Sustainability Science Communication: Case Study of a True Cost Campaign in Germany

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is an interesting one. It explores the significance of science communication in sustainability science, focusing on a case study that investigates consumer  perceptions on ecological prices of foods through a face-to-face survey.

As for methodology, it is both quantitative and qualitative. The face-to-face survey seems  to have been properly conducted, and qualitative analyses concerning consumers’ perceptions seem refined.

The discussion and conclusion sections summarize well the achievements of the research, and I agree that a large sample of users will be vital to validate the perceptions already collected that targeted science communication for sustainability can play a key role in the area of TCA.

Overall, the merits of the paper are fine enough to publish it.

Author Response

Response to the reviewer

Dear reviewers,

We are very pleased to read your reviews, and we are thankful for your general valuation of our work, the constructive criticism, and the suggestions on how to eliminate identified flaws.

We put a lot of effort into restructuring the work along with your suggestions and hope that the revised version meets your expectations. Please find a detailed table that lists every reviewer comment and a detailed response to the respective criticism on the next pages.

Thank you very much!

Yours sincerely,

Lennart Stein, Amelie Michalke, Tobias Gaugler & Susanne Stoll-Kleemann

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The idea of this paper is correct and corresponds to most of the goals of Sustainability journal. The topic follows very acute and painful problems faced by a large part of humanity, and therefore justified attempts are made to find sustainable solutions in food production without endangering the environment. Another interesting topic that the authors dealt with is bringing science closer to people in a practical way in everyday life.

Some of the shortcomings of this work are of an essential nature and others are technical.

- Among the chapters in the Discussion, there are three which according to their content correspond to the Literature Review, given that they do not mention the results of the work in the context of earlier research. That's why I recommended creating a Literature Review chapter and moving the marked subchapters there.

- The survey period of the respondents is debatable: the end of July and the beginning of August is vacation time, which is why the sample lacks a population that could answer the questions more objectively. It remains for the authors to explain this in the text or provide an explanation in the cover letter.

- Table 2 as well as the paragraph before and after it belong to the Results chapter

- In several places in the text, starting with the title of the chapter "Increase of organic products and reduction of meat consumption", meat products are excluded as organic, although it is known that they can also be organic. This must be changed because the meaning can be wrong. I suggested the authors changes in the revised version of the paper. So, further on you can state 'Increase of non-meat organic products and reduction of meat consumption' or similar.

- In table 2, 120 respondents are mentioned, and in picture 1 it says n=125, and in the caption of the picture N = 120. Check.

- Although the sample is only 120 respondents who are on average over 50 years old (they are expected to have a greater affinity for organic food compared to the younger population), the authors conclude that they are a "large section of society". This should be corrected or explained in a way that is logical. If possible, the population should be presented by age groups: 15-30, 31-45, 46-60, >60 years (or similar) to make it clearer.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to the reviewer

Dear reviewers, We are very pleased to read your reviews, and we are thankful for your general valuation of our work, the constructive criticism, and the suggestions on how to eliminate identified flaws.
We put a lot of effort into restructuring the work along with your suggestions and hope that the revised version meets your expectations.

Please find a detailed table that lists every reviewer comment and a detailed response to the respective criticism on the next pages.

Thank you very much!

Yours sincerely,

Lennart Stein, Amelie Michalke, Tobias Gaugler & Susanne Stoll-Kleemann

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The subject of the paper is very interesting and the results can be useful for the stakeholders in the field.

 Good presentation of basic constructs of the research within the abstract, together with presentation of the main findings, followed by adequate choice of the key words.

Generally, this is an interesting paper with focus of the research aimed at providing the implication of the factors that influence consumer attitudes and preferences regarding the inclusion of TCAs, such as environmental, social, and animal welfare costs. Based on the results obtained, it is necessary to create differentiated strategies of scientific communication to reduce the gaps in knowledge and actions in the science of sustainability.

I didn't find the literature review section in this paper! Please, insert the consistent literature review regarding the topic of the paper! Also, please, specify clearly the gap in the literature you approach in the present study.

I think it's important to explain in detail the method that you used in the research of the paper.

The conclusion section also needs to be improved. However, beside that fact, I think that this paper could still be a good contribution to the theory and the practice, on the basis of providing an interesting finding. The conclusion should also include the main highlights of the study and limitations of the study.

I recommend to add more recent sources that will be cited in the paper.

Precise formulation of theoretical contribution would be appreciated.

I suggest to revise the paper and after you improve its main parts to resubmit it for review.

The paper requires minor English Language editing and some proof reading.

All the best!

The paper requires minor English Language editing and some proof reading.

Author Response

Response to the reviewer

Dear reviewers, We are very pleased to read your reviews, and we are thankful for your general valuation of our work, the constructive criticism, and the suggestions on how to eliminate identified flaws.

We put a lot of effort into restructuring the work along with your suggestions and hope that the revised version meets your expectations.

Please find a detailed table that lists every reviewer comment and a detailed response to the respective criticism on the next pages.

Thank you very much!

Yours sincerely,

Lennart Stein, Amelie Michalke, Tobias Gaugler & Susanne Stoll-Kleemann

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This research is interesting and I have found at least three findings that suggest value to the scientific community. I indicate them below. However, both the discourse and the way in which the data are presented require a profound review and improvement. Although the manuscript contemplates the structure of the publisher, the contents of each section must be written for greater understanding. As written, it is impossible for me to appreciate the contribution to the frontier of knowledge, among other aspects. The at least three findings worth highlighting are:

a) The 2023 findings underscore a substantial decrease in the willingness to pay for externalities of Gouda cheese, coupled with a significant increase in opposition.This shift may be attributed, in part, to the fact that the "true price" was effectively charged at the checkout this time, potentially reducing the influence of the attitude-behavior gap on the survey. Hence, the theoretical assumption posits that integrating true costs into market prices could lead to a decrease in the consumption of animal-based foods and an increase in the consumption of organic foods.

b) Participants establish reasons given by the study for not increasing organic consumption by equalizing the prices of conventional and organic products through the implementation of true prices. Moreover, they indicate a decrease in the willingness to increase organic food consumption compared to the results, suggesting evolving attitudes toward organic food within the context of true cost implementation.

c) A predominant argument in favor of true prices was the understanding of the rationale behind the price increase, when they was asked: Would you charge true costs to minimize environmental damage?. Approximately half of the respondents expressed a positive inclination.

Author Response

Response to the reviewer

Dear reviewers,

We are very pleased to read your reviews, and we are thankful for your general valuation of our work, the constructive criticism, and the suggestions on how to eliminate identified flaws.

We put a lot of effort into restructuring the work along with your suggestions and hope that the revised version meets your expectations.

Please find a detailed table that lists every reviewer comment and a detailed response to the respective criticism on the next pages.

Thank you very much!

Yours sincerely,

Lennart Stein, Amelie Michalke, Tobias Gaugler & Susanne Stoll-Kleemann

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

 I have uploaded the comments for authors with an attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to the reviewer

Dear reviewers,

We are very pleased to read your reviews, and we are thankful for your general valuation of our work, the constructive criticism, and the suggestions on how to eliminate identified flaws.

We put a lot of effort into restructuring the work along with your suggestions and hope that the revised version meets your expectations.

Please find a detailed table that lists every reviewer comment and a detailed response to the respective criticism on the next pages.

Thank you very much!

Yours sincerely,

Lennart Stein, Amelie Michalke, Tobias Gaugler & Susanne Stoll-Kleemann

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made an effort to correct the previous version of the paper. They responded to all the suggestions and objections I presented to them in a very professional and excellently structured cover letter. Therefore, I recommend the publication of a paper that, as I said in the first version, corresponds to all the objectives of the journal.

Author Response

Response to the reviewer

Dear reviewer,

We are very pleased to read your review, and we are thankful for your general valuation of our work as well as the constructive criticism, and the suggestions on how to eliminate identified flaws in revision round 1. 

Please find a detailed table that lists every reviewer comment and a detailed response to the respective criticism on the next pages. 

Thank you very much! 

Yours sincerely,

Lennart Stein, Amelie Michalke, Tobias Gaugler & Susanne Stoll-Kleemann

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for following my suggestions, but I found that the literature review section is the main lack of the paper. The discussion chapter also needs to be improved.

It is recommended to rethink the Conclusions chapter and to present actual conclusions, possibly suggestions and further research possibilities instead of summary.

All the best!

The paper requires minor English Language editing and some proof reading.

Author Response

Response to the reviewer

Dear reviewer,

We are pleased that we have already been able to implement most of your suggestions in review round 1 for improvement and have now endeavoured to address the remaining points and new issues. We are grateful to read your reviews, and we are thankful for your general valuation of our work, the constructive criticism, and the suggestions on how to eliminate identified flaws. We put a lot of effort into restructuring the work along with your suggestions and hope that the revised version meets your expectations.

Please find a detailed table that lists every reviewer comment and a detailed response to the respective criticism on the next pages. 

Thank you very much! 

Yours sincerely,

Lennart Stein, Amelie Michalke, Tobias Gaugler & Susanne Stoll-Kleemann

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors can evaluate two weaknesses of the manuscript for getting an improvement:

1. Lack of Clarity and Redundancy: The text repeats "true cost" more than a hundred times within a manuscript, leading to redundancy and lack of clarity. This repetition should be avoided to enhance readability and coherence.

2. Test of significance is required to add value the manuscript. Otherwise,  presented frecuency data among two surveys evidence a comparison based on criterion authors that difficulty a conclusive investigation.

Author Response

Response to the reviewer

Dear reviewer,

We are pleased that we have already been able to implement most of your suggestions in review round 1 for improvement and have now endeavoured to address new issues and remaining points. We are grateful to read your reviews, and we are thankful for your general valuation of our work, the constructive criticism, and the suggestions on how to eliminate identified flaws. We put a lot of effort into restructuring the work along with your suggestions and hope that the revised version meets your expectations.

Please find a detailed table that lists every reviewer comment and a detailed response to the respective criticism on the next pages. 

Thank you very much! 

Yours sincerely,

Lennart Stein, Amelie Michalke, Tobias Gaugler & Susanne Stoll-Kleemann

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for taking into account my recommendations and improving the quality of the article!

Congratulation! The paper is better structured now, and the research is more complex, with a greater impact on the scientific community.

All the best!

The paper requires minor English Language editing and some proof reading.