Green Assessment of Imports and Exports of Wooden Forest Products Based on Forest Processing Industry: A Case Study of China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents some value added to the scientific knowledge about the environmental trade competitiveness of the Chinese forest products.

Though the paper gives some new estimates of forest products flows in China, it is not free of some shortcomings that require major revision of the text.

Literature review is very specific to country problems and does not reflect the international agenda. Should you consider some impactful and recent sources on your topic, such as:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2014.03.003

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102286 

http://scindeks.ceon.rs/Article.aspx?artid=0350-03731703131M 

https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201563010293 

http://dx.doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-0585

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/1877 

My main concern are the numerous issues on the formatting and representation of the paper results.

1. The abstract looks too short. It is not involving and does not reflect the main advantages of the approach suggests by the authors. It would benefit from some extending.
2. Some phrases might be formulated better (ln 9—10, 41—43, 85—88 etc.). I would recommend to make an extensive editing of English language and style.
3. Formulae (17) looks weird.
4. Table 4 cannot be read. I would also recommend not to use the X1,…X12 style of variable naming.
5. Scale of figures is uneven (cf. fig. 6 and 7).
6. References are formatted in a very odd manner. This needs to be completely redone according to the rules of the journal.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your comments for the manuscript. I am very grateful to your comments. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Thank you for providing me with  papers in related fields. I read these papers carefully and cite these papers to perfect my literature review section. The following is my response to your comments. 

 

Point 1: The abstract looks too short. It is not involving and does not reflect the main advantages of the approach suggests by the authors. It would benefit from some extending.


Response 1: The main advantages of  the overall entropy method is added to the abstract. I've ignored this part before. I have Increased comparison between the overall entropy method and traditional entropy method. The applicability of this method is also added  in the abstract.

 

Point 2: Some phrases might be formulated better (ln 9—10, 41—43, 85—88 etc.). I would recommend to make an extensive editing of English language and style.

Response 2: Change statement to shorter form in 9—10, 41—43, 85—88. I will continue to finish make an extensive editing of English language and style.

 

Point 3: Formula (17) looks weird.


Response 3:  I have corrected  some printing grammatical errors in Formula (17). Here K is a constant.

Point 4: Table 4 cannot be read. I would also recommend not to use the X1,…X12 style of variable naming. 


Response 4:  W_lin table 4 is the weight of the evaluation index of item l . I want to use the name of index if X1…X12 is not appropriate.  However, the changed form will be very large. Would it be better to delete the table and use word to describe the result of W_l.  I am looking forwards to getting your views. Thank you very much for your guidance.

 

Point 5: Scale of figures is uneven (cf. fig. 6 and 7).


Response 5: I have changed the scale of fig. 6 and 7 according to the rules of Forests.

 

Point 6: References are formatted in a very odd manner. This needs to be completely redone according to the rules of the journal.

Response 6: I have completely redone references according to the rules of Forests.

 

Thank you for your comments for the manuscript again. I am looking forward to receiving your reply on my revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper demonstrates the assessment of forest products in the trade/international market by applying the overall entropy method, which enable us to time series and cross-sectional analyses. The paper used data from the World Bank, FAO and Chinese official statistics to calculate the scores for different categories for the forest products for China, showing technical and policy implications.

 

I believe that development of assessment system for forest products that are internationally delt is of critical importance. However, my major concern is that their overall presentation in the current form of manuscript is quite poor, and the authors fail to show their main contribution to the literature.

In what follows, I state the reasons for my decision in order of the manuscript.

 

First, in the introduction section, the authors did not effectively demonstrate literature review. It states that several approaches and methodologies exist for the assessment of forest products for different objectives in environmental and economic factors. However, it is unclear what are the merits/demerits of the existing approaches and how these studies did not demonstrate. green assessment of trade in forest products. The authors should conduct further literature review to show what/how their employed method (application of entropy method) brings advantages for green assessment.

 

I also think that the second section (the Materials and Methods section) did not effectively present the proposed assessment system. Though it presents the calculation formulas of individual components of green assessment, it is not clear for readers about what the whole assessment system looks like nor what relationships are among those components (e.g., are they independent or dependent or are they numeric or descriptive?). In the meantime, explanation of individual calculation methods seems insufficient. For example, for the definition of equations (2) and (3) are hardly understood given the statement. Likewise, thorough definition of individual components in the system also should be provided. As an example, the meaning of unit emission intensity is not clear (what is it meant by “relatively high” of the score?).  Explanations of equations (16) and (17) contain some printing grammatical errors and are quite unhelpful.

 

I found the most difficulties in Section 3 (the result section). First, the figures and tables do not stand alone by themselves. For example, in the PDF version of the manuscript, it is impossible to read Table 4. The sub-figures in Figure 6 should have titles. Figure 5 misses its explanations in the text. Furthermore, more explanations can/should be drawn from the results as individual results have much more information in their own. I think that the second paragraph of Section 4 (the discussion section) can be placed in the result section.

 

Finally, I think the discussion section can be improved to derive insights into the current situation of China as well as into the assessment methodologies. Specifically, regarding the international policies across nations, the authors can relate their discussion with their assessment results. Also, the authors could possibly address the merits of the employed method for the green assessment more clearly in this section.  

 

More specific/minor comments

• I found many grammatical errors throughout the manuscript, so the authors should correct them.
• Line 218 Should “TC=Te-T/Te+Ti “ be “TC=(Te-T)/(Te+Ti )“?
• In the equation (9), what is the definition of “T”?
• Pages 6-7, it is helpful to provide more explanation to move from equation (9) to equation (10).

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your comments for the manuscript. I am very grateful to your comments. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. The following is my response to your comments.

 

Point 1: First, in the introduction section, the authors did not effectively demonstrate literature review. It states that several approaches and methodologies exist for the assessment of forest products for different objectives in environmental and economic factors. However, it is unclear what are the merits/demerits of the existing approaches and how these studies did not demonstrate. green assessment of trade in forest products. The authors should conduct further literature review to show what/how their employed method (application of entropy method) brings advantages for green assessment.

Response 1: The literature review section of the previous manuscript does not clearly illustrate the advantages of the method. The purpose of this manuscript is to construct a comprehensive green assessment system for the trade of wooden forest products. Further improvement of the literature review of the introduction. This manuscript expounds the difference between the overall entropy weight method and other method, and explains its advantages for the construction of green assessment system. The main changes are in the third and fourth paragraph of Section 1 Introduction.

 

 

Point 2: I also think that the second section (the Materials and Methods section) did not effectively present the proposed assessment system. Though it presents the calculation formulas of individual components of green assessment, it is not clear for readers about what the whole assessment system looks like nor what relationships are among those components (e.g., are they independent or dependent or are they numeric or descriptive?). In the meantime, explanation of individual calculation methods seems insufficient. For example, for the definition of equations (2) and (3) are hardly understood given the statement. Likewise, thorough definition of individual components in the system also should be provided. As an example, the meaning of unit emission intensity is not clear (what is it meant by “relatively high” of the score?).  Explanations of equations (16) and (17) contain some printing grammatical errors and are quite unhelpful.

Response 2:

1. Each formula is independent of each other. The data it takes may have overlapping parts.These indicators are the key points for building a green assessment system for trade in wooden forest products.The advantages of method and the applicability of the green assessment of trade in wood forest products have been added.
2. According to the product discharge coefficient (α, λ) calculate the product discharge amount of wood forest products involved in trade. This part of the explanation has also been revised in the manuscript.
3. “relatively high”is not even accurate enough. Unit emission intensity is the ratio of the pollution emissions per unit of wooden forest products to the pollution created by the manufacture of the same product. It can also be understood as a discharge rate.
4. Equations (16) and (17) are adjusted to facilitate clearer reading. K is a          constant.

 

Point 3: I found the most difficulties in Section 3 (the result section). First, the figures and tables do not stand alone by themselves. For example, in the PDF version of the manuscript, it is impossible to read Table 4. The sub-figures in Figure 6 should have titles. Figure 5 misses its explanations in the text. Furthermore, more explanations can/should be drawn from the results as individual results have much more information in their own. I think that the second paragraph of Section 4 (the discussion section) can be placed in the result section.

Response 3:

1. Table 4 represent W_l W_lin table 4 is the weight of the evaluation index of item l. I have made some changes to its format and content. I am looking forwards to getting your views. Thank you very much for your guidance.
2. The format of Figure 6 has been modified in the journal style. The sub-figures(a)(b)(c) titles are explained separately below.
3. Delete Figure 5. Its role in the analysis is small. Figure 6.7 shows the main results.
4. The second paragraph of Section 4has been placed in the result section.

 

Point 4: Finally, I think the discussion section can be improved to derive insights into the current situation of China as well as into the assessment methodologies. Specifically, regarding the international policies across nations, the authors can relate their discussion with their assessment results. Also, the authors could possibly address the merits of the employed method for the green assessment more clearly in this section.  

Response 4: The first paragraph of Section 4 is the international policies across nations. Analysis of Green Assessment Model of Wooden Forest Products Trade Based on Chinese Data. Links between the policies of other countries and the contribution of a country to deforestation are in the discussion . The merits of the employed method for the green assessment is added to the last paragraph of Section 4.

 

Point 5: many grammatical errors

Response 5: The grammar of the full text is examined. Corrected grammatical errors found. We will continue to finish make an extensive editing of English language and style in the course of the subsequent amendments.

 

Point 6: Line 218 Should “TC=Te-T/Te+Ti “ be “TC=(Te-T)/(Te+Ti )“?

Response 6: The formula in line 218 has been revised.

 

Point 7: In the equation (9), what is the definition of “T”?

Response 7: The original formula in the reference is “ TC_ab = (X_ab - M_ab)/(X_ab + M_ab),” The purpose of this is to move from equation (9) to equation (10). T represents trade flows. X_ab is T_e . M_ab  is T_i.  In order to facilitate the following formula transformation and calculation analysis.

 

Point 8: Pages 6-7, it is helpful to provide more explanation to move from equation (9) to equation (10).

Response 8: More explanation has been added in equation (10).

 

Thank you for your comments for the manuscript again. I am looking forward to receiving your reply on my revision.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is well structured and prepared, but requires some revisions. Firstly all the formulas have to be supported with the exact citation of author/s have previously used them in order to be outlined the authors contributions in the current paper (rows:120-121;162-164; 174-175). Formula (9) needs to be specified in brackets. The "overall entropy method" (rows: 235-251) formulas also needs to be supported with citations. The same is available for the data which have been used in the study.

Table 1 represents hierarchy of the green evaluation system and it could be valuable for readers to be supplemented with horizontal lines in order to be visually distinguished the border between indicators, included in every guideline level.

Figure 6 is filled with plenty of information and it's difficult for the readers to orient in it. Maybe is appropriate to be split into several figures or in some other type of figures.

Iin the paper can be found some claims like the export of wooden products with greater pollution should be reduced (rows: 450-453). I cannot agree that this is the necessary measure for any optimization. Maybe prioritizing the state support to these producers in meaning of subsidies for investments in formaldehyde or dust reduction would give the appropriate strategy. 

Some therminology should be improved. "High density fibreboard" and "hardboard" is the same thing. There is no such thing like "hard density fibreboard"

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your comments for the manuscript. I am very grateful to your comments. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. The following is my response to your comments.

 

Point 1: Firstly all the formulas have to be supported with the exact citation of author/s have previously used them in order to be outlined the authors contributions in the current paper (rows:120-121;162-164; 174-175). Formula (9) needs to be specified in brackets. The "overall entropy method" (rows: 235-251) formulas also needs to be supported with citations. The same is available for the data which have been used in the study.

Response 1:

1. The contribution to global deforestation and forest degradation as measured with rate of contribution. Formula(1) is the ratio of variation. This is derived from the formula of contribution rate in economics. Formula (2)(3)：The calculation method of total pollution quantity has been marked in the data when the emission coefficient of the product is determined. The above formulas have been cited and explained in the manuscript.

2.Error in formula (9) has been revised

3.The source of the data is identified in the article as a web site.

 

Point 2: Table 1 represents hierarchy of the green evaluation system and it could be valuable for readers to be supplemented with horizontal lines in order to be visually distinguished the border between indicators, included in every guideline level.

Response 2: Table 1 is green evaluation system of trade in wooden forest products. The whole evaluation system has three perspective.(Environmental trade competitiveness, pollution treatment, and trade scale.). Perspective analysis and synthesis analysis by time series. Take a contrasting approach. After continuing to read the paper extensively, there were doubts about the problem. I would like to ask the professor to give more guidance on this evaluation.

 

Point 3: Figure 6 is filled with plenty of information and it's difficult for the readers to orient in it. Maybe is appropriate to be split into several figures or in some other type of figures.

Response 3: Figure 6 is combination of three figures.These three figures represent the three parts of the green assessment model. Attach subheadings to the figures to increase readability.

 

Point 4: In the paper can be found some claims like the export of wooden products with greater pollution should be reduced (rows: 450-453). I cannot agree that this is the necessary measure for any optimization. Maybe prioritizing the state support to these producers in meaning of subsidies for investments in formaldehyde or dust reduction would give the appropriate strategy. 

Response 4: I agree with this point after having considered carefully. The claims like the export of wooden products with greater pollution should be reduced is inappropriate. I have made some changes to this part in the manuscript.

 

Point 5: "High density fibreboard" and "hardboard" is the same thing. There is no such thing like "hard density fibreboard"

Response 5: This error has been modified throughout the manuscript.

 

Thank you for your comments for the manuscript again. I am looking forward to receiving your reply on my revision.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made a substantial progress. My major comments were taken into account. The manuscript is ready for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

  Thank you very much for your review of the manuscript. I further optimize the English language and style of manuscripts.

Kind regards,
All authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors：

I read through the revised version along with the response letters. I much appreciate all the efforts for revising the manuscript. However, given the analyses and results of the research, the revised version yet has poor presentation and organization. I have to say the manuscript needs major revisions for publication.

[Introduction section]

The authors made major changes in the second and third paragraphs for literature review. These parts are fine to me as they point the assessment target in the life cycle of forest products. However, thereafter in the introduction section, they fail to convince why they demonstrate assessment of forest products employing their entropy approach. Using LCA for example, it is possible to demonstrate comprehensive analyses including impact assessment and also to produce longitudinal indicators if data are available. I therefore suggest that the authors first define what “comprehensive assessment is” and then address what will be revealed if we are able to “comprehensive analyses.” In other words, it is necessary to clarify the original contribution of the paper to the research field.

[ Section 2]

I think the presentation of the methodology section remains poor. I would suggest the authors improve overall organization of this section.

Specifically, it is very hard to understand the whole picture of your assessment system. Are Subsection 2.1 and 2.2 part of the whole assessment system? I recommend the authors explain the whole picture of their assessment system. In the current form, they seem to explain components of assessment individually.

Section 2.2 starts with the statement “we will compare the import timber legitimacy policy of the countries with the largest import timber in the world.” This statement is unclear because in what follows, the authors did not compare legitimacy systems specifically but address the significance of international cooperative framework to challenge illegal logging.

For explanations of equations, I would like the authors to explain the relationship between the indicator list of Table 1 and equations/indicators shown in 2.3.1 - 2.3.5. (I.e., are they corresponding each other?)

As more specific comments, I found that not all letters used in the equations are properly defined. The problem is also that new concepts are suddenly introduced without explanations. For example, no explanation is provided from equation (9) to equation (10). Equation (10) is derived from equation (9) with manipulation and they give the definition of equation (10). However, with no explanation of the manipulation, it is hard to understand the meaning of the concepts of equation (10).

[Section 3]

The result section has critical problems yet. I appreciate the authors efforts to improve figures and tables, but those revised ones are hardly understandable. Also, it is helpful to include more interpretations of each results. For example, Figure 4 reports the change in forest coverage but readers may not learn those results with forest product assessment. More or less the authors should include some interpretations. Table 4 is very difficult to read and needs substantial revision. Likewise, more explanations of Figure 5 are necessary (e.g., how come are environmental trade competitiveness scores are almost same across products and constant over time?)

[Section 4]

I found them very interesting, but it would be nice to clarify the connection between individual discussions and their base findings from the authors assessment.  

Sincerely,

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your comments for the manuscript. We have further revised it according to your comments. The following is my response to your comments.

Point 1:[Introduction section]

  They fail to convince why they demonstrate assessment of forest products employing their entropy approach. Using LCA for example, it is possible to demonstrate comprehensive analyses including impact assessment and also to produce longitudinal indicators if data are available. I therefore suggest that the authors first define what “comprehensive assessment is” and then address what will be revealed if we are able to “comprehensive analyses.” In other words, it is necessary to clarify the original contribution of the paper to the research field.

Response 1: Introduction supplements the contribution of this article and the applicability of the methodology. Comprehensive evaluation of existing data by overall entropy weight method is showed. This method enables a comprehensive assessment, including an assessment of the status quo, and shows temporal  characteristics and type of product characteristics. This research is based on the forest processing industry. The green assessment does not take into account only the problem of production pollution. This research analyzes the green situation of wooden forest products trade through three aspects: environment, pollution and economic benefit. This paper analyzes the current situation of green development of wooden forest products trade in a country, and makes planning suggestions for the green development of wooden forest products trade in a country.

Point 2:[ Section 2] 

Specifically, it is very hard to understand the whole picture of your assessment system. Are Subsection 2.1 and 2.2 part of the whole assessment system? I recommend the authors explain the whole picture of their assessment system. In the current form, they seem to explain components of assessment individually.

Section 2.2 starts with the statement “we will compare the import timber legitimacy policy of the countries with the largest import timber in the world.” This statement is unclear because in what follows, the authors did not compare legitimacy systems specifically but address the significance of international cooperative framework to challenge illegal logging.

For explanations of equations, I would like the authors to explain the relationship between the indicator list of Table 1 and equations/indicators shown in 2.3.1 - 2.3.5. (I.e., are they corresponding each other?)

As more specific comments, I found that not all letters used in the equations are properly defined. The problem is also that new concepts are suddenly introduced without explanations. For example, no explanation is provided from equation (9) to equation (10). Equation (10) is derived from equation (9) with manipulation and they give the definition of equation (10). However, with no explanation of the manipulation, it is hard to understand the meaning of the concepts of equation (10).

Response 2:

1. Section 2.1 introduces the contribution to global deforestation and forest degradation. Section 2.2 introduces governance modes and policy instruments. These two parts do not have the corresponding numerical value to carry on the quantification analysis, but this part is important in review. Therefore, as part of the assessment, but not included in the model involved in the calculation.
2. This part is improved. We consider the framework of China, outside China and the world because all discussion are made as the object of China in this manuscript.
3. Marking the correspondence between the formula and table 1.
4. There is a problem with equation 10, and I have modified it. Explained the idea of equation derivation for 9 to10.

Point 3:[Section 3]

The result section has critical problems yet. I appreciate the authors efforts to improve figures and tables, but those revised ones are hardly understandable. Also, it is helpful to include more interpretations of each results. For example, Figure 4 reports the change in forest coverage but readers may not learn those results with forest product assessment. More or less the authors should include some interpretations. Table 4 is very difficult to read and needs substantial revision. Likewise, more explanations of Figure 5 are necessary (e.g., how come are environmental trade competitiveness scores are almost same across products and constant over time?)

Response 3:

1. Figure 4 shows the results of Part 2.1. In the first paragraph of the discussion section, there is a related explanation and the reasons for the result.
2. The results in Table 4 are numerous, but their contents are shown in Figure 5. I can't find a way to perfect table 4, so I decided to delete table four. It can be seen that the analysis process does not affect the full text.
3. Figure 5 provides further information on problematic areas.

 

Point 4: [Section 4]

I found them very interesting, but it would be nice to clarify the connection between individual discussions and their base findings from the authors assessment.  

 

Response 4: The main part of the discussion is the analysis of the results obtained in this paper. The first paragraph is an analysis of 2.1and 2.2. This section explains why China's deforestation rate is special. Demonstrate the policy of China and the top countries in trade in wood products. The second and third paragraphs are the analysis and explanation of the results obtained by the overall entropy weight method.

Thank you very much for your review of my manuscript. Your comments points the way for my manuscript. If there are any questions I haven't answered well or modified well, please let me know again. I am glad to receive your review. Thank you for your hard work to my manuscript. I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,
All authors

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

 

This paper assesses a “Green Development Index” for China’s wood products industry from 2013-2017 across pulp, hardwood, plywood, newsprint, etc.. The authors define “Green Development” in terms of pollution, only, and use a method called a global entropy weight to calculate the index.

 

In my opinion, this paper is focused on a margin that is inconsequential when considering China’s forestry sector.  China’s contribution to global deforestation and forest degradation need to be considered in any “Green Development Index” and to not include them, or even address them, concerns me. The totalizing sound of a “Green Development Index” contributes to a narrative that obscures the most important concern regarding the Chinese forest products sector, namely how a massive increase in processing timber products coupled with more restrictive access to local timber products leads to imports of illegal and unsustainably harvested timber.

 

Ironically, China’s growth as a wood processor, which is due in part to their less stringent import criteria as compared to the US, the EU, Australia, and Japan (e.g. Lacey Act, FLEG-T, etc.), actually improve their green development score by the authors’ metric (see 2.1.4)

 

One way to address this might be to change the title and reframe the paper, putting the importance of pollution from the forest products sector in an appropriate context and being explicit, in several places of the paper, about the important omission of the origin, legality, and sustainability of imported timber.  Instead of Green Development, it could be Pollution Index, for example.

 

However, there is still the issue that a higher share of global production positively impacts the score and I am concerned that this essentially “greenwashes” the question of the environmental impact of China’s forest products sector. I thus find this insufficient for addressing the core weakness of the paper.  The authors must find some way to build in the risk of illegal, unsustainable timber imports into their index.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors are adressing a relevant topic. It is urgently suggested to increase precision of the use of relevant terms and concepts.

It is not clear if this study is about foresty or the wood industry.

The term "green development" might not have been used correctly. The concept green development usually refers to real estate. The clarification of this concept for the scope of the study is advised to ensure transparency. 

In several cases a statement is given by referring to Literature, however the infomation provided remains rather vague. e.g. see line 30, 33-38, 374, ..

see also line 379 and clariy the term "green ecogy"

The authors are advised to spicy statements using the term "relatively" (line 33, 47, 381,).

A bulk of abbreviations is given starting form line 81 downwards. It is reccommendd to explain their meaning.

It remains unclear how the environmental issues of the raw-wood imports are treated in the assessment. This should be explained and discussed.

The figures are not referred to by numbering which makes it difficult to follow the descriptions.

The units are not given in the charts.

Improve readability of table 5.

Line 132 refers to Alpha in the formula. However ther is none.

The general logic of global entropy and its appropiateness for this study is not explained good enough.