Market Opportunities for Differentiated Locally Grown Fresh Produce: Understanding Consumer Preferences

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In literature review, The explanation of the research Willersinn et al. (2017) and Willersinn et al. (2017) is not so clear and specific. The authors should further state on what research question of the literature focus and what limitations (as to washed and unwashed attributes) of Willersinn et al research are.
2. The paper should clearly indicate their sustainability of washed and unwashed potatoes. 
3. Why the section number of Literature Review is 2.1? The authors should check it and logicize the content of Introduction and Literature Review.
4. Suggest that the authors rename the subsection titles of the section 2.1 and 2.2, and provide a subsection title for the content before 2.1.
5. The authors should discuss the rationales of the research results, especially the theoretical explanation of why the consumers preference for locally grown potatoes over
   those sourced from other regions, with a predominant inclination towards washed potatoes.    

Author Response

We appreciate the time and effort that you put in reviewing our manuscript and providing us with valuable comments and suggestions. We have now made substantial revisions to the manuscript following your suggestions and we feel that the manuscript has been significantly improved. Your comments are reported below and our responses and the summary of corresponding changes to the manuscript immediately follow in Italic. 

 

Comment 1:  In literature review, The explanation of the research Willersinn et al. (2017) and Willersinn et al. (2017) is not so clear and specific. The authors should further state on what research question of the literature focus and what limitations (as to washed and unwashed attributes) of Willersinn et al research are.

Response 1: Thank you for this comment. Accordingly, we now specify the research of Willersinn et al. in the revised manuscript and detail the research differences regarding washed and unwashed potatoes. Changes are reflected in pg. 3, lines 139-142, and pg. 5 lines  206-213.  

 

Comment 2:  The paper should clearly indicate their sustainability of washed and unwashed potatoes. 

Response 2: Thank you for this comment. According to your comment and that from other reviewers, we have now included a paragraph which indicates the sustainability of unwashed potatoes in the revised manuscript on pg. 1, lines 11-19 and pg. 3, lines 101-134.

 

 Comment 3:  Why the section number of Literature Review is 2.1? The authors should check it and logicize the content of Introduction and Literature Review.

Response 3: We appreciate your comment. Changes have been made in the revised document.

 

Comment 4:  Suggest that the authors rename the subsection titles of the section 2.1 and 2.2, and provide a subsection title for the content before 2.1.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestions. We have now changed the order of the paragraphs to clarify this section better and named the subsection titles differently.  

 

Comment 5:  The authors should discuss the rationales of the research results, especially the theoretical explanation of why the consumers preference for locally grown potatoes over
those sourced from other regions, with a predominant inclination towards washed potatoes.    

Response 5: Thank you for this comment. Accordingly, we now include a few sentences and discuss the rationales of the above-mentioned research results. These changes can be seen in the revised manuscript, pg. 17-18, lines 632-637 and 642-646.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted article has significant strengths (topic, methodology, etc.). The following aspects should be corrected for publication:

 

1. Weak Justification and Exploration of the "Sustainability" Attribute (Washed vs. Unwashed): The paper states the link but doesn't sufficiently explain why unwashed is framed as more sustainable in this context or acknowledge potential counterarguments. The discussion (Section 4) mentions environmental benefits briefly but lacks depth. It also doesn't explore why consumers might prefer unwashed beyond a potential (and weakly supported) sustainability motive – alternative reasons like perceived freshness, longer shelf life at home, tradition, or lower price expectations aren't discussed.

The authors should dedicate a paragraph in the Introduction section to explicitly defining the sustainability dimension(s) linked to unwashed potatoes in Aragon's context. Cite evidence or provide clearer logical arguments (e.g., estimations of water/energy savings per kg, local agricultural practices). In Section 4, expand significantly on the interpretation of the preference for unwashed potatoes. Discuss the potential sustainability drivers more thoroughly. Critically evaluate if the observed preference is truly driven by sustainability concerns or other factors (freshness cues, price expectations, traditional or natural presentation). Acknowledge the limitations of inferring sustainability motives solely from this preference. Discuss potential trade-offs associated with unwashed potatoes. Briefly mention if the questionnaire included items assessing consumer perceptions of the sustainability of washed vs. unwashed potatoes, which could support the framing. If not, this could be noted as a limitation or area for future research.

 

2. Please rewrite or delete the following statement: “The participants were informed that their purchases would be hypothetical due to the insufficient production of local potatoes during the study.”

 

3. The manuscript measures ANA in two ways: stated ANA and inferred ANA. The results for both are presented, but there is no explicit comparison or discussion connecting these two measurements. Do the stated ANA results align with the inferred ANA? This link is missing.

The authors should in the Results (Section 3) or Discussion (Section 4), add a paragraph comparing the findings from the stated ANA questions with the inferred ANA. Discuss any convergence or divergence and its implications. Briefly the authors should acknowledge the potential biases associated with stated ANA and how the inferred ANA provides a complementary, potentially more objective, and perspective based on actual choices.

 

4. Justification of Attribute Levels: While the attributes and levels are clearly listed (Table 3), the justification for selecting the specific price points could be slightly more explicit than just "supermarket pricing at the time of the study”. The range of prices used may affect the results of the study.

The authors should briefly add a sentence in Section 2 stating how these price points relate to the observed market range for conventional and differentiated potatoes in Aragon during the study period.

 

5. Market Simulation Assumptions: The market simulation is a valuable addition, but the underlying assumptions could be stated more explicitly. It's implied that the simulation compares market shares based only on the presented alternatives in the CE, but real markets are more complex. The authors should add a sentence at the beginning clarifying the core assumptions, e.g., "These simulations assume a market consisting only of the product profiles defined by the attribute levels in our experiment, holding other market factors constant."

 

6. Redundancy: Review the Introduction and Discussion to ensure minimal redundancy. Ensure the Discussion focuses on interpreting the study's specific findings in light of the literature, rather than re-stating general background information already covered adequately in the Introduction.

 

7. Clarity on Model Selection for Simulation (market shares): The paper estimates different models. Models 4 and 7b show a better fit. However, the market simulation section doesn't explicitly state which model's parameters were used for the simulation.

The authors should explicitly state that “market shares were simulated using the parameter estimates from the Model X, which provided a superior statistical fit”.

 

8. Graphs or Figures?

Author Response

We appreciate the time and effort that you put in reviewing our manuscript and providing us with valuable comments and suggestions. We have now made substantial revisions to the manuscript following your suggestions and we feel that the manuscript has been significantly improved. Your comments are reported below and our responses and the summary of corresponding changes to the manuscript immediately follow (in italics). 

Comment 1:  The submitted article has significant strengths (topic, methodology, etc.). The following aspects should be corrected for publication:

1. Weak Justification and Exploration of the "Sustainability" Attribute (Washed vs. Unwashed): The paper states the link but doesn't sufficiently explain why unwashed is framed as more sustainable in this context or acknowledge potential counterarguments. The discussion (Section 4) mentions environmental benefits briefly but lacks depth. It also doesn't explore why consumers might prefer unwashed beyond a potential (and weakly supported) sustainability motive – alternative reasons like perceived freshness, longer shelf life at home, tradition, or lower price expectations aren't discussed.

The authors should dedicate a paragraph in the Introduction section to explicitly defining the sustainability dimension(s) linked to unwashed potatoes in Aragon's context. Cite evidence or provide clearer logical arguments (e.g., estimations of water/energy savings per kg, local agricultural practices). In Section 4, expand significantly on the interpretation of the preference for unwashed potatoes. Discuss the potential sustainability drivers more thoroughly. Critically evaluate if the observed preference is truly driven by sustainability concerns or other factors (freshness cues, price expectations, traditional or natural presentation). Acknowledge the limitations of inferring sustainability motives solely from this preference. Discuss potential trade-offs associated with unwashed potatoes. Briefly mention if the questionnaire included items assessing consumer perceptions of the sustainability of washed vs. unwashed potatoes, which could support the framing. If not, this could be noted as a limitation or area for future research.

 Response 1: Thank you for these thoughtful comments. According to your comment and that from another reviewer, we now provide a paragraph that explicitly defines the sustainability dimensions of unwashed potatoes. These changes can be seen in pg. 1, lines 11-19, and pg. 3, lines 101-134. In addition, we now expand the interpretation of the preference for unwashed potatoes in Section 5, pg. 17-18, lines 632-637, and 642-646. Finally, we acknowledge the two limitations. One on inferring sustainability motives solely from one attribute. Second, for not measuring consumer perceptions of the sustainability aspects of washed vs. unwashed potatoes in the questionnaire. These limitations can be seen in the revised manuscript pg. 19, lines 721-732.

 

Comment 2: Please rewrite or delete the following statement: “The participants were informed that their purchases would be hypothetical due to the insufficient production of local potatoes during the study.”

Response 2: Thank you for this comment. We now remove this sentence.  

 

Comment 3: The manuscript measures ANA in two ways: stated ANA and inferred ANA. The results for both are presented, but there is no explicit comparison or discussion connecting these two measurements. Do the stated ANA results align with the inferred ANA? This link is missing.

The authors should in the Results (Section 3) or Discussion (Section 4), add a paragraph comparing the findings from the stated ANA questions with the inferred ANA. Discuss any convergence or divergence and its implications. Briefly the authors should acknowledge the potential biases associated with stated ANA and how the inferred ANA provides a complementary, potentially more objective, and perspective based on actual choices.

Response 3: Thank you for this comment. Accordingly, we now add a paragraph on pg. 18, lines 663-680, which discusses the methodological results of our study and compares the findings of both ANA approaches. In this paragraph, we also acknowledge the potential biases of stated ANA and the advantages of inferred ANA.   

 

Comment 4: Justification of Attribute Levels: While the attributes and levels are clearly listed (Table 3), the justification for selecting the specific price points could be slightly more explicit than just "supermarket pricing at the time of the study”. The range of prices used may affect the results of the study.

The authors should briefly add a sentence in Section 2 stating how these price points relate to the observed market range for conventional and differentiated potatoes in Aragon during the study period.

Response 4: Thank you for this comment. We have now included a few sentences explaining how these price points relate to the observed market range for conventional and differentiated potatoes in Aragon on pg. 8, lines 316-323.

 

Comment 5: Market Simulation Assumptions: The market simulation is a valuable addition, but the underlying assumptions could be stated more explicitly. It's implied that the simulation compares market shares based only on the presented alternatives in the CE, but real markets are more complex. The authors should add a sentence at the beginning clarifying the core assumptions, e.g., "These simulations assume a market consisting only of the product profiles defined by the attribute levels in our experiment, holding other market factors constant."

 Response 5: We appreciate your comment. We have now added the suggested sentence in the revised manuscript pg. 12, lines 489-491.

 

Comment 6: Redundancy: Review the Introduction and Discussion to ensure minimal redundancy. Ensure the Discussion focuses on interpreting the study's specific findings in light of the literature, rather than re-stating general background information already covered adequately in the Introduction.

Response 6: Thank you for your comment. We now remove general background and other unrelated information from the Discussion section and focus on interpreting the study’s findings in light of the literature.  

 

Comment 7: Clarity on Model Selection for Simulation (market shares): The paper estimates different models. Models 4 and 7b show a better fit. However, the market simulation section doesn't explicitly state which model's parameters were used for the simulation.

The authors should explicitly state that “market shares were simulated using the parameter estimates from the Model X, which provided a superior statistical fit”.

 Response 7: Thank you for this comment. We now add this sentence to the revised manuscript, pg. 16, lines 606-607.

 

Comment 8: Graphs or Figures?

 Response 8: We explain our mean market shares for the alternative market scenarios in Graphs 1 and 2. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, the experiment is really interesting and relevant. However, the paper still needs several improvements to be ready for publishing.

Abstract. The abstract clearly presents the purpose of the paper, and the methodology used. Also, the results relevant to the industry are presented. However, the contribution of the paper to the field of science is not clear. What new scientific, theoretical or methodological insights does the paper present?

Introduction. Relevance of the research and the gap in literature are revealed. The experimental material and framework are presented clearly. However, neither the aim of the research is formulated, nor the hypotheses provided. Moreover, the presupposed contribution to the field of knowledge is not explained.

Literature review. The structure of the literature review is disputable. The beginning (lines 91-142) is devoted to presentation of the analyzed attributes. However, it is not presented what other attributes could also affect consumer preferences and WTP, and why these attributes were not included in the study. Lines 142-156 should not be provided as a part of literature review: they describe current situation in the market and should be regarded either as practical substantiation of the relevance or extended to the presentation of the case under analysis. Moreover, lines 157-171 present the contribution of the paper to the field, thus they should have been provided in the introduction.

The literature review should be extended to give a background for the hypotheses to be supported/rejected by the experiment.

Materials and Methods. The sample characteristics (mainly, gender and age) deviate from the characteristics of the entire population. This deviation is clearly explained in terms of the compliance with shopping patterns in the market. Considering Table 2, in my opinion it is redundant: the same information can be found in the text. Also, as I understood from the description, the packaging of different products was different. Therefore, the description of possible effect of packaging on consumer choice should be described. How did you assure that different packages had same effect on consumers?

Results. The structure of Table 4 is not clear. Currently it looks like the information provided in lines is interrelated, and only after a deeper look, it becomes clear that columns 1 and 2 are not related to columns 3 and 4. Overall, the results are presented clearly.

Discussion. Same as in previous sections of the paper, main contributions to the field of knowledge are not emphasized.

Author Response

We appreciate the time and effort that you put in reviewing our manuscript and providing us with valuable comments and suggestions. We have now made substantial revisions to the manuscript following your suggestions and we feel that the manuscript has been significantly improved. Your comments are reported below and our responses and the summary of corresponding changes to the manuscript immediately follow (in italics). 

Dear Authors, the experiment is really interesting and relevant. However, the paper still needs several improvements to be ready for publishing.

 

Comment 1: Abstract. The abstract clearly presents the purpose of the paper, and the methodology used. Also, the results relevant to the industry are presented. However, the contribution of the paper to the field of science is not clear. What new scientific, theoretical or methodological insights does the paper present?

Response 1: Thank you for this comment. Accordingly, we now add a paragraph mentioning the empirical and methodological contributions of our study in the revised manuscript on pg. 1, lines 32-39.

 

Comment 2: Introduction. Relevance of the research and the gap in literature are revealed. The experimental material and framework are presented clearly. However, neither the aim of the research is formulated, nor the hypotheses provided. Moreover, the presupposed contribution to the field of knowledge is not explained.

Response 2: We appreciate your comment and agree with the reviewer. We now present the aim of our research in the revised manuscript (pg. 3-4, lines 143-145). Regarding the contribution, we have it in the next section. We included it there and not in the introduction because we first check what studies are available in literature and then accordingly state our contribution. We, therefore, believe that the contribution links better in the literature review section.

 

Comment 3: Literature review. The structure of the literature review is disputable. The beginning (lines 91-142) is devoted to presentation of the analyzed attributes. However, it is not presented what other attributes could also affect consumer preferences and WTP, and why these attributes were not included in the study.

Response 3: Thank you for this comment. According to your comment, we now briefly explain in the revised manuscript (pg. 5, lines 213-219) what other attributes might affect consumer preferences and their WTP and state the reasons for focusing our research on only three attributes.

 

Comment 4: Literature review. Lines 142-156 should not be provided as a part of literature review: they describe current situation in the market and should be regarded either as practical substantiation of the relevance or extended to the presentation of the case under analysis.

Response 4: Thank you for this comment. The reviewer is right. We now remove this part and place it in the introduction (pg. 2-3, lines 88-100). 

 

Comment 5: Literature review. Moreover, lines 157-171 present the contribution of the paper to the field, thus they should have been provided in the introduction.

Response 5: Please see response 2.

 

Comment 6: The literature review should be extended to give a background for the hypotheses to be supported/rejected by the experiment.

Response 6: We appreciate the reviewers’ comments and agree. However, we cannot develop any hypotheses aligned with the literature as all the available studies found consisted only of one attribute (local). This is a case-specific study, and the “unwashed” attribute is unavailable in the literature. The only two studies by Willersinn et al. (2017) found, developed hypothetical food loss reduction scenarios and did not give any specific implication on consumer preference and/or WTP for the unwashed attribute as it was defined as a food loss scenario. According to your comment, we now develop a research question on pg. 5, lines 225-232, instead.   

 

Comment 7: Materials and Methods. The sample characteristics (mainly, gender and age) deviate from the characteristics of the entire population. This deviation is clearly explained in terms of the compliance with shopping patterns in the market. Considering Table 2, in my opinion it is redundant: the same information can be found in the text.

Response 7: Thank you for this comment. We now remove Table 2 from the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 8: Materials and Methods. Also, as I understood from the description, the packaging of different products was different. Therefore, the description of possible effect of packaging on consumer choice should be described. How did you assure that different packages had same effect on consumers?

Response 8: Thank you for this comment. No, the packaging was not different. We used 3kg potato packages in the visual inspection stage (Appendix A1). In this stage, participants were instructed to evaluate the information presented in these packages regarding the origin, presentation mode (washed/unwashed), and the potato's size. In the second stage (choice experiment), participants declared their preferences and WTP on one kg of product. We now better clarify this aspect in the revised manuscript pg. 9, lines 370-379.

 

Comment 9: Results. The structure of Table 4 is not clear. Currently it looks like the information provided in lines is interrelated, and only after a deeper look, it becomes clear that columns 1 and 2 are not related to columns 3 and 4. Overall, the results are presented clearly.

Response 9: Thank you for this comment. Indeed, this table is a bit confusing. We have separated it with a line so the reader would not visually relate these two separate pieces of information.

 

Comment 10: Discussion. Same as in previous sections of the paper, main contributions to the field of knowledge are not emphasized.

Response 10: We appreciate your comment. According to your comment and that from another reviewer, we have now divided the section of the discussion into two parts, highlighting our research's empirical and methodological contributions, considering that the reader has previously read them in the literature review section.

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the important subject of consumers' preferences and their willingness to pay a higher price for a local potato variety, with emphasis on marketing them as washed or unwashed potatoes. The authors, based on a review of the literature, argue that consumers prefer the local variety over varieties from other regions and are willing to pay a higher price. The Authors emphasize the importance of valuable marketing implications.

Strengths of the manuscript are as follows::

 

• a clearly defined research objective;
• a carefully designed and well-documented experimental methodology;
• a robust sample size across 13 research sessions (N = 151);
• clearly presented results.

 

Since, on a general level, the paper is well-designed, I think some further changes could be considered:

1/ Abstract: Line 21-23 ”The results provide marketing and pricing strategies and market share projections aligned with consumer preferences for local food” => For whom the marketing implications were formulated? It would be helpful to clarify for whom these marketing implications are intended—e.g., local producers, retailers, or policymakers.

2/ In the introduction, the authors give many reasons for discussing this problem, describe a gap in research. The authors' contribution could be described in more detail because:

- washing is a technological procedure that affects, for example: the appearance of a product, but also its shelf life, susceptibility to perishability, and even its environmental footprint (e.g., water consumption, risk/ potential of food waste); taking these aspects into account can enrich the analysis and better justify the importance of this attribute in the context of sustainable development;

- consumer preferences and willingness to pay, however, should be more clearly linked to the concept of sustainable consumption, which is an important element of Goal 12 of the Sustainable Development (SD) Agenda - i.e., “ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns”; in this light, it would be natural and reasonable to also refer to sustainable agricultural production, which is integrally linked to the consumer behavior analyzed;

- focusing on the perspective of analysis of sustainable consumption and production could significantly strengthen the content value of the paper and better place it in the current context of global environmental and social challenges.

I suggest reconsidering how the sustainability aspect is presented in the submitted manuscript.

2/ Minor comments

- line 142-143 „. This study is motivated by the recent decline in potato consumption, mainly due to competition from countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa [46]” => Where? In Romania, Italy or Spain?

- line 236 “Local consumers associate lighter-coloured potatoes with better taste [64].” => Since even in the conclusions the authors refer to the issue of taste, it is worth exploring the literature in this area and not just base your own results in the context of 1 report confirming taste.

- line 595- 596 “The strong WTP for locally grown potatoes suggests that targeted marketing efforts should focus on the merits of local produce, underscoring aspects like freshness, superior taste, and lower environmental impact” – Which part of the research conducted by the Authors referred to taste? At most, the Authors referred to the origin of the product - local.

Experimentation of choices as well as recommendation of the use of eye-tracking are desirable directions for future research projects to enhance understanding of consumer decision-making processes in real time.

The paper discusses the important topic of consumer preferences and willingness to pay tying these aspects to the local food market. I recommend the paper for publication after some revisions by the Authors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper discusses the important subject of consumers' preferences and their willingness to pay a higher price for a local potato variety, with emphasis on marketing them as washed or unwashed potatoes. The authors, based on a review of the literature, argue that consumers prefer the local variety over varieties from other regions and are willing to pay a higher price. The Authors emphasize the importance of valuable marketing implications.

Strengths of the manuscript are as follows::

 

• a clearly defined research objective;
• a carefully designed and well-documented experimental methodology;
• a robust sample size across 13 research sessions (N = 151);
• clearly presented results.

 

Since, on a general level, the paper is well-designed, I think some further changes could be considered:

1/ Abstract: Line 21-23 ”The results provide marketing and pricing strategies and market share projections aligned with consumer preferences for local food” => For whom the marketing implications were formulated? It would be helpful to clarify for whom these marketing implications are intended—e.g., local producers, retailers, or policymakers.

2/ In the introduction, the authors give many reasons for discussing this problem, describe a gap in research. The authors' contribution could be described in more detail because:

- washing is a technological procedure that affects, for example: the appearance of a product, but also its shelf life, susceptibility to perishability, and even its environmental footprint (e.g., water consumption, risk/ potential of food waste); taking these aspects into account can enrich the analysis and better justify the importance of this attribute in the context of sustainable development;

- consumer preferences and willingness to pay, however, should be more clearly linked to the concept of sustainable consumption, which is an important element of Goal 12 of the Sustainable Development (SD) Agenda - i.e., “ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns”; in this light, it would be natural and reasonable to also refer to sustainable agricultural production, which is integrally linked to the consumer behavior analyzed;

- focusing on the perspective of analysis of sustainable consumption and production could significantly strengthen the content value of the paper and better place it in the current context of global environmental and social challenges.

I suggest reconsidering how the sustainability aspect is presented in the submitted manuscript.

2/ Minor comments

- line 142-143 „. This study is motivated by the recent decline in potato consumption, mainly due to competition from countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa [46]” => Where? In Romania, Italy or Spain?

- line 236 “Local consumers associate lighter-coloured potatoes with better taste [64].” => Since even in the conclusions the authors refer to the issue of taste, it is worth exploring the literature in this area and not just base your own results in the context of 1 report confirming taste.

- line 595- 596 “The strong WTP for locally grown potatoes suggests that targeted marketing efforts should focus on the merits of local produce, underscoring aspects like freshness, superior taste, and lower environmental impact” – Which part of the research conducted by the Authors referred to taste? At most, the Authors referred to the origin of the product - local.

Experimentation of choices as well as recommendation of the use of eye-tracking are desirable directions for future research projects to enhance understanding of consumer decision-making processes in real time.

The paper discusses the important topic of consumer preferences and willingness to pay tying these aspects to the local food market. I recommend the paper for publication after some revisions by the Authors.

Author Response

We appreciate the time and effort that you put in reviewing our manuscript and providing us with valuable comments and suggestions. We have now made substantial revisions to the manuscript following your suggestions and we feel that the manuscript has been significantly improved. Your comments are reported below and our responses and the summary of corresponding changes to the manuscript immediately follow (in italics). 

The paper discusses the important subject of consumers' preferences and their willingness to pay a higher price for a local potato variety, with emphasis on marketing them as washed or unwashed potatoes. The authors, based on a review of the literature, argue that consumers prefer the local variety over varieties from other regions and are willing to pay a higher price. The Authors emphasize the importance of valuable marketing implications.

Strengths of the manuscript are as follows::

 a clearly defined research objective;

• a carefully designed and well-documented experimental methodology;
• a robust sample size across 13 research sessions (N = 151);
• clearly presented results.

Since, on a general level, the paper is well-designed, I think some further changes could be considered:

Comment 1: 1/ Abstract: Line 21-23 ”The results provide marketing and pricing strategies and market share projections aligned with consumer preferences for local food” => For whom the marketing implications were formulated? It would be helpful to clarify for whom these marketing implications are intended—e.g., local producers, retailers, or policymakers.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We now specify that the marketing implications and the pricing strategies are intended for local producers and retailers in the revised manuscript pg. 1 lines 30-31. 

 

Comment 2: 2/ In the introduction, the authors give many reasons for discussing this problem, describe a gap in research. The authors' contribution could be described in more detail because:

- washing is a technological procedure that affects, for example: the appearance of a product, but also its shelf life, susceptibility to perishability, and even its environmental footprint (e.g., water consumption, risk/ potential of food waste); taking these aspects into account can enrich the analysis and better justify the importance of this attribute in the context of sustainable development;

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer's comment. According to your suggestion and that from another reviewer, we now better justify the sustainability aspects of the unwashed attribute. Changes can be observed in the revised manuscript on pg. 1, lines 11-19, pg. 3, lines 101-134.

 

Comment 3: - consumer preferences and willingness to pay, however, should be more clearly linked to the concept of sustainable consumption, which is an important element of Goal 12 of the Sustainable Development (SD) Agenda - i.e., “ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns”; in this light, it would be natural and reasonable to also refer to sustainable agricultural production, which is integrally linked to the consumer behavior analyzed;

- focusing on the perspective of analysis of sustainable consumption and production could significantly strengthen the content value of the paper and better place it in the current context of global environmental and social challenges.

I suggest reconsidering how the sustainability aspect is presented in the submitted manuscript.

Response 3: Thank you for these comments. Accordingly, we have now added a paragraph that links consumer preferences and WTP with the concept of sustainable development and SDG 12 in the revised manuscript pg. 3, lines 110-119.

 

2/ Minor comments

Comment 4: - line 142-143 „. This study is motivated by the recent decline in potato consumption, mainly due to competition from countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa [46]” => Where? In Romania, Italy or Spain?

Response 4: Thank you for these comments. Countries are now specified in the revised version on pg. 2, lines 90-91.

 

Comment 5: - line 236 “Local consumers associate lighter-coloured potatoes with better taste [64].” => Since even in the conclusions the authors refer to the issue of taste, it is worth exploring the literature in this area and not just base your own results in the context of 1 report confirming taste.

Response 5: Thank you for these comments. This report was done on the specific new potato variety (the one used in our study) and in the same region where our data collection occurred. This is why we think this is essential information. We now remove all the text referring to taste from the conclusions since this is not the aim of our study.

 

Comment 6: - line 595- 596 “The strong WTP for locally grown potatoes suggests that targeted marketing efforts should focus on the merits of local produce, underscoring aspects like freshness, superior taste, and lower environmental impact” – Which part of the research conducted by the Authors referred to taste? At most, the Authors referred to the origin of the product - local.

Response 6: Thank you for these comments. We remove this comment to avoid confusion.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a very good job correcting the shortcomings I mentioned.

Author Response

Thank you

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, thank you for carefully addressing my comments. I have one more suggestion and one more correction to be added.

Suggestion: it is common emphasizing contribution to the body of knowledge in the introduction. It increases other researchers' interest and chances to be cited. Please, add at least one sentence at the end of introduction.

Correction: if you provide a section 2.1, there should be also 2.2. Otherwise, there is no reason for 2.1; moreover, there is no other text in Literature review. So, either divide Literature review into more sections, either remove the title numbered 2.1.

Good luck in your further research!

Author Response

Comment 1: Suggestion: it is common emphasizing contribution to the body of knowledge in the introduction. It increases other researchers' interest and chances to be cited. Please, add at least one sentence at the end of introduction.

Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. Accordingly, we now add few sentences in the end of introduction (pg. 4, lines 159-165), which now reads: "Our findings advance the existing literature in several ways. Empirically, this is the first study to estimate consumers’ unrevealed WTP (i.e., beyond stated preferences) for unwashed potatoes, and the first to focus specifically on unwashed potatoes within the Spanish market. Methodologically, it incorporates ANA, a dimension of consumer decision-making heuristics that has received limited attention in previous research. To our knowledge, no prior studies have examined consumer preferences or willingness to pay for potatoes using ANA". 

Comment 2: Correction: if you provide a section 2.1, there should be also 2.2. Otherwise, there is no reason for 2.1; moreover, there is no other text in Literature review. So, either divide Literature review into more sections, either remove the title numbered 2.1.

Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We now remove title 2.1 from the revised manuscript.