Pre- and during COVID-19: Households’ Willingness to Pay for Local Organic Food in Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper does not present any significant insights into the literature and the proposals are not supported by theoretical insights.  Hence, I recommend rejection.

NA

Author Response

We thank the anonymous reviewer for the insightful analysis and for the constructive comments. Following those comments, which we have accepted, we have tried to improve our manuscript, revising it largely. Below we give our reply to each comment, explaining how we have considered the comment in the new revised version.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "Pre-and During Covid-19: Households' willingness to pay for local organic food in Italy" to Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050). As a reviewer, I have read your manuscript carefully and provide the following feedback:

The study aims to investigate changes in households' willingness to pay for local organic apples pre- and during the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as the factors influencing this willingness to pay. The study findings indicate that respondents exhibit a positive price premium for local organic apples during the pandemic, with a median estimated value ranging from 34% to 250%. The socio-economic variables were found to be the most significant factors in explaining the willingness to pay, while behavioral variables showed more heterogeneous results.

Overall, the manuscript is well-written and addresses an important topic related to sustainable food production and consumption. However, there are some areas that require further clarification and improvement before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Firstly, the manuscript needs more detailed explanations for Tables 1 to 3. The tables are not well-organized and need further explanation for readers to understand the results. Please provide clear headings, explanations, and units for the data in the tables.

Secondly, the manuscript requires language editing to improve its clarity and readability. Please ensure that the text is free of grammatical errors, and the sentences are well-structured.

In conclusion, I recommend accepting the manuscript for publication after the necessary revisions have been made. I look forward to seeing the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Dear author,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "Pre-and During Covid-19: Households' willingness to pay for local organic food in Italy" to Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050). As a reviewer, I have read your manuscript carefully and provide the following feedback:

The study aims to investigate changes in households' willingness to pay for local organic apples pre- and during the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as the factors influencing this willingness to pay. The study findings indicate that respondents exhibit a positive price premium for local organic apples during the pandemic, with a median estimated value ranging from 34% to 250%. The socio-economic variables were found to be the most significant factors in explaining the willingness to pay, while behavioral variables showed more heterogeneous results.

Overall, the manuscript is well-written and addresses an important topic related to sustainable food production and consumption. However, there are some areas that require further clarification and improvement before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Firstly, the manuscript needs more detailed explanations for Tables 1 to 3. The tables are not well-organized and need further explanation for readers to understand the results. Please provide clear headings, explanations, and units for the data in the tables.

Secondly, the manuscript requires language editing to improve its clarity and readability. Please ensure that the text is free of grammatical errors, and the sentences are well-structured.

In conclusion, I recommend accepting the manuscript for publication after the necessary revisions have been made. I look forward to seeing the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Author Response

We thank the anonymous reviewer for the insightful analysis and for the constructive comments. Following those comments, which we have accepted, we have tried to improve our manuscript, revising it largely. Below we give our reply to each comment, explaining how we have considered the comment in the new revised version.

Comment (C)

Firstly, the manuscript needs more detailed explanations for Tables 1 to 3. The tables are not well-organized and need further explanation for readers to understand the results. Please provide clear headings, explanations, and units for the data in the tables.

Reply (R):

According to this comment, we have revised Tables 1, 2 and 3 and we have rewritten comments, given better explanations for readers to understand our findings.

(C):

Secondly, the manuscript requires language editing to improve its clarity and readability. Please ensure that the text is free of grammatical errors, and the sentences are well-structured.

(R):

According to this comment, we have revised the language throughout the paper.

In conclusion, I recommend accepting the manuscript for publication after the necessary revisions have been made. I look forward to seeing the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper tried to explore changes in households’ behavior related to the pandemic and investigated the willingness to pay for local organic apples pre- and during Covid-19. By assessing whether the changes occurred within the family, estimating also separate models for the two members of the couple. Findings show that respondents show a positive price premium for local organic apples whose consumption helps reducing the environmental costs associated with food production. The median estimated values during the pandemic range from 34% to 250%. In conclusion, the local and organic dimension is embodied in the short chain in which 19 knowledge and trust in the producer are crucial elements in the consumer's choices.

 

Overall, the paper is well organized. But still some problems should be treated carefully by the authors. The detailed comments are as follows.

1. Further optimization of the introduction is imperative. It's important to provide a more in-depth analysis of the existing literature rather than simply listing it; fresh insights are always welcome.

2.In order to ensure the accuracy of this research, it is imperative to carefully consider the selection of explanatory variables. The current theoretical framework is not relevant to the key variables in this paper.

3.I'm a little confused. Judging by the title, the author did not focus on the impact of the pandemic on households' willingness to pay for local organic food in Italy. More is the statistical comparison of samples and empirical regression analysis.

Author Response

We thank the anonymous reviewer for the insightful analysis and for the constructive comments. Following those comments, which we have accepted, we have tried to improve our manuscript, revising it largely. Below we give our reply to each comment, explaining how we have considered the comment in the new revised version.

Comment (C):

(C):

1. Further optimization of the introduction is imperative. It's important to provide a more in-depth analysis of the existing literature rather than simply listing it; fresh insights are always welcome.

(R):

According to this comment, we have provided a more in-depth literature review and we have optimized the Introduction.

 

(C):

2.In order to ensure the accuracy of this research, it is imperative to carefully consider the selection of explanatory variables. The current theoretical framework is not relevant to the key variables in this paper.

(R):

According to this comment, we have added section 2.3 related to the explanatory variables.

 

 

(C):

3.I'm a little confused. Judging by the title, the author did not focus on the impact of the pandemic on households' willingness to pay for local organic food in Italy. More is the statistical comparison of samples and empirical regression analysis.

(R):

According to this comment, we have added in the Introduction and throughout the paper the relevance of the Covid-19 pandemic crisis on local organic food consumption.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors explored the changes of consumers' attitudes toward local organic food by comparing WTP of Pre-and During Covid-19. This study would help food industry and policy makers to respond to the rapid and unprecedented shift of food demand. Here are comments and suggestions.

 1. Introduction

-I suggest adding a rationale for targeting local organic food when compared before and after the pandemic. Are consumer attitudes/behaviors toward local organic foods considered to be relatively strongly affected by the pandemic compared to other foods?

-I suggest adding a rationale for investigating preferences within household when compared before and after the pandemic.

 2. Materials and methods

2.1 survey design and data

Was the questionnaire originally developed in this study?

2.2 modelling framework

p.4 line 129, what does “environmental attributes” stand for?

 3. results

-I suggest separate and add Discussion.

-p.7 line 221, Does “leisure” represent income variation?

Author Response

We thank the anonymous reviewer for the insightful analysis and for the constructive comments. Following those comments, which we have accepted, we have tried to improve our manuscript, revising it largely. Below we give our reply to each comment, explaining how we have considered the comment in the new revised version.

1. Introduction

(C):

-I suggest adding a rationale for targeting local organic food when compared before and after the pandemic. Are consumer attitudes/behaviors toward local organic foods considered to be relatively strongly affected by the pandemic compared to other foods? I suggest adding a rationale for investigating preferences within household when compared before and after the pandemic.

 

(R):

According to this comment, we have added in the Introduction section some existing literature investigating the Covid-19 pandemic has changed consumers’ attitudes toward food. Thus, we have written the rationale for targeting local and organic food when compared before and during the pandemic. Also, we have written, according to the existing (few) theoretical and empirical literature, the changes of households’ preferences toward food consumption in relation to Covid-19 pandemic, adding the rationale for investigating the changes in preferences within households.

 

(C):

2. Materials and methods

2.1 survey design and data. Was the questionnaire originally developed in this study?

(R):

According to this comment, in the footnote 3 we have written in a clear way that we have developed an original questionnaire and we have conducted a pre-test.

 

(C):

2.2 modelling framework. p.4 line 129, what does “environmental attributes” stand for?

(R):

According to this comment, we have written in the text “environmental attributes (z_nj) linked to organic production and origin”.

 

 

(C):

3. results -I suggest separate and add Discussion.

(R):

According to this comment, we have added a Discussion section.

 

 

 (C):

-p.7 line 221, Does “leisure” represent income variation?

(R):

According to this comment, we have deleted “leisure”, that was a mistake, and we have written family income variation.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript has undergone significant improvements and is expected to provide valuable information to the readers. Thank you for your hard work throughout the review process.

Author Response

We thank the anonymous reviewer for the insightful analysis and for the constructive comments. Following those comments, which we have accepted, we have tried to improve our manuscript, revising it largely. 

Best regards