Climate Change and Food Security Prioritizing Indices: Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Social Network Analysis (SNA)
, Ali Kianirad 5,* and Hamed Pouraram 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review your work, and I commend your team for the effort of developing this manuscript. While I cannot recommend publication at this time, with careful improvements it may be possible to be reviewed again as a new manuscript.
In this study, the authors developed a tool and conducted a survey to investigate the importance of food security and climate change indices relative to the Iranian context. It has valuable information as to what experts consider relevant in the domains of food security and climate change.
General notes:
While the quality of English is acceptable, there are many errors and an overall journalistic style. It could be greatly improved to be more objective, to be more consistent, and to add references so as to add scientific credibility. The results could be better structured and separated into Results and Discussion separately, as the discussion of other studies does not appear to be immediately relevant (without discussion relative to the study’s own results) and disrupts the flow and discussion of results.
Other notes:
Referencing system inconsistent eg. Source (1). or Source. (1). Capitalisation and punctuation inconsistent. You consider gender of the experts but give no space for its discussion in the manuscript, and it is not very well balanced.
14-15 “too complicated” ?
15: "This article": instead-- Here, we …
19-22: check capitalisations
24: what is SNA?
28: precipitation is not necessarily “climate change”
34: extreme weather and climate change are distinct. Perhaps ‘climate extremes’? Overall this is very inconsistent in the article. Please choose your definitions carefully and make the discussion around 'climate extremes' (vs weather events) distinct.
36: Is this true? reference? What is meant by ‘critical’? I believe conflict is still the key driver of hunger (see, e.g. https://www.wfp.org/hunger-catastrophe)
48 reference?
54 ‘climatic weather’ inaccurate. What are you referring to?
62 ‘overhang’ unclear
64 questionnaire?
76-85 This paragraph is not well structured and hence unclear. What does ‘into a decision’ mean? What does ‘allege a similar problem’ refer to? ‘poorly equipped to solve unaided…’ what?
132-133 ‘researched information’ vague. what does this mean?
136 ensured, how?
Figure 1. This figure describes your framework of criteria. However while it seems useful internally, it is not useful for the reader. What would be more useful would be a flowchart of your process/methods and a schematic of the different experts
219-220 ‘food security situations’ - what does this mean?
223-238 is discussion of other studies with little linkage to current study. Please link relevance to study’s results. How do they compare? Please include critical analysis rather than just hand-waving other examples.
248-272 Same comments as above. Please refer to these studies in the context of your own results, rather than leaving the reader to do the work
280 What is meant by ’Normal decision’? This seems subjective. Is there a reference for this?
345 reference?
Conclusions: how can this feasibly be incorporated into an EWS? This is the first mention of EWS in the article and it is not clear how results can be applied for this. What are existing EWS systems and how well are FS/CC integrated there?
455-456 how does applying this tool in other countries help alleviate the food security situation in Iran?
Author Response
May 21, 2022
Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen,
Editor-in-Chief, Sustainability
Re: “Climate change and food security prioritizing indices: Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and social network analysis.”
Dear editor،
Thank you and the reviewers very much for your recent comments, which provided us the opportunity to improve our manuscript. We are pleased to inform you that we have addressed all comments in order that they were raised, as you will find them below. The revised sections are addressed byline in the manuscript and respond to the comments of Reviewers. In addition, the line numbers are different from the reviewer’s version, because most parts of our manuscript were rewritten.
Comment 1: General notes:
While the quality of English is acceptable, there are many errors and an overall journalistic style. It could be greatly improved to be more objective, to be more consistent, and to add references so as to add scientific credibility. The results could be better structured and separated into Results and Discussion separately, as the discussion of other studies does not appear to be immediately relevant (without discussion relative to the study’s own results) and disrupts the flow and discussion of results.
Response: thank you for your valuable comments. We improved the objectives of the study and introduce several references in the introduction (line 23-75) and literature review (line 76-103) parts.
The results completely separated from the discussion part. Please see line 210 to find the results part and line 272 for the discussion section.
Comment 2: Referencing system inconsistent e.g. Source (1). or Source. (1). Capitalization and punctuation were inconsistent.
Response: thank you for your precise consideration. The reference system, capitalization, and punctuation were improved.
Comment 3: You consider the gender of the experts but give no space for its discussion in the manuscript, and it is not very well balanced.
Response: we explained the role of females in food security and climate change policymaking in Iran. Please see lines 366-370 in the discussion section.
Comment 4: 14-15 “too complicated”?
Response: these words were deleted. Please, see lines 4-5.
Comment 5: 15:"This article": instead—Here.
Response: thank you. It was changed. Please see line 6.
Comment 6: 19-22: check capitalizations.
Response: thank you. All words were revised. Please see lines 8-12.
Comment 7: 24: what is SNA?
Response: Social Network Analysis (SNA) was explained. please see lines 99-103 in the literature review part.
Comment 8: 28 -precipitation is not necessarily “climate change
Response: this word was revised. Please see lines 14-16.
Comment 9: 34- extreme weather and climate change are distinct. Perhaps ‘climate extremes’? Overall this is very inconsistent in the article. Please choose your definitions carefully and make the discussion around 'climate extremes' (vs weather events) distinct.
Response: thank you for your comment. We revised these words and wrote weather extreme events or climate change in all parts of the manuscript.
Comment 10: 36- Is this true? reference? What is meant by ‘critical’? I believe conflict is still the key driver of hunger (see, e.g. https://www.wfp.org/hunger-catastrophe)
Response: thank you for useful reference. You give a right decision whereas crises, climate change, and poverty are three main factors for hunger. We bring a number of evidence. In the introduction part line 24. Please see references 1-2.
Comment 11: 48 reference?
Response: thank you. We rephrased the sentences and mentioned references. Please see lines 27-29.
Comment 12: 54 ‘climatic weather’ inaccurate. What are you referring to?
Response: thank you. It was corrected. Please see lines 29-30.
Comment 13: 62 ‘overhang’
Response: thank you. It was corrected. Please see line 86.
Comment 14: 64 questionnaires?
Response: thank you. It was edited. please see line 72.
Comment 15: 76-85 -This paragraph is not well structured and hence unclear. What does ‘into a decision’ mean? What does ‘allege a similar problem’ refer to? ‘poorly equipped to solve unaided…’ what?
Response: it was rewritten. Please see lines 111-120.
Comment 16: 132-133 ‘researched information’ vague. what does this mean?
Response: it was a typo error and was edited. Please see line 105.
Comment 17: 136 ensured, how?
Response: it was edited. Please see lines 161-162. In the data collection sub-section.
Comment 18: Figure 1. This figure describes your framework of criteria. However, while it seems useful internally, it is not useful for the reader. What would be more useful would be a flowchart of your process/methods and a schematic of the different experts.
Response: we redesigned figure 1 on page 10. The flowchart of our process/method is pictured in graphical abstract which is attached to manuscript. In addition, we edited table 1, explained about indicators, and mentioned the reference for all indicators. please see pages 17-18.
Comment 19: 219-220 ‘food security situations’ - what does this mean?
Response: discussion part was completely rewritten and these lines were deleted.
Comment 20: 223-238 is discussion of other studies with little linkage to current study. Please link relevance to study’s results. How do they compare? Please include critical analysis rather than just hand-waving other examples. and 248-272 Same comments as above. Please refer to these studies in the context of your own results, rather than leaving the reader to do the work
Response: the discussion section was completely rewritten. These sentences were changed. Moreover, we paid attention to your suggestion for the selection of proper references.
Comment 21: 280 What is meant by ’Normal decision’? This seems subjective. Is there a reference for this?
Response: it was edited to “it is a reasonable decision”. A number of related articles are referenced below.
Mirzaei A, Saghafian B, Mirchi A, Madani K. The groundwater‒energy‒food nexus in Iran’s agricultural sector: implications for water security. Water. 2019 Sep;11(9):1835.
Ashraf S, Nazemi A, AghaKouchak A. Anthropogenic drought dominates groundwater depletion in Iran. Scientific reports. 2021 Apr 28;11(1):1-0.
Comment 22: 345 reference?
Response: Thank you. References were mentioned. Please see line 352.
Comment 23: 455-456 how does applying this tool in other countries help alleviate the food security situation in Iran?
Response: it was edited. please see lines 419-421.
Once again, thank you very much for providing us with the opportunity to improve our work. We hope that you and your team will find the revisions up to your satisfaction and look forward to your decision in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Corresponding authors
Reviewer 2 Report
- This paper is interesting, and it deals with a topic central to the field of research. The review of the literature is satisfactory
The introduction could do more to ground the paper's RQ in the debate and the related literature. In the actual version of the manuscript, scant attention is given to a theoretical derivation of the study's RQ and its actual positioning. Indeed, the lack of studies cannot be considered sufficient motivation for this study.
My suggestion is also to rewrite this section to answer the following questions fully: (i) Why is this topic relevant, and what is known about it? (ii) Which are the gaps you plan to address, and how do you problematize them?
The title reflects the intention and the article's topic quite well. The abstract is somewhat confusing because it contains some redundancies. It lacks a clear line of argumentation (problem statement - research question - placement in relevant scientific fields - methodology - key findings - contribution). Therefore, I recommend that the abstract should be rewritten
The lack of critical arguments did not reflect well on the research objectives, thus making the manuscript less convincing.-More importantly, the choice of the variables should be explained in light of the theory and the prior literature on the topic.See the follwoing
Sustainability in the Circular Economy: Insights and Dynamics of Designing Circular Business Models, Applied Sciences 12, no. 3: 1521. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031521
Applying analytic hierarchy process to adaptation to saltwater intrusion in Vietnam." Sustainability 13, no. 4 (2021): 2311.
- Although it is valuable to provide a detailed description of the Fuzzy AHP method, it would be better if you could discuss the appropriateness of this method to your specific setting. In your current writing, readers only see the general merits of the ANP and TOPSIS method but could not tell whether it is particularly useful in testing your research questions. Please contrast this method to some other methods applied by prior literature that has investigated similar research questions.
It is very important to highlight the main objective of your paper at the very beginning, ideally the first or the second paragraphs.
- In addition, a detailed discussion of the F-AHP method could be moved to the Method section. A good way to structure your introduction section is to start by explicitly explaining your research questions. You could then highlight the key contributions of your paper to extant literature.
Why authors do not use FUZZY ANP.
I suggest authors may rewrite the conclusion part. It must start explaining the purpose and what has been done previously in the domain of studies. Also, provide future research directions precisely in the respective domain and suggest practical recommendations for society and academics.
Prioritization of Factors Affecting Sustainability Property Improvement by Using Analytical Hierarchy Process and Important-Satisfaction Model: The Case of TAIPEI 101 Tower. Applied Sciences, 11(1), 257.
Author Response
May 21, 2022
Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen,
Editor-in-Chief, Sustainability
Re: “Climate change and food security prioritizing indices: Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and social network analysis.”
Dear editor،
Thank you and the reviewers very much for your recent comments, which provided us the opportunity to improve our manuscript. We are pleased to inform you that we have addressed all comments in order that they raised, as you will find them below. The revised sections are addressed byline in the manuscript to respond the comments of Reviewers. In addition, the line numbers are different from the reviewer’s version, because our manuscript isn’t structured on the journal’s template and we rewrote most parts of the manuscript.
Comment 1: The introduction could do more to ground the paper's RQ in the debate and the related literature. In the actual version of the manuscript, scant attention is given to a theoretical derivation of the study's RQ and its actual positioning. Indeed, the lack of studies cannot be considered sufficient motivation for this study. My suggestion is also to rewrite this section to answer the following questions fully: (i) Why is this topic relevant, and what is known about it? (ii) Which are the gaps you plan to address, and how do you problematize them? The lack of critical arguments did not reflect well on the research objectives, thus making the manuscript less convincing. -More importantly, the choice of the variables should be explained in light of the theory and the prior literature on the topic. Many thanks to introduce good reference.
Response: we completely rewrote the introduction part and try to mention all of your valuable comments. The related studies were referenced and improved in all parts of the manuscript. In addition, 50 related references were added.
Comment 2: The abstract is somewhat confusing because it contains some redundancies. It lacks a clear line of argumentation (problem statement - research question - placement in relevant scientific fields - methodology - key findings - contribution). Therefore, I recommend that the abstract should be rewritten
Response: thank you for your suggestion, we rewrote the abstract. Please see lines 3-19.
Comment 3: Although it is valuable to provide a detailed description of the Fuzzy AHP method, it would be better if you could discuss the appropriateness of this method to your specific setting. In your current writing, readers only see the general merits of the ANP and TOPSIS method but could not tell whether it is particularly useful in testing your research questions. Please contrast this method to some other methods applied by prior literature that has investigated similar research questions.
Response: Thank you for your useful comment. We tried to discuss the appropriateness of the AHP method in our specific setting and compared the AHP technique to other multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tools. Please see lines 48-70.
Comment 4: it is very important to highlight the main objective of your paper at the very beginning, ideally in the first or the second paragraphs.
Response: we highlighted our main objectives in the second paragraph of the introduction. Please see lines 47-54.
Comment 5: in addition, a detailed discussion of the F-AHP method could be moved to the Method section.
Response: we moved a detailed discussion of the F-AHP method to the Method section. Please see Line 108-167.
Comment 6: A good way to structure your introduction section is to start by explicitly explaining your research questions. You could then highlight the key contributions of your paper to extant literature.
Why authors do not use FUZZY ANP.
Response: Thank you for this effective comment. We rewrote the introduction part according to your recommendation steps. Moreover, we explained why we did not employ ANP method. Please see lines 63-70.
Comment 7: I suggest authors may rewrite the conclusion part. It must start by explaining the purpose and what has been done previously in the domain of studies. Also, provide future research directions precisely in the respective domain and suggest practical recommendations for society and academics.
Response: we rewrote the conclusion part and pay attention to your substantial comment. In addition, we provided some recommendations for future research for policymakers and academics. Please see lines 413-425.
Once again, thank you very much for providing us with the opportunity to improve our work. We hope that you and your team will find the revisions up to your satisfaction and look forward to your decision in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Corresponding authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear appreciated authors,
The manuscript "Climate change and food security prioritizing indices: Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and social network analysis" is interesting investigation and found it is very novel. The manuscript is acceptable for publication in Journal after minor corrections. However, there are few minor suggestion/quarries that need proper consideration for further improving the quality of the article. To improve the quality of the manuscript, I propose the following corrections:
Line 18: After the literature review, designing a Likert questionnaire, interviewing experts, sixty-one criteria were extracted. The hierarchy matrix applied, criteria and indicators were prioritized by pairwise comparison of AHP tool. The robustness informants’ point of view to select indicators in the AHP tool was employed by network analysis, while sustainability was the essential criterion with a weight of 0.248.
Line 64: In the year of 2013 researchers applied the AHP questionnaire to find appropriate food insecurity variables at the provincial level in Iran and therefore, 20 indicators were identified (16)
Line 68: Please put one space between sing coma and number seven
Line 97 (recommendation for another sentence schedule): The AHP (20, 21) is a decision-making method developed by Saaty in the 1970s and in recent time it is widely applied in many fields as one type of multi-criteria assessment (MCA) method.
Line 198: the indicators (small letter)
Line 326 (another sentence construction): For the estimation the collective security of stability, coordination and sustainability, scientists recently selected and used 33 indexes to establish an index system (35).
Line 426: Finally, these results indicated that experts selected the food security component despite their responsibility in their institutes (Supplement figure S1).
Kind regards,
NL
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
May 21, 2022
Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen,
Editor-in-Chief, Sustainability
Re: “Climate change and food security prioritizing indices: Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and social network analysis.”
Dear editor،
Thank you and the reviewers very much for your recent comments, which provided us the opportunity to improve our manuscript. We are pleased to inform you that we have addressed all comments in order that they raised, as you will find them below. The revised sections are addressed byline in the manuscript to respond the comments of Reviewers. In addition, the line numbers are different from the reviewer’s version, because our manuscript isn’t structured on the journal’s template and we rewrote most parts of the manuscript.
Comment 1: Line 18: After the literature review, designing a Likert questionnaire, and interviewing experts, sixty-one criteria were extracted. the hierarchy matrix applied, criteria and indicators were prioritized by pairwise comparison of the AHP tool. the robustness of informants’ point of view to select indicators in the AHP tool was employed by network analysis, sustainability was the essential criterion with a weight of 0.248.
Response: thank you. All words were edited and the capitalization was noticed. However, the abstract was rewritten. Please see lines 8-12.
Comment 2: Line 64: In 2013 Researchers applied the AHP questionnaire to find appropriate food insecurity variables at the provincial level in Iran. Finally, 20 indicators were identified. (16)
Response: thank you for reconstructing the sentences. We rewrite the introduction and the same sentences presented in lines 43-45.
Comment 3: Please put one space between sing coma and number seven
Response: thank you. This line was deleted during rewriting an introduction part.
Comment 4: Line 97 (recommendation for another sentence schedule): The AHP (20, 21) is a decision-making method developed by Saaty in the 1970s, and in recent times it is widely applied in many fields as one type of multi-criteria assessment (MCA) method.
Response: thank you very much for your recommendation to restructure the sentence. The sentence was edited according to your recommendation. Please see lines 132-133.
Comment 5: the indicators (small letter)
Response: “The” were edited to the (small letter) and rephrased the sentence. Please see line 214.
Comment 6: Line 326 (another sentence construction): Recently, scientists to Evaluate the collective security of stability, coordination, and sustainability. They selected 33 indexes used to establish an index system (35).
Response: thank you for reconstructing the sentences. It was deleted during the rewrite of the discussion part.
Comment 7: Line 426: Finally, these results indicated that experts selected the food security component despite their responsibility in their institutes. Supplement figure S1.
Response: these sentences were edited according to your recommendation and parentheses were added.
Finally, these results indicated that experts selected the food security component despite their responsibility in their institutes (Supplement figure S1). Please see lines 374-376.
Comment 8: In the first part of the Review Report Form, you ticked the below question.
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? Can be improved (x)
Response: thank you for your good comment. We redesigned Table5 and Figure1 for improving the presentation of results. Therefore, all variable’s codes were deleted and were changed to the name of variables with their definition and referenced for better understanding by readers.
Once again, thank you very much for providing us with the opportunity to improve our work. We hope that you and your team will find the revisions up to your satisfaction and look forward to your decision in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Corresponding authors
Reviewer 4 Report
I've got the impression that the introduction to the article is too big (cumbersome). However, it is difficult to understand the purpose of this article and the research. This is also not apparent from the abstract.
The conclusions of the study are too short, general, not specific enough. In principle, they could be formulated by and large without such solid research, the results of which are contained in this article. Perhaps this vagueness of the conclusions is due to the vagueness of the purpose of the study. Similarly, nothing can be said about the accepted hypotheses, because they are difficult to be seen in the text.
At the same time, this article is very comprehensive in content, relevant to the issues raised, contains a lot of interesting information and research can be continued according to the directions outlined by the authors.
Author Response
May 25, 2022
Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen,
Editor-in-Chief, Sustainability
Re: “Climate change and food security prioritizing indices: Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and social network analysis.”
Dear editor،
Thank you and the reviewers very much for your recent comments, which provided us the opportunity to improve our manuscript. We are pleased to inform you that we have addressed all comments in order that they raised, as you will find them below. The revised sections are addressed byline in the manuscript to respond the comments of Reviewers. In addition, the line numbers are different from the reviewer’s version, because our manuscript isn’t structured on the journal’s template and we rewrote most parts of the manuscript.
Comment 1: I've got the impression that the introduction to the article is too big (cumbersome). However, it is difficult to understand the purpose of this article and the research. This is also not apparent from the abstract.
Response: thank you for your precise comment. We rewrote the introduction and in the second paragraph explained the objective of this research (please see lines 47-54). In addition to more clarification of the details, we separated the introduction into two parts. The first is an introduction and the second is a literature review. We rewrote the abstract and pointed out the purpose of the study in lines 6-8.
Comment 2: the conclusions of the study are too short, general, not specific enough. In principle, they could be formulated by and large without such solid research, the results of which are contained in this article. Perhaps this vagueness of the conclusions is due to the vagueness of the purpose of the study. Similarly, nothing can be said about the accepted hypotheses, because they are difficult to be seen in the text.
Response: the results were rewritten according to the results of the study. please see lines 389-415.
Comment 3: at the same time, this article is very comprehensive in content, relevant to the issues raised, contains a lot of interesting information and research can be continued according to the directions outlined by the authors.
Response: thank you very much for your recommendation. It encourages us to continue this research. In the revised manuscript, we addressed a number of suggestions for future research, especially at the provincial level in Iran (please see lines 423-424). Your comment persuaded us to cooperate in this type of research in the future.
Once again, thank you very much for providing us with the opportunity to improve our work. We hope that you and your team will find the revisions up to your satisfaction and look forward to your decision in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Corresponding authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I again review your work which discusses the use of criteria and expert opinion, analysed using social network analysis, to assess what indicators are useful for understanding food security in the context of Iran.
While this version of the manuscript is improved from the first version, it is still challenging to read and I struggle to see the critical analysis to aid in presenting the novelty of your work. The revision has helped but now feels fragmented in the sense that the introduction and discussion were heavily revised but the middle sections were not updated to reflect the changes in the paper. As a result, there is a lot of redundancy and lots of sections that do not add value to the message and findings. In addition the effort to connect your results and compare them directly to other studies does not add value to the paper. It detracts from the otherwise interesting results that you can discuss here, and how your work can add to climate change and food security adaptation efforts in Iran.
I have specific comments below. I appreciate the hard work that went into the surveys and analysis themselves, and that is why my comments are critical so that you can present the best version that is useful for the reader and perhaps for your national adaptation efforts as well.
I unfortunately still cannot recommend this for publication. If you choose to resubmit, I would highly suggest that the paper be read through thoroughly, several parts integrated, the figures made of higher quality, and the discussion be streamlined. There may still be a possibility for this to be published, but in its current form it is not ready.
Best wishes.
Abstract
1. “Made these concepts tough” -- still very subjective. Maybe talk about their complexity rather than “tough” which is more indicative of comprehension ability rather than the concepts themselves
2. “[The] following steps…”
3. United NationS
4. “Persuaded more than before” sounds very subjective.
5. They ‘try’? Were they not successful?
6. Facing severe weather anomalies -- ‘faces’ severe weather anomalies
7. Re: temp and precipitation changes: Relative to what baseline?
8. 85 million populations -- 85 million people
9. MCA is not previously defined. Be careful with acronyms throughout the paper
10. “Types of this approach that Thomas , l. satty invented, “ -- needs correction
11. environmental management and agriculture field
12. What is MCD?
13. People use? Which ‘people’?
14. 'In our study the network connection of indictors was not noteworthy.
-- How so?
15. I see that you have revised the introduction. However the literature review section is actually more concise and useful to begin the paper. The introduction as it stands is too long and not clear. Please integrate literature review into introduction as it is redundant with the revised introduction.
16. Methods paragraph does not need: dates, needs better punctuation
17. Paragraph 2.1 could also be better integrated with a revised introduction and literature review.
18. Paragraph 2.2 is also redundant. You already mention the tool in the introduction. It seems that perhaps two different authors wrote and revised different sections but did not integrate the paper overall.
19. Paragraph 2.3 is the third time you mention Saaty. This manuscript needs significant revision and for the authors to read it together
20. Figure 1 is much improved. Can this be made larger and with consistent typography to aid the reader?
21. The other figures are helpful but unfortunately of poor quality, inconsistent font sizes and labelling. Please remove the caption from the image and add it in text.
22. Figure 4 is unclear. I don’t think the “B” labels are previously defined, and if they are, they are hard to find. When you have acronyms in figures they need to be clearly defined in the figure caption as well.
23. “Clearly showed”… and then “could be” is quite a contrast. Did it show potential? As far as your results show it can be useful.
24. Second sentence in discussion is a fragment.
25. In contrast, ‘they’ -- the experts? The study authors?
26. however, there is the most food-insecure part of this country and faces drought, water stress, and other socio-economic impacts of weather extreme events -- which part is it? Please avoid referring to ‘this country’, and instead use ‘Iran’ as it is helpful to the reader who may not be situated in the same country.
27. we ‘could declare’ again, a better choice of words can be used. Our results show… Our results indicate… rather than you yourselves as authors ‘declaring’.
28. “It would be more comprehend Since FAO in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement (PA) call for a produce policy framework to understand how disasters impact food systems and insist on exploring, what is the extent of weather extreme events on food and agriculture sectors.” -- I see what you are trying to say here, but unfortunately because of the poor sentence construction it does not come through.
29. “We should pointed out Ardakani Z. et al approved our evidence by a different method (22). It might be evidence of the credibility power of AHP technique to prioritize the food security criteria.” -- there is a lot of speculation in this discussion that is not suitable for a scientific article. What does it mean ‘approved’? why ‘might be’?
30. Overall, I see your effort to connect your results to previous results, as I previously recommended. E.g. you say “Some of the indicators in that study looked like that one in our research”. “However, our hierarchy matrix is different from Ghanaian study.” This comparison is too literal. Instead of saying,
· We did this
· They did this
· And hence, what we did was valid
Which is what I read here in this manuscript, I suggest that some of the literature of previous authors be moved to the methods section. How does your study improve upon prior approaches? What is novel about your approach? Eg. We base our study on previous approaches that use SNA/ AHP/ MCD. And talk briefly about them there to justify your methods, rather than that other studies validate your studies results.
Author Response
June 7, 2022
Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen,
Editor-in-Chief, Sustainability
Re: “Climate change and food security prioritizing indices: Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and social network analysis.”
Dear editor،
Thank you and the reviewers very much for your recent comments, which provided us the opportunity to improve our manuscript. We are pleased to inform you that we have addressed all comments in order that they raised, as you will find them below. The revised sections are addressed byline and yellow color in the manuscript to respond the comments of reviewers.
Comment 1: “Made these concepts tough” -- still very subjective. Maybe talk about their complexity rather than “tough” which is more indicative of comprehension ability rather than the concepts themselves.
Response: thank you. “Tough” were changed to “more complex”. Please see line 15.
Comment 2: “[The] following steps…”
Response: “The” were added.
Comment 3: United NationS
Response: these words were removed with its paragraph.
Comment 4: “Persuaded more than before” sounds very subjective.
Response: thank you. “Persuaded “edited to “desired”. Please see the 8th lines of introduction.
Comment 5: They ‘try’? Were they not successful?
Response: the word ‘try” changed to “conducted studies”. Please see the 9th lines of introduction.
Comment 6: Facing severe weather anomalies -- ‘faces’ severe weather anomalies
Response: thank you. The word “Facing” was edited to “Faces”. Please see line 62.
Comment 7: Re: temp and precipitation changes: Relative to what baseline?
Response: it was edited. please see lines 64-65.
Comment 8: 85 million populations -- 85 million people
Response: thank you. The word “populations” were edited to “people”. Please see line 79.
Comment 9: MCA is not previously defined. Be careful with acronyms throughout the paper.
Response: thank you. It was defined. multi-criteria analysis (MCA). Please see line 88.
Comment 10: “Types of this approach that Thomas, l. satty invented, “ -- needs correction
Response: this sentence was edited to “The two types of this approach that were invented by Thomas, l. saaty, are analytic”. Please see line 88-89.
Comment 11: environmental management and agriculture field
Response: it was edited to “environmental management and agriculture”. Please see line 91.
Comment 12: What is MCD?
Response: we appreciated for your precise comment. It was edited to “multi-criteria decisions (MCDs). Please see line 92.
Comment 13: People use? Which ‘people’?
Response: It was changed to “researchers”. Please see line 99.
Comment 14: 'In our study the network connection of indictors was not noteworthy. -- How so?
Response: it was edited. Please see line 105-107.
Comment 15: I see that you have revised the introduction. However, the literature review section is actually more concise and useful to begin the paper. The introduction as it stands is too long and not clear. Please integrate literature review into introduction as it is redundant with the revised introduction.
Response: the introduction was revised according to your recommendations. The literature review section was selected for the beginning of the paper and combined to some parts of introduction. Two paragraph of introduction were deleted. The literature review was edited. Please see pages 1-3.
Comment 16: Methods paragraph does not need: dates, needs better punctuation
Response: thank you. The date was deleted. The punctuation was considered. Please see lines 118,121,122.
Comment 17: Paragraph 2.1 could also be better integrated with a revised introduction and literature review.
Response: we appreciate for your valuable recommendation. We summarized the literature review and according to suggestions of other reviewers, the AHP method compared to ANP technique in literature review section. In addition, the SNA was explained.
Comment 18: Paragraph 2.2 is also redundant. You already mention the tool in the introduction. It seems that perhaps two different authors wrote and revised different sections but did not integrate the paper overall.
Response: this paragraph was edited and the redundant sentences were removed. The rest of paragraph explains two benefits and the construction of AHP tool. Please see lines 146.
Comment 19: Paragraph 2.3 is the third time you mention Saaty. This manuscript needs significant revision and for the authors to read it together
Response: this sentence was edited. The word Saaty was omitted. Please see line 152.
Comment 20: Figure 1 is much improved. Can this be made larger and with consistent typography to aid the reader?
Response: the Figure 1 was made larger, the typography was improved and the caption was changed to text. Please see page 6.
Comment 21: The other figures are helpful but unfortunately of poor quality, inconsistent font sizes and labelling. Please remove the caption from the image and add it in text.
Response: the quality of figures was increased. The caption was changed to text. Please see pages 8-9.
Comment 22: Figure 4 is unclear. I don’t think the “B” labels are previously defined, and if they are, they are hard to find. When you have acronyms in figures they need to be clearly defined in the figure caption as well.
Response: the captions were explained in lines 227-229, 234-239, 247-251 and in table4.
Comment 23: “Clearly showed”… and then “could be” is quite a contrast. Did it show potential? As far as your results show it can be useful.
Response: thank you. “could be” changed to “is”. Please see line 309.
Comment 24. Second sentence in discussion is a fragment.
Response: it was edited and the conjunction “although” was substituted to “in contrast”. Please see line 322.
Comment 25: In contrast, ‘they’ -- the experts? The study authors?
Response: this sentence was changed. Please see line 321-323.
Comment 26: however, there is the most food-insecure part of this country and faces drought, water stress, and other socio-economic impacts of weather extreme events -- which part is it? Please avoid referring to ‘this country’, and instead use ‘Iran’ as it is helpful to the reader who may not be situated in the same country.
Response: thank you. It was edited. Please see line 327.
Comment 27: we ‘could declare’ again, a better choice of words can be used. Our results show… Our results indicate… rather than you yourselves as authors ‘declaring’.
Response: it was edited to “our results indicated that”. Please see line 328.
Comment 28: “It would be more comprehend Since FAO in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement (PA) call for a produce policy framework to understand how disasters impact food systems and insist on exploring, what is the extent of weather extreme events on food and agriculture sectors.” -- I see what you are trying to say here, but unfortunately because of the poor sentence construction it does not come through.
Response: thank you. It was edited. Please see line 331-334.
Comment 29: “We should point out Ardakani Z. et al approved our evidence by a different method (22). It might be evidence of the credibility power of AHP technique to prioritize the food security criteria.” -- there is a lot of speculation in this discussion that is not suitable for a scientific article. What does it mean ‘approved’? why ‘might be’?
Response: this sentences was rewritten. Please see line 344-348.
Comment 30. Overall, I see your effort to connect your results to previous results, as I previously recommended. E.g. you say “Some of the indicators in that study looked like that one in our research”. “However, our hierarchy matrix is different from Ghanaian study.” This comparison is too literal. Instead of saying,
- We did this
- They did this
- And hence, what we did was valid
Response: thank you for your good suggestions. All of sentences were edited. Please see line 358-358, 376, 378, 381, 388, 391.
Once again, thank you very much for providing us with the opportunity to improve our work. We hope that you and your team will find the revisions up to your satisfaction and look forward to your decision in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Corresponding authors
Reviewer 2 Report
The methodology is especially appreciated. As for the paper's content, its structure is correct; it is easy to read; it contains all the relevant and necessary information for the reader. Therefore, I strongly recommend this article for acceptance for further publication in this reputed journal without any more changes
Author Response
June 7, 2022
Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen,
Editor-in-Chief, Sustainability
Re: “Climate change and food security prioritizing indices: Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and social network analysis.”
Dear editor،
Thank you and the reviewers very much for your recent comments, which provided us the opportunity to improve our manuscript.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The methodology is especially appreciated. As for the paper's content, its structure is correct; it is easy to read; it contains all the relevant and necessary information for the reader. Therefore, I strongly recommend this article for acceptance for further publication in this reputed journal without any more changes
Response: We are delighted to receive such comments and appreciate you for your valuable recommendation.
Once again, thank you very much for providing us with the opportunity to improve our work. We hope that you and your team will find the revisions up to your satisfaction and look forward to your decision in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Corresponding authors
