Efficient, Sustainable, and Multifunctional Carbon Offsetting to Boost Forest Management: A Comparative Case Study

The objective of the study is clear, as are the methodology used, the results obtained and their implications. The title is consistent with what is proposed and is informative. Some references are a little older than 5/10 years, but in the discussion they tend to be recent, however they are consistent. There are some typos, specifically in references 10, 14, 17, 21, 37, 41, 51 and 54.

The article gives a good overview of what is already known about the topic under study (good references). The research question is well defined and deepened in its various components in a clear and concise way. The choice of case studies is justified by the research question.

The methodology is clear, both in terms of the selection of case studies, the collection of data and the methodological approach used. Each element is explained in such detail that the study can be replicated. The methodological approach chosen is valid, consistent and already present in the literature. The choice of this approach is also supported by comparing it with other methodological approaches in the literature.

The figures in the text are difficult to read in terms of both font size and graphic quality. The caption of the first figure is too long, it would be more appropriate to shorten it. The tables in the appendix should have a left- or right-hand arrangement of the text for greater readability, rather than a central arrangement. In table B2, the label in the third column is too long, more concise text would be preferable. The text in the results section is complementary to the data and it is clear how useful the results can be in practice.

The structure used for the discussion follows more that of the introduction, with rare exceptions. The results, however, are well interpreted even if not treated from different points of view, but always discussed with references in agreement.

The conclusions meet the aims of the study and are supported by both the results and the references. The limitations of the study are presented, but are not fatal. Rather they present an opportunity to inform future research.

In order to improve discussions, it is advisable to consider these articles:

Duncker, P. S., Raulund-Rasmussen, K., Gundersen, P., Katzensteiner, K., De Jong, J., Ravn, H. P., … Spiecker, H. (2012). How forest management affects ecosystem services, including timber production and economic return: Synergies and trade-offs. Ecology and Society, 17(4). doi:10.5751/es-05066-170450

Blanc, S., Accastello, C., Bianchi, E., Lingua, F., Vacchiano, G., Mosso, A., Brun, F., (2019). An integrated approach to assess carbon credit from improved forest management. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 38:1, 31-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2018.1494002

The research design proved to be appropriate for this study and was also supported by references. The added value of this study concerns the potential of voluntary mitigation projects to promote forest management according to three fundamental aspects, namely the efficiency, sustainability and multifunctionality of carbon storage.

The main shortcomings of this article concern the graphic quality of the figures presented and the structure used to make the discussion (more suitable for an introduction). However, the article is self-consistent.