Ethical Perceptions and Trust in Green Dining: A Qualitative Case Study of Consumers in Missouri, USA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well-organized and presents a timely and socially relevant topic. It explores an under-researched area — ethical consumer behavior regarding restaurant sourcing from minority farmers — using the Hunt–Vitell (H-V) theory of ethics. The integration of social justice, sustainability, and cultural inclusion into consumer ethics is commendable.

However, there are areas where clarity, methodological rigor, and presentation could be enhanced to strengthen the study’s impact and academic contribution.
In Abstract:

The abstract could benefit from more detail on the thematic outcomes and practical recommendations. Consider briefly summarizing the six main themes or categories derived from the interviews.

In Introduction:

Clarify how your study fills a unique gap in the literature by emphasizing how prior studies have neglected cultural identity and minority inclusion.

Consider including a conceptual figure to illustrate how the H-V model applies to your research context.

Label each RQ clearly in the body (e.g., “RQ1: Deontological Evaluations”) when addressing them in the Results and Discussion sections to guide the reader more effectively.

In results: 

Use subheadings tied to your RQs (e.g., “Results for RQ1: Deontological Evaluations”) for better alignment and navigation.

Consider using a table that explicitly links themes to corresponding deontological or teleological categories, reinforcing the H-V model's application.

In Discussion:

Clarify the distinction between consumer intentions and actual behaviors, especially in relation to barriers.

Discuss the broader implications of cultural identity and heritage more thoroughly, particularly in multicultural food markets.

Suggest how policymakers or nonprofit organizations could collaborate with restaurants and farmers to facilitate these practices

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Avoid minor redundancy in discussing community values and social responsibility.

Perform a careful proofreading to catch small grammatical issues (e.g., missing articles or slight tense inconsistencies).

Ensure consistent use of past tense when describing completed study actions (e.g., “The study was approved…”).

Repetition and Redundancy:

Phrases like “community-oriented social values” and “supporting local farmers” are repeated frequently. Consider varying the phrasing slightly or using pronouns/references where appropriate.

Occasional missing or incorrect use of articles (a/an/the).

Some sentences are wordy or contain redundant phrasing.
Example:

“Given these challenges, ethical sourcing by restaurants from minority farmers represents an important opportunity to offer more stable market access…”

Suggested revision:
“These challenges highlight the importance of ethical sourcing to improve market access for minority farmers.”

 

Author Response

1. Summary
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for your constructive comments and are particularly grateful for your help in polishing this paper. We appreciate your time in reviewing our study and the opportunity to revise the manuscript. Responses to each comment are presented below. The revised portions are marked in red in the manuscript. We hope you find the changes satisfactory.
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment 1: In Abstract: The abstract could benefit from more detail on the thematic outcomes and practical recommendations. Consider briefly summarizing the six main themes or categories derived from the interviews.
Our Response : Thank you for your comments. We have revised the abstract accordingly. Please refer to the revised manuscript on page 1, lines 15–20.   Response to Comment on the Introduction Section
Comment 2: Clarify how your study fills a unique gap in the literature by emphasizing how prior studies have neglected cultural identity and minority inclusion.
Our Response: Thank you for your comments. We have revised the Introduction section to clearly articulate the unique contribution of our study. We found that several studies mention the neglect of cultural identity and minority inclusion in food systems, indicating a need for further investigation. Please refer to the revised manuscript on page 2, lines 74–77.   References: Landon, A., & Rosol, M. (2025). Overcoming the local trap through inclusive and multi-scalar food systems. Local Environment, 1-21.   Onyango, E., Mori, K., Fernandez, S., Seyyedin, B., Chinedu-Asogwa, N., & Kapfunde, D. (2025). Cultural relevance of food security initiatives and the associated impacts on the cultural identity of immigrants in Canada: A scoping review of food insecurity literature. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 100269.   Kitch, S., McGregor, J., Mejía, G. M., El-Sayed, S., Spackman, C., & Vitullo, J. (2021). Gendered and racial injustices in American food systems and cultures. Humanities, 10(2), 66.   Comment 3: Consider including a conceptual figure to illustrate how the H-V model applies to your research context. Our Response: Thank you for your comments. We have included a conceptual figure in the Introduction section. Please refer to the revised manuscript on page 3, lines 95–97.    Comment 4: Label each RQ clearly in the body (e.g., “RQ1: Deontological Evaluations”) when addressing them in the Results and Discussion sections to guide the reader more effectively. Our Response: Thank you for your comments. In the Introduction section, we present three research questions: RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3. Please refer to the revised manuscript on pages 2 and 3, lines 88–93. We also clearly label RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3 in the Results section. Please refer to page 7, lines 247–248; page 9, lines 363–364; and page 10, lines 408–409. These research questions are also addressed in the Discussion section. Please refer to pages 13, lines 467–477.   Response to Reviewer Comment on the Results Section Comment 5: Use subheadings tied to your RQs (e.g., “Results for RQ1: Deontological Evaluations”) for better alignment and navigation. Our Response: Thank you for your comments. We clearly label RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3 in the Results section. Please refer to page 7, lines 247–248; page 9, lines 363–364; and page 10, lines 408–409.   Comment 6: Consider using a table that explicitly links themes to corresponding deontological or teleological categories, reinforcing the H-V model's application. Our Response: Thank you for your comments. We have used a table that explicitly links themes to the corresponding deontological or teleological categories, reinforcing the H-V model’s application. Please refer to Table 3, pages 11–12, lines 455–456.   Response to Reviewer Comment on the Discussion Section   Comment 7: Clarify the distinction between consumer intentions and actual behaviors, especially in relation to barriers. Our Response: Thank you for your comments. We have revised the manuscript based on your suggestions. Please refer to pages 14–15, lines 536–546.   Comment 8: Discuss the broader implications of cultural identity and heritage more thoroughly, particularly in multicultural food markets. Our Response: Thank you for your comments. We have revised the manuscript’s theoretical and practical implications based on your suggestions. Please refer to page 14, lines 503–517, and page 15, lines 556–570.   Comment 9: Suggest how policymakers or nonprofit organizations could collaborate with restaurants and farmers to facilitate these practices. Our Response: Thank you for your comments. We have revised the manuscript based on your suggestion. Please refer to page 15, lines 571–583.
Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point 1: Avoid minor redundancy in discussing community values and social responsibility.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We appreciate your attention to clarity and redundancy. In our manuscript, community-oriented social values is one of the core themes that emerged from the analysis, representing participants' broader cultural and ethical expectations regarding restaurant practices. Within this theme, social responsibility was identified as a supporting code that captures specific actions or attitudes reflecting those values. For this reason, we respectfully believe that both are necessary to accurately represent the participants' perspectives and maintain the structure of our thematic framework. We hope these clarifications address your concerns, and we thank you again for your valuable comments.

 

Point 2: Perform a careful proofreading to catch small grammatical issues (e.g., missing articles or slight tense inconsistencies).

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have submitted our manuscript for professional proofreading to address minor grammatical issues. We appreciate your attention to detail and believe the revised version reflects these corrections.

 

Point 3: Ensure consistent use of past tense when describing completed study actions (e.g., “The study was approved…”).

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. To address minor grammatical issues, we have had the manuscript professionally proofread. We value your attention to detail and are confident that the revised version reflects these corrections.

 

Point 4: Phrases like “community-oriented social values” and “supporting local farmers” are repeated frequently. Consider varying the phrasing slightly or using pronouns/references where appropriate.

Response 4: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. We acknowledge the repeated use of phrases such as “community-oriented social values” and “supporting local farmers.” After careful consideration, we have chosen to retain this wording to ensure consistency and to reinforce the key themes that are central to the focus of our study.

 

Point 5: Occasional missing or incorrect use of articles (a/an/the).

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and corrected the occasional missing or incorrect use of articles (a/an/the) during the proofreading process. We value your attention to detail.

 

Point 6: Some sentences are wordy or contain redundant phrasing.
Example:

“Given these challenges, ethical sourcing by restaurants from minority farmers represents an important opportunity to offer more stable market access…”

Suggested revision:
“These challenges highlight the importance of ethical sourcing to improve market access for minority farmers.”

Response 6: Thank you for your comments. We have revised the manuscript based on your suggestion. Please refer to page 2, lines 51-53.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses an original and quite significant topic: the social aspects of restaurant choice and ethical sourcing in the catering sector. From a European perspective, however, the topic may be considered rather niche, which could reduce the appeal to the journal's readers.

The article presents an interesting integration of consumer ethics and restaurant support for minority farmers. The adoption of the H-V model is appropriate and adds theoretical depth, while the practical implications for restaurant marketing enhance the paper’s applied relevance.

Critical comments:

- The authors adopt rather vague definitions and conceptual simplifications throughout the paper. For example, 'minority farming' is not sufficiently clarified or categorised; it is currently presented in a simplistic way, attributing it to sustainable development, pesticide-free production and the cultivation of organic and environmentally friendly food. It would be useful to define what makes these types of farms specific in the US and how they are perceived by consumers. Similarly, terms such as 'ethical perceptions' and 'trust' need to be clarified in terms of their substance and measurement. Currently, there is no precise operationalisation of these constructs.

- The article focuses exclusively on a single ethical factor affecting restaurant choice. A broader perspective is needed, incorporating other influential elements such as service quality, price, ambiance, and consumer experience. It would also be worthwhile to position support for minority farmers relative to other possible ethical commitments restaurants may pursue (e.g., reducing food waste, fair treatment of employees, charitable initiatives), and to examine which of these are most salient or valued by consumers.

- The study does not take into account potential moderating variables that may shape consumer responses, such as age, values, knowledge about minority farmers, or prior experience. Including these variables could have enriched the analysis and offered a deeper understanding of consumer decision-making.

- Only 15 in-depth interviews were conducted, making the study more of a pilot or prelude to an in-depth study. One would expect the authors to conduct quantitative research after the qualitative research. It would have been worthwhile carrying out the research with a more extensive sample, differentiated in terms of how often people eat out, how much they know about minority farmers, their values and their level of local ethnocentrism.

- The methodological description lacks key details, such as how the concept of “support for minority farmers” was introduced to participants. This may have strongly influenced their responses—particularly if they were previously unfamiliar with such initiatives. The description of the methodology lacks information about the survey process, location, time, and the role of the researcher. All of these factors may have influenced the quality of the data obtained in the study.

- In some places, the discussion in the paper goes beyond the scope of the results obtained. In future, it would be worthwhile strengthening the link between the discussion and the empirical results, and avoiding generalisations that are not supported by the research material.

- The manuscript does not follow a consistent citation style, as required by the journal’s editorial guidelines (e.g., “References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text”). This should be corrected.

In its current form, the article does not meet the standards for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. However, I encourage the authors to supplement their qualitative research with a quantitative study (e.g., survey or experimental design) and to broaden the scope of their investigation. A triangulated methodological approach would strengthen the study and contribute more meaningfully to the literature on consumer ethics and socially responsible marketing. The topic is promising and worth further development.

Author Response

1. Summary
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for your constructive comments and are particularly grateful for your help in polishing this paper. We appreciate your time in reviewing our study and the opportunity to revise the manuscript. Responses to each comment are presented below. The revised portions are marked in red in the manuscript. We hope you find the changes satisfactory.   2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors Comment 1: The authors adopt rather vague definitions and conceptual simplifications throughout the paper. For example, 'minority farming' is not sufficiently clarified or categorised; it is currently presented in a simplistic way, attributing it to sustainable development, pesticide-free production and the cultivation of organic and environmentally friendly food. It would be useful to define what makes these types of farms specific in the US and how they are perceived by consumers. Similarly, terms such as 'ethical perceptions' and 'trust' need to be clarified in terms of their substance and measurement. Currently, there is no precise operationalisation of these constructs. Our Response: We appreciate this important observation and fully agree that conceptual clarity is critical. In response, we have revised the manuscript to provide more precise definitions and contextual explanations. Regarding “minority farming,” we have expanded the discussion to include a clearer definition grounded in the existing literature. In the U.S. context, minority farmers are often identified by racial or ethnic minority status and tend to operate small-scale, resource-constrained farms (Kleiner & Green, 2008). As illustrated in the revised manuscript, many Hmong farmers—who migrated from Laos, Thailand, and China beginning in the 1970s—engage in pesticide-free agriculture and rely heavily on traditional techniques such as hand tools and manual labor (Hmong American Farmers Association, n.d.; Liu & Eaton, 2023; Schermann et al., 2008; Yang, 2009). These characteristics, along with systemic challenges such as limited access to land, financing, and distribution channels, distinguish minority farms in the U.S. and were used to inform our framing. We also acknowledge the need for greater clarity around abstract constructs such as “ethical perceptions” and “trust.” As this is a qualitative study, our intent was not to operationalize these constructs quantitatively but rather to explore how participants understood and expressed these ideas in their own words. Following guidance from Busetto et al. (2020), we approached these concepts inductively—beginning with broad, literature-informed definitions and refining their meaning through thematic analysis of participant narratives. We have revised the relevant sections of the manuscript to more explicitly articulate this methodological approach and the conceptual underpinnings of these terms. We hope these clarifications address your concerns, and we thank you again for encouraging us to strengthen the theoretical and conceptual foundations of our work.   References: Busetto, L., Wick, W., & Gumbinger, C. (2020). How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurological Research and practice, 2(1), 14. Hmong American Farmers Association. (n.d.). About HAFA: Our story. Hmong American Farmers Association. https://www.hmongfarmers.com/about-hafa/ Kleiner, A. M., & Green, J. J. (2008). Expanding the marketing opportunities and sustainable production potential for minority and limited-resource agricultural producers in Louisiana and Mississippi. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 23(1), 7. Liu, P., & Eaton, T. E. (2023). Barriers to training Hmong produce farmers in the United States: A qualitative study. Food Control, 147, 109560. Schermann, M. A., Bartz, P., Shutske, J. M., Moua, M., Vue, P. C., & Lee, T. T. (2008). Orphan boy the farmer: Evaluating folktales to teach safety to Hmong farmers. Journal of agromedicine, 12(4), 39-49. Yang, G. (2009). Investigating the agricultural techniques used by the Hmong in Chiang Mai Province, Thailand. UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research XII, 1-4.

Comment 2: The article focuses exclusively on a single ethical factor affecting restaurant choice. A broader perspective is needed, incorporating other influential elements such as service quality, price, ambiance, and consumer experience. It would also be worthwhile to position support for minority farmers relative to other possible ethical commitments restaurants may pursue (e.g., reducing food waste, fair treatment of employees, charitable initiatives), and to examine which of these are most salient or valued by consumers.

Our Response: Thank you for this thoughtful and constructive comment. We acknowledge that the present study focuses on a single ethical dimension, restaurant sourcing from minority farmers, as a key factor influencing consumer decision-making. This focus was a deliberate choice guided by the objective of addressing a critical and underexplored area within the ethical consumption literature, particularly in the context of foodservice.

That said, we agree that consumer restaurant choice is multifaceted and influenced by a range of ethical and non-ethical factors, including service quality, price, ambiance, and overall dining experience. We also appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion to contextualize support for minority farmers alongside other ethical commitments, such as food waste reduction, fair labor practices, and charitable engagement.

While the current qualitative design was intended to allow for a deep exploration of one specific ethical issue, we have now acknowledged in the revised manuscript the importance of situating this factor within the broader landscape of consumer priorities. Furthermore, we have added a recommendation for future research to adopt a quantitative approach to systematically compare the relative salience of diverse ethical and experiential factors across a broader population. This would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of how consumers prioritize various ethical commitments when making dining decisions.

We are grateful for this recommendation, which we believe will help advance future scholarship in ethical consumer behavior within the hospitality sector.

 

Comment 3: The study does not take into account potential moderating variables that may shape consumer responses, such as age, values, knowledge about minority farmers, or prior experience. Including these variables could have enriched the analysis and offered a deeper understanding of consumer decision-making.

Our Response: Thank you for your comment. This study employs a qualitative research design and includes a purposefully selected sample of 15 participants. As noted by Hammarberg et al. (2016), qualitative research typically emphasizes depth of understanding rather than statistical generalizability, and therefore does not require itself to formal multi-group analysis. While this study focuses on identifying overarching themes across participants, we acknowledge that individual characteristics such as age, values, knowledge, and prior experience may influence ethical decision-making. We agree that future research with larger and more diverse samples could adopt a comparative or mixed-methods approach to explore these potential subgroup differences in greater depth.

 

Reference:

Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M., & De Lacey, S. (2016). Qualitative research methods: when to use them and       how to judge them. Human reproduction, 31(3), 498-501.

 

 

Comment 4: Only 15 in-depth interviews were conducted, making the study more of a pilot or prelude to an in-depth study. One would expect the authors to conduct quantitative research after the qualitative research. It would have been worthwhile carrying out the research with a more extensive sample, differentiated in terms of how often people eat out, how much they know about minority farmers, their values and their level of local ethnocentrism.

Our Response: Thank you for your comment. While our study involved a relatively small sample of 15 participants, this aligns with the guidance of Bertaux (1981), who noted that 15 interviews are often sufficient in qualitative research. Furthermore, Ando et al. (2014) found that thematic saturation is commonly achieved with as few as 12 interviews, indicating that data collection can reasonably conclude once no new themes emerge. Given these considerations, we respectfully believe that our sample size is appropriate for the qualitative nature of this study and provides sufficient depth and rigor to support our findings. We agree that future research with larger and more diverse samples could adopt a comparative or mixed-methods approach (qualitative and quantitative) to further explore subgroup differences and enrich understanding.

 

References:

Ando, H., Cousins, R., & Young, C. (2014). Achieving saturation in thematic analysis: Development and refinement of a codebook. Comprehensive Psychology, 3, 1-7.

Bertaux, D. (1981). From the life-history approach to the transformation of sociological practice. Biography and society: The life history approach in the social sciences, 29-45.

 

Comment 5: The methodological description lacks key details, such as how the concept of “support for minority farmers” was introduced to participants. This may have strongly influenced their responses—particularly if they were previously unfamiliar with such initiatives. The description of the methodology lacks information about the survey process, location, time, and the role of the researcher. All of these factors may have influenced the quality of the data obtained in the study.

Our Response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the manuscript based on your suggestion. Please refer to page 5, lines 201–216.

 

Comment 6: In some places, the discussion in the paper goes beyond the scope of the results obtained. In future, it would be worthwhile strengthening the link between the discussion and the empirical results, and avoiding generalisations that are not supported by the research material.

Our Response: Thank you for your comment. We carefully considered your suggestion regarding the alignment between the discussion and the empirical results. After thorough review, we respectfully believe that the current discussion remains well-grounded in the data and is supported by the findings. Specifically, our results identified two themes—community-oriented social values and cultural identity—under deontological evaluations, and four themes—consumer values (food-oriented and people-oriented), trust-building mechanisms, and barriers—under teleological evaluations.

In the discussion section, we clearly address the study’s three research questions and directly connect our interpretations to the corresponding themes derived from the data. Furthermore, in the theoretical and practical implications, we sought to contextualize the results within relevant literature and real-world applications to highlight the study’s broader contribution. We have been mindful not to overgeneralize and have ensured that our interpretations remain consistent with the scope and nature of our qualitative findings. We appreciate your understanding

 

Comment 7: The manuscript does not follow a consistent citation style, as required by the journal’s editorial guidelines (e.g., “References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text”). This should be corrected.

Our Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and made the necessary revisions to ensure the citation style is consistent throughout. Specifically, we have adjusted all in-text citations and reference entries to follow the journal’s editorial guidelines, ensuring that references are now numbered in the order of their appearance in the text.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

1. The abstract does not clarify the nature of the "obstacles" or "mechanisms" referred to. It would have been better to provide at least one example for each of the main themes to increase depth.
2. The last phrase: "The study offers both theoretical and practical implications..." is very conventional and general. It would be helpful to indicate what type of contributions these are or who they are directed to (e.g., policymakers, restaurant managers, those interested in social justice).
3. There is no indication in the abstract of the limitations of the research, such as the small sample (only 15 participants), or generalizability, which is important in qualitative studies.
4. Originality Is Not Clearly Established.

Introduction:

1. The paragraph starting from line 49 to 56 must be moved before the one that begins 35 , as the paragraph deals with a research problem and must be merged with the paragraph that begins on line 66 that address the research gab.
2. The introduction did not include a clear explanation of the theoretical and practical significance of this study. Why is supporting minority farmers important? What are the expected social or economic impacts?

Method:

1. The sample was said to be based on "snowball sampling as part of purposive sampling," but it was not explained why these two methods were used together, nor how the sample diversity was ensured under this method, which could produce a homogeneity bias.
2. This limits the generalizability of the results. It would have been better to clearly discuss this limitation or justify the choice of Missouri (e.g., the prevalence of farmers' markets or the presence of a large minority population).
3. Why did the questions come from the theories? They should have been quantitative questions, not qualitative ones. Therefore, the preferred methodology was the quantitative methodology. However, if interviews were to be used, the questions should have been prepared from scratch.
4. Offering a $10 gift card is common, but it is not discussed whether this amount influenced individuals' willingness to participate or was insufficient motivation.

Discussion:

1. There is no clear analysis of variance across different participants (e.g., by age, income, or race), although a demographic table is available.

 

2. How do the views of those who have never purchased from minority farmers differ from those who do so regularly?Although the study mentions the importance of social identity theory (SIT), the discussion does not explain how SIT helps interpret the findings.

 

3. The category of barriers (price, location, awareness) was addressed quickly compared to the other categories, with few analytical citations.

 

4. The interaction between barriers and ethical values ??(e.g., how does a consumer deal with the discrepancy between their beliefs and the price of a meal?) was not discussed.

Discussion and implications:

Superficiality of some analyses in the theoretical discussion:

Although it is stated that "cultural identity" represents a new theoretical contribution, the understanding of this point is not deepened through direct comparison with previous studies or clarification of how it intersects with concepts such as "social justice" or "cultural representation."

 

Author Response

1. Summary

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for your constructive comments and are particularly grateful for your help in polishing this paper. We appreciate your time in reviewing our study and the opportunity to revise the manuscript. Responses to each comment are presented below. The revised portions are marked in red in the manuscript. We hope you find the changes satisfactory.   2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response to Comment on the Abstract Section

Comment 1: The abstract does not clarify the nature of the "obstacles" or "mechanisms" referred to. It would have been better to provide at least one example for each of the main themes to increase depth.

Our response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have included at least one example for each of the main themes. Please refer to page 1, lines 15–20.

 

Comment 2: The last phrase: "The study offers both theoretical and practical implications..." is very conventional and general. It would be helpful to indicate what type of contributions these are or who they are directed to (e.g., policymakers, restaurant managers, those interested in social justice).

Our response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the abstract section based on your suggestions. Please refer to page 1, lines 20–25.

 

Comment 3: There is no indication in the abstract of the limitations of the research, such as the small sample (only 15 participants), or generalizability, which is important in qualitative studies.

Our response: Thank you for your comment. While our study included a relatively small sample of 15 participants, this number is consistent with the guidance provided by Bertaux (1981), who noted that 15 interviews are often sufficient in qualitative research. In addition, Ando et al. (2014) demonstrated that thematic saturation can typically be reached with as few as 12 interviews, suggesting that data collection may reasonably conclude once no new themes emerge. In light of this, we respectfully believe that our sample size is appropriate for the qualitative nature of this study and sufficient to ensure the rigor and depth of the findings.

 

References:

Ando, H., Cousins, R., & Young, C. (2014). Achieving saturation in thematic analysis: Development and refinement of a codebook. Comprehensive Psychology, 3, 1-7.

Bertaux, D. (1981). From the life-history approach to the transformation of sociological practice. Biography and society: The life history approach in the social sciences, 29-45.

 

Comment 4: Originality is Not Clearly Established.

Our response: Thank you for your comment. This research addresses a critical gap in the hospitality and consumer ethics literature by focusing on consumer perceptions of restaurant sourcing from minority farmers, who represent a culturally and economically marginalized group that has received limited attention in prior sustainability and ethical sourcing research. We have revised the manuscript based on your suggestions. Please refer to page 1, lines 9–25.

 

Response to Comment on the Introduction Section

Comment 5: The paragraph starting from line 49 to 56 must be moved before the one that begins 35, as the paragraph deals with a research problem and must be merged with the paragraph that begins on line 66 that address the research gap.

Our response: Thank you for your comment. We appreciate your suggestion regarding paragraph structure. However, our introduction is intentionally organized to first establish the broader importance of food ethics, followed by a discussion of restaurants sourcing from minority farmers as an ethical sourcing practice. We then narrow the focus to highlight the significance of understanding consumers' perspectives on ethical sourcing. Finally, we introduce the research gap and present three research questions grounded in the Hunt–Vitell (H-V) model. This sequence is designed to guide readers from the general context to the specific research focus, maintaining a logical flow of ideas. Therefore, we respectfully retain the current paragraph order to preserve the conceptual progression of the introduction.

 

Comment 6: The introduction did not include a clear explanation of the theoretical and practical significance of this study. Why is supporting minority farmers important? What are the expected social or economic impacts?

Our response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the introduction section based on your suggestion. Regarding the importance of supporting minority farmers, please refer to page 2, lines 44–53. For the expected social and economic impacts, please refer to page 2, lines 81–86.

 

Response to Comment on the Methodology Section

Comment 7: The sample was said to be based on "snowball sampling as part of purposive sampling," but it was not explained why these two methods were used together, nor how the sample diversity was ensured under this method, which could produce a homogeneity bias.

Our response: Thank you for your comment. We used snowball sampling as part of a purposive sampling approach to identify participants with relevant experiences and knowledge of ethical food practices, particularly those who shop at farmers markets or express interest in local sourcing. This combined method allowed us to initially select participants based on predefined inclusion criteria (purposive sampling) and then expand the sample by asking those participants to recommend others with similar relevant characteristics (snowball sampling).

To mitigate the risk of homogeneity bias, we deliberately initiated recruitment from multiple entry points, including various farmers market locations, to ensure a broader range of perspectives. We have added a clarification in the methodology section to explain the rationale for using sampling methods and how diversity was addressed. Please refer to pages 5, lines 172-184.

 

Comment 8: This limits the generalizability of the results. It would have been better to clearly discuss this limitation or justify the choice of Missouri (e.g., the prevalence of farmers' markets or the presence of a large minority population).

Our response: Thank you for your comment. Our sample was restricted to Missouri, which is acknowledged as one of the study’s limitations. In the limitations and future research section, we clearly state that future studies could employ a quantitative approach with a larger and more demographically diverse sample to enhance generalizability. Additional research may also explore consumer perspectives across different U.S. regions, incorporate cross-cultural comparisons, and examine differences between urban and rural populations to provide a more comprehensive understanding of culturally inclusive sourcing practices. Please refer to page 16, lines 603–610.

 

Comment 9: Why did the questions come from the theories? They should have been quantitative questions, not qualitative ones. Therefore, the preferred methodology was the quantitative methodology. However, if interviews were to be used, the questions should have been prepared from scratch.

Our response: Thank you for raising this important point. We understand the concern regarding the relationship between theoretical frameworks and methodological choices. While the Hunt–Vitell (H-V) model of ethics has traditionally been applied in quantitative research, our study adopts a qualitative approach to explore consumers’ ethical reasoning in greater depth.

We would like to clarify that all interview questions were developed from scratch. The H-V model served as a conceptual lens, not as a source of direct survey items, to guide the formulation of open-ended questions suitable for qualitative inquiry. Our aim was not to test specific hypotheses, but to explore how consumers interpret ethical issues related to restaurant sourcing practices and apply moral reasoning in naturalistic contexts.

In qualitative research, theory-informed question design enhances conceptual alignment without compromising the exploratory nature of interviews. Using the H-V model as a guide, we designed ten original questions: three focused on deontological evaluations and seven on teleological evaluations. This approach enabled us to capture the nuanced, context-specific dimensions of consumer perceptions that may be overlooked in structured surveys.

We have clarified this rationale in the revised manuscript and referenced Table 1 (page 6), which outlines the interview questions and their theoretical grounding. We hope this explanation addresses your concern and illustrates the appropriateness of our methodological design.

 

Comment 10: Offering a $10 gift card is common, but it is not discussed whether this amount influenced individuals' willingness to participate or was insufficient motivation.

Our response: Thank you for your comment. All participants were recruited on a voluntary basis. Prior to participation, each individual was provided with an informed consent form outlining the voluntary and confidential nature of the study. Participants were also informed in advance that they would receive a $10 Target gift card as a token of appreciation. No participants reported that the incentive influenced their decision to take part in the study. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Please refer to page 5, lines 205–207.

 

Response to Comment on the Discussion Section

Comment 11: There is no clear analysis of variance across different participants (e.g., by age, income, or race), although a demographic table is available.

 Our response: Thank you for this thoughtful observation. We acknowledge the importance of examining how participant characteristics may influence perceptions and experiences. However, we would like to clarify that this study employed a qualitative research design involving 15 purposefully selected participants. As emphasized by Hammarberg et al. (2016), qualitative research aims to generate in-depth insights into participants’ experiences and meaning-making processes, rather than to quantify relationships or conduct statistical comparisons across demographic subgroups.

Given the small sample size and the exploratory nature of the study, formal analyses of variance or subgroup comparisons are not methodologically appropriate. Our goal was to identify common themes and patterns within participants’ narratives, regardless of demographic differences.

That said, we recognize the value of exploring how factors such as age, income, or race may shape ethical perceptions and restaurant choices. We have noted in the revised manuscript that future research—particularly using larger, more diverse samples or mixed-method designs—may further investigate demographic variations and enhance the generalizability of findings.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and have incorporated this point into our discussion of study limitations and directions for future research.

 

Reference:

Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M., & De Lacey, S. (2016). Qualitative research methods: when to use them and how to judge them. Human reproduction, 31(3), 498-501.

 

Comment 12: How do the views of those who have never purchased from minority farmers differ from those who do so regularly? Although the study mentions the importance of social identity theory (SIT), the discussion does not explain how SIT helps interpret the findings.

 Our response: Thank you for this thoughtful comment. Our participant sample included both individuals with prior experience purchasing from minority farmers and those without such experience. However, as this is a qualitative study based on a small, purposefully selected sample, our primary goal was to explore emergent themes across participants rather than to conduct formal comparisons between subgroups. As noted by Hammarberg et al. (2016), qualitative research emphasizes depth of insight over generalizability, and formal multi-group analyses are typically not appropriate in this context. That said, we agree that the differences in experience levels could offer valuable insights, and we have noted this as a direction for future research using larger samples or mixed-method designs that allow for comparative analysis.

We also appreciate your observation regarding the role of Social Identity Theory (SIT). Upon review, we recognize that the manuscript did not clearly explain the theoretical shift. While SIT was originally considered during the conceptual framing phase of the research, the final analysis was guided by the Hunt–Vitell (H-V) model of ethics, which more directly aligns with our focus on individual ethical evaluations in consumer decision-making.

The H-V model distinguishes between deontological evaluations, reflecting intrinsic moral beliefs and values, and teleological evaluations, centered on the perceived outcomes of actions. In our findings, deontological reasoning was evident in participants’ community-centered social values and cultural identities, while teleological reasoning captured considerations related to food-related values, mechanisms of trust, and structural barriers such as pricing and accessibility. We have clarified this in the revised discussion section (page 13, lines 467–477) and removed any remaining ambiguity about the theoretical framework guiding our interpretation.

We appreciate your careful reading and helpful suggestions, which have strengthened the clarity and focus of our manuscript.

 

References:

Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M., & De Lacey, S. (2016). Qualitative research methods: when to use them and how to judge them. Human reproduction, 31(3), 498-501.

Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6(1), 5-16.

 

 Comment 13: The category of barriers (price, location, awareness) was addressed quickly compared to the other categories, with few analytical citations.

 Our response: Thank you for your comment. We revised the manuscript based on your suggestion. Please refer to page 14, lines 536–546.

 

Comment 14: The interaction between barriers and ethical values?? (e.g., how does a consumer deal with the discrepancy between their beliefs and the price of a meal?) was not discussed.

 Our response: Thank you for your comment. We acknowledge that the interaction between barriers and ethical values was not addressed in the current analysis. Our primary focus was to identify key themes emerging from participants’ responses rather than to examine the dynamic interplay between them. We agree that this is a valuable area for further exploration and will consider expanding on this point in future research to better understand how consumers reconcile ethical intentions with perceived constraints.

 

Response to Comment on the Discussion and Implications Section

Comment 15: Although it is stated that "cultural identity" represents a new theoretical contribution, the understanding of this point is not deepened through direct comparison with previous studies or clarification of how it intersects with concepts such as "social justice" or "cultural representation."

Our response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the manuscript based on your suggestion. Please refer to page 14, lines 503–517.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research problem addressed in the manuscript is interesting. However, the Authors could make some additions. The abstract lacks the main research findings and conclusions. There is no information on when the study was conducted. I suggest that some of the results presented in the manuscript be displayed in tables or visualized graphically in the form of charts. This would enhance the clarity of the presented data. Additionally, I propose increasing the number of cited references, focusing primarily on the most recent publications. 

It might also be useful to introduce a paragraph describing what has been included in each section of the article, such as: "The structure of the article is as follows...". The Authors could focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the applied research method and justify their choice based on specific requirements used for the analysis. It is important to present the limitations encountered while conducting the research. The Authors could also indicate existing research gaps.

Author Response

1. Summary
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for your constructive comments and are particularly grateful for your help in polishing this paper. We appreciate your time in reviewing our study and the opportunity to revise the manuscript. Responses to each comment are presented below. The revised portions are marked in red in the manuscript. We hope you find the changes satisfactory.   2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: The research problem addressed in the manuscript is interesting. However, the Authors could make some additions. The abstract lacks the main research findings and conclusions. There is no information on when the study was conducted.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. We have revised the manuscript based on your suggestions. Please refer to page 1, lines 9–25.

 

Comment 2: I suggest that some of the results presented in the manuscript be displayed in tables or visualized graphically in the form of charts. This would enhance the clarity of the presented data. Additionally, I propose increasing the number of cited references, focusing primarily on the most recent publications. 

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have presented the results in Table 3 (pages 11–12) for clarity. Additionally, we have included several recent publications, which are listed in the updated references below.

 

References:

Landon, A., & Rosol, M. (2025). Overcoming the local trap through inclusive and multi-scalar food systems. Local Environment, 1-21.

Onyango, E., Mori, K., Fernandez, S., Seyyedin, B., Chinedu-Asogwa, N., & Kapfunde, D. (2025). Cultural relevance of food security initiatives and the associated impacts on the cultural identity of immigrants in Canada: A scoping review of food insecurity literature. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 100269.

Kitch, S., McGregor, J., Mejía, G. M., El-Sayed, S., Spackman, C., & Vitullo, J. (2021). Gendered and racial injustices in American food systems and cultures. Humanities, 10(2), 66.

 

Comment 3: It might also be useful to introduce a paragraph describing what has been included in each section of the article, such as: "The structure of the article is as follows...".

Response 3: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. We appreciate your recommendation regarding paragraph structure. However, our introduction is intentionally organized to first establish the broader importance of food ethics, followed by a discussion of restaurants sourcing from minority farmers as an ethical sourcing practice. We then narrow the focus to highlight the significance of understanding consumers' perspectives on ethical sourcing. Finally, we introduce the research gap and present three research questions grounded in the Hunt–Vitell (H-V) model. This sequence is designed to guide readers from the general context to the specific research focus, maintaining a logical flow of ideas. Therefore, we respectfully retain the current paragraph order to preserve the conceptual progression of the introduction.

 

Comment 4: The Authors could focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the applied research method and justify their choice based on specific requirements used for the analysis. It is important to present the limitations encountered while conducting the research. The Authors could also indicate existing research gaps.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. We have addressed the strengths and weaknesses of the applied research method in our manuscript. Regarding the strengths, our study adopted a qualitative research approach; as emphasized by Hammarberg et al. (2016), qualitative research aims to generate in-depth insights into participants’ experiences and meaning-making processes. This approach was particularly well-suited for our study, which sought to explore consumers’ ethical beliefs and personal values in the context of restaurant sourcing from minority farmers—a topic that benefits from rich, narrative-based understanding. The open-ended nature of qualitative interviews allowed us to capture the complexity and nuance of participants’ perspectives, which may not have been fully accessible through quantitative methods alone.

In terms of the limitations, we elaborate on several limitations of our study in the “Limitations and Future Studies” section. Please refer to page 16, lines 601–617.

 

Reference:

Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M., & De Lacey, S. (2016). Qualitative research methods: when to use them and how to judge them. Human reproduction, 31(3), 498-501.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript in the current version is accepted 

Author Response

Comments 1: The manuscript in the current version is accepted. 

Response 1: I'm delighted to hear that the manuscript has been accepted in its current version. I truly appreciate your time and consideration throughout the review process.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract 1. There is no indication in the abstract of the limitations of the research, such as the small sample (only 15 participants), or generalizability, which is important in qualitative studies. 2. Originality Is Not Clearly Established. Introduction: 1. The paragraph starting from line 49 to 56 must be moved before the one that begins 35 , as the paragraph deals with a research problem and must be merged with the paragraph that begins on line 66 that address the research gap. 2. Provide a brief explanation of the employed theory Hunt–Vitell theory of ethics (H-V model) to address the research gap. 3. The authors should write the contributions In a separate paraghraph after the research questions. The introduction did not include a clear explanation of the theoretical and practical significance of this study. Why is supporting minority farmers important? What are the expected social or economic impacts? . Literature review: Start with a theoretical approach. Method: 1. Why combine purposive and snowball sampling? Although there's a hint of explanation, you can strengthen the rationale by explicitly stating the benefit of combining both methods. Write the references to cite the methodology. 2. How was diversity ensured beyond location? While using multiple farmers market locations helps reduce geographic homogeneity, the response doesn't clarify if demographic or behavioral diversity (e.g., age, gender, income, shopping frequency) was considered. 3. Only 15 interviews were conducted, with no scientific justification provided for this limited number. It should be clarified whether this number is sufficient to achieve theoretical saturation, which is important in qualitative studies. 4. Please determine the sample if consumer or farmer or restaurant’s owner such as participant no. 15. The study should focus on consumer, because the study related to their behavior to consume green dining 5. The interviews were conducted only at "local farmers' markets," which may limit the diversity of participants, as this group may already be more aware of or engaged with ethical issues. 6. There is no adequate explanation of how the interview tools were reliable or the researchers' consistency during the interviews was ensured. 7. The interviews were conducted in public spaces (markets), which may not guarantee complete privacy, which may make participants less comfortable sharing sensitive or candid experiences. 8. Were measures taken to limit noise or interruptions? 9. There is no information on the time period over which the data was collected (e.g., months or year). Discussion: Please refer to the previous studies to confirm or disconfirm. Discussion and implications: Superficiality of some analyses in the theoretical discussion: Although it is stated that "cultural identity" represents a new theoretical contribution, the understanding of this point is not deepened through direct comparison with previous studies or clarification of how it intersects with concepts such as "social justice" or "cultural representation."

Author Response

1. Summary

The authors would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for your constructive comments and valuable suggestions. We are especially grateful for your help in refining and polishing this manuscript. We appreciate the time you devoted to reviewing our study and the opportunity to revise our work. Responses to each of your comments are provided below, and the revised sections have been highlighted in red in the manuscript. We hope the changes meet your expectations.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response to Comment on the Abstract Section

Comment 1: There is no indication in the abstract of the limitations of the research, such as the small sample (only 15 participants), or generalizability, which is important in qualitative studies.

Our response: Thank you for your comment. We already add the limitation in abstract: “One key limitation of this study is its reliance on a small, Missouri-based sample of consumers, which restricts the generalizability of the findings and excludes perspectives from other key stakeholders such as restaurant operators and minority farmers.” Please refer to Page 1, lines 25-28 for details.

Comment 2: Originality Is Not Clearly Established.

Our response: Thank you for your feedback. We already clarify our originality of this study in the abstract section: “Despite these limitations, this study offers original value by providing in-depth insights into consumer perceptions of culturally inclusive and ethical sourcing practices which is an underexplored area in sustainable food research. This study also highlights the need for multi-stakeholder engagement to advance equity in the food system.” Please refer to Page 1, lines 28-32 for details.

Response to Comment on the Introduction Section

Comment 3: The paragraph starting from line 49 to 56 must be moved before the one that begins 35, as the paragraph deals with a research problem and must be merged with the paragraph that begins on line 66 that address the research gap.

Our response: Thank you for the comment. We have revised the manuscript based on your suggestion. Please refer to Page 2, lines 48-54.

Comment 4: Provide a brief explanation of the employed theory Hunt–Vitell theory of ethics (H-V model) to address the research gap.

Our response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the manuscript based on your suggestion. Please refer to pages 2, lines 84–90.

         “The H-V model integrates both deontological and teleological evaluations in the ethical decision-making process. It posits that individuals consider their personal ethical standards, the perceived consequences of actions for various stakeholders, and the probability of those consequences occurring when faced with moral dilemmas. This study expands the theoretical application of the H-V model beyond traditional environmental contexts into the realm of cultural and community-based ethical consumption.”

Comment 5: The authors should write the contributions In a separate paragraph after the research questions. The introduction did not include a clear explanation of the theoretical and practical significance of this study. Why is supporting minority farmers important? What are the expected social or economic impacts?

Our response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have added one separate paragraph in the Introduction section to clarify the significance of this study below. Please refer to Page 3, lines 93-103 for details.

“Specifically, this study addresses the pressing need for equity and inclusion in the food system by examining how consumers perceive and respond to restaurants that source from minority farmers. Although consumers’ interest in ethical foods is well established, often framed around organic or health attributes [30,31], consumers’ specific motivations for supporting culturally inclusive sourcing remain underexplored. By identifying both the drivers and the barriers to such choices, our research shows how inclusive supply chains can foster a more culturally diverse food system while simultaneously strengthening local economies and social cohesion. Socially, this promotes awareness and inclusion of minority farmers, and economically, it can boost local economies by improving market access for underrepresented producers and encouraging sustainable sourcing.”

Related Citation:

     30. Carolan, M. (2022). Ethical eating as experienced by consumers and producers: When good food meets               good farmers. Journal of Consumer Culture, 22(1), 103-123.

     31. Van Bussel, L. M., Kuijsten, A., Mars, M., & Van‘t Veer, P. (2022). Consumers’ perceptions on food-related              sustainability: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 341, 130904.

Response to Comment on the Literature Review Section

Comment 6: Start with a theoretical approach

Our response: Thank you for your comments. We have revised the manuscript based on your suggestion. Please refer to pages 3–4, lines 115–150.

Response to Comment on the Methodology Section

Comment 7: Why combine purposive and snowball sampling? Although there's a hint of explanation, you can strengthen the rationale by explicitly stating the benefit of combining both methods. Write the references to cite the methodology.

Our response: Thank you for your comments. We combined purposive and snowball sampling to enhance both the relevance and reach of our participant pool. Purposive sampling allowed us to intentionally select participants who met specific criteria relevant to the research objectives [46]. Snowball sampling was then employed to access a broader network of participants who shared similar interests but might not have been easily identified through purposive sampling alone [47]. This combination is particularly useful in qualitative research when studying specific consumer behaviors within a defined yet somewhat dispersed population. We added more discussion in the manuscript on Page 5, Line 189-193, please refer to the track change for detail.

References:

      46. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful          sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. A                      Administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research, 42, 533-544.

47. Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research.                 International Journal of social research methodology, 11(4), 327-344.

Comment 8: How was diversity ensured beyond location? While using multiple farmers market locations helps reduce geographic homogeneity, the response doesn't clarify if demographic or behavioral diversity (e.g., age, gender, income, shopping frequency) was considered.

Our response: Thank you for this insightful comment. In addition to selecting multiple farmers market locations to enhance geographic variation, we also employed purposive sampling to ensure demographic and behavioral diversity among participants. Specifically, we aimed to include individuals across a range of age groups, genders, household income levels, and shopping behaviors (e.g., frequency of purchasing from the farmers market, frequency of purchasing from minority farmers, and frequency of dining out at a restaurant). This approach allowed us to capture a broad spectrum of consumer perspectives and ethical consumption practices, thereby enhancing the richness and applicability of the findings. We also reflected it in the manuscript on Page 6, Lins 238-241.

“To ensure a diverse participant base, we visited multiple farmers’ markets on different days and during both peak and off-peak hours, employing purposive sampling to capture broad demographic and behavioral variation among shoppers.”

Comment 9: Only 15 interviews were conducted, with no scientific justification provided for this limited number. It should be clarified whether this number is sufficient to achieve theoretical saturation, which is important in qualitative studies.

Our response: Thank you for your comments. In our study, we conducted 15 in-depth interviews, guided by the principle of thematic saturation. While we initially followed sample size recommendations from citation [48] and [49] (highlighted in green on Page 5, Line 199 to 204). We also monitored data saturation during the interview process. By the 13th interview, we observed a repetition of themes and no emergence of substantially new insights. The final two interviews served to confirm the consistency of the patterns identified. This iterative process supports the conclusion that thematic saturation was achieved, validating the adequacy of our sample size for qualitative inquiry, and we explain it in manuscript Page 6, lines 246-249.

Comment 10: Please determine the sample if consumer or farmer or restaurant’s owner such as participant no. 15. The study should focus on consumer, because the study related to their behavior to consume green dining.

Our response: Thank you for the comments. As you pointed out the concern, we went back to listen to the audio again. In the audio, Participant 15’s intended meaning was if he were a restaurant owner... The full direct quote is: "I don’t know if it’s a responsibility for that…. As a restaurant owner (if I were one), I would be trying to find what is cost-saving that can help them save money and have a higher, like a …be able to have a profitable business." Please refer to page 8, lines 302–305.

Comment 11: The interviews were conducted only at "local farmers' markets," which may limit the diversity of participants, as this group may already be more aware of or engaged with ethical issues.

Our response: Thank you for the thoughtful comment. We acknowledge that conducting interviews exclusively at local farmers’ markets may have influenced the diversity of perspectives, particularly by attracting participants who are more aware of or engaged with ethical and sustainability issues. This limitation may affect the generalizability of the findings. We have added a statement to the manuscript to reflect this methodological constraint and recommend that future research include a broader range of recruitment sites to capture more diverse consumer perspectives. Please refer to the revised manuscript, page 17, lines 648–654.

Comment 12: There is no adequate explanation of how the interview tools were reliable or the researchers' consistency during the interviews was ensured.

Our response: Thank you for your comments. To ensure the reliability of the interview protocol and consistency throughout the data collection process, we implemented several measures. The semi-structured interview guide was developed based on relevant theories and prior literature, and it was cross-checked by three professionals with expertise in qualitative research and sustainable food systems. All interviews were conducted by the same two researchers, who met in advance to discuss the interview objectives, question wording, and appropriate probing techniques to ensure a consistent approach. Field notes were also taken to capture contextual observations and support consistent interpretation during analysis. Please refer to Pages 6, lines 222-224 and lines 227-229.

Comment 13: The interviews were conducted in public spaces (markets), which may not guarantee complete privacy, which may make participants less comfortable sharing sensitive or candid experiences.

Our response: Thank you for the helpful comment. We acknowledge the potential limitations of conducting interviews in public settings such as farmers’ markets. To address this, we took steps to ensure a comfortable and semi-private environment by selecting quiet, low-traffic areas within the markets (e.g., shaded seating zones or vendor rest areas) that allowed for minimal disturbance and sufficient conversational privacy. Interviewers also emphasized confidentiality at the outset of each session to help participants feel at ease. Based on participants’ engagement and willingness to share detailed perspectives, we believe these measures were effective in supporting open and candid discussions.

Comment 14: Were measures taken to limit noise or interruptions?

Our response: Thank you for the helpful comment. While the interviews were conducted at farmers’ markets, measures were taken to minimize noise and interruptions by selecting quieter areas within these public spaces—such as shaded seating areas, vendor break zones, or low-traffic corners. These locations allowed for a relatively private and comfortable environment, enabling participants to speak freely. This approach also helped maintain the quality and clarity of the audio recordings for accurate transcription and analysis.

Comment 15: There is no information on the time period over which the data was collected (e.g., months or year).

Our response: Thank you for your comments. We have revised the manuscript based on your suggestion. Please refer to page 6, lines 236–237.

Response to Comment on the Discussion Section

Comment 16: Please refer to the previous studies to confirm or disconfirm.

Our response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the manuscript based on your suggestion. Please refer to Page 14, lines 501–514.

Response to Comment on the Discussion and implications Section

Comment 17: Superficiality of some analyses in the theoretical discussion: Although it is stated that "cultural identity" represents a new theoretical contribution, the understanding of this point is not deepened through direct comparison with previous studies or clarification of how it intersects with concepts such as "social justice" or "cultural representation."

Our response: Thank you for your comment. We have expanded the discussion of cultural identity as a key theoretical contribution. Although previous research has highlighted social-justice issues in food systems, particularly the structural barriers faced by minority and immigrant farmers (e.g., Minkoff-Zern, 2018) as mentioned in our manuscript, few studies have examined how consumers’ own cultural identity shapes their ethical dining choices. Our findings fill this gap by showing that many diners choosing restaurants that source from minority farmers is not only a socially responsible act but also a way to honor shared heritage and express cultural pride. We further clarify how cultural identity intersects with social justice: consumer choices can serve as everyday acts of solidarity that amplify the cultural visibility of marginalized communities and advance equity within the food system. Please refer to Page 15, lines 538-542 and Pages 14, Line 553-556 for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors committed of all responses

Author Response

Comment 1: The authors committed of all responses. 

Response 1: Thank you for recognizing our efforts.