Australian Consumers’ Drivers and Barriers to Purchasing Local Food from Alternative Agri-Food Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents intriguing results that differ from previous research and is well-written overall. However, the following improvements could enhance the completeness of the paper:

1. In the abstract, the authors state, “This study contributes to the growing body of research regarding the role of consumers in supporting sustainable food systems.” However, it is necessary to elaborate on how consumers contribute to sustainable food systems by incorporating relevant keywords. Clearly emphasizing the study’s contribution will strengthen its impact.
2. The study ultimately concludes that 1) Consumers purchase less local food not because of values or beliefs, but simply due to inconvenience. 2) Making local food more accessible is the key strategy to increasing consumer adoption. Given this key finding, the Discussion section should place greater emphasis on this conclusion. Currently, the section appears somewhat descriptive and could benefit from clearer structuring. Adding subheadings to categorize different discussions would improve readability and comprehension.
3. Important findings should be structured around key concepts and keywords to enhance clarity. Furthermore, the study's distinct contribution compared to prior research should be explicitly stated. This research examined multiple influencing factors; however, the only statistically significant determinant was "It’s All Too Hard." This finding shifts the focus from intention-based perspectives to behavior-centered insights, making it a crucial takeaway. Highlighting this behavioral aspect more explicitly would enhance the paper’s contribution.
4. Finally, the study would be stronger impact if it explicitly addressed practical implications for businesses. For instance: How can local food suppliers reduce inconvenience for consumers? Can online platforms or delivery services help mitigate the perceived barriers? Providing concrete examples of how businesses can apply these findings in real-world settings would significantly enhance the study’s relevance and utility.

Author Response

• This study presents intriguing results that differ from previous research and is well-written overall. However, the following improvements could enhance the completeness of the paper:
  1. Thank you very much for this positive feedback. We appreciate your comments and suggestions and feel that addressing them have strengthened the overall quality of the manuscript.

 

• In the abstract, the authors state, “This study contributes to the growing body of research regarding the role of consumers in supporting sustainable food systems.” However, it is necessary to elaborate on how consumers contribute to sustainable food systems by incorporating relevant keywords. Clearly emphasizing the study’s contribution will strengthen its impact.
  1. We have modified the concluding sentence in the abstract as follows:
     1. “Findings point to ways to encourage engagement with sustainable food systems, as well as critical barriers to overcome disengagement.”

 

• The study ultimately concludes that 1) Consumers purchase less local food not because of values or beliefs, but simply due to inconvenience. 2) Making local food more accessible is the key strategy to increasing consumer adoption. Given this key finding, the Discussion section should place greater emphasis on this conclusion. Currently, the section appears somewhat descriptive and could benefit from clearer structuring. Adding subheadings to categorize different discussions would improve readability and comprehension.
  1. We have added three new subheadings to the Discussion section to improve readability. We have also modified one existing subheading to ensure it accurately describes the information contained in that section, and have added more information to the Discussion and Conclusion sections to highlight the implications of the findings.

 

• Important findings should be structured around key concepts and keywords to enhance clarity. Furthermore, the study's distinct contribution compared to prior research should be explicitly stated. This research examined multiple influencing factors; however, the only statistically significant determinant was "It’s All Too Hard." This finding shifts the focus from intention-based perspectives to behavior-centered insights, making it a crucial takeaway. Highlighting this behavioral aspect more explicitly would enhance the paper’s contribution.
  1. Thank you for this suggestion. We have included the following statement in the conclusion to highlight this contribution: “Among these, beyond value-based motivation, it was perceived difficulty and inconveniences around product availability, costs, and the efforts required to plan one’s shopping that were most significant in determining where Australians shop.” (Lines 627-631)

 

• Finally, the study would be stronger impact if it explicitly addressed practical implications for businesses. For instance: How can local food suppliers reduce inconvenience for consumers? Can online platforms or delivery services help mitigate the perceived barriers? Providing concrete examples of how businesses can apply these findings in real-world settings would significantly enhance the study’s relevance and utility.
  1. We have clarified and provided more detail on what a marketing campaign may involve (Lines 520-527).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am a pleasure to review this manuscript. Here are my reviews.

1. Are Coles and Woolworths still Australia's two most influential supermarket groups? Please cite recent literature or information.
2. The author states in the introduction that researchers have been reporting on the impacts of unequal relationships for nearly three decades. The author cited the latest literature in 2016. Is there any further research on this topic?
3. The author cites Richards et al. (2012). Does the author claim that the last 20 years are counted from 2012 or from now? I was unable to download this paper, and I was unable to review the paper to verify that the authors cited it correctly. In addition, the manuscript is not rigorous enough in its citations. For example, it cites 2005 and calls it ‘the last ten years.’
4. This manuscript has the problem of outdated references. The authors need to verify that these problems still exist today. Otherwise, the research in this manuscript will be meaningless.
5. The authors state that this study is exploratory. The authors cited some papers showing 61 driver items and 34 barrier items. What is the theoretical basis for the questionnaire produced by this manuscript? What is the theoretical basis for the factors formed? What are the names of these factors? Are the predictors listed by the authors the names of the variables? They lack a theoretical basis.
6. The author did not verify the reliability and validity of the questionnaire before distributing it.
7. Purchase frequency is affected by personal consumption behavior, consumption convenience, and other factors. Therefore, the research results cannot answer the research topic.

In conclusion, this manuscript lacks a theoretical base.

Author Response

1. Are Coles and Woolworths still Australia's two most influential supermarket groups? Please cite recent literature or information.
1. We have included references to qualify this (Line 31; Line 34; Line 37)
2. The author states in the introduction that researchers have been reporting on the impacts of unequal relationships for nearly three decades. The author cited the latest literature in 2016. Is there any further research on this topic?
1. We have included a 2021 reference here now (Line 39).
3. The author cites Richards et al. (2012). Does the author claim that the last 20 years are counted from 2012 or from now? I was unable to download this paper, and I was unable to review the paper to verify that the authors cited it correctly. In addition, the manuscript is not rigorous enough in its citations. For example, it cites 2005 and calls it ‘the last ten years.’
1. We have updated this section to remove the reference to ‘the last 20 years’ and also cited the ACCC report of 2008, which was an inquiry into concentration in supermarket sector (Line 40)
2. I am not sure why you couldn’t access the Richards et al. (2012) paper. When I copied and pasted the doi in the reference into Google the paper came up.
3. We could not find the phrase ‘last 10 years’ in our paper but have checked historical statements in the paper and made sure references match the statements.
4. This manuscript has the problem of outdated references. The authors need to verify that these problems still exist today. Otherwise, the research in this manuscript will be meaningless.
1. See points 1-3 above where we state we have updated references to show this is a contemporary issue. Part of the difficulty of demonstrating the currency of this issue is there has not be an inquiry into supermarket concentration since 2008. However, this is currently underway with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission currently undertaking such a review. We have referenced this review in the paper now.  
5. The authors state that this study is exploratory. The authors cited some papers showing 61 driver items and 34 barrier items. What is the theoretical basis for the questionnaire produced by this manuscript? What is the theoretical basis for the factors formed? What are the names of these factors? Are the predictors listed by the authors the names of the variables? They lack a theoretical basis.
1. Thank you for this comment. The papers citing the 61 driver and 34 barrier items were the papers from which we derived the items we developed and used as part of our literature search. As such, they support the items in the survey we created; they are not citations for this survey.
2. Exploratory factor analysis is not theory-driven, it is data-driven. This is an inductive approach as opposed to a deductive approach, and as such, we went into the data analysis without pre-existing hypotheses about what factors would be derived from the items to which participants responded. This is also why not all of the original items are included in the final version of the questionnaire.
6. The author did not verify the reliability and validity of the questionnaire before distributing it.
1. This is true, but in this case, because the survey was exploratory, it was not a necessary requirement to support findings. You will see in the Strengths and Limitations section of the Discussion that we have suggested, multiple times, that others assess the utility of the survey (in both its shorter and longer forms) in other populations to establish whether the same factor structure exists in either similar or different populations (or both), which would provide further validation for its continued use. Please also note that these factors collectively were found to predict shopping behaviour, providing evidence of its validity, and the high Cronbach’s alphas providing evidence of its reliability.
7. Purchase frequency is affected by personal consumption behavior, consumption convenience, and other factors. Therefore, the research results cannot answer the research topic.
1. Yes, this was the purpose of the study and consistent with the factors derived from our factor analysis, which collectively accounted for a significant 9% of purchasing behaviour, noting that ‘consumption convenience’ was captured in the ‘It’s All Too Hard’ factor, and aspects of ‘personal consumption behaviour’ were captured in all of the driver and barrier factors obtained. We also clearly stated that 91% of purchasing behaviour is left unaccounted for, meaning other variables are worth investigating in future research:
1. Moreover, although our factors explained a significant amount of variance in local food shopping behaviour, 91% of the variance was unaccounted for by these variables. Future research would benefit from investigating other constructs (e.g., identity, cultural worldviews, etc.) that may also contribute to food purchasing behaviour so that targeted interventions to promote local food purchasing are better refined (and thus, more likely to succeed). (Lines 596 – 601)

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your thoughtful work on this important study examining Australian consumers' engagement with alternative food networks. Your research also deepens understanding of the drivers and barriers to local food purchasing, especially within the context of the dominant Coles-Woolworths retail landscape.

Your paper is organized well, but the research questions are not clearly stated. These should have been clearly defined in the Introduction. Also, connecting your results to existing theories of consumer behavior (i.e., Theory of Planned Behavior, Consumer Decision-Making Models) would help to put your study on a firmer theoretical background, which would increase the academic impact.

The results show that your regression model only accounts for 9% of the variance in alternative food shopping behaviors. This is common in social science research, and yet the limitation is not clearly stated in the conclusions. It would improve your argument greatly if you highlight this flaw and pose more factors in influence (economic limitation, habitual shopping behaviors, etc.). Adding a visual means like the bar chart above can also help emphasize the most important predictors in your model.

 In the Discussion section, briefly reflect on how your findings align with existing behavioral models. The discussion leans toward barriers, particularly the “It’s All Too Hard” factor, while motivations such as ethical values, socio-emotional experiences, and supermarket distrust receive less emphasis. This makes the study be more problem-oriented rather than solution-focused. This would also add balance to discussing how policymakers and retailers can build on consumer motivations to promote local food purchases. This section could be improved by including consumer values and trust in overcoming these barriers.

Your study is extremely relevant to policymakers and sustainable food advocates but could use more concrete recommendations for action. You might add a brief paragraph to either the Discussion or Conclusion before you submit, outlining some pragmatic policy recommendations (e.g.,

• Smallholder farmers and alternative retailers — all get government incentives.
• Marketing strategies that highlight the benefits of local food.
• Policy reforms that would increase supermarket price transparency and local food labeling.)

This research adds significantly to the dialog around sustainable consumption of food in Australia. If you tackle these issues, your paper will be clearer and more impactful and most likely of more relevance to both academics and policymakers.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Authors,

• Thank you for your thoughtful work on this important study examining Australian consumers' engagement with alternative food networks. Your research also deepens understanding of the drivers and barriers to local food purchasing, especially within the context of the dominant Coles-Woolworths retail landscape.
  1. Thank you very much for this positive feedback. We appreciate your comments and suggestions and feel that they have strengthened the manuscript.

 

• Your paper is organized well, but the research questions are not clearly stated. These should have been clearly defined in the Introduction. Also, connecting your results to existing theories of consumer behavior (i.e., Theory of Planned Behavior, Consumer Decision-Making Models) would help to put your study on a firmer theoretical background, which would increase the academic impact.
  1. We do discuss the aim of the current study in the Introduction in several places:
     1. “The purpose of this study is to investigate grocery shopping practices among Australian consumers. Specifically, it explores the factors that both drive and prevent consumers shopping for locally produced food at alternative food retailers. A better understanding of the drivers and barriers shaping consumer grocery shopping practices will inform the future of the Australian agri-food system through elucidating the challenges for consumers in engaging in alternative agri-food supply chains.” (Lines 58-63)
     2. The current study aimed to assess Australian consumers’ engagement with alternative food retailers, how this varies depending on geographic location (i.e., urban vs. rural/regional), and drivers and barriers toward procurement of local food from these outlets. (Lines 204-207)
  2. Thank you for this suggestion. While we recognise the value of theories of consumer behaviour, in this research we explicitly opted not to engage with theories because we wanted to approach this question from observation rather than set up behaviour as assumed a priori. Hence, our decision to run a factor analysis and report on the key barriers and drivers that emerged from the data. Further, in our Discussion, we do reference Michie et al.’s Behaviour Change Wheel, which conceptualises barriers as relating to capability, opportunity, and motivation. This can be used as a guide to design appropriate interventions targeting the observed drivers and barriers. (Lines 607-609)

 

• The results show that your regression model only accounts for 9% of the variance in alternative food shopping behaviors. This is common in social science research, and yet the limitation is not clearly stated in the conclusions. It would improve your argument greatly if you highlight this flaw and pose more factors in influence (economic limitation, habitual shopping behaviors, etc.). Adding a visual means like the bar chart above can also help emphasize the most important predictors in your model.

 

1. We did address this in the ‘Strengths, limitations, and future directions’ section (lines 596-601), however we have added a sentence to the Conclusions section to address this limitation. We feel that influences on these behaviours such as economic limitations (Item “It is expensive”) and habit (Items “It is inconvenient” and “It is not part of my normal/regular shopping routine”, among potentially others) have been addressed already in our questionnaire items and subsequent factor analysis, however if there are other issues you feel that have not been addressed either in the questionnaire items or our suggestions for other factors we did not account for, we are open to including them in the limitations.

 

• In the Discussion section, briefly reflect on how your findings align with existing behavioral models. The discussion leans toward barriers, particularly the “It’s All Too Hard” factor, while motivations such as ethical values, socio-emotional experiences, and supermarket distrust receive less emphasis. This makes the study be more problem-oriented rather than solution-focused. This would also add balance to discussing how policymakers and retailers can build on consumer motivations to promote local food purchases. This section could be improved by including consumer values and trust in overcoming these barriers.
  1. We note that we spent 5 paragraphs discussing all of the drivers and only 2 on the “It’s All Too Hard” factor, despite the latter being the only factor that independently predicted variance in behavioural outcomes.
  2. That said, and in accordance with your next point and other reviewers’ comments, we have added new information to the Discussion and Conclusion sections to address this issue. Furthermore, we tie our findings to Michie et al.’s Behaviour Change Wheel in the Discussion with the specific suggestion that it could be used to design interventions based on the identified barriers.

 

• Your study is extremely relevant to policymakers and sustainable food advocates but could use more concrete recommendations for action. You might add a brief paragraph to either the Discussion or Conclusion before you submit, outlining some pragmatic policy recommendations (e.g.,
  1. Smallholder farmers and alternative retailers — all get government incentives.
  2. Marketing strategies that highlight the benefits of local food.
  3. Policy reforms that would increase supermarket price transparency and local food labeling.)

1. Thank you for this suggestion. We do not see that there is a concrete recommendation here because convenience of shopping is related to a whole set of multi-scalar factors that include intrapersonal (socio-economic status, age, gender, health, education), interpersonal (family structure, peer pressures/support, parenting practices), meso-scale settings (retail and urban environment) and policies (nutrition and labelling standards, subsidies, advertising and marketing, food system and supply chain regulation). Those interested in expanding local food consumption should consider these various factors when seeking to advocate for more sustainable food systems. We have included the following paragraph:
   1. “Finally, convenience/inconvenience around shopping is related to a whole set of multi-scalar factors that include interpersonal (e.g., socio-economic status, age, gender, health, education), interpersonal (e.g., family structure, peer pressure/support, parenting practices), and meso-scale settings (e.g., retail and urban environments), and policies (e.g., nutrition and labelling standards, advertising and marketing, food system and supply chain regulation). Those interested in encouraging behaviour change with respect to local food consumption could focus on addressing the “inconvenience” factor that most directly influenced local food procurement through a wide variety of interventions across these multiple scales.” (Lines 633-641)

• This research adds significantly to the dialog around sustainable consumption of food in Australia. If you tackle these issues, your paper will be clearer and more impactful and most likely of more relevance to both academics and policymakers.
  1. Thank you very much for this feedback and your suggestions.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper "Australian consumers’ drivers and barriers to purchasing local food from alternative agri-food networks." The topic is timely and relevant to the current discourse on sustainable food systems.

While the paper presents a comprehensive overview of the context and motivations for supporting local food, I have several suggestions for improvement.

Firstly, the introduction does not clearly articulate the research gap or the novelty of the study. A more detailed discussion of the existing literature and how your research contributes to it is needed. The authors should explicitly state the aim and the main objectives/research questions.

Secondly, the literature review section seems to be integrated into the introduction. The authors should dedicate a separate section to a comprehensive review of the relevant literature on consumer attitudes towards local food, the intention-behavior gap, and differences between urban and rural consumers, as stated in the Current study section.

Furthermore, the results and discussion sections does not adequately address the objectives highlighted in the Current study as well as differences between urban and rural consumers, despite this being a key focus of the study

Other specific comments:

• Line 57: Please clarify the meaning of the acronym ACCC.

Overall, while the topic is interesting, the paper would benefit from a more rigorous theoretical framework, a clearer articulation of the research questions, and a more in-depth analysis of the data.

I hope these comments are helpful.

Author Response

1. Firstly, the introduction does not clearly articulate the research gap or the novelty of the study. A more detailed discussion of the existing literature and how your research contributes to it is needed. The authors should explicitly state the aim and the main objectives/research questions.
   1. The section, now titled ‘Beyond the duopoly in rural and urban Australia’ fully describes the research gap we are intending to address.
      1. To date, there have been few studies of Australian consumers’ motivations to shop for local food at alternative food retailers. (Line 155 – 156).
      2. Taken together, drivers for explicitly engaging with local food suppliers are likely motivated by a number of different factors, which may vary depending on whether the population under examination lives in an urban or a rural environment (65). Given the somewhat unique ecological and agri-food corporate environments of Australia, and the relative dearth of data in this space on Australian consumers, this issue deserves further investigation. (Lines 182 - 187).

• If the aim is to encourage and support consumer engagement with alternative agri-food supply chains, both significant drivers of and barriers to this behaviour need to be understood and addressed in a comprehensive and holistic context, particularly as they relate to one’s local setting. This is more so the case where very little research on consumer attitudes toward and engagement with alternative agri-food supply chains exists, such as in Australia. (Line 191 – 197).

1. More information can be found in the ‘Aims of the current study’ section (e.g., To date, there has been little examination of consumer engagement with alternative food retailers within Australia, particularly among people living outside urban centres. Lines 218 – 220). The research objectives as stated were: The current study aimed to assess Australian consumers’ engagement with alternative food retailers, how this varies depending on geographic location (i.e., urban vs. rural/regional), and drivers and barriers toward procurement of local food from these outlets. (Lines 201 - 203).
   1. We feel these were clearly stated as is, but have slightly edited the subtitle to this section to emphasise that we are talking about the aims and objectives of the current study.

 

2. Secondly, the literature review section seems to be integrated into the introduction. The authors should dedicate a separate section to a comprehensive review of the relevant literature on consumer attitudes towards local food, the intention-behavior gap, and differences between urban and rural consumers, as stated in the Current study section.
   1. We have modified the subtitle for the brief literature review on drivers and barriers to the purchasing of local food to emphasise that this is where we are discussing what is known about this topic. We prefer to describe this as brief given it is a brief narrative review; a proper comprehensive review would be its own manuscript. Furthermore, as the intention-behaviour gap is a known outcome in this literature and is already integrated into this section, we do not feel that it needs its own subsection.
   2. As above, we addressed the differences between urban and rural consumers in the section specifically on what we know about Australian engagement with local food.

 

3. Furthermore, the results and discussion sections does not adequately address the objectives highlighted in the Current study as well as differences between urban and rural consumers, despite this being a key focus of the study.
   1. The objectives as stated were: The current study aimed to assess Australian consumers’ engagement with alternative food retailers, how this varies depending on geographic location (i.e., urban vs. rural/regional), and drivers and barriers toward procurement of local food from these outlets. (Lines 204 – 207).
      1. In the Results, the very first paragraph discussed the findings related to the first 2 aims (i.e., engagement with different types of food stores and (the lack of) differences between urban and rural consumers). The following 3 pages describe the results of the exploration of drivers and barriers in the Results, and in the Discussion, we thoroughly discuss the 6 factors derived from our factor analysis over 3+ single-spaced pages.
      2. We have added the following to the first paragraph of the Discussion to address the assessment of Australian consumer engagement with alternative food retailers:
         1. A full 90% of our sample reported that they purchased food from the major/large retail supermarkets at least some of the time, whereas just over half (55%) reported shopping at other supermarkets. Just under half of the sample also shop at local fruit and vegetable shops, just over one-third at local bakeries and butchers, and about 20% at local farmers’ markets. (Lines 414 – 418).
      3. We stated the overall lack of differences between urban and rural consumers in the first paragraph of the Discussion (Furthermore, we did not find meaningful differences in purchasing patterns between our urban and rural participants. Lines 425 – 426) and included an entire paragraph about the urban vs. rural differences in consumption patterns in the Discussion (below). We have now added a subtitle to make this information clearer.
         1. The current study also aimed to assess differences between urban- and rural-dwelling shoppers’ local food procurement, with the expectation that there would be significant differences between these two groups on alternative shopping practices (as per 65). However, despite a significant difference in shopping at cultural/ethnic food locations (endorsed to a greater degree by our urban participants), and a barely significant difference in shopping at local fruit and vegetable markets (endorsed to a greater degree by our rural participants), there were no significant differences in reported shopping behaviour between these two groups. This finding is particularly interesting given the relative lack of alternative food purchasing options in rural areas (Abley et al., 2020), which may suggest an over-engagement in local food purchasing from our rural participants relative to overall access. (Lines 559 – 568).

Other specific comments:

• Line 57: Please clarify the meaning of the acronym ACCC.
• We have now written out the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in this section and removed the acronym.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-Actually in the introduction part it would be appropiatte to mention the aim of the research
-I propose splitting the introduction part in two section : 1-until the line 78
2-from the line 79 under the name of literature review
-in the results part the percents must be explained but with numbers (eg. Twenty-four percent-24%)
-the results part ist oo small...i recomand putting the discussion part also in the results part
-creating a new discussion part where to mention future proposal of development
-the limitations could be moved in the conclusion section.
-you also must put numbers to the reference lists.

Author Response

1. Actually in the introduction part it would be appropiatte to mention the aim of the research
   1. We stated the purpose/aim of the study in the Introduction:
      1. The purpose of this study is to investigate grocery shopping practices among Australian consumers. Specifically, it explores the factors that both drive and prevent consumers shopping for locally produced food at alternative food retailers. A better understanding of the drivers and barriers shaping consumer grocery shopping practices will inform the future of the Australian agri-food system through elucidating the challenges for consumers in engaging in alternative agri-food supply chains. (Lines 58 – 60)
   2. I propose splitting the introduction part in two section : 1-until the line 78
      2-from the line 79 under the name of literature review
      1. This has been done.
   3. in the results part the percents must be explained but with numbers (eg. Twenty-four percent-24%)
      1. We are unsure what this comment means. Can you please provide more information?
   4. the results part ist oo small...i recomand putting the discussion part also in the results part
      1. We are unsure what information we should move to the Discussion. In our respective disciplines, the statistical analyses and results appear in the Results section, whereas the Discussion section is reserved for a discussion of what the results mean and how they tie to other relevant literature—which is how this manuscript has been organised. If there is specific information you believe should be moved, please let us know what that is.
   5. creating a new discussion part where to mention future proposal of development
      1. The future directions are integrated into the Strengths and Limitations section, which is how our team typically organises them. To make this clearer, we have now added ‘and future directions’ to the existing Strengths and Limitations section.
   6. the limitations could be moved in the conclusion section.
      1. It is not common in our disciplines to include limitations in the conclusion section. This is why they appear in the Strengths and Limitations section.
   7. you also must put numbers to the reference lists.
      1. This has been done.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The second edition of the manuscript contains detailed replies and corrections to my questions. I have reviewed the manuscript, and the revisions are generally in order.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been sufficiently improved.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

You made a good job!

Congratulations!