The Sustainability of Industrial Hemp: A Literature Review of Its Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The authors noticeably improved their work, especially in the number of sources used for the review, considered the plant used in more detail, responded to comments and included additions.

There are a few points that authors should pay attention to - in the type of work, the word "Literature" should be removed; in all used publications, it is recommended to indicate their DOI in the list of sources, so that it is easier for the reader to find and study them; in the Table 1 there was a text overlay; simultaneous citation of several sources (for example, [96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103]) should be avoided.

In general, the presented article leaves a positive impression, is of a review nature and after the elimination of these comments, it may be of interest to readers of the journal "Sustainability".

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Abstract: The methodology is a general expression of “literature review” to explore some of the reasons why U.S. production of industrial hemp has increased significantly since the ban was lifted. Try to be more accurate.

 

What do you mean by “sustainable potential” in the abstract?

In methodology, the author talks about production, volumes, and pricing, but nothing has mentioned in results.

 

Results: “Our results are organized into two sections; first, describing hemp and its various uses”. Section 3.1. starts with industrial hemp, just a use, but no description of hemp can be found. Rewrite section 3. There are many subsections. Introduce a simplification, for instance, section 1 could be the plant, section 2 uses, section 3 sustainability with three subsections economic, environmental, and social.

 

Line 100: the author suggests… Table 1 is from [9], so, it is the author of [9] who suggest.

 

The second paragraph of Section 3.2.1. is just a general expression valid for any other plant.

 

Nothing has been mentioned about prices, margins, costs, yield, results of exploitation, fixed and variable costs, depreciation, etc. It is impossible to know the economic sustainability of the hemp.

 

No new table or figure has been introduced in the text. They are just a copy of the ones founded in the literature. Furthermore, table 1 is impossible to read.

 

Conclusions mention “circular economy”, but nothing has been introduced along the paper.

 

Once I have read the paper, it is impossible to know if hemp is sustainable economically.

 

 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The authors of the work entitled The Sustainability of Industrial Hemp: A Literature Review of the Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability have made sufficient corrections and additions to the work. In the current version, the work is suitable for printing.

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

Thу presented article is an overview of the cultivation of technical hemp from a sustainable development point of view. The topic of the article is relevant and may be of interest to specialists and researchers in the fields of agriculture and sustainable development. The authors have done a certain search and analysis of sources, however, as critical remarks and important recommendations, several points should be noted:

1. Authors should supplement, expand and specify the title of the article.

2. For a review article, the authors should significantly increase the volume of the article, as well as expand the literature review, which should include an overview and links to current and contemporary publications in high-ranking world journals.

3. Table 1 is recommended to be slightly reduced to 1 page. Is there a modern cost of products from Table 1 (2017 is indicated)? What conclusions can be drawn from the proposed table? The table from the Appendix should also be slightly reduced.

4. The content of the article should be diversified with various drawings depicting various parts of the plant and the products obtained from them.

5. The quality of Figures 1, 3 and 4 should be improved for the completeness of understanding the information provided on them. The authors should remove the bolding on reference numbers on lines 114, 115, 118.

6. Figure 2 is missing from the article. Table 2 is better titled as Table A1, as it is in the appendix. "Bibliography" should be replaced by "References", and the indication and design of the sources used should be carefully edited according to the editorial requirements.

7. "Hemp Social Sustainability" is poorly described in the work - it should be excluded from the positive effect of growing a plant or more deeply justified. The authors need to consider modern world publications on this topic.

8. The main information and conclusions from the appendix should be included in the main content of the article.

9. From the point of view of sustainable development in the cultivation of hemp, the authors should also note an important and progressive direction in agriculture and energy - "Agrivoltaics", when solar modules are located above the crops, which has a positive effect on the economy and environmental friendliness of investment projects, and the use in such projects solar modules with extended life (for example DOI: 10.4018/IJEOE.2020040106) will further improve the economics of the hemp growing project.

10. At the end of the article, the authors should indicate the contribution of each co-author in accordance with the editorial requirements. Also it is necessary to add a subsection "Introduction" with a deeper analysis of modern literature on the subject under consideration.

In general, the presented article leaves a positive impression, is of an overview nature, however, it is not without shortcomings. After eliminating these comments and taking into account the recommendations made, the presented article can be recommended for publication in the journal "Sustainability".

Reviewer 2 Report

The level of similarity with other papers (documents) is very high. May parts of the paper are similar to other papers. The tables and figures are the same as the ones presented in those papers

The aim of the paper was “to determine why U.S. production of industrial hemp has increased so significantly since the ban was lifted”. The conclusion does not mention the results of this aim

I agree with the author that “As no global organization or federal government currently collects global data on hemp production or its impact, these areas offer an exciting opportunity for further research”. In my opinion, the present work is a good introduction to a further research

Improve the quality of the figures

Economic analysis is very poor. No reference to yearly prices. Is the forward price the same for every day of every year? How is the return per acre calculated? NPV or IRR are not calculated at all. The information presented (figure 3) is too old, and the author ensures that is similar to the present information, but he doesn’t present it

The evaluation of table 2 does not correspond to the author of the present paper

No methodology for the bibliographic review has been presented