Consumer Attitude, Concerns, and Brand Acceptance for the Vegetables Cultivated with Sustainable Plant Factory Production Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The new version of the manuscript is significantly improved compared to the former. However, some issues persist, which need to be resolved before the paper can be accepted for publication

As in the previous version, the most important issue is the language. There are some basic issues in the use of expressions, use of singular/plural, use of past-present (e.g. in p. 5) choice of words and also in the choice of terminology (e.g. precision  (not precise) agriculture, follow-up questions (not sub-questions) etc). The language should be revised thoroughly throughout the text. The introduction needs to be rearranged, because actually there are repetitions and use of redundant expressions. I prpose that you consider the following. Start with l. 42-46, then l. 82-93 and merge with l. 47-70 (many things are the same between the two paragraphs) and with l.108-110, then l. 71-81.  In the introduction, it would be useful to add a paragraph with information regarding (a) the productivity of plant factories compared to the productivity of vegetables in open land and in greenhouses; (b) the percentage of vegetables produced in plant factories compared to the total production in the country; (c) the volume of such vegetables consumed in the market in Taiwan In l. 116, the author states that one of the aims of the study is to study the preferred branding of products, but this is not true and should be changed. The study concerns the preferred origin of vegetables or the preferred producer. Please change the reference style in the text according to the Journal guidelines Tables 4-5. These percentages are useful, but they cannot be generalized to draw conclusions. The least that the author could do would be to present results of chi-square or other analysis, to show how these percentages change between segments of the population (e.g. are men or women more concerned about these products? How does age affect consumer beliefs about these products? etc)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version of the manuscript shows improvements regarding structure and presentation of results.

The analysis is now more structured, balanced, and less opinionated.

The following revisions are necessary for publication.

Revise the introduction. It is necessary to obtain a better chain of reasoning. There are a lot of repetitions with regard to the advantages of plant factories. One example is the multiple mentions about how plant factories help cope with climate change impacts. There is nothing wrong about this aspect, it is simply mentioned so often that, as a reader, you ask yourself why you have to read this aspect over and over again. Please revise the position of several tables in the text. Often you mention a table which is then only available half a page later. This is very confusing to the reader. The abstract needs small revisions to make it more readable. Please send the manuscript to an English editing service to improve readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion, the improved version of the paper is much better than the original. Given that all my suggestions from the first review have been taken into account, I have no further comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

-

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is ready for publication.