Evaluation of the Carbon Footprint of Wooden Glamping Structures by Life Cycle Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Despite the importance of the topic, the work is a review and not a scientific article. The presentation is not clear, especially for someone who does not know the subject. The data is punctual and, as a rule, the movements of natural elements are as well, which makes it difficult to establish a pattern.

As I mentioned, the theme of the work is important, however the way it is proposed - scientific article - does not fit, I believe it is more of a note, an opinion. The title does not present what it proposes, as it sells a specific solution, for a specific location and linked to broad themes such as carbon, climate change, as if carbon were the planet's villain, when in fact it is the element that promotes life, growth and maintenance of industrial production.

The work does not present hypotheses or defined objectives, which makes results and discussion of the subject difficult.

The methodology is unclear and presents calculations without statistical precision, error and as a linear equation, which perhaps does not occur in nature and given the number of variables presented.

There are countless doubts - such as with every process, transportation, processing, manufacturing, installation, construction, etc., will it be necessary to plant new forests?, Will this offset the carbon? And the industry?

The results are not clear, the discussion does not expand the information on the results, it only makes comparisons and the conclusion is blurred from any context. I believe that, by not having an objective, confusing hypotheses and results, it made it difficult to develop a discussion that contributes to forestry science.

I would recommend publication in a magazine in the sawmill area, or wood products production chain. I believe it would be better to sell this idea than with disconnected connections that the authors tried to connect with the theme.

There is no strong link between this note and sustainability, which in its concept is much more about carbon stock, carbon sink, etc.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Tiring and exhausting reading.

Author Response

Response for Reviewer 1:

 

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Despite the importance of the topic, the work is a review and not a scientific article. The presentation is not clear, especially for someone who does not know the subject. The data is punctual and, as a rule, the movements of natural elements are as well, which makes it difficult to establish a pattern.

Author’s Response:

Regarding the clarity of presentation, particularly for those unfamiliar with the subject, it's crucial to recognize that the author tried to clarify technical terms, tried to show sufficient background information, while the technology process are detailed in flowcharts for a better understanding while the findings were presented in a comprehensible manner with step-by-step approach from harvesting of raw material to end product. Utilizing visual aids such as graphs, charts, and diagrams could also enhance clarity and facilitate understanding for readers with varying levels of expertise in the subject matter. By acknowledging these complexities and striving for clear communication and rigorous analysis, the study can maintain its scientific integrity and contribute meaningfully to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

 

As I mentioned, the theme of the work is important, however the way it is proposed - scientific article - does not fit, I believe it is more of a note, an opinion. The title does not present what it proposes, as it sells a specific solution, for a specific location and linked to broad themes such as carbon, climate change, as if carbon were the planet's villain, when in fact it is the element that promotes life, growth and maintenance of industrial production.

Author’s Response:

The title was changed from:

Life Cycle Assessment of Wooden Glamping Structures: A Carbon-Positive Solution by Innovation in Forest-Based Industry

To: Evaluation of the Carbon Footprint of Wooden Glamping Structures by Life Cycle Assessment

The work does not present hypotheses or defined objectives, which makes results and discussion of the subject difficult.

Author’s Response:

The Hypotheses are defined between lines 172 and 180, namely: Therefore, the current research paper analyses the Life Cycle Analysis - LCA of the manufacturing process of wooden glamping, as one of the most sustainable forms of sus-tainable tourism development (Casarbor 2023). The main hypothesis of the research is the incorporation of wood in glamping structures results in a significant net carbon seques-tration effect, after excluding the carbon emissions associated with the manufacturing and construction, as well as entire glamping life cycle. The secondary hypotheses are sustain-able sourcing and management of timber, coupled with carbon-positive design principles and innovative production capacities, contribute substantially to the carbon sequestration potential of wooden glamping structures.

The Objectives of the present paper is presented in the Introduction chapter between lines 50 and 58: “this research employs a comprehensive quantitative methodology to assess the net car-bon impact of wooden glamping. It compares the carbon sequestration achieved by wood in glamping structures against the carbon emissions generated throughout their life cycle.”

 

The methodology is unclear and presents calculations without statistical precision, error and as a linear equation, which perhaps does not occur in nature and given the number of variables presented.

Author’s Response:

The methodology follows the Life Cycle Stages according to EN 15804:2012, which were applied in several papers dealing with similar researches, while some adaptation were made by the author.

Regarding the statistical precisions and the number of variables was answered and specified between lines 254 and 266, as it is formulated as follows:

In the methodology, the calculations adhere to a systematic approach where 10 measurements are assumed for each parameter under consideration. These measurements are then synthesized into a single representative value, typically expressed as the average or mean value. However, to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the results, a quality control mechanism is implemented. If the deviation of any individual measurement from the calculated average value exceeds 10%, it is flagged as an outlier. In such cases, the results are presented not as a single value but as an interval within which 90% of the measured values fall. This approach mitigates the impact of outliers and accounts for potential variability or uncertainty in the measurements. By presenting the results as an interval, rather than a single value, the methodology acknowledges the inherent variability in the data and provides a more robust representation of the measured parameters. This ensures that the findings are both accurate and reliable, enhancing the credibility of the research outcomes.

There are countless doubts - such as with every process, transportation, processing, manufacturing, installation, construction, etc., will it be necessary to plant new forests?, Will this offset the carbon? And the industry?

Author’s Response:

According to the methodology the assessment takes into consideration all the mentioned steps such as harvesting, replanting of forest, transport, processing of timber, manufacturing of parts as well as the installations and construction, including the use stage and end-life stage. The forest management includes replanting, as it is detailed in line 279 to 281.

As the results shown between lines 765 to 823, a glamping structure sequestrates over 25 metric tons of net CO2 for 50 years, out of which was excluded the industrial emissions during the harvesting, transport, manufacturing, construction, use stage, as well is during end of life stage. 

The results are not clear, the discussion does not expand the information on the results, it only makes comparisons and the conclusion is blurred from any context. I believe that, by not having an objective, confusing hypotheses and results, it made it difficult to develop a discussion that contributes to forestry science.

Author’s Response:

The hypothesis were discussed in the end of chapter 3 Results, subchapter 3.6 Overall carbon balance of Glamping, between lines 809-823:

In this sense, the main hypothesis of the research was validated, namely the incorporation of wood in glamping structures results in a significant net carbon sequestration effect, after excluding the carbon emissions associated with the manufacturing and construction, as well as entire glamping life cycle still remaining at least 25 metric tons of CO2 in one glamping structure. The secondary hypotheses was that 1. sustainable sourcing of raw material can minimize the CO2 emission. In the value chain analized in this paper the raw material was harvested from local forest, eliminating the transports on long distances, while emissions related the replantation was also taken into consideration, the total emission is estimated to 0,66 metric tons of CO2/m3 harvested wood in comparion with other results eg. 1.46 metric tons of CO2/m3 harvested wood with conventional logging approaches (Köhl et al 2020). The timber production is coupled with low-carbon emission design principles and innovative production capacities achieving 0,95 metric tons of CO2/m3 manufactured wood, in comparison with 1.04 to 1.32  metric tons of CO2/m3 manufactured wood (Simonsen et al. 2023). contribute substantially to the carbon sequestration potential of wooden glamping structures .

Moreover, the Chapter 4 Discussion was developed with the following paragraph between the lines 869 to 886:

While the above-analyzed research provides valuable insights into the carbon sequestration potential of wood incorporation in glamping structures, there are several aspects that warrant further investigation to strengthen our understanding of the environmental impacts and sustainability implications of such practices. One key area for future research is the long-term effectiveness of carbon offset through reforestation efforts associated with wood-based industries. While reforestation has the potential to sequester carbon and mitigate emissions, there is a need for more comprehensive studies to assess the scalability, sustainability, and overall impact of reforestation initiatives on carbon balance and ecosystem health. Additionally, the analysis could benefit from a more robust consideration of the broader environmental impacts beyond carbon, such as biodiversity conservation, water resource management, and soil health. Furthermore, future research should explore the socio-economic implications of wood-based industries, including the equitable distribution of benefits and potential trade-offs with other land uses. By addressing these research gaps and weaknesses, future studies can provide a more holistic understanding of the sustainability challenges and opportunities associated with wood incorporation in glamping structures, ultimately informing more informed decision-making and policy development in the field of sustainable construction and eco-tourism.

I would recommend publication in a magazine in the sawmill area, or wood products production chain. I believe it would be better to sell this idea than with disconnected connections that the authors tried to connect with the theme.

 

Author’s Answer:

The author idenfied 3 main aspects supporting the choise why the paper should be published in Sustainability:

Relevance to Sustainable Practices: The paper addresses a pressing environmental concern – the carbon footprint of wood-based construction in the context of eco-tourism. By assessing the carbon sequestration potential of wood in glamping structures, the research contributes directly to the field of sustainability by providing empirical evidence to inform more eco-friendly construction practices. This aligns closely with the scope of Sustainability MDPI, which seeks to publish research that advances knowledge on sustainable development and environmental conservation.

Interdisciplinary Approach: The study takes an interdisciplinary approach by integrating elements of forestry, construction, and eco-tourism to examine the environmental impact of wood incorporation in glamping. This holistic perspective is well-suited to the multidisciplinary nature of Sustainability MDPI, which encourages research that bridges disciplinary boundaries to address complex sustainability challenges. The paper's interdisciplinary focus enhances its potential to appeal to a diverse readership interested in sustainability issues from various perspectives.

Practical Implications: The findings of the research have practical implications for industry practitioners, policymakers, and stakeholders involved in eco-tourism and sustainable construction. By quantifying the carbon sequestration potential of wood in glamping structures, the study provides actionable insights for enhancing the environmental sustainability of eco-tourism accommodations. This applied aspect of the research enhances its relevance to Sustainability MDPI, which seeks to publish studies that offer practical solutions and recommendations for achieving sustainability goals in real-world contexts.

There is no strong link between this note and sustainability, which in its concept is much more about carbon stock, carbon sink, etc.

Author’s Answer:

 

While the focus of the paper may seem primarily on carbon stock and carbon sink aspects related to wood incorporation in glamping structures, it inherently contributes to the broader concept of sustainability in several ways:

 

Environmental Conservation: The paper addresses the environmental impact of wood-based construction, which is a key aspect of sustainability. By assessing the carbon sequestration potential of wood in glamping structures, the research contributes to understanding how construction practices can be more environmentally friendly and sustainable in the long term.

 

Resource Management: Sustainable practices involve responsible management of natural resources, including local raw material sourcing and reforestation. By examining the role of wood in glamping structures, the paper contributes to discussions on sustainable resource management, highlighting the importance of using renewable materials and promoting sustainable forestry practices.

 

Eco-Tourism and Community Development: Glamping represents a form of eco-tourism that emphasizes experiencing nature while minimizing environmental impact. By exploring the sustainability implications of glamping accommodations, the paper contributes to discussions on sustainable tourism development and its potential benefits for local communities and ecosystems.

 

Interdisciplinary Perspective: Sustainability encompasses a wide range of topics, including environmental, social, and economic dimensions. While the paper focuses on carbon-related aspects, its interdisciplinary approach integrates elements of forestry, construction, and eco-tourism, thereby addressing sustainability from a holistic perspective.

 

In summary, while the paper may seem narrowly focused on carbon-related concepts, its implications extend to broader sustainability principles, including environmental conservation, resource management, eco-tourism, and interdisciplinary perspectives. By contributing to our understanding of how wood incorporation in glamping structures can be more sustainable, the paper aligns with the overarching goals of sustainability research and discourse.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Tiring and exhausting reading.

Author’s Answer:

The manuscript will be improved by a native English speaker editor.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved. Some formulas/equations are still confusing (e.g. in eq. 2 instead of D_km+T_g/km might be  D_km*T_g/km). Some big figures could be moved from the main text to the supplement.

Author Response

The manuscript has been improved. Some formulas/equations are still confusing (e.g. in eq. 2 instead of D_km+T_g/km might be  D_km*T_g/km). Some big figures could be moved from the main text to the supplement.

Author's Answer:

The equation 2 was corrected instead of D_km+T_g/km  was reforumlated to  D_km*T_g/km). While big figures were moved from the main text to the supplement.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the paper “Life Cycle Assessment of Wooden Glamping Structures: A Carbon-Positive Solution by Innovation in Forest-Based Industry” the authors examined the environmental impact of incorporating wood into glamping structures, revealing a significant net carbon sequestration effect. This manuscript is well organized, and the drawn conclusions are coherent with the obtained results. Although I have loved reading your work, there are a few grammar issues that I have seen, thus I believe that the text needs to be edited by a native English speaker. I hope to provide very useful suggestions to improve the overall clarity of your study as well as the quality of your analysis. I think that my suggestions look feasible to you, and I believe you will be able to address them. Thus, please take care to do a full revision of your manuscript according to all my comments. Improvements based on my comments will be crucial for acceptance. I have some concerns and suggestions for each aspect of the manuscript. Please see below.

Abstract: I would like to suggest giving more emphasis to the results.

Line 27: Where are the abbreviations?

Introduction: The paper is technically sound and the claims are convincing. However I think that some references should be updated. Please, note that the hypothesis and the predictions are unclear, you need to well explain them.

Lines 48 - 49: I think that you should add this important reference to support your sentence: “The environmental benefits of wood as a building material have been extensively documented”.

I would like to suggest:

Hechmi, N., et al., (2016).  Depletion of pentachlorophenol in soil microcosms with Byssochlamys nivea and Scopulariopsis brumptii
as detoxification agents.  Chemosphere, 165, 547-554.

Bosso, L., et al., (2016).  Assessing the effectiveness of Byssochlamys nivea and Scopulariopsis brumptii in pentachlorophenol removal and biological control of two Phytophthora species.  Fungal biology, 120(4), 645-653.

Lines 64 – 115: Please, reduce this part of the manuscript.

Materials and methods: In general, the methods are appropriate and the study seems well conducted, although some details deserve a bit more attention i.e., especially about the methodology and the data. All the scripts/codes used in this paper must be added in the supplementary materials. Please, provide also all the link to source where you downloaded the data.

Lines 176 – 185: Please, provide more details on the life cycle stage phase.

Results: I would like to suggest merging results and discussion sections.

Line 391: Please, add the north symbol in the map.

Line 434: Please, add the north symbol in the map.

Lines 508: Please, move this figure in the supplementary materials.

Line 518: Please, move this figure in the supplementary materials.

Line 569: Please, move this figure in the supplementary materials.

Discussion: The paper discussed appropriately the context and the theme, although there is important literature not cited by the authors. I think that the authors should be discussing their results also comparing them with those already published on other species/genus/family. In fact your paper discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work that I think should be added in your discussion.

The references should be formatted by following the MDPI’s guidelines.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although I have loved reading your work, there are a few grammar issues that I have seen, thus I believe that the text needs to be edited by a native English speaker. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

 

 

In the paper “Life Cycle Assessment of Wooden Glamping Structures: A Carbon-Positive Solution by Innovation in Forest-Based Industry” the authors examined the environmental impact of incorporating wood into glamping structures, revealing a significant net carbon sequestration effect. This manuscript is well organized, and the drawn conclusions are coherent with the obtained results. Although I have loved reading your work, there are a few grammar issues that I have seen, thus I believe that the text needs to be edited by a native English speaker. I hope to provide very useful suggestions to improve the overall clarity of your study as well as the quality of your analysis. I think that my suggestions look feasible to you, and I believe you will be able to address them. Thus, please take care to do a full revision of your manuscript according to all my comments. Improvements based on my comments will be crucial for acceptance. I have some concerns and suggestions for each aspect of the manuscript. Please see below.

 

Author Answer:

 

The manuscript is submitted to a native English speaker editor to review and polish the text from language editing point of view.

 

 

Abstract: I would like to suggest giving more emphasis to the results.

 

Author Answer:

The abstract was rewrite as it can be see between line 11 and 30:

This paper addresses a significant research gap by quantitatively comparing the net carbon impact of wood in glamping structures, a topic largely overlooked in empirical studies. Through a comprehensive assessment, it reveals a remarkable finding: the incorporation of wood into glamping structures results in a substantial net carbon sequestration effect. Specifically, the wood used in these structures sequesters 36.83 metric tons of CO2, exceeding the carbon emissions associated with the entire glamping life cycle, totaling 9.97 or 11.72 metric tons of carbon. This finding underscores the potential of sustainably harvested wood to function as a carbon sink, effectively offsetting carbon emissions across various stages, from raw material procurement to building use. Remarkably, one wood-based glamping structure can store approximately 25 metric tons of carbon over 50 years. Moreover, the paper rigorously evaluates each manufacturing step through a life cycle assessment, adopting a 'cradle to grave' approach. This assessment not only identifies opportunities for CO2 emission reduction but also examines the supply value chain horizontally within a region and vertically for glamping production among seven Romanian companies.

The methodology and results presented in this study hold significant potential for replication and scalability in various contexts beyond glamping structures. By demonstrating the effectiveness of wood as a carbon sink in offsetting emissions throughout the life cycle of construction, this research lays the groundwork for broader applications in sustainable building practices. Furthermore, the findings underscore the importance of sustainably sourced wood in achieving carbon neutrality, providing valuable insights for industries seeking to reduce their environmental footprint. This methodology can be adapted and implemented across different regions and sectors, fostering the adoption of sustainable construction practices and contributing to global efforts towards mitigating climate change. Overall, the methodology and results presented here have the potential to catalyze positive environmental change and inspire future research and initiatives aimed at promoting sustainability in the built environment.

 

Line 27: Where are the abbreviations?

 

Author’s Answer:

 

The abbreviations were put in the end of the paper.

 

Introduction: The paper is technically sound and the claims are convincing. However I think that some references should be updated. Please, note that the hypothesis and the predictions are unclear, you need to well explain them.

Author’s Answer:

There are several new references included in chapter Introduction, such as Švajlenka et al. 2023, Legrand et al. 2023, Liberato et al. 2023, as well as for a better understanding of the nexus between hypotheses in introduction and results, new paragraphs were included into manuscript.

For example:

- Lines between 50 and 65,

- Lines between 804 and 818

 

Lines 48 - 49: I think that you should add this important reference to support your sentence: “The environmental benefits of wood as a building material have been extensively documented”.

I would like to suggest:

Hechmi, N., et al., (2016).  Depletion of pentachlorophenol in soil microcosms with Byssochlamys nivea and Scopulariopsis brumptii
as detoxification agents.  Chemosphere, 165, 547-554.

Bosso, L., et al., (2016).  Assessing the effectiveness of Byssochlamys nivea and Scopulariopsis brumptii in pentachlorophenol removal and biological control of two Phytophthora species.  Fungal biology, 120(4), 645-653.

 

Author’s Answer:

The mentioned references were introduced in line 49

 

Lines 64 – 115: Please, reduce this part of the manuscript.

Materials and methods: In general, the methods are appropriate and the study seems well conducted, although some details deserve a bit more attention i.e., especially about the methodology and the data. All the scripts/codes used in this paper must be added in the supplementary materials. Please, provide also all the link to source where you downloaded the data.

 

 

Author’s Answer:

The manuscript between line s64 and 115 was significantly reduced, while there is some part of the paper put in supplementary materials, also all the primer data were gained from the companies involved in the value chain and industrial production of the glamping structures, mentioned in references.

 

Lines 176 – 185: Please, provide more details on the life cycle stage phase.

 

 

Author’s Answer:

More details on the life cycle stage phase is included in subchapter 3.2 to 3.6, as the results are detailed over there. While the methodology on life cycle stage is detailed in Table 1, between lines 265-266. 

 

 

Results: I would like to suggest merging results and discussion sections.

 

Author’s Answer:

The other reviewers expressly suggested having these two chapters separately presented, and to be discussed separately therefore we would like to have it in two chapters.

 

Line 391: Please, add the north symbol in the map.

 

 Author’s Answer:

The North Symbol in the map is added

 

Line 434: Please, add the north symbol in the map.

 

Author’s Answer:

The North Symbol in the map is added

 

Lines 508: Please, move this figure in the supplementary materials.

 

Author’s Answer:

The Figure moved to the supplementary materials.

 

 

Line 518: Please, move this figure in the supplementary materials.

 

Author’s Answer:

The Figure moved to the supplementary materials.

 

Line 569: Please, move this figure in the supplementary materials.

 

Author’s Answer:

The Figure moved to the supplementary materials.

 

Discussion: The paper discussed appropriately the context and the theme, although there is important literature not cited by the authors. I think that the authors should be discussing their results also comparing them with those already published on other species/genus/family. In fact your paper discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work that I think should be added in your discussion.

The references should be formatted by following the MDPI’s guidelines.

 

Author’s Answer:

The paper discussed appropriately the context by involvement of relevant publications recently.

As well as the references are formatted by following the MDPI’s guidelines.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As previously reviewed, the document's proposal remains vague as a scientific article. Proposing methodologies for mitigating environmental impacts are beneficial to the development of society, with climate change issues being in vogue and fashionable.

Mitigating these actions are proposed with reforestation, however, absorption peaks are reached up to the growth capacity. When using wood emissions are made and new plantings are used as mitigation. Characterizing a cycle. This also applies to natural forests.

Thus, a logic can be seen in this entire process, which advocates the document as a note, opinion and not a scientific article. It thus characterizes a local, specific document with many points considered dichotomous.

All daily actions emit carbon and this is necessary for the life cycle, and its quantity fluctuates in the atmosphere. The theme of the document thus demands a paradigm shift in society.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

First of all, I really appreciate your invested time and energy for reviewing the manuscript, because through this process the paper becomes more understandable and clear containing the main results, messages, and conclusions. 

 

Tha responses is attached below. 

 

With best regards, 

Tihamer Sebestyen

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is not an article, but rather a bibliographical review document. So, it was submitted on an erroneous proposal.

As it is a review document, the aspects are confusing, there is a lack of hypotheses, characterization of a problem and definition of objectives, to characterize a scientific article. Therefore, it made it difficult to review the document as a scientific contribution to forestry science, or ecosystem sustainability.

The topic is quite complex, and without the application of a methodology and experimental application, the review is subjective, attributing all global problems to climate change, which is erroneous in several aspects.

In this sense, there are numerous dialectical aspects, which is not considered a scientific result, but an ideology, not proving the purpose of a supposedly environmentally correct construction, connection with climate change, carbon deposits, need for carbon for photosynthesis, tourism as a climate benefit , quality of health, social favor, sustainable bond, etc.

As said, review, permeated with an ideal, so far, in this work, not evaluated as proposed in the conclusions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted paper addresses a very specific, but in the same time important, topical question about the life cycle assessment of wooden glamping structures. The paper consists of four sections and is sufficiently well-written. There is no Literature Review section. The content of the literature review is, however, covered by the introductory section. The section has, however, to be extended by pertinent references. Studies that focus on the life cycle assessment are scarce. Hence, refer to at least five of them that are available in Scopus. Among them, is one that you have to refer to written in the context of the petroleum value chain carbon footprint. You find the paper under the following link https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-019-00202-6

Large parts of the text are written in the form of bullet points. Try to avoid this as much as possible. 

Figures 4 and 5 are not readable. I suggest presenting them writing an Appendix or supplementary materials.

The abbreviations table at the end of the manuscript is redundant. Explain all the abbreviations within the text.

Reduce the Abstract section by at least 30%. It is too lengthy.

Mistake in Line 411.

Mistake Line 450: Indicate the source in a separate line. 

Mistake Line 328.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. the abstract needs to be rewritten and should focus should be on the research findings of the paper rather than the research methodology and ideas.

2. the paper lacks the necessary literature review, which is an essential part of the paper.

3. the application of the methodology is not adequately explained, and a detailed description of why the methodology was used is missing.

4. the choice of variables should be supported by adequate literature.

5. each letter of the format should have required special instructions.

6. there is a lack of an independent discussion section, which needs to compare the findings of this paper with those of previous scholars and highlight the innovations of this paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a life-cycle-analysis (LCA) for prefabricated wooden houses (glamping structures) for ecological tourism purposes in Romania. The manuscript is interesting, but difficult to read. The materials used for building such houses are not explained in detail.

The objectives of the study are clear, but methodology is mainly based on existing literature. There are certainly concerns about scientific soundness, e.g. Eq. 2 seems uncorrect. The figures 1 and 2 are difficult to understand, as font on figures is very small, figures 3 and 7 have insufficient titles, figures 4 and 5 are difficult to understand how the production processes are designed in different companies. The tables contain different data and the logic behind the calculations is difficult to guess (e.g. table 5). The overall result is interesting, however it is not a new knowledge that wooden structures are storing carbon. The comparision with the similar LCA studies is missing.

The manuscript needs an extensive revision before it can be published.