Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

A Comprehensive Model Assessment of China’s Forestry and Climate Change

Forests 2023, 14(7), 1454; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14071454

by Ying Zhang¹, Bright Obuobi¹

, Delight Hwarari²

and Zhiguang Zhang^1,3,*

Reviewer 1:

Satoshi Tachibana

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3:

Francesco Carbone

Forests 2023, 14(7), 1454; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14071454

Submission received: 24 May 2023 / Revised: 7 July 2023 / Accepted: 10 July 2023 / Published: 16 July 2023

(This article belongs to the Section Forest Economics, Policy, and Social Science)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1: Comments and Responses

Dear Reviewer and Editor,

Thank you very much for your time and efforts in handling and reviewing our manuscript. Your valuable comments and suggestions helped us significantly improve the quality of the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to your insightful comments and suggestions and tried to improve the quality of the manuscript. And point-to-point responses were made and listed below.

This paper contains content that could provide useful insights in model analyses related to forests, forestry, and environmental policy. However, in evaluating the paper, some important information is missing, and there are some errors and confusing descriptions. I will point out below what needs to be added or corrected in the paper.

1) Title and Keywords

- The title of the paper does not match the content of the research. The title needs to match the research content and should accurately describe the research.

- “Forestry Economics Models” in the title does not match “Forest Economics Models” in the keywords. Authors need to be aware of the differences between these two terms in writing this paper.

- Is the difference between “forest management” in the title and “forestry” in the keywords problematic for the paper?

- The reviewer's perception is that “forest management” and “forestry” are not congruent. This difference should be carefully examined and discussed in the body of this paper.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this comment and correction. Following this, we have rectified and addressed the issue between forestry and forest management. Please see the Title, Keywords, and Section 1 (paragraph 1) in the revised manuscript for your reference.

2) Literature review - It is not clear how the Gravity Equation model, etc., which is written as a literature review, relates to this study. If it is related, it should be stated in a way that makes it clear, and if not, it should be deleted. Alternatively, it may be necessary to indicate the number of papers covered by this study for each model being reviewed.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this critical insight. We intended to provide an overview of relevant economic models, hence the Gravity model. Following this comment, we had a second look at it and realized that the Gravity model does not make any special contribution to the study. It has been deleted as suggested by the reviewer and the in this study. Please see Section 2 in the revised manuscript for your reference.

3) Data and Methodology

- For the articles to be reviewed in this study, an explanation of which time period and areas in China is the model being analyzed is needed.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Following the comment, we have added an explanation of the period and area in which the model is being analyzed. Please see Section 3.1 for your perusal.

- Could you add an explanation as to whether the articles under review were written within or outside of China? This would be beneficial to understanding the results of this analysis.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added an explanation stating that the article focused on China. Please see section 3.1 in the revised manuscript for your reference.

4) Results and Discussions

- The numbering on the headings needs to be corrected.

Response 4: Thank you for the correction. We have corrected the numbering on the various headings. Please see the revised manuscript for your perusal.

- I do not understand the relationship from equations (4) to (6). Please provide a careful explanation of these relationships. For example, the coefficients for the variables in equations (4) and (6) should not match. An explanation of how to choose between a linear model and a bi-logarithmic model is also needed.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Following this comment, we have the relationships of the equations used. An explanation for choosing the linear model has also been provided. Please see section 3.3 in the revised manuscript for your reference.

- Explanations of the variables listed below the tables are unnecessary since they are written in the text.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer for this correction. We have removed the variables’ explanations below the respective Tables. Please see the revised manuscript for your reference.

- The sample size should be added to the results of the tests and estimates.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment and suggestions. We have included the sample size of the results in the revised manuscript. Please see Tables 1 and 6 in the revised manuscript for your reference.

- For the regression analysis, an explanation of how the choice was made is needed.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer for this comment and suggestions. Following your suggestion, we have included an explanation of how the choice for the regression analysis was made. Please see section 3.3 below for your reference.

3.3 Empirical model

“The ordinary least square (OLS) estimation method was employed to run the multiple linear regression for the study. In a linear regression model, the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression optimization technique aids in locating a straight line that is as near to your data points as is practical. Because it may assist in locating objective real value estimates for the alpha and beta estimations, OLS is regarded as the most beneficial optimization approach for linear regression models. Due to its simplicity, effectiveness, and adaptability, this method was chosen since it is a prevalent and extensively used method for statistical modeling. It has a closed-form solution that can be computed analytically or numerically.”

5) Conclusion and Implication - Please reconsider the conclusions and discussion after making additions and corrections regarding the data and analytical methods noted above.

Response 5: We are grateful to the reviewer for this comment. We have reconsidered the comments addressed in the Conclusion and Implication section. Please see section 5.1 for your reference.

I believe that a drastic revision is needed to accept this paper. There is something important missing in the literature review, and the hypothesis of this study is not explained in a reasonable manner. Also, the explanation of data handling is inadequate and needs to be elaborated.

Response: We thank the reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript and pointing out critical issues that can help improve the manuscript. We have carefully addressed issues relating to literature, data, and methodologies to improve the manuscript. We hope these revisions will meet the reviewer’s expectations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors of the paper "Forestry Economics Models: Forest Management and Climate Change in China" present a relevant topic, namely the identification of "the balance between maximizing income from forests and mitigating climate change challenges arise from the growth of industrialization and population", having a contribution in primarily applied at a global economic level, as well as a multiplier effect at the level of all states with forest impact areas. However, we would appreciate it if, from the abstract of the work, the authors could mention the scientific contribution and the innovative elements, such as those addressed regarding the analyzed topic.

Concepts, bibliographic sources and citations are adequately mentioned within the paper, for example the authors use relevant bibliographic references, but they must be properly revised. For example, the authors mention as recent the sources "Approximately half of the carbon emitted by fossil fuels is equivalent to the annual gross carbon absorbed by all the world's forests [20]".

The research methodology is appropriate and in accordance with the theme of the work, the authors use models such as the Gravity Model, proposed by Linnemann, as well as the "Faustmann model is a mathematical model used to optimally predict the rotation age of a forest stand, which is the age at that the tree must be harvested and replanted", thus obtaining relevant results for the work through appropriate research models. Moreover, the authors use data from international scientific databases such as ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Scopus, CAB Abstracts, and Forest Science.

The results of the study are presented both descriptively and centrally in the form of graphs and tables, respecting the academic rigors, and directly oriented to highlight the elements obtained according to the methodology of the work, as well as the presentation of the regression model to evaluate the impact of the analyzed variables. Moreover, the authors highlight the fact that most forestry economic models are oriented "on maximizing forest profit" and "ignoring the impact of climate impact", "the Faustmann basic economic model is the most dominant". The presented results are pragmatically oriented towards applied research, but we suggest the authors of the papers to highlight in a distinct paragraph the innovations and personal scientific contributions developed within the paper and which contribute directly to the specialized scientific literature.

The conclusions are properly presented by the authors of the work, the limitations of the study and future research are presented adequately and with details about the implications of both the current research resulting from the work and for future research, which shows a determination of the authors towards this field both from the point of view of the real beneficiaries of the study, but also from the point of view of the possible multiplication effects based on the results of the study.

We congratulate the research team for the work done, and after the additions suggested in the review report.

Author Response

Reviewer 2: Comments and Responses

Dear Reviewer and Editor,

Point 1: Concepts, bibliographic sources and citations are adequately mentioned within the paper, for example the authors use relevant bibliographic references, but they must be properly revised. For example, the authors mention as recent the sources "Approximately half of the carbon emitted by fossil fuels is equivalent to the annual gross carbon absorbed by all the world's forests [20]".

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the commendations and suggestions. Following this, we have revised the references. Please see the revised manuscript for your perusal.

Point 2: The research methodology is appropriate and in accordance with the theme of the work, the authors use models such as the Gravity Model, proposed by Linnemann, as well as the "Faustmann model is a mathematical model used to optimally predict the rotation age of a forest stand, which is the age at that the tree must be harvested and replanted", thus obtaining relevant results for the work through appropriate research models. Moreover, the authors use data from international scientific databases such as ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Scopus, CAB Abstracts, and Forest Science.

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer for the commendations.

Point 3: The results of the study are presented both descriptively and centrally in the form of graphs and tables, respecting the academic rigors, and directly oriented to highlight the elements obtained according to the methodology of the work, as well as the presentation of the regression model to evaluate the impact of the analyzed variables. Moreover, the authors highlight the fact that most forestry economic models are oriented "on maximizing forest profit" and "ignoring the impact of climate impact", "the Faustmann basic economic model is the most dominant". The presented results are pragmatically oriented towards applied research, but we suggest the authors of the papers to highlight in a distinct paragraph the innovations and personal scientific contributions developed within the paper and which contribute directly to the specialized scientific literature.

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer for seeing merit in our work and providing suggestions. Following this, we have included in the revised manuscript the innovations and scientific contributions made in the paper. Please see section 2.4 for your reference.

Point 4: The conclusions are properly presented by the authors of the work, the limitations of the study and future research are presented adequately and with details about the implications of both the current research resulting from the work and for future research, which shows a determination of the authors towards this field both from the point of view of the real beneficiaries of the study, but also from the point of view of the possible multiplication effects based on the results of the study. We congratulate the research team for the work done, and after the additions suggested in the review report.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for taking the time to review our paper, commending us, and providing us with meaningful suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

From my point of view

all text must be improved in trems of editing and style

specifically I suggest to the Author to improve the first part of the manuscript, from 1 to 4 pages.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3: Comments and Responses

Dear Reviewer and Editor,

Point: From my point of view

all text must be improved in trems of editing and style

specifically I suggest to the Author to improve the first part of the manuscript, from 1 to 4 pages.

Response: We thank the reviewer for taking the time to carefully examine our paper and providing relevant corrections and suggestions. Following these comments, we have carefully addressed all issues raised by the reviewer in the revised manuscript. Please see the revised manuscript for your reference.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

I consider this paper, which has been revised in light of the review comments, to be improved. However, there are still some ambiguous aspects. Therefore, I make comments and suggestions on them and request that they be revised again.

1) Title and Keywords

- I think the title should be a straightforward statement of what this study will reveal. I think the title of this paper, "Forest Economics Model," is too broad and does not accurately describe what this study is trying to accomplish.

- The keywords are duplicated in the title, which seems to be a major missed opportunity for the authors. It would be desirable to use precise keywords, such as what models and estimation methods are used in this study.

2) Data and Methodology

- It is recommended that the order of the variables listed in Table 1, Table 2 and Figure 3 be aligned.

- The terms "forest economics models" and "forestry economic models" are used in this section, but it is necessary to clarify what they are and how they differ.

- A summary of the literature review on forest economic models by database, which is also the objective of this study, should be presented in a table. I think this is an important part of the results of the analysis of this study and helpful for readers to understand.

- The explanation regarding OLS added in 3.3 can be simply cited from econometrics textbooks and does not need to be stated here. Also, since the notation "ordinary least square (OLS)" is repeated, it is sufficient to simply state OLS after the first explanation.

- As noted in the first review, the fact that the coefficients (β) in equations (3) and (4) are the same is theoretically incorrect. Reconsideration is requested.

- Although the relationships between the formulations presented in this paper are approximately understandable, it is also important to clearly state the sign conditions for the coefficients of each variable in order to demonstrate the validity of the estimation results.

3) Results and Discussions

- The explanation for the model selection noted in the first review is inadequate. The authors may have made several estimates to determine the most appropriate model. My understanding is that it is common to use AIC or BIC for model selection. The authors need to add an explanation of how the model selection in this study was conducted.

- In Figure 3 it is unclear what the author is analyzing; the title of Figure 3 needs to be reconsidered.

4) Conclusion and Implication

- Since the theoretical implications are described with respect to the Faustmann models as a forest economic model, the subtitle should be changed accordingly.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 (Round #2): Comments and Responses

Dear Reviewer and Editor,

Point :

Response :

We thank the reviewer for the commendations and for taking the time to review our manuscript to its best form. Additional comments and suggestions given have been addressed. We hope they meet the reviewer’s expectations.

Point

1) Title and Keywords

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Following this insightful comment, we have modified the title to a much narrower one. Please see the title in the revised manuscript for your reference.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have modified the keywords used in the study. Please see the revised keywords for your reference.

2) Data and Methodology

- It is recommended that the order of the variables listed in Table 1, Table 2, and Figure 3 be aligned.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have aligned the variables listed in Table 1, Table 2, and Figure 3.

- The terms "forest economics models" and "forestry economic models" are used in this section, but it is necessary to clarify what they are and how they differ.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. Following this, we have clarified the ambiguity between “forestry economics models” and “forest economics models”. Most of them were oversight and we have addressed them. Please see section 3 in the revised manuscript for your reference.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer for this suggestion. However, based on the previous advice from the reviewer, we have already modified and changed the direction and objective of the study, laying less emphasis on the general forest economic model. We have also modified the objective and title accordingly in Section 1 (last paragraph). As a result, we believe that adding a table from the database of the forest economic model will take us back to the previous focus that led to the deletion of other models including the gravity model. We appreciate this suggestion and will consider it in our future studies. Thank you.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer the suggestions. We have cited OLS from econometrics sources and deleted the explanation stated in the manuscript. Also, the OLS repetition has been resolved. Please see the revised manuscript in section 3.3 for your reference.

- As noted in the first review, the fact that the coefficients (β) in equations (3) and (4) are the same is theoretically incorrect. Reconsideration is requested.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer for this correction. Following this, we carefully reviewed the equations and clarified the inconsistencies. Please see equations (3) to (6) in the revised manuscript for your reference. If it still doesn’t meet the reviewers’ expectations, kindly educate us with specifics and we will address them accordingly. Thank you.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer for this suggestion. We have stated the sign conditions for the coefficients of each variable. Please see Section 3 and Equation 10 in the revised manuscript for your reference.

3) Results and Discussions

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion and education. Following this comment, we have added an additional explanation of how the model selection was done. Please see Section 3.3 in the revised manuscript for your reference.

- In Figure 3 it is unclear what the author is analyzing; the title of Figure 3 needs to be reconsidered.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comments. In Figure 3, the authors exhibit the trends of the various variables over a period. We have modified the title to reflect the analytical intentions of the authors. Please see Figure 3 for your reference.

4) Conclusion and Implication

- Since the theoretical implications are described with respect to the Faustmann models as a forest economic model, the subtitle should be changed accordingly.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. Following this comment, we have changed the subtitle accordingly. Please see section 5.2.1 in the revised manuscript for your reference.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Authors answered to my comment.

Many thanks

Author Response

Reviewer 3 (Round #2): Comments and Responses

Dear Reviewer and Editor,

Point:

Authors answered to my comment.

Many thanks

Response:

We express our heartfelt gratitude to the reviewer for taking your time to review our manuscript to improve it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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

The authors have an ambitious attempt to combine forest and climate data in their research. The paper has potential to produce new understanding on the optimization of natural resource management. However, in its current format the manuscript does not full fil the criteria of a scientific journal article. The structure brings to my mind a collection of master theses or other separate studies that are combined under one title but not building a comprehensive study.

The major gaps are detailed below. I recommend authors to investigate high quality journal articles to identify the solutions for the below listed gaps. I indicate only the gaps, no template for the strengthening of the work is provided as the manuscript is still its initial phase.

1. Abstract

The structure of the abstact is incomplete. It does not reflect the entire study. It does not present any major conclusions.

The abstract refers to several results that cannot be found form the main text, such as:

Specifically, the regression results that indicates that ecological footprints on forest products have a negative influence on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and foreign direct investments have a positive relationship with CO2 emission. Increase in the use of fossil fuel by 1% in China, results in 96% increase in the pollution levels, and forest rents have a negative influence on CO2 emissions. Lastly, we also showed that an increase in China’s economic growth by 1%, proportionally increases the country’s emission level by 27%.

2. Introduction

The introduction does not set this work into the scientific framework. It does not provide any scientific justification and research gap to be solved in this work. No major research objective/question is built based on the identified research gap.

3. Climate Change and China’s Forestry

Mainly relevant content description.

P 4., rows 134-140: no reference for a large description.

4. Data and Review Methodology

The literature review is presented as a methodology. However, no literature review analysis nor results are presented in the methodological part. The literature review in Introduction does not mean an in-depth literature analysis in the methodological part.

The quantitative data is not introduced at all. One of the major criteria of a scientific work is its repeatability. The data and methodology must be presented in the exactitude that allows to repeat the research procedure.

The work presents a number of equations. The work does not introduce the calculation procedure detailed enough.

5. Results

The explanation and interpretation of results is inadequate.

6. Discussion

There is no Discussion chapter.

Commonly, Discussion chapter discusses further the results mirroring them against works of other researchers. Furthermore, the analysis of reliability and validity is missing. Reliability and validity are an essential part of the transparency of a scientific work. The evaluation of reliability and validity discuss on the research setting, i.e. chosen research procedure, applied material and methodologies. The paper needs to be completed with a profound reliability and validity discussion.

7. Conclusions: implications for research, practice and/or society

There is no Conclusion part in the current format of the paper. Concluding remarks are not profound conclusions in its current format.

Conclusion is a contribution of authors. Hence, it normally does not include any references or figures.

Conclusion chapter reviews the implications to scholars, policy makers and practitioners. The policy analysis is possible to generalize in various context. The paper does not conclude whether the findings could be useful in other context and if yes, under what kind of preconditions. Hence, the conclusion should be completed with implication part by answering in the following questions:

- How does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice?

- How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)?

- What is the impact upon society/context?

Finally, based on Discussion and Conclusions some recommendations for further research should be drawn.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear Reviewer and Editor,

Thank you very much for your time and efforts in handling and reviewing our manuscript. Your valuable comments and suggestions helped us greatly to improve the quality of the manuscript. We revised the manuscript according to your factful and valuable comments and suggestions, and tried to improve the quality of the manuscript, making point-to-point response as follows;

The major gaps are detailed below. I recommend authors investigate high-quality journal articles to identify the solutions for the below-listed gaps. I indicate only the gaps, no template for the strengthening of the work is provided as the manuscript is still in its initial phase.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer for these comments that will help improve our manuscript. We have studied the comments carefully and answered them accordingly. We understand the negligence on our side and apologize for it. If there are any further things to be done. Kindly let us know and we will do it to your satisfaction

Point 1: Abstract

The structure of the abstact is incomplete. It does not reflect the entire study. It does not present any major conclusions.

The abstract refers to several results that cannot be found form the main text, such as:

Specifically, the regression results that indicates that ecological footprints on forest products have a negative influence on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and foreign direct investments have a positive relationship with CO2 emission. Increase in the use of fossil fuel by 1% in China, results in 96% increase in the pollution levels, and forest rents have a negative influence on CO2 emissions. Lastly, we also showed that an increase in China’s economic growth by 1%, proportionally increases the country’s emission level by 27%.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this important insight, correction, and suggestion. Based on this suggestion, we have rewritten the entire abstract to reflect the study and its conclusions. Please see the abstract for your reference.

Point 2: Introduction

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for these comments. This comment prompted us to enhance the introduction part. We have improved it and included research objectives and contributions and gaps to be filled. Please see Introduction Lines 114-133 for your reference.

Point 3: Climate Change and China’s Forestry

Mainly relevant content description.

P 4., rows 134-140: no reference for a large description.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for drawing our attention to this. Following your comment, we have included the related references to the sentences. Please see Lines 135-143 for your reference.

Point 4: Data and Review Methodology

The work presents a number of equations. The work does not introduce the calculation procedure detailed enough.

Response 4: The authors appreciate the reviewer for this kind comment and correction. Following these comments, we have restructured the study outline to separate the literature review and methodology. Also, the various formulas introduced have been explained in detail to improve readability. Please see Section 2 (Literature Review on Forest economics models and climate change) and Section 3 (Data and Methodology) for your reference. Also, we have introduced the quantitative data and the calculation procedure for the respective equations.

Point 5: Results

The explanation and interpretation of results is inadequate.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Following this comment, we have updated the discussion of the results and have taken into consideration their relationship and affirmations with past study findings. Please see section 4 (Results and Discussion) for your reference.

Point 6: Discussion

There is no Discussion chapter.

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for this education and insight. We have created a Results and Discussion chapter that discusses the various findings. Also, the evaluation of the reliability and validity has been provided in the revised manuscript. Please see 3 and 4 for your reference.

Point 7: Conclusions: implications for research, practice and/or society

There is no Conclusion part in the current format of the paper. Concluding remarks are not profound conclusions in its current format.

Conclusion is a contribution of authors. Hence, it normally does not include any references or figures.

- How does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice?

- How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)?

- What is the impact upon society/context?

Finally, based on Discussion and Conclusions some recommendations for further research should be drawn.

Response 7: We appreciate the reviewer for these kind comments. These findings are indeed great to help improve the manuscript. We have restructured the paper to improve the outline. We have also strengthened the conclusion ad provided policy and theoretical recommendations. The conclusion section has been categorized to expose the conclusion, theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and future research; thanks insightful to your comments. Please see section 5 for your reference.

Reviewer 2 Report

This study conducted a literature review to analyze various economic models used for forest management, highlighting their limitations with regards to incorporating climate change factors. And it presents an econometric model that incorporates major forestry-related variables, which are then analyzed against carbon dioxide emissions data from China. It highlights the need for more comprehensive modeling techniques that take into account both financial viability and environmental concerns when managing forests or other natural resources. However, there are some crucial errors in the results interpretation that influence the conclusion. The regression was actually in log-log form (equation 3), so the interpretation of regression results in Table 4 should be that a 1% increment in GDP increases the country's emission level by 0.27%, instead of the 27% reported in this article. Historical studies generally found that a 1% increase in GDP leads to a 0.4% to 1.5% increase in CO2 emissions (Stern, 2017). Similarly, the elasticity of emission with respect to fuel consumption should be 0.96 instead of 96.

It is also necessary to test for collinearity of the regression, especially given the high correlation between fossil fuel consumption and GDP.

Additionally, there are missing units for variables in Figure 3 and Table 1.

In Table 2, it would be helpful to add significant values.

On line 56, it is unclear whether there was a net gain or loss of forest cover over the past decade, so it may be better to report the net change.

Line 543 is confusing as it states "FDI has a negative correlation with CO2 positive correlation at 5% level." It may be better to clarify the sentence.

Finally, on line 569-570, it should be "stationary" instead of "stationery."

Reference: Stern, D. I. (2017). The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years. Journal of Bioeconomics, 19, 7-28.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear Reviewer and Editor,

Thank you very much for your time and efforts in handling and reviewing our manuscript. Your valuable comments and suggestions helped us greatly to improve the quality of the manuscript. We revised the manuscript according to your factful and valuable comments and suggestions, and tried to improve the quality of manuscript, making point-to-point response as follows;

Point 1: The regression was actually in log-log form (equation 3), so the interpretation of regression results in Table 4 should be that a 1% increment in GDP increases the country's emission level by 0.27%, instead of the 27% reported in this article. Historical studies generally found that a 1% increase in GDP leads to a 0.4% to 1.5% increase in CO2 emissions (Stern, 2017). Similarly, the elasticity of emission with respect to fuel consumption should be 0.96 instead of 96.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for these kind comments. We have studied the comments carefully and improved the manuscript and corrected these errors. Please see the revised manuscript for your reference.

Point 2: It is also necessary to test for collinearity of the regression, especially given the high correlation between fossil fuel consumption and GDP.

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer for this insight. We also apologize for the negligence. Your kind education led us to various insights that have helped improve the manuscript. Indeed, there was the existence of multicollinearity in the variables. However, we have corrected them leading to the drop of some variables and changes in correlation results. We are grateful to the reviewer for this education. Please see the revised manuscript for your reference.

Point 3: Additionally, there are missing units for variables in Figure 3 and Table 1.

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer for this correction. We have added the respective units as suggested in the revised manuscript. Please see Figure 3 and Table 2 for your reference.

Point 4: In Table 2, it would be helpful to add significant values.

Response 4: Thank you for this suggestion, we have included the significant values. Please see Table 4 for your reference.

Point 5: On line 56, it is unclear whether there was a net gain or loss of forest cover over the past decade, so it may be better to report the net change.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this insight and kind suggestion. Following this comment, we have addressed the issue and reported the net change. Please see lines 56-57 for your reference.

Point 6: Line 543 is confusing as it states "FDI has a negative correlation with CO2 positive correlation at 5% level." It may be better to clarify the sentence.

Response 6: Thank you for this comment. We have clarified the statement in the revised manuscript. Please see for your reference.

Point 7: Finally, on line 569-570, it should be "stationary" instead of "stationery."

Response 7: Thank you for the correction. We have corrected “stationery” to “stationary”.

Reference: Stern, D. I. (2017). The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years. Journal of Bioeconomics, 19, 7-28.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. This has helped us revise the manuscript and has been cited.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study aims to utilize forest economic models and tools to assess the relationship between climate change and forestry in China. However, this study has some flaws in terms of result interpretation, and include some limitations in the methodology. The authors are suggested to adjust the research framework, and rewrite the parts for data collection, results interpretation, and discussion. Detailed comments are shown as follows:

1. In the Introductory section, the background information on the diversity of forest species in China is less relevant to the topic of this study. It is recommended to remove the irrelevant part. Additionally, the terminology used to describe the research purposes (i.e., the variables related to forests and climate change in line 97) is ambiguous.

2. In Section 3 and 4, the definitions of explanatory variables should be explained in more detail, and their representational significance should be supplemented with additional references. The subscript `i' in each variable of Equations (1) and (3) should also be explained. In addition, the content of Equation (2) is redundant, because its meaning can be fully expressed in Equation (3). Lastly, the variables in Equation 4 lack subscript notation.

3. In Section 4, a detailed review on the development of forest economic models is conducted. To avoid deviation from the main theme of this paper, this review should be enhanced by clarifying and summarizing the models based on their respective purposes, application fields, and the order of development.

4. The first and second differences are used to adjust the explanatory variables to meet the assumption of time-series variables. The authors should adjust the interpolation and explanation of the results, rather than using the definition of the original variables.

5. The model results should be explained in more detail, and their underlying reasons should be supplemented with additional references. In addition, in Section 6, an integrated discussion based on the results obtained through qualitative methods, targeting the forest economics models and forest management, and quantitative methods, focusing on the econometric model for forestry and climate change should be provided. As for the discussion of the study results, it is suggested to highlight the forest policies as well as the future development of the mitigation strategies in China to keep in line of the study topic.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Dear Reviewer and Editor,

Thank you very much for your time and efforts in handling and reviewing our manuscript. Your valuable comments and suggestions helped us greatly to improve the quality of the manuscript. We revised the manuscript according to your factful and valuable comments and suggestions, and tried to improve the quality of manuscript, making point-to-point response as follows;

Point 1: The authors are suggested to adjust the research framework, and rewrite the parts for data collection, results interpretation, and discussion. Detailed comments are shown as follows:

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for these valuable comments to improve the paper. We have answered and revised the manuscript according to these suggestions. We understand the negligence on our side and apologize for it. If there are any further things to be done. Kindly let us know and we will do it to your satisfaction.

Point 2: In the Introductory section, the background information on the diversity of forest species in China is less relevant to the topic of this study. It is recommended to remove the irrelevant part. Additionally, the terminology used to describe the research purposes (i.e., the variables related to forests and climate change in line 97) is ambiguous.

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer for this insight. We have removed irrelevant statements from the introduction as suggested and we have clarified the terminologies used to describe the research purposes. Please see the introduction for your reference.

Point 3: In Section 3 and 4, the definitions of explanatory variables should be explained in more detail, and their representational significance should be supplemented with additional references. The subscript `i' in each variable of Equations (1) and (3) should also be explained. In addition, the content of Equation (2) is redundant, because its meaning can be fully expressed in Equation (3). Lastly, the variables in Equation 4 lack subscript notation.

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer for this comment and suggestion. Following this comment, we have explained the variables in more detail and the representation of their significance has been included. Also, the subscript (i) has been defined together with the other subscript. Please see Section 3 for your reference.

Point 4: In Section 4, a detailed review on the development of forest economic models is conducted. To avoid deviation from the main theme of this paper, this review should be enhanced by clarifying and summarizing the models based on their respective purposes, application fields, and the order of development.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have clarified and summarized the economics models to enhance the literature review based on your advice. Please see section 2 for your reference.

Point 5: The first and second differences are used to adjust the explanatory variables to meet the assumption of time-series variables. The authors should adjust the interpolation and explanation of the results, rather than using the definition of the original variables.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this education and comment. Following this comment, we have adjusted the interpolation and explanatory variables to meet the assumptions of the time-series variables. For clarity, we have added notes to enhance readability. Please see for your reference.

Point 6: The model results should be explained in more detail, and their underlying reasons should be supplemented with additional references. In addition, in Section 6, an integrated discussion based on the results obtained through qualitative methods, targeting the forest economics models and forest management, and quantitative methods, focusing on the econometric model for forestry and climate change should be provided. As for the discussion of the study results, it is suggested to highlight the forest policies as well as the future development of the mitigation strategies in China to keep in line of the study topic.

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for this insight. Following this educative comment, we have explained the results in much more detail. We have also reorganized the conclusion section (Section 5) to highlight forest policies for future development. Please see sections 4 and 5 for your reference.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Article Menu

A Comprehensive Model Assessment of China’s Forestry and Climate Change

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI