Romanian Farmers’ Markets: Understanding the Environmental Attitudes of Farmers as an Instrument for Bioeconomy Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper focuses on a very interesting subject and is one to which the authors have made significant contributions. That being said, there are some points that require attention. I would advise the authors to consider the following comments:

1. Even though the paper presents a very low percentage of plagiarism, almost the whole Abstract seems to be referring to other papers published by authors in other journals. For this reason, it is highly advisable to write again the Abstract focusing explicitly on the research presented in this paper.
2. In line 214, it should be stated how the farmers that participated in the study were chosen. It is important to state and account for the representativeness of the sample.
3. In line 221, the word ‘several’ should be replaced with the exact number of sections.
4. An Appendix with the full version of the questionnaire used in the study must be added.
5. In line 251, the difference between the terms ‘co-op’ and ‘associations’ should be explained.
6. Lines 251 – 253: Based on what is stated, it is understood that 11% of those participating in cooperatives and 22% of those participating in associations are quite high rates. To facilitate comparisons, it is necessary to state the respective averages both of EU and other EU countries.  
7. Throughout the text, terms ‘herbicides’ and ‘pesticides’ are used interchangeably. However, aren’t herbicides a type of pesticides? It must be explained how it was ensured not to confuse respondents as well as how it was ensured that the use of the terms did not lead to deceiving results.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer very much for their remarks. They have helped make the paper stronger and we are very appreciative. Below are our responses to each comment.

This paper focuses on a very interesting subject and is one to which the authors have made significant contributions. That being said, there are some points that require attention. I would advise the authors to consider the following comments:

1. Even though the paper presents a very low percentage of plagiarism, almost the whole Abstract seems to be referring to other papers published by authors in other journals. For this reason, it is highly advisable to write again the Abstract focusing explicitly on the research presented in this paper.

The abstract has been completely rewritten. We believe these new abstract answers the critiques from all the reviews and that it is much better than the original. Thank you for this suggestion.

1. In line 214, it should be stated how the farmers that participated in the study were chosen. It is important to state and account for the representativeness of the sample.

We have added lines 210-212 in the paper: 

Participants were chosen if the seller was the farmer or someone from the farm that produced the products. If the seller purchased the product from a farm with the intent to sell at the farmers’ market they were excluded

1. In line 221, the word ‘several’ should be replaced with the exact number of sections.

We have done as asked. We have stated the number of sections, 4.

1. An Appendix with the full version of the questionnaire used in the study must be added.

An Appendix with the full version of the survey was added at the end of the paper. 

1. In line 251, the difference between the terms ‘co-op’ and ‘associations’ should be explained.

Lines 271-276 were added explaining the difference, which is minimal. 

1. Lines 251 – 253: Based on what is stated, it is understood that 11% of those participating in cooperatives and 22% of those participating in associations are quite high rates. To facilitate comparisons, it is necessary to state the respective averages both of EU and other EU countries.  

Lines 276-289 were added to make these comparisons. 

1. Throughout the text, terms ‘herbicides’ and ‘pesticides’ are used interchangeably. However, aren’t herbicides a type of pesticides? It must be explained how it was ensured not to confuse respondents as well as how it was ensured that the use of the terms did not lead to deceiving results.

A note after Table 2 in Lines 268-269 were added to explain the difference. 

 

Thank you again for the very helpful comments to make this paper even stronger. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Modify the Abstract in such a way that the introductory part in the abstract is shortened, and the emphasis is placed on the results, i.e. attitudes of Romanian farmers on organic products and the bioeconomy. E.g. remove the second and third sentences, and add one sentence about the attitudes of Romanian farmers (in the marked place).

Why are expenses and income not shown in euros?

In point 3. Data Description and Research Methods, not only the data, but also the research results are listed, and often discussed. The results and discussion should be separated from point 3. In turn, under this point, the concept of the sample, the survey questionnaire and the methodology used should be better clarified.

Why is the Conclusion so long? Shorten it and remove the quotes. In the Conclusion, citation is not usual.

It was a pleasure to read the paper.

Good luck in your further research!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer very much for their comments. They are very helpful and beneficial in making this paper stronger, and we very much appreciate them.

Modify the Abstract in such a way that the introductory part in the abstract is shortened, and the emphasis is placed on the results, i.e. attitudes of Romanian farmers on organic products and the bioeconomy. E.g. remove the second and third sentences, and add one sentence about the attitudes of Romanian farmers (in the marked place).

The abstract has been completely rewritten and we have placed more emphasis on the results of the paper. We believe that it is much better now and address the helpful comments of the reviewer. 

Why are expenses and income not shown in euros?

We kept all the currency amounts in the local currency in Romania, which is the Romanian Ron (lei). We did this so not to have issues in converting the money properly with exchange rates changing. The use of Euros also would not be relevant for the respondents. 

In point 3. Data Description and Research Methods, not only the data, but also the research results are listed, and often discussed. The results and discussion should be separated from point 3. In turn, under this point, the concept of the sample, the survey questionnaire and the methodology used should be better clarified.

This has been done. All the methods are together in Section 3 and all the results are in Section 4. This point was excellent by the reviewer and well received. We have changed the paper to address this issue and added subsections in Section 4; the survey results and the regression model results are clearly identified but in the Results section. The survey has been added to the paper in the end as an Appendix.

Why is the Conclusion so long? Shorten it and remove the quotes. In the Conclusion, citation is not usual.

We have added a Discussion Section and the Conclusions section is now much shorter. We have one citation in the conclusion only because we believe it is part of an important point we are making, and the information is such that it must be cited. Thank you for the suggestion to make the Conclusions section much shorter. This has helped the paper greatly and we appreciate it. 

It was a pleasure to read the paper.

Good luck in your further research!

Thank you again for your very insightful and helpful comments. We believe that they have helped make the paper much stronger and we are extremely grateful.