Application of a Quality-Specific Environmental Risk Index for the Location of Hives in Areas with Different Pollution Impacts
, Luigi Jacopo D’Auria 1,2,*, Antonio Di Stasio 1,2, Alfonso Gallo 1,2, Augusto Siciliano 1,2, Mauro Esposito 1,2, Alessandra De Felice 1 and Giuseppe Rofrano 1,2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. How the classes is considered?
2. Which techniques or method is used in AHP
3. What is the impact of environmental risk index?
4. What is the impact of different pollutants?
5. What is the correlation between environmental risk index and pollutants?
6. How the 5 risk classes has been identified?
7. What is the role of remote sensing in your work?
8. Introduction section need to be strengthen
9. Highlight the innovativeness and novelty in the introduction section
10. Try to add the need of study in the introduction section which helps the international readers.
11. Compare your work with other researchers.
12. Figure 1 - citation is missing
13. Figure 1 is not visible properly. Kindly replace it by high dpi image
14. Figure 3 is not visible properly. Kindly replace it by high dpi image
15. Citation is missing in the Table 1
16. Figure 4 - Write more details
17. It is notice that so many citation were missing in the article. Kindly do take care during the revision of article.
18. Figure 5 - Write more details
19. What is the use of Table 4.
20. Kindly replace all the figures by high Dpi.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your contribution. Please see the attachment for our answere.
Kind regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents an innovative way to address the latent risks that beekeepers may face when locating their hives.
Locating hives based on information about the possible risks they may face is undoubtedly a very important scientific contribution.
The development of risk maps and indices is important to be able to contribute to the development of better productive programs.
The authors make a somewhat superficial mention of climatic factors; understanding and understanding the climate and the changes it undergoes is undoubtedly a fundamental factor for any type of productive activity. In this sense, I suggest the authors explain in greater detail why this variable was not considered with strong weight in their research, droughts, torrential rains, extreme weather events, were not used in the treatment of risks.
In addition to explaining in the introduction, it is necessary in the discussion to explain why it could be a next step or why it is not considered as a relevant factor in this case.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your contribution. In fact, in this study we did not consider climatic factors for two main reasons. The first and most important reason is the scarcity of climate data at a satisfactory level of detail for the entire regional territory. During the preliminary phases of the work, we had considered the idea of including a wind map, rainfall distribution, and average temperatures. However, the official data we found were either limited to small portions of the territory or incomplete (some weather stations, for example, had a malfunctioning rain gauge or anemometer that had recorded inaccurate values). This is the main reason why we decided not to use meteorological data. The second factor was to express a risk map that more prominently indicated chemical pollution factors on the main compartments where bees interact (although in different ways): water, air, soil, and subsoil. In a subsequent work, we would like to further investigate the issue using innovative tools that are now available to us, such as satellite imagery, atmospheric modeling, and remote temperature measurements.
Reviewer 3 Report
This research is very interesting and meaningful. The following suggestions need to be noted.
Abstract
What’s the difference between the present paper and previous reports? what’s new in this paper?
Materials and Methods
It needs to be specific and concise.
Result
This section requires a detailed analysis of each key process.
Discussion
Specific data comparisons between this paper and previous reports were encouraged. The Discussion section should note similarities and differences in results between this paper and previous reports.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your contribution. Please see the attachment for our answer.
Kind regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Author have incorporated all the reviewer's comments. Hence the paper is now recommended for publication.
