Modelling Bioeconomy Scenario Pathways for the Forest Products Markets with Emerging Lignocellulosic Products
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, it was a pleasure to read your manuscript. It covers relevant topic regarding not only forest products markets, but also sustainable business models.
In general, the manuscript is well-organised. The core message of the paper is clear; the consistency of the paper is obvious.
Although the quality of the paper is really good, some points for the improvement are underlined below:
- Please rethink and provide some scientific contribution of your paper. The article would benefit from a clear presentation of how and what theories the paper enriches.
-
The limitations of study could be explicitly revealed.
- Some practical implications on the societies and economies of North America and Europe due to production changes could be revealed.
- Please check the order and place of tables.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, we want to thank you for your positive feedback and constructive appraisal. In the following, we answer to your comments and state where in the text they are accounted for.
Point 1: Please rethink and provide some scientific contribution of your paper. The article would benefit from a clear presentation of how and what theories the paper enriches.
Answer: Thank you for this idea. You were right. We add a passage to describe the scientific contribution of this paper in more details (lines 60-63).
“…Considering the growing economic importance of lignocellulosic products, their inclusion in wood products market modelling seems to be important in order to analyze raw material allocation and intra-sectoral developments adequately. This step extends scientific computer-based equilibrium analysis and thus, foster well-informed decision making and policy advice….”
Point 2: The limitations of study could be explicitly revealed.
Answer: We now add a passage to describe the limitations of this study in more details. (lines 337 to 352)
“…Eventually, we will discuss some weaknesses of the present approach. This study builds on the use of a partial equilibrium model and underlying scenario assumptions. These approaches inherent several limitations: First, a general limitation for this kind of modelling is that all input data for the model rely on historical developments. This led to the conclusion that the GFPM in structure and its parameters is not sensitive to possible structural changes or idiosyncratic shocks in future, because it is built to describe the past and current state of the world.
A second limitation of the present study is that the scenarios highly depend on assumptions about the future developments like population and GDP growth rates from the SSP scenarios and other exogenous changes from BEPASO storylines. A priori, it is not possible to judge about the probability and accuracy of the underlying scenario assumptions.
The last issue is that the GFPM does not model competing end product markets. Thus, the production of lignocellulose-based products in this study should be interpreted as a potential supply of these products and not as its end consumption.
Despite these limitations, we consider that the present approach allows for important insights into the possible future developments of wood product markets and thus, foster well-informed decision making and policy advice….”
Point 3: Some practical implications on the societies and economies of North America and Europe due to production changes could be revealed.
Answer: According to your comment we add a passage to explain some implications for North America and Europe for the production of dissolving pulp (lines 315 to 323). We do not add such passage to every product because the implications would be more or less the same: To maintain its economic position North America and Europe have to concentrate on innovative forest products or on regional production.
“…Practically, this would lead to decreasing importance of North America and Europe in global dissolving pulp markets. Today Asia is the biggest importer of dissolving pulp, where it is mainly used for the production of lignocellulosic textile fibres, while North America and Europe are the biggest exporter of dissolving pulp [4]. Actually, global players of the industry invest in the establishment of new plants in Asia which should lead to an expansion of production facilities for dissolving pulp in this region. In order to maintain or even increase its market share, North America and Europe would, e.g., have to concentrate on the development of new products from lignocellulose-based derivatives, like bioplastics or the investment in local textile industries rather than the export to Asia….”
Point 4: Please check the order and place of tables.
Answer: Thank you for your note. We checked the order and place of tables and shifted them if necessary. (table 1, page 6)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Future development of lignocellulosic derivatives is a highly timely topic and very relevant to industry and policy makers within the forest sector. What follows are a number of considerations for improvement of the manuscript.
Scenario planning produces alternative possible futures and, at least in the classical approach, does no provide specificity around demand or economic growth. Scenario planning is not a practice of forecasting. A better explanation of the scenario planning upon which this work is based, is in order. The reader needs reasonably detailed explanation of each of the three scenarios - and how the authors turned those concepts of the future into model inputs.
A general weaknesses of modeling is that it is not sensitive to changes inconsistent with historical trends (think newsprint changes over last decade). This is acknowledged by the authors on line 254. With this in mind, the general weakness should be acknowledged, and the specific issues around modeling for products with very limited history should be outlined.
I don't find Figure 1 anywhere in the text.
As modeled, competing materials are not considered. Given that the focus of this manuscript is on textiles, it seems that the better approach would be to model the markets for textile fibers rather than the suite of forest products. This issue should at least be addressed in the manuscript - justifying the choice of GFPM rather than some textiles-based model.
Is the increased volume of overall roundwood consumption within the realm of feasability?
Lines 291-292. This states decreased production in non-Asia regions. The graphs do no suggest decreased production, but rather decreased share of production.
Throughout the manuscript there are words that are hyphenated, that should not be. The first example is "de-mand" on line 39.
Line 50 - "regenerates" - odd word usage - is this accepted terminology?
Lines 102-105 - confusing here regarding GDP for only a limited number of years and "outlook" for years that are already behind us.
Line 162 - BEPSO instead of BEPASO.
Line 171-173 - the needs enhanced explanation of what it means in practice - as written it is all rather opaque.
Line 255 - is this growth actually exponential or is this an exaggeration?
Line 298 - "implementing emerging values from wood" - unclear meaning.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, we want to thank you for this constructive appraisal. In the following, we respond to your comments and state where in the text we accounted for suggestions.
Point 1: Scenario planning produces alternative possible futures and, at least in the classical approach, does no provide specificity around demand or economic growth. Scenario planning is not a practice of forecasting. A better explanation of the scenario planning upon which this work is based, is in order. The reader needs reasonably detailed explanation of each of the three scenarios - and how the authors turned those concepts of the future into model inputs.
Answer: You were right. According to your comment we now add some passages to the text to describe the scenarios in more details (lines 195 to 199, lines 204 to 208 and lines 217 to 220). However, it would go beyond the scope of the present paper to outline all details of the complex scenario settings, among others because there are numerous and partwise country and product specific. Thus, in sum we have about 20,000 different assumptions considered in modelling which we derived on SSP or BEPASO storylines. Therefore, for more detailed description we must refer to the original storyline literature (source is stated in the manuscript).
“…The main aspects for the modelling approach, beside GDP and population development from the SSP 2, are the relative slow technological progress mirrored in only slightly decreasing input-output ratio of raw wood in the transformation process throughout the wood-based sectors, constant to increasing trade barriers and a constant energetic use of wood compared to present levels. Several other side aspects of this scenario can be found at [27]…”
“…The main aspects for the modelling approach, beside GDP and population development from the SSP 4, are the inequality of technological progress in high- and middle- to low-income countries, decreasing trade barriers and an increasing energetic use of wood. Several other side aspects of this scenario can be found at [27]…”
“…The main aspects for the modelling approach, beside GDP and population development from the SSP 1, are the fast and global technological progress, a concentration for regional production and a decreasing energetic use of wood. Several other side aspects of this scenario can be found at [27]…”
Point 2: A general weaknesses of modeling is that it is not sensitive to changes inconsistent with historical trends (think newsprint changes over last decade). This is acknowledged by the authors on line 254. With this in mind, the general weakness should be acknowledged, and the specific issues around modeling for products with very limited history should be outlined.
Answer: Thank you for this remark. According to your comment we added a paragraph pointing out the limitations from line 337 to line 352. In reference to your last point, namely the limited history of products, we would like to state that the lignocellulosic products considered in the present study are “traditional” niche products with a long data history.
“…Eventually, we will discuss some weaknesses of the present approach. This study builds on the use of a partial equilibrium model and underlying scenario assumptions. These approaches inherent several limitations: First, a general limitation for this kind of modelling is that all input data for the model rely on historical developments. This led to the conclusion that the GFPM in structure and its parameters is not sensitive to possible structural changes or idiosyncratic shocks in future, because it is built to describe the past and current state of the world. A second limitation of the present study is that the scenarios highly depend on assumptions about the future developments like population and GDP growth rates from the SSP scenarios and other exogenous changes from BEPASO storylines. A priori, it is not possible to judge about the probability and accuracy of the underlying scenario assumptions. The last issue is that the GFPM does not model competing end product markets. Thus, the production of lignocellulose-based products in this study should be interpreted as a potential supply of these products and not as its end consumption. Despite these limitations, we consider that the present approach allows for important insights into the possible future developments of wood product markets and thus, foster well-informed decision making and policy advice…”
Point 3: I don't find Figure 1 anywhere in the text.
Answer: You were right. We now add a sentence in lines 111-112 and place figure 1 near this text.
“…The resulting model structure for this study is depicted in figure 1…”
Point 4: As modeled, competing materials are not considered. Given that the focus of this manuscript is on textiles, it seems that the better approach would be to model the markets for textile fibers rather than the suite of forest products. This issue should at least be addressed in the manuscript - justifying the choice of GFPM rather than some textiles-based model.
Answer: According to your comment, we now add a passage to justify the use of the GFPM against a model for the textile market in the methodology section lines 84 to 90 and state the limitations of our approach in the discussion section lines 347 to 349 The main reason for the use of the GFPM is that this study tries to analyze the potential trade-off between wood supply for emerging lignocellulose-based products and traditional wood products, while textile-based modelling would analyze the demand side for the entire textile product market.
“…In order to enhance projections and inferences drawn from forest products market modelling, the present study implements emerging lignocellulosic-based products into the model framework of the GFPM. Since this paper tries to analyze the potential of lignocellulosic-based products and the resulting impact on other wood-based products, we do not apply a model for the textile markets, which considers different types of fibres. However, such model could be of great importance to explain the demand side for lignocellulose-based textile fibres in a competitive environment…”
“…The last issue is that the GFPM does not model competing end product markets. Thus, the production of lignocellulose-based products in this study should be interpreted as a potential supply of these products and not as its end consumption…”
Point 5: Is the increased volume of overall roundwood consumption within the realm of feasability?
Answer: Thank you for this question. There are some outlook studies which calculate possible global roundwood production in future based on scenario analysis, e.g., Buongiorno (2012) calculated a roundwood production between 3.6 and 11.2 billion m³ in 2060. If the roundwood production would follow a linear trend, in 2050 it would lay between 4.7 billion m³ (trend 2000-2019) and 5.8 billion m³ (trend 2015-2019) (own calculation based on FAOStat data). We add a paragraph about this development to lines 260 to 267.
“…Depending on the scenario, the global roundwood production in this study was calculated to lay between 4.3 and 5.5 billion m³ per year. However, there are outlook studies which calculate global roundwood production scenarios of which some show even stronger increases, e.g., [33] where the global roundwood production lay between 3.6 and 11.2 billion m³ in 2060. Even if we would assume that the roundwood production would follow a linear trend, in 2050, it would lay between 4.7 billion m³ (trend 2000-2019) and 5.8 billion m³ (trend 2015-2019) (own calculation based on [4]). Therefore, we conclude that the future roundwood production as calculated in the present study seems to be feasible…”
Point 6: Lines 291-292. This states decreased production in non-Asia regions. The graphs do no suggest decreased production, but rather decreased share of production.
Answer: Thank you for this comment. You were right. We changed this sentence according to your comment. (lines 332 to 333)
“…Especially with regard to industrial roundwood, we observe decreasing shares of global production across all continents except Asia, where the shares of global production are increasing…”
Point 7: Throughout the manuscript there are words that are hyphenated, that should not be. The first example is "de-mand" on line 39.
Answer: Thank you for this hint. We searched for these mistakes and corrected it.
Point 8: Line 50 - "regenerates" - odd word usage - is this accepted terminology?
Answer: We changed the passage from line 49 to 52 in order to explain the terminology in more detail and add footnote 3.
“…At present, dissolved lignocellulose (hereinafter referred to as dissolving pulp) is mainly used as raw material for the production of lignocellulose-based derivatives and regenerated ligno-cellulosic fibres³ [8]. Especially the textile industry is a growing consumer of fibers from regenerated lignocellulose….”
3 “During the production process of lignocellulosic textile fibres, derived cellulose is converted into a solid fabric as filaments or staples. Like synthetic fibres, they can be formed into many textures and properties.”
Point 9: Lines 102-105 - confusing here regarding GDP for only a limited number of years and "outlook" for years that are already behind us.
Answer: Thank you for your reply. This study is orientated on the BEPASO project (base year 2015) which use historic GDP data until the year 2015, between 2015 and 2020 the GDP outlook from the World bank and thereafter the SSP GDP development. We add a passage to the text to make it clearer (lines 118).
“…To be consistent with the BEPASO modeling approach data on GDP and GDP per capita are taken from the World Bank’s “World Development Indicators” for a period between 1992 and 2015, and from the World Bank’s “Global Economic Prospects” [21] for GDP outlook for the period between 2016 and 2019…”
Point 10: Line 162 - BEPSO instead of BEPASO.
Answer: Thank you for this hint. We corrected it (line 175).
Point 11: Line 171-173 - the needs enhanced explanation of what it means in practice - as written it is all rather opaque.
Answer: We changed the wording to explain the practical use of these data for this study (lines 184 188) and add footnote 5.
“…In the present paper, we focus on the implementation of GDP and GDP per capita developments from three (SSP1, SSP2, SSP4) of the five SSP scenarios up to the year 2050 (see Table 1). For this purpose, we use data from the SSP data base5 on the projection of GDP [28] and population development [29] for more than 200 countries. The data are the key assumptions to build a consistent and global socioeconomic framework for the scenario simulation in this paper…”
5”Within the SSP Data base we used data from the OECD Env-Growth model for GDP and population.”
Point 12: Line 255 - is this growth actually exponential or is this an exaggeration?
Answer: Figure 3 show the growth path of dissolving pulp and this seemed to be exponential at least for the “Change” Scenario. However, because we could not model the end product demand for products made from dissolving pulp this exponential growth remains a potential growth path within this scenario. We therefore deleted the word exponential from line 288.
Point 13: Line 298 - "implementing emerging values from wood" - unclear meaning.
Answer: Thank you for your reply. We add a more detailed description for new values from wood to this sentence (lines 355 to 356).
“…Wood product market analysis needs to consider these changes by implementing emerging values from wood such as innovative usages of wood, like sandwich panels, or the emerging lignocellulose-based products like dissolving pulp…”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for a thorough response to my review.
