Small Farm Business Analysis Using the AHP Model for Efficient Assessment of Distribution Channels

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for the Authors

The paper is quite interesting, the methodology is well known and clearly presented. However, the paper lacks literature on several topics. Furthermore, the authors do not describe the analysis very well, and there is no discussion of the results and conclusions.

Introduction

This section is well structured, but the literature is rather poor. For example, in lines 102-105, the authors state that the literature is rich in contributions on the potential benefits to farmers of different distribution channels and how they affect farmers and their willingness to accept new distribution models. To support these claims, authors should cite some of these nominated contributions. Besides, some references should be added about the relationship between distribution channels and sustainability. May I suggest:

• Paciarotti, C., & Torregiani, F. (2018). Short food supply chain between micro/small farms and restaurants. British Food Journal.
• Ramaseshan, B., & Patton, M. A. (1994). Factors influencing international channel choice of small business exporters. International Marketing Review.
• Calisti, R., Proietti, P., & Marchini, A. (2019). Promoting Sustainable Food Consumption: An Agent-Based Model About Outcomes of Small Shop Openings. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 22(1).
• Aubert, M., & Enjolras, G. (2016). Do short food supply chains go hand in hand with environment-friendly practices? An analysis of French farms. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 12(2), 189-213.

Materials and Methods

 This section is well structured and clear in the methodological part. However, on line 213, authors should add some references, so that the reader can consult the other applications of this methodology. About the survey, neither the sampling method nor the sample is presented! This part of the section is quite incomplete. First of all, authors should present their sample and explain how the analysis took place (interview? A questionnaire? How long for the interview? Single or multiple interviews?). Second, a table with the composition and characteristics of the sample should be added. In general, it is not very clear how the survey was carried out. The authors should improve this part.

Furthermore, on Graph 1, the authors did not add Ho.Re.Ca or alternative distribution channels (which they called emerging channels) among the options. They should justify this decision with data and/or references. Graph 1 is also not that clear and the quality is poor.

Results of the AHP method application

The application is well presented, but even if the authors state that the criteria and alternatives have been evaluated by professional experts, some references should be added (lines 301-306).

Discussion and Conclusions

 These two sections (or one which covers both) should be added to compare the results of the analysis with the literature, to summarize the results, to better explain the policy and management implications, and to present the limitations of the study and the suggestions for other researchers.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, I found this article well written and organized.  The various approaches and research design are clearly presented with the theoretical framework and accurate use of data.   The author (s) again, did a great job in providing the conditions to employ a particular approach - the Analytical Hierarch Process  (AHP). All the basic principles underlying the AHP method are addressed.  The findings too, are very well interpreted. Papers are mostly evaluated based on the use of theory/methods as well as its potential for generating useful discussions. This paper meets both criteria. Consequently, I give it “Excellent”, and it should be accepted for publication as it stands.

My suggestion is to separate the empirical research design from the theoretical framework. It needs to stand alone rather than tied to both theoretical framework and the results. But again, the design is extensively presented.

Author Response

Please find file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved the article following my suggestions. However, there is still something that should be reconsidered:

Lines 381-386: This part (including Table 3) of the integration made is pejorative of the article as it does not describe the structural characteristics of the sample, but the percentage subdivision of the questions in the questionnaire. Authors should remove this part and replace it with information about the structural variables of the sample (eg. number of employees, surface area, production orientation, etc.) or other characteristics of the sample, but not about questions if possible. If they are not able to provide this information, maybe it is better to remove Table 3 and also delete from line 381 to line 385.

Furthermore, English check is required.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the full reply in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx