Relationship between Consumer Motivation and the Gastronomic Experience of Olive Oil Tourism in Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper addresses a current theme, which combines gastronomic tourism with the promotion of a local product used in the healthy Mediterranean diet.

Based on a large bibliographic study, with 64 references out of which 80% from 2000 to the present, and 57% from 2010 to the present, the scientific work is highlighted by the accuracy of the presentation. The methodology used is appropriate to the proposed purpose, the investigation methods are clearly presented and the results are widely highlighted.

The work is very interesting and can be extended to other types of local products, in full agreement with the preferences of consumers. By the obtained results, the paper can be regarded as a real barometer of the interest of the various categories of tourists regarding the local gastronomy.

Author Response

COMMENTS TO THE REVIEWERS

First of all, we want to thank the reviewers for their suggestions and comments, since they will surely serve to improve the paper.

The changes made by the authors are shaded in yellow, and modifications resulting from proofreading through change control.

In relation to the suggestions that the reviewers have expressed to us, we have carried out the following modifications in the paper:

 

REVIEWER 1

The paper addresses a current theme, which combines gastronomic tourism with the promotion of a local product used in the healthy Mediterranean diet.

Based on a large bibliographic study, with 64 references out of which 80% from 2000 to the present, and 57% from 2010 to the present, the scientific work is highlighted by the accuracy of the presentation. The methodology used is appropriate to the proposed purpose, the investigation methods are clearly presented and the results are widely highlighted.

The work is very interesting and can be extended to other types of local products, in full agreement with the preferences of consumers. By the obtained results, the paper can be regarded as a real barometer of the interest of the various categories of tourists regarding the local gastronomy.

           

ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We are very pleased that the article was interesting. To improve the understanding of the text, we have done a proofreading of the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

The structure of the work is logically well founded and cohesive in terms of the organization of the paragraphs and the management of the content, and presents a treatment of original material.

The proposed work could offer a valid contribution to the debate over the role gastronomic tourism for socio-economic development in rural areas. 

This paper is an interesting case study.

Author Response

COMMENTS TO THE REVIEWERS

First of all, we want to thank the reviewers for their suggestions and comments, since they will surely serve to improve the paper.

The changes made by the authors are shaded in yellow, and modifications resulting from proofreading through change control.

In relation to the suggestions that the reviewers have expressed to us, we have carried out the following modifications in the paper:

 

REVIEWER 2

The structure of the work is logically well founded and cohesive in terms of the organization of the paragraphs and the management of the content, and presents a treatment of original material.

The proposed work could offer a valid contribution to the debate over the role gastronomic tourism for socio-economic development in rural areas. 

This paper is an interesting case study and it does need any further work.

           

ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We are very pleased that the article was interesting. To improve the understanding of the text, we have done a proofreading of the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

I read with a lot of interest the manuscript entitled “Relationship between consumer motivation and the gastronomic experience of olive oil tourism in Spain” and I have appreciated the usefulness of its topic. The paper presents a theme really interesting, food tourism, more precisely olive oil-based food tourism.

However, the paper is presenting several shortcomings, omissions, and seems, unfortunately, incomplete, therefore reducing considerably its potential, as well as its impact.

Firstly, I strongly suggest a rewriting of the abstract, as the current form does not say very much about the paper, is even a little confusing, and not at all appealing for the readers.

 

Theoretical background

The literature review is quite limited, considering the subject, the authors failing to address the complexity of the phenomenon; the sources cited are clearly insufficient to cover in a comprehensible way the subject of oil-based tourism. Moreover, the authors overcited the journal they are trying to publish into (Sustainability), probably trying to butter the editors up, while clearly omitting some studies on olive oil tourism (for example, Millan, Arjona-Fuentes, Campon-Cerro, de Salvo, just to cite a few recent authors working on the subject). The same could be said about motivations and gastronomic experiences, a subject more complex than it can be observed in the paper’s literature section. Overall, the literature seems to be done in a rush (is also very chaotically organized), the authors giving little attention to this section. On a personal note, I would have preferred to see how the authors position themselves in relation with the literature.

 

Materials and Methods

I don’t have major objections regarding this section. Personally, I consider the instrument to be too modest (but fair) to fully answer the research questions addressed by the paper.

 

Results

The authors have been caught in the old trap of presenting a lot of data in order to mask the fragility of their study. The so called statistical analyses are merely descriptive statistics only slightly improved with some analysis of minor complexity; however, too little for a solid research paper.

 

Discussions

The implications for stakeholders, decision makers, local and regional actors are almost forgotten, and the Discussions section is too vague and underdeveloped.

 

Other

The citations style when referring directly to a paper should be “Furthermore, Ellis et al. [17] establishes five aspects that can lead to” instead of “Furthermore, [17] establishes five aspects that can lead to”.

The English language is brave, however, some parts of the paper clearly need a rephrasing or a different approach. Although they might be considered as minor shortcomings, they impact the line of the argumentation and create difficulties in the comprehension of the text.

The idea behind the paper is very interesting and I would like to see it properly developed in a research paper. However, as it stands, it incomplete and unpublishable.

Author Response

COMMENTS TO THE REVIEWERS

First of all, we want to thank the reviewers for their suggestions and comments, since they will surely serve to improve the paper.

The changes made by the authors are shaded in yellow, and modifications resulting from proofreading through change control.

In relation to the suggestions that the reviewers have expressed to us, we have carried out the following modifications in the paper:

 

REVIEWER 3

Comment 1

I read with a lot of interest the manuscript entitled “Relationship between consumer motivation and the gastronomic experience of olive oil tourism in Spain” and I have appreciated the usefulness of its topic. The paper presents a theme really interesting, food tourism, more precisely olive oil-based food tourism.

However, the paper is presenting several shortcomings, omissions, and seems, unfortunately, incomplete, therefore reducing considerably its potential, as well as its impact.

Firstly, I strongly suggest a rewriting of the abstract, as the current form does not say very much about the paper, is even a little confusing, and not at all appealing for the readers.

 

            ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. The summary has been reformulated and rewritten. The original document was between lines 12 and 19 (both inclusive). After the change, the abstract is between lines 12 and 23 (both inclusive).

 

Comment 2: Theoretical background

The literature review is quite limited, considering the subject, the authors failing to address the complexity of the phenomenon; the sources cited are clearly insufficient to cover in a comprehensible way the subject of oil-based tourism. Moreover, the authors overcited the journal they are trying to publish into (Sustainability), probably trying to butter the editors up, while clearly omitting some studies on olive oil tourism (for example, Millan, Arjona-Fuentes, Campon-Cerro, de Salvo, just to cite a few recent authors working on the subject). The same could be said about motivations and gastronomic experiences, a subject more complex than it can be observed in the paper’s literature section. Overall, the literature seems to be done in a rush (is also very chaotically organized), the authors giving little attention to this section. On a personal note, I would have preferred to see how the authors position themselves in relation with the literature.

ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestion. New citations from authors of reference have been introduced in this area and some paragraphs of the theoretical framework have been restructured to give it greater meaning and coherence. In addition, the order of literature has been restructured by introducing new authors. After the modification of the theoretical framework, lines 121 to 128 and 139 to 142 include updating with their corresponding quotations.

Comment 3: Materials and Methods

I don’t have major objections regarding this section. Personally, I consider the instrument to be too modest (but fair) to fully answer the research questions addressed by the paper.

           

ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestion.                  

Comment 4: Results

The authors have been caught in the old trap of presenting a lot of data in order to mask the fragility of their study. The so called statistical analyses are merely descriptive statistics only slightly improved with some analysis of minor complexity; however, too little for a solid research paper.

            ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. A restructuring has been carried out in addition to addressing a brief descriptive analysis (mean, standard deviation, asymmetry, kurtosis and normalcy) and the sociodemographic profile, the complete development of a model based on structural equations through partial least squares has been carried out. In this sense, a brief modification has been made, passing point 3.1 (Analysis of the validity and reliability of the global model) and 3.2 (Analysis of the reliability and validity of the measurement model) of the methodology to the results section, becoming point 4.3 and 4.4 respectively. The contingency table of the socio-demographic profile (table 2) has been deleted, giving greater relevance to the two sections incorporated into the results section.

 

Comment 5: Discussions

The implications for stakeholders, decision makers, local and regional actors are almost forgotten, and the Discussions section is too vague and underdeveloped.

ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. The implications for local and regional stakeholders and actors that may influence the development of the activity have been expanded in the section (between lines 363 and 373 – both inclusive inclusive). On the other hand, the discussions section has also been extended (extension on lines 331-333 - both inclusive-)

 

Comment 6:

The citations style when referring directly to a paper should be “Furthermore, Ellis et al. [17] establishes five aspects that can lead to” instead of “Furthermore, [17] establishes five aspects that can lead to”.

ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. This mistake has been fixed, in addition, as a result of the incorporation of new appointments, many of them have been restructured as far as the bibliographic order is concerned.

 

Comment 7:

The English language is brave, however, some parts of the paper clearly need a rephrasing or a different approach. Although they might be considered as minor shortcomings, they impact the line of the argumentation and create difficulties in the comprehension of the text.

ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. It has been done to give it a more in-depth reading with the aim of avoiding these deficiencies. Proofreading has been performed.

 

Comment 8:

The idea behind the paper is very interesting and I would like to see it properly developed in a research paper. However, as it stands, it incomplete and unpublishable.

ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comments and/or suggestions. We think that with the modifications made over the previous 7 comments has given a new approach to the paper, with more cohesive ideas.