Implementing Circular-Bioeconomy Principles across Two Value Chains of the Wood-Based Sector: A Conceptual Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
In this paper, the authors present the basic principles of Circular-Bioeconomy for Forest-based Sector.
In essence, their proposal is based on a conceptual approach that ensures a qualitative analysis that includes 5 sectors (sawnwood, bioenergy, construction, paper and pulp, and cellulose-based fibers and plastics) with huge applicability potential. The review of existing practices in the field of circular economy in different branches allow a wide range of solutions capable of using resources with maximum efficiency.
As a week elements
I would have liked if in some places we could also see some images with the component elements of your analysis.
And I think some graphics or diagrams would have been much more useful to express the proposed concept in a simpler way.
Figure 1 should be more clear. And the elements that explain certain concepts must be clearly highlighted.
As a notable elements
Based on a consistent bibliography of over 70 references, the authors highlight the multiple advantages of the circular economy through a concept that uses new technologies and modern management tools.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her positive and constructive comments on our paper. This is much appreciated. We try to answer your concerns in more detail below.
In this paper, the authors present the basic principles of Circular-Bioeconomy for Forest-based Sector.
In essence, their proposal is based on a conceptual approach that ensures a qualitative analysis that includes 5 sectors (sawnwood, bioenergy, construction, paper and pulp, and cellulose-based fibers and plastics) with huge applicability potential. The review of existing practices in the field of circular economy in different branches allow a wide range of solutions capable of using resources with maximum efficiency.
As a week elements
I would have liked if in some places we could also see some images with the component elements of your analysis. And I think some graphics or diagrams would have been much more useful to express the proposed concept in a simpler way.
Figure 1 should be more clear. And the elements that explain certain concepts must be clearly highlighted.
Thank you for these suggestions. Indeed, more images and diagrams could help to better explain our conceptual approach. We have now divided figure 1 into three separate figures which we hope explains the proposed circular economy concept in a simpler way. Certain elements in this figure are now more clearly highlighted.
As a notable elements
Based on a consistent bibliography of over 70 references, the authors highlight the multiple advantages of the circular economy through a concept that uses new technologies and modern management tools.
We appreciate your constructive feedback.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I have two questions concerning the scope of the article. lines 199-200 and lines 342-343 tell different stories. As a matter of fact, there are just two areas of interest: woodworking and pulp and paper industry, with different sections (probably these are five in total).
Another important issue worth commenting in this context is the numerous composite materials, based on fiber wood. I doubt that plastic reinforced with different fibers is a good example of circularity. It is rather a mean to greenwash plastic, and nothing more.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Thank you for taking the time to review our paper.
I have two questions concerning the scope of the article. lines 199-200 and lines 342-343 tell different stories. As a matter of fact, there are just two areas of interest: woodworking and pulp and paper industry, with different sections (probably these are five in total).
We focus on two value chains that contain 5 sectors in total: (1) sawnwood, (2) bioenergy, (3) construction, (4) pulp and paper, and (5) cellulose manufacturing. We have now tried to make this clearer in the paper.
Another important issue worth commenting in this context is the numerous composite materials, based on fiber wood. I doubt that plastic reinforced with different fibers is a good example of circularity. It is rather a mean to greenwash plastic, and nothing more.
We agree and thank the reviewer for raising these points. Given that the analysis is already addressing 5 sectors, it has unfortunately not been possible to go into more depth on certain topics, such as different types of plastic (whether bio-based or not) and other types of composite materials. We do however address the fundamental problems of plastic production (line 326 to 337).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Line 172 - energy cycles is NOT appropriate term. Energy Flow is correct scientific terminology: Energy Flow and Nutrient (Material) Cycling
Entire approach is on theoretical assessment of generic terminology. Methodological improvement must include some numerical models to address ambiguity in selection and approaches. A methodological flow diagram of approach is required.
Results must show the connectivity for circularity or sustainability. Presently, all the Tables are confined to need assessments.
Conclusions further leads to reader in dilemma. Wood as material deteriorates over time and cannot be recycled, is true but if biomass production is taken into account, this can have a circularity.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Thanks for taking the time to review our paper and for your helpful comments and suggestions. We have tried to address your main concerns, as outlined below.
Line 172 - energy cycles is NOT appropriate term. Energy Flow is correct scientific terminology: Energy Flow and Nutrient (Material) Cycling
We have now changed this to “energy flows”.
Entire approach is on theoretical assessment of generic terminology. Methodological improvement must include some numerical models to address ambiguity in selection and approaches. A methodological flow diagram of approach is required.
While we appreciate that modelling could be applied, this is largely a qualitative study, and the selection and development of the value chains were carried out by industry representatives from relevant sectors. This process is outlined on line 230 to 236. It will as such not be possible to apply this recommendation. The application of a methodological flow diagram is also not suitable given the overall design of the study.
Results must show the connectivity for circularity or sustainability. Presently, all the Tables are confined to need assessments.
We unfortunately do not fully understand this comment. The tables are meant to demonstrate relevant factors for improving circularity within the respective sectors, they are therefore explicitly linked to circularity. We only consider sustainability in terms of how it relates to the circular economy (e.g., line 379 to 388).
Conclusions further leads to reader in dilemma. Wood as material deteriorates over time and cannot be recycled, is true but if biomass production is taken into account, this can have a circularity.
Thanks for this observation. This is indeed a key problem for “circularity” as it is being applied to the forest-based sector. Wood (or biomass) can be seen as being circular depending on the definition of circularity that is being applied. This is a problem we have tried to highlight, for example, line 168 to 183 considers whether energy can be considered as circular, and linked to your remark, line 260 to 268 considers wood as a circular material, and again on line 421 to 431. We also raise the issue of ash recycling (Table 6), as part of this long-term view on circularity.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx