The Role of GI Products or Local Products in the Environment—Consumer Awareness and Preferences in Albania, Bulgaria and Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

No comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have performed a detailed review of the manuscript, and several suggestions are made:

The techniques used to solve the problem are standard with some novelty, and the results obtained are correct. However, some points need to be further clarified:

The motivation on the study should be emphasized, particularly; the main advantages of the results in the paper comparing with others should be clearly demonstrated.

Author have not mentioned some important sections in the manuscripts such as:

Theoretical implication: what was the authors’ contribution to the theory?

Practical Implication: what are the implication of the present research to the various organizations?

Limitations: explain what the limitations of your research.

Scope for further researchers: provide further guidelines for other researchers to conduct similar research in improved version.

Researchers should focus on academic writing skills. English should be further improved.

Compare your findings with other previous studies to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the research.

The authors should consider updated references, and the following recently published papers on this topic could be helpful authors to make some comments and comparisons. Add some relevant citations from ‘Sustainability Journal.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0743016708000454?via%3Dihub

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/basr.12232

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01092.x

http://www.pbr.co.in/2015/2015_month/April/1.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Review for sustainability-1482833

Several suggestions are made below.

1. The introduction is very loose. It should not be loose, but focus.
2. The survey and the design of the research did not describe clear enough. Please revise.
3. The number of the respondent in the three study countries is quite different. Please explain why the study design in this way?
4. The age distribution varied in the three countries.  Please explain, or the study design seems loose.
5. Please explain the three elements in Fig 1. It seems not make sense. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,
I would like to congratulate you on preparing such a detailed and comprehensive study on the role of GI products or local products in the environment. It seems to me that dividing the text into more subsections and chapters and shortening the literature review could have made the reading of the text easier.
Kind regards
Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper is a detail repot on consumer attitudes towards the GI.   I had to read through to line 240 to find what GI stood for.  It is hoped the authors revision explain earlier.  Furthermore, how is geographic place indicated?  Is there writing “Product of Albania”  or the product incorporates a place name, is there a logo, symbol, flag?

The paper covers several themes that are not clearly separated.  Some respondents say they are not aware of the product origin.  Others prefer GI because it reflects responsibility for food safety.  Was there a percentage that “buy local” out of patriotism, or to drive employment the local community?  How local is GI? According nation, of nation close by, or Europe?  Or is it sub-national

For marketing firms  the important question, not answered, is how can GI be made to appeal? Is it a bold statement in writing?  Is a cute animal mascot?  Or scenery of a rural area where the produce originates?  Is it a claim of short distance and less risk of contamination?  Is there a claim that the consumer and producer are one community?  Trust each other? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please provide theoretical and practical implication section separately in the manuscript.

English should be further improved, so it’s recommended to use a professional proofreader for manuscript revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is revised. The description of the method is improved. The survey is an on-line survey to approach the young web-surfer.  The study results of the environmental awareness  of the young.

However, it seems that the section of introduction is quite long, and the methodology and the results are relative short. The section of introduction is suggested here to split into two section. The first section contains only one to two pages of introduction, and the second section contains the literature review. 

It is not clear in the title of Table 1: "according to the researcher's opinion".  Who's opinions are they? The authors of the present study? The authors of the literature? The respondents or the study target group? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 5 Report

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc