Developing a Model for Building Farmers’ Beliefs in the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy to Accommodate Sustainable Agricultural Practices in the Highlands of Chiang Mai Province, Thailand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I enjoyed reading this manuscript, and I think it is an important topic, thank you for your effort. While I am convinced of the quality of the data collection and data analyses, I do think you need to improve the framing of the study to appeal to a wider audience and make it easier to understand what you did. In particular, I suggest you move the information from the literature review and conceptual framework to your introduction and methods (see comments). Also, please focus on making your sentences shorter and easier to understand, and please remove any unnecessary words. I tried my best to go through the manuscript to highlight these places for you, but I trust you will also go through it yourself to check for clarity and unneccesary words. I also think you could make the final figure more informative and have suggested some ideas. In the attached document I have included detailed comments and ideas of how you could approach this. Good luck with this interesting manuscript!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your interest in my manuscript “Developing a Model for Building Farmers’ Beliefs in the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy to Accommodate Sustainable Agricultural Practices in the Highlands of Chiang Mai Province, Thailand” Thank you for suggesting to improve the above manuscript for the most complete and academic credibility. I have corrected 8 points: Point 1: Introduction, Point 2: Review of the literature, Point 3: Research methodology, Point 4: Results, Point 5: Discussion, Point 6: Conclusions, Point 7: Policy recommendations, Point 8: Informed consent statement. (Please see the file attached)
Note: Editing according to two reviewers, I have highlighted the edits in green to make it easier for the reviewer.
Best regards,
Papob Jeerat
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I was a bit impressed with the title of the paper “Developing a Model for Building Farmers’ Beliefs in the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy to Accommodate Sustainable Agricultural Practices in the Highlands of Chiang Mai Province, Thailand”. But I will not recommend the paper at this stage due to the lack of clear analysis and activity data used. The study may improve by addressing the proposed below suggestions to support the author’s claim.
Abstract: the first sentence of the abstract is very long. In the abstract, the majority of paragraphs are very long. Create a clear, easy-to-read narrative
Keywords: No need for the last keywords
Introduction: It is well-presented and coherently developed but has some typos or grammatical mistakes that should be handled with just a thorough read by the authors. I think lines 37 to 42 should be rewritten and made shorter, it is very hard to understand
Research Methodology: For easy understanding of the reader, please make a chart of the four stages of sample selection described in the methodology section.
Data collection: Why did you choose 375 samples, you need to justify your selection
Conclusion: The first paragraph is confusing and contains grammatical errors. More discussion on why and how the results from this study would have implications for other countries is needed. Specifically, what lessons/strategies other countries can learn from this study?
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your interest in my manuscript “Developing a Model for Building Farmers’ Beliefs in the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy to Accommodate Sustainable Agricultural Practices in the Highlands of Chiang Mai Province, Thailand” Thank you for suggesting to improve the above manuscript for the most complete and academic credibility. I have corrected 6 points: Point 1: Abstract, Point 2: Keywords, Point 3: Introduction, Point 4: Research Methodology, Point 5: Data collection, and Point 6: Conclusion. (Please see the file attached)
Note: Editing according to two reviewers, I have highlighted the edits in green to make it easier for the reviewer.
Best regards,
Papob Jeerat
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
