Sustainable Food Consumption: Social Representations of Definitions, Drivers, and Obstacles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors presented a well-elaborated paper concerning sustainable food consumption. It offers an interesting approach, is well-structured, the methodology is sufficiently presented, and the conclusions are properly drawn.

I only have two comments that might raise the scientific value of the paper.

First, since there is a variety of publications concerning sustainable food consumption, the Authors could extend the demonstrated literature review.

Second, summarising the results in a  table or a diagram would make them clearer to the reader. 

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for carefully reading the article and for appreciating the work.

With regard to the change requests, we have:

- expanded both the bibliographical references and the presentation of the literature

- better clarified the methodological choices, in particular with respect to sample construction, preparation of data collection instruments and the analysis process

- divided the discussion of results and conclusions

- modified the structure of the discussion by organising it according to thematic points, recalling those in section 3 of the presentation of results

- inserted a summary outline at the end of the discussion

- rewrote the conclusions

We therefore thank the reviewer because we believe that with these interventions the article has become more effective.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this article, the authors have done a commendable job conveying nuanced strategies to enhance scholarly understanding and practical efforts in promoting sustainable food choices.

The title is concise and generally informative. However, it could be improved by providing a bit more specificity. For instance, specifying the scope or context of the research could make it more appealing and help potential readers understand what to expect.

The abstract clearly states the aim of the research, focusing on individuals' representations of sustainable food products, drivers, and obstacles. The abstract could benefit from including some key findings or implications of the research. This would provide readers with a more concrete understanding of the study's contributions.

The introduction effectively contextualizes the study within the broader literature on sustainability and food systems. The materials and methods section provides a clear and detailed description of the research design, including the use of qualitative methods and an exploratory approach. The inclusion of interviews with citizens, managers of relevant shops, and observation of venues adds depth to the research. Although the sampling strategy is well-explained, considering factors such as gender, age, qualification, and consumption habits, it would be beneficial to explain briefly why these factors were chosen (participant selection criteria) and how they contribute to the research objectives.

The results section is well-organized - the inclusion of direct quotes from interviewees enhances the authenticity of the findings. The exploration of obstacles related to information, availability, and price aligns with existing literature. The discussion and conclusion section synthesizes the insights gathered from both scientific literature and consumer interviews, aiming to identify meeting points and disparities in the perception of sustainable food. The key dimensions, drivers, and obstacles are compared, revealing noteworthy differences between scholarly discourse and consumer representations.

However, the structure of the discussion and conclusions section could be enhanced. The discussion could be organized into subsections for each major point of comparison (e.g., Dimensions of Sustainable Food, Drivers, and Obstacles), and subheadings could be used to guide readers through the various aspects of the discussion, to make it easier to follow the analysis. The link to practical implications and future research could also be improved. A brief discussion on how the analysis could inform actionable strategies for promoting sustainable food choices could be added.

Also, please elaborate on the suggested areas for future research i.e., potential methodologies or research approaches that could be employed in future investigations. End the conclusion with a call to action, encouraging continued research and practical efforts in the realm of sustainable food consumption.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English language is good. Some minor editing is required to remove grammatical errors, typos, punctuation errors etc.

Author Response

Authors’ reply to reviewer n. 2

 

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for carefully reading the article and for appreciating the work.

With regard to the change requests, we have:

- expanded the abstract by better clarifying the aims and main results of the research presented in the article

- better clarified the methodological choices, in particular with respect to sample construction, preparation of data collection instruments and the analysis process

- inserted after each section presenting the results a part concerning the impact of the factors considered in the sampling on the data discussed in that section

- divided discussion of results and conclusions

- modified the structure of the discussion by organising it according to thematic points recalling those in section 3 of the presentation of results

- inserted a summary outline at the end of the discussion

- rewrote the conclusions, also including a part on limitations and potential future developments of the research

We could not, however, insert a section on actionable strategies for promoting sustainable food choices and calls for action because it was outside the scope of the article and our research competence.

We therefore thank the reviewer because we believe that with these interventions the article has become more effective (we also checked the text for typos).

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This interesting study attempts to present social representations associated with sustainable food consumption. Consumers' representations of food consumption are essential in preparing for the transition to responsible consumption and production, which are the 12th GOAL of the SDGs. The paper requires some revisions to be publishable in Sustainability. 

1. Sustainable food consumption is associated with sustainable development. In this vein, the authors should briefly discuss the term sustainable development in their introduction to catch the readers' interest. In this vein, the following two papers should be included: (a) "Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy", New Political Economy, 27(5), pp. 866-878, and (b) "The concept of sustainable development: From its beginning to the contemporary issues", Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 21(1), 67-94.
2. As the ESG acronym informs us, " Governance " is another pillar of sustainability. How is sustainable food consumption associated with this particular dimension of sustainable development?
3. The paper needs a theoretical framework to illustrate the results. In this vein, should the authors add a section to present their study's (potential) theoretical proposals? 
4. What are the policy proposals of this study? It is interesting to show how these proposals are connected with The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The authors should add a section discussing them.
5. The authors conducted a qualitative study which is described in the second section of the paper. However, are there any limitations? The authors should add a section discussing them.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language is required

Author Response

Authors’ reply to reviewer n. 3

 

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the article and for appreciating the work.

With regard to the change requests, we have:

- expanded the abstract by better clarifying the aims and main results of the research presented in the article

- better clarified the methodological choices, particularly with respect to sample construction, preparation of data collection instruments and the analysis process

- expanded both the bibliographical references and the presentation of the literature

- divided the discussion of results and conclusions

- modified the structure of the discussion by organising it according to thematic points recalling those in section 3 of the presentation of results

- inserted a summary outline at the end of the discussion

- rewrote the conclusions, also including a section on limitations and potential future developments of the research

We therefore thank the reviewer because we believe that with these interventions the article has become more effective.

On the other hand, we could not include references to the debate on sustainable development, governance, and policy proposals because these topics were not within the scope of the article, and the empirical materials collected did not provide useful tools for thinking in this direction.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entiltle Sustainable food consumption. Social representations about 2 definitions, drivers and obstacles. As the authors mentioned, the aim of the article is to reflect upon what individuals mean by sustainable food products, what they think about the drivers at the basis of their consumption, and what in their opinion are the main obstacles for potential consumers in adopting these products. This is an interesting study and provides us with important references, but I think this manuscript still has some issues, and until these problems are resolved, it is not suitable for publication in this journal.

 

First, I am not certain whether this manuscript belongs to the scope of an article, because the entire manuscript does not present any intuitive data.

The originality of this manuscript is also limited, at least from the introduction and abstract I did not see any significant progress in this manuscript compared to the current research.

Secondly, the description of the methodology part is very simple, and I believe that the selection and inclusion criteria of the interviewees, the questionnaire design process, and the specific content of the questionnaire should be presented. The clarity of the criteria for determining the reliability of the obtained questionnaires, how the questionnaire data is processed, and what type of data processing methods are used should also be addressed. The method for determining the sample size should be clearly explained for all the aforementioned issues.

In the method section, the result should be presented after statistical analysis. This current manuscript only simply presents the answers of some subjects in the questionnaire survey. I think it is not representative.

Author Response

Authors’ reply to reviewer n. 4

 

We carefully read the reviewer's comments and thank her/him for the suggestions. We are unclear about what he/she means by writing that: 'I am not certain whether this manuscript belongs to the scope of an article, because the entire manuscript does not present any intuitive data'. The text is a scientific article based on the analysis of empirical data collected and analysed with a qualitative approach, as indicated in the methodological section.

Regarding the and the request for clarification on methodological choices, and on innovative elements introduced by the text compared to existing literature and research, we have:

- expanded the abstract by better clarifying the objectives and main results of the research presented in the article

- better clarified the methodological choices, particularly with respect to sample construction, preparation of data collection instruments and the analysis process

- expanded both the bibliographical references and the presentation of the literature

- divided the discussion of results and conclusions

- modified the structure of the discussion by organising it according to thematic points recalling those in section 3 of the presentation of results

- inserted a summary outline at the end of the discussion

- rewrote the conclusions, also including a section on limitations and potential future developments of the research

The referee also asks for a statistical analysis of the data, but such analysis is impossible as the data consists of qualitative interviews. Similarly, the referee refers to a 'questionnaire survey', but this tool was not used in the research. Likewise, we are unclear about what the referee means when referring to the 'criteria for determining the reliability of the obtained questionnaires'. In any case, we hope that the interventions made to the text, and the clarifications provided regarding methodological choices, are sufficient, and we thank the reviewer because we believe that with these interventions the article has become more effective.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made extensive revisions to address my previous comments. However, given the Sustainability journal's scope, their discussion should be associated with the broader definition of sustainable development. So, the proposed references are helpful in this direction. 

In addition, the role of governance is important in promoting sustainable food consumption. In this vein, it will be helpful if the authors refer to this relationship in their introduction.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of the English language is required

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the reviewer for the appreciation of the revisions made to the previous version of the text and for the new suggestions. Regarding the latter, the authors have added two paragraphs, one in the introduction and one in the discussion, in which, partly based on new bibliographic references, they have suggested on one hand a possible use of the data and analysis developed in the article with respect to the concept of sustainable development, and on the other hand reflected on how such data and analysis could be used to ponder on policies and governance related to sustainable food consumption. Given that these themes are particularly broad and relevant, but not the central focus of the article, it was not possible to address them adequately, but an effort was made to offer some food for thought in the direction suggested by the reviewer. We hope that this fits with the request.

Moreover, as suggested, the text has been reviewed by a native English-speaking editor.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed my previous comments and improved their manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required