A Regional Socio-Economic Life Cycle Assessment of a Bioeconomy Value Chain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have applied the RESPONSA method to analyze the production of laminated veneer lumber in Central Germany. I believe that the study is interesting but I have some recommendations.

The appendix should be numbered in the same order that they appear in the manuscript. Check the format of the references (see the guide of authors). For instance, [1] [2] [3] is not correct, must be [1-3] or [1,3] Page 2. SDG 1,2,3,… I think that it could be better to name them 1 (no poverty), 2 (Zero Hunger), etc.., or at least to include a website reference to https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 Page 2. The first time that O2 and O3 appear in the manuscript is said that primary data are not available for them due to privacy constraints, but the manuscript includes information. The most relevant information could be summarized. Definition of Goal and Scope and Inventory Analysis usually belong to the method section I recommend a section for the “Functional Unit” in the material method section. Page 3. Figure caption. 1 m³ LVL (exponential number) The appendix number is too high, some of them could be included in the manuscript to allow a better understanding, i.e appendix A and F References of appendix F were not included. Appendix E is missing.

Author Response

We are are very grateful for this reviewers helpful comments, which we implemented in our revised version.

The Appendix was numbered in the same order as they appear in the text The references have been reformatted SDGs were specified in more detail as they occur A mistake in the description of privacy limitations was corrected The sections "definition of goal and scope" and "inventory analyzes" were restructured in the methods section as well as a section "functional unit" was added Figure capitations were corrected The Appendix was restructured to limit their number: appendix A was included in section "functional unit", appendix E (questionnaire) was put in the supplementary material, References of appendix F were included English language was professionally edited

Reviewer 2 Report

The title is concordant with the work. The manuscript highlights the novelty of the work. The authors provide information on the innovative part of their work against existing methods and techniques.

The current work carried out the social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) using RESPONSA method on the evaluation of a wood-based BE network.

The results presented are high qualitative and consistent with the conclusion of the work.

The work is indeed carried out in a careful manner. The work presentation is coherent and well described. All the figures and tables are relevant for the work at hand. The figures of the analyzes are correctly designed and clear highlighting the main elements of the research.

The bibliography is complete and representative for the topic addressed.

The presentation, grammar, and language used are scientifically correct and can be read and understood by specialists in the field.

Author Response

We are are very grateful for this reviewers positive review, but we additionally implemented some suggestions from the other reviewer in our revised version.

The Appendix was numbered in the same order as they appear in the text The references have been reformatted SDGs were specified in more detail as they occur A mistake in the description of privacy limitations was corrected The sections "definition of goal and scope" and "inventory analyzes" were restructured in the methods section as well as a section "functional unit" was added Figure capitations were corrected The Appendix was restructured to limit their number: appendix A was included in section "functional unit", appendix E (questionnaire) was put in the supplementary material, References of appendix F were included English language was professionally edited