Consumption Behavior and Residential Food Waste during the COVID-19 Pandemic Outbreak in Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper belongs to an important topic. It examines “Household food waste”, which is core and center in the UN’s sustainable development agenda, with a focus on “Brazil” and “Covid-19 pandemic” as a particular context, which is a timely and pressing issue.

   The paper is good in terms of topic and relevance to “Sustainability”. Yet it has shortcomings that require major revisions and raises concerns about the validity and reliability of the methods used. More specific comments:

(Literature review)

1. The manuscript lacks a proper “Literature review” section. That is, the current study moves from “introduction” to the “methodology” without a proper acknowledgment of what we know about household food waste? And what we do not know (given the pandemic crisis)? The manuscript discusses some previous studies in the “Data analysis” section, which is obviously not the common academic structure either of Sustainability journal or other mainstream journals.

 

2. The proposed model appeared suddenly in the data analysis section/ methodology. The model needs to be theoretically developed based on current literature.

 

3. Suggestion: structure and key components of the manuscript should be considered. The research model should be an outcome of the literature, then methodology comes to test the model not the other way around. A deeper look at the literature is needed to finetune the “constructs”, and “relationships” proposed in the manuscript.

 

(Research Model)

4. I have a major problem with what is presented here. Constructs in the model are not clear. No definitions are provided. For example, what is the definition of “Economic value of waste”? or “Knowledge of labeling”? and so on. How each construct is “operationalized”/measured?

 

5. The list of independent variables (food purchase planning routines, purchase planning routines of food on sale, knowledge of labeling, routines for handling leftovers or uneaten food, and activities to avoid food wastage) is troubling: On which basis the variables were developed? Are those variables “conceptually” independent? They seem to be interrelated (e.g., routines appear in three of them). What are the correlations between these predictors? Have you tested for multicollinearity? And how these variables are measured? Using single or multiple items? No information was provided regarding the validity and reliability of such measures.

 

(Hypotheses)

6. Different terms are used in the hypotheses compared to Figure 1 (e.g., a shopping list is not among the “terms” used in Figure. Please be consistent regarding the “label” of each variable throughout the manuscript.

 

7. Each hypothesis requires proper justification. I suggest the authors discuss the background logic behind each relationship and define each construct. Then, propose the hypothesis.

 

 

(Questionnaire)

8. What is the nature of “Adaptations” made to the original questionnaire items? How did you test the content validity of the questions given the magnitude of modification made to original measures?
9. No information is provided about the measurement items/questions. Please be specific about how each variable is measured by providing more details to this section.
10. “The questionnaire included 60 questions structured in 7 categories: 1. Behavior of purchase and expenditure, 2. Behavior of purchase and expenditures.” What is the difference between 1 and 2?

 

(Sample)

11. Additional details are needed about: the type of sample? Is it a convenience sample? If yes, why do you think it is suitable for the study? Some reflections and justifications are needed.
12. Which social networks were used? Details are needed.
13. Do you think 458 respondents is enough sample size? Based on which basses?
14. Commonly the term “respondents” is used, not persons.

 

(Data analysis)

15. Data screening, how the authors treated missing data? What about disengaged respondents given the online-based survey? What about normality; was the data normally distributed? Skewness and kurtosis? Such missing information is important to understand the current results.

 

(Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Respondents)

16. The majority of the sample are females and highly educated people? Is it representative of the population in Brazil? I know, given that females are still mostly responsible for handling food in consumer households, many studies in this domain (e.g., Di Talia, et al., (2019). Consumer behaviour types in household food waste; Elhoushy, S., & Jang, S. (2020). Religiosity and food waste reduction intentions: A conceptual model) have similar sample compositions of female majority. Is it the case in Brazil?
17. I suggest including details about respondents’ characteristics in the sample section. So, readers have enough information about the nature of the sample composition while reading the subsequent results.

 

(Results)

18. I suggest separating “Results” from “Discussions” in two different sections. The results “present” the outcomes of the analysis, and hypotheses testing. Then, another section to discuss these results in line with previous studies. Mixing them is making it difficult to read.
19. H1 assumes a negative link between “intention” and “economic value of waste” and the results (in the text) say that the relationship is negative. But this is not reflected in table 3. Actually, in table 3, the coefficient value is “positive” which signifies a positive (not negative) link. The same applies to H5, and so on. This is maybe because it is not clear how the variables are measured.
20. The coefficient value in H5 is above 1. This seems problematic: the coefficient value should lie between 1 and -1. This may be due to an error. Please clarify this issue.
21. In Figure 2, it is better to add the value of each coefficient on the links.

 

(Conclusion)

22. This section should reflect the key “theoretical” and “practical” contributions of the study with a focus on its “main findings” and how such findings extend our knowledge.

 

23. Given what is presented here, this paper falls short in answering ALL the questions highlighted in its introduction (the following long list of questions were raised: How aware are consumers of the food they waste and its economic value? What is the science behind the fact that the reduction of wastage will impact expenses? What attitudes motivate pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase decisions? Do those activities have an impact on food waste? What would motivate us to waste less? Are individuals aware that such behaviors increase or decrease wastage?) So, it is suggested to focus on 1 or maybe 2 overarching questions that guide this study, and the conclusion should focus on how these questions were answered.

 

24. Given that a plethora of studies on “Household Food Waste” was published before COVID, and the current study takes a “during-pandemic perspective”, I expected to see a discussion on how “pandemics” affect food waste (if any)? How this pressing issue of food waste could benefit from what is going on? How this during-pandemic study speaks to what we know? For example, previous studies indicated that to motivate food waste reduction at the household level, we need to consider consumer attitudes (e.g., Graham-Rowe et al., 2015), subjective norms, (e.g., Stancu et al., 2016), perceived behavioral control (Russell et al., 2017), personal norms (e.g., Pakpour et al., 2014) and religiosity (e.g., Elhoushy and Jang 2020), to name but a few. So, do we need different strategies during a pandemic? How your work extends what we know?

 

25. Some limitations were mentioned in the data analysis section. I recommend putting all limitations in the conclusion.

 

Overall, this paper belongs to an interesting stream of literature, but it raises major concerns. Please take the comments more as potential windows to improve the work rather than critics. Good luck.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1, we would like to thank for your important remarks and for your time in reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate all your feedback and we now present the point-by-point responses to your suggestions and queries.

 

(Literature Review)

1) The manuscript lacks a proper “Literature review” section. That is, the current study moves from “introduction” to the “methodology” without a proper acknowledgment of what we know about household food waste? And what we do not know (given the pandemic crisis)? The manuscript discusses some previous studies in the “Data analysis” section, which is obviously not the common academic structure either of Sustainability journal or other mainstream journals.

Response:

Thank you for your relevant suggestions. We adapted the structure as recommended by including a new theoretical background section (section 2). Also, we also included new articles that complements the previous version as recommended by the Editor. In this new theoretical section, we were able to present the hypotheses development and our research model accordingly.

 

2) The proposed model appeared suddenly in the data analysis section/ methodology. The model needs to be theoretically developed based on current literature.

Response:

We agreed with your comment, and now this is solved by inserting the theoretical section and hypotheses/model development. Thank you for this remark.

 

3) Suggestion: structure and key components of the manuscript should be considered. The research model should be an outcome of the literature, then methodology comes to test the model not the other way around. A deeper look at the literature is needed to finetune the “constructs”, and “relationships” proposed in the manuscript.

Response:

We agree with your suggestions and we revised the paper accordingly. This issue was overcome with the new theoretical section as previously mentioned.

 

(Research Model)

4) I have a major problem with what is presented here. Constructs in the model are not clear. No definitions are provided. For example, what is the definition of “Economic value of waste”? or “Knowledge of labeling”? and so on. How each construct is “operationalized”/measured?

Response:

Thank you for your comments, we revised the paper in order to better present the proper definitions (in theoretical section). Now, constructs are developed and we hope that is clear according to your recommendations.

 

5) The list of independent variables (food purchase planning routines, purchase planning routines of food on sale, knowledge of labeling, routines for handling leftovers or uneaten food, and activities to avoid food wastage) is troubling: On which basis the variables were developed? Are those variables “conceptually” independent? They seem to be interrelated (e.g., routines appear in three of them). What are the correlations between these predictors? Have you tested for multicollinearity? And how these variables are measured? Using single or multiple items? No information was provided regarding the validity and reliability of such measures.

Response:

Thank you for this remark, we included these independent/dependent variables in order to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding in the new Table 1.

 

6) Different terms are used in the hypotheses compared to Figure 1 (e.g., a shopping list is not among the “terms” used in Figure. Please be consistent regarding the “label” of each variable throughout the manuscript.

Response:

We agreed and we revised the proper terms in hypotheses as shown in the new Figure 1. The hypotheses were revised too.

 

7) Each hypothesis requires proper justification. I suggest the authors discuss the background logic behind each relationship and define each construct. Then, propose the hypothesis.

Response:

We agreed and we provided the proper justification in our hypotheses development with the aid of the theoretical section (2).

 

(Questionnaire)

8) What is the nature of “Adaptations” made to the original questionnaire items? How did you test the content validity of the questions given the magnitude of modification made to original measures?

Response:

Thank you for this remark, we included explanations in the methodology section about these adaptations. 

 

9) No information is provided about the measurement items/questions. Please be specific about how each variable is measured by providing more details to this section.

Response:
Yes, we agreed. To solve this issue, we included the Table 1 in order to be more specific concerning variables.

 

10) “The questionnaire included 60 questions structured in 7 categories: 1. Behavior of purchase and expenditure, 2. Behavior of purchase and expenditures.” What is the difference between 1 and 2?

Response:

We are sorry for this mistake between categories 1 and 2. Now, in this revised version, category 2 is presented as: “2) knowledge of food labeling information”.

 

(Sample)

11) Additional details are needed about: the type of sample? Is it a convenience sample? If yes, why do you think it is suitable for the study? Some reflections and justifications are needed.

Response:

Thank you for your comments, we agreed and included more specific information regarding type of the sample and proper justifications in methodology section.

 

12) Which social networks were used? Details are needed.

Response:

We included in this revised version the networks used: WhatsApp, Facebook, LinkedIn (Explained in Sample Collection).

 

13) Do you think 458 respondents is enough sample size? Based on which basses?

Response:

We included information to better explain this remark and also presented the correspondent justification in Sample Collection (methodology section).

 

14) Commonly the term “respondents” is used, not persons.

Response:

Thank you, the terminology has been replaced.

 

(Data analysis)

15) Data screening, how the authors treated missing data? What about disengaged respondents given the online-based survey? What about normality; was the data normally distributed? Skewness and kurtosis? Such missing information is important to understand the current results.

Response:

Thank you for these important remarks, we provided proper explanations in Data Analysis section.

 

(Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Respondents)

16) The majority of the sample are females and highly educated people? Is it representative of the population in Brazil? I know, given that females are still mostly responsible for handling food in consumer households, many studies in this domain (e.g., Di Talia, et al., (2019). Consumer behaviour types in household food waste; Elhoushy, S., & Jang, S. (2020). Religiosity and food waste reduction intentions: A conceptual model) have similar sample compositions of female majority. Is it the case in Brazil?

Response:

Curiously, yes, it is the case in Brazil, and we made the reported this in the paper. This is explained in Sample Collection section.

 

17) I suggest including details about respondents’ characteristics in the sample section. So, readers have enough information about the nature of the sample composition while reading the subsequent results.

Response:

Thank you, the required information was included in sample collection.

 

(Results)

18) I suggest separating “Results” from “Discussions” in two different sections. The results “present” the outcomes of the analysis, and hypotheses testing. Then, another section to discuss these results in line with previous studies. Mixing them is making it difficult to read.

Response:

We agreed and it was done and, indeed, it eases to follow the ideas.

 

19) H1 assumes a negative link between “intention” and “economic value of waste” and the results (in the text) say that the relationship is negative. But this is not reflected in table 3. Actually, in table 3, the coefficient value is “positive” which signifies a positive (not negative) link. The same applies to H5, and so on. This is maybe because it is not clear how the variables are measured.

Response:

The hypotheses were rephrased in order to clarify the relation between variables. Thank you.

 

20) The coefficient value in H5 is above 1. This seems problematic: the coefficient value should lie between 1 and -1. This may be due to an error. Please clarify this issue.

Response:

They are not standardized coefficients.

 

21) In Figure 2, it is better to add the value of each coefficient on the links.

Response:

We included the coefficients in new Figure 2.

 

(Conclusion)

22) This section should reflect the key “theoretical” and “practical” contributions of the study with a focus on its “main findings” and how such findings extend our knowledge

Response:

We worked on these suggestions and highlighted both contributions.

 

23) Given what is presented here, this paper falls short in answering ALL the questions highlighted in its introduction (the following long list of questions were raised: How aware are consumers of the food they waste and its economic value? What is the science behind the fact that the reduction of wastage will impact expenses? What attitudes motivate pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase decisions? Do those activities have an impact on food waste? What would motivate us to waste less? Are individuals aware that such behaviors increase or decrease wastage?) So, it is suggested to focus on 1 or maybe 2 overarching questions that guide this study, and the conclusion should focus on how these questions were answered.

Response:

Thank you for the inspiring questions. We have reflected once again and improved the paper.

 

24) Given that a plethora of studies on “Household Food Waste” was published before COVID, and the current study takes a “during-pandemic perspective”, I expected to see a discussion on how “pandemics” affect food waste (if any)? How this pressing issue of food waste could benefit from what is going on? How this during-pandemic study speaks to what we know? For example, previous studies indicated that to motivate food waste reduction at the household level, we need to consider consumer attitudes (e.g., Graham-Rowe et al., 2015), subjective norms, (e.g., Stancu et al., 2016), perceived behavioral control (Russell et al., 2017), personal norms (e.g., Pakpour et al., 2014) and religiosity (e.g., Elhoushy and Jang 2020), to name but a few. So, do we need different strategies during a pandemic? How your work extends what we know?

Response:

Some literature was included and, also, we made a higher effort on thinking on the previous literature.

 

25) Some limitations were mentioned in the data analysis section. I recommend putting all limitations in the conclusion.
Response:

Thank you for this advice, it was considered too.

 

Thank you once again for your relevant contributions, we really appreciated your time and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with an important issue of consumption bahaviour and foods waste in Brazil.

The strengths of the paper are as follows - research material from the research material on changes in purchasing behaviour and food waste behaviour in brazilian households.

The Article is interesting however it needs additional clarification.

For detailed comments, please see the pdf attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2, thank you for the continued effort in reviewing this manuscript! We appreciated all your feedback!

 

• The moment when the study was done should be better described in relation to the development of the Covid pandemic, the restrictions introduced, e.g. on how consumers purchase food, freedom of movement, etc.

Response:

We agreed and have considered your suggestions in this revised version. The information can be found in the title and introduction section.

 

• Next, the title should be more precise - clearly show what stage of the COVID-19 pandemic? The continental development stage of the COVID-19 pandemic? The global spread of the new virus disease? Please clarify the title. It is currently too broad and in the context of the results presented it is extremely important. The spring/summer season of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak? The economic freeze period in the results of the COVID-19 pandemic?

Response:

Thank you for these suggestions, the title has been changed and all the required information was included at the introduction section.

 

• Many of the results indicate that the pandemic significantly affected behavior change, especially consumption and food waste.

Response:

We agreed.

 

• Too superficially prepared abstract.

Response:

Thanks, abstract was improved and we provided more details.

 

• The paper has multiple objectives - which the current description does not express.

Response:

We provided more clear information about the research goals.

 

• Introduction - The audience of the journal is international. The problem e.g.: household food waste, which is global and affects essentially the whole world, is a major challenge. Introduction needs to be rebuilt starting from an international context, with research from a country like Brazil as an example of where this problem has been monitored.
  Response:

Thank you, we improved that.

 

• Expand information on the contribution of households to food waste, in the U.S., Europe, or other parts of the world. However, in my opinion some changes should be introduced in the paper: - lines 42-46 - What happened in other countries? - analysis needs to be deepened - lines 87-89 – Unnecessary

Response:

Thank you, following your suggestions, we explained in the introduction section.

 

Methodology - Explain in more depth the description of the sample and the criteria for selecting respondents for the study

Response:

More detailed information was included in order to make clearer the criteria. Please, check the new sample collection section.

 

Line 203-205 – . You also seem to have missed a couple of important references in the food waste research:
Response:

Thank you for this remark. It was very helpful and we included both in this and other studies listed.

 

It is also worth noting the need to build, strengthen B&C relations. After their disruption as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, entrepreneurs on the road to reducing food loss and waste will have to look even more carefully at consumers and understand anew the needs and expectations of their customers (especially in terms of financial and physical security scares) and adjust their business models and offerings accordingly

Response:

Thank you for the suggestion, we highlighted these aspects both in results and conclusions.

 

What were the sampling criteria adopted for the study? To what degree does the study sample reflect the structure of the general population?

Response:

Thank you, more detailed information was included to make the criteria clearer. Please, find these modifications Sample Collection section.

 

Lines – 282 -284 - Refine according to the aim and title of the study

Response:

Perfect, we revised.

 

Lines 328 - 330 - Based on what information provided from respondents, do the authors claim that respondents have increased awareness? Here and in the following sentences of the manuscript - please note that this is only a declaration by the respondents

Response:

Thank you for the suggestion. The details are presented in the new Table 1 and the reflection was improved and also included at conclusions.

 

Lines - 326 – 339 - Too limited literature review – supplement

Response:

We agreed and it was improved based, mostly, upon all the recommended material by reviewers and editor.

 

Lines 347 – 351 - Please specify categories of reasons - too general, it is difficult to grasp differences between categories a and b; category c - very general

Response:

Thank you, we have improved it.

 

Lines – 469 – 471 - Does this reflect the general population of Brazil? If not - this fact is not worth accenting.

Response:

More information has been provided to explain and justify this issue. Please, check in the new Sample Collection section.

 

The authors insufficiently related consumer behaviors and their food wasting practices during the first period of the pandemic. They did not indicate what the nature of these behaviors were prior to the pandemic and did not identify how they differ from behaviors during the first periods of the pandemic? Can the authors unequivocally confirm that the pandemic had an impact on behavior toward such a phenomenon as food waste?

Response:

Thank you, we have included these remarks in the methodology.

 

The need for further research at the household level:

a/ representations declare their behaviors and they should be verified;

b/ "look into the fridge" "into the basket" and as a result of monitoring the phenomena, determine the behaviours, potential for change, manifestations of change e.g. wasting food.

o There is a need for good practices, guides, educators, etc.

Response:

Thank you for the contributions, we have included in this new version.

 

 

Thank you once again for your time and suggestions, we really appreciated that.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for your efforts writing this paper.

This manuscript studies the Brazilian consumers behaviour related to residential food waste during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study is based on previous similar publications (Jribi, 2020). The topic of the paper is interesting and relevant.

The analysis is based on descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis to prove the association between the dependent and independent variables. The questionnaire included 60 questions structured in 7 categories. The 458 valid answers were obtained via Google Forms and analyzed by using SPSS.

Results show that there are no substantial differences in relation to gender, education, and age. According to this survey Brazilians preferred shopping in person, unlike the recommendations about social distancing, and avoided waste.

The following comments aim to improve the manuscript quality further. There are a few issues that I recommend addressing:

C1. Please discuss if sample is large enough. Sample size is 458. Brazil 2020 population is estimated more than 212 million people.  

C2. In the section “2.1. Questionnaire” the same category was twice repeated: “The questionnaire included 60 questions structured in 7 categories: 1. Behavior of purchase and expenditure, 2. Behavior of purchase and expenditures”.

C3. Abstract: “the intention to reduce waste… positively affects the value of waste.”

Section: 4.2 “the intention to reduce food wastage … significantly and inversely related to the economic value of the waste”.

Does it positively affect the value of waste or is it inversely related to it?

C4. Please improve the organization of the paper. Maybe it would be a good idea to have one chapter dedicated to literature review and another one dedicated to methodology: Just before “2. Methodology” authors inform that the methodology used is presented in Section 2, nevertheless Section 2 not only covers methodology, but also literature review, named “2.4. Background Analysis”. Some subsections only include literature review, for instance “2.4.1. Purchasing and Food Consumption Behavior”, meanwhile others also include methodology, for instance “2.4.2. Food Waste”.

C5. Please include in section 2.3 the multiple regression analysis explanation and formula. The choice of the applied method must be well grounded and the research technique must be appropriately explained.

C6. Please improve English grammar and writing style.

C7. Please only use American English or British English, but don’t mix both. Example: labeling (US) versus labelling (UK).

C8. Table 1 shows the sociodemographic data of the “respondents” of the study. Table 2 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the “consumer”. Why do you make a difference?

C9. It was a good idea to show 8 variables answers in a table. It would also be a good idea to show the rest of the variables answers in a table.

C10. Please include avenues for future research.

I congratulate the authors for this interesting investigation and wish them the most success in their research activities.

Thank you very much for your efforts and for your valuable scientific contribution.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3, thank you for the continued effort in reviewing this manuscript! We appreciate all your feedback!

 

C1. Please discuss if sample is large enough. Sample size is 458. Brazil 2020 population is estimated more than 212 million people.

Response:

We provided further information related to sample and criteria for its definition that is explained in the new Sample Collection section. Thank you.

 

C2. In the section “2.1. Questionnaire” the same category was twice repeated: “The questionnaire included 60 questions structured in 7 categories: 1. Behavior of purchase and expenditure, 2. Behavior of purchase and expenditures”.

Response:

We checked and verified, it was a mistake and now it is shown as: “2) knowledge of food labeling information”.

 

C3. Abstract: “the intention to reduce waste... positively affects the value of waste.”

Section: 4.2 “the intention to reduce food wastage ... significantly and inversely related to the economic value of the waste”. Does it positively affect the value of waste or is it inversely related to it?

Response:

The hypotheses were rephrased in order to clarify the relations among variables.

 

C4. Please improve the organization of the paper. Maybe it would be a good idea to have one chapter dedicated to literature review and another one dedicated to methodology: Just before “2. Methodology” authors inform that the methodology used is presented in Section 2, nevertheless Section 2 not only covers methodology, but also literature review, named “2.4. Background Analysis”. Some subsections only include literature review, for instance “2.4.1. Purchasing and Food Consumption Behavior”, meanwhile others also include methodology, for instance “2.4.2. Food Waste”.

 

Response:

We reconsidered the structure and adapted to the recommended format. Thank you.

 

C5. Please include in section 2.3 the multiple regression analysis explanation and formula. The choice of the applied method must be well grounded and the research technique must be appropriately explained.

Response:

Thank you, we have explained in analyses of the hypotheses.

 

C6. Please improve English grammar and writing style. C7. Please only use American English or British English, but don’t mix both. Example: labeling (US) versus labelling (UK).

Response:

Ok, thank you. We revised the whole paper accordingly.

 

C8. Table 1 shows the sociodemographic data of the “respondents” of the study. Table 2 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the “consumer”. Why do you make a difference?

Response:

Both tables are “Respondents”, so It was changed. Thank you.

 

C9. It was a good idea to show 8 variables answers in a table. It would also be a good idea to show the rest of the variables answers in a table.

Response:

Please, see the new Table 1 that explains the variables.

 

C10. Please include avenues for future research

Response:

Thank you, we included in this revised version.

 

Thank you once again for your time and insightful suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,
I think the manuscript has been improved after this first round of revision. Important pieces of information were added within a more structured academic article. After reading the responses to first-round comments, and the revised manuscript, I believe this manuscript still has major concerns:

First, the paper applies “self-reported measures” using “single method” and collects “cross-sectional data”, there is nothing wrong with any of these elements per se, yet a basic golden rule for accepting results from such method (or others) is that the “measurements” used to collect data must be “valid” and “reliable” both statistically and theoretically, which is missing in the current manuscript:

• Theoretically, I cannot see, for example, why the following items “measure” the construct termed “Intention of reducing food wastage”:

“

Table 1
Intention of reducing food wastage

In your opinion, what do you need to start reducing food waste in your home?

− I have not thought / I am not interested in reducing food waste!

− Receive information on the negative impacts of food waste on the economy! – Receive information on the negative impacts of food waste on society!

− Receive information on the negative impacts of food waste on the environment!

− Clear labeling on the food I buy!

− Have different sizes for the foods I buy! − Receibe a tax Benefit!

− Have laws that promote it!

− No waste!

“

• If the manuscript defines “intention” based on the theory of planned behavior (Reference 43 cited by the authors), why they replaced the most common/used measure of intention with this list of items, which I believe does not measure/reflect the construct of intentions.
• Statistically, the manuscript reports that: “The internal consistency of the constructs was tested using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The results proven to be satisfactory (Cronbach’s α = 0.682)”. This value is questionable; it is not clear for which construct, or it is for all or half of the questions. Many of the constructs, as it appears in Table 1, seem to be measured using a “single item/question”.

Second, another major point highlighted in round 1 is the proposed conceptual model and its underlying logic.

• Does it hold theoretically to position “intentions” at the same level with other consumption/waste behaviors? Why intentions to reduce food waste is positioned as the predictor of “economic value of food waste”? Why not the other way around? For example, one may think that the higher the economic value of waste, the higher would be the intentions of household members to reduce it.
• Also, I find it buzzing that the formulation (i.e., directionality: positive/negative) of the hypotheses has changed from the previous version to this one!
• Referring, for instance, to comment 5 in round 1:

“

5) The list of independent variables (food purchase planning routines, purchase planning routines of food on sale, knowledge of labeling, routines for handling leftovers or uneaten food, and activities to avoid food wastage) is troubling:

On which basis the variables were developed? Are those variables “conceptually” independent? They seem to be interrelated (e.g., routines appear in three of them).

What are the correlations between these predictors? Have you tested for multicollinearity? And how these variables are measured? Using single or multiple items? No information was provided regarding the validity and reliability of such measures.

Response:

Thank you for this remark, we included these independent/dependent variables in order to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding in the new Table 1.

”

• Looking at the conceptual issues highlighted above, revised manuscript and Table 1, as suggested by the authors. I couldn’t find answers to most of these questions, where Table 1 only lists the questions asked and the source.

Good luck. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer. Please, find attached the response letter addressing all your queries. Warm regards, The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I congratulate the authors, the presented version of the article is more correct. However, please note the following.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer. Please, find attached the response letter addressing all your queries. Warm regards, The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your answers to my comments. In this 3^rd round of review and believing in the “developmental approach” of reviewing, which as an author would like reviewers to follow with my papers, I put below, hopefully in clear language, some minor points that could be applied and so improve the paper as well as reframing my major concern.

Please take them as positively as you could. Our common goal is to have a high-quality paper that applies rigorous methods and contributes to knowledge & practice, and, of course, you may accept or reject one, or even all of the comments.

Best regards,

Minor:

Title: “Consumption behavior and residential food waste during the first stage of COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil”.

• What do you mean by the first stage? Do you mean the Outbreak? If yes, please use “Outbreak”. Or maybe the first wave? If this first stage is something specific to a stage-based classification in Brazil, please refer to this stage’s time frame considering your data collection period, in the methods section.
• You may benefit from: Chronopoulos et al. (2020) who divided the sample period into four phases of COVID-19: incubation (1st-17th January), outbreak (January 18th-February 21st), fever (February 22nd-March 22nd), and lockdown (March 23rd–7th April 2020).

Abstract:

Line 9: “The objective of this research was to inquire the consumption behavior and residential food waste in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic”.

• This paper is focused on COVID-19, but none of the constructs (in the model) was specifically related to the pandemic. One good question could be: How engagement in stockpiling during a pandemic outbreak affects food waste? Authors might refer to this in future studies.
• Also, in table 1, some questions started with “during the quarantine period”. Other questions’ headings were“general” with no reference to the Pandemic. Example: “When you buy your food, do you? do you use a shopping list? Answer options: − Always, Most of the time yes, Sometimes yes-sometimes no, Most of the time no, Never”. Why? This issue needs to be acknowledged and justified.

Line 15: “… there are no substantial differences in relation to gender, education, and age”. Probably, the use of “no significant difference” is clearer.

“The surveyed preferred shopping in person”. Please use, the respondents preferred.  

Line22: “The theoretical contribution leads to understanding the changes in behavior in times of crisis such as the pandemic”.

• Beyond the theoretical contribution issue, I am not sure if this paper's core point is to understand “changes in behavior”. I understand that a couple of questions (e.g., online, physical purchase) about the pandemic were asked, still, there was no “theory”, or “theoretical contribution” to “behavior change” during crises. Instead, the paper examines the food waste economic value and pinpoints potential predictors.
• This does not reduce the value of your paper, just to communicate the right outcome.

 

Introduction

Throughout the paper, the authors sometimes use “Food waste”, and sometimes “Food wastage”, or “the wastage of food”, etc. I suggest using consistent language. Readers will not get bored from using consistent terms but may get confused from using multiple terms to refer to the same thing.

Line 47: “…the pandemic also generated an increase in the losses of these products in retail markets with a consequent reduction in traders’ income”. What do you mean by “losses”? Does it mean “lack of some products due to hoarding”?

Line 80: “through on line surveys”: You mean online, right?

• NOTE: I think a language check can be very helpful, in general.

Line 87: “Therefore, to close this gap in literature, this study analyzes the factors, scope and implications of household food wastage in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic”. What do you mean by scope?

I suggest in this line to focus on the key part/proposal in your study. For example, the current study examines the perceived economic value of food waste and its predictors in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Line 89: “In addition, this research was based on conducted by Jribi et al. [11]”. Based on what? Please complete the statement.

Lines 96-100: “Therefore, the following questions were raised: How aware are consumers of the food they report to waste and its economic value? What is the science behind the fact that the reduction of wastage will impact expenses? What attitudes motivate pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase decisions? Do those activities have an impact on food waste? What would motivate us to waste less? Are individuals aware that such behaviors increase or decrease wastage?”

• As noted in the first round of review, this list of questions is AMAZING, but some of them are either not clear or are not answered/addressed in this particular manuscript.
• For example, “What is the science behind the fact that the reduction of wastage will impact expenses?” Does “science” the correct word here? Is it a “fact” that reduction of wastage will impact expenses? Importantly, the paper has nothing to do with “Reduction of wastage and its impact on expenses”. At least those are not the terms that appear in your model and hypotheses.
• “How aware are consumers of the food they report to waste and its economic value?” I think the paper did not assess awareness with regard to the “economic value of food waste”. So, a researcher cannot tell (in my opinion) whether those who chose “Less than R$ 25 [US $ 4.25]” or “More than R$ 200 [US $ 34]” are more or less aware.Yet, “knowledge about labeling” was studied. So, I suggest using consistent language and focus on what is studied/reported in the subsequent parts.
• “What attitudes motivate pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase decisions?” Again, I do not see that “attitudes” that motivate pre-purchase, purchase, etc. were studied in this paper. The paper asked, for example, whether or not respondents use a “shopping list”, right? If that is the case, what attitudes motivate the practice of using a shopping list were not studied, right?
• So, back to round 1 suggestion. Please focus on ONE or TWO overarching question(s) that this study addressed, instead of a long list of “amazing” but not answered questions. This will not reduce the value of your paper.

Theoretical background

Lines 115-116: “…the food waste is defined as the disposal of food by neglect or by conscious decision rather than the loss of what is lost [35]”.

• This definition is confusing. What is the “loss of what is lost”? Please rephrase it to make it clearer.
• It would be helpful also to think about/define “food waste” given the way it is seen/operationalized in this paper. In other words, a definition that takes into account the “economic value of food waste at the household level” can fit the case.

NOTE: I liked the added parts that give some context about the Brazilian case, e.g., income levels, cultural issues. Good job here.

Lines 154-155: “One of the most common theories to explain the behavior of food consumption is that people’s behavior is determined by the intention to perform a specific behavior [43].”.

• The intention-behavior link is one of the many proposed hypotheses in the “theory of reasoned action” and its successor the “Theory of planned behavior”. It is more informative to highlight this background in the text.

Page 4: This part can be improved/restructured. It starts by talking about intentions as a driver of behavior, then in the same paragraph, it talks about “control” and routines, and demographics. Then, the following paragraph goes general by talking about consumer behavior, purchasing and food waste, and what the world tries to do. Then, it goes back to intentions as a driver of behavior. Then, the methods of measuring food waste (surveys, dairies, etc.). Then, it goes back again to the motives of reducing waste…

• My suggestion is to finetune the paragraphs to make sure that each paragraph focuses on only one key idea. It could be better also to have a sub-heading for each hypothesis.
• Example: “1. Intention to reduce food waste”

(under this sub-heading discuss only what relates to this construct as a predictor to the DV (i.e., Economic value of food waste).

Line 180: “is related to with behavioral”. Remove with.

 

Line 226: “it is assumed that, when buying food in the sale, its cost is reduced and therefore the cost of waste food, since it was bought at a lower price”.

• This logic suggests that the economic value of waste will be reduced because the cost of buying the product on sale was lower in the first place not because people reduce waste. This logic is not consistent with other hypotheses (see H1, Line 181: for example).
• In contrast to the proposed hypothesis, one may say that special offers might induce people to buy more and so waste more (This is by the way is more consistent with results in table 4).

Methodology

Suggestion: Instead of the long discussion of the different methods of quantifying waste across studies (e.g., diaries, etc.), I would indicate directly that the current study used a questionnaire or self-reported measure. Then, I can put the reasons such as the pandemic restrictions, etc.

 

Lines 348-353: “The adaptation of the questionnaire of previous studies performed in North Africa [11, 33, 34], to adapt it to the objectives of this study. The adaptations were based on of fering more response alternatives in those items in which the answer was yes/no, to obtain more specific information on the preferences of the respondents.”

“Second, the type of response options was changed from dichotomous to polytomous”.

• Please discuss in detail the adaptations made. What was added to the original measures exactly? Why and based on what? Expert views, a pilot test? A literature analysis? The major point here is that changing original measures (by adding alternative answers, adding more items, removing items, combining items, etc.) needs to go through a rigorous process. Otherwise, the validity of the measures is questionable!
• Include all the questions asked. For example, the authors discuss some changes in behavior before and during the pandemic. But they do not include what was asked? How they assessed those changes?

Line 385: The internal consistency of the constructs was tested using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the entire instrument”.

• As far as I know, when we measure the consistency (validity) of a construct, we include the items used to measure this specific construct to assess to what extent the construct is explained by the items, right? Why did you include ALL the questions/items of ALL constructs in one analysis?
• Note: The Cronbach’s alpha table included in the “response to reviewers” had many questions/items that do not appear in the manuscript.

 

Line 339: “The lost data did not exceed 10% of the cases. Please use missing data.

• Suggestion: Instead of “Food purchase planning routines” which is a complex label given the way this variable is measured in table 1 (single question about the use of shopping list). It seems more realistic/easier to name it “Use of Shopping list”
• Also, I find it puzzling to find the word “routine” after the word “planning”. I refer to the cognitive nature of the latter and the automaticity of the former.

I know that Stancu et al. [41], for example, used the term “Planning Routines”, yet they measured it using a valid scale of two items that go in line with their definition:

“The shopping trips are usually planned in advance (shopping list are made, inventories are checked, etc.) The home meals are usually planned for a couple of days ahead. Scale: strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7)”.

“4.3. Treatment of hypotheses”. Please use “Testing…”.  

 Results/discussion

Line 589: “the results (…) confirms what is reported in the reviewed literature, that the use of the shopping list is key to prevent and reduce food waste at home [11, 33, 34, 51].

• This study’s results did not confirm the role of using a shopping list. So, please revisit this statement.

Lines 612-613: “Apart from this, those findings exposed significant relations among awareness, age, and education and did not suggest significant connections between the awareness of food wastage and sociodemographic characteristics [11, 614 29].”

• This statement is not clear. The first part (i.e., “significant relations among awareness, age, and education”) seems to contradict the second (i.e., “did not suggest significant connections between the awareness of food wastage and sociodemographic characteristics”). Please revisit it.

Line 622: “Intention to reduce wastage [H1]. As stated by Stancu et al. [41] and Soorani et al. [18], it was expected that a greater intention to reduce wastage would diminish its economic value”.

• Does Stancu et al. [41] state that a greater intention to reduce wastage would diminish its economic value? I think their work examined the link between “intentions not to waste food” and “food waste behaviors”, among other things.

Lines 641-645: “The purchase of food on sale [H3] will reduce the economic value of waste if buying for sale reduces food spending. The hypothesis that purchasing food on sale contributes to the reduction of the economic value of waste was partially confirmed. This is explained because food is worthless (the amount or type of food does not change) and isaligned with changes in purchasing during times of crisis and uncertainty when seeking  to make savings [36, 37, 60, 52].”

• The explanation provided is not clear. Given the counter result of H3, please elaborate more on the possible explanations. I would say, as indicated earlier, buying food on sale may lead to buying more, especially during a pandemic where people stockpile products.

Major

Not to repeat, in the previous rounds, I gave the example of “intention to reduce food wastage” and highlighted that the question/items used to measure intentions does not measure intentions.

• I carefully read the author's response. And I agree that intention is important. I agree that the literature highlighted how much this variable is relevant and it is based on one of the most applied theories (i.e., TPB of Ajzen). Yet, my point is that the measure used does not reflect intentions. The items used are very diversified and capture a lot of nuances. I am afraid if we give this list of items to a panel of experts and ask them to suggest a label, the outcome won’t be “intentions to reduce food wastage”. I hope this point is clear.
• As for ending up with single questions/items after factor analysis. It is really hard to assess the validity and reliability of single-item measures. Reading some papers on using “single item measures” and their shortcomings can be of help.

I like the idea of assessing the economic value of food waste. So, it is not the amount of the wasted food, but the economic value from a consumer’s lens. But, back to the unresolved issues from previous rounds, I could find neither your acceptance/modification nor rejection/justification of the following issues:

• I am aware that intention is (presumed to be) an important predictor of “food waste behavior”. But why “Intentions to reduce food waste” is a predictor of its economic value? What about the other way around? That is, the higher economic value of food waste will trigger stronger intentions to reduce. This is consistent with the strong logic/line of research on the attitude-intention where “saving money” is an important element of the overall attitude, which in turn predicts intention to reduce food waste.
• The predictors are supposed to be distinctive (capture unique aspects in the issue under investigation and contribute significantly to its explanation). This is not the case, in my opinion, for many constructs. For example, the construct labeled “Activities to avoid food wastage” is very similar to (includes) the construct named “Management routines of leftovers or uneaten food”. If we look at Table 1, most of the items used to measure the former construct were used to measure the latter! This clear overlap between constructs and their measurement items is a concern.

(Note. Being conceptually distinctive does not apply to “cause and effect” studies per se. It is a general quality in building a research model (like the one you propose), regardless of testing the model using a correlational design, or using an experimental one).

Again, wish you good luck, and I am sorry I cannot be more positive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1

 

 

COMMENT: Title: “Consumption behavior and residential food waste during the first stage of COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil”.

What do you mean by the first stage? Do you mean the Outbreak? If yes, please use “Outbreak”. Or maybe the first wave? If this first stage is something specific to a stage-based classification in Brazil, please refer to this stage’s time frame considering your data collection period, in the methods section.

You may benefit from: Chronopoulos et al. (2020) who divided the sample period into four phases of COVID-19: incubation (1st-17th January), outbreak (January 18th-February 21st), fever (February 22nd-March 22nd), and lockdown (March 23rd–7th April 2020).

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you for your suggestion and the literature recommendation. After revising Chronopoulos et al. (2020) we decided to replace the terminology “first stage” for outbreack, as it is the closest that we can find for the Brazilian context.

 

 

COMMENT: Line 9: “The objective of this research was to inquire the consumption behavior and residential food waste in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic”.

 

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: We agree and it was replaced by “The objective of this research was is inquire the self-reported food consumption and wastage behavior in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak and the motivations to prevent this waste.”

 

 

 

 

 

COMMENT: This paper is focused on COVID-19, but none of the constructs (in the model) was specifically related to the pandemic. One good question could be: How engagement in stockpiling during a pandemic outbreak affects food waste? Authors might refer to this in future studies.

 

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: We agreed and have inserted it in lines 743-744 “

 

 

 

 

COMMENT: Also, in table 1, some questions started with “during the quarantine period”. Other questions’ headings were “general” with no reference to the Pandemic. Example: “When you buy your food, do you? do you use a shopping list? Answer options: − Always, Most of the time yes, Sometimes yes-sometimes no, Most of the time no, Never”. Why? This issue needs to be acknowledged and justified.

 

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Since the beginning of our survey we explained to the respondents that all the questions and answers were related to the pandemic period. However, in order avoid any repetitive sentences in some questions, the pandemic was mentioned while in others it was not.

 

COMMENT: Line 15: “… there are no substantial differences in relation to gender, education, and age”. Probably, the use of “no significant difference” is clearer.

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you,  we revised and replaced as you suggested.

 

COMMENT: “The surveyed preferred shopping in person”. Please use, the respondents preferred.

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you, we revised and replaced as you suggested.

 

COMMENT: Line22: “The theoretical contribution leads to understanding the changes in behavior in times of crisis such as the pandemic”.

• Beyond the theoretical contribution issue, I am not sure if this paper's core point is to understand “changes in behavior”. I understand that a couple of questions (e.g., online, physical purchase) about the pandemic were asked, still, there was no “theory”, or “theoretical contribution” to “behavior change” during crises. Instead, the paper examines the food waste economic value and pinpoints potential predictors.
• This does not reduce the value of your paper, just to communicate the right outcome.

 

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: We recognize that you are right. Thus, we decided to remove the idea of changes of behavior during the pandemic to “behavior during the pandemic”.

 

 

COMMENT: Introduction - Throughout the paper, the authors sometimes use “Food waste”, and sometimes “Food wastage”, or “the wastage of food”, etc. I suggest using consistent language. Readers will not get bored from using consistent terms but may get confused from using multiple terms to refer to the same thing.

 

AUTHORS

 

 

COMMENT: Line 47: “…the pandemic also generated an increase in the losses of these products in retail markets with a consequent reduction in traders’ income”. What do you mean by “losses”? Does it mean “lack of some products due to hoarding”?

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: In fact, it was due to a previous problem in translation of our quotes and we decided to remove it.

 

 

 

COMMENT: Line 80: “through on line surveys”: You mean online, right?

• NOTE: I think a language check can be very helpful, in general.

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you for your recommendation. We have requested for professional proofreading and the mistakes were fixed.

 

 

COMMENT: Line 87: “Therefore, to close this gap in literature, this study analyzes the factors, scope and implications of household food wastage in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic”. What do you mean by scope?

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: We decided to remove the word ‘scope’.

 

COMMENT: I suggest in this line to focus on the key part/proposal in your study. For example, the current study examines the perceived economic value of food waste and its predictors in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: We modified and the new text is seem in lines 83-85

“the current study examines the perceived economic value of food waste and its predictors in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak.”

 

COMMENT: Line 89: “In addition, this research was based on conducted by Jribi et al. [11]”. Based on what? Please complete the statement.

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: It was a typo issue. Now, it is seem as “In addition, this research was based on the study conducted by Jribi et al. [11]”

 

COMMENT: Lines 96-100: “Therefore, the following questions were raised: How aware are consumers of the food they report to waste and its economic value? What is the science behind the fact that the reduction of wastage will impact expenses? What attitudes motivate pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase decisions? Do those activities have an impact on food waste? What would motivate us to waste less? Are individuals aware that such behaviors increase or decrease wastage?” As noted in the first round of review, this list of questions is AMAZING, but some of them are either not clear or are not answered/addressed in this particular manuscript.

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: We decided to follow your recommendation to keep only one question: “How aware are consumers of the food consumption and the food they report to waste and its economic value?” – lines 93 – 94.

 

 

COMMENT: For example, “What is the science behind the fact that the reduction of wastage will impact expenses?” Does “science” the correct word here? Is it a “fact” that reduction of wastage will impact expenses? Importantly, the paper has nothing to do with “Reduction of wastage and its impact on expenses”. At least those are not the terms that appear in your model and hypotheses.

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Since we removed the question, the word ‘science’ is not any longer in text.

 

COMMENT: “How aware are consumers of the food they report to waste and its economic value?” I think the paper did not assess awareness with regard to the “economic value of food waste”. So, a researcher cannot tell (in my opinion) whether those who chose “Less than R$ 25 [US $ 4.25]” or “More than R$ 200 [US $ 34]” are more or less aware. Yet, “knowledge about labeling” was studied. So, I suggest using consistent language and focus on what is studied/reported in the subsequent parts.

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Since we removed the question, it does not appear in the text anymore.

 

 

 

COMMENT: “What attitudes motivate pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase decisions?” Again, I do not see that “attitudes” that motivate pre-purchase, purchase, etc. were studied in this paper. The paper asked, for example, whether or not respondents use a “shopping list”, right? If that is the case, what attitudes motivate the practice of using a shopping list were not studied, right?

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: We removed the question and it does not appear in text anymore.

 

COMMENT: So, back to round 1 suggestion. Please focus on ONE or TWO overarching question(s) that this study addressed, instead of a long list of “amazing” but not answered questions. This will not reduce the value of your paper.

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you for the helpful recommendation, we proceeded as requested.

 

COMMENT: Theoretical background

Lines 115-116: “…the food waste is defined as the disposal of food by neglect or by conscious decision rather than the loss of what is lost [35]”.

• This definition is confusing. What is the “loss of what is lost”? Please rephrase it to make it clearer.
• It would be helpful also to think about/define “food waste” given the way it is seen/operationalized in this paper. In other words, a definition that takes into account the “economic value of food waste at the household level” can fit the case.

NOTE: I liked the added parts that give some context about the Brazilian case, e.g., income levels, cultural issues. Good job here.

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: It was a problem in translation. Thus, the new text is presented as: ““…the food waste is defined as the disposal of food by neglect or by conscious decision rather than the loss…”

 

COMMENT: Lines 154-155: “One of the most common theories to explain the behavior of food consumption is that people’s behavior is determined by the intention to perform a specific behavior [43].”.

• The intention-behavior link is one of the many proposed hypotheses in the “theory of reasoned action” and its successor the “Theory of planned behavior”. It is more informative to highlight this background in the text.

Page 4: This part can be improved/restructured. It starts by talking about intentions as a driver of behavior, then in the same paragraph, it talks about “control” and routines, and demographics. Then, the following paragraph goes general by talking about consumer behavior, purchasing and food waste, and what the world tries to do. Then, it goes back to intentions as a driver of behavior. Then, the methods of measuring food waste (surveys, dairies, etc.). Then, it goes back again to the motives of reducing waste…

• My suggestion is to finetune the paragraphs to make sure that each paragraph focuses on only one key idea. It could be better also to have a sub-heading for each hypothesis.
• Example: “1. Intention to reduce food waste”

(under this sub-heading discuss only what relates to this construct as a predictor to the DV (i.e., Economic value of food waste)

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you for these important remarks. However, the theory of planned behavior is not the basis of this paper or its model. This theory only serves to establish the relationship between intention and economic value. Therefore, it is not necessary to explore in depth the previous theories/literature in this field.

Also the subtitle “Intention to reduce food waste” (line 131) was included as suggested and the text was modified restructuring it as indicated, from lines 151 to 198.

 

 

 

 

COMMENT: Line 180: “is related to with behavioral”. Remove with.

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you, the text was revised.

 

 

COMMENT: Line 226: “it is assumed that, when buying food in the sale, its cost is reduced and therefore the cost of waste food, since it was bought at a lower price”.

• This logic suggests that the economic value of waste will be reduced because the cost of buying the product on sale was lower in the first place not because people reduce waste. This logic is not consistent with other hypotheses (see H1, Line 181: for example).
• In contrast to the proposed hypothesis, one may say that special offers might induce people to buy more and so waste more (This is by the way is more consistent with results in table 4).
•  

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: This idea has been removed.

COMMENT: Methodology

Suggestion: Instead of the long discussion of the different methods of quantifying waste across studies (e.g., diaries, etc.), I would indicate directly that the current study used a questionnaire or self-reported measure. Then, I can put the reasons such as the pandemic restrictions, etc.

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: We inserted this part due to previous comments and recommendations from either other reviewer or editor. However, neither we agree that these long discussion helps to better understand our study. So, we thank you for this remark, due we are more comfortable and confident to remove this entire part of our manuscript.

COMMENT: Lines 348-353: “The adaptation of the questionnaire of previous studies performed in North Africa [11, 33, 34], to adapt it to the objectives of this study. The adaptations were based on of fering more response alternatives in those items in which the answer was yes/no, to obtain more specific information on the preferences of the respondents.”

“Second, the type of response options was changed from dichotomous to polytomous”.

• Please discuss in detail the adaptations made. What was added to the original measures exactly? Why and based on what? Expert views, a pilot test? A literature analysis? The major point here is that changing original measures (by adding alternative answers, adding more items, removing items, combining items, etc.) needs to go through a rigorous process. Otherwise, the validity of the measures is questionable!
• Include all the questions asked. For example, the authors discuss some changes in behavior before and during the pandemic. But they do not include what was asked? How they assessed those changes?

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you, those adaptations were more related to language, culture and understanding of the intended message. Moreover, since we needed to adapt the material to this period of pandemic, it was important to highlight that we were not just studying a regular consumption and waste period, but during the pandemic consumption and waste period.

 

COMMENT: Line 385: The internal consistency of the constructs was tested using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the entire instrument”.

• As far as I know, when we measure the consistency (validity) of a construct, we include the items used to measure this specific construct to assess to what extent the construct is explained by the items, right? Why did you include ALL the questions/items of ALL constructs in one analysis?
• Note: The Cronbach’s alpha table included in the “response to reviewers” had many questions/items that do not appear in the manuscript.
•  

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you for your comments. The table where Cronbach's Alpha is presented with all the questions was sent as a detailed answer to the reviewer's question, in order to demonstrate the consistency of all the constructs in the instrument. The statistical technique used was factor analysis. Then, following similar investigations that use the same method, only the items that loaded according to the research goals were presented in the paper.

 

 

 

 

 

COMMENT: Line 339: “The lost data did not exceed 10% of the cases. Please use missing data.

•  

• Suggestion: Instead of “Food purchase planning routines” which is a complex label given the way this variable is measured in table 1 (single question about the use of shopping list). It seems more realistic/easier to name it “Use of Shopping list”

•  

• Also, I find it puzzling to find the word “routine” after the word “planning”. I refer to the cognitive nature of the latter and the automaticity of the former.

 

•  

I know that Stancu et al. [41], for example, used the term “Planning Routines”, yet they measured it using a valid scale of two items that go in line with their definition:

“The shopping trips are usually planned in advance (shopping list are made, inventories are checked, etc.) The home meals are usually planned for a couple of days ahead. Scale: strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7)”.

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you for your remarks. The term ‘

lost data’ was replaced by missing data.  The term ‘

food purchase planning routines’ was replaced by planning routines, based in the idea of authors we took as reference – this point may be seem in lines 214- 222 and 243-260.

 

COMMENT: Results/discussion “4.3. Treatment of hypotheses”. Please use “Testing…”.  

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: It was replaced and the new text can be seem in line 513, thank you.

 

 

COMMENT: Results/discussion

Line 589: “the results (…) confirms what is reported in the reviewed literature, that the use of the shopping list is key to prevent and reduce food waste at home [11, 33, 34, 51].

• This study’s results did not confirm the role of using a shopping list. So, please revisit this statement.
•  
•  

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you. The affirmation is not in the text anymore.

COMMENT: Lines 612-613: “Apart from this, those findings exposed significant relations among awareness, age, and education and did not suggest significant connections between the awareness of food wastage and sociodemographic characteristics [11, 614 29].”

• This statement is not clear. The first part (i.e., “significant relations among awareness, age, and education”) seems to contradict the second (i.e., “did not suggest significant connections between the awareness of food wastage and sociodemographic characteristics”). Please revisit it.

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: We decided to remove it, thank you.

 

COMMENT: Line 622: “Intention to reduce wastage [H1]. As stated by Stancu et al. [41] and Soorani et al. [18], it was expected that a greater intention to reduce wastage would diminish its economic value”.

• Does Stancu et al. [41] state that a greater intention to reduce wastage would diminish its economic value? I think their work examined the link between “intentions not to waste food” and “food waste behaviors”, among other things.

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE: Thank you, it was added in line 344 "… accordingly, this research focuses on the economic value of wasted food." to establish why we adopt that variable.

 

COMMENT: Lines 641-645: “The purchase of food on sale [H3] will reduce the economic value of waste if buying for sale reduces food spending. The hypothesis that purchasing food on sale contributes to the reduction of the economic value of waste was partially confirmed. This is explained because food is worthless (the amount or type of food does not change) and is aligned with changes in purchasing during times of crisis and uncertainty when seeking  to make savings [36, 37, 60, 52].”

• The explanation provided is not clear. Given the counter result of H3, please elaborate more on the possible explanations. I would say, as indicated earlier, buying food on sale may lead to buying more, especially during a pandemic where people stockpile products.

 

AUTHORSThis explanation was modified, and it may be seem in lines 243-260

COMMENT: Major

Not to repeat, in the previous rounds, I gave the example of “intention to reduce food wastage” and highlighted that the question/items used to measure intentions does not measure intentions.

• I carefully read the author's response. And I agree that intention is important. I agree that the literature highlighted how much this variable is relevant and it is based on one of the most applied theories (i.e., TPB of Ajzen). Yet, my point is that the measure used does not reflect intentions. The items used are very diversified and capture a lot of nuances. I am afraid if we give this list of items to a panel of experts and ask them to suggest a label, the outcome won’t be “intentions to reduce food wastage”. I hope this point is clear.

 

 

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE:

Also, the leading motivations for waste reduction may be multiple such as saving money and setting an example for children, and some (or little) environmental con-cerns [29, 50]. Assuming that the predictor of not wasting food is that person’s intent to do so, the intention of not wasting or reducing food waste. It may be seem in lines 151 to 198.

 

COMMENT: I like the idea of assessing the economic value of food waste. So, it is not the amount of the wasted food, but the economic value from a consumer’s lens. But, back to the unresolved issues from previous rounds, I could find neither your acceptance/modification nor rejection/justification of the following issues:

• I am aware that intention is (presumed to be) an important predictor of “food waste behavior”. But why “Intentions to reduce food waste” is a predictor of its economic value? What about the other way around? That is, the higher economic value of food waste will trigger stronger intentions to reduce. This is consistent with the strong logic/line of research on the attitude-intention where “saving money” is an important element of the overall attitude, which in turn predicts intention to reduce food waste.
• The predictors are supposed to be distinctive (capture unique aspects in the issue under investigation and contribute significantly to its explanation). This is not the case, in my opinion, for many constructs. For example, the construct labeled “Activities to avoid food wastage” is very similar to (includes) the construct named “Management routines of leftovers or uneaten food”. If we look at Table 1, most of the items used to measure the former construct were used to measure the latter! This clear overlap between constructs and their measurement items is a concern.

 

 

• AUTHORS’ RESPONSE:

It qas answered from line 196 to 206, explaining a little more about  the intention of not wasting food and saving money in crisis contexts.

 

Sincerely,

 

The Authors.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf