Exploring Sustainable Food Choices Factors and Purchasing Behavior in the Sustainable Development Goals Era in Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor, Dear Authors,

In my opinion, the current version of the manuscript represents the appropriate scientific level for publication. The authors have taken advantage of the reviewers' comments and guidance and have made significant changes to the original version of the manuscript. My last two suggestions to make minor corrections indicated in the second review have been taken into account. 

Author Response

The authors of this manuscript feel gratitude that Reviewer 1 acknowledges efforts to get improved the manuscript. Many thanks for your valuable help. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Many thanks to the authors for addressing the comments.

Author Response

The authors of this manuscript appreciate that Reviewer 2 is satisfied with the current version. Many thanks for your valuable help. 

Reviewer 3 Report

1. After several revisions the aim of the paper still is not formulated in a clear way. I don't understand what "to investigate the ampleness of the concept" means, what methods are adequate to measure ampleness and how it is related with consumers typology. I still think that the authors collected a lot of interesting data but they are very poorly presented.
2. What is the source of questions? Why do authors claim that the list of questions is a good scale to measure consumers’ level of knowledge about sustainability and other constructs? Is it a validated scale? Part titled "Questionnaire" does not contain any information on scale applied in the study.
3. The other comment regards more formal issues like some expressions. For example: 116 - not consumers but sample characteristics, questionnaire should not be included into results (line 228). It is quite annoying that the titles of tables 1-4 are above the tables, whereas the title of table 5 - below. It shows lack of sufficient dilligence when text editing.

Author Response

AU: We thanks Reviewer 3 for helping to improve the current version of the manuscript.

1. After several revisions the aim of the paper still is not formulated in a clear way. I don't understand what "to investigate the ampleness of the concept" means, what methods are adequate to measure ampleness and how it is related with consumers typology. I still think that the authors collected a lot of interesting data but they are very poorly presented.

AU: The aim of the paper has been reworked following specific requests from the other reviewers who have expressed that the current version of the manuscript is now satisfactory. We are not fully capable to identify the formulation that the Reviewer requests, but we have modified the passage mentioned hoping that Reviewer 3 is now satisfied with it.

Different multi-component concepts such as sustainability, animal welfare have been previously theorized in interaction with society. That is, the addition of more elements to the concept goes hand in hand with the development of the society in a way that the concept gains more complementary elements in the course of the progress of societies raising concerns, awareness, public discussion and research stimulation on the topic.

We have proposed the exploration of different elements related to sustainability through environmental protection, food safety, animal welfare, benefits to local producers, etc. as context given to the promotion of sustainable consumption and production patterns that guarantee economic growth but also as indicators that consumers could rank in the questionnaire.

1. What is the source of questions? Why do authors claim that the list of questions is a good scale to measure consumers’ level of knowledge about sustainability and other constructs? Is it a validated scale? Part titled "Questionnaire" does not contain any information on scale applied in the study.

AU: The questionnaire is based on previous questionnaires and previous experiences from two of the coauthors with vast experience in consumer behavior. We would like to clarify that the questionnaire is not a tool to assess sustainability nor is part of a sustainability assessment scheme that as the Reviewer right said requires the validation of the tool. In this study, we use the questionnaire as an exploratory tool together with the conjoint analysis.

1. The other comment regards more formal issues like some expressions. For example: 116 - not consumers but sample characteristics, questionnaire should not be included into results (line 228). It is quite annoying that the titles of tables 1-4 are above the tables, whereas the title of table 5 - below. It shows lack of sufficient dilligence when text editing.

AU: We have amended line 116. We have placed the questionnaire on material and methods. We have revised the titles of tables allocation. We are sorry for the disturbance we have occasioned.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, Dear Editor,

Changing contemporary food consumption patterns in societies of developed countries to be consistent with the sustainable consumption model is one of the most urgent challenges to be addressed by current generations. Thus, the topic of the manuscript is very timely as more scientific facts are needed to achieve the SDGs.

Title and aim of the study

The research described in the manuscript was on consumer behavior, focusing on sustainable food choice factors and purchasing behavior. It was only marginally concerned with the frequency of pork consumption and primarily investigated how different pig farming systems affect meat choice. Thus, the title is misleading because it suggests a study of consumption patterns [....]. It is necessary to narrow it down to an exploration of food choice factors through the lens of the challenge of changing consumption patterns to more sustainable ones. With this in mind, it is also necessary to align aim (i) with the substance of the study. More so because the samples of respondents were small, while identifying typologies requires research on representative samples.  

Methodology - sampling

Information on how the sample was selected is missing. How were individuals recruited to participate in each of the 15 sessions in each of the two regions? How many people were sent invitations to participate in the study and how? What was the response rate? - The sample of 200 people per region is rather small.

Methodology - questionnaire

It is questionable to test the questionnaire by experts/researchers from the University. Experts' comments are valuable in terms of the substantive content of the tool, while testing (pilot sample) should be conducted among potential respondents.

Does the so-called average consumer understand the relationship between biodiversity and economy? ("Integration of natural habitat conservation with the survival of the economic system"); does he or she know what "white label" means?; or what is the difference between "Respect for the environment" and "Environmentally sustainable production"?

Do consumers have knowledge of which manufacturers operate sustainably/manage through CSR? ("I do not buy brands or products produced or manufactured by companies that are not responsible with the environment and society").

Several statements are inaccurately detailed, which may have determined the survey results. What is behind the statement "Food packaging is important to me" - one can answer this question keeping in mind the different functions of food packaging, or one can look through the lens of sustainability, which was certainly the authors' intention (but not articulated). Similarly, the statement "I try to avoid prepared meals" is unclear - prepared meals are great, while highly processed foods are not. "My diet and that of my family are very important to me" - but in what context? The average consumer primarily thinks about nutritional and energy value.

The statement "GMOs are harmful to human health" is biased and duplicates a stereotype, as yet unverified scientifically.

Given these observations, I have serious concerns about the quality of the survey material. Table 2 shows that in Cluster 1 there were significantly more respondents in the 40-60 age group (44% vs 32% in Cluster 2) and 3 times more in the 60+ group, 3 times more pensioners (12% vs 3%) and significantly less students (17% vs 34%). And this particular cluster is pro sustainability, while cluster 2 is against it. This is surprising compared to other research studies.

Questionnaire design and sampling are serious limitations of this study.

Results

The authors tend to over-generalize the results. Given the small sample size of respondents, I suggest being more precise and referring to the respondents. This is especially true for L. 292-295 and L. 305-310. In L. 292, it should be stated (in parentheses) how many factors determined the socio-demographic characteristics listed. It is not true that the level of education and employment did not influence the answers (education influenced 2 distinguishing factors, employment - 1). In L. 305 it should be clarified that "shopping place is the most important difference in ANALYSED buying habits" (since only 2 issues of buying behavior were examined).  It is incorrect to say that Cluster 1 showed significantly higher consumption of Iberian products. More frequent consumption of such pork was shown, but it was not statistically more frequent; occasional eating, on the other hand, was declared by a statistically higher percentage from Cluster 2. For processed Iberian pork, no significant differences were found.

Discussion

The discussion focuses too much on sustainable meat production. In view of the proportion of issues in the questionnaire and in the "Results" chapter, I suggest limiting the sections on meat production.

L. 337-341. The statement "Sustainability is perceived as poor and confusing by most consumers of this study" refers to direct statements made by respondents (Table 4, belief 2).However, these general statements are contradicted by the data in Table 3, where between 2/3 and 84% of the respondents agree with four characteristics of sustainable food production and with one (only!) referring to sustainable food consumption (only in one case fewer affirmative statements were obtained, but the percentage of 50.4 also indicates a minimal majority). Thus, there is no basis for comparison with the results of other studies. Instead, it is good to note that studies from many countries show that the majority of consumers do not understand the idea of sustainable consumption, as in cited [15] or in e.g. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980019000326.

I also suggest presenting the limitations of the study.

Minor comments

L.189 "npar1way" in capital letters

L.240 "scoring almost 5" - the value of 4.6 can be rounded to 5, but 4.4 to 4.

Tables 4 and 5 - technical note - for better perception, I suggest removing the horizontal line under the statement "Given the choice of food products, is it important to you?" and writing it in italics (as in Table 3)

L.265 food safety instead of "food security"

L.267 and 276 should be Table 5, not Table 6

L.286, 301, 401 in questionnaire is "prepared" and I suggest not changing to "ultra-processed"

L.296 "the lifestyle brands" - what is this about?

L.302 overinterpretation - the question asked for "more vegetarian diet," so consumers would rank higher to eat more plant-based foods (not vegetables).

Table S2. food market instead "stock market"

L.346 to confirm, I suggest citing more studies, including: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247240

L.391 I think this is about SDG12

L.422-424 this statement needs a source

L.501 I suggest using a more apt term than "attitude" because attitudes are a separate research area within consumer behavior and were not considered in this study.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

Changing contemporary food consumption patterns in societies of developed countries to be consistent with the sustainable consumption model is one of the most urgent challenges to be addressed by current generations. Thus, the topic of the manuscript is very timely as more scientific facts are needed to achieve the SDGs.

RE: Dear anonymous Reviewer 1,

Thanks very much for your valuable comments and for reviewing our manuscript in such detail! We have taken great care to acknowledge all your comments and to consider your suggestions for improvements to the manuscript. Please find below our responses to each of the points raised. We hope that this modified version will meet your expectations.

Title and aim of the study

The research described in the manuscript was on consumer behavior, focusing on sustainable food choice factors and purchasing behavior. It was only marginally concerned with the frequency of pork consumption and primarily investigated how different pig farming systems affect meat choice. Thus, the title is misleading because it suggests a study of consumption patterns [....]. It is necessary to narrow it down to an exploration of food choice factors through the lens of the challenge of changing consumption patterns to more sustainable ones. With this in mind, it is also necessary to align aim (i) with the substance of the study. More so because the samples of respondents were small, while identifying typologies requires research on representative samples.  

RE: The objective and tittle of the study have been amended according to the request. Regarding the limitations of the sample, we have tried to give more contexts to the study and circumscribe the outcomes to the sample.

Methodology - sampling

Information on how the sample was selected is missing. How were individuals recruited to participate in each of the 15 sessions in each of the two regions? How many people were sent invitations to participate in the study and how? What was the response rate? - The sample of 200 people per region is rather small.

RE: More information about selection of consumers have been added (new lines 120-123). Regarding the size of the sample, it should be acknowledged that consumers responded to a paper questionnaire. In addition, participants also answered other tests and were remunerated for the time dedicated to this survey so we had limited time and budget to perform more sessions.

The authors gave a priority for the geographical coverage of two contrasting areas (proximity to different pig sector development, city size, etc.). Nevertheless, we agree that representativeness is low.

Methodology - questionnaire

It is questionable to test the questionnaire by experts/researchers from the University. Experts' comments are valuable in terms of the substantive content of the tool, while testing (pilot sample) should be conducted among potential respondents.

RE: Colleagues of different Departments were from different ages and worked on different roles and research topics. Moreover, familiars from these colleagues and personnel from services at the university (cleaning, secretary, etc.) were also included. So they could have responded as consumers more than experts. We know it is not equivalent to a pilot testing but it was a proxy of it. The questionnaire and methodology is based on previous questionnaires and previous experiences from two of the coauthors with vast experience on consumer behavior. Such methodology is backed up with peer-reviewed publications.

Does the so-called average consumer understand the relationship between biodiversity and economy? ("Integration of natural habitat conservation with the survival of the economic system"); does he or she know what "white label" means?; or what is the difference between "Respect for the environment" and "Environmentally sustainable production"?

RE: Researchers of this study assisted the respondents during the paper-questionnaire session. The percentage of Non-applicable was not higher under these questions. “White label” is a popular and well-known term that consumers recognize well. It is the brand of the supermarket and the contrary to specific brands. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, respondents were assisted during the questionnaire session so that any doubt in this respect was solved. The main difference between "Respect for the environment" and "Environmentally sustainable production" is the engagement of the livestock activity of the second one. The first one is a general concept more related to action/personal behaviour, nonspecifically connected to purchase.

Do consumers have knowledge of which manufacturers operate sustainably/manage through CSR? ("I do not buy brands or products produced or manufactured by companies that are not responsible with the environment and society").

RE: We asked for the relevance to respondents. We are not able to distinguish in this questionnaire if there is a cognitive barrier of the different topics. What we know here is the perception of the consumers’ toward this statement. We would like to emphasize that consumers have the NA response and the assistance of the research team at the time of performing the questionnaire. Moreover, it is important to note that it is not easy to know what companies are not responsible, however, those products with sustainability claims/attributes inform about companies that are, in principle, responsible. This allows identifying those consumers that perceive utility on sustainability attributes/claims.  

Several statements are inaccurately detailed, which may have determined the survey results. What is behind the statement "Food packaging is important to me" - one can answer this question keeping in mind the different functions of food packaging, or one can look through the lens of sustainability, which was certainly the authors' intention (but not articulated). Similarly, the statement "I try to avoid prepared meals" is unclear - prepared meals are great, while highly processed foods are not. "My diet and that of my family are very important to me" - but in what context? The average consumer primarily thinks about nutritional and energy value.

RE: Many Thanks for these comments. Questions are open to the different interpretation of the consumers, depending on their previous experiences and knowledge. We think it is interesting what you suggest because it can help in the discussion, thus we have incorporated some of these details into the discussion. Prepared meals have been wrongly used in the earlier version of the document. We apologize for the confusion. The right term is ultra-processed meals and it has been homogenized throughout the text.

Regarding the relevance of the diet for the family, they might think about priorities. The Mediterranean diet is seen for Spanish consumers as a tradition and it is perceived as diverse enough. The Spanish consumer seems to be very traditional and packaging could be considered as a source of innovation. And although it may be accepted, in some cases this innovation may damage the traditional character of the food which is certainly the main barrier for the Spanish consumer (from our opinion). We appreciate your open questions but (after our study) it remains to be determined to what extent the obtained insights apply to specific and more profound analysis as well as directions for continued research in this area.

The statement "GMOs are harmful to human health" is biased and duplicates a stereotype, as yet unverified scientifically.

RE: The sentence is not about scientific facts conveyed to respondents but a proposed elicited idea that the authors as it has been found to be common in the society. Therefore, and according to the scientific bibliography on consumer behaviour, the authors considered timely to include this question, despite the scientific controversy (lack of verification) around the potential negative effects (if any) of GMO on human’s health. Moreover, this sentence involves other components (artificial flavors and additives). Respondents have the option to respond yes, no or NA. Independently of the bad formulation that the reviewer highlighted.

Given these observations, I have serious concerns about the quality of the survey material. Table 2 shows that in Cluster 1 there were significantly more respondents in the 40-60 age group (44% vs 32% in Cluster 2) and 3 times more in the 60+ group, 3 times more pensioners (12% vs 3%) and significantly less students (17% vs 34%). And this particular cluster is pro sustainability, while cluster 2 is against it. This is surprising compared to other research studies.

RE: Almost all the questions are taken from other articles. The questionnaire was designed according to the research questions of this study and organized following the outline of previous studies. In reality, what we see is the consumer perception of these phrases.

Cluster 2 is not against it either, but it has lower scores and is more indifferent.

We understand the concerns raised. However, these differences among clusters regarding social characteristics also convey a proper differentiation of clusters in terms on consumers segments. This will be useful for the industry in order to define and develop their marketing-communication strategies and campaigns. Regarding high-quality meat products and sustainability, it has been described (source below) how younger generations (especially when on compares Centennials against Millennials) do not care about sustainability as much as Millennials do. Centennials are more convenient oriented, looking for short-term desire, and individualistic (which is also reflected in consumption patterns towards dry-cured ham: Millennials and older generations relate the consumption of these products with sharing it and enjoying it around the table, unlike Centennials). Source: Contreras, P. 2021. Jornada "Millennials y centennials: las nuevas generaciones de consumidores y su relación con el jamón. Congreso Mundial del Jamón (World Ham Congress). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnQuSplVjBY&feature=youtu.be

Questionnaire design and sampling are serious limitations of this study.

RE: We have described limitations in a specific section at the end of the Discussion (lines 356-369).

Results

The authors tend to over-generalize the results. Given the small sample size of respondents, I suggest being more precise and referring to the respondents. This is especially true for L. 292-295 and L. 305-310. In L. 292, it should be stated (in parentheses) how many factors determined the socio-demographic characteristics listed. It is not true that the level of education and employment did not influence the answers (education influenced 2 distinguishing factors, employment - 1). In L. 305 it should be clarified that "shopping place is the most important difference in ANALYSED buying habits" (since only 2 issues of buying behavior were examined).  It is incorrect to say that Cluster 1 showed significantly higher consumption of Iberian products. More frequent consumption of such pork was shown, but it was not statistically more frequent; occasional eating, on the other hand, was declared by a statistically higher percentage from Cluster 2. For processed Iberian pork, no significant differences were found.

RE: We have amended these passages. Many thanks for pointing this part of the manuscript where the amendment was necessary.

Discussion

The discussion focuses too much on sustainable meat production. In view of the proportion of issues in the questionnaire and in the "Results" chapter, I suggest limiting the sections on meat production.

RE: We have limited the meat production section (e.g. conjoint analysis outcome discussion)-

341. 337-341. The statement "Sustainability is perceived as poor and confusing by most consumers of this study" refers to direct statements made by respondents (Table 4, belief 2).However, these general statements are contradicted by the data in Table 3, where between 2/3 and 84% of the respondents agree with four characteristics of sustainable food production and with one (only!) referring to sustainable food consumption (only in one case fewer affirmative statements were obtained, but the percentage of 50.4 also indicates a minimal majority). Thus, there is no basis for comparison with the results of other studies. Instead, it is good to note that studies from many countries show that the majority of consumers do not understand the idea of sustainable consumption, as in cited [15] or in e.g. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980019000326.

RE: we would like to emphasize that in our study, it doesn´t mean that the same respondents have all the four components of sustainability involved.

Many Thanks for the paper suggested. We have incorporated it into the manuscript.

I also suggest presenting the limitations of the study.

RE: The reviewer is perfectly right with this request. We have incorporated a new section at the end of the discussion (lines 356-369).

Minor comments

L.189 "npar1way" in capital letters

RE: Amended

L.240 "scoring almost 5" - the value of 4.6 can be rounded to 5, but 4.4 to 4.

RE: The reviewer is right regarding rounding figures. Scores were 4.4. and 4.6, so we have decided to emphasize more that both were the highest scores of this block.

Tables 4 and 5 - technical note - for better perception, I suggest removing the horizontal line under the statement "Given the choice of food products, is it important to you?" and writing it in italics (as in Table 3)

RE: Amended. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion.

L.265 food safety instead of "food security"

RE: Amended

L.267 and 276 should be Table 5, not Table 6

RE: Amended.

L.286, 301, 401 in questionnaire is "prepared" and I suggest not changing to "ultra-processed"

RE: We have checked the original questionnaire (in Spanish) and it should be ultra-processed throughout the manuscript. The questionnaire has been amended.

L.296 "the lifestyle brands" - what is this about?

RE: This is a defined term. A lifestyle brand is a brand that attempts to embody the values, aspirations, interests, attitudes, or opinions of a group or a culture for marketing purposes.

L.302 overinterpretation - the question asked for "more vegetarian diet," so consumers would rank higher to eat more plant-based foods (not vegetables).

RE: The reviewer is right. Amended.

Table S2. food market instead "stock market"

RE: Amended.

L.346 to confirm, I suggest citing more studies, including: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247240

RE: Many Thanks for the suggestion. It is now included.

L.391 I think this is about SDG12

RE: In this specific passage, we observe more commonalities with SDG2. We have added SDG12 following the suggestion of the reviewer.

L.422-424 this statement needs a source

RE: Added.

L.501 I suggest using a more apt term than "attitude" because attitudes are a separate research area within consumer behavior and were not considered in this study.

RE: Amended.

Reviewer 2 Report

This research explores the current consumption patterns and sustainable food choices in two Spanish regions. The study uses a face-to-face based survey and a discrete choice experiment on 403 consumers. A cluster analysis identifies two groups of Spanish consumers with similar preferences within groups and different preferences between groups. Overall, the research concludes that Spanish consumers are not aware of the wider aspects included in the concepts of sustainability. Although I think that the research is interesting and provides useful results, I have some questions about your manuscript. Please see my comments below. I hope it contributes to guiding you through your revision.

Please remove the abbreviation from your title or mention the whole meaning of it.

ABSTRACT

The aim of the research is confusing as your title states another aim of the paper while the first sentence of the abstract states another. Then, at the end of the introduction, you add another sentence. Please homogenize them.

I think your abstract needs to be better organized and include the most important part of your research. Is you survey online or face-to-face? Was the discrete choice experiment included in the survey? The abstract should read alone.

Mention all parts of the methodologies used in the research and state the results of your paper. I had to go until the end of the abstract and see that you also use a discrete choice experiment and estimate the WTP.  

INTRODUCTION
Overall, the introduction has some informative points but it is unorganized and very difficult to follow. It mixes too many concepts and does not justify the reason for the research. People interested in this area might lose interest and give up reading it. The authors are strongly recommended to first state the problem, see what has been done in the literature and then clearly state the aim of the research, and then finally report what the research adds to the literature and what it aims to solve. Stating some hypotheses will also be useful and easier for readers to follow.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Line 103-104: Is there a particular reason that the data are from 2017? Because I think that preferences and patterns towards sustainable aspects have changed by now.

You mention a discrete choice experiment in the abstract but in the methodology describe a conjoint analysis. Also, you talk about the WTP estimates but in this section, there is nothing talking about the WTPs. Please correct.

 DISCUSSION
This section should discuss the results of the research and then compare the findings with previous research in Spain or outside Spain.

Line 342-349: Are you trying to combine the results of other studies with your results? It is unclear.

Line 352-363: This paragraph is unclear, and I really do not understand what you want to deliver. Discuss the results of your research and combine them with other studies.

Line 363-370: this part should go to the conclusions of the research where you clearly give suggestions on WHAT has to be done to solve the problem.

CONCLUSION

Line 499-500: I think the correct sentence here would be: “……although most of the consumers have heard about sustainability, they are not aware……”

Line 502-503: The main barrier is the lack of information to consumers. I think that based on your results, consumers are aware that sustainability exists (I guess because of the big booming now) but they miss information on understanding the concept of sustainability and how to make sustainable food choice decisions. 

Do you have any implications for the Spanish policymakers, local producers and/or retailers? What should they do in order to attract consumers towards more sustainable and healthier food choices?

Do you have any limitations? A known limitation of self-report instruments such as surveys and questionnaires is their susceptibility to socially desirable responses. Socially desirable responding is the tendency to give answers that make the respondent look good, or the tendency ‘‘to stretch the truth in an effort to make a good impression’’ (see Martin & Nagao, 1989, for more information). You should mention this aspect as a possible limitation.  

Martin, C., & Nagao, D. H. (1989). Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 72–80.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research explores the current consumption patterns and sustainable food choices in two Spanish regions. The study uses a face-to-face based survey and a discrete choice experiment on 403 consumers. A cluster analysis identifies two groups of Spanish consumers with similar preferences within groups and different preferences between groups. Overall, the research concludes that Spanish consumers are not aware of the wider aspects included in the concepts of sustainability. Although I think that the research is interesting and provides useful results, I have some questions about your manuscript. Please see my comments below. I hope it contributes to guiding you through your revision.

RE: Dear anonymous Reviewer 2,

Thanks very much for your comments and for reviewing our manuscript in such detail! We have taken great care to acknowledge all your comments and to consider your suggestions for improvements to the manuscript. Please find below our responses to each of the points raised.

Please remove the abbreviation from your title or mention the whole meaning of it.

RE: Amended

ABSTRACT

The aim of the research is confusing as your title states another aim of the paper while the first sentence of the abstract states another. Then, at the end of the introduction, you add another sentence. Please homogenize them.

RE: The objective has been homogenized throughout the manuscript.

I think your abstract needs to be better organized and include the most important part of your research. Is you survey online or face-to-face? Was the discrete choice experiment included in the survey? The abstract should read alone.

RE: The abstract has been reorganized. We have integrated the information that was missing. The conjoint analysis was included in the survey.

Mention all parts of the methodologies used in the research and state the results of your paper. I had to go until the end of the abstract and see that you also use a discrete choice experiment and estimate the WTP.  

RE: We apologize for the lack of clarity on this abstract. It is now amended and we solely involved a conjoint analysis.  

INTRODUCTION
Overall, the introduction has some informative points but it is unorganized and very difficult to follow. It mixes too many concepts and does not justify the reason for the research. People interested in this area might lose interest and give up reading it. The authors are strongly recommended to first state the problem, see what has been done in the literature and then clearly state the aim of the research, and then finally report what the research adds to the literature and what it aims to solve. Stating some hypotheses will also be useful and easier for readers to follow.

RE: We have reworked the introduction and hope that the new passages are better aligned with the title and objectives of the study and much more clearly for the readers too. The reference list has been also amended. We thank the reviewers for this comment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Line 103-104: Is there a particular reason that the data are from 2017? Because I think that preferences and patterns towards sustainable aspects have changed by now.

RE: We understand that it´s been some time since 2017. However, there are not previous studies on this matter in Spain. The pandemic has criticized big retailers and emerged visibly the great efforts of producers to guarantee the food chain provision. It would be very interesting to have a look at local production for example today. Still, we believe that this data is of interest. There are not studies in Spain from this range of years so there will be less possible to recognize society transformation.

You mention a discrete choice experiment in the abstract but in the methodology describe a conjoint analysis. Also, you talk about the WTP estimates but in this section, there is nothing talking about the WTPs. Please correct.

RE: We apologize. It was used a conjoint analysis. We have renamed properly the test elsewhere.

 DISCUSSION
This section should discuss the results of the research and then compare the findings with previous research in Spain or outside Spain.

RE: We have tried to make more comparisons with other studies especially at the start of the discussion (see new lines 377-380).

Line 342-349: Are you trying to combine the results of other studies with your results? It is unclear.

RE: This passage has been reformulated to avoid misunderstandings.

Line 352-363: This paragraph is unclear, and I really do not understand what you want to deliver. Discuss the results of your research and combine them with other studies.

RE: We have reformulated this paragraph. We hope that the reviewer is now satisfied.

Line 363-370: this part should go to the conclusions of the research where you clearly give suggestions on WHAT has to be done to solve the problem.

RE: Many Thanks for this suggestion.

CONCLUSION

Line 499-500: I think the correct sentence here would be: “……although most of the consumers have heard about sustainability, they are not aware……”

RE: Amended. Many thanks for the suggestion.

Line 502-503: The main barrier is the lack of information to consumers. I think that based on your results, consumers are aware that sustainability exists (I guess because of the big booming now) but they miss information on understanding the concept of sustainability and how to make sustainable food choice decisions. 

RE: More than information, we think about education. We have started in different positions. Education could be more important. It is not the case the infrastructure in Education exists today in this matter. The Spanish market concurs to a lot of certifications and facultative labels. At the moment of shopping, consumer might feel overwhelmed especially with the lack of understanding and the lack of skills to understand the information that is already provided. The main barriers preventing the transition of sustainability values into actions seem to be education and information by an integrated understanding of livestock activity and therefore of the individual awareness of the ethical and ecological implications (and not only on nutritional aspects and the physical or organoleptic properties of the products).

It is clear that providing information to the consumer is an option, but no more valid than not doing so. In our case, we wanted to assess what the consumer perceived when receiving similar information to what would appear on the label of a product, without any additional clarification. There are many studies that opt for this way of proceeding since it is more realistic and "ecological" than to bias the consumer response by providing some unusual information. As stated by Huber-Eicher & Spring (2008) “the situation of incomplete comprehension might be typical for consumers .... and the results obtained in this case can be considered as meaningful reflecting the real-world situation”.

627. Huber-Eicher & P. Spring (2008). Attitudes of Swiss consumers towards meat from entire or immunocastrated boars: A representative survey. Research in Veterinary Science 85, 625–627.
     Do you have any implications for the Spanish policymakers, local producers and/or retailers? What should they do in order to attract consumers towards more sustainable and healthier food choices?

RE: We have extended the Conclusion section suggesting some message for this specific audience (see new lines 579-580, 584-588, 589-592). We have also completed the section including the need for the different actors in the chain to agree with the popular Quality Standard of Iberian pig, which changes from time to time and the decisions are, to a large extent, the result of the bargaining power of the industrial link vs. the link in pig production. In this sense, policy-makers play, or should play, a key role as mediators and in defining quality standards in favor of social sustainability (in particular, fairness between the different links in the chain and transparency in terms of product: in particular, regarding the veracity of the production and feeding system in the final life of the animal: free-range and based on natural resources vs fattening vs partially supplemented with balanced feed), environmental (include aspects in this sense ) and clarity for the consumer.

Do you have any limitations? A known limitation of self-report instruments such as surveys and questionnaires is their susceptibility to socially desirable responses. Socially desirable responding is the tendency to give answers that make the respondent look good, or the tendency ‘‘to stretch the truth in an effort to make a good impression’’ (see Martin & Nagao, 1989, for more information). You should mention this aspect as a possible limitation.  

Martin, C., & Nagao, D. H. (1989). Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 72–80.

RE: We have added a specific section to display the limitations of the study (lines 356-369). There is an agreement from the three reviewers of this request and we certainly believe it is much more transparent to have them in the manuscript. Many thanks for the suggested article too. It is indeed an important concept.

Reviewer 3 Report

This study covers an interesting topic on factors behind consumer preferences for Spain. Mainly, the authors focus on consumers from two regions of Spain and products from two different pig farming systems. They conducted a questionnaire survey with around 400 consumers and presented the survey results in the manuscript. Although the manuscript presents interesting findings, it has serval shortcomings. Thus, I do not suggest considering the manuscript for publication. The shortcomings are following.

First, the introduction of the manuscript needs to be improved by highlighting research gaps this study aims to fill. Although interesting information is presented in the introduction, it does not show a clear picture on the motivation behind this study. Reading the introduction, it is not clear that the study is focused on pig farming.

Second, the method section also needs to be improved to ensure replicability of the study. Mainly, the authors need to justify that how this study based on around 400 consumers is representative for a diverse country like Spain. Please see also the specific comments below.

Third, one the study objective was mentioned as “to identify meaningful typologies of consumption patterns framed by SDG 12”. However, it is unclear how the authors used SDG 12 and its targets to identify consumption patterns. SDGs are not mention in other section of the manuscript after introduction.

Fourth, it seems that two cluster identified represents two regions from where the consumers are surveyed. Is this a natural result or there might be study biases, leading to this result?

Fifth, the discussion section can be improved by highlighting novelty of this study and also transparently stating its limitations.

Specific comments

L33-32: Proper citation for this statement would be IPCC SRCCL Chapter 5 (https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/) and Rosenzweig et al. 2020 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-020-0031-z) that highlight a large share of ghg emissions come from food systems, instead of UN population report.

L34-35: See also above responses on climate change response options.

L36-41: Please consider to highlight that SDG 2 consists of a target to end all forms of malnutrition (i.e., including overweight and obesity) and SDG 12 has a target to halve the food waste. Additionally, SDG 12 could be a bottleneck for achieving SDGs due to existing trade-offs (see Pradhan et al. 2017 Earth’s Future).

L45: It is unclear from where “halving use of cereals as livestock feed” came from.

L49-52: The key message and motivation behind this paragraph is not clear.

L62-69: This is a very long sentence. Please also see Kriewald et al 2019 (https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab2d56) and Pradhan et al. 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02739) on carbon benefits of regionalized food systems.

L70-73: Please cite relevant literate for these statements. Additionally, are there scientific literature that argue for “more of the better” meat? There are ones asking to reduce meat consumption and consume less meat but better one (e.g., see Bodirsky et al. 2019, https://literatur.thuenen.de/digbib_extern/dn062107.pdf).

L80: What is “NE”?

L97-100: Is consumer is the main actor or an actor of food systems? Can consumer change its food environment that is shaped by policies, including government subsidies and cooperate marketing?

L106: Every individual is a regular food consumer. Is there any specific meaning of this term here. How representative is this sample for a large country like Spain? Please provide more information on how this sample was chosen?

L136-141: Please provide the questionnaire in supplementary.

L143: Please provide s brief description of “conjoint analysis”.

L146-147: This information on farm systems need to be mentioned earlier in introduction and method. From the introduction, it is not clear that the authors focused on consumer of two different types of pig farms.

L158: Is there a need to provide information on this software? Other software could have also been used for the analysis.

L163: please provide a brief description on PCA.

L175-181: unclear why the authors used GLM? please provide a brief description and motivation behind using the mentioned tests.

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject of research is very interesting and closely related to the scope of the journal.

However I think that the research must be presented in more clear way and major revisions are necessary.

RE: Dear anonymous Reviewer 3,

Thanks very much for your comments and for reviewing our manuscript in such detail! We have taken great care to acknowledge all your comments and to consider your suggestions for improvements to the manuscript. Please find below our responses to each of the points raised.

1. I think the objective of the paper must be defined more precisely. Honestly speaking I don't understand the objective presented in the current form at all. Is the aim of the paper to explore the relation between knowledge in sustainability, beliefs (concerning what?) and behaviour? Or is it to distinguish segments of consumers differing in the above mentioned regard? The abstract contains suggestion that the objective is to find relations between some variables (lines: 12-13) but these variables are not clearly defined. I also think that current title is actually misleading, as the research was more focused on meat consumption than on sustainable consumption in general (that conclusion comes from the data in appendix). What is more: the objectives presented in the abstract are not the same as objectives presented in the introduction (lines: 92-94).

RE: We have modified the objective in the abstract and introduction. The tittle has been amended. The abstract has been reworked as suggested. The conclusion has been modified. We hope it is clear in the new version.

2. Some keywords are poorly related to the abstract. Out of 5: farm sustainability; consumer behaviour; consumption patterns; farm animal welfare; animal production, only 2 are related to the paper: consumer behaviour and consumption patterns. Sustainable consumption is not mentioned and should be. Neither animal production nor farm animal welfare is mentioned in the abstract. Especially farm animal welfare seems to be not related to the subject of research. There are some research on the moral reasons of meat consumption reduction, for example: Buttlar, B., & Walther, E. (2019). Dealing with the meat paradox: Threat leads to moral disengagement from meat consumption. Appetite, 137, 73-80. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.017 (not quoted in the paper) but the paper seems not to take moral reasons into consideration.

RE: Point taken. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have also reviewed the paper mentioned but we don´t see that the addition of this new consideration in the introduction would be beneficial.

3. Practically, there is not a theoretical background in this paper.  Basic constructs are not defined, introduction is very general and many issues are mentioned (even COVID, whereas the research was conducted long before COVID and data are not influenced by COVID in any way). Sentence which is very important for the whole text: "Having a better understanding of what makes food choices to be sustainable" (line 86) should be developed much deeper and factors affecting sustianable food choice should be presented. Paragraphs are poorly related to each other. Line 52, sentence: "Due to the diversity of factors influencing consumers’ behaviour" is not finished. As the introduction is the only part presenting theoretical framework I am surprised with poor references (only 12 in this part). So I highly recommend to conduct deeper studies on the subject and present precisely the basic constructs and the reason/s for which authors assume they are related and what is the nature of that relations. Are they causal ones?

RE: The introduction has been rewritten and completed with more references. From our understanding, this research topic was not addressed in the previous scientific literature in Spain.

Your suggestion for the future is highly valuable and it is very appreciated by the authors’ team.

4. I would advise to state clearly what items come from what research (out of 3 quoted).

RE: Amended

5. Deeper comments on data presented in tables: 3-6 must be included in the text (RMSE and p-values must be taken into account).

RE: We have reworked these passages. Many Thanks for this consideration.

6. Please, add the study limitations and develop a paragraph on further studies.

RE: We have involved a new section to display the limitations of the study (new lines 356-369).

Reviewer 4 Report

The subject of research is very interesting and closely related to the scope of the journal.

However I think that the research must be presented in more clear way and major revisions are necessary.

1. I think the objective of the paper must be defined more precisely. Honestly speaking I don't understand the objective presented in the current form at all. Is the aim of the paper to explore the relation between knowledge in sustainability, beliefs (concerning what?) and behaviour? Or is it to distinguish segments of consumers differing in the above mentioned regard? The abstract contains suggestion that the objective is to find relations between some variables (lines: 12-13) but these variables are not clearly defined. I also think that current title is actually misleading, as the research was more focused on meat consumption than on sustainable consumption in general (that conclusion comes from the data in appendix). What is more: the objectives presented in the abstract are not the same as objectives presented in the introduction (lines: 92-94).
2. Some keywords are poorly related to the abstract. Out of 5: farm sustainability; consumer behaviour; consumption patterns; farm animal welfare; animal production, only 2 are related to the paper: consumer behaviour and consumption patterns. Sustainable consumption is not mentioned and should be. Neither animal production nor farm animal welfare is mentioned in the abstract. Especially farm animal welfare seems to be not related to the subject of research. There are some research on the moral reasons of meat consumption reduction, for example: Buttlar, B., & Walther, E. (2019). Dealing with the meat paradox: Threat leads to moral disengagement from meat consumption. Appetite, 137, 73-80. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.017 (not quoted in the paper) but the paper seems not to take moral reasons into consideration.
3. Practically, there is not a theoretical background in this paper.  Basic constructs are not defined, introduction is very general and many issues are mentioned (even COVID, whereas the research was conducted long before COVID and data are not influenced by COVID in any way). Sentence which is very important for the whole text: "Having a better understanding of what makes food choices to be sustainable" (line 86) should be developed much deeper and factors affecting sustianable food choice should be presented. Paragraphs are poorly related to each other. Line 52, sentence: "Due to the diversity of factors influencing consumers’ behaviour" is not finished. As the introduction is the only part presenting theoretical framework I am surprised with poor references (only 12 in this part). So I highly recommend to conduct deeper studies on the subject and present precisely the basic constructs and the reason/s for which authors assume they are related and what is the nature of that relations. Are they causal ones?
4. I would advise to state clearly what items come from what research (out of 3 quoted).
5. Deeper comments on data presented in tables: 3-6 must be included in the text (RMSE and p-values must be taken into account).
6. Please, add the study limitations and develop a paragraph on further studies.

Author Response

REVIEWER 4

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject of research is very interesting and closely related to the scope of the journal.

However I think that the research must be presented in more clear way and major revisions are necessary.

RE: Dear anonymous Reviewer 4,

Thanks very much for your comments and for reviewing our manuscript in such detail! We have taken great care to acknowledge all your comments and to consider your suggestions for improvements to the manuscript. Please find below our responses to each of the points raised.

1. I think the objective of the paper must be defined more precisely. Honestly speaking I don't understand the objective presented in the current form at all. Is the aim of the paper to explore the relation between knowledge in sustainability, beliefs (concerning what?) and behaviour? Or is it to distinguish segments of consumers differing in the above mentioned regard? The abstract contains suggestion that the objective is to find relations between some variables (lines: 12-13) but these variables are not clearly defined. I also think that current title is actually misleading, as the research was more focused on meat consumption than on sustainable consumption in general (that conclusion comes from the data in appendix). What is more: the objectives presented in the abstract are not the same as objectives presented in the introduction (lines: 92-94).

RE: We have modified the objective in the abstract and introduction. The tittle has been amended. The abstract has been reworked as suggested. The conclusion has been modified. We hope it is clear in the new version.

2. Some keywords are poorly related to the abstract. Out of 5: farm sustainability; consumer behaviour; consumption patterns; farm animal welfare; animal production, only 2 are related to the paper: consumer behaviour and consumption patterns. Sustainable consumption is not mentioned and should be. Neither animal production nor farm animal welfare is mentioned in the abstract. Especially farm animal welfare seems to be not related to the subject of research. There are some research on the moral reasons of meat consumption reduction, for example: Buttlar, B., & Walther, E. (2019). Dealing with the meat paradox: Threat leads to moral disengagement from meat consumption. Appetite, 137, 73-80. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.017 (not quoted in the paper) but the paper seems not to take moral reasons into consideration.

RE: Point taken. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have also reviewed the paper mentioned but we don´t see that the addition of this new consideration in the introduction would be beneficial.

3. Practically, there is not a theoretical background in this paper.  Basic constructs are not defined, introduction is very general and many issues are mentioned (even COVID, whereas the research was conducted long before COVID and data are not influenced by COVID in any way). Sentence which is very important for the whole text: "Having a better understanding of what makes food choices to be sustainable" (line 86) should be developed much deeper and factors affecting sustianable food choice should be presented. Paragraphs are poorly related to each other. Line 52, sentence: "Due to the diversity of factors influencing consumers’ behaviour" is not finished. As the introduction is the only part presenting theoretical framework I am surprised with poor references (only 12 in this part). So I highly recommend to conduct deeper studies on the subject and present precisely the basic constructs and the reason/s for which authors assume they are related and what is the nature of that relations. Are they causal ones?

RE: The introduction has been rewritten and completed with more references. From our understanding, this research topic was not addressed in previous scientific literature in Spain.

Your suggestion for the future is highly valuable and it is very appreciated by the authors’ team.

4. I would advise to state clearly what items come from what research (out of 3 quoted).

RE: Amended

5. Deeper comments on data presented in tables: 3-6 must be included in the text (RMSE and p-values must be taken into account).

RE: We have reworked these passages. Many Thanks for this consideration.

6. Please, add the study limitations and develop a paragraph on further studies.

RE: We have involved a new section to display the limitations of the study (new lines 356-369)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor, Dear Authors,

I have read the second version of the manuscript and I must say that its scientific quality has considerably improved. In my review, quite a few criticisms were made about the research tool, which could not be improved anyway, but I thank the Authors for providing their point of view and explanations on this issue. My suggestions were used, I appreciate the inclusion of a paragraph on the limitations of the study presented and the indication of the need to implement the study with larger samples of respondents. The revised introduction (which was probably the suggestion of another reviewer) also improved the quality of the manuscript.

The new wording of the title of the article definitely better reflects its content.

I still suggest to improve the aim of the study included in the abstract - in point 1 add the word 'consumer' before 'typologies'. I also recommend rethinking the keywords - instead of 'animal production' (which to some extent is consistent with animal welfare) it is worth introducing 'pig production' or 'pork/pig meat'.

 Kind regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, I think that the authors have addressed some of my comments. I will highly suggest the authors before re-submitting the manuscript to go to each comment one by one, address them, and then read the final draft, as there are many typos in the manuscript. I feel that the manuscript has improved but it remains difficult to read. There are English (and overall) writing issues in the paper. So please consider an editing agency or a native speaker to check the document.

Line 13: explore or investigate?

Line 14: remove “.”

Line 16-17: survey paper or questionnaire?

Line 23: Remove “Cluster 1 remain”

Line 24: organic in parenthesis is not part of the origin of the product but of quality certification. Please correct.

Line 25-27: This sentence is very confusing.

Line 27-29: This is a copy-paste of lines 23-25. Remove one of them.

Line 29: you say it is conjoint analysis. Why do you keep saying it is a discrete choice experiment in the abstract?

Line 30: You did not estimate the willingness to pay in the study. Why you keep writing, “for estimating willingness to pay regarding farm attributes”?

Line 48: what do you mean by “our time”? Do you mean “in the 21^st century” or “in the recent days”?

Line 50: remove the “…” at the end of the sentence.

Lines 58-65: please remove these lines as they are repeating in lines 66-75.

Line 78: Add a full stop between sentences.

Line 94-103: Remove this paragraph as it repeats in lines 112-121.

Line 104-106: Please correct this sentence and clarify it.

Lines 129-132: Is there any reference available for this statement? Please add it.

Lines 142-145: You say that you homogenized the objective of the study but I still see different objectives between these lines and the ones of the abstract (lines 13-16).

Line 152: I would say a face-to-face questionnaire instead of paper questionnaire.

Line 158: select or pre-select?

Lines 343-344: This sentence is not clear.

Lines 372-375: These sentences are not clear.

The discussions and the conclusions have improved. However, many English grammar issues and reformulation of sentences require attention. Two examples are as follows:  

Lines 542: I would write: “Most consumers stated that they do not fully understand the concept of sustainability and find it confusing” instead.

Lines 545-546: “….the concept of sustainability keeps confusing people as they lack in understanding the idea of sustainable consumption” instead.

Reviewer 3 Report

Looking the response letter, it is clear that the authors have not addressed my comments. Thus, I suggest sending the manuscript back to the authors for addressing those comments, before making any further review.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors, I truely believe that your research is valuable but still it is very poorly presented. The way you revised the paper not only is not sufficient but it is more confusing than before. Let me give you several examples that revision is not careful enough. All below quoted phrases are taken originally from the text:

The aim of the present study was to exploreinvestigate... (line 13)

Cluster 1 remainThe origin... (line 23)

...environmental sustainabilityour timerequires... (line 48)

Having a better understanding of what makes food choices to be A shift toward...(line 104)

Having a better understanding of what makes food choices to be more sustainable... (line 135)

...to identify meaningful typologies from the concept of consumption patternsfood sustainability andfood choices factors... (142-143)

...aimed to selectpreselect... (line 158)

ClusterIn our study, cluster1... (line 343)

On the contrary, the consumeryoung consumers in this studywith basic studies considers itconsidermore... (line 363-364)

Discussion is conducted (included) twice - page 17 and 20.

Placing research limitations before discussion is not a good idea as usually this part of the text is the final one and includes further studies suggestions.

From my point of view after revision the text is worse than before, as it is sloppy now and the way the research is presented is not more clear.