Composition and Spatial Distribution of Biodiversity-Based Biofactories in Brazilian Amazonia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This improved version of article is acceptable for publication and further revisions are not required. The latest manuscript confirms that authors responded to all issues that were indicated by reviewers.

Considering my prior review and attached authors' answers I believe the manuscript has been sufficiently improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your review and positive evaluation.

Another reviewer requested major revisions, and our responses to those comments are attached.

We believe the manuscript has been sufficiently improved.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors examined the composition and spatial distribution of biodiversity-based biofactories in the Brazilian Amazon.
The primary objective of the study is to locate biofactories in the Brazilian Amazon, analyze the main industrial sectors and products, and classify the organization of these biofactories according to their legal nature and operating status.
Biofactories are production units equipped with infrastructure capable of transforming primary products—such as fruits, seeds, and roots—into higher-value-added industrial goods. Currently, available data on Amazonian biofactories includes products and services unrelated to biodiversity or is narrowly focused on specific products and regions. The authors offer an unprecedented empirical assessment of their geographic distribution and characteristics, demonstrating the originality and relevance of the research topic.
The findings will advance scientific knowledge and contribute to the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a focus on SDG 9, which calls for the creation of resilient infrastructure, inclusive industrialization, and the promotion of innovation. The data obtained can help identify priorities for government, the private sector, and other stakeholders seeking to strategically improve infrastructure for a sustainable economy based on Amazonian biodiversity.
The authors fully achieved the stated goals and objectives of the study.
The research was planned, organized, and conducted at a high scientific and methodological level.
The methods and approaches chosen by the authors are consistent with the stated objectives.
The manuscript is logically structured and well-organized. It is written in understandable English. There are some errors and typos in the text. However, these do not diminish the significance of the research or the content of the manuscript.
The obtained materials are well-analyzed and detailed. The data are correlated with existing and known literature from other authors and researchers.
The authors' findings and conclusions are sufficiently substantiated and supported by the data obtained. When using literary sources and materials from other authors, the authors of the manuscript cite them accurately.
The authors have addressed all the comments raised by the reviewers. The manuscript addresses key and relevant issues. This deserves special attention.
I recommend acceptance of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your review and positive evaluation.

Another reviewer requested major revisions, and our responses to those comments are attached.

We believe the manuscript has been sufficiently improved.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a relevant and still underexplored question: the composition  and spatial distribution of biodiversity-based biofactories in the Brazilian Amazon. The study has descriptive value, provides a potentially useful database, and offers an initial effort to systematize a field in which data are highly dispersed. The article also presents a clear central finding: the strong spatial concentration of biofactories and their positive association with municipal GDP. This core narrative is well maintained from the introduction through the conclusions.

That said, in its current form the manuscript still requires substantial revision before it can be accepted. My main concern does not lie in the relevance of the topic, but in the strength of the inferences being made. The study combines a dataset assembled from heterogeneous secondary sources, the authors’ prior knowledge, and partly empirical classification criteria, yet it then draws relatively strong conclusions about “infrastructure,” “technological deficits,” and the “absence” of biofactories in most municipalities. In addition, the statistical analysis is restricted to the 72 municipalities in which biofactories were identified, even though a large part of the manuscript’s argument depends on the full set of 559 municipalities, and especially on the 487 municipalities with no records..

1) Title, abstract, and general framing

The title is clear and accurately reflects the content of the study. The abstract also conveys the main message, but in several places it states conclusions more firmly than the currently available data support. The abstract states that 487 municipalities do not have biofactories, whereas the Results and Limitations sections make it clear that what actually happened is that no biofactories were identified in the consulted sources, and underreporting may exist. The abstract also states that most of the population “lacks access to local infrastructure,” which is a plausible interpretation, but it should be phrased more cautiously because the study measures the presence or absence of identified establishments, not effective access, installed capacity, or functional coverage.

I suggest revising the abstract so that it clearly distinguishes between: “no biofactories were identified” and “biofactories do not exist”; “presence of establishments” and “population access to infrastructure”; and “statistical association with GDP” and “causal determination by economic scale.”

2) Introduction

The introduction is well oriented and successfully justifies the importance of the topic. It convincingly presents the scarcity of available information and formulates appropriate specific objectives: location, sectors/products, legal status/operational status, and relationship with GDP. However, I see three issues of focus.

First, the manuscript lacks a more precise and operational definition of “biofactory. ” The text offers a general definition of the bioeconomy and then describe biofactories as units with infrastructure for transforming primary products, but there is still ambiguity regarding the minimum threshold for classifying a unit as a biofactory. Does any industrial transformation suffice? How is a biofactory distinguished from small-scale artisanal agroindustry, primary processing units, or local small plants? This ambiguity later affects inclusion/exclusion decisions and comparability across sectors.

Second, the hypothesis regarding municipal GDP is reasonable, but the introduction does not sufficiently discuss obvious competing variables such as population size, urbanization, logistical connectivity, pre-existing industrial density, energy availability, or regional centrality. As written, the theoretical framing leans too heavily toward GDP as the main explanation.

Third, the manuscript oscillates between a descriptive database contribution and an explanatory contribution about the economic geography of the sector. This dual ambition is valid, but it needs to be better balanced in order to avoid overinterpreting descriptive evidence.

I recommend adding a paragraph at the end of the introductiton that operationally defines “biofactory,” explains why the study prioritizes GDP over other covariates, and clarifies that the article is primarily a study of systematization and characterization, with an exploratory explanatory component.

3) Study area

This section is clear and descriptively sufficient. It properly delineates Amazonia, the Legal Amazon, and the 559 municipalities analyzed.

My only observation here is conceptual: in some passages of the manuscript, the terms “Amazon rainforest,” “Amazon biome,” “Brazilian Amazonia,” and “Legal Amazonia” appear to be used interchangeably. This is handled relatively well in the study area section, but usage is not always consistent elsewhere in the manuscript.

The manuscript should use one principal geographic reference term consistently throughout. I suggest adopting a single analytical label and retaining the methodological clarification that the empirical scope is the set of 559 municipalities within the chosen delimitation.

4) Data collection

This is one of the most important sections and, at the same time, one of the ones most in need of strengthening. The manuscript indicates that six main sources published between 2020 and 2024 were used, in addition to “new data” based on the team’s prior knowledge. It also states that these sources were selected because, to the authors’ knowledge, they were the only ones containing well-organized tables.

Several methodological concerns arise here:

• The source search is not described as systematic, or at least reproducible.

• The category “New data (this study)” is too open-ended and may introduce selection bias.

• The decision to retain the first record found and exclude  duplicates from later sources may preserve errors or outdated information from the first source.

• It is unclear whether inclusion/exclusion and deduplication were independently verified by more than one author.

I suggest restructuring this subsection to include:

1. an explicit source search strategy;

2. a diagram or flowchart of record selection;

3. a precise explanation of the origin of the 36 “new data” cases;

4. a validation/deduplication protocol;

5. a note on inter-reviewer quality control, if such control existed.,

If such control did not exist, this should be explicitly acknowledged as a limitation.

5) Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The criteria are reasonable in general terms: use of native Amazonian species, existence of industrial processing infrastructure, and location within the study area. Clear exclusion criteria are also listed.

The problem here is the practical applicability of these criteria. For example, “existence of infrastructure for the industrial processing of primary products” may encompass anything from a small semi-artisanal unit to a larger industrial plant. In addition, excluding service-oriented organizations is sensible, but borderline cases should be clarified: laboratories, centers with industrial pilot plants, cooperatives with seasonal processing, and similar entities.

I also note that the classification depends on the order in which sources were evaluated. This may resolve duplicates, but it does not necessarily guarantee that the retained record is the best-quality one.

A methodological table with examples of included cases, excluded cases, and ambiguous cases,and how they were resolved,would strengthen this section.

6) Identification and georeferencing

The use of CNPJ numbers and cross-checking with official registries is a strength. However, the statement that in some cases the authors’ “prior knowledge” was used to increase precision introduces a reproducibility concern.

It is also unclear what level of geographic precision was ultimately achieved: exact coordinates of the establishment, postal-address centroid, municipal coordinate, or something else. It is likewise unclear what was done when the address was incomplete or corresponded to an administrative office rather than a processing plant.

The manuscript should specify:

• what type of location was obtained for each case;

• how incomplete or uncertain addresses were handled;

• what proportion of records depended on validation based on the authors’ prior knowledge;

• whether the supplementary database includes a field for geographic quality/confidence.

Ideally, the supplementary material should include a georeferencing confidence-level variable.

7) Classification of sectors and products

The manuscript states that an empirical approach was adopted and that five categories were constructed: biotechnology, food, cosmetics, materials, and organic chemicals.

A critical issue here is that these categories appear heterogeneous in analytical level. Some are industrial sectors, some resemble product families, and others seem to group technologies or transformation types. Later in the discussion, the authors acknowledge that many biofactories may operate in more than one sector, but the database forces a classification based on a main product.

This does not invalidate the study, but it does limit comparability and may bias sectoral representation, especially when 74% of units are concentrated in the “food” category.

Please reformulate this section to make clear that the classification is heuristic rather than taxonomic. In addition:

• better justify the choice of these five categories;

• explain why “organic chemicals” and “cosmetics” are treated separately;

• indicate whether a given unit could have secondary activities;

• include, if possible, a secondary multi-activity classification in the supplementary material.

If the classification cannot be redone, the interpretive tone regarding differences among sectors should at least be moderated.

8) Legal nature and operational status

The strategy of using the official registry and complementing it with Econodata when status was not visible is understandable, but it requires a somewhat more rigorous explanation of consistency across sources.

In addition, the operational-status categories (“active,” “closed,” “non-compliant”) should be defined precisely. “Non-compliant” is too broad: does it mean fiscal irregularity, not authorized to operate, suspended, pending regularization, or something else? As currently presented, the substantive interpretation of those 16 cases remains unclear.

Please add an exact definition of each operational-status category and clarify whether terminology was harmonized between Receita Federal and Econodata.

9) Metadata organization and data availability

It is positive that the database and metadata are provided in the supplementary materials.

Even so, for a study presented as a systematization effort, reproducibility should be more visible in the main text. A more explicit sentence could be added in the Methods section stating exactly which supplementary files allow the reader to reproduce:

• the list of biofactories;

• the sectoral coding;

• the municipal dataset used for statistical analysis;

• the analysis script.

10) Statistical analysis

In my view, this is the most methodologically delicate part of the manuscript. The text states that the statistical analysis was restricted to municipalities with at least one identified biofactory, that is, 72 municipalities. Negative binomial GLM/GLMM models were then fitted to relate the number of biofactories to total GDP and GDP per capita.

The problem is that this analytical decision truncates the range of the phenomenon and conditions the interpretation. If the article aims to explain the spatial distribution of biofactories across the 559 municipalities, excluding the 487 zeros is a major limitation. In practice, the model is not explaining regional presence/absence, but rather variation in abundance among already positive municipalities. This should be stated with complete clarity, because the current conclusion about the role of GDP may otherwise be understood much more broadly than the model actually supports.

In addition, it would be important to know:

• why a hurdle or zero-inflated model using all 559 municipalities was not considered;

• why at least a binary presence/absence model was not tested;

• whether sensitivity to municipal population or urban density was evaluated;

• whether Manaus, Belém, or Parauapebas had disproportionate influence.

This section requires substantial revision. I see two options.

Option A (preferred): redo the analysis using all 559 municipalities, with:

• a presence/absence model;

• and, if appropriate, a second model of conditional abundance among municipalities with biofactories.

Option B (minimum): if the analysis will not be redone, then the authors should:

• explicitly reformulate the analytical question;

• clarify that the model only explains variation in counts among municipalities with at least one biofactory;

• reduce the scope of the conclusions;

• include a methodological justification for excluding zeros.

11) Results: spatial distribution

This section is clear, and the main results are easy to understand: 187 biofactories, 94% in Pará and Amazonas, 72 of 559 municipalities with records, and strong concentration in a small number of municipalities.

My main observation concerns inferential language. In several passages, the manuscript moves from “no biofactories were found in the consulted sources” to much stronger statements about lack of technology and infrastructure. That inference may be reasonable, but it is not the same thing. The study identifies registered/documented establishments; it does not independently measure installed infrastructure.

In the Results section, the authors should avoid strongly interpretive phrases such as “which indicates that 87% ... lacked the technology and infrastructure necessary…”. That interpretation belongs in the Discussion, not in the Results, and it should also be tempered in light of the later acknowledgment of possible underreporting.

12) Results: sectors and products

The presentation of frequencies by sector and product is useful. However, because the classification is forced into a single main product, the manuscript should distinguish more clearly between “counts of classified establishments” and the “actual diversity of production.” The authors later recognize that some biofactories operate in multiple segments.

A brief methodological note should be added at the beginning of Section 3.2 stating that sector counts reflect the main classification assigned to each biofactory, not its full product portfolio.

13) Results: legal nature and operational status

This section works well descriptively. The percentages are clear, and Table 4 summarizes the data appropriately.

However, it would be useful for the authors to explain whether operational status was measured at a single time point and what the exact consultation date or period was, since this type of information changes quickly.

Please indicate the exact temporal window during which company operational status was checked.

14) Results: relationship with GDP

The wording here is technically more precise than in other sections, but there is still insufficient clarity regarding the modeled universe. The reported result, a positive coefficient for log(GDP), weaker performance of GDP per capita, and little contribution from state-level effects,is interesting.

Even so, both the figure and the text should be more transparent regarding:

• the model sample size;

• the exclusion of municipalities without biofactories;

• the possible influence of extreme cases;

• the substantive interpretation of the coefficient.

Please expand the model reporting to include:

• the exact n;

• the final model equation;

• the coefficient confidence interval;

• pseudo-R² or an equivalent measure, if the authors find it appropriate;

• an influence or sensitivity analysis excluding extreme municipalities.

It would also be helpful for the figure to include a legend or note indicating that only municipalities with at least one biofactory are represented.

15) Discussion: location of biofactories

The discussion contains several valuable points, especially where it connects spatial concentration with territorial inequality and structural limitations.

However, two risks of overinterpretation arise in this section:

• using the absence of records as direct evidence of absence of infrastructure;

• comparing the number of biofactories with slaughterhouses or firms in the Manaus Industrial Pole without adjusting for scale, sector, age, economic function, or inclusion criteria.

These comparisons may be suggestive, but they are not necessarily analytically robust.

I suggest keeping such comparisons only as illustrative contextualization rather than as strong evidence, unless they are methodologically reinforced. In any case, the manuscript should include an explicit sentence stating that these are heuristic comparisons across non-equivalent sectors.

16) Discussion: sectors, technological intensity, and value added

The idea that low-technological-intensity sectors predominate is plausible and may well be correct. However, the argument here needs greater conceptual discipline. The manuscript moves from product/sector categories to broad claims about “low technological intensity,” “simple commodities,” and limited value generation.

This argument can be sustained, but it requires explicit criteria. How was technological intensity assigned to each sector? Was a pre-existing classification from the literature used? Was it inferred from the type of transformation? If this is not clarified, readers may feel that the discussion goes beyond what was actually measured.

A brief methodological-discursive subsection or paragraph should be added explaining the criteria by which these sectors are characterized as low in technological intensity. If the classification is interpretive rather than formal, this should be stated explicitly.

17) Discussion: legal form and the role of the private sector

The interpretation that the predominance of limited-liability companies reflects private-sector leadership is reasonable, but the sentence suggesting greater access to equity capital or public capital seems speculative as currently written.

Please moderate that interpretation or support it with specific evidence. As written, it would be better replaced by a more cautious formulation: namely, that the observed distribution is consistent with a greater participation of private business actors, without immediately inferring the financial reasons behind it.

18) Discussion: relationship with GDP

This is one of the most interesting parts of the article and it is well connected to the agglomeration literature.

Even so, the text again presents GDP almost as the central explanation. Given the observational design and the restriction of the analysis to municipalities with biofactories, I would urge greater caution. In addition, it would be desirable to discuss endogeneity or bidirectionality: municipalities with higher GDP may attract biofactories, but the presence of biofactories may also contribute marginally to local GDP.

Please include a brief paragraph acknowledging that the observed association does not establish causality or a single direction of effect.

19) Limitations

I appreciate that the limitations section is explicit and acknowledges underreporting, low institutional visibility, difficult access to remote areas, and sectoral simplification. This strengthens the manuscript.

My concern is that several of these limitations should have moderated the language more clearly in the Results, Discussion, and Conclusions. In other words, the limitations section is good, but it is not yet sufficiently integrated with the rest of the article.

The manuscript should be revised throughout so that the tone of the claims is aligned with the limitations already acknowledged, especially regarding:

• the absence of biofactories;

• infrastructure deficits;

• the scope of the sectoral classification;

• inferences drawn from the GDP model.

20) Conclusions

The conclusions summarize the central message well and return to the argument about concentration and territorial inequality.

However, once again the language is stronger than the data allow. “Most of the population lacks access to industrial infrastructure” is too strong a formulation for a database built from documentarily identified establishments. Likewise, the statement that “GDP is a significant predictor of biofactory presence” should be revised, because the reported analysis does not model presence across the 559 municipalities, but abundance among the 72 municipalities with positive records.

The conclusions could be rewritten more precisely to state:

• that the documented presence of biofactories is spatially concentrated;

• that among municipalities with identified biofactories, the number of units is positively associated with GDP;

• that the study suggests, but does not fully demonstrate, territorial inequality in processing capacity.

Recommendation: Major revision.

The manuscript addresses a relevant and underdocumented topic and has the potential to make a useful descriptive contribution. However, before publication, the paper requires substantial revision to strengthen methodological transparency, improve reproducibility, moderate overinterpretation, and align the conclusions with the actual scope of the data and statistical analysis .

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your careful review and for the constructive comments that led to major revisions.

We addressed the requested revisions, which helped improve the manuscript.

The attached document and the revised manuscript provide all details of the changes made.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for the work carried out in revising the manuscript.

I have verified that the article has been significantly improved and that the reviewers’ comments and recommendations have been adequately addressed.

Therefore, I consider that the manuscript can be accepted for publication in its current version.

Kind regards,

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In line 510 is word for subtitle “Conclusions” without numeration. Please add number 5 in front of subtitle.

The article “Bioindustry Based on Amazonian Biodiversity” is well-organized, well-written and easy to understand. The manuscript is clear and relevant for the field of bioindustry and bioeconomy. The article contains five well-developed sections: 1) Introduction, 2) Material and Methods, 3) Results, 4) Discussion, 5) Conclusions, that are presented in a well-structured manner.

The authors do a good job of synthesizing the literature since the cited references are mostly recent publications (70% within the last 5 years) and do not include an excessive number of self-citations (8 self-citations). The review is clear, comprehensive and of relevance to the field of bioindustrialization in Amazonian ecosystems focused on specific products and regions. Published works have scattered data on Amazonian biofactories that are unrelated to biodiversity. The absence of a structured, documented, and accessible dataset on this topic is detected lack of knowledge about bioindustry in Amazonia.

The methodology clearly explained data collection, organization, and analysis for Amazonian rainforest as a study area. The manuscript is scientifically sound and scientific articles and institutional websites published between 2020 and 2024, are appropriate key sources with information about biofactories in Amazonia. Three inclusion and four exclusion criteria were performed for biofactories and procedures for identifying legal nature and operational status provide the biofactories unique code. To geolocate the biofactories, Google Maps was used as a digital georeferencing tool. The five industrial categories (biotechnology, food, cosmetics, materials, and organic chemicals) were defined based on official public records. Organization of metadata were established according to standards.

The manuscript’s results are reproducible based on the details given in the methods section. The spatial distribution of biofactories was analyzed using a qualitative approach that focused on: 1) the presence or absence of biofactories in the 559 municipalities of the study area, 2) the variation in the number of units per municipality, 3) the representation of different bioindustrial sectors, and 4) the main processed products. The author’s results are convincing by detailed images as the representation of the industrial sectors and the main products regarding spatial distribution of the biofactories identified in Brazilian Amazonia. Pie chart depicting the relationships between industrial sectors and products processed by biofactories are very distinct. The data were interpreted appropriately and consistently.

The discussions are well supported by the presented evidence and arguments: 1) influence of sampling design is considered, 2) potential role of population size is discussed, 3) effectiveness of public policies on industrial decentralization is addressed, 4) links between local economic development and biofactory presence are highlighted, 5) arguments on how poor infrastructure limits industrialization are presented.

In conclusions this study provides a rare qualitative overview of biofactories in Brazilian Amazonia, that is the main question addressed by the research. Results fill a specific gap in bioindustries where structured data on these biofactories are scarce. This study add to the subject area compared to other published material several explanations for the observed patterns based on secondary data and literature, which make this topic relevant to the field of of biofactories in Brazilian Amazonia.

Six figures are easy to interpret and understand. Four tables are properly showing the data.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript, the authors studied Bioindustry Based on Amazonian Biodiversity.

The main issue of the manuscript is the assessment of the bioindustry sector in the Brazilian Amazon, based on the analysis of primary and secondary data.

Bioindustrialization is an innovative strategy for promoting a green economy based on biodiversity and adapted to the Amazon ecosystems. The topic of the study is original and relevant because the data of the manuscript can help identify priorities for the government, private sector and other entities seeking to strategically improve the infrastructure for a sustainable economy based on the biodiversity of Amazonia.

The results obtained will expand scientific knowledge in the field of development of bioindustry based on biodiversity in the Amazon. Such materials will complement the existing other published materials.

The purpose and objectives of the study are fully accomplished.

The studies were conducted at a high scientific and methodological level.

The authors used modern equipment and research methods.

The materials and methods correspond to the aim and objectives of the study.

The text of the manuscript has a logical structure. The text is written in understandable English.

The text contains a small number of spelling errors and typographical errors.

The results have a detailed, thorough analysis and are compared with available literary sources.

The authors' conclusions correspond to the presented results, arguments and evidence. They fully answer the questions posed.

Figure 2 is uninformative and can be removed from the manuscript.

The conclusion is consistent with the results obtained.

The authors do not allow the use of literary data without citing it. The references correspond to the problem raised and allow us to reveal the research questions.

However, the following comments can be made.
1. The title of the manuscript. It should be more precise.
2. Abstract and introduction. Give the purpose of the review.
3. Conclusion. Assess the results obtained. Give suggestions for their use.

I recommend that you revise the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find the topic of the paper very interesting and important not only for the economy and society of the region, but also for global society. 
The literature review, including the already available research results, has been prepared thoroughly. The studied population has been described in detail in various contexts. Could you please clarify which data the authors consider to be primary data? 
I agree that knowledge gaps should be eliminated and data on the characteristics of biofactories should be analyzed. However, I believe that the study should be expanded to include the reasons why the structure of biofactories is what it is. I recommend examining not only external factors (e.g., infrastructure) but also internal factors (the economic attractiveness of such activities, e.g., using Porter's Five Forces Analysis) It could also be extremely important to answer the question of what structure of these biofactories would be optimal for sustainable development. This was missing from the paper, but it could be provided by the authors through further research, which I encourage them to do. 
What needs to be supplemented is the identification of the research problem, the definition of research questions or hypotheses, and the indication of research methods. 
Afterafter completing the missing elements, I recommend the paper for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your article entitled “Bioindustry Based on Amazonian Biodiversity” is, in my opinion, not a scientific article.

Beyond the fact that it lacks a clear research objective, research hypotheses, and a research method, it also does not present relevant results that respond to a gap you have identified in the scientific literature.

What makes your article original?

What is its scientific value?

What are the gaps you have identified in the literature that your paper seeks to address?

What is the connection between the title and the actual content of the paper?

I hope these questions will guide you toward conducting scientific research worthy of the prestigious journal Sustainability.

Best of luck!