Assessment of Maize Drought Risk in Midwestern Jilin Province: A Comparative Analysis of TOPSIS and VIKOR Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript proposed by Ma et al deals with the evaluation of drought index through two well-known MCDM techniques. The manuscript is well written, the authors just need to pay attention to text punctuation and English words. Some minor comments here:
I suggest adding a table with all the information about the data collection such as: sources, file type, resolution
Is the main difference between the two methods due to a different classification of all the variables? If yes, it would be useful to see a simple figure (even a supplement) where we can see the distance of each variable from the positive or negative hypothesis.
What are the main variables responsible for drought risk? Has a sensitivity analysis been done?
Why didn't you use the kriging technique since it also allows you to map uncertainties in the data?
Would it be possible to calculate the correlation coefficient between corn yield reduction and drought index (I think so)? It might give more robustness to the processing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The study applies a multi-criteria analysis for investigating on maize drought risk in a region of the China. The authors compares two models (TOPICS and VIKOR) for this scope. The paer is well written, models are properly applied and results are consequential to methods used. However, some adjustments need to be done for improve the quality of the paper:

1. The authors provides a list of potential models based on multi-criteria approach and they choose two of these. However the rationale underline of this choice is not clear. This is an important point because all the research aims to compare the results arisen from only these methods.

2. The relevance of the comparison between two MCA models is not well highlighted. Discussion is mainly focused on the results separately derived from the two models and not on the comparison itself that - as reported in the title - would be the focus of the research. The authors should put more attention on what comparison between the two models suggests.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors of the manuscript entitled "Assessment of maize drought risk in Midwestern Jilin Province: A comparative analysis of TOPSIS and VIKOR models" aimed to generate the maize drought risk map in the Jilin province. The manuscript would be an important document to the agricultural stakeholders. However, the current form of the manuscript is not in the state of publication as it misses the scientific soundness in methodology and result dissemination.

1. The introduction is not sufficient enough to explain the need of maize drought assessment and use of TOPSIS and VIKOR methods in assessing maize drought in the Jilin province. In addition, as authors mentioned about different MCDA approaches, the authors failed to explain the superiority of TOSIS and VIKOR method.
2. In Figure 1, it is better to display the rainfall stations as rainfall is a key in addressing the drought. Also better to show China in the inset so that readers may know where the Jilin province in China.
3. From the description of various data in line 106-115 it is difficult to capture the insights of data used. I recommend to use table for showing the different data used together with the description.
4. The methodology is not strongly composed. From the manuscript, it is difficult for the readers to capture how each data and methods used in the study are interconnected. Description of the formulas are not enough to explain the way the authors conceptualize the research idea. What is the use of long term rainfall data in the current study?
5. Sub-section 3.2 is a repetitive from the introduction. Try to present how TOPSIS model is developed for your study.
6. Line 187. What is CWDI?
7. Sub-section 3.8 please explain more. Only presenting equation is not sufficient to explain.
8. Line 265; what are UF and UB curves?
9. What is drought risk index? nether explained in methods nor in introduction. 
10. The results are not well aligned with the objectives. I don't understand the use of ridge plot and rose diagram? Why those diagrams are chosen? Does it has any relevance in the current study as it cannot explain its importance.
11. Line 325-327; "Only drought may not be factor for reducing the maize yield in the region. There may be other factors such as poor land management practice, population change, change in income level, and many more. Among them rainfall is the major contributor in driving the maize yield". If the authors have presented in such a way, it would have been more realistic and scientific to validate the result. Also, the distribution of rainfall in both time and space is also unknown (not shown in any graphs) which makes readers to capture what the authors are claiming.
12. Fig 10. What do different color represent. Either better to put legend or explain in caption.
13. In recommendations there are lots of thing that are written from the authors perception. I recommend to make recommendations based on the results you obtained not only from the known facts. For example, line 404-405, this may be correct but how the authors made recommendations on the basis of their research?
14. Conclusion is very poor as the authors have already mentioned in line 420, these are the results. Better to conclude your research finding rather than showing the results.
15. English need to be corrected by professional or native speaker as it is poorly drafted here.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript “Assessment of maize drought risk in Midwestern Jilin Province: A comparative analysis of TOPSIS and VIKOR models” aims at applying multi criteria decision analysis for evaluating drought risk for maize in Jilin province China. Applying two different MCDA models (TOPSIS and VIKOR) is a novel approach for drought sensitivity analysis and spatial zoning. There are some minor issues that should be addressed before this paper can be recommended for the publication. Following are my comments:

Introduction:

Overall, the introduction looks good. However, there are two major issues. First is there should be a paragraph holistically describing the drought magnitude and intensity, and also information should be provided related to drought indictor and indices. Authors can refer to Ajaz et al., 2019 and other related papers can also be cited in the paragraph. It is important to provide such information

Line 81-92: Authors need to rewrite this paragraph. Follow a standard way of describing the goal and objectives. In the current version, authors are confusing aims with methodology. Also, add a couple of sentences emphasizing the significance of this study.

Study area and data source:

Line 109: Provide more details about disaster data. May be enlist the disaster indicators that were retrieved.

Line 114: what do authors mean by fertility stage? Are you referring to flowering period? If authors are referring to growth stages then correct is all across the manuscript text.

Methodology:

Line 201 (3.6.3 Vulnerability) Are authors making an assumption that irrigation supply is unlimited in the region under drought conditions? If this is the case then describe it if not then provide more details about how the models inputs incorporate the variation in irrigation water supply amid drought episodes.

Line 237: Provide more details regarding how the availability of agricultural machinery powers play its role in drought emergency response and recovery.

Results:

Figure 3: What is UF and UB curve? Also, provide details in text.

Discussion:

Overall, the discussion section is weak.

Please expand section 5.1. The discussion under this section is inadequate.

Section 5.2 should be shortened.

Figure 10 should be revised. Add labels to the categories and subcategories in this figure.

Reference:

Ajaz, A., Taghvaeian, S., Khand, K., Gowda, P. H., & Moorhead, J. E. (2019). Development and evaluation of an agricultural drought index by harnessing soil moisture and weather data. Water, 11(7), 1375.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have extensively revised the manuscript. Still there are few concerns that needs to be addressed such as 

1. English needs to be revised
2. In Table 1, I suggest to use 'variable' instead of 'Indicators'
3. If possible I suggest to use methodological framework in response to my previous comment on methodology
4. Please provide full form for CWDI, UF, and UB when used for the first time

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx