HMP-Coffee: A Hierarchical Multicriteria Model to Estimate the Profitability for Small Coffee Farming in Colombia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors of the paper address a very interesting topic with a focus on the estimation of profitability in small-scale coffee production. The work uses a contextual knowledge phase based on expert knowledge to create a conceptual model. This model is translated into a hierarchical qualitative model in a second phase. The authors have completed a detailed evaluation with independent data that shows the benefits of the proposal and the very good accuracy results that can be obtained. The explanation is generally clear and the structure of the paper is correct. In addition, the excellent state of the art of the paper supports the progress described in the paper.

The following minor improvements can be performed in the manuscript:        

• Sections 2 and 3 require at least an introductory paragraph.
• Figure 1 can be removed and just extend the explanation of the structure of the HMM in the previous paragraph.
• Section 2.2 includes a very long paragraph that should be divided into several ones or summarized.
• It is not correct to start a sentence with the number of a reference (e.g. [9] introduced a conceptual hierarchical approach…) These sentences can be corrected also indicating the authors (e.g. De Salvo et al. [9] introduced a contextual…).
• The last paragraph of Section 2 must be extended to detail the main pros and cons of the authors’ proposal with regard the related work described in this section.
• Tables 2 and 3 can be better presented to adjust the margins of the different columns.
• Figure 8 can be removed and just introduce a short explanation.
• The explanation of the precision, recall and F1 measures on page19 can be also removed.
• The first paragraph of the conclusions section should be divided into several ones.
• The format of the references should be revised to correct format errors.

Author Response

We want to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments. We have revised the manuscript by taking each comment into account. In the attached document, we explain how we addressed each of the comments and the changes made to the article. To facilitate reading, we have highlighted all corresponding changes in pink and blue. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Your paper is an interesting and relevant piece of applied economics. It introduces a hierarchical multicriteria model to estimate profitability for small coffee farming in Colombia. The approach is overall well documented, reasoned and referenced. Still I see the need for revisions. 

Major issues

(1) I wonder how the model can be used to support the decision making of coffee-smallholders. It is claimed that “supporting smallholders in decision-making to improve their income and, consequently, the economic sustainability” (p.1). However, in the conceptual model (Figure 3) the decision-makers play no role. This aspect needs more reflection/explanation. 

(2) I’m struggling with the structure of the paper. Introduction 1,5 pages, Background and Literature Review 1,5 pages, Materials and Methods 14 pages, Results 2 pages, Conclusion 0,5 pages. Sure, the model development is the main part of the paper. However, I would like to see more of its application (extend the results part). A discussion is missing. The conclusion can’t substitute for a proper discussion in terms of the relationship to the literature, its practical applicability and its limitations. Currently the conclusions contain part of the discussion. However, the results are not linked back to the literature.  

(3) After reading the paper, I don’t have a clear understanding of how “profitability” was measured at all. This is not explained. Since profitability is an extremely central variable, this is not acceptable. Table 4 explains for all basic attributes the quantitative scales, the units, and the three-scale values, but not for profitability. There we only get the three scales (p.18ff.). The profitability measurement must be much better explained.

(4) Often you start a sentence with the reference number. e.g. “[14,15] propose multicriteria hierarchical approaches for estimating the profitability of several crops by considering climatic variables and output.”(p.2) or “[9] introduced a conceptual hierarchical approach to improve the wine industry…” (p.3). This does not read well. I suggest in all these cases to name the authors. Thus the examples will read. “Milne et al. [14] and Cardozo et al.[15] propose multicriteria hierarchical approaches for estimating the profitability of several crops by considering climatic variables and output.”(p.2) or “De Salvo et al. [9] introduced a conceptual hierarchical approach to improve the wine industry…”    

(5) Table and Figure captions are not in the journal format. Furthermore abbreviations should be fully explained in the Table or Figure caption. The reader should be able to understand a Table or Figure stand-alone. For instance in Figure 4 - SP1-SCP, SR2-EPC and SR3-SCPR needs to be explained. In Figure 6 - SCP, ECP. SCPR.

(6) There are quite some language issues and grammatical mistakes which need to be corrected. 

Specific issues

Abstract: “...able to accurately calculates profitability in productions…” First, “calculates” must read “calculate”, but I wonder more about the wording. What is calculated is the prediction to different profitability classes. You call it an accurate calculation? Readers might expect something different. Please consider rewording.

Page two, last two paras of the introduction. Please state more clearly the objectives and your contribution. What is the value added? 

Figure 3. Who is the final user of your model? You might revise your conceptual model in order to include the decision-maker.

Table 4: for t12 the values of Moderate investments are missing. The meaning of the unit CRC must be explained.  

P 14 and 15: You mention the name of the farms and of people. There might be a privacy issue. Is there a need to mention individual farms?

P 18 ff. The results parts must also prove that the tool supports decision making. That is, it must be possible to change one factor or more factors (attribute) and see how this will affect the results. You should present some examples how your tool might be used.  

P 20: “The performance shows HMP-Coffee as a reliable model for making financial decisions on small coffee crops to improve their economic sustainability. Its proper use and adaptation to the local context will allow smallholders to make better decisions, and consequently, improve production income, particularly in developing countries, where 600 thousand families depend on the coffee activity.” Actually, it has not been proven that the model can support decision making. Once again, you did not show how the model can be used by decision makers. This needs to be shown in a convincing way.

Author Response

We want to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments. We have revised the manuscript by taking each comment into account. In the attached document, we explain how we addressed each of the comments and the changes made to the article. To facilitate reading, we have highlighted all corresponding changes in blue.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf