Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Forest Supply Chain in Austria in the Year 2018
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled "Greenhouse gas emissions of the forest supply chain in Austria" approaches greenhouse gas emissions of the forest supply chain in Austria from the year of 2018. The approach of comparing GHG emissions from different harvesting systems in Austria contributes to scholarship in the area. However, in order to make comparisons among those harvesting systems, it may be recommended to present estimates from multiple years instead of a single one due to several factors that can vary among those considered for the calculations. As I read the manuscript, I wonder if more of the information could be presented as tables or should come as supplementary files because the long written description of how the calculation was done some times it may be confusing. Also, did the authors do any statistical comparison? The comparisons are shown on Fig. 2 without mention to statistical values, and on line 316-317, the authors say the values were exported and analyzed in EXCEL. Was there any type of test applied? Without statistical analises it may be hard to support the differences that are presented among harvesting systems, or the conclusions. The use of single year may also difficult seeing statistical differences among estimates, which circles back to my previous comment. For throughout the entire manuscript, avoid using abbreviations to initiate sentences. Thus, can figure 3 be shown with percentages?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you spending your time to read our manuscript and for the valuable comments. We tried to consider all your suggestions which can be seen in the attached document.
Kind regards
Martin Kühmaier, Iris Kral, Christian Kanzian
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments on Sustainability-1499907
Greenhouse gas emissions of the forest supply chain in Austria
Wood is considered a renewable product, but the supply chain of wood involves non-renewable inputs, and thus possibly entailing environmental impacts. This manuscript analyzed environmental impacts in terms of GHG emissions caused by the forest supply chain in Austria using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods. However, I thought this work has some deficiencies. The paper needs further improvement in terms of quality. Detailed comments are listed below:
--Section1: In this part, the author analyzes a large amount of research work on the wood industry and carbon emissions, and also analyzes the LCA analysis method. The author's research work is crucial to the carbon emission plan. It should be noted that sustainable development also attaches great importance to the environment. Environmental protection is one of the basic goals that sustainable development actively pursues, and it involves a wide range of aspects. Therefore, in other aspects of sustainable development, it is recommended that the author mention them appropriately.
You can refer to the following papers: Some developments and new insights for environmental sustainability and disaster control of tailings dam. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 269: 122270. Assessment of water quality and safety based on multi-statistical analyses of nutrients, biochemical indexes and heavy metals. Journal of Central South University, 2020, 27(4): 1211-1223.Thermal treatment of hydrocarbon-impacted soils: a review of technology innovation for sustainable remediation. Engineering, 2016, 2(4): 426-437.
--Section 1: Authors may consider adding papers on the progress of wood sustainability by related international associations or conferences in the first part.
--Section 2: The article describes too much wood supply processes, it is recommended to delete non-useful information.
--Section 2: For the description and process of life cycle assessment, the author can add relevant content. It can be added at the very beginning of the second chapter.
--Section 3: The author of the life cycle assessment method did not introduce too much, and it is recommended to add related flowcharts.
--Section 3: The author did not specify where the data in the article was obtained (Table 2-6).
--Section 4: The author did not explain the acquisition and discussion of some data, it is recommended to add related introduction
--Figure 1: The colors of some images are not uniform, and the serial numbers in the text are not briefly introduced
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you spending your time to read our manuscript and for the valuable comments. We tried to consider all your suggestions which can be seen in the attached document.
Kind regards
Martin Kühmaier, Iris Kral, Christian Kanzian
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall, the research work is complete and coherent with limitations declared in the conclusion. I find it well written and with meaningful outcomes, supported by a stout methodology. I suggest proof-reading the paper to correct some mistakes/typos, some punctually indicated in the pdf file (nevertheless, I suggest paying attention through the text to double spaces, space before commas, and English sentences to be corrected). However, the following needs to be addressed:
1- The abstract should be written well on one paragraph instead of many paragraphs.
2-The abstract should include the main results and conclusions. List the main ones by name.
3-At the end of the introduction, it is important for adding the significant of this study.
4-In the introduction section, the research question should be added to represent the philosophy of the research.
5-Can you add a section in the discussion of how this study benefit the industry practitioners? You explain in detail how the industry might use your work. Or a framework of implementation. You might show an illustrative example or a case study in a construction project.
6- List of abbreviation should be added.
7- The quality of the paper readability still needs enhancement.
8- Some part of the language can be improved (abstract and conclusion).
9- Finally, the reviewer advises the authors to review the whole manuscript and employ sophisticate writing regarding the logic and presentation of the study. This is a side that this manuscript can be improved a lot.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you spending your time to read our manuscript and for the valuable comments. We tried to consider all your suggestions which can be seen in the attached document.
Kind regards
Martin Kühmaier, Iris Kral, Christian Kanzian
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors provided an adequate revision for the manuscript. My previous comment regarding the one-year data only used remains in regards to the title. As it is, I suggest the authors consider referencing in the title that this is a single-year estimate.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you reviewing our manuscript and for all the valuable comments.
According to your suggestion, we changed the title into "Greenhouse gas emissions of the forest supply chain in Austria for the year 2018"
Kind regards
Martin Kühmaier, Iris Kral, Christian Kanzian
Reviewer 3 Report
Many thanks for the authors.
The paper now can be published in the current form.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you reviewing our manuscript and for all the valuable comments.
Kind regards
Martin Kühmaier, Iris Kral, Christian Kanzian
