Measuring Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Coffee Certification Labels in Taiwan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting work involving the proper data and the analysis, however  I suggest some changes:

Lines 23; 214 – Referring to “the invalid questionnaires”, please indicate shortly why they are invalid.

Line 47 – Explain shortly UTZ certification (Just 1-2 sentences of explanation).

Lines 70, 107 – Indicate the newest references also, because the area of consumer behaviour (opinion, preferences; decision process) is changing in time. Therefore, newer sources is needed here.

Lines 134-145 – Reformulate this part in order to indicate the aim of the study. In my opinion it should more vivid/clear for the final reader.

Table 4. – “age” part – correct 36-45, because “5” is missing in “45”.

Lines 370-384 (Conclusions) – Please indicate also some recommendations for producers and/or for distributors acting in this market.

Lines 490-494 – Something is wrong with the surnames - I think that the first letter is missing here.

Author Response

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript explored consumers' behaviour in coffee especially in certification label and their WTP. The manuscript is well written and the analyses that was done is robust, but lacks some information in the methodology section.

Section 1.

The authors should consider adding the aim of the research and a hypothesis/research questions based on the subsections of results towards the end of Introduction.

Section 3.1 - It is shown that preference was also recorded in this manuscript, this needs to be added accordingly to M&M section.

Table 4 needs some column adjustment 

Table legends needs some information readers should be able to read it even as a standalone.

Section 4. This should answer the research questions that is proposed at the Introduction, at the moment it seems that the discussion is based on the results and is hard to navigate.

Author Response

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

With all my respect to your work, these are my comments. Please I encourage you to improve the work. This research work, although interesting, needs to incorporate a series of recommendations so that it can be published.

The introduction is long and there is no clear storyline: too many topics wanted to be cover in a no-systematic order.

Methodology clearness in achieving the aim of the study is lacking. The results of this study are presented but not deeply and critically discussed.

I would like authors to consider some minor and major issues as follows.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your response regarding my suggestions.

Sincerely

Author Response

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have nicely responded to the comments and suggesting of the reviewers. 

Author Response

  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf