Common Reed for Thatching in Northern Germany: Estimating the Market Potential of Reed of Regional Origin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled "Common Reed for Thatching in Northern Germany: Estimating the Market Potential of Reed of Regional Origin” is about a study market of reed (Phragmites australis) as a material for thatching, specifically in North of Germany. The study presents an overview of value chain for thatching reed and the value chain actors. It is emphasized in euro bundles for the final service of thatching, whether in new buildings, renovation or repair. The importance of the work resides in determination of market volume and market opportunities of reed from regional origin.

Market analysis, design of survey for thatching companies, data collection, analysis and validation of the results, are adequately described and clearly presented.

As a final comment, it could be interesting to report an average value of the size of euro bundles. The study only indicates circumference but length and mass is also important. In this sense, the euro bundle weight could be related to the 6367 tons of reed imported to Germany and to the yield of thatching reported as 12 bundles/m².

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review. Our point-by-point responses are highlighted in blue and italics. All changes in the manuscript are highligthed in yellow.

The manuscript entitled "Common Reed for Thatching in Northern Germany: Estimating the Market Potential of Reed of Regional Origin” is about a study market of reed (Phragmites australis) as a material for thatching, specifically in North of Germany. The study presents an overview of value chain for thatching reed and the value chain actors. It is emphasized in euro bundles for the final service of thatching, whether in new buildings, renovation or repair. The importance of the work resides in determination of market volume and market opportunities of reed from regional origin.

Market analysis, design of survey for thatching companies, data collection, analysis and validation of the results, are adequately described and clearly presented.

Thank you very much for the positive evaluation of our research.

As a final comment, it could be interesting to report an average value of the size of euro bundles. The study only indicates circumference but length and mass is also important. In this sense, the euro bundle weight could be related to the 6367 tons of reed imported to Germany

Thank you for suggesting this improvement. It must be stressed, however, that in contrast to the circumference standard value there is no standard value for the weight. Different lengths of reed bundles are distinguished for thatching (long, medium, short bundles) and thus the weight of reed bundles varies, too. According to your comment, we used an average value for weight of euro bundles for relating the trade statistic data reported in tons to our survey data reported in bundles (see line 420-431) and discussed reasons for the deviations found.

and to the yield of thatching reported as 12 bundles/m².

The value of 12 bundles per square meter refers to the number of bundles needed for thatching a roof. The yield differs depending on the harvested site and the growing conditions in the specific year. An average value is 500 euro bundles per hectare (see line 493).

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting work that evaluates the production potential and enhancement of the common reed. However, the issue is presented in a rather reductive way. It is very targeted and specific to a single type of use of which I would strengthen the reasons that led to this choice to the detriment of the others. I would strengthen the introduction with greater knowledge of the reality examined, geographical, company type, etc. etc. comparisons with other production companies and possibilities of use; examination of the spontaneous and cultivated areas, I would explain better by strengthening the criteria for choosing the area examined, the techniques followed in the main cultivation phases and the determination of the sample for the survey; it is not clear whether industry data comes only from Eurostat or other forms of information, in which case I would supplement.
The work requires a deep integration also on the scientific level so as not to seem a simple survey on a specific market sector.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review. Our point-by-point responses are highlighted in blue and italics. All changes in the manuscript are highligthed in yellow.

Interesting work that evaluates the production potential and enhancement of the common reed. However, the issue is presented in a rather reductive way.

Thank you very much for your encouraging overall assessment.

It is very targeted and specific to a single type of use of which I would strengthen the reasons that led to this choice to the detriment of the others.

We explained in the introduction that thatching is the most common utilization type of reed, at least in Europe, with a long tradition up to modern applications. To our knowledge, other utilization options for globally traded reed bundles, e.g. insulation panels, have hardly any market relevance. Reed as a resource for other industry applications, such as for pulp and paper production in China (cf. Brix et al. 2014, Köbbing et al. 2016;) is of no relevance in present-day Europe. We now stress this point in the first section of the introduction (line 33ff).

I would strengthen the introduction with greater knowledge of the reality examined, geographical, company type, etc. etc. comparisons with other production companies and possibilities of use; examination of the spontaneous and cultivated areas, I would explain better by strengthening the criteria for choosing the area examined, the techniques followed in the main cultivation phases and the determination of the sample for the survey;

To our knowledge, the information requested for the introduction does not exist, yet. We conducted this explorative and descriptive study to generate a deeper knowledge.

Our results show that 83% of reed used in Germany was imported from other countries. The survey focused on German thatching companies and was unsuitable for eliciting information on growing areas or cultivation techniques in other countries. Less than 10% of the thatching companies in Germany conduct reed harvesting themselves. We now underline this result by mentioning it in the abstract (line20f).

it is not clear whether industry data comes only from Eurostat or other forms of information, in which case I would supplement.

Thank you for pointing out this inaccuracy. We specified in section 2.6. “To validate the information of the survey, the results were compared with information about roofing standards and available trade data.” (line 216ff)

The work requires a deep integration also on the scientific level so as not to seem a simple survey on a specific market sector.

We agree with you that we address a very specific sector. The study is submitted, however, to a special issue on reed. We consider the general framing already provided by this intended publication context. Not only in Germany, but for whole Europe, reed for thatching is the most wide-spread utilization option and most of the resource is imported (cf. introduction). Despite of “simple” description and extrapolation, our study generates new knowledge for a topic so far little explored. Reed for other utilization options (e.g. for pulp and paper as in China, cf. Brix et al. 2014, Köbbing et al. 2016;) is of no relevance in present-day Europe. We now stress this point in the first section of the introduction. Thus, we belief that our research significantly advances the state of knowledge in a specific, but highly underresearched and relevant market which might gain in importance in the future circular bioeconomy.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is very interesting and carefully prepared, although some doubts, taking into account the scientific nature of the journal, may arise from the methodology of the research. In particular, the selection of a sample for research, assumptions regarding its representativeness and drawing conclusions based on a simple extrapolation of data significantly deviate from the generally applicable rules.

The adoption of such naive assumptions as to the representativeness of the sample can be, at least partially, justified by the niche nature of the market under investigation and the lack of available statistical data.
However, the authors did not use the possibility of validating the calculations by comparing Eurostat data (import 6,367 tons of thatch - line 284) with the amount of imported thatch estimated based on surveys (3,023,745-511,013 = 2,512,732 bundles) - table 3. Supporting the analysis with literature or experimental data on the weight of a single bundle would significantly strengthen the adopted assumptions.

The authors refer in the abstract and the discussion to the possibility of growing reed in wetlands. Although such a statement seems logical, it has not been properly supported by the literature. In particular, when calculating the area of reed cultivation (lines 461-464) to meet the potential and demand, no data on expected yields are given.

Authors conclusion on the potential market gap in reed supply might also be supported by even simple economic comparison of costs and revenues (including subsidies) between typical agricultural use of dried wetlands and growing reed. This would help to explain why the reed is not cultivated in spite of growing market demand.

Also estimating the potential of carbon sequestration due to additional 10,000 ha of reed (to support "climate smart alternative" - line 463) might increase readers' interest in the paper and provide arguments to support an increase of reed area eventually.

There are several minor editorial deficits.

L.189 inconsistent style of 3rd level heading

l.333 diagram font inconsistent

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review. Our point-by-point responses are highlighted in blue and italics. All changes in the manuscript are highligthed in yellow.

The article is very interesting and carefully prepared, although some doubts, taking into account the scientific nature of the journal, may arise from the methodology of the research. In particular, the selection of a sample for research, assumptions regarding its representativeness and drawing conclusions based on a simple extrapolation of data significantly deviate from the generally applicable rules.

Thank you very much for the positive evaluation of our paper and for raising important critical points. Yes, a census approach might be unusual, but due to the small total number of companies (N=141) and the feasible survey instrument (self-completion questionnaire), we had no other choice than to go for a census in order to achieve reliable results. The selection to the sample was a pure self-selection of the respondents. The response rate of 33% can be considered as satisfactory, and in line with what can be expected from business mail surveys. As we reported we could not detect any specific selection bias (which is of course difficult to detect if you have no other information about the population). We checked also for different distributions of key variables between companies in different federal states and almost all of them were not statistically significant different. Therefore, we assumed representativeness and decided for a simple extrapolation and crosschecked the results with other available information.

The adoption of such naive assumptions as to the representativeness of the sample can be, at least partially, justified by the niche nature of the market under investigation and the lack of available statistical data.
However, the authors did not use the possibility of validating the calculations by comparing Eurostat data (import 6,367 tons of thatch - line 284) with the amount of imported thatch estimated based on surveys (3,023,745-511,013 = 2,512,732 bundles) - table 3. Supporting the analysis with literature or experimental data on the weight of a single bundle would significantly strengthen the adopted assumptions.

Thank you for suggesting this improvement. It must be stressed, however, that in contrast to the circumference standard value there is no standard value for the weight. Different lengths of reed bundles are distinguished for thatching (long, medium, short bundles) and thus the weight of reed bundles varies, too. According to your comment, we used an average value for weight of euro bundles for relating the trade statistic data reported in tons to our survey data reported in bundles (see lines 420-431) and discussed reasons for the deviations found

The authors refer in the abstract and the discussion to the possibility of growing reed in wetlands. Although such a statement seems logical, it has not been properly supported by the literature. In particular, when calculating the area of reed cultivation (lines 461-464) to meet the potential and demand, no data on expected yields are given.

One paragraph in the introduction (line 67-78) is dealing with the productive use of wet or rewetted peatlands, which is called paludiculture, and with the cultivation of reed considered as promising and its utilization for thatching being the most profitable option. Four references are given here. Data on yield was also given already in the discussion “Assuming an average yield of 500 bundles per hectare [15]” in line 493.

To address your comment, we have now added further information and references on the cultivation of reed in a new section 4.4.

Authors conclusion on the potential market gap in reed supply might also be supported by even simple economic comparison of costs and revenues (including subsidies) between typical agricultural use of dried wetlands and growing reed. This would help to explain why the reed is not cultivated in spite of growing market demand.

We added information on the obstacles of cultivation in the discussion in a new section 4.4.

Also estimating the potential of carbon sequestration due to additional 10,000 ha of reed (to support "climate smart alternative" - line 463) might increase readers' interest in the paper and provide arguments to support an increase of reed area eventually.

Thank you for pointing this out. We extended the second paragraph of 4.4 in the discussion to add information on the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and the potential of carbon sequestration (line 494-502). We also mentioned this aspect in the abstract, introduction and conclusion.

There are several minor editorial deficits.

L.189 inconsistent style of 3rd level heading

Corrected

l.333 diagram font inconsistent

Sorry, we could not identify any font inconsistency. However, we adjusted the figure caption to avoid misunderstandings.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The work has improved even if it always refers to a specific sector of use, some issues should be further investigated