Marketing Strategies and Production Profitability of Charcoal in the Rural Zone of Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this research presents a case for the marketing strategies and production profitability of Charcoal in the Rural Zone of Lubumbashi, Congo. This study investigates the impact of marketing strategies and profitability in charcoal production on the sustainable management of forest resources, highlighting its clear practical significance and policy relevance. The findings underscore the critical role of sales channels, packaging specifications, and seasonal factors in influencing the economic returns of charcoal production. These conclusions offer actionable recommendations for mitigating deforestation issues in Miombo forest landscapes. While the research framework is comprehensive, supported by clear data, further improvements are needed regarding methodological rigor, variable control, and the feasibility of policy suggestions.

1. Insufficient sample representation. This study selected 20 professional producers (from 4 villages). It is not stated whether groups of different sizes and different years of operation are covered, which may affect the universality of the conclusion. It is suggested to supplement the sample selection criteria and regional heterogeneity analysis.
2. It is not clear whether potential interference factors such as transportation cost, middleman distribution, and policy supervision intensity are controlled. For example, does Lubumbashi's 35% share of sales fluctuate due to differences in transportation costs?
3. The currency unit in the paper should indicate the benchmark time of the exchange rate (such as whether the CDF uses the annual average or real-time exchange rate against the US dollar) to avoid misunderstanding by readers.
4. It is suggested to add visual tools such as sales channel distribution chart and seasonal profit comparison bar chart in the text to improve the readability of the results.
5. It is suggested to introduce multiple regression model in the "Discussion" to analyze the weight of profit influencing factors.
6. It is suggested that the author supplement the impact and role of this study in reducing the overexploitation of forest resources. It can strengthen the practical significance and social value of this study.
7. There are many errors in the format of the references. Most references are not cited from representative international journals. Authors should revise and refine their references carefully.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English writing must be carefully polished.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Sample Size and Representativeness:
The sample consists of only 20 professional charcoal producers across four villages, with unequal representation. This severely limits the generalizability and robustness of the findings. Please justify the small sample or expand it if feasible.
2. Lack of Multivariate Analysis:
The analysis relies solely on descriptive statistics and simple comparisons (ANOVA, t-tests). This does not control for potential confounding factors such as distance to market, labor input variation, or access to infrastructure. A regression-based approach is highly recommended.
3. Selection Bias Risk:
The selection criteria for “professional producers” are vague. Clarify how participants were defined, recruited, and whether their economic activities differ significantly from non-selected peers.
4. Missing Technical Variables:
While the manuscript discusses carbonization efficiency, no direct measurements or proxies are included. This disconnect weakens the technical foundation of the study’s profitability claims.
5. Reproducibility Concerns:
Key methodological details (e.g., form structure, frequency of observation, quality control procedures) are insufficient. Please provide an annex or supplementary file with more operational detail.
6. English Language & Expression:
Several sections (especially methodology and discussion) suffer from awkward phrasing, overly long sentences, and ambiguous grammar. Consider professional proofreading or language editing.

Suggestions:

Add a schematic flow diagram of the study design (sampling, data collection, and analysis).

Clearly define economic metrics (e.g., profit margin, B/C ratio) earlier in the methodology.

Improve clarity in figures and tables (e.g., standardize number formatting, ensure axis labels are legible).

Reference more recent literature on biomass energy economics and charcoal markets in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Please find attached the responses to your latest comments.
Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, the marketing strategy of charcoal produced in rural Lubumbashi is analyzed and its profitability is assessed. Twenty professional charcoal producers from Maksem, Sela, Luisha and Mwawa villages were surveyed, covering both production and marketing.

The paper is interesting in a way, but lacks the necessary depth and discussion of sustainability. There are some contents in the manuscript that need further adjustment and improvement.

1. This study is initiated to analyze the charcoal marketing practices employed by professional charcoal producers in the rural area of Lubumbashi and their impact on financial profitability. It is suggested that the authors discuss and analyze energy consumption strategies suitable for the region from the perspective of sustainable development.
2. In the abstract, the objectives and methods of the research should be clearly defined, and the main results should be briefly listed, as well as their value and limitations.
3. The authors should consider the necessity of the keyword "Democratic Republic of the Congo", which should be further condensed.
4. In the introduction, the discussion of the existing relevant research is not progressive and organized enough, so the review of the existing relevant research should be further deepened.
5. Figure 1. Location of the studied villages in the rural area of Lubumbashi and their respective distances from the city. The source of Figure 1 should be clearly marked.
6. In Equation 2, equation 3, and equation 4, the abbreviations "BS" and "ASP" have the same meaning and need not be repeated.
7. Figure 3 is simple and seems to lack necessity. It is suggested to add other factors related to it to draw, so as to enrich its connotation.
8. What kinds of trees are used to make the charcoal in this area? What is the difference between the cost and price of charcoal of different species? These issues should be fully explained and analyzed in the manuscript.
9. The analysis of manuscripts lacks the necessary mathematical methods. It is suggested to add a mathematical prediction model for future analysis of this study.
10. The financial data and the related analysis are reasonable. However, there is a lack of impact analysis related to low-carbon and environmental change. It is suggested to add related contents in this aspect.
11. The conclusion should be further condensed. It is suggested that the future outlook should be added to enhance the environmental significance of the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Please find attached the responses to your latest comments.
Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although this research features an excellent assessment, I see some aspects that the author can develop to enhance his strength and inclusiveness.

First, the analysis of profitability lacks direct reference to the costs of raw materials (trees) and land acquisition costs. These costs may be material and affect the long-term sustainability of this activity.

Therefore, I suggest trying to estimate the costs of raw materials, even if they are cashless such as the time and effort of wood collection, or the implicit costs of using natural resources. Land access mechanisms and costs, whether formal fees or informal arrangements, can also be explored. It is important to discuss how non-inclusion of these costs could affect long-term estimates of profitability and environmental sustainability.

Second: While the introduction discusses the relationship between coal production and deforestation, the analysis focuses primarily on economic profitability. Research lacks a direct analysis of how different marketing strategies or packing sizes affect environmental sustainability.

To improve this point, different packing sizes can try to connect to the amount of wood consumed. For example, would households prefer to buy larger bags that reduce the pace of purchasing and thus pressure coal demand? It is also desirable to explore whether there are marketing strategies that encourage the use of more efficient coal or from sustainable sources (if they exist). Furthermore, the potential environmental impacts of the proposed recommendations (e.g. standardization of packing and pricing in kilograms) should be discussed. Can this lead to an increase or decrease in total coal demand?

Third: With regard to recommendations and political implications:

Recommendations on standardization of mobilization and pricing in kilograms appear fairly general. Research requires a more detailed discussion of how these recommendations are applied in practice, potential challenges to implementation, and expected impacts on different stakeholders (producers, traders, consumers and the environment).

I therefore propose to make more specific and actionable recommendations. For example, propose practical mechanisms to standardize mobilization or launch consumer awareness campaigns on the importance of pricing in kilograms. It is also necessary to analyse the potential impacts of these recommendations on producers' income, consumer sales prices and forest resource management. Finally, the role of government policies and NGOs in supporting these changes and promoting sustainable coal production and marketing must be discussed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Please find attached the responses to your latest comments.
Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that the revised manuscript has certain innovative and practical value. The findings support the hypotheses regarding the impact of commercial strategies and economic variables on profitability. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find attached our responses regarding the revision of the manuscript.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

a. Clarify the theoretical contribution: The introduction provides a solid background, but it would benefit from a clearer articulation of the research gap and how this study contributes theoretically, especially in distinguishing between empirical findings and conceptual advancement.

b. Language requires further polishing: While the English is generally understandable, there are several instances of long or repetitive sentence structures. A professional language edit by a native speaker is recommended to enhance clarity and readability.

c. Improve figure and table explanations: Some figures and tables lack detailed captions or explanatory notes. Please clarify what specific data are shown and provide more explicit interpretations, particularly in relation to statistical significance indicators such as p-values.

d. Strengthen policy implications in the discussion: While the recommendations on packaging and pricing are relevant, this section would benefit from more concrete policy suggestions or examples from similar contexts to enhance the practical applicability of the findings.

e. Clarify sampling and representativeness: The description of sampling is generally clear, but please provide more justification for the definition of “professional producers” and how they reflect the broader population. This will strengthen the credibility of your methodology.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally readable and the main ideas are understandable. However, there are several instances of awkward phrasing, overly long sentences, and inconsistent terminology. A thorough language revision by a native English speaker or professional editor is recommended to improve clarity, grammar, and overall fluency.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find attached our responses regarding the revision of the manuscript.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made revisions and explanations in accordance with the reviewers' comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find attached our responses regarding the revision of the manuscript.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author added everything they suggested, and therefore this research can be published.

Author Response

We did not receive any comments to address.