Assessing Customer Preferences for Shopping Centers: Effects of Functional and Communication Factors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study examines customer preferences for shopping centers in Lithuania. The study found that creating a multifunctional purpose with co-working space, entertainment and recreation areas, offices, hotel, medical institutions etc are important to improve the attraction of customers to major shopping centers. This is an interesting topic. But I have some comments. 

1) The growth of online shopping has been largely ignored. One of the major challenges for retail properties is the rapid growth of e-commence. This is more obvious in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This sees an increase of logistic properties and a decline demand of retail properties such as shopping centers. See Lin et al. (2020) in JPIF for the statistics and details. This should be discussed in the literature. This also suggests that retail holders should attempt to enhance their shoppers' experience as a key strategy to attract them to visit a shopping center as many shoppers can do their daily shopping online. 

2) A greater discussion is required to show how this paper is related to the aim of this journal (Sustainability). I would suggest that the authors to discuss whether e-commence has reduced travel trips; reducing carbon emissions from their travels as 81% of your respondents use cars (see page 5). Further, whether shopping centers have attempted to introduce sustainable features for their shopping centers. Importantly, a greater discussion/a dedicated section of how this paper links to the journal is compulsory.

2) Previous sustainability studies should be included to provide a cleaner link between this paper and the topic of sustainability. This is good to have some property journal articles being included as well. The current version is largely focuses on the retail literature. Is it the first retail shopping center study? What have been found by previous property studies and sustainable studies?

4) The contribution of this study should be discussed explicitly. 

5) 507 respondents- can this generalise to the population?

6) why seniors were excluded from the analysis? Those who are more than 59 years old. Is there a reason for this?

7) Table 6- I think the analysis provides further insights if a cross-tab can be undertaken to show whether those from different age groups would rated these factors differently. 

8) Table 4 I would suggest that the authors provide a greater discussion on the classification of shopping centers. What are the criteria to classify a center? The authors highlight different measures. what are the key measures being used?

9) Table 6- this would be interesting to examine whether the responses from the respondents vary across their income levels. For instance, would high-income shoppers rated social factors such as events quality and quantity relatively higher compared with low-income shoppers. 

 10) Proof reading is required. The issue is OK in general. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for possibility to read this article and give some my advice and suggestions.

Abstract – please don’t use citation in abstract

Line 40 – it is not according statistics but Statistic Office

Line 42 – if you use about, why the number is exactly 60.73%. It is not "about".

Literature Review – authors wrote: By analyzing the definitions of shopping centers, it is observed the lack of common understanding of shopping center in the scientific literature. Please support that sentence but the newest articles in that chapter.

Line 139 - goods and services, service I think that the word customer is missed in this sentence

Line 152 – Figure 1 – the quality of this drawing is not very high. Please try to make better quality (without shadows in the squares).

Line 153 - what were the main questions of your research, what did you wanted to know by those research?

Line 159 - If you use quantitative and qualitative research methods within the same study, this is mixed methods. Please read a bit more about this style of research and support your manuscript by some sentences concerning mixed methods. You can find this subject in some newest articles:

Mixed methods research. The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 4, 2015, 285-300.

New technologies and innovative solutions in the development strategies of energy enterprises. HighTech and Innovation Journal, 2020, 1(2), 39-58.

Line 166 – how did you find those respondents? Did you stay in mentioned city centers or you found customers in different way? Please explain

Line 179 table Monthly income - the percentages do not add up to 100. Please make correct

Line 179 – Table 2 – Demographic factors are age, sex. But income and occupation it is not demographic factors. In the article mentioned above you can read about macroeconomic factors.

Line 199 – Results: Please add some more statistics. I think it would be much better to show also some correlations between variables. E.g Age, Income and also Age or is there a correlation between age and shopping center selection? Then the scientific value of the article will increase if the authors show a deeper analysis.  Authors can see some correlations analysis and Chi-square in the article mentioned above or in other publications e.g: Pearson correlation coefficient. In Noise reduction in speech processing (pp. 1-4). (2009). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg or "Innovation strategy on the example of companies using bamboo", Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2021, 10(1), 1-17.

Line 221 - wage growth? I think opposite

Line 233 – this sentence is not finished: Only during 2017-2018.

Line 294 - Similar comments as to Figure 1 - the quality of this drawing is not very high. Please try to make better quality (without shadows in the graph)

Line 359 – the first sentence in the conclusion is totally not connected with the title of the article. This sentence can be mentioned later. At the beginning of the conclusion, please write the conclusion related to the main title and research results.

In the text authors wrote few times selection factors. Not: selection factors but selected factors

References - Please read and used more international journal from 2020 and 2021 in order to support your article. Now there are not enough latest papers.

After major reconstruction mentioned in my comments article will be really interesting for readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

***

The research question is interesting but rather common.

 

The approach of theoretical presentation of concepts and literature review is also interesting, but should be more focused on the research questions.

Regarding the empirical research there are a series of issues:

-The discussion section has no statistical output evidence (tables & data) and shows little credibility and lack of consistency.

-Tables, numbers and outputs from statistical / software application should be considered.

-The comments within the Discussion section seem to be only pure speculations and have no statistical validation.

-We recommend that the comments in the Discussion & Conclusion sections should be synthetized more and structured differently (figures/data tables/graphics) in order for the information to be more accessible and impactful.

Theoretical background recommendations:

The dynamics of the shopping center activity – can be compared to knowledge dynamics and knowledge dynamics processes. Further details ca be obtained from recommended literature.

 Regarding references, for such a complex subject I suggest references from all the conceptual areas approached in the paper.

Bratianu, C., Hadad, S., Bejinaru, R. (2020) Paradigm Shift in Business Education: A Competence-Based Approach. Sustainability, 12, 1348.

Păduraru, T.; Vătămănescu, E.M.; Andrei, A.G.; Pînzaru, F.; Zbuchea, A.; Maha, L.G.; Boldureanu, G. Sustainability in relationship marketing: An exploratory model for the industrial field. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2016, 15, 1635–1647

Vătămănescu, E.-M.; Gazzola, P.; Dincă, V.M.; Pezzetti, R. Mapping Entrepreneurs’ Orientation towards Sustainability in Interaction versus Network Marketing Practices. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1580. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091580

Errors / Observations

Line 34 - Retail companies ARE operating in a highly competitive environment. 

Line 57 - The Secondly, authors provide a justification for the 58 chosen research methods.

Line 147 - key factors that determine the choice of a shopping centers.

Figure 1 must be redesigned for better visualization.

Line 156 – wrong use of capital letter inside phrase: hierarchical framework of Establish a sustainable design model of future

Line 361 - The concept of the shopping center concept ??? is formed in practice and new elements and important attributes were added in time period.

 

Grammar, style and English proofreading is highly recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The version has addressed most of my comments. However, I still have some reservation on the following items.

Although the authors have provided some justification of the link between this paper and the sustainability, I reckon a stronger  justification is required. Perhaps the sustainable features of shopping centres can be linked to sustainable property development. For instance, Low et al. (2020) and He  et al. (2021) in Sustainability discussed the importance of real-time consumer information in driving sustainable property development and the importance of innovation to encourage sustainable property development respectively. Newell and Lee (2012) and Pham and Kim (2019) also showed that property investors and construction firms, including shopping centres, are taking an increased dimension of environment, social and governance. This sees shopping centres does include sustainable features as discussed by the authors. These can be go into the introduction Page 2; line 45. 

Some greater explanation is required why the authors don't see any link between income levels and their preferences. For instance, higher income households are more likely to buy luxury products. Unlike daily goods, the retailers of these products do offer services apart from the product as a process of purchasing. This sees shoppers are more likely to buy these products in stores instead of online. Further this also sees a stronger preferences about the style of a shopping centre. For instance, Harrold might have different target markets compered with Walmart or ASDA. Does this relevant in the context of this study?  

Some minor typo such as COVID-19 instead of COVIS-19. Proof reading is required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for new version of your article. Now it is much better. The value of the article would be higher with statistical analysis. Only description that some percentages are higher than other is poor for the scientific article. Please try to show some relations, because you have conclusion without statistical support.

I don't understand the idea of that sentence: There are almost no significant differences between visitors to Europe - the customers of this shopping center are very diverse. Authors wrote that in the answer to Reviewer, but there is not that sentence in the main text. (so it is good, because that sentence is not clear)

Line 235 - why there is only "Oz" not "Ozas"?

Please do a bit more statistical analysis and don't give up that possibility to increase level of your paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your revised paragraphs and comments. 

You have responded my requests. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf