Next Article in Journal
Filamentous Fungi and Yeasts Associated with Mites Phoretic on Ips typographus in Eastern Finland
Next Article in Special Issue
Warming Increases the Carbon Sequestration Capacity of Picea schrenkiana in the Tianshan Mountains, China
Previous Article in Journal
Clonal Reproduction and Low Genetic Diversity in Northern Australian Santalum lanceolatum (Santalaceae) Populations Highlights the Need for Genetic Rescue of This Commercially Significant Species
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Net Revenue of Forest Carbon Offset Projects: Application of the Korean Emission Trading System in the Forestry Sector

Forests 2021, 12(6), 742; https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060742
by Heesung Woo 1, Mauricio Acuna 2, Byoungkoo Choi 3,* and Joonsoon Kim 3,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Forests 2021, 12(6), 742; https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060742
Submission received: 10 May 2021 / Revised: 1 June 2021 / Accepted: 2 June 2021 / Published: 4 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Carbon Stock and Sequestration in Forest Ecosystems)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present an interesting contribution that could also serve in the evaluation of ecosystem services of forest complexes.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thanks for your review and suggestions for this manuscript. My co-authors and I have responded to the Reviewers’ comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers helped us improve the technical presentation of our study results and the readability of the manuscript, so we are immensely grateful for that. We believe that the current version of our manuscript is now much clear and informative than the previous version. 

Thank you,

Heesung Woo

Research Professor

School of Forest and Environmental Sciences

Kangwon National University

Chuncheon, 24341

South Korea

Phone: +82 10 4354 1608 

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 388 correct sensitive to sensitive.

Figure 3, is a copy-paste with bad resolution. The manuscript will get the benefit from an original drawing. 

Tables need tidying up.

References are in cases in bad shape, see line 486.

Hectares are not an S.I. unit. All units should be on the SI system.

The scenarios presented for 40 and 60 years among others. Revenues should take into account financial discount factors, if not that it should be stated why.

One general argument is that tree/forest planting is part of the fact CO2 cycle and in fact, it may not offer that much into the GHG reduction against the Paris agreement. Perhaps, the authors without going too much into detail may address that issue. 

Author Response

May 31th, 2021

Dear Editor,

Thanks for your review and suggestions for this manuscript. My co-authors and I have addressed and responded to the Reviewers’ comments and suggestions. Please find enclosed a revised copy of our manuscript.

The attached pages summarize how we have addressed the reviewers’ suggestions and comments. The comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers helped us improve the technical presentation of our study results and the readability of the manuscript, so we are immensely grateful for that. We believe that the current version of our manuscript is now much clear and informative than the previous version. 

Thank you,

Heesung Woo

Research Professor

School of Forest and Environmental Sciences

Kangwon National University

Chuncheon, 24341

South Korea

Phone: +82 10 4354 1608 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments on “Value-added forest carbon offset projects …” 


This is an interesting paper in both academic and practical/policy contexts. I only have a few comments, largely editorial, that the authors may want to consider.

1) “Value-Added” should be replaced by “net revenue”. Value-added is a term used in manufacturing as a measure between the costs of inputs and the price of output and that doesn’t really apply to non-manufacturing activity such as silviculture. The authors use net revenue in the text and in Table 7, and that is a more appropriate term in this case.  

2) I may be missing something, but the results seem to be for “stands” of forest, and not for an areal unit such as hectares. If that is correct then “stand” needs to be defined.

3) Many of the references to the forest-climate literature are dated (although appropriate). The authors may want to cite Law et al. 2018 PNAS 115(14): 3663-3668 “Land Use Strategies to Mitigate Climate Change in Carbon Dense Temperate Forests.

4) line 24 – “Scenarios 2 and 4” should be “two scenarios” .

5) line 42 – “COP” should be spelled-out.

6) Line 68 – “MOE” should be spelled out.

7) line 193 – Should the reference to Equation 6 actually be to Equation 4?

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thanks for your review and suggestions for this manuscript. My co-authors and I have addressed and responded to the Reviewers’ comments and suggestions. Please find enclosed a revised copy of our manuscript.

The attached pages summarize how we have addressed the reviewers’ suggestions and comments. The comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers helped us improve the technical presentation of our study results and the readability of the manuscript, so we are immensely grateful for that. We believe that the current version of our manuscript is now much clear and informative than the previous version. 

Thank you,

Heesung Woo

Research Professor

School of Forest and Environmental Sciences

Kangwon National University

Chuncheon, 24341

South Korea

Phone: +82 10 4354 1608 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop