Sustainable Supply Chain Mapping of Nipa Palm Products: Insights from Khanap Nak, Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with the current paper.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for their efforts in enhancing the manuscript titled “Sustainable Supply Chain Mapping of Nipa Palm Products: Insights from Khanap Nak, Thailand. However, there are some comments below:

Abstract

The abstract has been improved based on previous comments. However, the authors should address the actual implications of the study, only general implications are mentioned. Emphasis on the study's practical, theoretical, and policy implications is essential.

Introduction

While improvements have been made in the introduction, the authors have not fully addressed the first-round comments. Specifically:

• The paragraphs discussing the value and uses of the nipa palm are not sufficiently linked to supply chain management. The connection between nipa palm utility and its integration into sustainable supply chains remains unclear.
• In line 85, the authors state that "these components have not received much attention," yet no evidence from previous studies is cited to substantiate this claim. The authors should cite relevant references to support their argument and clarify what has not been explored in prior research regarding nipa palm supply chains. Explaining how this study addresses these specific gaps, beyond general challenges like labor shortages and marketing constraints, will strengthen the justification for the research. Be focused to mention the research questions

Literature Review

The authors have made commendable efforts in this section. However, the most critical part, "Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM): A tool for analyzing the Nipa Palm Supply Chain", needs significant expansion, as it constitutes the core of the study.

• This section should discuss existing SSCM frameworks or models (if available) and/or explain how this study adapts or extends those models.
• Additionally, the authors should discuss challenges specific to implementing SSCM in small-scale agricultural supply chains, particularly in coastal regions.
• The authors must also clearly articulate what is missing in the literature, for example, whether any mapping of nipa palm supply chains has been done previously or whether SSCM applications have been studied for nipa or other mangrove-based products.

Methods

The authors have employed a purposive sampling technique. However, the criteria for respondent selection should be clearly stated. Moreover, the interview questions used in data collection should be included as an appendix to enhance transparency and reproducibility.

 

Results and Discussion

Each finding presented should be supported by previous studies, either aligning with or contradicting them, along with a clear explanation. This comparative approach will strengthen the discussion and situate the findings within the broader academic discourse.

 

Implications

This section is generally well presented. However:

• The figures are difficult to read and should be repositioned immediately below the corresponding paragraphs where they are referenced.
• The final section, located below Figure 10, is unclear. The authors should clarify what it refers to, are these definitions, additional implications, or something else?

Conclusion

The conclusion is well structured. Nevertheless, it should be further supported by theoretical implications, and suggestions for future research directions to provide a more comprehensive closure to the study.

Formatting and Language

The manuscript still contains several grammatical errors and inconsistent formatting. For instance:

• Incorrect terms such as “Napa palm,” “sustianability,” “resercah,” “factors,” and “theoritical” should be corrected.
• Formatting inconsistencies in font size and punctuation are noticeable (e.g., “. (Figure 1)” in line 272; “(Suppliers); 2)” in line 280). Thus, comprehensive grammar and formatting revision is necessary to enhance the manuscript’s readability and professional presentation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

needs improvements

Author Response

1. Abstract

Comment 1: The abstract has been improved, but the actual implications of the study are still not clearly addressed. Authors should highlight the practical, theoretical, and policy implications of the research more explicitly.

Response 1: The content has been added as indicated in lines 32-37.

 

2. Introduction

Comment 2.1:  The discussion on the value and uses of the nipa palm lacks sufficient linkage to supply chain management.

Response 2.1: The content has been added as indicated in lines 105–110.

 

Comment 2.2: The connection between nipa palm utility and its integration into sustainable supply chains remains unclear.

Response 2.2: The content has been added on page 14, specifically in lines 176–180.

 

Comment 2.3: In line 85, the statement “these components have not received much attention” lacks citation from previous studies.

Response 2.3: The aforementioned content has been removed from the manuscript.

 

Comment 2.4 The study's research questions should be clearly stated.

Response 2.4: The content has been inserted into the last paragraph of the introduction section, specifically in lines 105–110.

 

Comment 2.5 The justification of the research should move beyond general issues like labor shortages and marketing constraints, and focus on how this study addresses those unstudied areas.

Response 2.5: This issue emerged as a key research finding derived from in-depth interviews.

 

3. Literature Review

Comment 3.1 The section titled "Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM): A tool for analyzing the Nipa Palm Supply Chain" needs to be significantly expanded.

Response 3.1: The content has been added on page 4 (lines 180–184) under Section 2.4.

 

Comment 3.2 Clarify how this study adapts or extends those models.

Response 3.2: The revised section now outlines how our study adapts SSCM principles to the specific case of nipa palm supply chains in Thailand. We incorporated a detailed discussion on how the model emphasizes traceability, cost-efficiency, ethical sourcing, and stakeholder collaboration as part of the SSCM approach tailored to coastal farming communities.

 

Comment 3.3 Discuss specific challenges related to applying SSCM in small-scale agricultural supply chains, especially in coastal areas.

Response 3.3: I have introduced a dedicated discussion on the barriers to implementing SSCM in smallholder-based systems in coastal regions, such as labor shortages, limited technology adoption, knowledge gaps, market inaccessibility, and fragmented stakeholder coordination. These issues were further illustrated using evidence from the fieldwork conducted in Khanabnak.

 

Comment 3.4: Explicitly state what is still missing in the current literature, such as: Whether any supply chain mapping of nipa palm has been previously conducted and whether SSCM has been applied to nipa palm or other mangrove-based products.

Response 3.4: No prior studies have comprehensively mapped the nipa palm supply chain using a sustainability framework. Moreover, there is a lack of studies applying SSCM models to mangrove-based or estuarine agricultural products like nipa palm. This highlights the novelty and contribution of our research.

 

4. Methods

Comment 4.1 The use of purposive sampling is noted, but the selection criteria for respondents should be clearly stated.

Response 4.1: The content has been added toward the end of Section 2.2.

 

Comment 4.2 The interview questions used for data collection should be included in the appendix to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

Response 4.2: Additional details have been included in Section 2.3, at the end of the first paragraph.

 

5. Results and Discussion

Comment 5.1 Each finding should be supported by references to previous studies.

Response 5.1: There is no existing research found that has examined this topic within this specific area.

 

Comment 5.2 Authors should compare their findings with prior research (either in agreement or in contradiction) and provide clear explanations to situate the study in the broader academic context.

Response 5.2: No previous research has been found that investigates this topic in this area.6. Implications

 

6. Implications

Comment 6.1 The figures are currently hard to read and should be placed immediately after the corresponding paragraph where they are referenced.

Response 6.1: Adjustments have been made only to Figure 10, as modifications to the other figures were limited by layout constraints.

 

Comment 6.2 The final section below Figure 10 is unclear—authors need to clarify whether it contains definitions, additional implications, or something else.

Response 6.2: The phrase 'As illustrated in Figure 10,' has been added in line 331 to indicate the explanation of the figure.

 

7. Conclusion

Comment 7.1 The conclusion is well-organized but requires stronger support from theoretical insights.

Response 7.1: The content has been incorporated on Page 14, lines 176–180..

Comment 7.2 Authors should add future research directions to better close the study and guide subsequent work.

Response 7.2: The content has been added on pages 22–23, lines 361–385.

 

8. Formatting and Language

Comment 8.1 Several spelling errors remain (e.g., “Napa palm,” “sustianability,” “resercah,” “factors,” and “theoretical”)—these should be corrected.

Response 8.1: All revisions have been completed except for the word 'Factors'.

 

8.2 There are formatting inconsistencies, including:

Comment 8.2.1 Font size differences

Response 8.2.1: I have tried to review it, but there are several points where using different font sizes is necessary to enhance the layout and overall visual appeal.

 

Comment 8.2.2 Incorrect punctuation usage (e.g., “. (Figure 1)” at line 272; “(Suppliers); 2)” at line 280)

Response 8.2.2: The revisions have been made on page 7, lines 278 and 283.

 

Comment 8.3 A comprehensive revision of grammar and formatting is required to improve the manuscript’s readability and professional quality.

Response 8.3: The necessary corrections have been made.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The data collected in the article is only from 30 farmers and 20 middlemen. Is such a sample size sufficient to represent the overall situation of the Khanap Nak region? Have the differences among different villages been taken into consideration?

Although it is mentioned that appropriate market channels should be explored, has the article conducted a specific quantitative analysis of the effects of these channels? For instance, how is the application effect of online platforms evaluated?

Does the description of the labor shortage take into account the deep-seated reasons why young people are reluctant to engage in farming? Is there a more in-depth socio-economic analysis?

Are there clear indicators to measure the environmental, social and economic sustainability mentioned in the text? How to ensure the realization of these goals?

When it comes to using technology to address the issue of labor shortage, which specific technologies or methods are recommended? Will it have an actual impact on the production process?

In terms of the sense of participation and self-management ability in the community, are there any examples to support the argument, or are there specific plans on how to enhance these abilities?

It is suggested to expand the sample range to include farmers and middlemen from different regions in order to enhance the breadth and representativeness of the research.

The methodological section could be more detailed, especially the methods of data analysis, such as the combined use of quantitative and qualitative analysis.

 

Author Response

Comment 1 : The current sample includes only 30 farmers and 20 middlemen—the reviewer questions whether this is sufficient to represent the overall situation in Khanap Nak.

Response 1: The sample size is considered sufficient, as the revision includes the actual number of households and specifies that 'the selected participants were willing to provide information and expressed interest in increasing their income, developing their occupations, and expanding market opportunities,' as shown in Section 3.2, page 5, lines 229–234.

 

Comment 2 : It is unclear whether differences among various villages within the region have been considered in the sampling or analysis.

Response 2: This has been taken into consideration, and since the sample was drawn from the population across different villages, the following statement has been added: 'The population is distributed across 10 villages in Khanabnak Sub-district.

 

Comment 3: While the article mentions the need to explore appropriate market channels, the reviewer asks whether any specific quantitative analysis has been conducted to assess their effects.

Response 3: This study did not collect quantitative data; instead, it employed in-depth interviews focusing on qualitative information."

 

Comment 4: In particular, the manuscript should clarify how the effectiveness of online platforms (or other channels) has been evaluated or measured.

Response 4: This study does not evaluate the use of online platforms; it is presented only as a recommendation.

 

Comment 5: The issue of labor shortages is mentioned, but the reviewer asks whether the article explores the underlying socio-economic reasons why young people are reluctant to engage in farming.

Response 5: The respondents did not clearly articulate the reasons why young people are reluctant to engage in agriculture in this area; their responses only highlighted the issue of labor shortages among those capable of performing such work.

 

Comment 6: A more in-depth socio-economic analysis is suggested to understand these dynamics.

Response 6: Additional content has been included in Section 4.3.2, lines 109–117, and in Section 4.3.3, lines 135–144.

 

Comment 7: The article references environmental, social, and economic sustainability, but the reviewer requests clarification on whether there are clear indicators used to measure these dimensions.

Response 7: Figure 10 presents a visual synthesis of these indicators, illustrating how each contributes to the three pillars of sustainability. We have made corresponding revisions in the manuscript to clearly reflect these indicators and ensure the alignment with the reviewer’s comment.

 

Comment 8: The manuscript should explain how these sustainability goals will be realized or monitored.

Response 8: This has already been addressed in Sections 4.3 and 6.

 

Comment 9: The reviewer requests more detail regarding which specific technologies or methods are proposed to address labor shortages.

Response 9: At present, there is no technology that can effectively replace labor; further development is still needed.

 

Comment 10:  The manuscript should assess whether these technologies will have a real impact on the production process.

Response 10: At present, there is no technology that can effectively replace manual labor, and further development is still required. Therefore, it is not yet possible to assess the potential impacts.

 

Comment 11: When discussing community participation and self-management, the reviewer asks if there are any empirical examples or case evidence to support the claims.

Response 11: This article significantly discusses the formation and operations of community enterprise groups in Section 4.3.2, with illustrative examples of products resulting from such collective efforts presented in Figure 1.

 

Comment 12: Alternatively, are there any specific plans or strategies proposed to strengthen these community capacities?

Response 12: This has already been addressed in Sections 4.3.2 and 6.

 

Comment 13:  The reviewer suggests expanding the sample to include farmers and middlemen from different regions beyond Khanap Nak.

Response 13: Since Khanabnak District is a specific area with the highest concentration of nipa palm cultivation in Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, and due to budget and time constraints, the research could not be extended to a wider area.

 

Comment 14: The methodology section could benefit from additional detail.

Response 14: This information has already been incorporated in Section 3.2 (pages 5–6, lines 229–238), Section 3.3 (page 6, lines 243–245), and Section 3.4 (page 6, line 357)

 

Comment 15: Specifically, the data analysis methods should be clarified—particularly regarding whether the study used quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods, and how.

Response 15: It has already been explained in Section 3.4, in the first line.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Parentheses should not be used in the title. The author should find another way to express it.

2. Why did the author conduct sustainable supply chain mapping for nipa palm? What practical and theoretical problems were solved? The author should emphasize these issues in the introduction chapter.

3. How is the paper submitted this time different from previous studies? This is also the innovation of this submission.

4. What are the characteristics of the sustainable supply chain map of nipa palm compared with other regions? How did the author consider these characteristics in the study?

5. Most of the author's reference list is outdated, which actually reflects the problem of insufficient theoretical innovation in this submission. I suggest that the author update the reference list.

Author Response

Comment 1: Parentheses should not be used in the title. The author should find another way to express it.

Response 1: Thank you for the suggestion. However, since this is a specific term necessary to clearly indicate the plant species and avoid confusion, we have decided not to modify it.

Comment 2: Why did the author conduct sustainable supply chain mapping for nipa palm? What practical and theoretical problems were solved? The author should emphasize these issues in the introduction chapter.

Reponse 2: This has been added at the end of the introduction.

Comment 3: How is the paper submitted this time different from previous studies? This is also the innovation of this submission.

Response 3: A reference to previous work has been included at the end of the introduction.

Comment 4: What are the characteristics of the sustainable supply chain map of nipa palm compared with other regions? How did the author consider these characteristics in the study?

Response 4: A reference to previous research highlighting the importance of this study has been added at the end of the introduction.

Comment 5: Most of the author's reference list is outdated, which actually reflects the problem of insufficient theoretical innovation in this submission. I suggest that the author update the reference list.

Response 5: Some updates have been made.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract 

The authors should clearly state the aim of the study, providing detailed information about the six types of Nipa palm and specifying the place or country where the field study was conducted. Additionally, the keywords should be in lowercase, except for country names.

Introduction 

The introduction is generally well-structured, but some revisions are needed.

For example, the formatting in lines 40, 41, and 42 should be revised. The aim of the study needs to be more clearly defined, especially regarding the procedures, participants, and country. 

In lines 64 to 68, the authors discuss challenges related to Nipa palm that are consumer focused. However, the participants of the study include both farmers and consumers. The authors should address challenges faced by both groups. 

The paper lacks literature review. Thus, the authors should demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of relevant literature, explaining in detail the triple bottom line of sustainability for Nipa palm, along with its challenges and opportunities. More detailed information, citations, and supporting data should be provided. 

A good practice would be to add a paragraph at the end of the introduction outlining the contribution of the paper and its structure, providing readers with an overview of the work. Furthermore, some references are outdated (e.g., Farris, 2010; Gardner and Cooper, 2003), and should be updated. The research gap should be documented using prior studies to strengthen the paper's originality.

Methods 

The authors did not mention the time, date, or duration of data collection. Do the authors have updated statistics on the households, because it was in 2019? How did they contact the interviewees, how and where did they meet them, and what was the duration of the interviews? 

The interview questions should be provided - what type of questions were asked (open-ended, closed, etc.)? 

Moreover, the authors mentioned structured interviews but referred to semi-structured interviews in the results section. Which is correct? The number of participants in the first group was provided, but the number of participants in the second group (customers and mediators) was not. Additionally, the authors did not report descriptive results about the participants.  It is unclear whether the authors used one sample or two distinct samples in the research."

Did the authors use any software to analyze the qualitative data? If not, they should indicate whether the analysis was done manually.

 

 

Results 

The results are well-organized; however, it's difficult to provide detailed comments without knowing the interview questions. If the semi-structured interviews included open-ended questions, quotes from participants should support the findings. 

There are formatting issues with Figure 2, Figure 8, and Table 2. The authors should ensure that all content is clear and readable. It would be better to place the figures below the related discussion for clarity.

Conclusion 

The conclusion is well presented but should be supported with theoretical implications and suggestions for future research.

Formatting and language

There are some grammatical mistakes related to capitalization, such as 'Snowball sampling' and 'Purposive sampling.' Additionally, there are numerous spacing issues that need to be addressed. The entire manuscript should undergo thorough grammatical and formatting revisions

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper would benefit from a thorough proofreading to address grammatical, capitalization, and formatting issues.

Author Response

Comment 1: Abstract

The authors should clearly state the aim of the study, providing detailed information about the six types of Nipa palm and specifying the place or country where the field study was conducted. Additionally, the keywords should be in lowercase, except for country names.

Response 1: A reference to the significance of prior studies has been added at the end of the Introduction. "Nipa palm" is capitalized as it is a specific term.

Comment 2: Introduction

The introduction is generally well-structured, but some revisions are needed.

For example, the formatting in lines 40, 41, and 42 should be revised. The aim of the study needs to be more clearly defined, especially regarding the procedures, participants, and country.

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestions.

Comment 3: In lines 64 to 68, the authors discuss challenges related to Nipa palm that are consumer focused. However, the participants of the study include both farmers and consumers. The authors should address challenges faced by both groups.

Response 3: Thank you for the suggestions.

Comment 4: The paper lacks literature review. Thus, the authors should demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of relevant literature, explaining in detail the triple bottom line of sustainability for Nipa palm, along with its challenges and opportunities. More detailed information, citations, and supporting data should be provided.

Response 4: This has been added.

Comment 5: A good practice would be to add a paragraph at the end of the introduction outlining the contribution of the paper and its structure, providing readers with an overview of the work. Furthermore, some references are outdated (e.g., Farris, 2010; Gardner and Cooper, 2003), and should be updated. The research gap should be documented using prior studies to strengthen the paper's originality.

Response 5: Some changes have been made accordingly.

Comment 6: Methods

The authors did not mention the time, date, or duration of data collection. Do the authors have updated statistics on the households, because it was in 2019? How did they contact the interviewees, how and where did they meet them, and what was the duration of the interviews?

 

The interview questions should be provided - what type of questions were asked (open-ended, closed, etc.)?

Response 6: Some revisions have been made in the methodology section.

Comment 7: Moreover, the authors mentioned structured interviews but referred to semi-structured interviews in the results section. Which is correct? The number of participants in the first group was provided, but the number of participants in the second group (customers and mediators) was not. Additionally, the authors did not report descriptive results about the participants.  It is unclear whether the authors used one sample or two distinct samples in the research."

Did the authors use any software to analyze the qualitative data? If not, they should indicate whether the analysis was done manually.

Response 7: Some revisions have been made in the methodology section.

Comment 8: Results

The results are well-organized; however, it's difficult to provide detailed comments without knowing the interview questions. If the semi-structured interviews included open-ended questions, quotes from participants should support the findings.

There are formatting issues with Figure 2, Figure 8, and Table 2. The authors should ensure that all content is clear and readable. It would be better to place the figures below the related discussion for clarity.

Response 8: Thank you for the suggestions. The issue has been resolved.

Comment 9: Conclusion

The conclusion is well presented but should be supported with theoretical implications and suggestions for future research.

Response 9: Additional information has been added to the Conclusion section.

Comment 10: Formatting and language

There are some grammatical mistakes related to capitalization, such as 'Snowball sampling' and 'Purposive sampling.' Additionally, there are numerous spacing issues that need to be addressed. The entire manuscript should undergo thorough grammatical and formatting revisions

Response 10: Some revisions have been made in the methodology section.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

How were the100 households selected for the semi-structured interviews? Was there any bias in the sampling method that could affect the results?

The article highlights labor shortages and limited marketing channels as significant challenges. Are there any specific data or case studies that illustrate how these challenges have impacted production and sales?

How does the study define "sustainable supply chain management" in the context of Nipa palm products? Are there specific metrics or indicators used to measure sustainability?

The article suggests exploring online platforms for marketing. What specific strategies or platforms are recommended, and how can farmers be supported in utilizing these channels effectively?

Does the study propose any specific areas for future research to address the identified challenges in the supply chain?

Author Response

Comment 1: How were the100 households selected for the semi-structured interviews? Was there any bias in the sampling method that could affect the results?

Response 1: Additional information has been included in the methodology section, specifically at the end of the Data Collection subsection.

Comment 2: The article highlights labor shortages and limited marketing channels as significant challenges. Are there any specific data or case studies that illustrate how these challenges have impacted production and sales?

Response 2: Relevant content has been added in the Results section.

Comment 3: How does the study define "sustainable supply chain management" in the context of Nipa palm products? Are there specific metrics or indicators used to measure sustainability?

Response 3: Additional information has been incorporated in the Results section.

Comment 4: The article suggests exploring online platforms for marketing. What specific strategies or platforms are recommended, and how can farmers be supported in utilizing these channels effectively?

Response 4: Relevant content has been added in the Results section.

Comment 5: Does the study propose any specific areas for future research to address the identified challenges in the supply chain?

 Response 5: Additional information has been included in the Conclusion section.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did not fully revise the paper as suggested in the response at the end of the introduction, therefore, I recommend rejecting the submission.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see previous comments

Comments on the Quality of English Language

na

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although it is evident that the author has made extensive revisions to the article, I still did not find any substantial research within it.