Rural Entrepreneurs and Forest Futures: Pathways to Emission Reduction and Sustainable Energy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAn investigation of wood use by rural communities in Zambia. I think it is an interesting topic because the use of wood has changed for so many communities are part of 'development', which has also let to climate change because of the use of very large amounts of fossil fuels. Can not-yet-developed communities avoid making the same mistake?
I have made the following comments (pasted below) as I read through the manuscript but my main concerns are the author assuming that wood use, deforestation and climate change are simply and inevitably linked. Deforestation can result from unsustainable levels of wood use but sustainable levels of forest harvest exist in many places. CO2 emissions are the driver of climate change but it is emissions from fossil fuels (not wood!) that are driving this (~90%). Also, methane and AI are mentioned here and there but both topics needs more consistent and comprehensive presentations. Introduce them in the introduction for example.
Final comment: I think it might be interesting to discuss how daily contact with the challenges to obtain fuel and food might impact their outlook; and to discuss how the access to improved wood stoves (>50%, I think) reflects an improvement in their lives
Review of Reimagining rural energy: the role of wood fuels and emission strategies.
Line 10 – CO2 emissions? All energy sources involve emissions, either indirectly or indirectly, either fossil or biogenic. The amount of emissions, and whether it is fossil emisstions (the driver of climate change) are key to any comparisons.
L15 I will be interested to see why methane is focused on here.
L29 wood use MAY contribute to these bad outcomes but it is not necessarily the case.
L33 is the implication that the (fossil-based and greatly increased) energy consumption in more developed countries is an improvement?
L56 ‘empty land’? How so?
L58-59 This mention of a study, and the ‘concerns’, needs to be more detailed to provide useful information to the reader.
L60 in some developed countries (e.g. USA) the forest stocks are and have been growing but this is more to do with a switch to reliance on fossil fuels and materials than a simple ‘decline of rural regions’
L68 CO2 emissions are not directly harmful to children or anyone else. The concern there is with climate change (which is due 90% to burning of fossil fuels). The direct health problems with burning wood in these situations is the way in which the wood is burned, and the inhalation of incompletely-burned wood compounds (VOCs).
L71 ‘cleaner’ solutions needs to be carefully defined – are you talking VOCs and particulate matter?
L77-79 climate change mostly due to fossil fuel combustion. Equating wood burning, environmental degradation (which may be related but maybe not), and climate change (which is little affected by factors other than fossil fuel combustion) is a risky assumption.
L80 again, here are you implying that sustainable forest management and transitioning away from wood energy are equivalent and I don’t think this is necessarily true.
L85 is wood really a contrast to a low-emission fuel? Not necessarily – again depends on what emission you are talking about, and what technologies are being used.
L87 why this mention of methane? Need some background on this particular emission
L125 do you have a reference to support this? Land conversion is globally the main driver of deforestation.
L243 be precise about the use of the words like absorb and store, when discussing forests and carbon. Growing trees absorb carbon, standing trees store carbon. Killing individual trees will reduce storage in the forest, at least temporarily, but can also increase the ability of the remaining forest to absorb carbon in the future. Its not a simple harvest = more carbon emissions + less forest equation.
L296 This kind of explanation and detail about methane needs to begin in the introduction. Also mention that methane is a relatively potent GHG should be mentioned if climate change is a focus of the paper.
L311 and to improve VOC and particulate (‘smoke’) emissions…
L325 Table 2. I am impressed that use of improved cookstoves is so high – might be worth pointing out how much that is helping health impacts for example?
Is it valuable to know the kg of CO2 emissions? Might want to compare that to something – I’d guess it is pretty small compared with people in more developed countries.
L433 Really, the people living in rural, ‘undeveloped’ regions are making very little contribution to climate change. Their possible negative impacts on local forest resources are only a very small share of the causes of climate change. I think there are other reasons that we may want to focus attention on the cases of inefficient, unhealthy use of wood as a fuel – but a climate change justification seems weak to me. If these people’s communities ‘develop’ in typical ways, their contribution to climate change will be much greater!
L445 Redundant sentence to the previous paragraph.
L446 I do not believe that reliance on wood for fuel/charcoal should be singled out as the main drivers, and inevitable causes, of deforestation. Agricultural conversion and urban expansion are bigger drivers, e.g. Journal of Geographical Research | Volume 04 | Issue 02 | April 2021:22-30
I am wondering how this general, theoretical potential will relate to practical help in the communities you are visiting.
L528 How so? Because they are burning wood means that ‘comprehensive strategies to reduce GHG and methane’ are ugently needed? I don’t see that .
L531 – practical solution now mentioned for the first time (too late in the document, I think) but also what the potential advantages could be need to be clearer – combustion efficiency? Emissions type? Equality of access?
No conclusion?
AI seems like it is a popular topic but with little practical connection to the villages in Zambia.
Author Response
|
Response 1: I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. The study of Zambian rural communities' use of wood provides important new information about the changing function of biomass energy and how it interacts with development and climate change. Historically, communities' energy needs change as they grow, which frequently results in a greater reliance on fossil fuels, which are a significant source of emissions worldwide. In order to ensure sustainable energy transitions and avoid making the same mistakes as high-emission economies, this research emphasizes the need for proactive strategies. By emphasizing sustainable forest management, incorporating cleaner technologies like solar energy and upgraded cookstoves, and supporting laws that promote conscientious land use and emission reduction, underdeveloped communities can lessen these risks. One of the most important ways to strike a balance between environmental sustainability and economic growth is to strengthen local institutions and use community-based solutions. As a result, I have modified the entire manuscript by using this strategy in the discussions. |
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
|
Point 1: To be improved |
|
Response 1: Although I have paid for and used my own language checker for the Paperpal software to improve the language, I believe that the journal editors can still do a cursory English review, including any related technical corrections. |
|
5. Additional clarifications |
|
|
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe aim of this case study is to investigate the challenges and opportunities associated with transitioning from traditional wood fuel use to cleaner energy alternatives in rural Zambia, with a particular focus on the Mpulungu district. The following comments are important for manuscript improvement:
1- In the abstract, there is a lack of numerical or key results.
2- In the introduction part, there is no explicit paragraph or sentence stating the gap the research seeks to fill. Moreover, there is no clear formulation of the research questions or detailed objectives that guide the study.
3- Tables 2-4 are including symbols or abbreviations of community names: such as “CT”, “IY”, etc., are not clearly defined within or below the tables.
4- Table and figure titles are brief and not descriptive enough.
5- In the Conclusion section, the main findings are not clearly summarized, highlight a clear conclusion and central recommendations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents a comprehensive qualitative study on the challenges of sustainable forest management and energy transitions in rural Zambia, with a focus on wood fuel use, emissions, and the potential of clean energy technologies. The research is timely and addresses critical issues related to climate change, rural livelihoods, and sustainable development. However, the manuscript requires revisions to enhance clarity, methodological rigor, and the integration of findings with broader theoretical and policy implications.
- The sampling strategy (purposive vs. random) and potential biases should be explicitly addressed.
- More details on the interview/focus group protocols “question guides, duration” would strengthen reproducibility
- The sampling strategy (purposive vs. random) and potential biases should be explicitly addressed. In addition, more details on the interview/focus group protocols (question guides, duration) would strengthen reproducibility
- The COâ‚‚ emission calculations need validation or reference to standardized conversion factors. For example org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100367
- Compare findings with similar studies in other regions to highlight generalizability or uniqueness.
- The integration of socio-economic, environmental, and technological perspectives provides a holistic view of the challenges, the author should read some recent updates and revise some text, for instance, org/10.1080/24749508.2024.2430042; doi: 10.1177/0958305X241310198
Author Response
|
Responses to 1 -6:
1. I appreciate your feedback regarding biases and sampling techniques. The study does, in fact, use a purposive sampling technique, choosing participants based on their direct participation in rural energy practices. Although this method guarantees pertinent insights, selection bias could be introduced. This should be addressed by clearly outlining the drawbacks of purposive sampling and contrasting it with random sampling techniques.
2. I also concur that the focus group and interview protocols were not sufficiently explained. In order to improve reproducibility, the paper has extended this explanation and included information on the focus group structure, interview length, and question guides. It would be more transparent to use a table that summarizes the main questions, and the average amount of time spent on each session.
3. As suggested by the reviewers, the CO2 Emission Calculations have been strengthened by references such as the MIT Climate Portal and Greenhouse Gas Reporting (2024), along with additional citations like (54) and more. As a result, the study now verifies its CO2 emission estimates using standardized conversion factors, like those listed in. Adding a succinct description of the emissions estimation methodology will increase credibility. .
4. The findings of this study on rural energy use and wood fuel dependency in Zambia align with similar studies conducted in other regions, while also presenting unique contextual insights. Comparisons with studies in Sub-Saharan Africa, such as those examining charcoal production in Kenya and deforestation impacts in Tanzania, reveal common themes regarding the tension between household energy demands and environmental sustainability. The widespread reliance on biomass fuels, despite available clean alternatives, is a shared challenge across multiple developing economies. However, what sets the Zambian case apart is the intricate interplay between rural entrepreneurship, seasonal economic activities, and forest sustainability. Unlike studies in other regions where governmental interventions have significantly influenced energy transitions, Zambia's rural energy landscape is shaped by informal economic practices, making policy implementation more complex.
5. I carried out the required revision to integrate socio-economic, environmental and technical aspects, providing a comprehensive analysis of the challenges facing rural areas. Recent literature reviews, including studies on emissions monitoring, sustainable energy transition and the role of artificial intelligence in environmental assessment, have been reviewed to further enrich the debate. The proposed references are included to clarify the main arguments and to ensure consistency with recent advances in the field of climate mitigation and rural sustainability. The relevant sections have been updated in order to take account of new findings, in particular on the interaction between forest management, energy policy and technological innovation. The revision strengthens the comprehensive approach of the study and improves its applicability to wider sustainability frameworks.
|
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
|
Point 1: N |
|
Response 1: Reviewer indicated no major revision required to English language check |
|
5. Additional clarifications |
|
|
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper primarily explores how to address key challenges in sustainable forest management in rural areas by integrating natural resources into rural enterprises, and promote the transition from wood fuels to cleaner alternatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Below are specific revision suggestions:
(1) Data Timeliness: The data and cases cited in the paper mainly span from 2016 to 2020. Although the latest findings from 2024 are mentioned, the overall data time span is relatively long, which may not fully reflect the current situation of rural energy use and forest management. It is recommended to include more recent data collection and analysis, particularly data from after 2020, to ensure the timeliness and accuracy of the research findings.
(2) Case Singularity: The paper primarily focuses on a case study in the Mpulungu area of Zambia. Although it is representative, it may not fully reflect the situation in other rural areas. It is suggested to include case studies from other rural areas or countries for comparative analysis, thereby enhancing the universality and applicability of the research.
(3) Insufficient Analysis of Technology Adoption Barriers: The paper mentions barriers to the adoption of clean energy technologies (such as solar energy) in rural areas, but the analysis is not in-depth and lacks specific solutions. It is recommended to conduct a thorough analysis of the specific barriers to the adoption of clean energy technologies (such as cost, technology, cultural acceptance, etc.) and propose targeted solutions and policy recommendations.
(4) Feasibility of Policy Recommendations: Although the paper proposes several policy recommendations, some may lack practical feasibility, especially in resource-limited rural areas. It is suggested to refine and assess the feasibility of the policy recommendations in light of the actual conditions in rural areas to ensure that they can be effectively implemented.
(5) Some articles would be significance for your reference:
10.1007/s00107-022-01799-2
10.1080/17480272.2022.2160657
10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.133881
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThis paper primarily explores how to address key challenges in sustainable forest management in rural areas by integrating natural resources into rural enterprises, and promote the transition from wood fuels to cleaner alternatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Below are specific revision suggestions:
(1) Data Timeliness: The data and cases cited in the paper mainly span from 2016 to 2020. Although the latest findings from 2024 are mentioned, the overall data time span is relatively long, which may not fully reflect the current situation of rural energy use and forest management. It is recommended to include more recent data collection and analysis, particularly data from after 2020, to ensure the timeliness and accuracy of the research findings.
(2) Case Singularity: The paper primarily focuses on a case study in the Mpulungu area of Zambia. Although it is representative, it may not fully reflect the situation in other rural areas. It is suggested to include case studies from other rural areas or countries for comparative analysis, thereby enhancing the universality and applicability of the research.
(3) Insufficient Analysis of Technology Adoption Barriers: The paper mentions barriers to the adoption of clean energy technologies (such as solar energy) in rural areas, but the analysis is not in-depth and lacks specific solutions. It is recommended to conduct a thorough analysis of the specific barriers to the adoption of clean energy technologies (such as cost, technology, cultural acceptance, etc.) and propose targeted solutions and policy recommendations.
(4) Feasibility of Policy Recommendations: Although the paper proposes several policy recommendations, some may lack practical feasibility, especially in resource-limited rural areas. It is suggested to refine and assess the feasibility of the policy recommendations in light of the actual conditions in rural areas to ensure that they can be effectively implemented.
(5) Some articles would be significance for your reference:
10.1007/s00107-022-01799-2
10.1080/17480272.2022.2160657
10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.133881
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable and constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in refining this major revision. I have carefully addressed each comment, and all suggested changes have been incorporated into the manuscript. Below, I present my detailed responses.
1. Comment:
Data Timeliness: The data and cases cited in the paper mainly span from 2016 to 2020. Although the latest findings from 2024 are mentioned, the overall data time span is relatively long, which may not fully reflect the current situation of rural energy use and forest management. It is recommended to include more recent data collection and analysis, particularly data from after 2020, to ensure the timeliness and accuracy of the research findings.
Response:
To ensure that its insights are accurate and relevant, the paper has been updated to include findings from 2024. Although data from 2016 to 2020 was the study's initial focus, the addition of more recent findings greatly expands its relevance to current trends in rural energy use and forest management. Updated perspectives and empirical evidence reflecting changes in environmental policies, rural fuel consumption patterns, and emissions reduction strategies are provided by the most recent data, which was gathered from the Tanganyika Lake Sustainability Project and extensive fieldwork carried out in 2024.
Thus, by incorporating this new dataset with references, the study provides a more thorough analysis that takes into account recent advancements in forest conservation and sustainable rural energy solutions. As a result, I firmly believe that these updates make the research more solid and pertinent to current issues in rural energy systems by bringing it into line with continuing industry discussions and policy frameworks.
2. Comment:
Case Singularity: The paper primarily focuses on a case study in the Mpulungu area of Zambia. Although it is representative, it may not fully reflect the situation in other rural areas. It is suggested to include case studies from other rural areas or countries for comparative analysis, thereby enhancing the universality and applicability of the research.
Response:
Thank you for bringing up the idea of more general case comparisons. Although the Mpulungu region of Zambia is the study's primary focus, its conclusions offer insightful information about the dynamics and difficulties of rural energy transitions that are applicable to comparable situations more generally. Mpulungu was chosen because of its unique features, such as its reliance on wood fuel, its closeness to dense forest ecosystems, and the existence of a sizable lake.
Subsection (3.3) is added in recognition of the significance of comparative analysis. In order to improve the applicability of the findings, I have also cited studies from various rural settings and felt it pertinent to incorporate into the discussions of rural energy use in other Sub-Saharan regions. However, going beyond the current study's framework would necessitate additional field research in order to broaden the scope to include more case studies from other rural areas. To improve generalizability, future studies could examine comparative analyses across several regions.
3. Comment
Insufficient Analysis of Technology Adoption Barriers: The paper mentions barriers to the adoption of clean energy technologies (such as solar energy) in rural areas, but the analysis is not in-depth and lacks specific solutions. It is recommended to conduct a thorough analysis of the specific barriers to the adoption of clean energy technologies (such as cost, technology, cultural acceptance, etc.) and propose targeted solutions and policy recommendations.
Response
In response to insufficient analysis, I have instead provided a comprehensive and unbiased analysis, complemented by a sub-title on barriers to clean energy adoption, providing a comprehensive assessment of the economic, technological and social challenges to clean energy.
I have also revised the debate by emphasizing the financial constraints, infrastructure constraints, and accessibility problems, as well as the cultural barriers to traditional energy preferences. Also included the impact of rural remoteness creating logistical obstacles to the diffusion of clean technologies and the role of government and local leaders in shaping policy incentives.
To reinforce this analysis, I have proposed targeted solutions, including subsidy schemes, local training initiatives, culturally adapted education campaigns and policy interventions to accelerate the uptake of clean energy while ensuring its sustainable integration in rural communities.
4. Comment
Feasibility of Policy Recommendations: Although the paper proposes several policy recommendations, some may lack practical feasibility, especially in resource-limited rural areas. It is suggested to refine and assess the feasibility of the policy recommendations in light of the actual conditions in rural areas to ensure that they can be effectively implemented.
Response
I understand that the reviewer is apprehensive about the viability of the suggested policy recommendations in rural regions with limited resources. But I must emphasize that rural business owners and community leaders, who use their authority over natural forests and strong dedication to the welfare of their communities, are essential in promoting sustainable change. I have therefore provided an update on this issue in the conclusion and throughout the entire manuscript.
Additionally, I have provided a clear explanation by highlighting the strong influence community leaders have over the governance of forest resources and their ability to inspire group action, which guarantees that sustainability initiatives are in line with regional customs and financial realities. They are crucial intermediaries between local communities and policymakers, converting policy recommendations into workable frameworks because of their strong desire to support ecologically friendly practices.
I have updated and highlighted successful rural-led sustainability projects to increase the process's sustainability. These projects demonstrate how locally driven energy and forest management initiatives have succeeded without a lot of outside funding. By connecting policy solutions to current rural structures, encouraging a management-driven environment, and fortifying business networks, the recommendations continue to be practical, scalable, and effective in reaching long-term sustainability goals.
5. Comment
(5) Some articles would be significance for your reference:
10.1007/s00107-022-01799-2, 10.1080/17480272.2022.2160657, 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.133881
Response
I read through all three articles, so I appreciate you providing the references. Despite the fact that my research focuses on emissions, energy transitions, and forest sustainability in rural areas, I found that these studies on thermochromic wood are more in line with material science, emphasizing wood treatment and innovative furniture design rather than rural energy use, methane reduction or sustainability. It was therefore difficult for me to make a direct connection between these articles and my research. I did, however, acquire important knowledge about the rationale behind the research designs and presentation of the findings.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think perhaps you have uploaded an incorrect document by mistake. The one I am looking at has red edits that don't fit into the existing text in many cases. This needs to be corrected before the paper can be reviewed properly.
2nd review: Reimagining Rural Energy: The Role of Wood Fuels and Emission Strategies
L15 Again, there is an underlying assumption that wood fuel is unsustainable. Humans have been relying on wood fuel for hundreds of thousands of years, and much wood fuel use today is sustainable.
L21 will you put that 150 kg quantity in some sort of comparison/context? For example, in the USA where wood fuel is less important, the carbon emissions are about 1250 kg per month per person!
L27 The idea that reducing carbon emissions is something that Zambian villagers need to focus on seems wrong to me. Their emissions are low, and mostly biogenic carbon – thus they are not driving climate change; in fact if we were all emitting like they do, there wouldn’t be climate change in the current sense.
L42 One of multiple cases of inserted text incorrectly beginning with a capital letter.
L56/57 one of many places where I think the language should be changed to say that negative effects of wood fuel use can happen, not do happen.
L60 what is cleaner? And in what way?
L66 an example of a frequent occurrence of inserted text not making sense or fitting very well. ‘we categorize…are categorized…’
L78-81 The edited writing is getting worse and worse. These sentences don’t make sense.
L85 Did you forget to delete words when you were inserting words?
Author Response
Response to reviewer’s comments
30.06.2025
2nd review: Reimagining Rural Energy: The Role of Wood Fuels and Emission Strategies
I appreciate your insightful remarks. The title of this paper has also been changed to Rural
Entrepreneurs and Forest Futures: Pathways to Emissions Reduction and Sustainable Energy
after a significant revision.
L15 Again, there is an underlying assumption that wood fuel is unsustainable. Humans have been
relying on wood fuel for hundreds of thousands of years, and much wood fuel use today is sustainable.
Author response:
I agree with the reviewer's insightful observation that wood fuel has always been essential to
human energy systems and still is. In response, I updated the introduction and abstract to present a
more complex perspective on the sustainability of wood fuel. In particular, I now recognize that using
wood fuel is not always unsustainable and that it can be an environmentally sound and renewable
energy source with the right management practices.
This study, however, focuses on situations where the use and extraction of wood fuel are
frequently uncontrolled, ineffective, and connected to the degradation of forests. Unsustainable results
are caused by a lack of sustainable harvesting methods, lax enforcement of forest governance, and
restricted access to effective technologies in many rural Sub-Saharan African countries, including
Zambia. Wood fuel can be sustainable if it comes from managed forests, is replanted, and is burned
using efficient combustion technologies, according to recent research. Regretfully, these conditions are
not yet common in the areas under study.
Thus, this analysis does not assume that all wood fuel use is unsustainable but rather highlights
the conditions under which it becomes problematic. I have clarified this distinction in the revised
manuscript to avoid generalization and to better reflect the diversity of wood fuel practices globally.
L21 will you put that 150 kg quantity in some sort of comparison/context? For example, in the USA
where wood fuel is less important, the carbon emissions are about 1250 kg per month per person!
Author response
I appreciate your insightful recommendation. I both agree that putting the 150 kg COâ‚‚ figure in
context helps the reader better grasp its relative scale. In response, I added a comparative reference to
the abstract and pertinent manuscript sections. In particular, I now observe that although rural
Zambian households emit between 80 and 150 kg of COâ‚‚ per month, mostly from the use of charcoal,
this is much less than the average monthly emissions per capita in developed nations like the US, where
emissions surpass 1,200 kg per person per month (I checked data in Statista.com).
This comparison highlights Zambian rural communities' comparatively low global carbon
footprint, which is one of its two goals. It emphasizes how crucial it is to differentiate between the local
environmental effects of energy practices and absolute emissions, especially in areas that depend on
forests. In order to put the magnitude of emissions in perspective of global averages, I have also made
it clear that the 150 kg estimate pertains to household-level emissions rather than per capita.
L27 The idea that reducing carbon emissions is something that Zambian villagers need to focus
on seems wrong to me. Their emissions are low, and mostly biogenic carbon – thus they are not driving
climate change; in fact if we were all emitting like they do, there wouldn’t be climate change in the
current sense.
Author response
I agree that rural communities in Zambia and similar situations contribute very little to global
greenhouse gas emissions, and I appreciate this crucial clarification. In response, we have made
changes to the abstract and pertinent sections of the manuscript to clearly state that rural households
have a very small global carbon footprint and that the majority of their emissions are biogenic in origin.
On this basis, the goal is to draw attention to the important local environmental effects of current
energy practices, such as deforestation, forest degradation, and indoor air pollution, rather than to
imply that rural communities are to blame for addressing climate change. Furthermore, we contend
that because they are frequently the ones most directly impacted by ecosystem decline and energy
insecurity, rather than being the main emitters, rural entrepreneurs can actively contribute to the
development of sustainable energy transitions.
Additionally, I have made it clear that the study's focus on emissions monitoring and innovation
is not intended to place blame but rather to equip local actors with the information and resources they
need to enhance energy access, resilience, and forest stewardship. This perspective acknowledges rural
communities' agency in co-creating sustainable futures and is consistent with more general development
objectives.
L42 One of multiple cases of inserted text incorrectly beginning with a capital letter.
I have made the correctly respectively
L56/57 one of many places where I think the language should be changed to say that negative effects
of wood fuel use can happen, not do happen.
Response (L 42, 56/57)
I appreciate your insightful observation. The conditional nature of wood fuel impacts, which
differ greatly based on context, technology, and forest management techniques, should be reflected in
the wording, I agree. The relevant sentence or sentences have been changed in response to use more
cautious and probabilistic language. For instance, "wood fuel use contributes to deforestation and
health risks" has been changed to "wood fuel use can contribute to deforestation and health risks under
certain conditions."
I have reviewed the manuscript for similar instances and made corresponding edits to maintain
consistency in tone and accuracy.
L60 what is cleaner? And in what way?
Author response
I understand that without defining the dimension of comparison, the term "cleaner" can be
ambiguous. In response, we have updated the manuscript to make it clear that "cleaner" means fewer
emissions of dangerous pollutants and greenhouse gases, especially methane (CHâ‚„), carbon monoxide
(CO), and particulate matter (PM2.5), in comparison to burning wood fuels traditionally.
I have specifically reworded the term to refer to "cleaner alternatives" as energy technologies
that have been demonstrated to dramatically lower indoor air pollution and increase combustion
efficiency, such as improved biomass cookstoves, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), solar cookers, and
electric cooking solutions. When these substitutes are powered by renewable resources, they also help
to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions.
Additionally, I changed the pertinent sentence to read: ". Make the switch from wood-fuel-based
products to greener ones that produce fewer greenhouse gases and pollutants, like solar technologies,
LPG, or upgraded cookstoves".
L66 an example of a frequent occurrence of inserted text not making sense or fitting very well.
‘we categorize…are categorized…’
Author response
The sentence has been rewritten for clarity and grammatical consistency after I acknowledged
the awkward phrasing. The revised version ensures that the subject-verb alignment is coherent and
removes redundant information. Additionally, we looked for similar situations in the manuscript and
made the necessary changes to make it easier to read overall.
L78-81 The edited writing is getting worse and worse. These sentences don’t make sense.
Author response
I admit that this section's earlier edits might have added awkward wording and broken the
section's logical flow. As a result, we made significant revisions to the paragraph to enhance its sentence
structure, coherence, and clarity. The discussion of demographic changes in rural Europe and their
effects on forest ecosystems is now more accurate and logically organized in the revised version. This
update, in my opinion, resolves the issue and improves the section's readability overall.
L85 Did you forget to delete words when you were inserting words?
Author response
After reviewing, I found and fixed the editing error that caused the text to be repeated or
positioned incorrectly. The aforementioned sentence has been reorganized to improve its grammatical
consistency and clarity. In order to make sure that similar problems have been addressed throughout
the manuscript, we have also carefully examined the surrounding text.
Submission Date
07 May 2025
Date of this review
11 Jun 2025 16:12:31
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI recommend to accept this manuscript in its current form
Author Response
Thank you, reviewer. All revision has been thoroughly completed
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is deemed appropriate for publication in Sustainability.
Author Response
Thank you review, for your acceptance. I am grateful for your insightful comments that have contributed thorough completion of the manuscript.
