Material Flow Analysis of Wood Resources: A Review of Current Practices in EU and Switzerland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides a comprehensive systematic review of Material Flow Analysis (MFA) studies on wood resources in the EU and Switzerland between 2000 and 2024, offering a clear and well-structured categorization of the literature into five thematic purposes, methodological approaches, national flow analyses, climate-related implications, resource efficiency assessments, and policy applications.

 

1. to strengthen its novelty and contribution, it should more explicitly highlight how it differs from and builds upon existing reviews such as Forests (https://doi.org/10.3390/f15122112) and Resources, Conservation & Recycling (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107339).
2. In the Materials and Methods section (lines 94 to 95), the authors move directly to the final selection of 42 studies without providing sufficient detail on the screening process. To improve transparency and reproducibility, more information should be included,

• The total number of studies initially identified.
• The number excluded after removing duplicates
• Subsequent filtering steps (e.g., based on title/abstract screening or eligibility criteria).
• Specify databases searched and provide exact search strings.
• Add a flowchart (PRISMA-style) showing selection process (records found → screened → excluded → included).
• Discuss language restriction bias.
• Include a quality assessment protocol (e.g., rating studies for data reliability).

3. The quality of Figure 1 should be improved to ensure clarity and readability. At present, the resolution appears low, and some labels or elements may be difficult to distinguish. Enhancing the figure with higher resolution, consistent formatting, and clear labeling.
4. Depth of discussion: While the challenges are well stated, the policy implications could be developed further. For example:

How could the EU Bioeconomy Strategy practically integrate MFA standards?

What lessons from LCA standardization (ISO 14040/44) can be directly applied to MFA?

5. The review excludes non-EU/Switzerland studies. While justified, the authors should acknowledge whether global MFA frameworks exist and whether Europe can align with them.
6. “kton” and “kt” both used in Table 4 – should be standardized. The same thing for “tonne “ and “ ton”.
7. Formatting is mostly consistent for references, but a few entries are incomplete or misaligned (e.g., Ref. 28 listed as 2018 in Table1 but 2019 in References). Needs careful check.

Author Response

Please see the attached file for the full response.

Comments 1: to strengthen its novelty and contribution, it should more explicitly highlight how it differs from and builds upon existing reviews such as Forests (https://doi.org/10.3390/f15122112) and Resources, Conservation & Recycling (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107339).

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to clarify the novelty and contribution of our work. Regarding the references mentioned, we believe the first may be less directly relevant to our review, while the second is included as a general example of a wood MFA study rather than a review. Our review complements and builds upon prior methodological and national case studies (e.g., Marques et al., 2020; Wang & Haller, 2024) in several ways. First, rather than proposing a single methodology or focusing on a single-country MFA, we bring together 42 studies across the EU and Switzerland (2000–2024) to document differences in system boundaries, units, data sources, visualization practices, and treatment of uncertainty. Second, we introduce a practical five-level data-risk classification and provide recommendations for Sankey diagram design to enhance transparency and comparability. Third, we identify the underrepresentation of the building stage and long-term wood stocks in existing literature and propose procedures to integrate these components into MFA workflows. Together, these contributions advance the field from isolated case studies and conceptual methods toward more reproducible MFA practice. A revised version highlighting these points can be found on page 2, lines 76–88.

 

Comments 2: In the Materials and Methods section (lines 94 to 95), the authors move directly to the final selection of 42 studies without providing sufficient detail on the screening process. To improve transparency and reproducibility, more information should be included: The total number of studies initially identified. The number excluded after removing duplicates. Subsequent filtering steps (e.g., based on title/abstract screening or eligibility criteria). Specify databases searched and provide exact search strings. Add a flowchart (PRISMA-style) showing selection process (records found → screened → excluded → included). Discuss language restriction bias. Include a quality assessment protocol (e.g., rating studies for data reliability).

Response 2: Thank you very much for pointing this out. We truly appreciate your comment and agree with your observation. The revisions have been incorporated and can be found in the updated manuscript (page 3, lines 92-112). In the initial screening, 86 publications were considered, of which 44 were excluded due to limited relevance to the topic. Ultimately, 42 studies were selected through a stepwise process of title and abstract screening, followed by full-text evaluation. The review primarily relied on the ScienceDirect database, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and other relevant reports. Information regarding potential biases, such as language restrictions, had already been mentioned in the earlier version of the manuscript. As of 1 September, the manuscript has been reframed as a general review rather than a systematic review. We sincerely apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Given this adjustment, a PRISMA-style flowchart may no longer be required.

 

Comments 3: The quality of Figure 1 should be improved to ensure clarity and readability. At present, the resolution appears low, and some labels or elements may be difficult to distinguish. Enhancing the figure with higher resolution, consistent formatting, and clear labeling.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable feedback. I have re-examined the figure and could not detect any issues. To ensure clarity, I have re-uploaded it in higher resolution along with a separate PDF file.

 

Comments 4: Depth of discussion: While the challenges are well stated, the policy implications could be developed further. For example: How could the EU Bioeconomy Strategy practically integrate MFA standards? What lessons from LCA standardization (ISO 14040/44) can be directly applied to MFA?

Response 4: Thank you very much for your generous advice regarding the depth of discussion. Policies such as the EU Bioeconomy Strategy were mentioned only in the introduction to highlight the importance of wood resources. MFA, as a powerful analytical tool, can be used to monitor or assess wood resources in ways that relate to these policies. One specific improvement could be the development of wood-specific MFA standards aligned with policy needs, for example by designing indicators that match sustainability metrics in the EU Bioeconomy Strategy. This would allow MFA results to be more directly useful for policymakers. One key insight that can be drawn from LCA is the benefit of standardization itself, which makes LCA-related studies more accessible and understandable compared to MFA studies. Additionally, the categorization of processes into four stages further clarifies the overall methodology. Other potential lessons from LCA standardization, such as uncertainty reporting and indicator interpretation, may require guidance from LCA experts, which could be explored further with their input.

 

Comments 5: The review excludes non-EU/Switzerland studies. While justified, the authors should acknowledge whether global MFA frameworks exist and whether Europe can align with them.

Response 5: Thank you for your comment. I apologize if I may have misunderstood your point. While there are some general MFA guidelines, as mentioned earlier in the manuscript, to the best of my knowledge, there is currently no globally recognized framework specifically for MFA. Even for general MFA, applying such frameworks directly to wood resources would be challenging due to the unique characteristics of this material. Therefore, it is not clear how Europe could align with a framework that does not yet exist. Given this situation, focusing on Europe and Switzerland, which are advanced in wood resource management, materials, and construction, allows for a more detailed and policy-relevant analysis while providing a reference point for potential future global alignment.

 

Comments 6: “kton” and “kt” both used in Table 4 – should be standardized. The same thing for “tonne “ and “ ton”.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. In the table, the symbols and abbreviations from the cited studies were intentionally retained to illustrate the complexity of the current unit usage. However, I understand that this may have caused confusion rather than clarity. The table has now been revised and standardized for consistency, and the updated version can be found on pages 10-11.

 

Comments 7: Formatting is mostly consistent for references, but a few entries are incomplete or misaligned (e.g., Ref. 28 listed as 2018 in Table1 but 2019 in References). Needs careful check.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. Reference 28 was received by the publisher in 2017, then accepted and published in 2018; however, the official citation provided by the publisher lists the year as 2019, which caused some confusion. I have carefully reviewed all references to ensure they are accurate and consistent (page 3-5).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attahced.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached file for the full response.

Comments 1: The paper addresses an important and timely topic with potential to guide policy and methodological harmonization. However, it currently reads more as a narrative summary than a well-executed systematic review. So, need revision.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful comments. We acknowledge that the manuscript may have been interpreted as attempting a systematic review. As of 1 September, we have reframed the manuscript as a general review rather than a systematic review to more accurately reflect its scope and organization. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused and are grateful for your guidance, which has helped us clarify the focus of our work.

 

Comments 2: Abstract

• Revise to emphasize novelty, key findings, and concrete recommendations rather than broad statements.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We have revised the abstract to better highlight the novelty, key findings, and concrete recommendations; the updated version can be found on page 1. We sincerely hope this revision addresses your concerns, and we truly appreciate your guidance in helping us improve it.

 

Comments 3: The introduction provides a solid policy background by linking the EU Bioeconomy Strategy and the European Green Deal to the relevance of MFA in sustainable wood use. It also highlights the absence of a standardized methodological framework for wood-specific MFA. However, the framing of the research gap remains too generic. The claim that “further contributions are required” could apply to almost any MFA-related review, and the novelty of this paper is not clearly distinguished from prior works, such as Marques et al. (2020), which already emphasized harmonization, cascading use, and methodological challenges.

• Add a clear statement of novelty, e.g., that this review covers 42 studies from 2000–2024, introduces a five-level data risk classification, highlights the systematic neglect of the building stage in MFA, and proposes standardization in visualization practices.

Response 3: We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful comments. We agree that Marques et al. (2020) provides an important foundation for understanding wood MFA; however, it is less directly applicable when the goal is to standardize studies in this area. Thank you very much for highlighting the need for a clearer statement of novelty. In response, we have revised the manuscript to emphasize the unique contributions of this review. The revised section can be found in the latest manuscript (page 2, lines 76–88).

 

Comments 4: The scope limitation to the EU and Switzerland is mentioned but insufficiently justified. Although these regions share policy frameworks, the exclusion of global literature reduces generalizability, and without a clear rationale, the restriction appears arbitrary. Moreover, while the introduction cites EU policy documents, it does not convincingly show how the review’s findings will bridge methodological issues in MFA to practical policy needs, such as monitoring progress toward the Green Deal’s 55% emission reduction target.

• Strengthen the justification for restricting the scope to EU + Switzerland by emphasizing shared statistical frameworks (Eurostat, FAO reporting) and policy contexts that allow meaningful cross-country comparisons.
• Link methodological harmonization to EU policy needs by showing how standardized MFA could be used as a monitoring tool under EU climate and forestry regulations.

Response 4: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. We fully agree that clarifying the scope and its rationale is important. The primary reason for focusing on the EU and Switzerland is that these regions share similar policies, statistical frameworks, and regulatory contexts, which allows for more meaningful cross-country comparisons. In addition, there is already a substantial body of literature within this region, while studies from other regions are often limited in English-language availability and use differing terms and definitions, which would complicate direct comparison. Regarding policy relevance, while policies such as the EU Bioeconomy Strategy were mentioned in the introduction to highlight the importance of wood resources, the main goal of this review is to demonstrate how MFA, as a powerful analytical tool, can support monitoring and assessment of wood resources in ways that align with these policies. For instance, standardized wood-specific MFA could provide consistent data on wood flows and material efficiency, helping track progress toward EU climate targets such as the Green Deal’s 55% emission reduction goal. The recommendation to standardize wood-specific MFA is intended to improve clarity and comparability in future research, which indirectly supports the ability of MFA to inform policy decisions under EU climate and forestry regulations. We greatly appreciate your constructive suggestions, which have helped strengthen the clarity and focus of our work. The revised part can be found on page 3, lines 92–112.

 

Comments 5: Finally, prior works like STREAMS (Joosten et al. 1999) and the five-step methodology of Marques et al. (2020) are only briefly acknowledged, without a clear explanation of how this review builds upon or goes beyond them. This weakens the positioning of the paper within the existing body of literature.

• Engage more deeply with prior reviews, particularly Marques et al. (2020), by clarifying how this paper extends their work (e.g., testing adoption of their fivestep methodology, introducing data-quality risk classification).

Response 5: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment and the opportunity to clarify this point. Since STREAMS was a one-time initiative that did not gain continued application, its relevance remains limited. However, we now more clearly acknowledge its role as an early effort that highlighted the methodological challenges in this field (page 2, lines 61-64). Regarding Marques et al. (2020), we have elaborated on how the present study builds upon their attempt to systematize MFA research by further addressing data quality assessment and risk classification, which were not fully developed in their framework (page 2, lines 76–88).

 

Comments 6: Materials and methods

• The review claims to be systematic but lacks transparency: no PRISMA diagram, no explicit databases (Scopus, WoS, Google Scholar) listed, and no details on exclusion criteria beyond “non-EU/Switzerland studies.”
• Reproducibility is weak: readers cannot replicate the search. For instance, it is unclear how many records were excluded and on what basis.
• Provide a reproducible protocol (databases, search strings, number of records found, screened, excluded, retained). Add a PRISMA-style flow chart.

Response 6: We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments regarding the transparency and reproducibility of the review process. As mentioned in Response 1, we have revised the manuscript to clarify its scope. In the revised version (page 3, lines 92-112), we included additional details about the literature selection process. Initially, 86 publications were identified, of which 44 were excluded due to limited relevance. The final selection comprised 42 studies, determined through stepwise screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts. The review primarily relied on the ScienceDirect database, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and other relevant reports. Information on potential sources of bias, including language limitations, was also retained. Given the reframing as a general review, a PRISMA-style flowchart may no longer be applicable. Nonetheless, we have endeavored to enhance the transparency of the review process and sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestions.

 

Comments 7: The categorization of wood flows into four stages (Forestry, Manufacturing, Building, End-of-Life) is a logical and useful framework that provides clarity for comparing studies. It aligns well with life cycle thinking and highlights the interconnectedness of wood resource management. However, the treatment of the building stage remains underdeveloped. While the manuscript notes that this stage is “comparatively underexplored,” the statement is left descriptive rather than analytical. A critical gap is the absence of quantification. For instance, the review could report how many of the 42 studies explicitly included the building stage versus how many stopped at manufacturing. Without these numbers, readers cannot gauge the extent of neglect. Even a simple summary statistic (e.g., “fewer than 20% of studies addressed the building stage”) would add weight to the argument.

• Quantify explicitly how many of the reviewed studies include vs. omit the building stage, and provide percentages or a small summary table.
• Discuss in more depth the methodological and policy consequences of excluding the building stage, especially regarding carbon accounting and long-term resource stocks.
• Propose or recommend a harmonized terminology for building-stage categories, drawing on official statistical classifications (FAO Yearbook, Eurostat PRODCOM, ISO standards).

Response 7: We sincerely appreciate this insightful comment. In response, we have now added the explicit numbers of studies that include versus omit the building stage in the revised manuscript (page 8, lines 169–173), along with corresponding percentages. Regarding a more in-depth discussion, this is currently limited because most existing studies either focus exclusively on a single building stage or only acknowledge the building stage within the overall MFA flow without providing quantification. Nevertheless, we fully recognize the importance of addressing this aspect. In the next phase of our work, when we aim to standardize wood-specific MFAs, we plan to provide a comprehensive discussion on the challenges involved, including which items should be considered in the building stage and the reasoning for their inclusion. We believe this future step will meaningfully enhance clarity and methodological consistency.

 

Comments 8: The implications of omitting the building stage are also insufficiently discussed. Wood products used in buildings and furniture often remain in use for decades, representing a major carbon stock. By excluding this stage, MFA studies systematically underestimate long-term storage and distort assessments of cascading use and circularity. Moreover, policies such as the European Green Deal rely heavily on the substitution and sequestration potential of timber construction. If MFA does not capture these flows, its value for climate policy monitoring is compromised.

• Consider highlighting exemplary studies that successfully included the building stage and contrasting them with those that did not, to show how inclusion/exclusion affects results.

Response 8: Thank you for this insightful comment. To the best of our knowledge, extremely few studies fully integrate the building stage into an MFA of wood products, which is precisely why we emphasize its importance. Existing studies either focus exclusively on a single building stage or merely acknowledge the building stage within the overall MFA flow without quantifying it. We recognize that researchers may prioritize specific policy questions or objectives in their analyses; our intention in highlighting the building stage is simply to underscore its significance for capturing long-term carbon storage and the broader implications for wood material use. We appreciate the suggestion to highlight exemplary studies and will consider including such comparisons where possible to illustrate the impact of including or excluding this stage.

 

Comments 9: Another issue is the inconsistent terminology across studies when describing buildingrelated flows (e.g., “building finish,” “massive house”). While the manuscript notes this inconsistency, it does not provide concrete guidance for harmonization. Readers would benefit from a proposed standardized terminology (e.g., based on FAO, Eurostat, or ISO product categories) to improve comparability.

• Good observation on inconsistent use of self-defined terms (e.g., “building timber industry”). However, the critique remains descriptive. The paper should propose a reference terminology set (e.g., FAO categories) rather than only recommending consistency.

Response 9: We sincerely appreciate this valuable observation. We fully agree that inconsistent terminology across studies poses a major challenge for comparability. As noted in the manuscript, the absence of a unified reference terminology has led researchers to adopt self-defined terms. Establishing a standardized terminology set, for example based on FAO, Eurostat, or ISO product categories, would indeed be an essential next step for the field. While this task is beyond the current scope of our study, we recognize its importance and plan to address it in future research.

 

Comments 10: • The five-level risk classification is a novel and useful contribution. However, it is not systematically applied to the 42 reviewed studies. Without application, it remains a concept rather than a true analytical framework.

Response 10: Thank you very much for recognizing the novelty and usefulness of the proposed five-level risk classification. We sincerely appreciate this positive feedback. The main reason for introducing this framework is the considerable lack of clarity and consistency regarding data sources in the reviewed studies. Because most of these studies do not clearly describe how or where their data were obtained, it is unfortunately not practical to apply the proposed classification to past studies. Rather, the classification is intended as a forward-looking framework to help future studies systematically assess and communicate risk levels more transparently.

 

Comments 11: • Table 4 is informative but cluttered. The discussion on volumetric vs. mass units is sound, but the authors stop short of making a strong recommendation

→Recommend a primary standard (e.g., oven-dry mass for carbon accounting, cubic meters for trade statistics) and suggest a dual-reporting strategy to improve comparability.

Response 11: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comment. We agree that a dual-reporting strategy would be highly useful to enhance comparability across studies (page 11, lines 291-299). However, recommending a single primary standard at this stage may not be reasonable or meaningful, as the choice of units (e.g., mass- or volume-based) depends on diverse research objectives, data availability, and ongoing debates within the community. We plan to address this issue further in the next step of our work, which aims to develop an approach for standardization.

 

Comments 12: • The discussion on Sankey diagrams is descriptive. There is no systematic comparison of which studies used effective vs. ineffective diagrams→Provide a side-by-side comparison (examples of best practice vs. poor practice). Propose standardized design guidelines, referencing similar efforts in LCA visualization.

Response 12: We sincerely appreciate this valuable suggestion. However, most of the reviewed studies employed Sankey diagrams in ways that limit their effectiveness; thus, a comparison between effective and ineffective examples would not yield meaningful insights. Instead, we have focused on identifying the key issues and providing recommendations for improvement. We fully agree that developing standardized design guidelines for visualization is an important next step; however, it lies beyond the scope of the present review, which aims primarily to summarize current practices rather than establish standards.

 

Comments 13: • The conclusion restates key themes (harmonization, open databases, collaboration) but remains too general and repetitive. It does not prioritize which recommendations are most urgent or feasible. To improve clarity and impact, the authors should present a ranked set of recommendations with short-, medium-, and long-term priorities. For example: (1) standardize units and terminology as an immediate step, (2) establish open-access databases as a medium-term goal, and (3) develop an international methodological framework similar to LCA standards as a long-term ambition.

Response 13: We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback on the conclusion section and your constructive suggestions for improvement. Following your advice, we have revised the conclusion to present a clearer prioritization of recommendations, distinguishing between short-, medium-, and long-term actions. The revised version can be found at the end of the manuscript (page 14, lines 377–403).

 

Comments 14: • Need more references

åResponse 14: Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your suggestion regarding the references. The current manuscript already includes an extensive list of relevant and up-to-date sources that comprehensively support the study’s scope and arguments. If you could kindly specify which areas you believe require additional references, I would be glad to consider including them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript concerns a review of material flow analysis of wood resources in EU and Switzerland. The information is well organized but several modifications should be perormed before to be accepted for publication.

A description o what MFA is should be introduced to better understand the technical details of the manuscript. 

Line 87. Justification of keywords is requires, since some other words could be considered; for example, waste, processing, management, etc. It seems 42 studies are few for 24 years.

Line 89. how the relevance is classified or weighted? please briefly describe

 Table 1. From my viewpoint, the first author is not required;  the reference is enough.

Section 3.1. A figure would be useful for better understanding the system boundaries. In addition this should be stated in Methods section.

 Table 3. Table seems too long and hard to visualize; it is suggested to rearrange datto reduce the table size.

Lines 194-196. This kind of data requires a deeper analysis; for exemple, what are possible reasons which have promote this behavior, whappens in the world or in the market or anywhere which produces this increase the interest in that year? 

 Table 4. Table is too long and hard to visualize; it is suggested to rearrange data to reduce the table size.

Line 269. Technical or scientific arguments are requride to justify the recommendation.

Line 295. It is recommended present the classsification system in aa scheme, it would be better understood.

Section 3.3. From my viewpoint, it is important to analyze, not only describe, the report format in MFA; otherise, the information seems to simple.

A Recommendations section should be presented included a proposal for a standard MFA of wood resources; this could be a first step to harmonize the future information generated in this topic. 

 

  

Author Response

Please see the attached file for the full response.

Comments 1: A description o what MFA is should be introduced to better understand the technical details of the manuscript.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this comment. We would like to clarify that a background description and introduction to MFA have already been provided in the manuscript (original version: lines 48–59; revised version: lines 49–53). For readers seeking more detailed methodological foundations, we have also referred to The Handbook of Material Flow Analysis and other standard references. We hope this addresses the reviewer’s concern.

 

Comments 2: Line 87. Justification of keywords is requires, since some other words could be considered; for example, waste, processing, management, etc. It seems 42 studies are few for 24 years.

Response 2: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this thoughtful comment regarding the keywords and the number of studies included. In the revised manuscript (original version: lines 86–89; revised version: lines 101–104), we have clarified the rationale for our choice of keywords. While alternatives such as “waste” and “management” were also considered during the initial search, they did not yield sufficiently relevant results for the scope of this review. We therefore retained the current set of keywords, which we believe captures the most pertinent literature on this topic. Regarding the number of selected studies, we acknowledge the reviewer’s observation. However, the relatively small number reflects the limited volume of research specifically focused on material flow analysis of wood resources. The 24-year time span was not intended to suggest a larger dataset but rather to illustrate how the number of studies has evolved over time. In this context, we believe that the 42 selected studies provide a representative and meaningful basis for the review.

 

Comments 3: Line 89. how the relevance is classified or weighted? please briefly describe

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. The relevance was assessed based on our judgment, as there are currently no established standards for wood-specific MFAs. This gap is part of what motivates this work, aiming to provide a structured and transparent perspective. We hope this approach clarifies the methodology.

 

Comments 4: Table 1. From my viewpoint, the first author is not required;  the reference is enough.

Response 4: We sincerely appreciate your comment. The first authors were included to provide clarity on the specific research groups conducting this work. In many countries, only a few or sometimes no researchers are active in this area, making it valuable to acknowledge them by name. Additionally, listing the first authors helps illustrate the connections and progression between different studies over time.

 

Comments 5: Section 3.1. A figure would be useful for better understanding the system boundaries. In addition this should be stated in Methods section.

Response 5: We sincerely appreciate your suggestion regarding the inclusion of a figure to clarify the system boundaries. We would like to clarify that the system boundary presented here is not part of the materials and methods but rather a result derived from the analysis of the selected studies. This concept is inspired by LCA and is still in a formative stage. We view the development of a more formalized system boundary, including a visual representation, as an important next step in our work.

 

Comments 6: Table 3. Table seems too long and hard to visualize; it is suggested to rearrange datto reduce the table size.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. I have carefully considered ways to improve the table’s visualization, but it is already condensed to its minimum size. I would greatly appreciate any specific advice or examples on how to further enhance clarity or readability, as this would be very helpful.

 

Comments 7: Lines 194-196. This kind of data requires a deeper analysis; for exemple, what are possible reasons which have promote this behavior, whappens in the world or in the market or anywhere which produces this increase the interest in that year?

Response 7: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s comment. The key point we aimed to highlight is the overall growth of research in this area and the resulting need for standardized approaches. While understanding the specific reasons behind this growth in each country could indeed be valuable, such an analysis is beyond the scope of the current study. Our primary focus is on illustrating the general trend rather than investigating all underlying causes.

 

Comments 8: Table 4. Table is too long and hard to visualize; it is suggested to rearrange data to reduce the table size.

Response 8: I appreciate your suggestion regarding Table 4. Similar to Table 3, I have already condensed the table as much as possible while maintaining the clarity and completeness of the data. I hope the current format remains clear and accessible to readers, and I am grateful for your careful review.

 

Comments 9: Line 269. Technical or scientific arguments are requride to justify the recommendation.

Response 9: Thank you for your comment. As mentioned earlier, most practitioners typically use volumetric or gravimetric units. The recommendation is intended to encourage confirming their choice and understanding the reasoning behind it. This approach helps ensure consistency across the study and aligns with common practices in the field.

 

Comments 10: Line 295. It is recommended present the classsification system in aa scheme, it would be better understood.

Response 10: Thank you for your suggestion. I considered presenting the classification system in a table or figure; however, I found that doing so made the risk system more complex and potentially harder to follow. I believe that explaining it in plain text ensures clarity and helps readers understand it more easily.

 

Comments 11: Section 3.3. From my viewpoint, it is important to analyze, not only describe, the report format in MFA; otherise, the information seems to simple.

Response 11: Thank you for your valuable comment. We understand the importance of not only describing but also analyzing the report formats in MFA. In this context, however, we found that the results from different studies are not standardized, making direct comparison challenging. Additionally, the visualizations vary greatly and can be difficult to interpret consistently. Therefore, we believe that it is most practical to either continue presenting each study in its original format or, alternatively, to develop a new, consistent standard for all studies in this area. This approach ensures clarity and avoids unnecessary complexity, while still allowing meaningful insights.

 

Comments 12: A Recommendations section should be presented included a proposal for a standard MFA of wood resources; this could be a first step to harmonize the future information generated in this topic.

Response 12: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We agree that developing a standardized MFA for wood resources would be an important step toward harmonizing future information in this field. In the manuscript, we have already provided several recommendations that we believe lay the groundwork for this process, and we hope they will be useful as a starting point for future efforts.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides a valuable synthesis of existing MFA studies on wood resources and contributes to a better understanding of research practices in the EU and Switzerland. While it is not groundbreaking, it represents a meaningful and relevant addition to the literature. The paper is generally well structured and clearly written. However, the description of the search and selection procedure is incomplete. The Authors should clarify which scientific databases were searched, how many results were initially retrieved, how many were excluded at the subsequent stages of selection, and whether the analysed texts were peer-reviewed. It would be best to illustrate this process with a PRISMA flow diagram. Consequently, I recommend acceptance after minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attached file for the full response.

Comment: The article provides a valuable synthesis of existing MFA studies on wood resources and contributes to a better understanding of research practices in the EU and Switzerland. While it is not groundbreaking, it represents a meaningful and relevant addition to the literature. The paper is generally well structured and clearly written. However, the description of the search and selection procedure is incomplete. The Authors should clarify which scientific databases were searched, how many results were initially retrieved, how many were excluded at the subsequent stages of selection, and whether the analysed texts were peer-reviewed. It would be best to illustrate this process with a PRISMA flow diagram. Consequently, I recommend acceptance after minor revision.

Response: Regarding the search and selection procedure, we sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestion for greater transparency. In response, we have carefully revised the manuscript to provide more detailed information (page 3, lines 92-112). Specifically, during the initial screening, 86 publications were identified, of which 44 were excluded due to limited relevance to the research scope. Ultimately, 42 studies were included through a stepwise process involving title and abstract screening, followed by full-text evaluation. The review primarily relied on the ScienceDirect database, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and several additional authoritative reports. While the selected papers are peer-reviewed, we also referred to a few authoritative publications from trusted sources. To improve clarity, we have also reframed the manuscript as a general review rather than a systematic review (as of 1 September). We apologize for any confusion caused by the earlier terminology and hope that this adjustment improves the accuracy of our manuscript. Given this reframing, we believe that a PRISMA-style flow diagram is not applicable in the current context.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments addressed. 

Author Response

Comments 1: All comments addressed.

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s time and effort in reviewing our revised manuscript and are pleased that all comments have been satisfactorily addressed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Now the paper is in a state of acceptance. 

Author Response

Comments 1: Now the paper is in a state of acceptance.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your feedback. We are delighted that the paper is now in a state of acceptance and appreciate your guidance throughout the review process.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have provided answers for the comments in the round 1, but there are still several aspects which should be improved before to be accepted for publication:

Lines 101-104. Please include in  the manuscript how the keywords were selected and why some other considered keywords were neglected. 

Lines 105-106. Please, include in the manuscript the criteria to determine the relevance of the evaluated works.

Table 1. The name of authors does not provide any contribution to the technical content of the manuscript. Then, i suggest to remove the corresponding column. 

Section 3.1. I still suggest to use a scheme to better illustrate the system boundaries. In addition, it seems to be part of methods; if authors consider this as a result, then it should be explained why it is a result and the subsection name should be modified.

Table 3 and 4. Authors are encourage to show some of creativity and to find a way to improve the presentation of this information.

Lines 216-218. By understanding the underlying causes could help to better support the general trend. I encourage the authors to make an efffort and perform a deeper analysis of the information as suggested in the first round. 

Line 321. It is recommended to present the classification system in a scheme; the current presentation avoids to remark the relevance of the system.

Section 3.3. It is required to present an analysis besides the description of the report format in MFA. Indeed it is something challenging, that is the idea of the results presented in papers published in scientific journals such as Sustainability.  

It is still recommended to include a Recommendations section sumarizing the proposals, among them, it could be included a proposal or a sttandard MFA o fwood resources. As said in the corresponding comment in round 1, this could help to harmonize the future information of this topic. It could be a great contribution of the manuscript. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file for the full response.

Comments 1: Authors have provided answers for the comments in the round 1, but there are still several aspects which should be improved before to be accepted for publication

Response 1: We sincerely thank you for your valuable and constructive comments. We apologize if our previous response did not fully address your concerns. We greatly appreciate your guidance, and we are committed to improving the manuscript according to your suggestions to meet the publication standards.

 

Comments 2: Lines 101-104. Please include in  the manuscript how the keywords were selected and why some other considered keywords were neglected.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. As mentioned previously, we conducted an additional search that also included the keywords suggested in the review. However, no additional relevant papers were identified beyond those obtained with the listed keywords. To clarify this point, we have now explicitly stated in the manuscript that searches using alternative keywords (e.g., waste, processing, management) did not yield further studies relevant to the objectives of this research. Therefore, the analysis focused on the results obtained using the selected keywords (page 3, lines 211–213).

 

Comments 3: Lines 105-106. Please, include in the manuscript the criteria to determine the relevance of the evaluated works.

Response 3: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. The main criteria used to determine the relevance of the evaluated works include whether the studies are published papers, whether their primary focus is MFA, whether they involve evaluations of wood resources, and whether they address further applications of MFA (page 3, lines 214-216). Some additional studies that do not strictly focus on MFA were also considered, as they contribute to the development of wood-specific analyses. We have clarified this in the revised manuscript (previous version: page 3, lines 108–110).

 

Comments 4: Table 1. The name of authors does not provide any contribution to the technical content of the manuscript. Then, i suggest to remove the corresponding column.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding Table 1. As already explained in the previous response, we believe that including the authors' names provides helpful context alongside the current state of the research. We hope that keeping this column will continue to support the reader’s understanding.

 

Comments 5: Section 3.1. I still suggest to use a scheme to better illustrate the system boundaries. In addition, it seems to be part of methods; if authors consider this as a result, then it should be explained why it is a result and the subsection name should be modified.

Response 5: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have added a flow diagram illustrating the four stages of the wood life cycle, from Forestry to End-of-Life, in the revised manuscript (page 6). We also acknowledge that different studies exhibit notable variations in system boundaries and research purposes, which significantly influence both the presentation of MFA content and the interpretation of results. To clarify this, we have renamed the section to “Definition of system boundaries and research purposes,” emphasizing that this part reflects the considered motivations behind the reviewed studies (page 6, line 306).

 

Comments 6: Table 3 and 4. Authors are encourage to show some of creativity and to find a way to improve the presentation of this information.

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable suggestion and encouragement. In response, we have revised Table 3 by replacing “YES” and “NO” with alternative expressions to enhance clarity and make the information more easily interpretable (pages 7–8). Table 4 has been updated to distinguish between gravimetric and volumetric data, improving visualization and facilitating comparison (pages 10–11). We hope these changes make the presentation clearer and more informative.

 

Comments 7: Lines 216-218. By understanding the underlying causes could help to better support the general trend. I encourage the authors to make an efffort and perform a deeper analysis of the information as suggested in the first round.

Response 7: Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comment. We appreciate the suggestion and understand that a deeper analysis of the underlying causes could provide further insights into the general trend. However, as this topic extends beyond the current scope of our study, we have limited our focus to the observable trends within the defined research framework. From the perspective of environmental sustainability, it is possible that the growing social emphasis on the appropriate understanding and utilization of renewable resources and End-of-Life concepts has contributed to the increasing academic interest in resource circulation topics such as Material Flow Analysis.

 

Comments 8: Line 321. It is recommended to present the classification system in a scheme; the current presentation avoids to remark the relevance of the system.

Response 8: We sincerely appreciate this helpful recommendation. To improve clarity, a brief figure illustrating the classification system has been added on page 12.

 

Comments 9: Section 3.3. It is required to present an analysis besides the description of the report format in MFA. Indeed it is something challenging, that is the idea of the results presented in papers published in scientific journals such as Sustainability.

Response 9: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We fully understand the importance of providing analytical insights in addition to the descriptive explanation of the MFA report format. However, aspects related to visual and linguistic expression are often influenced by individual aesthetic judgment and stylistic preferences, which makes them difficult to standardize in a purely logical manner. In the next stage of our research, which focuses on developing a comprehensive framework, we plan to provide clearer guidance and illustrative examples for elements such as color use and icon design (for instance, tree icons could be represented in olive green, RGB color – HEX code #808000, to indicate forest biomass). We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful suggestion, which will help us strengthen this part of our work.

 

Comments 10: It is still recommended to include a Recommendations section sumarizing the proposals, among them, it could be included a proposal or a sttandard MFA o fwood resources. As said in the corresponding comment in round 1, this could help to harmonize the future information of this topic. It could be a great contribution of the manuscript.

Response 10: We appreciate your thoughtful recommendation. As mentioned previously, the development of a wood-specific MFA is planned as the next step. At this stage, it would be premature to make strong recommendations or propose a standard, as this requires further work and validation. We appreciate your suggestion, as it emphasizes an important direction for future research and potential contributions of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have added many improvements to the manuscript; there are only few aspects which I consider must be modofied:

The answer provided for the comment regarding the authors column in table 1 does not provide scientific nor technical arguments to retain it. From my viewpoint is enoough to keep the country and the reference for each selected paper. Then, i still recommend to remove that column.

Table 3. The original comment refers to the size of the table; replacing the word by the symbols does not reduce the size. The idea is to organize the information in a way to help the reader to easily undertands the topic. Yes, it implies to work to find that ways, this is one of the challenges of scientists.

Table 4. Same comment as for table 3.

Comment to Response 9. Please include in the manuscript what is planned as future work.

Comment to Response 10. But the manuscript presents a review, why recommedations based on the findings of the review are premature? I still recommend to present a recommentadions section.   

Author Response

Please see the attached file for the full response.

 

Comments 1: Authors have added many improvements to the manuscript; there are only few aspects which I consider must be modofied:

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for recognizing the improvements made to the manuscript. We greatly appreciate the constructive feedback and will carefully address the remaining aspects you have highlighted.

 

Comments 2: The answer provided for the comment regarding the authors column in table 1 does not provide scientific nor technical arguments to retain it. From my viewpoint is enoough to keep the country and the reference for each selected paper. Then, i still recommend to remove that column.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your valuable recommendation and for taking the time to carefully review Table 1. As explained earlier, the inclusion of the Author column was intended to illustrate the connections and chronological development of studies within each country. Specifically, all 42 studies were initially reviewed and organized alphabetically by the first author within their respective countries. Removing the Author column would make it more difficult to recognize relationships between studies conducted by the same research groups (for example, studies No. 1 and 2 were both conducted by Džubur but in different years and contexts) and would also affect the overall consistency of the table and manuscript structure. Nevertheless, we sincerely appreciate your thoughtful suggestion to improve the table’s clarity. In response, we have revised the column order in Table 1 to No → Title → Year → Country → First Author (pages 3–5), thereby enhancing the readability and emphasizing the relative importance of each piece of information while preserving the intended analytical relationships.

 

Comments 3: Table 3. The original comment refers to the size of the table; replacing the word by the symbols does not reduce the size. The idea is to organize the information in a way to help the reader to easily undertands the topic. Yes, it implies to work to find that ways, this is one of the challenges of scientists.

Response 3: We sincerely thank the reviewer for raising the concern regarding the clarity and readability of Table 3, and we apologize for the earlier misunderstanding regarding the request to reduce its physical size. We have carefully revised the table layout to enhance its readability while also reducing its size. In the updated manuscript (page 7), Table 3 has been reformatted into two columns, resulting in a reduction of at least 50% in size, while maintaining the completeness of the information. Additionally, the use of symbolic markers accompanied by differentiated color shading was introduced to support an intuitive comparison of the stages represented and to allow the reader to easily identify which papers cover each stage more comprehensively. We genuinely hope that these enhancements make the table more reader-friendly and helpful in conveying the key message of this section. We truly appreciate your guidance and would be grateful for any further suggestions to improve its readability.

 

Comments 4: Table 4. Same comment as for table 3.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable comment regarding Table 4. In response, we have revised the table (page 10) and formatted it into two columns to reduce its size and improve clarity. We also adjusted the color scheme so that the differences more intuitively indicate that many studies focus on volume rather than mass. We appreciate your helpful feedback, which has contributed to improving the clarity of our presentation.

 

Comments 5: Comment to Response 9. Please include in the manuscript what is planned as future work.

Response 5: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion to include planned future work in the manuscript. In response, we have added this information in the new section, 3.4. Recommendations and future work (page 13, lines 619–626). We would like to note that these represent planned or ongoing work, and their outcomes cannot be guaranteed at this stage.

 

Comments 6: Comment to Response 10. But the manuscript presents a review, why recommedations based on the findings of the review are premature? I still recommend to present a recommentadions section.  

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable suggestion to include a recommendations section. To address your comment while maintaining the original structure and logic of the manuscript, we have added a new section, 3.4 Recommendations and future work (page 13, lines 602–619). This section highlights key recommendations, including integrating the building stage, standardizing terminology, enhancing data collection, defining methodological frameworks, and ensuring transparency of uncertainty. We hope this addition effectively conveys the practical insights derived from our review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf