Review Reports - Prioritizing Strategies for Agri-Food Transformation in Meta, Colombia: A Hybrid ANP-DEMATEL-SBWM Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposal to generate diverse strategies in decision-making is interesting. A participatory and associative approach is put forward, with local relevance. The article aims to be a methodological and practical contribution.

Regarding the methodological aspect, there are several problems with various tables, which must be amended.

The document submitted for review duplicates Table 4 in Table 5, with the "limit matrix" table not being present.

Furthermore, in Table 9, the value for C.1.1 is comparatively higher, which requires checking if it is correct and, if so, commenting on and discussing this result.

In Table 10, it appears that the values are not normalized, as the table's title indicates.

Finally, Table A3 is very difficult to read.

All these elements to be corrected hinder the ability to properly evaluate the work.

Regarding the practical aspect, it is not clear what the opinion of the involved communities is regarding the prioritization results. For the community stakeholders, although participatory, the process is a black box. What is their opinion on the prioritized results? How does the dialogue with the community continue? These points are important to address in the discussion and conclusions of the paper. The risk is that participation becomes merely instrumental.

At a more detailed level, it would be important to inquire: What do the involved communities think about the divergences that the different methods (ANP-DEMATEL and SBWM) produce in the prioritization of strategies? This is relevant given that lines 495-497 allude to the particularity of the community.

Likewise, the document must review the bibliography, which seems to be misaligned. 51 articles are cited, but there are only 50 in the reference list. Additionally, the duplication of articles already noted by previous reviewers must be corrected.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 comments

We would like to thank the reviewers and the editor for the time and effort dedicated to evaluating our work. We deeply value your constructive feedback, which has been invaluable in improving the quality and relevance of our manuscript. All adjustments and corrections have been incorporated into the revised version and are written in red throughout the manuscript. We hope that the revised version meets your expectations and look forward to your favorable consideration.

The proposal to generate diverse strategies in decision-making is interesting.

A participatory and associative approach is put forward, with local relevance. The article aims to be a methodological and practical contribution.

Regarding the methodological aspect, there are several problems with various tables, which must be amended.

The document submitted for review duplicates Table 4 in Table 5, with the "limit matrix"table not being present.

Corrected. The duplicated matrix has been removed, and Appendix D has been added, where the limit matrix is presented

Furthermore, in Table 9, the value for C.1.1 is comparatively higher, which requires checking if it is correct and, if so, commenting on and discussing this result.

Corrected. As shown in Table 8 (renumbered since Table 5 was removed), the higher weight obtained by criterion C.1.1 indicates the importance that experts assign to international alliances as a key mechanism for knowledge transfer, market access, and the long-term sustainability of farmers’ markets in Meta. This explanation has been added to the Results/Discussion section.

In Table 10, it appears that the values are not normalized, as the table's title indicates.

Table 9 (since Table 5 was removed) may show totals that differ slightly from unity due to decimal rounding. Although the values are presented with four decimal places for readability, the original calculations strictly satisfy the normalization condition. These minor differences do not affect the results or the conclusions of the analysis.

Finally, Table A3 is very difficult to read.

Table D1, previously labeled as A3, was modified to improve readability.

All these elements to be corrected hinder the ability to properly evaluate the work.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing out that several elements hindered the proper evaluation of the manuscript. In the revised version, we have carefully addressed all these aspects. Specifically, the resolution and size of Figure 1 have been improved to meet MDPI requirements, large tables (e.g., influence and limit matrices) have been moved to the Appendix to enhance readability, and the entire reference list has been standardized in MDPI format with verified DOIs. In addition, the Materials and Methods section has been revised to avoid redundancies and improve clarity. We believe these corrections now ensure that the manuscript can be properly evaluated without formal obstacles.

Regarding the practical aspect, it is not clear what the opinion of the involved communities is regarding the prioritization results. For the community stakeholders, although participatory, the process is a black box. What is their opinion on the prioritized results? How does the dialogue with the community continue? These points are important to address in the discussion and conclusions of the paper. The risk is that participation becomes merely instrumental.
At a more detailed level, it would be important to inquire: What do the involved communities think about the divergences that the different methods (ANP-DEMATEL and SBWM) produce in the prioritization of strategies? This is relevant given that lines 495-497allude to the particularity of the community

We appreciate this valuable observation. In this study, community participation focused on the identification of criteria and strategies; however, community stakeholders were not explicitly asked to comment on the divergences between the ANP–DEMATEL and SBWM results. We have clarified this as a limitation in the Discussion section. In addition, we indicated that future applications will include a specific community feedback session in which both rankings are presented side by side, with plain-language explanations and a short protocol (Likert-type items and open-ended prompts) to capture agreement, disagreement, and the reasons behind them. These clarifications aim to enhance transparency and reinforce the social legitimacy of the prioritization process.

Likewise, the document must review the bibliography, which seems to be misaligned. 51articles are cited, but there are only 50 in the reference list. Additionally, the duplication of articles already noted by previous reviewers must be corrected.

We appreciate this observation. In the revised version, we conducted a thorough review of the references. The inconsistency between the number of in-text citations (51) and the number of listed references (50) has been corrected, ensuring full alignment. In addition, the duplications noted by previous reviewers have been removed, and all references have been standardized to MDPI format with verified DOIs.

Once again, we thank the reviewers and the editor for their time and effort in evaluating our work. We deeply value their constructive feedback, which has been essential in enhancing the quality and relevance of our manuscript. We hope that the revised version meets their expectations and we look forward to their favorable consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the Abstract, it would be appropriate for the authors to more clearly explain the main results of the research (which are very generic), its implications and effective contributions to the field of knowledge. In the Introduction, there is a lack of a better delimitation of the research problem and a better characterization of the investigated context, since the line of argument is too focused on the "method" applied (hybrid model combining DEMATEL, ANP, and SBWM). In section "2. Theoretical Framework", the subsections "2.1. Agricultural Transformation, Associativity and the Cooperative Economy", "2.2. Participatory Governance and Rural Civil Society", "2.3. Farmers' Markets, Sustainability and the SDGs", and "2.5. State of Knowledge: Contributions and Gaps" are very superficial. The method, in general, is well described. In Table 3, on page 8, there is a comment that must have been recorded by "mistaken" by the authors: "Commented [M1]: We merged the table, please confirm.". The results are presented in a dense format, making them difficult for the reader to understand, especially given the large number of tables. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to present the results and then delve deeper into their respective discussions, including by returning to the theoretical foundation used in “section 2” and/or previous studies with results that allow for some form of comparison. At the end of the text, especially in the "Conclusions," it is not clear what the study's actual contributions to the field were. It would be important to highlight the main theoretical and practical (managerial) implications, the research limitations, and suggestions for future studies. Respectfully, these are my comments and suggestions to the authors.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Response to Reviewer 2 comments

Comment 1. In the Abstract, it would be appropriate for the authors to more clearly explain the main results of the research (which are very generic), its implications and effective contributions to the field of knowledge.

We appreciate this valuable observation. In the revised version, the Abstract has been expanded to explicitly highlight the main results of the study. Specifically, we now state that the creation of working groups with public and private institutions (E.3) consistently emerged as the most robust strategy across scenarios, followed by infrastructure development (E.2) and participatory workshops (E.8), while product marketing (E.7) ranked lowest. In addition, we clarified the methodological contribution of integrating DEMATEL–ANP with SBWM to address interdependencies and uncertainty, and the practical contribution of guiding governments and cooperatives in strengthening farmers’ markets through institutional coordination, infrastructure investment, and capacity building. These adjustments ensure that the Abstract presents the results, implications, and contributions of the research in a more precise and informative manner.

Comment 2. In the Introduction, there is a lack of a better delimitation of there search problem and a better characterization of the investigated context, since the line of argument is too focused on the "method" applied (hybrid model combining DEMATEL,ANP, and SBWM).

Response 2: We appreciate the observation. The introduction was expanded to more precisely delimit the research problem and characterize the context of the department of Meta, incorporating its agri-food relevance, the coexistence of peasant and agro-industrial economies, as well as the accelerated urbanization processes in Villavicencio [1–4]. The limitations faced by producers (insufficient infrastructure, low associativity, and difficulties in meeting quality and safety standards) were detailed, and a transition was added to connect the need for a territorial and participatory approach [5,6] with the pertinence of applying multi-criteria methodologies. Furthermore, the capacity of DEMATEL and ANP to model interdependencies was emphasized [7–9], along with the novelty of integrating SBWM as a prospective component [10].

Comment 3. In section "2. Theoretical Framework", the subsections "2.1. Agricultural Transformation, Associativity and the Cooperative Economy", "2.2. Participatory Governance and Rural Civil Society", "2.3. Farmers' Markets, Sustainability and the SDGs", and "2.5. State of Knowledge: Contributions and Gaps" are very superficial.

We appreciate this observation. In the revised version, the theoretical framework was expanded to provide greater depth and a more critical discussion. Subsection 2.1 incorporates contributions from the social and solidarity economy and social capital theory [11,12], together with recent evidence on the efficiency and social innovation of cooperative models, as well as their limitations in Latin American contexts [2,24,25]. Subsection 2.2 further develops participatory governance [13,14], emphasizing the role of rural civil society and including examples of inclusion–exclusion tensions in Latin America [27,28]. Subsection 2.3 reinforces the connection between farmers’ markets and the Sustainable Development Goals [15,16], complemented by international evidence from Germany, Brazil, and Uruguay [5,37,46]. Finally, subsection 2.5 specifies gaps in the literature, highlighting the scarcity of prioritization models that integrate social, technical, and territorial criteria while also considering prospective scenarios [24,25]. These adjustments strengthen the conceptual foundations of the article and support the relevance of the proposed DEMATEL–ANP–SBWM hybrid model.

Comment 4. The method, in general, is well described. In Table 3, on page 8, there is a comment that must have been recorded by "mistaken" by the authors: "Commented [M1]: We merged the table, please confirm.".

We appreciate the observation. The note in question corresponds to a comment made by the journal editors during the editing process, requesting confirmation about the merging of the table. It is not part of the final manuscript and has already been confirmed in this revised version.

Comment 5. The results are presented in a dense format, making them difficult for the reader to understand, especially given the large number of tables. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to present the results and then delve deeper into their respective discussions, including by returning to the theoretical foundation used in “section 2” and/or previous studies with results that allow for some form of comparison.

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the density of the results section. Following this suggestion, we restructured the presentation so that the findings are first summarized in a more synthetic way and then discussed in greater depth. This discussion explicitly refers back to the theoretical foundations outlined in Section 2 and integrates comparisons with previous studies in Latin America and other contexts. These adjustments aim to improve the flow of the text and make the interpretation of the tables and applied models clearer for the reader.

Comment 6. At the end of the text, especially in the "Conclusions," it is not clear what the study's actual contributions to the field were. It would be important to highlight the main theoretical and practical (managerial) implications, the research limitations, and suggestions for future studies.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In the revised version of the manuscript, the Conclusions section has been expanded and improved. The main theoretical contributions are now made more explicit, particularly the methodological innovation of integrating DEMATEL–ANP with SBWM to address interdependencies and uncertainty scenarios in rural agri-food systems. We also expanded the practical implications, showing how the prioritized strategies—working groups, infrastructure development, participatory workshops, and preparation of ancestral foods—offer concrete guidance for cooperatives, policymakers, and local governments. In addition, we incorporated the findings from the community feedback session, which validated the prioritization results while also highlighting the need to strengthen collective validation mechanisms to ensure greater social legitimacy.

The revised text also explicitly acknowledges the research limitations, such as the relatively small expert sample and reliance on qualitative judgments, and provides suggestions for future studies. These include applying the model in other territories and incorporating dynamic variables such as access to credit, climate variability, and consumer demand trends. These adjustments make the contributions of the study more visible and reinforce the connection between the conclusions, academic debates, and practical management needs.

Respectfully, these are my comments and suggestions to the authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract lacks data support.
The innovativeness of the research was not mentioned in the introduction. It is necessary to highlight the innovative aspects of this study.
The purpose/aim and significance of the research need to be described in detail.
The statistical analysis methods of the research need to be elaborated in detail.
Figure 1 needs to be enlarged and its clarity enhanced.
English writing needs to be strengthened.
Formulas 1, 2 and 3 need to be aligned.
The influence of the research on industry needs to be stated separately.
The current limitations of the research need to be analyzed in the conclusion.
The author needs to carefully check the format of the references.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Response to Reviewer 3 comments

Below we provide our detailed responses to your review.

The abstract does not provide sufficient data support.

We appreciate this observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have enriched the abstract with specific quantitative results to provide stronger data support. In particular, we included the weights of the main prioritized strategies obtained through the SBWM model (E.3 = 0.0669, E.2 = 0.0649, E.8 = 0.0602) and highlighted the most influential criterion in the ANP-DEMATEL analysis (C.6.1 = 0.108). We also clarified that the sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the prioritization structure, with strategy E.3 consistently ranked first across all scenarios. These additions ensure that the abstract not only summarizes the methodology but also communicates the robustness and empirical significance of the findings.

The introduction does not highlight the innovativeness of the research. The innovative aspects of this study should be emphasized.

Accordingly, this article addresses the following research question: how can strategies for agri-food transformation in the department of Meta be prioritized to ensure quality, associativity, and sustainability, considering uncertainty and actor diversity? To answer this question, we propose a hybrid model that combines stakeholder mapping, Delphi-based validation of criteria, and an integrated DEMATEL–ANP–SBWM analysis, with the aim of providing methodological and practical insights for territorial management and the strengthening of farmers’ markets. Along with addressing the research question, this study is distinguished by the innovative character of its methodological approach. In particular, it introduces a distinctive contribution by integrating DEMATEL, ANP, and SBWM into a single hybrid model. This combination makes it possible to simultaneously analyze causal relationships, interdependencies, and robustness under prospective scenarios—an approach not previously applied to farmers’ markets in Latin America. The participatory design and explicit articulation with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) further reinforce its originality and practical relevance for territorial decision-making.

The purpose, objectives, and significance of the research need to be described in greater detail.

Thank you for this observation. In the revised version, the closing of the introduction was expanded to explicitly describe the purpose, objectives, and relevance of the article. It now specifies that the main purpose is to prioritize agri-food transformation strategies in Meta, considering sustainability, quality, and associativity under conditions of uncertainty. Three objectives were added: validating criteria linked to the SDGs, analyzing causal and interdependent relationships using DEMATEL and ANP, and evaluating robustness through SBWM. Finally, the study’s relevance is emphasized as an innovative and practical methodological contribution to strengthening farmers’ markets and supporting progress toward the SDGs.

The statistical analysis methods require a more comprehensive explanation.

We appreciate this observation. It is important to clarify that the approach adopted in this article does not rely on traditional statistical methods but on operations research, specifically multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) models. In this framework, data are structured into comparison and influence matrices that are processed using mathematical, rather than statistical, procedures. To ensure coherence and robustness, several mechanisms inherent to these models were applied: the Aggregation of Individual Judgments (AIJ) using geometric means, the calculation of consistency ratios (CR) in the ANP, optimization procedures in the SBWM, and sensitivity analysis to verify the stability of the results. Thus, the rigor of the analysis relies on operations research validation mechanisms rather than traditional statistical inference.

Figure 1 should be enlarged and its resolution improved for better clarity.

We sincerely appreciate this observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, Figure 1 was enlarged and reformatted to ensure better readability and compliance with MDPI’s graphical standards. The updated version meets the required 300 dpi resolution, which guarantees clarity for both digital and print formats. These adjustments improve the visibility of the elements in the diagram and facilitate its interpretation by readers.

The overall English writing must be strengthened.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The manuscript was subjected to a language revision aimed at improving grammar, vocabulary, and fluency in English. Particular attention was given to sentence structure, word choice, and style in order to strengthen clarity and readability throughout the text.

Formulas 1, 2, and 3 should be properly aligned.

We would like to clarify that in the preprint version the formulas appear properly aligned. However, in the revised version the alignment was affected, possibly due to the tabulation settings of the equation editor. In the edited version, the formulas are presented tabulated and aligned as shown in the preprint. A screenshot of the preprint version is attached for reference.

The potential influence of the research on industry should be discussed separately.

We appreciate this valuable suggestion. In the revised version, the possible influence of the research on the agri-food industry has been explicitly incorporated into the Discussion. A specific paragraph was added at the end of this section, where the implications for producers, cooperatives, and the broader industry are analyzed. This addition highlights how the proposed model can support modernization, competitiveness, and resilience in the agri-food sector, thereby addressing the reviewer’s concern.

The current limitations of the research should be analyzed in the conclusion section.

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. In the revised version, the Conclusion section has been expanded to explicitly address the current limitations of the research. These include the relatively small number of experts, the reliance on qualitative judgments in the construction of comparison matrices, the absence of empirical validation of the impacts once the strategies are implemented, and the methodological complexity of the DEMATEL–ANP–SBWM model, which may pose challenges for replication in contexts with limited institutional capacities.

The author should carefully review and correct the formatting of the references.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. The entire reference list has been thoroughly revised and reformatted according to the MDPI guidelines. All journal titles have been standardized using official abbreviations, the publication years are consistently highlighted in bold, and the DOIs are included in plain text format (without hyperlinks). Institutional reports and books have also been adjusted to follow the proper citation style.

We would like to once again thank the reviewers and the editor for the time and effort devoted to evaluating our work. We deeply value their constructive comments, which have been fundamental in improving the quality and relevance of our manuscript. We hope that the revised version meets their expectations, and we look forward to their favorable consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper titled ‘Prioritizing Strategies for Agri-Food Transformation in Meta, Colombia: A Hybrid ANP-DEMATEL-SBWM Model’ is interesting.

What unique advantages does the hybrid ANP-DEMATEL-SBWM model proposed in this study have?

How does the hybrid model address the issue of insufficient data?

What dynamic variables can be incorporated in future research?

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper titled ‘Prioritizing Strategies for Agri-Food Transformation in Meta, Colombia: AHybrid ANP-DEMATEL-SBWM Model’ is interesting.

What unique advantages does the hybrid ANP-DEMATEL-SBWM model proposed inthis study have?

We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have incorporated an additional paragraph in the Discussion to explicitly highlight the unique advantages of the proposed hybrid model. Specifically, the integration of DEMATEL and ANP captures both causal structures and interdependencies in a coherent network, avoiding fragmented perspectives of farmers’ markets, while SBWM adds robustness under alternative future scenarios and reduces the cognitive burden on experts through fewer and simpler comparisons. This feature facilitates the participation of local stakeholders who are not familiar with complex modeling techniques. These elements reinforce the originality of the proposed hybrid model and its potential applicability to participatory agri-food planning in Latin America.

How does the hybrid model address the issue of insufficient data?

We sincerely value this comment. In the revised version of the manuscript, we clarified in the Discussion that the proposed hybrid model mitigates the problem of insufficient data by relying on structured expert judgments and prospective scenarios rather than extensive statistical series. DEMATEL and ANP make it possible to capture causal relationships and interdependencies from qualitative assessments, while SBWM reduces the cognitive burden on respondents by requiring only a limited number of comparisons—focused on the most and least important criteria. Based on these simplified judgments, the method generates robust prioritization outcomes under alternative future scenarios. This makes the hybrid model particularly suitable for rural and territorial contexts where reliable quantitative information is scarce or incomplete, yet decision-making still requires methodological rigor and transparency.

What dynamic variables can be incorporated in future research?

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion regarding the incorporation of dynamic variables in future research. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have expanded the Conclusions section to explicitly address this point. Specifically, we now highlight that future studies should consider variables such as fluctuations in input and production costs, access to credit and financing, climate variability, consumer demand trends, and regulatory changes. The inclusion of these factors would strengthen the robustness and adaptability of the DEMATEL–ANP–SBWM model, allowing it to better capture evolving conditions and provide more effective decision-support for farmers’ markets and rural development strategies.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript deals with a relevant issue: structural transformations in agricultural systems.

In the Introduction the authors state that agricultural systems in Colombia face persistent limitations such as productive informality, low value addition, and weak institutional coordination and this situation is critic in the department of Meta. The authors argue that the sustainability of farmers’ markets in Meta depends on the ability to design strategies that integrate economic, social, environmental, and cultural criteria, and propose to answer the following question: how can agrifood transformation strategies in the department of Meta be prioritized to ensure quality, associativity, and sustainability, considering uncertainty and actor diversity?

The theoretical and analytical framework are based on concepts of Agricultural Transformation, Associativity, and the Cooperative Economy; Participatory Governance and Rural Civil Society; Farmers’ Markets, Sustainability, and the SDGs, and the integration of Multi-Criteria Approaches.

The method and procedures are pertinent and coherent with the research objectives. In Phase 1, the authors mapp and characteriza the stakeholders linked to the cooperatives in the in the department of Meta. In Phase 2 they identify and validate the transformation strategies. In Phase 3 they proceed the strategy selection through ANP-DEMATEL (models) integration. And in Phase 4 they evaluate the strategic robustness under future scenarios with SBWM (model). To the stakeholder mapping and the criteria validation it was used the Delphi technique. The ANP-DEMATEL model were used to capture interdependencies among criteria. And to assess the of strategic robustness under prospective scenarios they used the SBWMm model. The sample consisted of the 26 active cooperative members and 15 external stakeholders.

The results are rich and soundly presented en discussed. "Drawing on the data collected through questionnaires and the structured matrices described in the Methods section, the DEMATEL–ANP–SBWM model was applied". The authors present the selection of extreme criteria and assessment of consistency by scenario under the SBWM method; . The optimal weights of the criteria; the prioritized strategies with ANP-DEMATEL and SBWM; and the sensitivity of the strategies to the weight of criterion C.6.1.

The conclusions and implications are pertinet and supported by the results.

91
The second phase focused on identifying a

rating actor diversity and regional uncertainty. A

, a territory 37
of high relevance for the national agri-food economy due to its productive diversity, the 38
coexistence of small-scale farming with large agro-industrial chains, and the accelerated 39
urbanization processes in its capital city, Villavicencio

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and positive assessment of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the theoretical framework, methodological coherence, and relevance of the results and conclusions. Your detailed summary of the research process and validation of the applied models (ANP–DEMATEL–SBWM) confirm the consistency of our approach and the contribution of this work to the study of structural transformations in agri-food systems. We are grateful for your encouraging evaluation and for highlighting the importance of addressing uncertainty and stakeholder diversity in rural governance research.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Even considering all the efforts made by the authors regarding the improvements incorporated into the article, as well as the responses to the recommendations submitted, I respectfully understand that they are not sufficient to correct the weaknesses identified in the previous review. At the end of the text, especially in the "Conclusions," it is not clear what the study's actual contributions to the field were. For this reason, I maintain the final opinion of the previous review.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and detailed evaluation. We fully understand their concern regarding the clarity of the article's contributions; therefore, we have carefully revised the Conclusions section to highlight the original value of this work in theoretical, methodological, and practical terms.

The revised version now includes the following paragraph:

This article contributes to the literature by integrating three complementary MCDM techniques (DEMATEL, ANP, and SBWM) into a unified, participatory, scenario-based framework. This hybridization provides a novel approach to modeling interdependencies and uncertainty in rural decision-making, particularly in agricultural markets in Latin America, where such integration has not been previously applied. Methodologically, it expands the analytical capacity of participatory ADMC; empirically, it introduces evidence from a real-world cooperative context in Meta, Colombia; and practically, it offers a reproducible tool for policy design and resource allocation in agri-food systems under conditions of uncertainty.

We respectfully believe that these modifications will clarify the novelty and importance of the work, differentiating it from previous studies that used ANP or DEMATEL in isolation. Accordingly, the revised Conclusions section now explicitly acknowledges these contributions and aligns them with the study's objectives.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

none.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation and the time dedicated to assessing our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition that the article meets all methodological and analytical criteria and that the English language is appropriate. Your favorable review reinforces the value of our contribution, and we are grateful for your consideration.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The adjustments and improvements made by the authors in the article are satisfactory, especially the changes incorporated in sections "1. Introduction", "2. Theoretical Framework", and "6. Conclusions". Even so, a final review of the text and formatting is still needed for minor adjustments. Considering the authors' effort in improving the article, I congratulate them.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

We thank Reviewer 3 for the positive evaluation of our manuscript and for acknowledging the improvements made in Sections 1, 2 and 6. As suggested, we conducted a final review of the entire document to refine wording, ensure formatting consistency and correct minor issues. We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback and recognition of our efforts.

Modifications were made to the introduction, materials and methods, results, and discussion to improve the overall flow of ideas and refine the transitions between sections and paragraphs. Sentences were rewritten to enhance clarity and readability. Terminology was also standardized to avoid ambiguities and ensure consistency with the methodological framework. These adjustments strengthened the structure of the manuscript and improved the articulation between the analytical components and the central argument of the study.

We reiterate our appreciation for your thorough and constructive review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx