Local Food Shopping: Factors Affecting Users’ Behavioural E-Loyalty

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented paper is clearly written, solid and valuable attempt to identify the factors affecting the local food websites user’s e-loyalty. The structural equation modelling (SEM) were used to verify the model between the selected variables: Local food websites evaluation, Perceived flow, Perceived control, Satisfaction, E-loyalty. It is worth stressed that SEM (structural equation modelling) allowed simultaneous taking into account the relationships between independent and dependent as well as measurable (observable) and unobservable (latent) variables. The method allowed verifying the theoretical hypotheses put forward based on the correlations between particular variables, both in their occurrence and also their strength and direction. 

To describe e-loyalty Authors decided to use two constructs in theirs research: „the intention to return to the website” and „the purchase intention”.

As can be found in literature of subject the construct (variable) of loyalty should be named as a: „behavioral loyalty” (return) and „affective (attitudinal) loyalty” (recommendation). It also needs to be stated that the main aim of conducted research is to investigate the relationship between the selected variables and behavioral e-loyalty. 

So, I suggest that Authors should consider to change both the title and the description of variables of their research and to highlight significance of „ behavioral loyalty” term in conducted studies. As a direction of future research Authors can also indicate the extension of the e-loyalty variable with its affective attributes (recommendation).

Among the minor weaknesses of the presented text - in my opinion - should be indicated:

-no explanation regarding the chosen non-probability sampling technique and the method of selecting the research sample;

-lack of information about the language of the questionnaire and the nationality of the respondents; -lack of information about the software or the statistical environment used to carry out the calculations;

-SEM can be added in keywords.

-in the abstract, the method of data analysis used can be emphasized.

-it should be clearly emphasized and separated that hypotheses H2A and H2B are verified separately.

-it is worth to present graphically demonstrated relationships (positively verified hypotheses) in the research findings

-minor formal language errors, f. e. „the significant paths” (line 234).        

Author Response

Local food shopping: factors affecting users’ e-loyalty

Reviewer 1

The presented paper is clearly written, solid and valuable attempt to identify the factors affecting the local food websites user’s e-loyalty. The structural equation modelling (SEM) were used to verify the model between the selected variables: Local food websites evaluation, Perceived flow, Perceived control, Satisfaction, E-loyalty. It is worth stressed that SEM (structural equation modelling) allowed simultaneous taking into account the relationships between independent and dependent as well as measurable (observable) and unobservable (latent) variables. The method allowed verifying the theoretical hypotheses put forward based on the correlations between particular variables, both in their occurrence and also their strength and direction. To describe e-loyalty Authors decided to use two constructs in theirs research: “the intention to return to the website” and “the purchase intention”.

We are very grateful for your helpful comments. They have helped us examine many aspects of the article. In reply to your comments, we are sending you a modified version of the manuscript. These changes have significantly improved the study. You can see these changes written in red.

As can be found in literature of subject the construct (variable) of loyalty should be named as a: „behavioral loyalty” (return) and „affective (attitudinal) loyalty” (recommendation). 

Thank you very much for your comments. We have renamed “e-loyalty” as “behavioural e-loyalty”, as both first order constructs perfectly define this dimension. Thank you very much for your suggestion.

It also needs to be stated that the main aim of conducted research is to investigate the relationship between the selected variables and behavioral e-loyalty. 

Thank you very much. As aforementioned, we have substituted “e-loyalty” for “behavioural e-loyalty”. We have also revised the literature concerning this linkage, and we have pointed out in the last paragraph of Section 2.1 (Relational variables in local food e-commerce) the following text:

“Besides, it has been proved in the online context that satisfaction positively and significantly influences behavioural e-loyalty regarding search engines (Sirdeshmukh et al. 2018), tourism e-commerce (Gonçalves et al.2016), female online shoppers (Chou et al. 2015), luxury brands (Yoo and Park, 2016), among others.”

So, I suggest that Authors should consider to change both the title and the description of variables of their research and to highlight significance of „ behavioral loyalty” term in conducted studies.      

Thank you very much. We have changed the title “Local food shopping: factors affecting users’ behavioural e-loyalty” and as above-mentioned we have pointed out several studies conducted regarding this relationship.

As a direction of future research Authors can also indicate the extension of the e-loyalty variable with its affective attributes (recommendation)

Thank you very much. We have now added this interesting future research line. In this regard, we have added the following text: “Besides, researchers are prompted to consider attitudinal loyalty to complete e-loyalty dimensionality and examine the effect of satisfaction on both behavioural and affective attributes of e-loyalty.”

Among the minor weaknesses of the presented text - in my opinion - should be indicated:

5.1   no explanation regarding the chosen non-probability sampling technique and the method of selecting the research sample;

Thank you very much. We have now made specifications regarding the sampling technique used. Therefore, in Section 3.1. (Sampling procedure and data collection) we now precise:

“A non-probabilistic sampling technique was adopted, precisely the convenience sampling technique was adopted to collect data as it is a very useful method to identify real online purchasers and it permits reaching a high level of response rate (Kim and Li, 2009). The online questionnaire was placed on an online survey website for around 44 days. The survey data were collected from the 18 February to the 4 April 2016”

5.2   lack of information about the language of the questionnaire and the nationality of the respondents;

Thank you very much. We have now clarified these issues by adding in Section 3.1 the following text:

“The survey data were collected from the 18 February to the 4 April 2016. All participants were requested to participate by an email that explained the objectives of the research, and included a link to the questionnaire that was available in three languages (namely, Spanish, German and English). A total of 305 usable questionnaires from real e-buyers were obtained, which is a higher sample than in other studies conducted in similar contexts and procedures (Rose et al. 2012). The demographic details of the sample are shown in Table 1. Respondents were mainly European (287 real e-buyers; 94%, specifically from Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria Croatia, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Macedonia, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and United Kingdom) and non-European (namely, from Argentina, Benin, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Greece, Ivory Coast, Mexico, Tanzania, United Arab Emirates, USA and Vietnam).

Besides, as we have noticed of the importance of clarifying how we conducted the translations for the scale items. In this regard, in the last paragraph of Section 3.2 (Measurements of constructs) we have indicated: “The translation of the original version of the questionnaire from English to Spanish and to German received special attention. Native Spanish and German speakers assumed the translation so that all the feasible nuances and connotations could be considered. Second native Spanish and German speakers thereafter translated the scale items from Spanish to English, and from German to English following the specifications of several scholars (Sicei et al. 2006). Finally, all translators evaluated the scale items in order to resolve any discrepancies.”

5.3   lack of information about the software or the statistical environment used to carry out the calculations;

Thank you very much. This information is available in Section 3.3 (Reliability and validity). The text indicates: “In order to estimate the proposed model (Figure 2), variance based structural equation modelling was used, also known as Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). This method is particularly recommendable for this research as the model is a combination of first and second order constructs for which covariance based structural equation modelling would require a higher sample size (Hair et al. 2012). Preliminary tests completed on our sample indicated the presence of non-normal data and PLS-SEM is less strict with these types of bias (Hair, Sarstedt, Hopkins, and Kuppelwieser, 2014).”

Also, the last sentence of the introduction section indicates: “Partial least squares path modelling (PLS-SEM) is used to analyse the hypotheses.”

5.4   SEM can be added in keywords.

Thank you very much. We have now added PLS-SEM as a keyword.

5.5   in the abstract, the method of data analysis used can be emphasized.

Thank you very much. We have added PLS-SEM, and now the abstract indicates:

“Partial least squares technique (PLS-SEM) was used to estimate the structural relationships”.

5.6   it should be clearly emphasized and separated that hypotheses H2A and H2B are verified separately

Thank you very much. We have done. You can see in red.

5.7   it is worth to present graphically demonstrated relationships (positively verified hypotheses) in the research findings

Thank you very much. We have now included figure 3 that offers all the information in relation to the significance of the analysed paths.

5.8   minor formal language errors, f. e. „the significant paths” (line 234).        

Thank you very much. We apologize for these mistakes. We have now carefully revised the language errors and we have amended them, highlighting the changes also in red font.

------------

We hope that the above points successfully respond to your concerns and make the manuscript appropriate for publication. Additional modifications have been made to the manuscript following suggestions made by another reviewer. We have tried hard to improve the manuscript. Thank you very much for your time and all your suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

In general the paper is interesting and well written, I suggest you to modify the structure of the last pararaphs to improve the redeability of the paper.

In detail:

The first 3 paragraphs of the Conclusion section can be collected in a new section called Discussion and Implication, while the last paragraph, namely Limitations and future research, should part of the Conclusion section together with a new paragraph in which you summarize the contribution of your study.

Maybe the description of the model you proposed should be inserted in the Findings and Discussion sections.

 Regards,

Author Response

Local food shopping: factors affecting users’ e-loyalty

Reviewer 2

Dear Authors,

In general the paper is interesting and well written, I suggest you to modify the structure of the last pararaphs to improve the redeability of the paper.

We are very thankful for your interesting suggestions. Your comments have helped us improve various aspects and now the manuscript is clearer and has gained value. In reply to your comments, we are sending you the revised manuscript, which includes all your suggestions. These modifications have significantly improved the study. You can see this changes written in red.

In detail: The first 3      paragraphs of the Conclusion section can be collected in a new section      called Discussion and Implication, while the last paragraph, namely      Limitations and future research, should part of the Conclusion section      together with a new paragraph in which you summarize the contribution of      your study. 

Thank you very much. We have assumed all your suggestions and now the manuscript has gained value in readability. Thank you.

Maybe the description of      the model you proposed should be inserted in the Findings and Discussion      sections.

Thank you very much. We have now included Figure 3.

-------------------------------

We hope that all our comments and changes respond to your requests, making this revised version of the manuscript appropriate for publication. We have certainly used our best efforts. Moreover, additional changes have been made to this revised version following the advice of another reviewer. Thank you very much for your time and all your comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is very interesting and I think it could be published in administrative sciences, but  the authors might consider the following question before publication

-The authors could clearly explain in the introduction that this study contributes with respect to others.

-A figure at the beginning of the paper, just before the hypotheses to explain the conceptual model would be recommended.

-A table that includes similar studies carried out to date could improve the theoretical framework

-A better justification of each of the hypotheses would be adequate.

-In the section on limitations and future research references are not usually added

Author Response

Local food shopping: factors affecting users’ e-loyalty

Reviewer 3

This paper is very interesting and I think it could be published in administrative sciences, but  the authors might consider the following question before publication

We are very grateful for your inspiring recommendations. Your observations have helped us increase several. In response to your observations, we are sending you the revised manuscript. These changes have meaningfully improved the quality of the manuscript. You can see these changes written in red.

1.     The authors could clearly explain in the introduction that this study contributes with respect to others.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We had mentioned in lines 56 to 61 the contribution of our research with respect to others. Specifically, we pinpointed  “Although the plenty of advantages of developing local food websites for the advancement of the supply chain such as the promotion food self-sufficiency, decreasing the environmental footprint and re-engaging consumers’ with the origin of the food (Pearson et al. 2011), consumers’ behaviour regarding these websites remain under-researched. Research that focuses not only in local food customers’ behaviour regarding the websites’ functional tasks, but also the website design and content is somewhat sparser”. Moreover, we emphasize more aspects in relation toy your suggestion from lines 62 to 73: “Despite the fact that local food can be purchased from many different stores, it seems that frequent buyers tend to be those that live nearby rural areas (Pearson et al. 2011). There is therefore scope to examine buyers’ behavioural e-loyalty regarding local food websites as the ability to find these products minimizes and is not only an issue of purely academic interest but also a possible contribution to food supply management practice. This study serves a first step toward the development of a model that can be employed by future scholars and practitioners in gaining knowledge regarding loyal local food consumers. The current research provides insight in this area by addressing the relationships among website evaluation (WE) (which comprises aesthetics, content, customization, ease of use and information quality), personal variables (perceived flow, perceived control) and relational variables (satisfaction and behavioural e-loyalty). Partial least squares path modelling (PLS-SEM) is used to analyse the hypotheses.”

2.     A figure at the beginning of the paper, just before the hypotheses to explain the conceptual model would be recommended.

Thank you very much. We have now included Figure 1 so that readers can understand before the hypotheses explanation, the research conducted for this manuscript. Thank you. This new change has meaningfully improved the understanding of our manuscript.

3.     A table that includes similar studies carried out to date could improve the theoretical framework.

Thank you very much. We have now included Table 1 and now the manuscript has gained noteworthy value by making this theoretical framework. Thank you.

4.     A better justification of each of the hypotheses would be adequate.

Thank you. We have included some comments and new references to better justify the hypothesis as you see in reviewed paper.

5.     In the section on limitations and future research references are not usually added

Thank you very much. We did not know and will take into account your suggestion for future manuscripts. However, we think these references add value to this section, and as these have been carefully indicated we think it is a petty to delete these. Nevertheless, we will not make references in this section in future manuscripts.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have followed the recommendations perfectly. I recommend publication. Congratulations.