Evaluation of Agricultural Green Development Based on Gini Coefficient and Hesitation Fuzzy Multi-Attribute Decision-Making: The Case of China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The study conducted is relevant to you, but requires a number of improvements:

1. Abstract needs to be improved.

- First, the volume exceeds, too long and needs to be shortened.

- Secondly, it is necessary to clearly indicate what is the purpose of the study, what is the novelty?

2. The introduction can also be shortened by well-known phrases that do not carry a meaningful load, such as "China is a country with a large population and large agriculture" and others, as well as highlighting factors at the farm level, regional level, etc. (line 77-100).

3. In line 65 it is not clear "The study points out that" what kind of study is it? If this is a study of other objects, a reference should be put on it.

4. Add a structure at the end of the Introduction to other sections (brief explanation).

5. In Table 2, indicate more purely Interval standards "[1,2] - terrible, and then [2.01, 3] - very weak", because with a value of 2 it is not clear which description to refer to terrible or very weak.

6. Specify the author's choice of the research region, namely the research on Northeast China, Yangtze River Economic Belt, Yellow River Basin, Bohai Rim Region, Beijing Tianjin Hebei Region and other regions, comparing with other regions of China.

7. There is no research period (year) for the data presented in "Figure 2. Evaluation indicators weights of agricultural green development level in Yantai."

8. Based on the results of the research, there is a need for clearer recommendations on the effective combination and interaction of industry, awareness, science and technology, and policy in influencing the green development of agriculture.

9. In the Title add "Case of China"

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well structured and contributes to the field of study. However, below are some suggestions for improvement for the authors' consideration:

1) I suggest including in the abstract the indications of future research that were not aborded in this research;

2) the authors did not include a literature review section> In relation to the multicriteria methods, the authors could make a research summary of the main methods and justify their choice of multicriteria method. In this sense, I suggest consulting the following paper: https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11111720, which will help in this task.

3) In line 108, check the spelling of the DEMATEL method. I suggest that the authors include a list with all the acronyms used in the text at the end of the text.

4) On line 160, I observed that the presentation of the references are as notes and in a different size than the text. I suggest checking the whole paper and inserting the references according to the author's guide;

5) In table 5, the authors put the criteria to be evaluated in column 1 and the alternatives (years) in row 1. The impression the reader gives is how the normalization will be done with quantitative and qualitative criteria. I suggest that the authors invert these positions so that the following tables would make sense to the reader regarding the normalization of the decision matrix with quantitative and qualitative criteria.

6) In the references section, the authors should place the references according to the author's guide.

Best Regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript "Evaluation of Agricultural Green Development Based on Gini Coefficient and Hesitation Fuzzy Multi-attribute Decision Making" deals with a topic of interest in a situation like the present one, in which green agricultural development is becoming increasingly necessary to tackle the growing environmental problems posed by certain forms of agricultural exploitation, which, if their current methods of cultivation are not reversed in time, could threaten the sustainability of agriculture and the very environmental sustainability of the areas where these forms of agricultural exploitation are practiced. In this context, works, such as the present one, are very useful and timely, not only for the specific case study addressed here, but also because their mode of evaluation can be applied to other contexts.

The methodology is correct, and the paper is well written so it can be easily read.

However, some changes would be necessary to improve the current version of the manuscript, among which the following are mentioned below:

1) A map of the area under study in this research should be inserted in the article, especially to make it easier for readers outside the People's Republic of China to locate the area, as it is expected that such a work will be of interest to specialists and policy makers in other countries of the world.

2) Some international bibliographical references of worldwide diffusion should be added and briefly commented on with respect to the theoretical-methodological basis of the subject under investigation here. I leave the selection of these references, which are undoubtedly very extensive, to the choice of the authors.

3) The Conclusions section should focus more on highlighting and analyzing the consequences of the results of the research carried out.

4) The Recommendations made in the Conclusions section should be placed in an additional section entitled something like "Recommendations".

I hope that these comments, which are basically intended to be constructive, will be useful to the authors in improving their work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

Initially, I congratulate the authors for the extensive revision work and attention to the suggestions proposed by the reviewers. In the current version, I believe the article meets the minimum conditions for acceptance for publication.

Best Regards

Reviewer