Factors Influencing Consumer Attitudes towards Organic Food Products in a Transition Economy—Insights from Kosovo
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper is relatively simple, tests a simple model, but it is an interesting example of organic food perception by urban consumers in a transition economy country.
From my point of view, three issues must be resolved:
- A better description of the sample - regarding the used method of sampling (random sample or some forms of non-random sample) and information about the population from which the sample has been drawn - urban consumers from 3 cities is mentioned in the limitation section only.
- Information about construct LO (label of origin). Please provide more information because this construct's current wording looks like it was impossible to answer for it on a Likert-type scale. For me, these items are scalled nominally. Please explain this issue.
- For the PLS-SEM model, SmartPLS software has probably been used (as it looks from the model graphic representation), this is OK, but the paper lacks more measures of fit than R-squared. I suggest including SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual) value (other info about model estimation results, including reliability and validity checks, is OK).
Author Response
Comment 1: "A better description of the sample - regarding the used method of sampling (random sample or some forms of non-random sample) and information about the population from which the sample has been drawn - urban consumers from 3 cities is mentioned in the limitation section only."
Addressed comment 1: Surveyed consumers were chosen randomly in different public spaces including shopping malls. The response rate was over 95%. Traditional paper-and-pencil mode was used for data collection. The questionnaire was administered through face-to-face interviews as this mode of data collection makes smaller auditory demands and is considered to be less burdensome for respondents. The data were collected in three major cities in Kosovo (Prishtina, Prizren, and Gjilan). The majority (50%) of respondents were from Prishtina city, followed by Prizren (30%) and Gjilan (20%). These three cities are the biggest ones in Kosovo and represent the most attractive markets for the food industry. The largest economic, administrative, educational, and cultural centers are located in these three cities, where consumer purchasing power is highest.
Comment 2: "Information about construct LO (label of origin). Please provide more information because this construct's current wording looks like it was impossible to answer for it on a Likert-type scale. For me, these items are scaled nominally. Please explain this issue."
Addressed comment 2: In order to analyze the influence of four constructs (HC, LO, CERT, and EC) on consumers’ attitudes towards organic food products (AOFP), the respondents were asked: “How often do you check or look for information about, for example, the country in which a foodstuff has been produced, the region within Kosovo in which the foodstuff has been produced (for domestic products), or whether a foodstuff is organic?” All items of the four constructs were measured with a five-point Likert scale with possible responses of: 1) never; 2) occasionally (about one to two times per week); 3) frequently (about half of the time or three to four times per week); 4) usually (about five times per week); 5) always (daily).
Comment 3: "For the PLS-SEM model, SmartPLS software has probably been used (as it looks from the model graphic representation), this is OK, but the paper lacks more measures of fit than R-squared. I suggest including SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual) value (other info about model estimation results, including reliability and validity checks, is OK)."
Addressed comment 3:
The fit index Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) amounts for both, the saturated and the estimated model, to 0.09 which does not exceed the recommended threshold of < 0.1 suggesting good model fit [83].
Reviewer 2 Report
I was invited to review the paper "Factors influencing consumer attitudes towards organic food products in a transition economy - insights from Kosovo" which is original research paper. The paper analysis four factors, i.e. Heath concerns, Label of origin, Certification and Environmental concerns and their influence on consumer attitudes toward organic food. Although the paper is interesting, and might add to the existing literature on organic food consumption, attitudes and motivations, I believe that constructs are not precisely defined, that other literature has to be consulted and model better explained.
Each construct should be better positioned theoretically, thus revealing what is added value of this paper and this model. For example, health concerns is positioned in several references (7-8 and 30-35), where as some important work on the health correlation with organic food is neglected. Some ideas are given bellow. References 30-35 are just named in a bulk, not elaborated what is a difference and significance of each and what is this paper building further on.
Moreover, there is no clear explanation why those variables are taken into consideration, while others are not. E.g. Chen (2009) tackles similar variables, as Kriwy and Mecking (2012) or Magnusson et al. (2003). So why is this new model more significant than the previous ones and what is its achievement?
Finally, how did the authors chose the scales? Not enough information is given in this regard.
I believe that this paper can have potential, however, it needs better positioning in the literature and further elaboration on the model and theoretical contribution.
Good luck.
Chen, M.F. (2009), “Attitude toward organic foods among Taiwanese as related to health consciousness, environmental attitudes, and the mediating effects of a healthy lifestyle”, British Food Journal, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 165-178.
Gifford, K. and Bernard, J.C. (2006), “Influencing consumer purchase likelihood of organic food”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 155-163.
Hughner, R. S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C. J. and Stanton, J. (2007), “Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 6 No. 2-3, pp. 97-110
Husic-Mehmedovic, M., Arslanagic-Kalajdzic, M., Kadic-Maglajlic, S., & Vajnberger, Z. (2017). Live, Eat, Love: life equilibrium as a driver of organic food purchase. British Food Journal.
Kriwy, P., and Mecking, R. A. (2012), “Health and environmental consciousness, costs of behaviour and the purchase of organic food”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 30-37.
Magnusson, M.K., Arvola, A., Hursti, U., Aberg, L., and Sjoden, P. (2003), “Choice of organic food is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour”, Appetite, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 109–117.
Michaelidou, N. and Hassan, L.M. (2008), “The role of health consciousness, food safety concern and ethical identity on attitudes and intentions towards organic food”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 163-170.
Author Response
Comment 1: "I believe that constructs are not precisely defined, that other literature has to be consulted and model better explained."
Comment 1 was addressed in the model and the literature of the revised manuscript.
Comment 2: " Each construct should be better positioned theoretically, thus revealing what is added value of this paper and this model. For example, health concerns is positioned in several references (7-8 and 30-35), where as some important work on the health correlation with organic food is neglected. Some ideas are given bellow. References 30-35 are just named in a bulk, not elaborated what is a difference and significance of each and what is this paper building further on."
Comment 2 was addressed in the text of the revised manuscript.
Comment 3: "Moreover, there is no clear explanation why those variables are taken into consideration, while others are not. E.g. Chen (2009) tackles similar variables, as Kriwy and Mecking (2012) or Magnusson et al. (2003). So why is this new model more significant than the previous ones and what is its achievement?"
Comment 3 was addressed in the literature section of the revised manuscript.
Comment 4: "Finally, how did the authors chose the scales? Not enough information is given in this regard"
Addressed comment 4: In order to analyze the influence of four constructs (HC, LO, CERT, and EC) on consumers’ attitudes towards organic food products (AOFP), the respondents were asked: “How often do you check or look for information about, for example, the country in which a foodstuff has been produced, the region within Kosovo in which the foodstuff has been produced (for domestic products), or whether a foodstuff is organic?” All items of the four constructs were measured with a five-point Likert scale with possible responses of: 1) never; 2) occasionally (about one to two times per week); 3) frequently (about half of the time or three to four times per week); 4) usually (about five times per week); 5) always (daily).
Comment 5: "I believe that this paper can have potential, however, it needs better positioning in the literature and further elaboration on the model and theoretical contribution. "
Comment 5 was addressed in the literature and the results section of the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper “Factors influencing consumer attitudes towards organic food products in a transition economy – insights from Kosovo” deals with very interesting and important topic. Below, I will offer my comments and I hope that the authors will find my comments helpful.
I suggest you formulate the hypotheses of your research.
In the conclusions section, highlight the novelty of your results. I suggest that you present, if possible, a comparison of your results with the results obtained by other researchers.
In conclusions section, please correct “certification of organ food products“.
Please prepare the manuscript according to the journal's guidelines for authors. (Author Contributions; Funding; Data Availability Statement; Acknowledgments; Conflicts of Interest)
In sum, I think this paper is well written and the research conducted was following scientific rules.
Author Response
Comment 1: "I suggest you formulate the hypotheses of your research."
Addressed comment 1:
According to these findings from the literature, the following research hypotheses were tested:
- Hypothesis 1: Consumers’ health concerns positively influence attitudes towards organic food products.
- Hypothesis 2: Consumers’ environmental concerns positively influence attitudes towards organic food products.
- Hypothesis 3: The label of origin positively influences consumer attitudes towards organic food products.
- Hypothesis 4: Certification as a credence attribute has a positive impact on consumer attitudes towards organic food products.
Comment 2: "In the conclusions section, highlight the novelty of your results. I suggest that you present, if possible, a comparison of your results with the results obtained by other researchers."
Second comment was addressed in the conclusion section of the revised manuscript.
Comment 3: "In conclusions section, please correct “certification of organ food products“.
Addressed in the revised manuscript.
Comment 4: "Please prepare the manuscript according to the journal's guidelines for authors. (Author Contributions; Funding; Data Availability Statement; Acknowledgments; Conflicts of Interest)"
Addressed comment 4:
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: I.M., R.H., O.M., D.I., and E.GJ.; methodology: I.M., O.M., D.I., and R.H.; software: I.M.; validation: I.M. and O.M.; formal analysis: I.M. and O.M.; investigation: I.M., R.H., O.M., D.I., and E.GJ.; resources: I.M., R.H., O.M., D.I., and E.GJ; data curation: D.I. and I.M.; writing—original draft preparation: I.M., R.H., O.M., D.I., and E.GJ.; writing—review and editing: I.M., R.H., O.M., and D.I; visualization: I.M. and O.M.; supervision: R.H., O.M., and D.I.; project administration: D.I.; funding acquisition: D.I. and I.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The study was supported by financed funds of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
Institutional Review Board Statement
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the full anonymity of interviewees and the fact that no sensitive data were collected. Personal data (e.g., age) were collected in public spaces and cannot be traced back to individuals.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available for privacy reasons.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the four anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and the respondents who participated in our survey.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for addressing all my previous comments and making significant changes in your manuscript. I believe that the text is now improved, however, still there is a feeling that the paper is stronger in the methodology section compared the the theoretical positioning.
I do have one more concern that I did not quite understand from your explanations. There is still no information in the text on the scales you used for the constructs, i.e. HC, LO, CERT, and EC. I don't see the attitudes section that you elaborated in you answer, however, my question is in regard of the scale for example used for HC? Did you take previously developed and validated scale, or not? If yes, which one, from what authors, etc. If not, why not and did you check reliability and validity of newly developed scale? If you took existing one and modified it, why and how.
Good luck.
Author Response
Items of the LO and HC constructs were measured with a five-point Likert scale adapted from Jevšnik et al. [85] with possible responses of: 1) never; 2) occasionally (about one to two times per week); 3) frequently (about half of the time or three to four times per week); 4) usually (about five times per week); 5) always (daily). Items of the EC construct were adapted from Haws et al. [86] measured with a five-point Likert scale with 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree (that is, I have good reasons to both agree and disagree); 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree. Similar scales were used for the items of CERT constructs developed and validated according to Hoxha and Musliu [14]. The items of the AOFP construct were adapted from Haas et al. [87].
