Comparing the Collaboration of Smallholder Farmers through Participatory Guarantee System Practices in Northeastern Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

After carefully revising your manuscript entitled: "Comparing Collaboration of Smallholder Farmers through Participatory Guarantee System Practices in Northeastern Thailand"  my comments are the following.

1. The title is representative

2. Abstract is need of refinements in order to present in a quantified way the results of the study.

3. The first sentence of the Introduction section should be embodied with the following one or removed. 30 percernt should be written as 30% and ideally a sentence should not start with a percentage.Please also convert rais to ha along the whole manuscript. IFOAM should be fully named and please add a reference for it, when the term first appears in the text. 

A dedicated paragraph in the end of the introduction section, explaining in further details the stat-of-the-art of this manuscript would ameliorate the quality of the paper. Please add it as an extension of this: "To narrow the research gap, this paper, nonetheless...in Northeastern Thailand"

4. In the methodology section you have to modify this in order to be more clear "The empirical data were provided by each province, which resulted in a total of 135 organic farmers as informants of this study" You do not actually explain neither the sampling procedure nor the representiveness of the sample

5.Results: "The majority of the informants was female (70%) and their age mostly was 51 years 148 old, 50 years old and 60 years old, respectively. "- This is not very typical... Please check whether you are referring to males or not. If they are indeed females, please provide some additional feedback in the discussion section.

Additionally you are referring that you have implemented semi-structured surveys. However, in the results section there is no available information regarding the scale or ordinal values that have been collected. Moreover there is no further analysis apart from a general grouping of farmers thoughts and perceptions. However, I think that the embodiment of a figure/infographic in the end of the results section would increase the quality of the paper.  

6. Discussion section clearly presents the situation. 

7. Conclusions section repeats the acquired results and they are in need of some additional feedback regarding the future steps

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files

2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I mentioned about the previous researches about PGS,  clarified about the aim of this research and research question.
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I added the criteria for categorized the samples into the case study
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I added the indicator table
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I added more the further step

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: Abstract is need of refinements in order to present in a quantified way the results of the study.

Thank you for pointing out, I edited the result to be more decent.   

Comment 2: The first sentence of the Introduction section should be embodied with the following one or removed. 30 percernt should be written as 30% and ideally a sentence should not start with a percentage.Please also convert rais to ha along the whole manuscript. IFOAM should be fully named and please add a reference for it, when the term first appears in the text.

A dedicated paragraph in the end of the introduction section, explaining in further details the stat-of-the-art of this manuscript would ameliorate the quality of the paper. Please add it as an extension of this: "To narrow the research gap, this paper, nonetheless...in Northeastern Thailand"

We have, accordingly, revised this point by rewrite the sentences (not to start with the percentage), and convert rai  into ha. Moreover, i emphasized the previous researches about PGS, clarified about the aim of this research and research question. 

Comment 4: In the methodology section you have to modify this in order to be more clear "The empirical data were provided by each province, which resulted in a total of 135 organic farmers as informants of this study" You do not actually explain neither the sampling procedure nor the representiveness of the sample

We agree with this comment. The reason of the number of sampling in each case study did not similar because the smallholder farmers, that were suited the criteria in each area were limited and i conducted the data collection during the COVID epedemic. Moreover, I added the criteria for selecting sampling in each case study.  

Comment 5: Results: "The majority of the informants was female (70%) and their age mostly was 51 years 148 old, 50 years old and 60 years old, respectively. "- This is not very typical... Please check whether you are referring to males or not. If they are indeed females, please provide some additional feedback in the discussion section.

I adjusted the personal factors especially gender of informants and the conclusion of results were mentioned in figure 2 

Comment 7:  Conclusions section repeats the acquired results and they are in need of some additional feedback regarding the future steps

I revised the future step in the conclusion. 

Moreover, my manuscript has undergone English language edited by MDPI

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article often lacks clear information, which is confusing and disconnected between paragraphs. The method could also use more information and is based on the analysis of qualitative information.

The results are descriptions based mainly on qualitative information and very specific to the cases studied. There are no elements to justify the possibility of finding similar cases in other regions or countries.

The discussion and conclusion do not adequately explore the progress made in the work.

 

Some specific points:

Abstract: I suggest including more information about methodology. Such as, interviews were conducted in loco? What kind of questions has guide interview? Conducted to conceptualize what?

Introduction:

I suggest reviewing the introduction. Many sentences end suddenly and are not tied together with the following information. Even the definition of paper objective, it is not clear in the introduction of paper.

Ex: Lines: 78-80: To narrow the research gap, this paper, nonetheless, only aims at “COMPARING” the smallholder farmers producing process of organic agriculture based on PGS practices in Northeastern Thailand…compares to whom or to what?

Materials and methods:

Some paragraphs are long. This makes it difficult to understand the main message. Ex: lines 87 to 92.

Data collection: Lines 133 to 147 - Authors must make clear which socio-economic and other variables have been collected - I suggest a table. What is the relationship between these variables and the "imperative criteria" defined in the paper? Are these criteria the guidelines for the interviews? it is not clear.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files

2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I mentioned about the previous researches about PGS,  clarified about the aim of this research and research question.
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I reviewed more papers related PGS and some references were added
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I added the criteria for categorized the samples into the case study
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I added the indicator table
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I added more the further step

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Comment 1: Abstract: I suggest including more information about methodology. Such as, interviews were conducted in loco? What kind of questions has guide interview? Conducted to conceptualize what?

I have revised the abstract. I mentioned the 4 places that the research conduct, the method to collect data and criteria for asking the informants. 

Comment 2: 

I suggest reviewing the introduction. Many sentences end suddenly and are not tied together with the following information. Even the definition of paper objective, it is not clear in the introduction of paper.

Ex: Lines: 78-80: To narrow the research gap, this paper, nonetheless, only aims at “COMPARING” the smallholder farmers producing process of organic agriculture based on PGS practices in Northeastern Thailand…compares to whom or to what?

We have, accordingly, revised this point by rewrite the sentences and emphasized the previous researches about PGS, clarified about the aim of this research and research question

Comment 3: Materials and methods:

Some paragraphs are long. This makes it difficult to understand the main message. Ex: lines 87 to 92.

Thank you for pointing out, I rewrite the sentence. You can find it in line 102-112 and 114 - 119

Data collection: Lines 133 to 147 - Authors must make clear which socio-economic and other variables have been collected - I suggest a table. What is the relationship between these variables and the "imperative criteria" defined in the paper? Are these criteria the guidelines for the interviews? it is not clear.
I have revised and made the table 2 in line 159 

Moreover, my manuscript has undergone English language edited by MDPI

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A brief summary

The idea of the manuscript is good, but it needs to be revised for English proofreading.

Specific comments:

Abstract:

-         Line 15: write (northeast) before (Thai provinces)

-         Line 17-18: clarify, is it a continuation of previous statement

-         Line 19-21: clarify

Introduction:

-         Line 26-27: write (was) not (to), write (that) not (even agriculture)

-         Line 28-29: remove (the) before (agriculture)

-         Line 29-31: clarify

-         Line 36-37: write (impact) not (impacted on, write (effect) not (effected)

-         Line 41: write (also) not (as such)

-         Line 32-44: is this paragraph is talking about the impact of green agriculture (organic) or conventional agriculture (chemical)? Clarify as contradict the following paragraph.

-         Line 49-52: write (since) not (whereas), remove (promoting), write (the) before (unfair)

-         Line 53: write in full the abbreviation (IFOAM)

Materials and Methods

-         Line 89-90: write (on) not (of), write (their) not (they)

-         Figure 1: write (site of the study) not (study site), remove (of this study)

-         Line 142-144: write (the following) not (this), write (considered) before (suitable), write (using) not (with)

-         N.B. statistical analysis method need to be mentioned

Results:

-         Line 149-152: write (ranging from) before (1-5) and remove brackets, do the same as follow in the rest of the statement

-         Line 169-170: what are the five criteria? Clarify

-         Figure 2: in the output of case 2: write (that) before (the), caption: write (the) before (three)

-         Line 257: interviewers not interviewees starting from line 234 through the whole result

-         Line 279: remove (that)

-         Line 280-281: write (the) not (their), write (of) before (both), write (and was) before (provided)

-         Line 302: no reference in result, remove or adjust

-         Line 360-361: no reference in result, remove or adjust

-         Line 372: write (in) not (from), remove (besides) before (received)

-         Line 377: write (affect) not (effected), remove (on) before (the)

-         Line 395: remove (that was firstly), write (most) not (very), write (the) before (most)

-         Line 396: remove (from) before (starting)

Discussion:

-         Line 413: clarify

-         Line 438: write (affected) not (effected), remove (on)

-         Line 445: write (also) before (pointing), write (pointed) not (pointing)

Conclusion:

-         Line 467: remove (during)

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files

2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: Extensive editing of English language required.

Thank you for pointing out, my manuscript has undergone English language edited by MDPI

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Comments

Comparing Collaboration of Smallholder Farmers through Participatory Guarantee

System Practices in Northeastern Thailand

Comment #1

In the abstract, you note that the main findings concluded that motivations for PGS were

restoration of soil quality and decreasing yields. This statement does not make sense to me.

Why would someone be motivated to pick a cropping system that had lower yields. I understand

that organic crops have lower yields. Typically, individuals transitioning to organic are

interested in crop price premiums and higher net returns.

Comment #2

Rewrite the sentence on lines 29-31.

Comment #3

I don’t understand what you are trying to communicate on lines 55-59. Are you saying that the

smallholder farms could not become certified due to high certification costs and the complexity

of the process? I recommend that you rewrite this sentence.

Comment #4

I was hoping that you would summarize inputs, outputs, crop yields, and/or changes in soil

health in table 2 rather than what you have included in this table. For example, did those that

transitioned acres grow the same crops or use a different crop rotation? If they produced some of

the same crops, how did the yields compare? Without more detailed information comparing

chemical and organic systems, this paper makes a limited contribution to the literature.

Comment #5

You note that some of the farms you interviewed returned to chemical agriculture. This leads me

to ask what percentage of the farms returned to chemical agriculture.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I made a few suggestions in my list of comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files

2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I mentioned about the previous researches about PGS,  clarified about the aim of this research and research question.
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I added the criteria for categorized the samples into the case study
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I added the indicator table
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I added more the further step

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: In the abstract, you note that the main findings concluded that motivations for PGS were

restoration of soil quality and decreasing yields. This statement does not make sense to me.

Why would someone be motivated to pick a cropping system that had lower yields. I understand

that organic crops have lower yields. Typically, individuals transitioning to organic are

interested in crop price premiums and higher net returns.

I have revised the abstract and mentioned the instrument for aiding. 

Comment 2: Rewrite the sentence on lines 29-31.

Thank you for pointing out, I rewrite the sentence. You can find it in line 26-31

Comment 3: I don’t understand what you are trying to communicate on lines 55-59. Are you saying that the

smallholder farms could not become certified due to high certification costs and the complexity

of the process? I recommend that you rewrite this sentence.

Thank you for pointing out, I rewrite the sentence. You can find it in line 57 -60

Comment 4: I was hoping that you would summarize inputs, outputs, crop yields, and/or changes in soil

health in table 2 rather than what you have included in this table. For example, did those that

transitioned acres grow the same crops or use a different crop rotation? If they produced some of

the same crops, how did the yields compare? Without more detailed information comparing

chemical and organic systems, this paper makes a limited contribution to the literature.

Thank you for pointing out, the farmers grow the similar crops. The results tried to fugure out the farmers grew the similar crops, recieved the similar inputs (that got from the government agency), had quite similar production process but the outcomes are different in terms of the number of smallholder farmers who still preferred the PGS practice. 

Comment: 5 You note that some of the farms you interviewed returned to chemical agriculture. This leads me to ask what percentage of the farms returned to chemical agriculture.

I have revised that the organic agricultural areas in Thailand have slightly increased and I have reviewed the European Union policies to mitigate shifting to conventional agriculture in line 454 -460. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language: I made a few suggestions in my list of comments.   my manuscript has undergone English language edited by MDPI

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Work in this form does not meet the requirements of a scientific paper for the journal Sustainability. The main reason is that the methodology is extremely modest, and the disadvantages are as follows:

• The entire research is based on interviews and is not a transparent question of data.

• The sample of respondents is relatively small, and Case Study 1 makes up 77% of the sample, which makes any comparison with Case Studies 2 and 3 impossible.

• The research methodology is not related to other research in this field. Authors should cite references where a similar method has been used.

• The research hypothesis should be clearly indicated in the introduction or methods.

• Literature review is omitted.

• The results are only descriptively presented without any models that could lead to a general conclusion.

 

One of the possible solutions for this work to reach a form suitable for publication in an international journal is to transform the work into a comprehensive literature review since, based on the presented methodology, it still needs to meet the requirements of an empirical work. The suggestions are as follows:

 

• Authors should choose one of the comprehensive review methods (e.g., Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses - PRISMA) as can be found in the following papers:

 

Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Streimikiene, D., Jusoh, A., & Khoshnoudi, M. (2017). A comprehensive review of data envelopment analysis (DEA) approaches in energy efficiency. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 1298-1322.

 

Mizik, T. (2021). Competitiveness of trade in agricultural and food products: A review of the literature. Sustainability, 13(20), 11235.

 

• Authors should focus on the problems of organic agriculture based on available papers in the Web of Science.

• Authors should present the problems of agriculture in Thailand and additionally explain PGS through a literature review.

• As a second segment of the work,  authors should add the existing research through interviews to complement the systematic literature review. In this way, the previous research will complement the systematic literature review, and the problem of the lack of an internationally recognized research method will be solved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files

2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I mentioned about the previous researches about PGS,  clarified about the aim of this research and research question.
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I reviewed more papers related PGS and some references were added
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I added the criteria for categorized the samples into the case study
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I added the indicator table
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: The main reason is that the methodology is extremely modest, and the disadvantages are as follows:

• The entire research is based on interviews and is not a transparent question of data.

• The sample of respondents is relatively small, and Case Study 1 makes up 77% of the sample, which makes any comparison with Case Studies 2 and 3 impossible.

• The research methodology is not related to other research in this field. Authors should cite references where a similar method has been used.

• The research hypothesis should be clearly indicated in the introduction or methods.

• Literature review is omitted.

• The results are only descriptively presented without any models that could lead to a general conclusion.

Thank you for pointing out, I edited the result to be more decent. I emphasized the previous researches about PGS, clarified about the aim of this research and research question. The reason of the number of sampling in each case study did not similar because the smallholder farmers, that were suited the criteria in each area were limited and i conducted the data collection during the COVID epidemic. Moreover, I added the criteria for selecting sampling in each case study.  

Comment 2: Authors should present the problems of agriculture in Thailand and additionally explain PGS through a literature review.

Thank you for pointing out, I edited the result to be more decent. You can find it in line 44 - 82 

Comment 3: As a second segment of the work,  authors should add the existing research through interviews to complement the systematic literature review. In this way, the previous research will complement the systematic literature review, and the problem of the lack of an internationally recognized research method will be solved.

Based on the review of previous studies, no research results were found in similar cases. Therefore, previous research that would cause the research results to be ambiguous and unreliable was not added. I therefore request permission not to change it.     

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After carefully examining your paper, I think that all changes needed have been implemented.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

 

2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: After carefully examining your paper, I think that all changes needed have been implemented.

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have improved the quality of mannuscript. Most of suggestion were applied.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I added more details about the criteria to categorize the informants into three case studies and clarified the factors that made the number of case studies disparity in table 1 and in line 203 - 213
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I added more details about the criteria to categorize the informants into three case studies
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I added more information and references in line 344 -345, 358 - 359, 365 - 369, 439 -440
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	I added more information in line 566 - 568
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors Comment 1: Authors have improved the quality of mannuscript. Most of suggestion were applied. I have modified the methodology by adding more criteria to illustrate this more precisely (in table 1 and in line 203 - 213). Moreover, I have revised the research results (in line 344 -345, 358 - 359, 365 - 369, 439 -440). Then, I have done with the conclusion in line 566 - 568.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

-         Line 25-26: end line at reference (1,2) and start new line at (more)

-         Line 97-98: write (TPC) in full name

Material and Methods

-         Line 117: you only write the first reason, where is the remaining reasons?

-         Table 1:caption: rewrite to: categorization of samples into three case studies based on the following criteria

-         Table 2: caption: rewrite to: indicators of PGS production process based on the following criteria

-         Line 167-168:  mention the program used in analysis

Results

-         Line 173: remove (some)

-         Table 3 not 1, caption: clarify

-         Line 189: clarify

-         Line 193: write (the five criteria of PGS) not (these five criteria)

-         Line 196: write (these) before (were)

-         Figure 2: caption: write (the) before (three)

-         Line 274: remove (some)

Discussion

-         Line 474: move dot after (solutions) and start new statement with (both)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors Comment 1: Minor editing of English language required. I have revised my manuscript and edited English language as recommended.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although not all recommendations were adopted, the authors significantly improved the work. T

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors Comment 1: Although not all recommendations were adopted, the authors significantly improved the work. Thank you for pointing this out. I have revised manuscript by adding literature review in line 108 - 141. Moreover, I have done with the method by clarify the criteria for selecting the informants into three case studies in table 1 and in line 203 -213. I added some references in the results in line 344 - 345, 358 - 359, 365 - 369 and  439 - 440

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf