Crop-Suitability Analysis Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Geospatial Techniques for Cereal Production in North India

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The purpose of the development is clear to the authors, but it is not formulated specifically, therefore the achieved results cannot be evaluated. It is recommended to specify the goals/objectives.

Such kind of work is published already from Pragati Singh, R. K. Upadhyay, Hiren P. Bhatt, Markand P. Oza, S. P. Vyas for the cereal crops in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India in The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLII-5, 2018 ISPRS TC V Mid-term Symposium “Geospatial Technology – Pixel to People”, 20–23 November 2018, Dehradun, India - not shown in references

 

Issues related to the determination of the suitability of arable land are an important step in adapting to the increased food needs caused by population growth, climate change, and environmental pollution for agriculture in every country in the world. This issue is particularly relevant for countries with a population of millions and billions, such as India and in the state of Haryana.

The presented work proposes solving this problem with an already well known in India approach while taking into account the parameters determining soil fertility, meteorological elements determining agro-meteorological conditions, as well as orographic features and slope of the terrain intended for agriculture by applying an integrated GIS and AHP approach. Such kind of work is published already from Pragati Singh, R. K. Upadhyay, Hiren P. Bhatt, Markand P. Oza, S. P. Vyas. The analysis of these conditions is in view of the cultivation of wheat, rice, corn, sorghum, and pearl millet - cereals important for the Indian economy. On this basis, the appropriate parts of the state of Haryana for the cultivation of those cereals have been determined.

These results are adequate to the target but need to complement research on climate change and its impact on major crops.

 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please see the attachment.

Thanks and regards,

RS Bana

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper in crop suitability analysis, but please consider the following notes before the paper get published

• The literature review that you have is not enough to support your contribution. How is your research being different from previous studies that addressed the crop suitability analysis? Try please to address your objectives in questions that easily for readers to understand your goal by the end.
• In section 3.1. Spatial variability of soil and climatic parameters, I prefer if you use the bar plot or pie chart to summarize all the numbers in the text.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please see the attachment.

Thanks and regards,

RS Bana

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper applies a combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Geographic Information System (GIS) approach to determine the crop suitability of cereal crops in the Haryana state of India. The main shortcoming deals with the writing style and presentation of some concepts and interpretations of the main findings and policy implications are very limited. The following suggestions and comments need to be addressed which could improve the quality of the paper.

Specific Comments:

1. L26: I think not only soil and climate parameters define which crops could be grown in the regions, other socio-economic factors could be also considered.
2. L62-L65: the authors should provide the evolution of yields for different crops presented in the paper over the period of analysis to better understand the cropland suitability problem in the region.
3. L70: the authors should add a paragraph describing the structure of the paper.
4. The contribution and novelty of this paper is not clear, the authors should make their contribution more clearly for the reader and the scientific community.
5. I miss the justification of the study area, it is not explained why the author chose this region and crops.
6. L82-L84: Why the authors use only these parameters, the choice should be justified, based on the literature or the authors’ expertise.
7. Figure 2: The authors should add a description of the figure, the methodological section should be very clear for readers.
8. L106: how many experts are used to conduct this analysis? How the evaluation has been performed, through face-to-face meeting, online, workshop etc? How the authors identified the experts? More clarification of the evaluation process is needed.
9. All mathematical terms used should be defined throughout the text to better the significance of each parameter and coefficients.
10. L127: The authors should complete the sentence or rephrase the idea.
11. Please all abbreviations used in the paper should be defined at the first time throughout the text.
12. Table 4 to 8 should be added to the annexes, otherwise the authors should describe and explain the content of each table.
13. Rice crop and wheat crop show the same index values, however the scores are different through rows and columns. The authors should revise this issue or provide any clarification. The same comment for maize crop and pearl millet crop.
14. L157: “the value of site”, please provide more details about this variable, it is not clear.
15. It would be interesting comparing the empirical findings of the article with those obtained from similar research studies.
16. The implications of results are poorly discussed, more explanation and comparisons with real statistics for instance the distribution of crops area, the added value, yields, real and potential production etc, are needed to know the potential and recommendations of the suitability analysis. I feel that this part needs further discussion and a deeper explanation. Such information would be relevant in order to provide specific solutions, necessary adaptation and reliable conclusions for policy makers and farmers in the study areas.
17. I strongly recommend the authors to carry out a sensitive analysis, since the AHP is still a subjective evaluation of expert opinion. Therefore, different scenarios based on different evaluation scores could be assumed to check the sensitivity and robustness of empirical results.
18. L276-277: the authors said, “Our findings reveal that combining the AHP method with GIS can improve policymakers and planners' decision-making capability.” without proposing some solutions and providing policy recommendations with respect to this finding.
19. Finally, the conclusion section should include the following points: what are the main shortcomings of this study? What are the directions for the future? What are the research gaps? What is new to this manuscript?

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please see the attachment.

Thanks and regards,

RS Bana

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for considering my comments and suggestions which have been addressed and clarified throughout the manuscript as well as the author response letter. For future submission, I recommend the authors to present the revised paper only with final changes, it is not necessary to show also information deleted from the manuscript. It was a little bit hard to complete the revision.

Congratulations!

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your valuable comments and words of appreciation. We have made all the corrections as per your suggestions.

Yours sincerely,

RS Bana