exactly the FNQPit value is calculated. The relationship of the indexes from Table 1 should be written out as a formula. All variables in table 1 should be clearly defined with the units of measurement. 

Response: Thanks for the valuable comments, we have detailed the calculation process for FNQP below Table 1 and added the units of measurement for the variables in the table. The detailed improvements can be seen on p.7-9, remarked by blue color. Please see the revised manuscript.

*******************************************************************

Comment 3: All non-obvious variables should be explained in detail in the text. For instance, in line 259: "The Rural Digital Inclusive Finance Development Index measured the level of digital development, forestry technological investment evaluated the extent of technological innovation, and the level of financial support for forestry indicated the degree of policy support". Please, explain in detail, how exactly are these variables measured: level of digital development, the extent of technological innovation, the degree of policy support?

Response: Thanks for the valuable comments, we have added an explanation of the construction of the forestry new quality productivity index system in the manuscript as follows,

    From the perspective of the forestry labor force, the forestry new quality productivity is matched with intellectual workers. Intellectual workers possess high-quality innovative, knowledge-based and labor capabilities, and are better able to utilize and transform nature. Therefore, in this article, the number of researchers is used to reflect innovative literacy, professional quality and educational quality are used to reflect knowledge literacy, and average value of production of forest workers is used to reflect labor capacities. Secondly, new quality forestry labor target serves as the foundation for developing forestry new quality productivity. Traditional forestry primarily treats timber as its target of labor, a production approach that historically resulted in severe environmental degradation and resource inefficiency. In contrast, forestry new quality productivity embodies profound ecological awareness and industrial trans-formation principles. These forces prioritize reducing resource costs through techno-logical innovation, aiming at achieving coordinated development between forestry’s ecological and economic dimensions. This study employs indicators rationalization of the forestry industry and advanced forestry industrial structure to measure the up-grading of the forestry industrial structure, and utilizes indicators forest quantity and forest quality to reflect the quality of the ecological environment. Finally, new quality forestry labor resources constitute the key to developing forestry new quality productivity. These means should encompass not only various material production resources but also a range of intangible production resources capable of transforming forestry production models and driving industrial innovation. Within this framework, infra-structure and energy supply serve as the foundation for cultivating these new qualitative means of labor. Policy support provides essential impetus for industrial upgrading and innovation in the forestry sector. Digitalization of the forestry industry represents both the outcome and the manifestation of this transformation in the means of labor.

The detailed improvements can be seen on p.8, remarked by blue color. Please see the revised manuscript.

*******************************************************************

Comment 4: line 40 Overview of green finance research. - looks like a subsection?

Response: Thanks for the valuable comments, the manuscript has been revised. The detailed information can be seen on line 62. Please see the revised manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been significantly improved. I am still missing the profound literature review about FNQP and its deep difference between GTFP. Actially every TFP includes these novelties described by the FNQP. But anyway, this paper is interesting and I will accept it for submission. The therm FNQP deserves more discussion which will be possible if the paper is published. 

Author Response

Comment: The manuscript has been significantly improved. I am still missing the profound literature review about FNQP and its deep difference between GTFP. Actually every TFP includes these novelties described by the FNQP. But anyway, this paper is interesting and I will accept it for submission. The therm FNQP deserves more discussion which will be possible if the paper is published.

Response: Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript. In short, one of the objectives of developing forestry new quality productivity as a new driver of development is to enhance green total factor productivity, while the improvement in GTFP is one of the key performance indicators for measuring the effectiveness of the development of FNQP. However, their essential attributes are completely different: one is a “measuring stick” and the other is a “roadmap”.We also introduce the definitions and differences between the two in our paper. Please see p.1-2 for details.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript shows significant improvement. Thanks to the authors.

Author Response

    We are grateful to the reviewer for your valuable time and detailed review comments. Your feedback has not only enhanced the quality of this paper but also positively influenced the direction of our future research. Thank you very much!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have put in a lot of effort, but I believe the article could benefit from a few more improvements.

1. I would suggest more explicitly stating at the very beginning that the concept of forestry new quality productivity is actually a novel management concept that was proposed in China and exists only in China and nowhere else. Otherwise, the reader may be misled into thinking that this is a universal practice.

 2. I would suggest merging subsection 4.8, "Discussion", and section 6, "Limitations", into a single section called "Discussion". It should be placed before the Conclusion section. In this section, you should provide a more detailed explanation of how your findings on the concept of new forestry productivity differ from those of other countries with similar approaches. In subsection 4.8, you have a n excellent outline for this, but at the moment, it only describes the work done in other countries. To make your paper more compelling, you need to add a comparative analysis of your results and demonstrate how your study is pioneering.

Author Response

Remarks: The authors have put in a lot of effort, but I believe the article could benefit from a few more improvements.

Response: Thank you for the valuable advice and it is quite helpful for improving the quality of our paper. We have improved the paper carefully. Please see the revised manuscript.

*******************************************************************

Comment 1: I would suggest more explicitly stating at the very beginning that the concept of forestry new quality productivity is actually a novel management concept that was proposed in China and exists only in China and nowhere else. Otherwise, the reader may be misled into thinking that this is a universal practice.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading and helpful comments.
We have included relevant explanations in the manuscript. Please refer to line 30 for details.

*******************************************************************

Comment 2: I would suggest merging subsection 4.8, "Discussion", and section 6, "Limitations", into a single section called "Discussion". It should be placed before the Conclusion section. In this section, you should provide a more detailed explanation of how your findings on the concept of new forestry productivity differ from those of other countries with similar approaches. In subsection 4.8, you have a n excellent outline for this, but at the moment, it only describes the work done in other countries. To make your paper more compelling, you need to add a comparative analysis of your results and demonstrate how your study is pioneering.

Response: Thanks for the valuable comments. The concept of forestry new quality productivity was proposed in China based on the national conditions. Since other countries have not yet proposed similar concepts, and there are significant differences between the national conditions of other countries and China, there is a lack of a basis for comparison. Therefore, we can only discuss and compare our research topic with related research topics, but cannot compare empirical analyses. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the suggestions, and the specific revisions are as follows:

 5.Discussion

5.1 Discussion

In this study, we found that positive green finance can significantly promote the development of forestry new quality productivity. The concept of forestry new quality productivity is a distinctive concept proposed based on China's national conditions. While this concept does not yet exist in other countries, similar studies focusing on the integration of finance, innovation, and sustainability in the forestry sector are being studied worldwide.

Anas et al. found that green finance has a sustained positive impact on the sustainability of forest environments in emerging economies (such as Brazil and India) [42]. This finding suggests that green finance, by providing long-term financial support, can help emerging economies break through the traditional trade-off between forest conservation and economic development, achieving a win-win situation for both eco-logical and economic benefits. Su et al. analyzed examples from countries such as the Netherlands, Brazil and proposed that adequate capital investment is key to the development of the forestry sector and the implementation of sustainable development concepts [43].

However, comparative analysis reveals significant differences between our re-search findings and those from other national contexts. International studies primarily emphasize the broader impact of macro-level financial support and other factors on forestry sustainability, while our research provides new empirical evidence explicitly linking green finance to the forestry new quality productivity that aligns with the current era’s advocacy for green development. Additionally, our study conducts a more detailed analysis of forestry new quality productivity and establishes a new indicator system. Additionally, as studies in Indonesia have warned, green finance may fail to curb deforestation without a robust regulatory framework [44]. This provides new insights for our research, which emphasizes the role of combining policy guidance with financial tools in promoting productivity transformation and enhancement.

Therefore, although the concept of forestry new quality productivity remains in its infancy globally, this study offers a pioneering perspective for current international discussions by quantitatively linking green finance to productivity improvements that incorporate innovation and sustainability. It also provides an applicable framework for similar forestry economies.

5.2 Limitations

Two aspects of the study require some caution when interpreting the results. Firstly, due to limitations in data availability, it is difficult to obtain specific data on the application of fiscal expenditures in the forestry sector, which limits the current analysis of the impact of green finance on forestry development. In future research, we will strengthen communication and cooperation with relevant departments to conduct a more detailed and systematic study of the relationship between green finance and the forestry new quality productivity.

Secondly, the effects of fiscal policy often have a long lag, so some long-term im-pacts may be underestimated or not captured. Therefore, in the future, a policy event timeline can be established to track long-term panel data for a more accurate analysis of the impact of green finance.

References:

42. Anas, M., Zhang, W., Bakhsh, S., Ali, L., Işık, C., Han, J., ... & Huang, M. Moving towards sustainable environment development in emerging economies: The role of green finance, green tech‐innovation, natural resource depletion, and forested area in assessing the load capacity factor. Sustainable Development 2024, 32(4), 3004-3020.
43. Su, H. Y., Han, Z., Jiang, Y. E., & Qian, W. C. International practices in the green finance for forestry and its inspirations. World Forestry Research 2021, 34(04), 1-7.
44. Nurfatriani, Fitri, et al. Redesigning Indonesian forest fiscal policy to support forest conservation. Forest Policy and Economics 2015, 61, 39-50.

 

The detailed improvements can be seen on p.20-21, remarked by yellow color. Please see the revised manuscript.