Integrating TRA and SET to Influence Food Waste Reduction in Buffet-Style Restaurants: A Gender-Specific Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Literature review

More articles should be included for the describing the link between attitude and intentions (from the hospitality industry or other industries)

 

Methodology

1. Estimation model testing

a. Cronbach's alpha values should exceed 0,7. For three of the 4 constructs, these values are strong, but for PBC the value is 0,651 slightly below 0,7, but nevertheless below 0,7 which may cause further measurements and validity problems. One suggestion is to eliminate the PBC construct form the analysis because this construct is problematic.

b. In table II, I recommend to include the Eigenvalues for the extracted factors and the % of total variance explained by extracted factors.

c. Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin test and Bartlett sphericity test should be applied for checking the sphericity of the items composing the factors and scale consistency. 

d. Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) should be included for the extracted factors (or constructs).

e. AVE values should exceed the value 0,5, three out of four constructs have values under 0,5 (close to 0,5, but still under) which may raise problems related to measurement error. Moreover, SQRAVE values should be included for every extracted factor and compared with the partial correlation coefficient values of every two extracted factors. The comparison results may provide proof (or not) for discrimination between constructs based on the underlying items. 

f. CR value for PBC is below the standard of 0,7 (and above 0,6 which is acceptable) indicating once again (as in a.) that this construct has a measurement problem. Maybe the authors consider eliminating this construct from analysis.

g. the measurement model is statistically valid as pointed out by the values of CHI Square, NFI, IFI, CFI and TLI.

2. Structural equation model

a. the structural equation model is statistically valid as pointed out by the values of CHI Square, NFI, IFI, CFI and TLI.

b. The  TPB model used by Ajzen (1991) links the three constructs (ATT, SN and PBC) through paths within the structural equation model in predicting intention whereas in the authors' study these determinants are not linked. These 3 determinants of intention influence themselves and further influence intention. A recommendation is to link these 3 constructs (ATT, SN and PBC) through paths in a (new) structural equation model, interesting insights may result. 

c. Data from table IV (negative path coefficient of -.0,388 between ATT and Intentions) correlated with the items used for ATT (questionnaire), raises the the following question: Where the items used for measuring ATT correctly coded? As mentioned in H1, ATT should have a positive impact on Intention (common sense and empirically proved by previous research), but the path coefficient value is a negative one. The sentences comprising the 4 items measuring ATT have a negative sense, thus on a five point Likert scale a useless answer for the sentence For me, wasting food in a buffet restaurant is ... should have a 5 (denotes a positive attitude for not wasting food), not a 1. If the authors have coded the data in the mentioned way, ignore the above text.  

 

Based on the above, I recommend the following:

1. Eliminate the PBC construct from the analysis (there is clearly some measurement error as seen from Crombach's alpha, AVE ...and from the meaning of the two items (from the questionnaire) which is similar.

2. Redo the analysis without PBC,

3. Include the Eigenvalues for the extracted factors and the % of total variance explained by extracted factors

4. Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin test and Bartlett sphericity test should be applied for checking the sphericity of the items composing the factors and scale consistency. 

5. Compute descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) for the extracted factors (or constructs).

6. Link ATT and SN through paths in the structural equation model.

(7.) Coding of ATT items should be checked. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Theoretical background of the research questions is not clear.

2. Conceptual development (hypotheses) is not clearly and adequately stated.

• What is the main question addressed by the research?

The research addresses mainly three questions:

What factors influence customers' food waste reduction behaviors in fixed-price buffet-style restaurants? Is there a gender difference between men and women regarding food waste reduction

in buffet-style operations? How can restaurants' actions influence their consumers' behavioral intention related to food waste reduction?

• Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.

It is valuble to examine the factors that influence customer's intention to avoid food waste in buffet-style operations. The research, however, has weak originality in thoery contribution when considering such factors in accordence with TPB and SET, because such research is just a test in a specific context of TBP and SET which have been examined and accepted widely. And the article does not provide the rationals any more about its ovjectices in terms of theoretical and practical considerations.     

• What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

It tested the theories of TBP and SET in buffet-style dinning context and telled the factors that inluences the intention to reduce food wasts based on TBP and SET, and its difference in gender. It does not add (provide) proper and adequte theoretical argument why these factors influence the intention in the context of buffet-style operations (see the literature review of the article).

• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

The research method to test the hypotheses is approperate.

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.

The research states its conclusion clearely based on the survey data. I am not sure if the conclusions is consistent with the arguments (as mentioned before, there are no proper and adequte arguments as of the hypotheses).  

• Are the references appropriate?

Acceptable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

acceptable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study investigates the factors that shape consumer behavior toward reducing food waste in buffet-style restaurants, drawing upon the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Social Exchange Theory (SET), while also examining gender differences in relation to these factors.

From a data structuring perspective, I believe the paper meets most of the criteria necessary for acceptance in the journal. It is well-organized, contains sufficient information to be easily understood and followed, and presents the findings and novelty in the field in an academic manner.

Regarding areas that could be improved, I would offer the following suggestions, which could also serve as guidance for the authors' future work:

• The abstract could be enhanced by including more details about the key methods used and the practical implications identified.
• The introduction provides adequate context for the study but could benefit from further clarification of the unique contribution that the study makes to the existing literature.
• It would be beneficial to more clearly articulate the exact purpose of the research and to explicitly state the practical and theoretical importance of the subject being analyzed.
• Instead of merely listing relevant studies, it would be useful to more clearly highlight how this study contributes to the existing theoretical discourse and how it differs from or complements previous research.
• It is important to offer a clearer justification for the methodological choices, particularly regarding the selection of specific techniques or analytical tools.
• The conclusions should more clearly emphasize the specific contributions of the study, both in terms of theory and practice. Additionally, it would be helpful to provide concrete recommendations for future research, based on the results obtained and the limitations of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congrats for the effort.

After redoing the analysis, a consistent article resulted.