Do Local Food Products Contribute to Sustainable Economic Development?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper focuses on how local food products can contribute to sustainable economic development. There are some issues the authors should revise prior to its potential publication:
- the introduction should better integrate the topics the authors want to discuss. While dealing with a range of previous research, the introduction is a sequence of previous studies. Authors should also engage with more recent research and should approach in a deeper way recent trends in sustainable economic development.
- the previous background of local food products in Serbia should be better contextualised.
- method is not well explained. How the samples were selected? In what cities did you collect your data? How did you design the questions (i.e. process to define the 30 claims)? Also, the authors need to provide justification of the study design. Methodological processes and rationale should be reworked.
- more dialogue between the results and other published work should be implemented in the discussion. In particular, more recent researches should be cited.
- implications for community development, not only economic, should be better enhanced in the conclusion, also in the context of UNESCO sustainable development goals.
- also, limitations of the research should be outlined.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Below, we have provided answers to reviewers' comments.
Point 1: The introduction should better integrate the topics the authors want to discuss. While dealing with a range of previous research, the introduction is a sequence of previous studies. Authors should also engage with more recent research and should approach in a deeper way recent trends in sustainable economic development.
Response 1: We have conceptualized the whole Introduction so that it clearly explains the problem we were dealing with, we have also introduced a new section on Literature review. We have linked local development problems to the UNESCO goals (lines 33-36) and the Agriculture and Rural Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia (lines 47-55). We have also cited new studies (lines 55-61) and have focused more on the situation in Serbia (lines 64-69).
Point 2: The previous background of local food products in Serbia should be better contextualised.
Response 2: In the Introduction, we pointed out the importance of this kind of research, as well as the fact that there are no or very few studies in Serbia dealing with the production of LFPs (lines 65-76).
Point 3: Method is not well explained. How the samples were selected? In what cities did you collect your data? How did you design the questions (i.e. process to define the 30 claims)? Also, the authors need to provide justification of the study design. Methodological processes and rationale should be reworked.
Response 3: We have significantly upgraded the Materials and Methods section. We explained the way we conceptualized the questions - drawing on previous similar research, opinions and suggestions from experts (lines 191-195). We have explained the structure of the questionnaire (209-212). The survey has been conducted by the snowball method (explanation in lines 213-215), and throughout the whole country (explanation on lines 205-206). The necessity of the research has been explained in detail in lines 195-204.
Point 4: More dialogue between the results and other published work should be implemented in the discussion. In particular, more recent researches should be cited.
Response 4: We have cited recent research as 9 new references have been inserted and thus implemented in the discussion (lines 438-439, 443-445, 452-454, 461-464, 466-470, 475-481).
Point 5: Implications for community development, not only economic, should be better enhanced in the conclusion, also in the context of UNESCO sustainable development goals.
Response 5: We have linked local development issues to UNESCO goals (lines 33-36) and also explained the implications for future research in section lines: 521-527.
Point 6: Limitations of the research should be outlined.
Response 6: We have outlined the limitations of the study at the end of the conclusion (lines: 528-532)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors examine the attitudes of both Serbian consumers and producers towards local food products and their perception on whether these products impact positively sustainable regional development. Their results can help outline strategies on local food production, which can be key to the success of regional sustainable development in rural communities.
I find the issue relevant. The results highlight the limitations that producers encounter when producing and marketing local food products, and what consumers value positively and negatively about them. By showing the complementarity of views among consumers and producers, the authors can identify limitations to the development of local foods. Addressing these limitations can be helpful in developing a balanced local food chain.
However, the presentation of some parts of the results is somewhat confusing and the readability of some sections could be improved. In my opinion, addressing the issues listed below could improve the article significantly.
In my opinion, the introduction is too long and includes too many references. I would suggest dividing it into two sections, introduction and literature review. Apart from defining clearly the research question, the introduction should clearly define the problem and the motivation for undertaking the study. It could also include the contributions of the study and describe briefly the structure of the paper. The literature review, though quite complete, is at points somewhat confusing. I would suggest structuring it better and in a way that makes it easier to read.
I think more information about the survey and the data should be provided —some information about the survey´s design, how was the survey sample selected, whether it is nationally representative or to what extent it is representative. Furthermore, I suggest explaining the 5-point interval scale in terms of respondents’ agreement or disagreement and saying whether the 30 claims are based on any specific background. Finally, what does the response rate imply for the analysis?
In my opinion, the results could be explained more clearly. For example:
- Descriptive statistics: How are the averages calculated? I would suggest stating form the beginning that the data are shown in Figure 1. The labels in Graph 1 cannot be read properly. I would suggest separating the labels on the y axis from the bars. Please explain what the x-axis represents. What do the numbers -2 to 10 mean? Please explain what the gap shows.
- In the PCA: What do the numbers inside Tables 2 and 3 represent? What do the different principal components represent in relation to the production, consumption or development of local foods?
- Standard multiple regression: How was the variable “Local food products contribute to sustainable regional development” measured (lines 266-267)? Did the authors use the same 5-point interval scale? If so, I would suggest considering using some other regression model suited for discrete dependent variables or justifying the use of linear regression.
Discussion and conclusions: how do the authors’ results affect the sustainable economic development of rural areas from the consumer and producer viewpoint? How could the results affect the levels of production/consumption? I would suggest relating these two sections more to their own results. Are there any limitations to the study?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Below, we have provided answers to reviewers' comments.
Point 1: In my opinion, the introduction is too long and includes too many references. I would suggest dividing it into two sections, introduction and literature review. Apart from defining clearly the research question, the introduction should clearly define the problem and the motivation for undertaking the study. It could also include the contributions of the study and describe briefly the structure of the paper. The literature review, though quite complete, is at points somewhat confusing. I would suggest structuring it better and in a way that makes it easier to read.
Response 1: We have divided the introduction into two parts, so now there is a section Introduction and a Literature Review. In the Introduction, we explained the situation in the country, defined the problem and pointed out the motivations for undertaking research. At the end of the Introduction we have provided the structure of the paper (lines 76-85). We have structured the Literature review better and supplemented it with recent research on the topic.
Point 2: I think more information about the survey and the data should be provided - some information about the survey´s design, how was the survey sample selected, whether it is nationally representative or to what extent it is representative. Furthermore, I suggest explaining the 5-point interval scale in terms of respondents’ agreement or disagreement and saying whether the 30 claims are based on any specific background. Finally, what does the response rate imply for the analysis?
Response 2: We have significantly upgraded the Materials and Methods section. We explained the manner in which we have conceptualized the research questions - drawing on previous similar research, opinions and suggestions from experts (lines 191-195). We explained the structure of the questionnaire (209-212). We used the snowball method (explanation in lines 213-215), and the survey was conducted throughout the country (explanation on lines 205-206). The necessity of the research is explained in detail in lines 195-204. The questionnaire included more respondents, but only the complete answers to the survey were statistically processed, which we explained in lines: 207-209.
Point 3: Descriptive statistics: How are the averages calculated? I would suggest stating form the beginning that the data are shown in Figure 1. The labels in Graph 1 cannot be read properly. I would suggest separating the labels on the y axis from the bars. Please explain what the x-axis represents. What do the numbers -2 to 10 mean? Please explain what the gap shows.
Response 3: Respondents were asked to assign a score of 1, as a minimum value of agreeing with the statement up to a maximum score of 5. Based on the respondents' scores, we calculated the mean and standard deviation. Graph 1 was redrawn (line 287), x and y axes have been properly marked, and gridlines were inserted for easier reference to values. We tried to separate the statements from the axes to make them easier to read. The darkest color shows the gap, as the difference between the mean values of the findings (consumer rating - producer rating). A detailed explanation of the gap is provided in lines 276 to 286.
Point 4: In the PCA: What do the numbers inside Tables 2 and 3 represent? What do the different principal components represent in relation to the production, consumption or development of local foods?
Response 4: The values of the components of each factor in the factor analysis have been explained within the Analysis of consumers' attitudes towards LFPs - factor analysis in lines: 309-329. The second part, in which factor analysis is conducted in regard to producers' attitudes factor values, is explained in the Analysis of producers' attitudes towards LFPs - factor analysis in lines: 349-361.
Point 5: Standard multiple regression: How was the variable “Local food products contribute to sustainable regional development” measured (lines 266-267)? Did the authors use the same 5-point interval scale? If so, I would suggest considering using some other regression model suited for discrete dependent variables or justifying the use of linear regression
Response 5: The study, that is, the analysis of the data, was modelled on the literature cited in the Materials and Methods lines section: 217-219, which cites four sources and the Results section lines 370-372, three sources.
Point 6: Discussion and conclusions: how do the authors’ results affect the sustainable economic development of rural areas from the consumer and producer viewpoint? How could the results affect the levels of production/consumption? I would suggest relating these two sections more to their own results. Are there any limitations to the study?
Response 6: We have explained the implications for sustainable economic development and for future research in the lines: 521-527. We have also explained the limitations of the research at the end of the Conclusion (lines: 528-532)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of Do Local Food Products Contribute to Sustainable Economic Development?
Overall, this is an interesting and well-done study of Serbia’s new and growing local food system.
My main suggestion is to reshape the Introduction to better present the study and what it is doing. Currently, the introduction provides a long list of literature describing local food systems around the world. Although informative, this discussion is hard to follow and I had a hard time making sense of all this information and the various works cited. The Introduction should instead explain the problem that the authors are discussing and the research question that they will address. The literature review should then show what research has already been done on this topic and where the holes are.
It would make sense to start the Introduction with the discussion now in lines 130-138. The article focuses on Serbia’s food system and the attitudes of its consumers and producers. It makes sense to highlight this upfront. Then the research questions are basically: Does Serbia’s local food system fit the general patterns identified already in the literature? Does the local food system in Serbia have unique features? What does the new information from Serbia that is presented here tell us about local food systems in general? In other words, why would this data be interesting to readers outside of Serbia? Perhaps looking at the Serbian experience in comparison with the experiences already described in the literature leads to new theories of local food or new ways to think about it that should be investigated in other locations. Maybe the Serbian experience is basically the same as everywhere else, but these points could be made more explicit.
In any case, the review of the literature could be organized in a way to identify a few hypotheses that could be tested with the Serbian data. This would give us a sense how Serbia’s food system fits with other food systems.
The other parts of the article provide interesting data and analysis. They would be more effective if they are framed better with an introduction that does the valuable material here more justice.
The findings listed in lines 285-6 seem self-evident. Perhaps the authors could provide more discussion to show why the outcome is interesting. More discussion would also help the reader make sense of the findings reported in lines 292-4.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Below, we have provided answers to reviewers' comments.
Point 1: My main suggestion is to reshape the Introduction to better present the study and what it is doing. Currently, the introduction provides a long list of literature describing local food systems around the world. Although informative, this discussion is hard to follow and I had a hard time making sense of all this information and the various works cited. The Introduction should instead explain the problem that the authors are discussing and the research question that they will address. The literature review should then show what research has already been done on this topic and where the holes are.
Response 1: We have divided the introduction into two parts, so now there is a section Introduction and a Literature Review. In the Introduction, we explained the situation in the country, defined the problem and pointed out the motivations for undertaking research. At the end of the Introduction we have provided the structure of the paper (lines 76-85). We have structured the Literature review better and supplemented it with recent research on the topic. We have linked local development problems to the UNESCO goals (lines 33-36) and the Agriculture and Rural Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia (lines 47-55). We have also cited new studies (lines 55-61) and have focused more on the situation in Serbia (lines 64-69).
Point 2: It would make sense to start the Introduction with the discussion now in lines 130-138. The article focuses on Serbia’s food system and the attitudes of its consumers and producers. It makes sense to highlight this upfront. Then the research questions are basically: Does Serbia’s local food system fit the general patterns identified already in the literature? Does the local food system in Serbia have unique features? What does the new information from Serbia that is presented here tell us about local food systems in general? In other words, why would this data be interesting to readers outside of Serbia? Perhaps looking at the Serbian experience in comparison with the experiences already described in the literature leads to new theories of local food or new ways to think about it that should be investigated in other locations. Maybe the Serbian experience is basically the same as everywhere else, but these points could be made more explicit.
Response 2: In an attempt to answer the questions that have been asked, we have tried to present the current situation in Serbia, as the transition to market economy has not yet been completed, the lack of small farmers agricultural production organization, insufficient resources and insufficient research on this topic. We also stated that our research may be of particular interest to other authors, educators and policymakers. The answers are provided in the lines: 55-85.
Point 3: In any case, the review of the literature could be organized in a way to identify a few hypotheses that could be tested with the Serbian data. This would give us a sense how Serbia’s food system fits with other food systems.
Response 3: In the Introduction, we pointed out the importance of this kind of research, as well as the fact that there are no or very few studies in Serbia dealing with the production of LFPs (lines 65-76). We have structured the Literature review better and supplemented it with recent research on the topic.
Point 4: The other parts of the article provide interesting data and analysis. They would be more effective if they are framed better with an introduction that does the valuable material here more justice.
The findings listed in lines 285-6 seem self-evident. Perhaps the authors could provide more discussion to show why the outcome is interesting. More discussion would also help the reader make sense of the findings reported in lines 292-4.
Response 4: In order to better present the research results, we have corrected the Materials and Methods section. We explained the way we conceptualized the questions (lines 191-195). We have explained the structure of the questionnaire (209-212) and explained in detail the necessity of the research in the lines 195-204.
Graph 1 was redrawn (line 287), x and y axes have been properly marked, and gridlines were inserted for easier reference to values. We tried to separate the statements from the axes to make them easier to read. The darkest color shows the gap, as the difference between the mean values of the findings (consumer rating - producer rating). A detailed explanation of the gap is provided in the lines 276 to 286.
The values of the components of each factor in the factor analysis have been explained within the Analysis of consumers' attitudes towards LFPs - factor analysis in lines: 309-329. The second part, in which factor analysis is conducted in regard to producers' attitudes factor values, is explained in the Analysis of producers' attitudes towards LFPs - factor analysis in the lines: 349-361.
We have added 9 new references that have been inserted in the Discussion in the lines: 438-439, 443-445, 452-454, 461-464, 466-470, 475-481.
We explained the limitations of the study at the end of the Conclusion (lines: 528-532).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have prepared an accurate revision. However, the selection process of the respondents would need to be further explained, in particular how the authors have identified the key respondents (consumers and producers) that allowed them to use the snowball sampling technique? Many thanks for your work on the paper.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The authors have prepared an accurate revision. However, the selection process of the respondents would need to be further explained, in particular how the authors have identified the key respondents (consumers and producers) that allowed them to use the snowball sampling technique? Many thanks for your work on the paper.
Response 1: The respondents /producers have been selected as follows: The Development Agency Bačka and the Institute from Novi Sad have at their disposal a database of LFPs producers. The questionnaire, or link of the questionnaire, has been sent to their email addresses asking them to forward it to the key informants thus ensuring a chain of possible other producers to be included in the study. The authors believe that the technique has been adequate to find as many respondents as possible, especially since the respondents have not been randomly selected from the whole population, but have been selected based on their professional orientation and desire to participate in the research (Wilkins, 2011).
On the other hand, the snowball method as a random sampling technique has been applied in regard to the LFPs consumers. The researchers, after having identified the initial seed informants within the researchers’ professional and personal network, have asked the potential respondents to forward the link to their contacts (Henryks and Pearson, 2013; Palys, 2008). Based on the experience of other researchers, the snowball method has proven particularly useful in exploring under-researched topics - such as LFPs consumer preferences, where respondents are difficult to locate and when the knowledge and awareness on the product is not sufficiently explored (Venter, van der Merwe, de Beer, Kempen, and Bosman, 2011; Mkhize and Ellis, 2020).
Wilkins, J. R. Construction workers’ perceptions of health and safety training programmes. Constr. Manage. Econ., 2011, 29(10), 1017–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2011.633538
Henryks, J.; Pearson, D. Attitude behavior gaps: Investigating switching amongst organic consumers. In International food marketing research symposium conference proceedings. 2013, 2(3), 3-19. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joanna_Henryks/publication/261474831_Attitude_Behaviour_Gaps_Investigating_switching_amongst_organic_consumers/links/0a85e53461e094d9d8000000/Attitude-Behaviour-Gaps-Investigating-switching-amongst-organic-consumers.pdf
Palys, T. Purposive sampling. In: Given, L. (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, 2 ed., vol. 2. Sage, Los Angeles, 2008, 697-698. https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Purposive%20sampling.pdf
Venter, K.; Van der Merwe, D.; De Beer, H.; Kempen, E.; Bosman, M. Consumers' perceptions of food packaging: an exploratory investigation in Potchefstroom, South Africa. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 2011, 35(3), 273-281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00936.x
Mkhize, S.; Debbie, E. Creativity in marketing communication to overcome barriers to organic produce purchases: The case of a developing nation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 242, 118415, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118415
