Review Reports - Combating of Associated Issues for Sustainable Agri-Food Sectors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

BWM relies heavily on subjective judgments and opinions, which can vary widely between different decision-making criteria. This can lead to inconsistency and bias in the rankings, because of different criteria for what makes an alternative the "best" or "worst." How do you handle it.

BMW method is suitable for very limited scale This means that it may not be suitable for larger decision problems, where a larger number of alternatives need to be evaluated.

Is there a clear explanation of why one item or alternative is ranked higher or lower than another. This can make it difficult to justify the rankings to other stakeholders or decision-makers, leading to potential disagreements.

Line 396-425 all Formula are not at so clear.

How do you handle the uncertainty associated with the evaluations or preferences of the decision-making using SWARA method. Is it suitable if there is a high degree of uncertainty.

How is Assigning weights to criteria handled in SWARA, if the weights are not assigned appropriately, they can lead to inaccurate or biased results.

Figure1 and Figure2 are blur and not clear.

Author Response

Responses to comments:

We thank the esteemed reviewers for taking the time to review our paper and for their valuable comments. Please find below our responses to the following recommendations:

The corrections incorporated are being highlighted in the revised version with yellow colour shading for revised portions. We thoroughly revised the paper strictly following your suggestions and valuable feedback.

Reviewer#1:

Comment(s): BWM relies heavily on subjective judgments and opinions, which can vary widely between different decision-making criteria. This can lead to inconsistency and bias in the rankings, because of different criteria for what makes an alternative the "best" or "worst." How do you handle it.

Response(s): We thank the esteemed reviewer for providing such valuable suggestions to improve the manuscript further.

It is important to understand the difference between a bias and a heuristic when studying and practicing decision making. Generally speaking, heuristics are the rules or processes that lead to the effect of bias in a decision. Biases that result from improperly formed mental models lead to systematic deviations in decision-making, as do associated heuristics (rules of thumb) that often Select decision oversimplifies the mental calculations necessary to properly evaluate scenarios and form decisions. Heuristics can lead to a multitude of bias effects that misguide judgment and skew results. Many times, multiple biases share effects of a single decision. For example, missing or uncertain information is a common source of bias. Because the decision-maker is missing pertinent information necessary to make the most informed decision, they account for the missing information and adjust using heuristics leading to bias such as: preference bias in favor of a more familiar alternative, stereotype bias based on inaccurate, unjustified supporting information, or framing bias that favors a particular alternative based on the mode of questioning or information presentation. Certain decision frameworks such as group decision making models are more susceptible to different types of bias. If individuals do not share the same opinions or judgments, important information they possess may be withheld leading to information bias. Strong personalities or authority positions can impact group judgment in favor of individual preferences. The 38 experts’ chosen in this study are with more than 20 years of expertise and most of them are doctorates. For instance in the Literature Review section, the highlighted parts in the last paragraph indicating the usefulness and benefits of BWM may be referred:

Additionally, despite the fact that other MCDM methods have been developed, or the discovery of criteria's estimates and picking in light of their tendencies, one of the most popular methods that utilize comparisons was already considered to be the BWM, with even fewer data requirements and more trustworthy comparability [62]. Rezaei et al. [63] found that the BWM is appropriate when there are fewer criteria to be taken into consideration and that it also generates more consistent findings with fewer pair-wise comparisons [64]. The SWARA technique, which is another way of doing MCDM and is capable of handling a range of criteria in any challenging situation, has also proven its unique application for a variety of decision-making procedures [65-67].

Comment(s): BMW method is suitable for very limited scale. This means that it may not be suitable for larger decision problems, where a larger number of alternatives need to be evaluated.

Response(s): As only five criteria were chosen, so the BWM method was found to be more suitable. However, for more number of alternatives, the SWARA method can be used more effectively. This study took the advantage of both these methods by combining them. The revised paper highlights the response to this concern as follows.

The BWM technique was used to rank the associated major issues, and the SWARA method was used to rank the associated sub-issues in order to combat the major issues. When determining the final weight values of the associated sub-issues, the SWARA method took into account the associated major issue's optimized weight values. This allowed for the difficulties and issues to be ranked according to the most effective way to prioritize them

Comment(s): Is there a clear explanation of why one item or alternative is ranked higher or lower than another. This can make it difficult to justify the rankings to other stakeholders or decision-makers, leading to potential disagreements.

Response(s): The values were taken considering the average values given by experts. For instance:

4.2 Ranking of the agri-food sectors’ associated issues

4.2.1 AIs ranking by BWM

The BC and WC were selected using the collective judgment of industry professionals after taking into account the degree to which each of the five selected "criteria or the agri-food sectors' associated issues (AIs)" were important. We sought the advice of industry professionals to ascertain, using a scale ranging from 1 to 9, which criteria should be considered more important than all others. By assigning the same rating values to all of the criteria, we were able to calculate the preferences of the other criteria in relation to the WC. The figures were determined by taking into consideration the average of the values provided by the experts

Comment(s): Line 396-425 all Formula are not at so clear.

Response(s): All the formulas are re-written accordingly:

Comment(s): How do you handle the uncertainty associated with the evaluations or preferences of the decision-making using SWARA method. Is it suitable if there is a high degree of uncertainty.

Response(s): The highlighted parts in the last paragraph of Literature Review may be referred owing to the suitability of SWARA method:

Additionally, despite the fact that other MCDM methods have been established, or the discovery of criteria’s estimates and picking in view of their proclivities, one of the most popular methods that utilize comparisons was already considered as the “Best Worst Method (BWM)” with even less data needs and more trustworthy comparability [62]. Rezaei et al. [63] observed that the BWM is suitable when there are fewer criterions to be taken into consideration and that it also produces more consistent findings with fewer pair-wise comparisons [64]. The “SWARA (Step-wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis)” approach, another MCDM method that can handle a variety of criteria in any complicated situation, has also demonstrated its unique use for diverse decision-making processes [65-67]. Additionally, various research has recommended combining MCDM methods to effectively manage more complex problems, such as SWARA and the “complex proportional assessment (COPRAS) method” [66]; and SWARA and “VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) analysis” [68]. However, there are not many researches that take complicated problems into account when integrating BWM and SWARA methods. Therefore, in this study, an effort was made to combine both the BWM and SWARA methods in order to rank the agri-food sectors’ associated issues.

Comment(s): How is Assigning weights to criteria handled in SWARA, if the weights are not assigned appropriately, they can lead to inaccurate or biased results.

Response(s): The values were taken considering the average values given by experts.

Comment(s): Figure1 and Figure2 are blur and not clear.

Response(s): Figure 1 and Figure 2 are made clearer by increasing their resolutions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Specific comments:

Abstract

I recommend changing the keyword Agri-food sectors, which is in the title of the manuscript.

1. Introduction

On lines 153-157 says:

“The relevant literature is provided in Section 1.1. Section 2 includes a full-description of the methodology of research followed. Sections 3 provide a summary of the results, followed by the subsequent Section 4 elaborating the discussion. At the end, the implications and concluding remarks are presented in Section 5.”

But I consider that should say: “The relevant literature is provided in Section 2. Section 3 includes a full-description of the methodology of research followed. Sections 4 provide a summary of the results, followed by the subsequent Section 5 elaborating the discussion. At the end, the implications and concluding remarks are presented in Section 6.”

2. Literature Review

On lines 325-341, at the beginning of the paragraph, I recommend including another paragraph pointing out the importance of using MCDM-based methods to evaluate complex problems such as those analyzed in this study.

On lines 334-335, the authors point out that “various research has recommended combining MCDM methods to effectively manage more complex problems”. In relation to this, I suggest including in the discussion section a comment on the advantages, convenience, benefits, implications of the combination of the BWM and SWARA methods in order to rank the agri-food sectors’ associated issues analyzed in this research.

3. Research Methodology

On line 354 there is an error in the section number 2.1.

On line 354 says: “2.1 The associated issues” … But I consider that should say: “3.1 The associated issues” … According to this, section number 3.1 (line 381), 3.2 (line 393) and 3.3 (line 430) should change to 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, respectively.

4. Results

On Line 453 the word mamdami refers to an author, so I suggest that this word be changed to Mamdami

5. Discussion

In this section, I suggest that authors include a comment that emphasizes the convenience of combining the BWM and SWARA methods in order to rank the agri-food sectors' associated issues. Also, I think important that the authors consider other limitations of the study, such as the distribution of food, the intermediarism in its commercialization and short commercialization circuits, important aspects of food systems on which I suggest that the authors include some comments in discussion section.

In several parts of the manuscript (for example lines 88-91; lines 130-135; lines 553-559) it is highlighted that it is required a transformational process for "holistic" strategies that also draw on indigenous-and traditional-knowledge, such as conservation agriculture, organic agriculture, re-vegetation, climate-smart agriculture, and crop management, and the imperative that we move toward sustainable food and agricultural systems. In fact, the results obtained indicated that the issues with the lack of innovative-systems was rated in the firs-level of importance. In this sense, I consider that in the Discussión section the authors should highlight the importance and contribution of the traditional agricultural kowledge and agroecology to achieve these objectives, and for sustainable agri-food sectors (See for example: Gliessman, S.R. 1998. Agroecology: ecological processes in sustainable agriculture. CRC Press; Gliessman, S.R. 2015. Agroecology; the ecology of sustainable food systems, 3rd Ed. CRC Press).

6. Implications and Concluding Remarks

At the end of lines 603-607, I recommend that the authors include an additional paragraph highlighting the importance and contribution of traditional agricultural knowledge and agroecology for the agri-food sectors.

Author Response

We thank the esteemed reviewers for taking the time to review our paper and for their valuable comments. Please find below our responses to the following recommendations:

Reviewer#2:

Comment(s): Abstract

I recommend changing the keyword Agri-food sectors, which is in the title of the manuscript.

Response(s): We thank the esteemed reviewer for providing such valuable suggestions to improve the manuscript further.

The Keyword has been changed to Agri-food.

Keywords: Agriculture; Agri-food; Sustainable Development; Fuzzy; MCDM; BWM; SWARA

Comment(s): 1. Introduction

On lines 153-157 says:

Response(s): The highlighted parts in the last paragraph of Introduction section have been modified accordingly and presented below.

The organization of the rest of this article is as follows: The relevant literature is provided in Section 2. Section 3 presents a comprehensive overview of the research technique that was used. Sections 4 provide a summary of the results, followed by Section 5 which discusses the results and key findings of this reseach. At the end, the implications and concluding remarks are presented in Section 6.

Comment(s): 2. Literature Review

Response(s): The highlighted parts in the last paragraph of literature review section(section 2) have been modified which is as follows.

When considering any option, it is imperative that the procedure for making decisions be brought up at all times. Decision-making is a complex cognitive process that involves the brain looking for a desirable conclusion while taking into consideration a number of different elements. This process may be logical or illogical, and on the other hand, it may make implicit or explicit presumptions that depend on a variety of factors, including cultural, biological, physiologic, and social impacts. A wide range of factors have an impact on these presumptions. All of these factors, as well as the amount of power involved and the level of risk, can influence the degree of difficulty of the decision-making process. Mathematical equations, a wide range of statistics, algebra, economic theories, and computational resources that automatically calculate and estimate the answers to decision-making questions can all be employed to address complex decision-making difficulties in the modern era. It's possible that Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), one of the most precise methods of making decisions, may be regarded as a revolution in this particular field. The MCDM approach could be used to help humans find solutions to everyday challenges. In contrast, the evaluation of criteria becomes an extremely important issue when a problem is based on a subject that is of greater significance, such as in the agri-food industry or other industries. In light of this, it is imperative that decisions be arrived at by adhering to sound organizational practices and doing comprehensive analyses of each of the relevant aspects using the tools and technologies that are available. Additionally, despite the fact that other MCDM methods have been developed, or the discovery of criteria's estimates and picking in light of their tendencies, one of the most popular methods that utilize comparisons was already considered to be the BWM, with even fewer data requirements and more trustworthy comparability [62]. Rezaei et al. [63] found that the BWM is appropriate when there are fewer criteria to be taken into consideration and that it also generates more consistent findings with fewer pair-wise comparisons [64]. The SWARA technique, which is another way of doing MCDM and is capable of handling a range of criteria in any challenging situation, has also proven its unique application for a variety of decision-making procedures [65-67]. Additionally, various research has recommended combining MCDM methods to effectively manage more complex problems, such as SWARA and the “complex proportional assessment (COPRAS) method” [66]; and SWARA and “VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) analysis” [68]. However, there are not many researches that take complicated problems into account when integrating BWM and SWARA methods. Therefore, in this study, an effort was made to combine both the BWM and SWARA methods in order to rank the agri-food sectors’ associated issues.

The first paragraph in the Discussion section highlights the advantages, convenience, benefits, implications of the combination of the BWM and SWARA methods in order to rank the agri-food sectors’ associated issues analyzed in this research.

Discussion

This study makes a contribution by integrating two methodologies that are based on MCDM techniques in order to weight the criteria for the sustainable development of Indian agri-food sectors. Both BWM and SWARA are specific, cutting-edge approaches to the novel method of weighting criteria according to distinct ideologies. Since criteria weight has a substantial impact on the results of any MCDM approach, the only critical decision-making challenge is to analyze the weights of distinct material attributes. In addition, the rationale behind the weight estimation has an evident influence on the reliability of the computational conclusions as well as their level of precision. Therefore, in order to direct decision-makers in the process of calculating the weights of the criteria, there needs to be a clearly acknowledged process. This research aims to analyze and rate the problems that are associated with the agricultural and food production sectors in India by integrating two methodologies: BWM and SWARA.

Comment(s): 3. Research Methodology

On line 354 there is an error in the section number 2.1.

Response(s): The sections and sub-sections numbering have been rearranged as suggested.

Comment(s): 4. Results

On Line 453 the word mamdami refers to an author, so I suggest that this word be changed to Mamdami

Response(s): The word mamdami is changed to Mamdami.

Comment(s): 5. Discussion

Response(s): The Discussion section’s last paragraph is elaborated with the importance and contribution of the traditional agricultural knowledge and agroecology for sustainable agri-food sectors. For instance:

Traditional knowledge is frequently used to improve food availability and reduce poverty in areas such as ecosystem and landscape management, water management, soil preservation, biological control of diseases and pests, environmentally friendly livestock practices, and animal and plant breeding. Agroecological farming is a foreign concept to those who regard agriculture and ecology as separate fields. It refers to farming for the purpose of producing foods, jobs, and financial incentives, as well as cultural, social, and environmental services and benefits. Agroecological practices are marketed as a more proactive strategy than conventional agriculture for achieving a global collective response to climate change and unpredictability while building strong and resilient agricultural systems to meet food demands and protect ecosystem health [81,82].

Comment(s): 6. Implications and Concluding Remarks

Response(s): An additional paragraph highlighting the importance and contribution of traditional agricultural knowledge and agroecology for the agri-food sectors has been added as highlighted in the last paragraph of the section Implications and Concluding Remarks which is as follows:

Furthermore, a significant number of those in positions of authority continue to support agricultural practices and technical solutions that encourage brisk economic expansion at the expense of the environment. Hence, an emphasis need to be placed on agroecology-based studies on the traditional knowledge and practices of agroecology as well as the significance of these practices in terms of how they respond to climate change. Limited academic research has been conducted on the social dynamics surrounding traditional agroecological knowledge and practices, the variables that influence the adaptation actions of smallholder farmers, and the opportunities that they present for achieving food security and adapting to climate change in various regions of India. In order to transition away from intensive input-based agriculture and solve pressing issues in the agri-food sector, there is widespread consensus that significant adjustments need to be made to the way food is produced and consumed. These changes need to be made in order to address important concerns. To solve these kinds of problems and make progress toward achieving the "Sustainable Development Goals" at the same time, it is essential to get involved in agroecology as a different route for the growth of the agriculture and food industries.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It is good to see a focus on India´s small farmers and markets in regard to their role in meeting sustainable agricultural production goals.

From my experience in India, I would note one additional factor that limits small farmers decision making-- the small farmer´s indebtedness to wealthier people in their village (to whom they owe money often going back several generations). The wealthy big farmers who hold their debit can block small farmers´ decisions, so small loan schemes (that are not corrupt) should be another factor to consider.

I suggest it should be noted in a caveat what the study does not take into account -- irrigation and fresh water --. India´s initial tremendous gains in agriculture production came from irrigation (not acknowledged in this paper) and continued/new access to fresh water for irrigation is a big challenge in India - all the more reason to promote alternative methods to retain soil moisture and make better use /management of irrigation water.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12183-9.

Author Response

We thank the esteemed reviewers for taking the time to review our paper and for their valuable comments. Please find below our responses to the following recommendations:

Reviewer#3:

Comment(s): It is good to see a focus on India´s small farmers and markets in regard to their role in meeting sustainable agricultural production goals.

Response(s): We thank the esteemed reviewer for such motivating comment. Also, we thank in providing such valuable suggestions to improve the manuscript further.

Comment(s): From my experience in India, I would note one additional factor that limits small farmers decision making-- the small farmer´s indebtedness to wealthier people in their village (to whom they owe money often going back several generations). The wealthy big farmers who hold their debit can block small farmers´ decisions, so small loan schemes (that are not corrupt) should be another factor to consider.

Response(s): Yes, of course the small farmer´s indebtedness to wealthier people in their village may be considered as one of the factor, which we will consider for our future studies.

Comment(s): I suggest it should be noted in a caveat what the study does not take into account -- irrigation and fresh water --. India´s initial tremendous gains in agriculture production came from irrigation (not acknowledged in this paper) and continued/new access to fresh water for irrigation is a big challenge in India - all the more reason to promote alternative methods to retain soil moisture and make better use /management of irrigation water.

Response(s): All the suggestions have been added in the Discussion section as highlighted before the last paragraph as follows:

Furthermore, irrigation was responsible for India's early significant increases in agricultural production, and new access to fresh water for irrigation is a major concern in India. As a result, it is critical to encourage alternative means of retaining soil moisture as well as better use and management of irrigation water. To the extent that irrigation can be expanded, it can mitigate the detrimental consequences of excessive heat. Irrigation has resulted in the greatest improvements in yields in the states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra. It is feasible that improved irrigation access, which has benefited states in the west and north-west in the past, will lift yields even higher in these regions. However, any expansion in irrigation access should be complemented by sustainability concerns to minimize groundwater depletion, which Haryana and Punjab are currently experiencing [78,79]. Many factors, including technical innovation, global markets, and government policy, will decide the future of Indian agricultural output. Although irrigation and weather are only two factors, they have both had a significant impact on yield trajectory during the last few decades [80].

Comment(s): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12183-9.

Response(s): The suggested work has been included in the revised version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf