Assessing Food and Livelihood Security in Sea Salt Community: A GIAHS Study in Ban Laem, Phetchaburi, Thailand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper assessed food and livelihood security in the sea salt community: a GIAHS study in Ban Laem, Phetchaburi, Thailand. The objective of the paper is clear. The research methodology has been thoroughly described. The discussion is soundly presented. The authors have provided the limitations and suggestions for further research. This paper is well-written. I have no further comments so I would recommend the acceptance of this paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This study explores the complex dynamics of food and livelihood security within the unique sea salt communities of Ban Laem District, Phetchaburi. Guided by the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) framework, our research focuses on three core objectives: first, assessing the current status of food and livelihood security in Ban Laem; second, identifying
crucial indicators and factors for evaluating food security within the GIAHS framework; and third, formulating policy recommendations based on these insights to improve local well-being and drive sustainable development.There are the following suggestions for the authors' careful deliberation.
Comment 1: In the abstract section, the author has a lot of repetition of some statements that could be more concise and concise, more logical, reflecting the highlights and innovations of this paper.
Comment 2: In the introductory section, the author breaks down into many paragraphs, each of which consists of just a few sentences, and it is recommended that the author combine many small paragraphs into one to make the essay more hierarchical..
Comment 3: In the literature review section, the authors categorised too much, in fact, it can be more comprehensive, more relevant to the main idea, some dispensable literature review can not be, it is recommended that the authors refer to some high-quality articles.
Comment 4: It is highly recommended that the author's pictures and tables need to be revised as well, making the article add more brightness..
Comment 5: The author's indicator system is too large, in fact, instead of this kind of less easy to measure variables, in fact, sometimes the simpler the better, the more complex indicators rather than representing a variable. Suggest the author to delete some indicators..
Comment 6: The authors should draw some meaningful conclusions for policy makers based on the research in this paper. But the authors have not paid any attention to this point at all and the authors can improve it a bit more.Also the authors need to refer to more high quality literature, learn more and imitate more.
Comment 7: The author suggests to quote the following references：
Trade-offs in land-use competition and sustainable land development in the North China Plain. Technological Forecasting & Social Change ,2019, 141: 36-46.
Local community perceptions toward livelihood and water–energy–food nexus: A perspective on food security. Food and Energy Security,2020, 9(3), e207.
none
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- Items A and D and.. should be subtitled in figure 3 and 4.
- The second figure is not clear at all.
- Why is it written in the tables and figures: author's data source?
- The discussion is weak and not compared with previous studies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
none
none
