Food Waste Behavior among Romanian Consumers: A Cluster Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is focused on the identification of consumers’ clusters in Romania according to their perception and behavior towards food waste. The topic is interesting and presents a novelty for the Romanian academic literature. It applies the K-means clustering model for analyzing the data derived from an online. Some parts are well structured; others have to be improved before the publication. Details for the improvement are reported in the file pdf.

Here, some general suggestions.

1. In some parts, it has to be improved the editing. Please, verify also the use of English (American or British?)
2. Abstract: it should be a total of about 200 words maximum. Yours is composed of 318 words. Please, revise it.
3. Introduction: I suggest separating the sub-sections 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 from the introduction for creating a new section: 2. Literature review. Other details are reported in the attached reviewed file to improve this part.
4. Materials and Methods: I suggest introducing a table for better describing the questionnaire.
5. Results: I suggest improving the quality of figures: the legends are often not full described. Other details are in the file.
6. Discussions: They are well organized and clear
7. Conclusions: They are well organized and clear.

References

Please, control again the roles. In some cases, something is missing. Look at the pdf file.

Additional references to consider:

1. Lombardi M., Costantino M., 2020, A Social Innovation Model for Reducing Food Waste: The Case Study of an Italian Non-Profit Organization, Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 45; doi:10.3390/admsci10030045
2. 2019. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction. CCBY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Rome: Licence. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf
3. Van der Werf, Paul, and Jason A. Gilliland. 2017. A systematic review of food losses and food waste generation in developed countries. In Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Waste and Resource Management 170: 66–77.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reading our manuscript and reviewing it. Your comments and suggestions help us to improve our manuscript to a better scientific level. We revised our manuscript, and quite a lot of changes have taken place. All the changes made in the revised manuscript are in purple colour to be visible.

Thank you again for your time and kindness.

Please find bellow the point-by-point answers:

Comment from Reviewer: In some parts, it has to be improved the editing. Please, verify also the use of English (American or British?)

Author response: Thank you for your edits. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the use of English in the manuscript (British style). We have replaced "behavior" with "behaviour", "to conduct" with "at conducting", "identify" with "identifying", "conducted" with "carried out", "European Union" with "EU", "Member States" with "Member states", "food wasted" with "food waste", "Methods" with "methods", "media" with "means", "HSD" with " Honestly Significant Difference", "analyzes" with "analysis", "averages" with "means", "figure 1" with "Figure 1", "figure 2" with "Figure 2", "between" with "among"; we have deleted ":" (the two points) after the subsection 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and section 3; we have improved the editing of the table 2 " Sample characteristics"; we have inserted space between table 4 and text; we have inserted space between figure 2 and text; we have inserted space between "they" and "sometimes";

Comment from Reviewer: Maybe, it could be useful to clarify the definition of food waste considering that often this term is referred also to food loss. This is for avoiding confusion as reported in line 64-68. You wrote food waste also for indicating food loss (improper management of food during the harvesting …)

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have clarified the concept of Food loos and waste (FLW) and we have inserted the definitions provided by FAO (2019) in introduction part of the manuscript. We have also corrected the use of this concept in line 64-68. As suggested by the reviewer, we have considered the additional references.

Comment from Reviewer: Abstract: it should be a total of about 200 words maximum. Yours is composed of 318 words. Please, revise it.

Author response: Thank you! We have revised the abstract.

Comment from Reviewer: Introduction: I suggest separating the sub-sections 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 from the introduction for creating a new section: 2. Literature review. Other details are reported in the attached reviewed file to improve this part.

Author response: Thank you for the suggestion. We made the correction in the manuscript.

Comment from Reviewer: I suggest to move this part at the end of the introduction section, linking line 70 with line 181.

Author response: Although we agree that this is an important suggestion, after reading several times the manuscript, we didn't find a link between the introduction section and this paragraph. We have considered that it fits better at the end of literature review section (after presenting the previous results on consumer clustering).

Comment from Reviewer: I suggest to describe the questionnaire using a table: name sections, description of section, number of questions for section.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer, we have created table 1, which contains the questionnaire items used in the analysis and we have modified table 5, to make it more easily readable.

Comment from Reviewer: Please, you have to express in Euros.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have expressed the net monthly income in Euros.

Comment from Reviewer: Please, explain better the using of p-value. Please, explain the use of F value.

Author response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have extended the description of statistical analysis and we have explained the use of p-value and F-value.

Comment from Reviewer: Maybe it is necessary now to "title" these 3 clusters, taking into account that then the table 4 describe them, without a previous introduction.

Author response: We think this is an excellent suggestion. We have titled the three clusters at the beginning of results section.

Comment from Reviewer: Please, verify the style role for caption. Additionally, improve the quality of the figure. Maybe it is missing, in the legenda, the description of dark green histogram and purple histogram. Please, reduce the size of the number 1, 2 and 3. Also for the figure 2, the same considerations for the figure 1. In this case, the legend is completely missing of information about quite all histograms. Please, verify the style role for caption. Improve the quality in editing and description.

Author response: Thank you your suggestions. The reviewer is correct, and we have replaced the old figures with the new ones, modified and completed.

Comment from Reviewer: Reference 1- according to the journal roles for the references. Additionally, considering that the document is published by the European Parliament, it is recommended to write the refence in English as paper has been written in English for a journal that use English as language.

Reference 3 - year of publication

Rference 6 - This is not the author but the title of document page. You should indicate: European Commission.

Author response: We have corrected the references according to reviewers' suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you a lot for the interesting paper. Food waste is a big problem around the world, especially if we think from the point of view of natural environment, sustainable life and hunger in many places. I can observe it also in my country. The worst situation is after main holidays in my country. Good thing is that local governments and many organizations noticed it, and we have some good action. For example after Christmas time there are places where people can take food they did not finish. There are also many initiatives.

I think people should read your paper because it can help understand what food waste is and why it is so bad for everyone. Personally, I read it with curiosity because I try to follow the style of life with as less food waste as possible. Sometimes it is difficult, but I am try my best.
Now let’s come back to the part I should do. I know that my duty, as reviewer, is to comment your work, especially to show what you should change. No one like critics, me neither but it is only to make your paper better. I found many mistakes, so I have some comments for you. I hope you will treat them as my advices. Remember, I am here not to say only bad comments but to help you to improve your paper so it can be published by MDPI in Information Journal. I hope you will correct it as soon as possible to give it to readers. Here my comments:

1. Abstract: I already have a comment in abstract without reading your paper. I am from a European country, not so far away from you, even our culture is not so different. I can say that lots of people from rural areas here have respect for food, they learn it from generation to generation. Even with low education, or maybe because of the low education, they do not throw food, or they do it only when it is really needed. And often this food is used for animals. So I think even in your country this group can be seen. Can you comment?
2. Introduction: Finish Introduction with clear aim of the paper, and underline what is new here, what is your contribution.
3. Also introduction: In my country there is another people, especially if it comes to shops. Slowly the low is changing but some time ago it was better to throw food than give it for charity, because you had to pay a kind of taxes.
4. Points 1.1, 1.2: Remember that Sustainability is an international journal. I know that most of the authors are from Romania and you are interested in the situation in your country. But remember that the aim of the journal is to find as many readers as possible so final decision about your paper will be based on it. I think you should compare the situation in Romania with other countries, would be enough with other countries of the EU. Not too much, even some sentences. The same later. Of course research is based on your country, as example, so here do not change anything. But I would advise you to compare Romania to other countries in theory. You did it in very good way commenting your results in Discussion and comparing them to other studies.
5. Point 1.2 and other parts of the paper: is it possible for you to divide so long paragraphs in shorter 2or 3? It would be easier to read the text. Especially that publication fee in not based on the length of the paper.
6. Lines 108-110: and here we have "the concept of consumer society". You can comment it.
7. Lines 116-118: I would also add info about tourist places such as hotels, especially with full buffet in the morning and those with "all inclusive". I saw many times people putting lots of food on their plates (like pyramids) and later leaving practically everything only touched.
8. Line 128: After [23] I think dot is missing.
9. Lines 129-130: I think it is caused by the price of meat. In my country we always joke that grandmothers say to their grandchildren "eat all meat, you can leave potatoes".
10. Point 1.2 generally: Comment from my life, in my fridge I put all staff according to the expiration date.
11. Point 2.4: Can you extend a bit description of statistical analysis for those who are not so good in it?
12. Point 3: Did you check validity and reliability of the survey? If yes, how?
13. Figure 1-4: I do not understand this and next figures. In legend, you have 2 colors but in figure you have 6 bars or more. Add also axis's titles. I am not sure if the units of the axis Y should be so precise, I would use the unit every 0.1. Remove also 0", second decimal place is enough. Remember to change coma for dot. In my country we also use come in such a situation and I often make the same mistake.
14. Conclusion: Is there any limitation of the research?
15. References: Check references according to template. I think in some places there are mistakes.

I am looking forward to reading again your paper and seeing its improvement. I wish you all the best. I give you the possibility to correct your paper so it suits to Information Journal and can be published by MDPI.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reading our manuscript and reviewing it. Your comments and suggestions help us to improve our manuscript to a better scientific level. We revised our manuscript, and quite a lot of changes have taken place. All the changes made in the revised manuscript are in blue colour to be visible.

Thank you again for your time and kindness.

Please find bellow the point-by-point answers:

Comment from Reviewer: Abstract: I already have a comment in abstract without reading your paper. I am from a European country, not so far away from you, even our culture is not so different. I can say that lots of people from rural areas here have respect for food, they learn it from generation to generation. Even with low education, or maybe because of the low education, they do not throw food, or they do it only when it is really needed. And often this food is used for animals. So I think even in your country this group can be seen. Can you comment?

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. The reviewer is correct, and we have added in the abstract "small cities". We agree that people from rural area have more respect for food, but unfortunately, the situation is a little bit different nowadays in Romania. Along with a decrease in total population, Romania is facing a demographical aging, more pronounced in rural areas, due to the low birth rates and the international migration phenomenon. A lot of villages are depopulated and the number of domestic animals decreased. In the same time, the new generations use different methods to feed their farm animals: e.g. they do not use food scraps, but more concentrate feeds.

Comment from Reviewer: Introduction: Finish Introduction with clear aim of the paper, and underline what is new here, what is your contribution.

Author response: We think this is an excellent suggestion. We have highlighted at the end of the first part of the manuscript the novelty of the present paper.

Comment from Reviewer: Also introduction: In my country there is another people, especially if it comes to shops. Slowly the low is changing but some time ago it was better to throw food than give it for charity, because you had to pay a kind of taxes.

Author response: Thank you for this comment. In our country, the present legislation supports the creation of food banks and the cooperation between retailers and NGOs in order to donate the surplus of food to the people in need.

Comment from Reviewer: Points 1.1, 1.2: Remember that Sustainability is an international journal. I know that most of the authors are from Romania and you are interested in the situation in your country. But remember that the aim of the journal is to find as many readers as possible so final decision about your paper will be based on it. I think you should compare the situation in Romania with other countries, would be enough with other countries of the EU. Not too much, even some sentences. The same later. Of course research is based on your country, as example, so here do not change anything. But I would advise you to compare Romania to other countries in theory. You did it in very good way commenting your results in Discussion and comparing them to other studies.

Author response: We appreciate a lot this suggestion. We have improved the introduction and the literature review sections with examples of other countries in terms of quantifying food waste by the European countries: e.g. - Finland, Italy, Germany.

Comment from Reviewer: Point 1.2 and other parts of the paper: is it possible for you to divide so long paragraphs in shorter 2or 3? It would be easier to read the text. Especially that publication fee in not based on the length of the paper.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have divided the text in shorter paragraphs in order to be easier to read.

Comment from Reviewer: Lines 108-110: and here we have "the concept of consumer society". You can comment it.

Author response: The uses of various marketing tools, especially by big retailers such as advertising and online communication have a big impact on consumer behaviour. As we have already highlighted in the study, some people often buy new products, especially food that do not need. They are looking for new experiences, but most of the time, they lose the emotional control. They do not have much information on the subject of food waste and do not seem to consider it "a problem".

Comment from Reviewer: Lines 116-118: I would also add info about tourist places such as hotels, especially with full buffet in the morning and those with "all inclusive". I saw many times people putting lots of food on their plates (like pyramids) and later leaving practically everything only touched.

Author response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the following paragraph: "Food waste represents a serious problem not only for rural tourism, but also for all-inclusive segment of this industry. According to Okumus et al. [2020], guests' cultural backgrounds highly influence the tourists’ behaviours and the quantity of food waste generated."

Comment from Reviewer: Line 128: After [23] I think dot is missing.

Author response: Thank you for the observation. We made the correction in the manuscript.

Comment from Reviewer: Lines 129-130: I think it is caused by the price of meat. In my country we always joke that grandmothers say to their grandchildren "eat all meat, you can leave potatoes".

Author response: This is a nice example of your country. We have a similar saying in Romania, using by our grandmas. Nowadays, due to the trend for vegetarianism and veganism, I think the roles between meat and vegetables will be reversed.

Comment from Reviewer: Point 1.2 generally: Comment from my life, in my fridge I put all staff according to the expiration date.

Author response: We think this is an excellent habit.

Comment from Reviewer: Point 2.4: Can you extend a bit description of statistical analysis for those who are not so good in it?

Author response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have extended the description of statistical analysis, by explaining in depth the steps of the cluster analysis.

Comment from Reviewer: Point 3: Did you check validity and reliability of the survey? If yes, how?

Author response: Thank you for this question. The questionnaire was pre-tested on a sample that followed the weights of every socio-demographic characteristic that was used to evaluate the respondents in the demographic section. The weights were reported to the official data of the statistical institutes.

Comment from Reviewer: Figure 1-4: I do not understand this and next figures. In legend, you have 2 colours but in figure you have 6 bars or more. Add also axis's titles. I am not sure if the units of the axis Y should be so precise, I would use the unit every 0.1. Remove also 0", second decimal place is enough. Remember to change coma for dot. In my country we also use come in such a situation and I often make the same mistake.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. The reviewer is correct, and we have replaced the old figures with the new ones, modified and completed.

Comment from Reviewer: Conclusion: Is there any limitation of the research?

Author response: We have underlined the limitation of the research in the material and method section and at the end of conclusion section.

Comment from Reviewer: Check references according to template. I think in some places there are mistakes.

Author response: Thank you for the observation. We made the correction in the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors followed the suggested recommendations. The paper improved its quality and now it is ready to be published after revising some inaccuracies in text editing. Please verify: line 546-547 reference n. 13; line 317, space between table and text; line 319 space between text and title of table; table 2: decide to use comma or not for thousand (in some parts you used comma: standardize); line 63 is missing of a space between the two words. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you a lot for including all my comments into your paper. It was a pleasure to work with you. Now I am waiting for your paper to be accepted by the main editor and published in Sustainability journal.

Good luck in your future work.