Income Differentiation as a Factor of Unsustainability in Forestry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General recommendations for “Income differentiation as a factor of unsustainability in forestry”. Reduce use of personal pronouns throughout. Select the best mechanism for displaying data and/or analysis (table figures), and don’t repeat information in a display in words, rather summarize the display using words, and then readers can gather more information from the display. Do not summarize tables and/or before and after their presentation. Give tables and/or figures titles that are descriptive and would convey necessary information if the reader were to look at without accompanying verbal description. Determine your story, what are you setting out to accomplish, how does your analysis inform the question, what can you use from what you learned to inform the scientific (or policy/stakeholder) community.
Specific changes:
L24: Isn’t the aim of the research to determine IF there is a difference in incomes between the forestry and the environmental policy sectors?
L27-28: You list one primary objective (“to propose ideas and instruments for strengthening income…), therefore sentence that starts on L27 should be “This objective was met…”. Also, what do you mean by “including the field survey technique”? Did you interview all 70 participants each month, or rather did you gather initial agreement to participate from the 70 respondents and then they self-reported income via electronic or mail responses?
L28: What data? Income data from 70 respondents were collected from January 2019 to December 2019.
L31-32: The analysis indicated that the average incomes in forestry are significantly lower than incomes in environmental protection sector (in the Czech Republic).
L40: Environmental policy is defined here as a set of objectives that aim to protect the environment.
L44: change 4,2 to 4.2 million
L45-46: Clarification desired, is the 49 percent increase in people employed in environmental protection over the past 15 years attributed just to Czech or more broadly (the entire EU)?
L48: Change 1,4 million to 4,2 million to 1.4 million to 4.2 million.
L48-49: Awkward sentence, recommend change to “This large growth in jobs is mainly due to the increasing capacity of…”
L54-55: Too many personal pronouns, suggest edit: To analyze the income of employees in the environmental sector in the Czech Republic, it has been determined that the average gross monthly wage (in this sector?) is 1212 EUR [5].
L56-64: Questionnaire description, frequency, and sampled populations should be included in materials & methods section and not in introduction. When it is moved, it might be beneficial to include information on how participants were recruited, what types of information was collected (anything besides income, e.g., education, position title, hours worked, etc.), how was reporting done (mail, internet, fax), how often was information collected. Then you can discuss how participants were categorized (forestry, environmental protection).
L67: typo and personal pronoun use, suggest change to “sector, this research sets out to determine whether there are statistically significant differences…”
L70 – 71: You could summarize your null hypothesis here, maybe citing some previous research that supports the claim that “income of forestry and environmental workers is commonly considered to be the same”. When summarizing the null hypothesis (not just a statement about averages in income and agreement of variance), avoid use of personal pronouns.
L72-73: Here you change to “revenues”, revenues are usually benefits of production (commonly), whereas income is a cost (labor) that would factor in the generation of production revenues (inputs into the supply of environmental goods and services). Are you indeed meaning revenues, and if so, how are they not correlated (or endogenous to) the income of workers in the industry?
L79-90 Eliminate use of personal pronoun “we” throughout. What is meant by “We must also assume that the income of environmental workers improves subsidies for the sector since support for environmental protection is more systematic and substantial than in forestry” Are you referring to environmental workers contributing financially to the environmental sector, or are you inferring that policymakers have determined through the support of environmental workers, that this is a more efficient (effective) tradeoff (than supporting forestry) in terms of achieving the goal of environmental protection?
L92-95: Is this criterion for recruitment of participants? Also suggest change: In the initial phase, the following three criteria were defined for inclusion in the analysis: 1. …, 2…., and 3…
L97-98: Are they reporting by month, or are they just reporting average monthly salary once? They reported (no had needed)…, how were they addressed, were they recruited and having agreed, were directed to fill in one questionnaire or monthly questionnaires? Could their employment specifications differ (for example, in the upper Midwest of the United States, forestry workers often have lower levels of employment during “spring breakup”, or faculty appointments in the United States range from 9 to 12 months).
L106-108: Not necessary to list all the clerk positions, unless you are implying that there are more (fewer) government sponsored (or administrative) positions in this sector relative to environmental protection.
L111-112: What do you mean “rank” is that by number of individuals employed, % of GDP, wage rate, what is the ranking here?
L115: low, considering, that most environmental workers are highly educated.
L117: The questionnaire used is a standardized one that uses ILO WHAT?? and meets the research requirements… YOU REALLY need to describe this more thoroughly. What information is collected, how often, does it oversample a specific population, how representative of the sectors is it, how representative are the participants from the overall populations?
L119: Does this mean the respondents reported quarterly real income amounts?
L119: Again use “revenue” here, whereas should use income or labor value. The latter is more appropriate if wage were multiplied by number of respondents, or labor value in industry if took average wage and multiplied by number of workers in the sector.
L123-124: Are you reporting the p-values on an independence test here? Using what test?. Also I believe commas in reported p-values should be periods (they are decimal points and NOT indicating a set of coordinates).
L125-166: Not sure why such extensive explanation for a simple two-sample t-test is enumerated here. The t-test is a widely accepted analysis and unless there is some variation apart from a standard two sample test (admittedly I am a statistics expert, but this looks like something akin to that taught in an undergraduate statistics course) or some underlying theoretical premise associated with the approach taken here, then this explanation could be condensed in favor of more information on the questionnaire details and participant selection process.
L171-172: Here implies survey yielded monthly economic data, in that respondents reported aggregate earnings each month?
L174-175: What is the value of reporting incremental data in the table 1? Don’t you relay the same (or similar) information in frequency diagrams later? Table 1 really doesn’t add to the overall story, and if you decide to keep it, your title should be self-explanatory, for instance “Reported average incomes (in EUR) in forestry and environmental protection sectors in the Czech Republic from January-December 2019”.
L180-182: Not necessary, just repeats the same information from L175-177.
L183-187: Analyzed and reported incomes that are compared in the same duration of time would be more informative. For instance, average forestry wages reported by Czech Statistical Office are in months (I assume this source is used for both forestry and environmental protection sectors) but reported averages from study are in years. Equate time horizons to give better sense of how data correspond to official statistics.
L188-201. The value of reporting incremental data/analysis as in Table 2 and table 3 is not clear. Usually the data reported here is either reported as ONE summary table or can be better displayed with words (as opposed to a table). But really, what does the information presented in table 2 and table 3 add to the analysis? Did your computations depart from a standard statistical package? Commas need to be replaced with decimal (periods) in t-value and p-value.
L195-199 & L202-208 are redundant to each other and just one could be used to explain the results of the analysis instead of both AND the table 3 is redundant and not necessary in the presence of one of the written explanations.
L202-209: Again, need periods instead of commas. Again find written text is redundant to Table 4. What does the F-ratio tell you? It should tell you that you would have used a statistical t-test with two-samples of unequal variance. Is that what you did?
L211-244: Redundant information. One of these figures/table might be useful, but no value in having three different displays of the same data. Nor is there value in having three long explanations of displayed data.
L246-247: Is this known? Is it supported in other literature? Your data shows that incomes in environmental protection indicate that the sector possibly has more social value (reflected through wages).
L247-255: How AND where do you address the development of forestry employment in Europe in your study? You just examined forestry employment wages over one year’s time in Czech Republic. You collected materials similar to, (or in concert with?), that from ILO? Remove personal pronouns. Doesn’t this particular research analysis just use Czech data? Are you referring to your overall research program at large here? This paragraph is VERY confusing.
L256-260: See above comment L247-255. Also, why are incomes reported in EUROs for other countries and dollars for Czech Republic (or is this just a typo)?
L261-324: This is more appropriate for something like an introduction section, it might serve to justify your analysis, but does not really connect to the information in the current intro or to the analysis conducted within the paper.
L319-320: Distinction between forestry revenues and forestry income here that may not be necessary. Are forestry revenues (that is money coming into the production sector, usually) below average and insufficient? Or is it that this study finds that forestry sector incomes are lower than environmental sector incomes and thus relative to a policy that supports environmental progress, forestry incomes are below average and insufficient (less than socially optimal)?
L326-L327: Is this in Czech, in the EU, just for 2019. How are incomes related to effectiveness of the labor market? It could just be that forestry wages are not fully reflective of all the benefits (and costs) to the environment that forestry provides, but you are insinuating something about necessary and sufficient conditions here. One, you are assuming that the product and labor markets in both sectors is competitive (or if not, is equally uncompetitive). Two, you are assuming that prices (via wages paid to workers) are reflective of the value of the outputs (sectors) to the economy. Three, you are assuming that education levels, other opportunities, risk factors in jobs, etc. are all similar. To make a statement on productive efficiency or even market efficiency there must be both supply and demand factors that are in play (whether in labor or outputs).
L351 – 352: Bark beetle calamity cited here indicates that there was possibly some preventive management (or at least some overall focus post-damage) that could have prevented or lessened the economic damage of 1.1 billion EUR.
Author Response
Reviewer No. 1
L 24
This line has been modified ,and the following sentence has been added:
The aim is to determine whether there is equality or income inequality in sectors, which is an indicator of sustainability or.
L27-28
The data were obtained differentiated; orally, by e-mail or by telephone.
Language corrections have been made: were has been changed– was met
L 28
This line has been corrected and supplemented:
od ledna 2019 do prosince 2019
L 31-32:
Věta byla upravena podle doporučení recenzenta:
Analýza ukázala, že průměrné příjmy v lesnictví jsou výrazně nižší než příjmy v sektoru ochrany životního prostředí (v České republice).
L 40:
Věta byla upravena podle doporučení recenzenta:
Environmentální politika je zde definována jako soubor cílů, jejichž cílem je ochrana životního prostředí.
L48:
Tato věta byla opravena:, „na“. “
L 48-49
Věta byla upravena podle doporučení recenzenta:
Tento velký růst pracovních míst je způsoben zejména rostoucí kapacitou….
L 54-55
Věta byla upravena podle doporučení recenzenta:
Pro analýzu příjmů zaměstnanců v odvětví životního prostředí v České republice bylo stanoveno, že průměrná hrubá měsíční mzda (v tomto odvětví?) Je 1212 EUR [5]
L 66
Tato věta byla opravena:
L67
Věta byla upravena podle doporučení recenzenta:
V tomto výzkumu se stanoví, zda existují statisticky významné rozdíly
L 72- 73
Věta byla upravena podle doporučení recenzenta:
Income means personal performance valued in cash, which is accompanied by a real inflow of funds. It is necessary to distinguish income from revenue, as revenue may not always represent a real inflow of funds.
L 79-90
This sentence has been corrected: We
L 92
The sentence has been modified according to the reviewer advice:
V počáteční fázi byla definována následující tři kritéria pro zahrnutí do analýzy ...
L106-108
Věta byla upravena podle doporučení recenzenta:
To je třeba zmínit, protože to byli skuteční respondenti a popis jejich pracovní pozice.
L 119
Tyto závorky byly smazány (1Q - 4Q)
L 123
Tato věta byla opravena: Příjmy
L 123-124
Tato věta byla opravena:.
L125-166
Věta byla upravena podle doporučení recenzenta:
Metodický popis ponechám na formuláři.
L171-172
Věta byla upravena podle doporučení recenzenta:
Respondenti vykázali čistý příjem.
L174-175
Pod tabulku 1 byla přidána následující poznámka:
Hlášené průměrné příjmy (v EUR) v odvětví lesnictví a ochrany životního prostředí v České republice od ledna do prosince 2019
L 202-209
Věta byla upravena podle doporučení recenzenta:
Test byl proveden, nahradil jsem čárkami tečkami.
Test F je o shodě (homogenitě) disperzí dvou nezávislých výběrů (F-test)
L211-244
Odpověď na otázku recenzenta zní: Vizualizace je pouze vysvětlujícím nástrojem pro různé potřeby čtenáře.
L 246
Odpověď na otázku recenzenta zní: Věřím, že lesnictví a ochrana životního prostředí mají stejnou sociální hodnotu, a proto si zaslouží srovnatelné příjmy.
L 256-260
Byly provedeny následující opravy:
Fixní dolary za EUR
Oprava: data pocházejí z ČSU, ne z ILO 319
Příjmy v lesnictví v České republice jsou nižší než v ochraně životního prostředí. Považuji to za společensky nedostatečné.
L 351
Věta byla upravena podle doporučení recenzenta:
Kalamita kůrovce je pouze projevem soutoku více faktorů (manažerská nedostatečnost, biotické a atmosférické změny atd.)
Reviewer 2 Report
I like the titel of the paper and the purpose of the paper - with the question of unsustainability of forestry as a key concept. I also like the statistical analysis of the paper, and it is well explained and understandable (even for me that is not very knowledgeable in statistics).
The paper is thus very interesting and should be published, and this journal is a good choice. However, I would like to see a few improvements of the paper before it is ready for publishing.
- I would like to see more development in the introduction why this is an important subject, and why this study is relevant. Why did you decide to perform this study now? Any particular reason to why this is relevant now, any particular event or development?
- Also, I would like to see a connection back to the discussion in the introduction, in the concluding discussion, and to emphasis the usefulness of this study in a larger perspective, and in a national and international perspective.
- In the discussion, (lines 246-260) you discuss difference between countries. I have a hard time finding support for these findings in the result section, and it would be interesting to see these differences more in detail in the result section. If this is in the result section, and I missed it, it needs to be clarified.
Minor items:
- do you need to put "source: own calculations" under each table in the results? It seems unnecessary as I assume that results are from your study anyhow.
- English needs to be check as there are some errors in sentence construction mostly.
Author Response
Recenzent č. 2
- Tato vysvětlující věta byla přidána: V současné době se příjmová mezera rozšiřuje.
- Tato vysvětlující věta byla přidána: Výsledky výzkumu by měly sloužit ke zlepšení sociálního postavení lesnických pracovníků. Zodpovídají za stav lesů, přírody a krajiny v České republice.
- Tato vysvětlující věta byla přidána: Cílem studie nebylo srovnávat příjmy v jiných zemích než v České republice.
- V tabulkách v oddíle výsledků byla zrušena poznámka: vlastní výpočty a doplněna nová věta: Hlášené průměrné příjmy (v EUR) v odvětvích lesnictví a ochrany životního prostředí v České republice od ledna do prosince 2019; Data byla analyzována pomocí softwaru STATISTICA 13 EN.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments are in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer No. 3
L 35
The following term: Policy in Czech Republic
L 40
The sentence has been modified according to the reviewer advice: Environmental policy is defined bay the EU legislation as a set of objectives that aim to protect the environment. The environment is based on Articles 11 and 191-193 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Under Article 191, combating climate change is an explicit objective of EU environmental policy. Sustainable development is an overarching objective of the EU, which is committed to a high level of protection an improvement of the quality of the environment.
L 72
The following word has been added: This
L 84
The sentence has been modified according to the reviewer advice: In Czech Republic is ownership in forestry and protected area divided between different owners. In 2020, the ownership structure was as follows: state forests 59,8%,, forest owned by individuals 19,3%, communal and municipal forests 16,8%, legal persons 2,9%, and forests cooperatives 1,2%.
L 86
The sentence has been modified according to the reviewer advice: 15.5 million m3 of wood was harvested annually. This year, the production of spruce wood is estimated at a volume of about 60 million m3. It is historically the largest calamity in the history of the Czech Republic, which is caused by a biotic factor.
L 95
The sentence has been modified according to the reviewer advice: Currently, 12,800 workers work in the forestry sector.
L 101
The sentence has been modified according to the reviewer advice: The research was a comparison of net income (after tax) in forestry and environmental protection.
L 102
The sentence has been modified according to the reviewer advice: These were employees in both state forestry and private forestry.
L 112
The sentence has been added: In this sample
L 114
The sentence has been added: Employees in state agencies, national parks, NGO and private agencies.
L 119
The sentence has been corrected to: Net
L 122
The following terms have been corrected: Truncated to Af a B ep
L 169
The following word has been corrected: Very
L 182
The following setntence has been added: sum of net income
L 249
The following setntence has been added: We collected material from the ČSÚ (Czech Statistical Office) [5]
L 360
The following word has been added: source
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
General recommendations for “Income differentiation as a factor of unsustainability in forestry”. Reduce use of personal pronouns throughout (take out “we”). Include periods instead of commas when describing proportions and appropriate statistics. Select the best mechanism for displaying data and/or analysis (table figures), and do not repeat information in a display in words, rather summarize the display using words, and then readers can gather more information from the display. Alter (change back to regular script) font between table/figure footnotes and text. Do not summarize tables and/or before and after their presentation. Give tables and/or figures titles that are descriptive and would convey necessary information if the reader were to look at without accompanying verbal description. Determine your story, what are you setting out to accomplish, how does your analysis inform the question, what can you use from what you learned to inform the scientific (or policy/stakeholder) community.
Specific changes:
L24: Suggest edit: The aim of the research is to determine if there is a difference in income between the forestry and the environmental policy sectors.
L27-28: Suggest edit: This objective was met…”.
L33: Remove redundant sentence “The data showed that average incomes in forestry…”
L45: Suggest edit: Environmental policy is defined by the EU legislation as a set of objectives that aim to protect the environment.
L49: Suggest edit: …committed to a high level of protection and improvement..
L50: Remove redundant sentence “Environmental policy is defined here…”
L45-46: Clarification desired, is the 49 percent increase in people employed in environmental protection over the past 15 years attributed just to Czech or more broadly (the entire EU)?
L48: Suggest change: people employed in environmental protection increased from 1.4 million to 4.2 million.
L64-65: Suggest change: It has been determined that the average gross monthly wage of environmental employees in the Czech Republic (for what year of analysis?) is 1212 EUR [5].
L66-67: By implementing a questionnaire, the total annual income of an employee in Czech environmental protection is determined.
L76: You set out to see if the income gap is widening. If you already know this, what is the purpose of the analysis? Are there other research articles that point to this gap?
L67: typo and personal pronoun use, suggest change to “sector, this research sets out to determine whether there are statistically significant differences…”
L80-81: Suggest change: The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the average income (and variance) of income between forestry and environmental workers in the Czech Republic.
L83: Suggest change: This research examines whether there is a …
L86-87: How do you show that the income of workers in environmental protection is not only the result of supply and demand?
L93-94: Suggest change: Both sectors appear to be very similar in the labor market, and therefore it is assumed that the incomes…
L94-95: Delete sentence starting with “Using empirical research…”
L95-109: Are you inferring that income for environmental workers improves (outcomes in?) the sector, since support for environmental protection…
L110-112: Not sure why forest ownership is listed here, it would be more relevant if there was a comparison between “forest sector” and “environmental sector” support and/or positions. If you are going to retain this information, it should be cited and suggest inclusion of 2019 data (to correspond with survey. Suggest change commas to periods.
L115-117: DO Not start a sentence with a number! Is the annual reported harvest volume a trend (average) or the 2019 total? The production of spruce wood is listed, but is that a removal volume needed to address bark beetle, is that what is actually being taken off the land, what is the significance of this number, especially as it is nearly FOUR TIMES the reported annual harvest? If the market is being flooded with spruce, that is bound to depress timber prices.
L127-128: How representative is your sample if 12,800 workers work in the forestry sector? With 35 respondents you are getting 0.2% of the population.
L131-132: Was this determined in the present study or a previous? If present study determined that the average monthly income of a forestry worker is almost identical to the average gross monthly wage of a Czech citizen, then this needs to be in the results or discussion section and not material and methods.
L140-146: Delete this extraneous information starting with This sector also includes…. and ending with …expedition warehouses.
L147: Suggest change: The proportion of women employed in forestry is 0% in this sample.
Is this representative of Czech as a whole? Also, this belongs in results and not materials and methods.
L148-149: Suggest change to: Employees in the environmental protection sector work as environmentalists, water managers, and in soil and atmosphere conservation. State agencies, national parks, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and private agencies employ environmental protection workers.
L151-153: Statistics belong in results, not materials and methods.
L106-108: Not necessary to list all the clerk positions, unless you are implying that there are more (fewer) government sponsored (or administrative) positions in this sector relative to environmental protection.
L146: What do you mean “rank” is that by number of individuals employed, % of GDP, wage rate, what is the ranking here? Is it income, same as line 150?
L154: YOU REALLY need to describe this more thoroughly. What information is collected, how often, does it oversample a specific population, how representative of the sectors is it, how representative are the participants from the overall populations?
L159: Are you reporting the p-values on an independence test here? Using what test?. Also I believe commas in reported p-values should be periods (they are decimal points and NOT indicating a set of coordinates).
L167-210: Not sure why such extensive explanation for a simple two-sample t-test is enumerated here. The t-test is a widely accepted analysis and unless there is some variation apart from a standard two sample test (admittedly I am a statistics expert, but this looks like something akin to that taught in an undergraduate statistics course) or some underlying theoretical premise associated with the approach taken here, then this explanation could be condensed in favor of more information on the questionnaire details and participant selection process.
L213-221: The survey yielded economic data monthly since respondents reported aggregate earnings from January 2019 to December 2019. The following table shows the total income of each of the 70 respondents, 35 who work in forestry and 35 who work in environmental protection. The sum of net income for all months of the year are reported in Table 1.
L222 – Comment: Table 1 really doesn’t add to the overall story, and if you decide to keep it, your title should be self-explanatory, for instance “Reported average incomes (in EUR) in forestry and environmental protection sectors in the Czech Republic from January-December 2019”.
L231-L233: Delete redundant information from …”The table…” to …”standard deviations”.
L234-235: So your sample found a lower than average income for forestry workers (calculate avg 923 EUR per month compared to 1074 EUR reported avg) and a higher average income for environmental protection (1164 EUR calculated avg compared to 1091 EUR per month reported average)? Or is it because you are using net income and the statistics are reported as a measure of gross income?
L241-251: Font needs to go back to similar text font and not correspond with footnote font.
L247-250: Why are you repeating the table with text? Suggest change: The null hypothesis of equal average incomes in forestry and environmental protection is rejected (t-stat: 5.86, p-value < 0.001). It can also be argued that there is a significantly higher income in environmental protection than in forestry (Table 3).
Did you test the latter with a one-tailed t-statistic?
L255-259: Delete redundant information from “The result…” to “…not the same.”
L280-281: Suggest change: Only 1.5 percent of respondents reported annual revenues of 14175 EUR per year.
L282-283: Suggest change: “almost half of all respondents are between incomes of 13789 and 15763 EUR per year.
L288-293: Delete redundant information from “These histograms…” to “…industry average.”
L294-297: Suggest change: “More than half of respondents reported an annual total income in forestry between 9456 and 11828 EUR per year. Remaining forestry respondents reported incomes between 11821 and 14181 EUR per year.”
L304-307: Delete redundant information from “In the previous table…” to “…evenly distributed.”
L310 – 311: Suggest change: The attractiveness, through incomes, of forestry employment in Czech Republic is addressed in this study in order to estimate possible labor deficiencies in the next decade.
L311-323: Change to: Using material from the CSU (Czech Statistical Office), we conclude that the Czech Republic has an average income of eleven thousand EUR a year, which puts it in the middle of European Countries, including Bulgaria and Hungary. Technological developments have led to an increase in wages and incomes for forestry workers in Sweden and Germany [11].
L428-429: Delete: “We collected material from the CSU (Czech Statistical Office) [6].
L437-438: Delete: “We collected material from the CSU (Czech Statistical Office) [6].
Author Response
Reviewer number 1.
L 24
The sentence has been changed as follows:
The aim of the research is to determine if there is a difference in income between the forestry and the environmental policy sectors.
L 27-28
The sentence has been changed as follows:
This objective was met…
L 33
The following sentence has been deleted.
„The data showed that the average incomes in forestry are significantly lower“.
L 43
This sentence has been modified as follows:
Environmental policy is defined by the EU legislation as a set of objectives that aim to protect the environment.
L 45
The follwing part of the sentence has been deleted.
…of the quality of the environment
L 50
The following sentence has been deleted.
„Environmental policy is defined here as a set of objectives that aim to protect the environment“.
L 48
This sentence has been modified as follows:
…people employed in environmental protection increased from 1.4 million to 4.2 million…
L 64-65
This sentence has been modified as follows:
…has been determined that the average gross monthly wage of environmental employees in the Czech Republic (in the year 2019) was 1212 EUR [5]
L 76
Generally in research, it is about disproof of the hypothesis.
L 67
This sentence has been modified as follows:
…, this research sets out to determine whether there are statistically significant differences…
L 80-81
This sentence has been modified as follows:
The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the average income (and variance) of income between forestry and environmental workers in the Czech Republic.
L 83
This sentence has been modified as follows:
This research examines whether there is a …
L 86 – 87
The explanation is:
Environmental revenues are not just the result of supply and demand because they are heavily subsidised.
L 93-94
This sentence has been modified as follows:
Both sectors appear to be very similar in the labor market, and therefore it is assumed that the incomes…
L 94-95
This sentence has been modified as follows:
“Using empirical research and testing, we want to verify whether or not this is the case”.
L 110
We can not delete this sentence, since it was added by the 3rd. reviewer.
L 110-112
This part has been corrected: the year 2020 has been corrected to the year 2019.
L 115-117
This sentence has been modified as follows:
It is published that 15.5 million m3 of wood was harvested annually [1, 2, 6].
L 115-117
The explanation is: The surplus of spruce wood means a decreas in the price.
L 127
Yes, we agree.
L 147
This sentence has been modified as follows:
The proportion of women employed in forestry is 0% in this sample.
L 148-149
This sentence has been modified as follows (according to the reviewer opinion):
Employees in the environmental protection sector work as environmentalists, water managers, and in soil and atmosphere conservation. State agencies, national parks, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and private agencies employ environmental protection workers.
L 106-108
The explanation: the list of posts requested by the opponent.
L 159
The answer is: t test has been performed.
L 167
This sentence has been added: The methodological description must remain in the text, it is more important information than the way in which data is gathered using the questionnaire. Questions for respondents were directed only to monthly income.
L 222
This sentence has been added under table number 1: Reported average incomes (in EUR) in forestry and environmental protection sectors in the Czech Republic from January-December 2019.
L 234-235
These sentences have been added:
The point is that our research shows net income in the sector. There's a gross income in the statist. This is one of the reasons why it was not possible to use average gross nominal wages for calculations, as reported by official Czech statistics. These figures are somewhat distorted, hard to use for our research.
L 241-251
The font has been changed to this one: palatino linot 10
L 247
These sentences have been modified:
The null hypothesis of equal average incomes in forestry and environmental protection is rejected (t-stat: 5.86, p-value < 0.001). It can also be argued that there is a significantly higher income in environmental protection than in forestry (Table 3).
L 280
This sentence has been added:
Only 1.5 percent of respondents reported annual revenues of 14175 EUR per year.
L 282
These sentences have been modified:
… almost half of all respondents are between incomes of 13789 and 15763 EUR per year …
L 311
These sentences have been modified:
Using material from the CSU (Czech Statistical Office), we conclude that the Czech Republic has an average income of eleven thousand EUR a year, which puts it in the middle of European Countries, including Bulgaria and Hungary. Technological developments have led to an increase in wages and incomes for forestry workers in Sweden and Germany [11].
L 428
This sentence has been added by opponent No. 3 “We collected material from the CSU (Czech Statistical Office) [6]. …So I changed it to …. Selected materials and data were taken from the CSU (Czech Statistical Office) [6]”.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I still like the titel of the paper and the purpose of the paper - with the question of unsustainability of forestry as a key concept.
However, there are still lack a few things.
- I would still like to see more development in the introduction, even though some improvements have been done. Still - why is this is an important subject, and why this study is relevant. Why did you decide to perform this study now? Any particular reason to why this is relevant now, any particular event or development?
- Still, I would like to see a connection back to the discussion in the introduction, in the concluding discussion, and to emphasis the usefulness of this study in a larger perspective, and in a national and international perspective. This is an important critique of the paper. You have added in the conclusion a sentence in the conclusion that this is important for Czech Republic - and I can understand that - but are there implications for other countries as well. This is an international journal, so I would like to see more discussion on the importance of such a study in a more international context. It may be either the results per se that is useful - or the method applied that may be useful in other countries/areas.
- In the discussion, you discuss difference between countries. I still have a hard time finding support for these findings in the result section as you have not revised this section, and it would be interesting to see these differences more in detail in the result section. If this is in the result section, and I missed it, it needs to be clarified.
Minor items:
- do you need to put "source: own calculations" under each table in the results? It seems unnecessary as I assume that results are from your study anyhow. - I meant that you can remove this completely. However, the addition of STATISTICA13 is clarifying things. However, figure 2 does not need to emphasis that it is own research, that is given by the context.
Author Response
Reviewer 2.
- These sentences have been added:
Explains the reasons for carrying out the research. The practical reason for conducting the following research is primarily to show the difference in income in the forest and environmental sectors. This socio-economic problem affects the protection of the environment and the conservation and sustainability of natural resources.
- The explanation is:
The practical usefulness of this research lies in demonstrating the need for systematic and strategic support of forestry as one of the bearers of nature and natural resources protection. The unsustainability of low incomes in forestry is a problem that needs to be addressed in the long term and programmatically, which is a challenge for environmental policy makers in the next decade.
- The answer is: Unfortunately, cross-country analysis was not part of the research methodology. It is certain that in further research I will focus on comparisons with other countries.
- THe answer is: The designation of the calculation "own calculation" was requested by other opponents. I can't get in conflict with them.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
L26: Which ideas and instruments are proposed as research results.
L27: What are appropriate research methods?
L50: reference missing
L65: (in this sector?) left
L75: Ther is no added or mentioned any kind of previous research in the field of socio-economic research in forestry in EU or Czech Republic.
L93:We can see statement is not scientificaly based
L113, L116: reference is missing
L139: The structure of respondents in sample is very important, in this case the income from the helicopter pilot could change results significantly.
L147: Because trere are no female employees included in sample the research was not representative. The structure and creation of sample is not clear.
L229: Source should be statistical report (reference) and own calculation
L289: The statement "respondents reported the highest incomes in the lower categories" is not clear
L290: which industry average, not clear
L311, L312: repeating we collected, we are looking...
L403: average wages for the forestry branch or in sample, or according to the statistic report. Wages for workers, or administration, management it is not clear.
L419: forest worker without qualification and forest operator in which position
L428, L438: this is not propriete citation of reference "we collected..."
Author Response
Reviewer number 3
L 26-27
This sentence has been added:
In terms of statistics, it is the use of descriptive characteristics and also the testing of the hypothesis using a T-test.
L 50
The following references have been added: [1,2]
L 75
The answer is: The research has not yet been carried out in the Czech Republic.
L 93
The following sentences have been modified:
The statement is the starting point for the research.
Both sectors appear to be very similar in the labor market, and therefore it is assumed that the incomes for employees in these fields will be the same or similar.
L 113
The following references have been added: [1,2,5].
L 139
The answer is: There was only 1 forest management pilot in the sample of respondents. This is a residual value. From the point of view of statistics, this figure does not change the t test result.
L 147
The answer is: Unfortunately, there is no woman among respondents in the forestry sector. Women in the mining industry don't work. Women are usually employed in cultivation activities and in the restoration of the forest. This is seasonal work and thus cannot be included in the sample. The sample would not be representative.
L 229
The answer is: There are custom calculations in the tables.
L290
The word industry has been changed to forestry sector.
L 403
The manuscript is about income, not about wages.
L 428
The word "we collected" has been deleted ...
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
General recommendations for “Income differentiation as a factor of unsustainability in forestry”. Include periods instead of commas when describing proportions and appropriate statistics. Select the best mechanism for displaying data and/or analysis (table figures), and do not repeat information in a display in words, rather summarize the display using words, and then readers can gather more information from the display. Alter (change back to regular script) font between table/figure footnotes and text. Do not summarize tables and figures before and after their presentation. Give tables and/or figures titles that are descriptive and would convey necessary information if the reader were to look at without accompanying verbal description, aka move some of the subscripts to table headers. Determine your story, what are you setting out to accomplish, how does your analysis inform the question, what can you use from what you learned to inform the scientific (or policy/stakeholder) community.
Specific changes:
L27-28: Suggest edit: This objective was met…”. Your noun and verb need to agree.
L34: Remove redundant sentence “The data showed that average incomes in forestry…” as it repeats the information in the red underlined sentence l33-34.
L51: Suggest edit: “which is committed to a high level of protection and improvement.”
L59: Suggest change: people employed in environmental protection increased from 1.4 million to 4.2 million.
L65-67: Include these three lines at the end of the previous paragraph. Suggest change to “The practical reason for conducting the following research is to determine if there is a difference in income in the forest and environmental sectors. The difference, if there is one, would present a socio-economic disparity that affects…”
L112: Suggest change: “In the Czech Republic ownership in ..”
L117: What is the date range for the 15.5 million m3 figure? Is it published data from 2019, a annual average from a number of years? The production of spruce wood is listed, but is that a removal volume needed to address bark beetle, is that what is actually being taken off the land, what is the significance of this number, especially as it is nearly FOUR TIMES the reported annual harvest? If the market is being flooded with spruce, that is bound to depress timber prices.
L148: Suggest change: These job positions rank 411 in the income ranking of professions in the Czech Republic.
L161: YOU REALLY need to describe this more thoroughly. How representative of the sectors is it, how representative are the participants from the overall populations?
L164: Are you reporting the p-values on an independence test here? Using what test?. Also I believe commas in reported p-values should be periods (they are decimal points and NOT indicating a set of coordinates).
L225 – Suggest source become title, Table 1: Reported average incomes (in EUR) in forestry and environmental protection sectors in the Czech Republic from January-December 2019.
L234-236: Delete redundant information from …”The table…” to …”standard deviations”.
L236-237. Suggest change: “The average income in the forestry sector in 2019 was 11093 EUR (Table 2).”
L246-254: Remove information already given in the table. Font needs to go back to similar text font and not correspond with footnote font. Remove redundant information given following the table.
L282-283: Suggest change: Only 1.5 percent of respondents reported annual revenues of 14175 EUR per year.
L284-285: Suggest change: “almost half of all respondents are between incomes of 13789 and 15763 EUR per year.
L297-301: Suggest change: “More than half of respondents reported an annual total income in forestry between 9456 and 11828 EUR per year. Remaining forestry respondents reported incomes between 11821 and 14181 EUR per year.”
L307-310: Delete redundant information from “In the previous table…” to “…evenly distributed.”
L426: Suggest change to: “…caused direct economic damage of 1.1 billion EUR to the forestry…”
L434: Suggest change to: “…Czech Republic, selected materials…”
L443-444: Suggest change to: “…environmental protection and recovery, selected materials…”
Author Response
Reviewer no. 1
L27-28
This sentence has been changed:
This objective was met ….
L 34
The following sentence has been deleted.
The data showed that the average incomes in forestry are significantly lower.
L 51
This sentence has been changed.
…which is committed to a high level of protection and improvement
L 59
This sentence has been corrected.
… people employed in environmental protection increased from 1.4 million to 4.2 million.
L 65-67
The following sentences have been changed.
The practical reason for conducting the following research is to determine if there is a difference in income in the forest and environmental sectors. The difference, if there is one, would present a socio-economic disparity that affects….
L 112
This sentence has been changed.
In the Czech Republic ownership is in….
L 117
This sentence has been added.
It is published that 15.5 million m3 of wood was harvested annually until 2016
L 148
This sentence has been corrected.
These job positions rank 411 in the income ranking of professions in the Czech Republic.
L 161
These sentences have been added.
The sample is representative. Respondents were asked who constantly work in the selected sectors of forestry or environmental protection. Respondents meet the conditions of working in the sector continuously and for a long time (more than one year).
L 164
Fixed dots in the sentence have been changed to commas.
L 225
The sentence has been moved to be the title of the table.
L 234-236
The following sentence has been deleted.
“The third column shows the standard deviations”.
L 236-237
The following sentence has been corrected.
The average income in the forestry sector in 2019 was 11093 EUR (Table 2)
L 246-254
The font has been corrected.
L 282-283
The following sentence has been corrected.
Only 1.5 percent of respondents reported annual revenues of 14175 EUR per year.
L 284-285
The following sentence has been corrected.
almost half of all respondents are between incomes of 13789 and 15763 EUR per year.
L 297-301
These sentences have been changed.
Almost half of all respondents are between incomes of 13789 and 15763 EUR per year.
More than half of respondents reported an annual total income in forestry between 9456 and 11828 EUR per year. Remaining forestry respondents reported incomes between 11821 and 14181 EUR per year.
L 307
The following sentence has been changed.
The results of the calculations show the quantile frequencies in the incomes.
L 426
The following sentence has been corrected.
The bark beetle calamity caused economic direct damage of 1,1 billion EUR to the forestry sector and the effects of this phenomenon are apparent in the low incomes of workers in this sector.
L 443-444
The following sentence has been corrected.
A completely new approach and revision should be included in the chapter on Green Jobs, which are defined as jobs that make a significant contribution to environmental protection and recovery selected materials and data were taken from the CSU (Czech Statistical Office) [6].
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I still lack the policy relevance for perhaps other countries or areas. I was not asking for a comparison with other countries. However, other editing are satisfactory.
Author Response
Reviewer no. 2
The following two sentences have been added to explain the political importance of stabilisation and sustainability of income in forestry .
It is a task not only for Czech environmental policy makers, but also for European institutions. The aim of environmental policies should be targeted to stabilize and sustain all sectors that care about the environment, the landscape and natural resources for future generations.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
no more comments
Author Response
I would like to thank and to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. We have responded to all comments and have profoundly revised the paper in light of them. We have spent more than one week to finlize all of the requested improvements of the manuscript. The whole manuscript has been checked. Details of our responses to each of your comment has been uploaded in the system. The third honorable reviewer did not ask for any changes.
