Tackling Food Waste in All-Inclusive Resort Hotels in Egypt

 EVIEWER 1 Comments

 Response

Location of Response in Revised Manuscript

Your research objective reads too descriptive, "explore the mass food loss and waste and the key stages in which it emerges".  I suggest authors try to dig down deeper into existing literature and research to strengthen their contribution. For example, a recent paper published by Hennchen (2019) applies practice theory, Messner et al. (2020) paradox theory or Martin-Rios et al. (2018) addresses wastage from the innovation management perspective. There has been already a large amount of case study and descriptive papers on the subject. Why yet another paper with lack of theoretical foundations on the topic of wastage in hospitality?

 Authors should clarify their theoretical contribution early on their study.

We are appreciated the valuable comments of reviewer but the current study is to descriptive because the study methodology is quantitative. Furthermore, researcher try to cover most drives of food waste as much as possible.

However, researchers have been checked the research papers mentioned by reviewer such as Sustainability-Oriented Innovations in Food Waste Management Technology and Food waste management innovations in the foodservice industry. Hence, some suitable changes have been edited to the manuscript.

Some of theoretical contribution has been added to the abstract and introduction.

Literature

abstract and introduction.

Just as the theoretical model is not fully developed in the paper, there is no reference to specific research questions or propositions, nothing is said on this point, which makes the paper appear unreflective.

Research questions has been added to the introduction

Introduction

Authors might want to expand their results on "Technology incorporation plays a vital role in food service provision as well as in wastage management." Technological innovations seem to provide new ways to tackle quantification and prevention priorities (see for example, Martin-Rios et al., 2021).

Researched appreciated the reviewer valuable comments regarding this is point. However the original manuscript mention the role play of technology in tackling food waste, Researcher has re-write the paragraph after referring back to Martin-Rios et al., 2021). Alongside some points to this issue has been added to Results

Discussion and Conclusions: This section seems to need a more clear structure to present its ideas and discoveries. Some links seem rather tangentially linked, such as the lack of evidence to support Table 5. Are those recommendations derived from your data? Again, the flow in this section does not build toward an emerging clarity about what you discovered.  Can you step back and think – what is it I am trying to convey that is fully supported with evidence from fieldwork. Step back and consider what might be done with this section

What kind of evidence you provide to suggest that "Educating and directing the domestic/international guests about the flavor and taste of international food items" has an effect on food waste?

Some edition has been done to this is section.

Regarding table 5 “4 post edition”, these results based on arguments and discussion with participants in interview.

A missing discussion has been added to the manuscript to support and evidence the mention statement.

REVIEWER 2COMMENTS

Response

Location of Response in Revised Manuscript

The current manuscript still has some flaws (namely relating to capital letters).

We rechecked the revised manuscript and We have corrected this grammatical and spelling errors.

Revision made to all manuscript

 Another suggestion is related to the term “food waste” that is used throughout the text. Why not choose to simply use the formula “FLW” (Food Losses and Waste)?

We have rewritten the term in most of manuscript to be simply use.

Through all the manuscript

Another suggestion: don't use the term “interviews participants”, choose to just write “participants”. I know they are not native English speakers (and neither am I), but sometimes: the simplest is the best.

We have replaced the term in most of the manuscript while keep a few of term for variety

Starting from methodology up to the conclusion

And: use "theoretical implications" instead of "scholarly implications"

taken the reviewers recommendation and we already rewritten the terminology

Abstract and conclusion

And another suggestion: when presenting the results, put some values (like percentages) that can help you understand better than the simple reference to “majority”, “minority”,…

We are appreciated your valuable suggestion but we don’t replaced because we don’t have an exactly percentage 

l17: Furthermore (uppercase)

l49: lack space "in 1997"

l78: author name missing

l88: lowercase to agricultural

l122: are you sure? 3.6 kgs per guest daily only the breakfast

l124-125: the hospitality industry is the second-largest source of food waste after XXX.

l147: uppercase Proper

l160: over-portion sizes

l160: generates

l192: lowercase feedback

l200: uppercase Contrasted

l203: employees responsible (without are)

l219: Germans are Europeans. French? British? Spanish?

l224: lowercase a purposive

l227: In a similar approach to Cresswell...

l241: uppercase Four

Table 2: look at "years": some are in uppercase others in lowercase, and in the current Hotel experience “hotel” for 12-15 is missing

l287: Label it as "Results' discussion" instead of "key findings"

l289: uppercase Furthermore

l291: delete "while"

l308: some of the

l345: uppercase Awareness

l350: Second,

l358: Finally

l365: recreational area, etc.) These findings

l420: rewrite the phrase: While, menu engineering could be assisted to reduce food wastage quantity especially in cyclic menus by discarding un-favorite them day and unlikely buffet items

l504: food

l505 and few ones: "à la carte": it's French.

l572: delete "(" between with Okumus

l603 & l610: two times the same sentences in the same paragraph "These findings are in agreement with Okumus et al., [14]."

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Yes, according to statistics by Dr. Tomaszewska.

After household and already has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited in whole manuscript

Has been edited

Has been edited

According to line mention by reviewer and whole manuscript has been rechecked

l625: For me, table 3 is the most interesting result... but, How do you get it?

Why this regroup and not another?

Do you have any numbers? Percent’s of word frequency in interviews?

We get it based on participants reports and their states.

We grouped that according to food service cycle in in hotel industry?

Unfortunately, participants don’t have a quantification scale for food waste. So, we are not able to edit in the manuscript

l667: this paragraph should be before what you labeled as table 5

(AND where is table 4?)

We appreciate the reviewer suggestion but we prefer to not edit the manuscript.

Table numbers has been adjusted

Number adjusted above table 5

l684: 44.000

l294: label it as Conclusion

l711: FLW instead of FKW

l714: delete "provided below"

l720: rewrite Furthermore, categorized the food waste through different colored bins

l723: uppercase For

l766: Adding

l768: Integration

l786: champing? I don't understand... Champagne??

l791: rewrite: the findings show that staff training

l795: overproductions

l802: Future

l805: redo the last sentence... that's the ending point, so be clear and shine.

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Has been edited

Couldn’t understand review Comment , however there are some edition in this is pare