The Influencing Mechanism of Household Food Purchasing Behavior and Household Reserve Efficiency under Non-Normal Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this is an interesting work with theoretical underpinning, a good sample and quantitative analysis. However, it requires improvement.

In the first statement could you indicate the impact on environment and businesses, to set the scene better and highlights its relevance and value. There are language errors in this work that require addressing throughout.

There are some errors in typing/spacing/brackets in abstract and introduction on p.1.

Define crown epidemic p.1 Define 'abnormal state' p.1 and abnormal grid governance. p1 p. 2. sentence from ‘Since...paper’ is not clear.

P.2 PBC residents? p. spacing needs addressing 'onTheory' This error is in several places

'p.4 language errors here: e.g. 'willingness to green'

The Gap addressed in this research needs to be explicitly highlighted.

The argument for H2 that SN influences PBC is not strong enough. How can ones’ external influences change a behaviour to being easy of difficult to partake in. I provide this argument for your proposed theory in another context here, to explain. For example, I can bank online if I have access to a computer. This makes it easy (PBC). Just because my friends find it easy to bank online (SN), doesn’t mean I find it easy or their influence makes it easy, for me to bank online. So, this argument is not clear enough in the paper and your context.

p. 6 Ref (Li et al, 2023) is missing

p.6 H5 b is not well articulated

p.7 All of the measures are not well explored well. What is the ‘impact on students Xi work’ on risk? this measure is not clear. Who are the ‘surrounding residents?’ please clarify.

p.7 what is the ‘new crown’ in the items?

PR3& PR4 and SN1 item mixes the past and present context, this is not clear.

Did you pilot these items? Please justify.

SOR1 is not clear.

 

What is the ref for HRE 1/2/3?

 

p. 8 how was questionnaire distributed? Email/letter/phone? Be clear.

 

p.10 responsibility consciousness findings could be explained better.

 

p.10 Personal norm findings is not clear.

p. 11 ‘controlof food’ spacing can be improved here.

 

Conclusion second paragraph: can be made clearer.

 

So, what are the recommendations for gov/policy markets, individuals and for further research? this is not clear.

 

Why is there a mix of referencing styles?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As stated above

Author Response

Comments 1: In the first statement could you indicate the impact on environment and businesses, to set the scene better and highlights its relevance and value. 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I have cite some scientific literature in the first statement to indicate that the sustainability of agricultural activities and environment are under major threat due to the impact of non-normal events. 

Comments 2: Define crown epidemic p.1 Define 'abnormal state' p.1 and abnormal grid governance. p1 p. 2. sentence from ‘Since...paper’ is not clear.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. Crown epidemic p.1 means the COVID 19.   'Abnormal state' mainly refers to sudden public crisis scenarios, including natural disasters (floods, typhoons, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, flash floods, etc.), accident disasters (fires, traffic accidents, construction accidents, etc.), public health incidents, social security incidents (mass riots, terrorism, etc.), triggering social order a state of crisis that is out of balance., which is mentioned at the very beginning.  ‘Abnormal grid governance’ is a governance model for unconventional affairs in an abnormal situation.Grid management is based on the principles of territorial management, geographical layout, and status quo management, which divides the jurisdiction into a number of grid-like units, and implements dynamic and all-round management for each grid, which is a digital management model.  Sentences from ‘Since...paper’ have been rephrased.

Comments 3: P.2 PBC residents? p. spacing needs addressing 'onTheory' This error is in several places.

Response 3: I have rephrased them.

Comments 4:'p.4 language errors here: e.g. 'willingness to green'

Response 4: That is willingness to green production.

Comments 5: The argument for H2 that SN influences PBC is not strong enough. How can ones’ external influences change a behaviour to being easy of difficult to partake in. I provide this argument for your proposed theory in another context here, to explain. For example, I can bank online if I have access to a computer. This makes it easy (PBC). Just because my friends find it easy to bank online (SN), doesn’t mean I find it easy or their influence makes it easy, for me to bank online. So, this argument is not clear enough in the paper and your context.

Response 5: Thank you for your advice. I have mended it. 

Comments 6: p. 6 Ref (Li et al, 2023) is missing

Response 6: I've corrected it.

Comments 7: p.6 H5 b is not well articulated

Response 7: I've corrected it.

Comments 8: All of the measures are not well explored well. What is the ‘impact on students Xi work’ on risk? this measure is not clear. Who are the ‘surrounding residents?’ please clarify.

Response 8: ‘Impact on students Xi work’ is clerical error，which should be 'impact on study or work'.I've corrected it. ‘Surrounding residents‘ mean neighborhoods, and I've corrected this in the paper.

Comments 9: p.7 what is the ‘new crown’ in the items?

Response 9: the ‘new crown’ is clerical error, which should be 'the COVID-19' and has been  corrected.

Comments 10: PR3& PR4 and SN1 item mixes the past and present context, this is not clear.

Response 10: I have corrected them in the paper.

Comments 11: Did you pilot these items? Please justify.

Response 11: Yes, prior to the formal survey, I conducted a pre-survey in my community and obtained a pre-survey sample of 39. Through communication with the interviewees, the questionnaire items were adjusted accordingly.

Comments 12: SOR1 is not clear.

Response 12: I have overwritten SOR1.

Comments 13: What is the ref for HRE 1/2/3?

Response 13: The proposal of the efficiency of household reserves is an innovative point of this paper and items for HRE were proposed according to the definition.

Comments 14: p. 8 how was questionnaire distributed? Email/letter/phone? Be clear.

Response 14: In this study, questionnaire information was collected through  Credamo network data research platform and Wenjuanxin questionnaire research platform.

Comments 15: p.10 responsibility consciousness findings could be explained better.

Response 15: 'Responsibility consciousness' means sense of responsibility and I've corrected it in the paper.

Comments 16: p.10 Personal norm findings is not clear

Response 16: I have refined it in my paper

Comments 17: p. 11 ‘controlof food’ spacing can be improved here.

Response 17: I've corrected it.

Comments 18: Conclusion second paragraph: can be made clearer. So, what are the recommendations for gov/policy markets, individuals and for further research? this is not clear.

Response 18: The second paragraph is not conclusion, and that's a part of the advice. For this, I have made amendments  in the recommendations.

I have restructured the conclusion and recommendations section. And I have made amendments  according to your precious advice.

Comments 19: Why is there a mix of referencing styles?

Response 19: I have unified the style of the references

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I reviewed the article titled "The influencing mechanism of household food purchasing behavior and household reserve efficiency under abnormal conditions." I commend the authors for this interesting study. However, I believe that several critical points need improvement.

**There are numerous punctuation and spelling mistakes that make the text appear careless. Please thoroughly review the text for these mistakes, etc.

**Reconsider your keywords. Is 'non-normality' a necessary keyword for you?

**Elaborate more on the expected contributions of the study in the introduction section.

**Was the survey conducted in English? If not, please explain the translation procedure.

**Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was applied, but as you know, SEM is sensitive to violations of normality. How strong is your dataset in this regard?

**According to Table 3, Cronbach's alpha is 0.844. However, this seems to incorrectly reflect the internal consistency of all research items. Consider abandoning this approach. You might even remove KMO and Bartlett’s test altogether and only keep the CFA results in Figure 3.

**How did you control for the risk of common method bias in your dataset?

**The results and recommendations section is quite poor. I strongly recommend restructuring it. Firstly, insert a '5.Discussion' section to support or refute findings with theoretical findings. Section 6 should be dedicated to results, theoretical and practical applications, and limitations. Therefore, writing a meticulous discussion and conclusion section is crucial.

**There are only 45 references in the work, which is too few for a scientific text. Strengthen the text with current and relevant sources in this respect. 

**Convert the references to the appropriate format.

Good luck. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are punctuation and spelling mistakes. Please fix them. 

Author Response

Comments 1: There are numerous punctuation and spelling mistakes that make the text appear careless. Please thoroughly review the text for these mistakes, etc.

Response 1: Thank you for your advice, I've thoroughly review the text for these mistakes.

Comments 2: Reconsider your keywords. Is 'non-normality' a necessary keyword for you?

Response 2: I really think 'non-normality' is a necessary keyword, and this paper is conducted in the context of non-normality.

Comments 3: Elaborate more on the expected contributions of the study in the introduction section.

Response 3: Thank you for your advice, I've done it in the introduction section.

Comments 4: Was the survey conducted in English? If not, please explain the translation procedure.

Response 4: No, the survey conducted was not in English. The translation procedure include three parts. First, understand the meaning of sentences. Second, choose the sentence structure according to the meaning and build the basic framework, and then choose the appropriate vocabulary and means of expression, especially according to the logic of English expression. Third, final review.

Comments 5: Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was applied, but as you know, SEM is sensitive to violations of normality. How strong is your dataset in this regard?

Response 5: I have added the robustness test in the section 4 to prove my dataset is strong.

Comments 6: According to Table 3, Cronbach's alpha is 0.844. However, this seems to incorrectly reflect the internal consistency of all research items. Consider abandoning this approach. You might even remove KMO and Bartlett’s test altogether and only keep the CFA results in Figure 3.

Response 6:  Thank you for your precious  advice. Cronbach's alpha is 0.844, indicating that the reliability of the scale is good. In addition, KMO and Bartlett tests are prerequisites for CFA. Therefore , I am really not sure weather to abandon them.

Comments 7: How did you control for the risk of common method bias in your dataset?

Response 7:  The questionnaire was set with detection items to check whether the respondent answered the question seriously, and the samples that did not be answered  seriously have been rejected.

Comments 8: The results and recommendations section is quite poor. I strongly recommend restructuring it. Firstly, insert a '5.Discussion' section to support or refute findings with theoretical findings. Section 6 should be dedicated to results, theoretical and practical applications, and limitations. Therefore, writing a meticulous discussion and conclusion section is crucial.

Response 8: Thank you for your precious advice，I have restructured it.  As for the "discussion" you mentioned, I have already reflected it in the section 4 empirical research and analysis, that is, the fourth part is not only the embodiment of the empirical results, but also the enlightenment brought by the results.  As for the theoretical basis you mentioned, I would like to say that the conclusions are based on empirical research, and there is a lot of original content in this article, which is difficult to find support from other literature, and in addition, I think that in the second part of the theoretical basis and research framework, the cited literature has already had these effects.

Comments 9:There are only 45 references in the work, which is too few for a scientific text. Strengthen the text with current and relevant sources in this respect.

Response 9:Thank you for your advice, I've strengthened the text with more references. 

Comments 10: Convert the references to the appropriate format.

Response 10: Thank you for your advice, I've converted the references to the appropriate format

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I do not see the connection with the Journal, I would like to see a clear mark in this paper that connects it to Sustainability as a journal.

It is my only comment as the paper is good in its shape, for scientific organization and experimental part, I do not see the link with the Journal.

 

I suggest a strong work in order to align it with the Journal previous issues.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: I do not see the connection with the Journal, I would like to see a clear mark in this paper that connects it to Sustainability as a journal.

It is my only comment as the paper is good in its shape, for scientific organization and experimental part, I do not see the link with the Journal.

I suggest a strong work in order to align it with the Journal previous issues.

Response 1: Thank you for you precious advice. I have cite some scientific literature in the first statement to indicate that the sustainability of agricultural activities and environment are under major threat due to the impact of non-normal events.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lots of improvements addressed and clearly identified in letter, thank you

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest another final proof read 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have substantially revised the study. I fully support the publication of the study.