Consumers’ Attitudes Towards Whole Dried Figs Attributes: A Preliminary Study in Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

agriculture-3240938-peer-review-v1

Dear authors,

While this is an interesting paper, though, as it is written, it cannot be published. I hope the following suggestions will help you to improve your work.

Abstract

1. Line 16: “A direct survey was conducted”. What is a direct survey? Do you mean face to face?

Because “direct data” needs a well-defined specific sampling procedure “collection of data in a systematic way “ in order to be representative of a larger population. Which is not the case here (see methodology comments).

If you mean something else, please provide with reference- citation.

“A direct survey is defined as the systematic collection of information (whether by questionnaire, examination, or a combination of the two) in a well-defined, firsthand manner from participants selected through a specific sampling procedure to be representative of a larger population.”

Baker EL, Melius JM, Millar JD: Surveillance of occupational illness and injury in the United States: current perspectives and future directions. J Public Health Policy 1988; 9:198-221. In: Ehrenberg, R. L. (1989). Use of direct surveys in the surveillance of occupational illness and injury. American journal of public health, 79(Suppl), 12-14.

Kung, M., Yang, S. C., & Zhang, Y. (2006). P. 292:

“The advantage of a direct survey is that it focuses on a specific program of interest (i.e., undergraduate), allows collection of data in a systematic way, and facilitates standard quantification of data.”

Kung, M., Yang, S. C., & Zhang, Y. (2006). The changing information systems (IS) curriculum: A survey of undergraduate programs in the United States. Journal of Education for Business, 81(6), 291-300.

2.

Line 18 &19 : “Price is expected to affect”. The research has been already done so why is expected? It either affects or not.

Introduction:

1. Line 34 “playing the lion’s share”. We usually say having, taking, holding the lion’s share

2.

Lines 80-83: “It has the purpose of updating the current knowledge and identifying the trigger points and room-of-manoeuvre for the valorisation of the national sector by collecting the opinions of potential consumers about possible purchasing drivers of whole plain dried figs.”

This is your aim or objectives and is very broad and general. As the results show, you refer to consumer purchasing and consumption behaviour, perceived importance and proceed to segmentation and segment profile. Therefore, these should be pointed out as aim and objectives that one per one should be addressed in the result and discussion section.

3.

The introduction should be built. You haven’t built why to do segmentation and profiling. To target the specific consumer group with marketing communication?

Methodology

1.

The methodology section needs to be rewritten.

2.

Line 86-87 “A fit-for-purpose medium-scale direct survey was designed” this means that you have a sampling methodology at hand and the required sample needed (based on statistics) for your sampling method. Which is not the case as it shows from the sample size and method used.

3.

The sample size is very small: N=102 (see direct survey about making generalizations)

4.

The sampling method does not have a sampling frame in order to do random sampling (Line 104). As I see it is a variant of the mall intercept personal interview method (instead of being at the mall you are at the fair) which can be considered as a pseudorandom sampling technique and requires a larger sample size than the random sampling method does.

5.

Line 99-100: “on a five-point level Likert scale (from 1=Not at important at all to 5=Extremely important).” Please note that this is a LIKERT- TYPE SCALE AND NOT A LIKERT SCALE (see Likert, 1932), which reveals degree of agreement.

6.

Table 1: NUTR: “the product has remarkable nutritional properties”. The word remarkable is very subjective since it is not considered as a “superfood”. I would delete the word “remarkable”

7.

Please define in the method section

8.

If these items variables are single statements, thus you use single statements for the analysis, or are they multiple statements that consist of a construct (e.g., 5 statements that consist of NUTR), if the later then factor analysis should be done.

9.

Are these items adopted as they were stated from the authors 15-28? If yes beside each construct or statement the author adopted from. Or else as it is in lines 93-95 ADDING (table 1)

10.

In the methodology section reliability of scale used? Can it be calculated or does the statements give low a? (if low a do not mention it at all)

Results

1.

Please see table 2. a) all numbers must have the same number of decimals. Thus 0.0 not 0 or 50 but 50.0. see your numbers vertically some do not add to 100.0% IF You are presenting per cluster or horizontally if you are presenting per variable. Eg., the cl4 sociodemographic are 10.4% vertically (you didn’t use valid percent and included the missing values) which is probably the case since horizontally it

exceeds

100%. It also reveals that in some cases (like purchasing and consumption habits you didn’t use the VALID percent but the percent that has also the missing values.

2.

Line 148-150: “Since no other statistically significant differences were detected, all the individuals were considered potential target persons for the consumption of whole dried figs and the entire sample was used in the segmentation analysis”

Please refer to reference when saying this.

The question would be: would you in the future purchase/ consume dried figs?

If the say no, they are not potential consumers. If they are allergic to figs, they are not potential consumers.

Also, from the analysis it seems that taste is the n.1 important variable in purchasing figs. So how do you know that the “no” people just don’t like its taste?

3.

In the cluster analysis did you use all 102 respondents? Please for each cluster provide also with N=…….

4.

Another issue that has appeared is that the last segment is extremely small (N=6 if all participants are included). Segmentation in marketing considers that the segments are large enough to focus on -which is not the case here.

5.

It seems that two clusters could better (not sure don’t know your data) since 1+2 and 3+4 seem to be very near. See your data and see that the segments derived have meaningful interpretations. For example, the 4th cluster cares only about taste and is indifferent to price, therefore why are they the price sensitive group and not the hedonic consumption group or taste experiential group or something like that?

6.

There are no limitations of this study (and there are a lot to write down)

I hope that these comments will help you with your work

Good luck and be safe!

Author Response

(Abstract section)

1. Line 16: “A direct survey was conducted”. What is a direct survey? Do you mean face to face?

Because “direct data” needs a well-defined specific sampling procedure “collection of data in a systematic way “ in order to be representative of a larger population. Which is not the case here (see methodology comments).

Accepted. We modified the name of the survey method because indeed we used a face-to-face survey method. We added references to it in the methodology section, and we changed accordingly the abstract.

2. Line 18 &19 : “Price is expected to affect”. The research has been already done so why is expected? It either affects or not.

Accepted. Modified.

(Introduction section)

3. Line 34 “playing the lion’s share”. We usually say having, taking, holding the lion’s share

Accepted. Modified.

4. Lines 80-83: “It has the purpose of updating the current knowledge and identifying the trigger points and room-of-manoeuvre for the valorisation of the national sector by collecting the opinions of potential consumers about possible purchasing drivers of whole plain dried figs.”

This is your aim or objectives and is very broad and general. As the results show, you refer to consumer purchasing and consumption behaviour, perceived importance and proceed to segmentation and segment profile. Therefore, these should be pointed out as aim and objectives that one per one should be addressed in the result and discussion section.

Accepted. We thank the reviewer for the specific and easy-to-follow contribution. We modified accordingly: “It has the purpose of updating the current knowledge and identifying the trigger points and room-of-manoeuvre for the valorisation of the national sector by collecting the opinions of potential consumers about possible purchasing drivers of whole plain dried figs. To this aim, the study intends to answer to the following research questions:

1. What are the drivers of PDO dried figs purchase and consumption?
2. How the perceived importance of different drivers may contribute to identify different profiles of dried figs consumers?
3. What driver should be leveraged to increase the purchasing willingnes?”

 

5. The introduction should be built. You haven’t built why to do segmentation and profiling. To target the specific consumer group with marketing communication?

Accepted. We integrated an explicit description of the reason why it is important to understand the drivers of PDO dried figs purchase and consumption. Lines 45-71.

(Methodology)

6. The methodology section needs to be rewritten.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this pout. Partly accepted. We thank the reviewer but we think that with careful modification the section can be substantially improved.

7. Line 86-87 “A fit-for-purpose medium-scale direct survey was designed” this means that you have a sampling methodology at hand and the required sample needed (based on statistics) for your sampling method. Which is not the case as it shows from the sample size and method used.

Accepted. We now call how methodology in the right way, i.e. face-to-face survey. We added reference to it as suggested.

8. The sample size is very small: N=102 (see direct survey about making generalizations).

We are aware that the sample size is limited to draw robust conclusions. Similarly, also other statistical analysis beyond the pure descriptive statistics may suffer from reliability issues. To this end, we opted to still maintain the clusterization as the prime method to identify groups, though being aware that any result may allow us to provide only some suggestions. Given the small sample size, we also opted not to perform statistical analysis at the group level, which would have relied on even smaller number of observations: the revised version of the manuscript mentions this limitation and emphasizes it is a preliminary study that does not aspire to make strong conclusions, but only insights and suggestions that need more research on.

9. The sampling method does not have a sampling frame in order to do random sampling (Line 104). As I see it is a variant of the mall intercept personal interview method (instead of being at the mall you are at the fair) which can be considered as a pseudorandom sampling technique and requires a larger sample size than the random sampling method does.

Accepted. We added commentaries in the text, and references, about the pseudorandom sampling method adopted, pointing out the pros and cons (as limitations). Lines:

10. Line 99-100: “on a five-point level Likert scale (from 1=Not at important at all to 5=Extremely important).” Please note that this is a LIKERT- TYPE SCALE AND NOT A LIKERT SCALE (see Likert, 1932), which reveals degree of agreement.

Accepted. Modifed accordingly.

12. Please define in the method section: If these items variables are single statements, thus you use single statements for the analysis, or are they multiple statements that consist of a construct (e.g., 5 statements that consist of NUTR), if the later then factor analysis should be done.

Are these items adopted as they were stated from the authors 15-28? If yes beside each construct or statement the author adopted from. Or else as it is in lines 93-95 ADDING (table 1).

In the methodology section reliability of scale used? Can it be calculated or does the statements give low a? (if low a do not mention it at all)

We thank the author and we now clarified that we used single statements, that are now reported alone in table 2.

11. Table 1: NUTR: “the product has remarkable nutritional properties”. The word remarkable is very subjective since it is not considered as a “superfood”. I would delete the word “remarkable”

Accepted. Modified.

We thank the author and we now clarified that we used single statements, that are now reported alone in table 2.

(Results)

13. Please see table 2. a) all numbers must have the same number of decimals. Thus 0.0 not 0 or 50 but 50.0. see your numbers vertically some do not add to 100.0% IF You are presenting per cluster or horizontally if you are presenting per variable. Eg., the cl4 sociodemographic are 10.4% vertically (you didn’t use valid percent and included the missing values) which is probably the case since horizontally it exceeds 100%. It also reveals that in some cases (like purchasing and consumption habits you didn’t use the VALID percent but the percent that has also the missing values.

 

Accepted. We are aware that the reader may get confused about the content of the table. In the version submitted to reviewers, percentages summed up to 100% vertically only in the case of full sample. Other percentages should have been read per row, as meant to illustrate how individuals were distributed across clusters.

We appreciated that the reviewer has pointed this out. Following such a suggestion, and to facilitate the reader and the interpretation of results, the content of the table has now changed: all the columns illustrate the distribution of individuals within each cluster they belong to (add to 100% vertically, as mentioned in the caption).

14. Line 148-150: “Since no other statistically significant differences were detected, all the individuals were considered potential target persons for the consumption of whole dried figs and the entire sample was used in the segmentation analysis”. Please refer to reference when saying this. The question would be: would you in the future purchase/ consume dried figs? If the say no, they are not potential consumers. If they are allergic to figs, they are not potential consumers. Also, from the analysis it seems that taste is the n.1 important variable in purchasing figs. So how do you know that the “no” people just don’t like its taste?

Partially accepted. We argument that there is no need to add references to the mentioned sentence because we now explained in the text that “The assumption is supported by the sampling that occurred in a fair specifically frequented by people interested in tasting and discovering traditional and artisanal products”. In fact, people who approached the PDO Fico Dottato di Cosenza, were self-identifying themselves as potentially interested in dried figs, they agreed to taste the samples provided, and agreed to answer the interview (It would have been senseless to ask “would you consider buying dried figs?”). Moreover we were face-to-face with people and other communications occurred that allow us to know that the case proposed by the reviewer did not occur.

15. In the cluster analysis did you use all 102 respondents? Please for each cluster provide also with N=…….

Accepted. The size of cluster is indicated in table 2, and also in the text there are some references to the percentage of total sample covered by each cluster.

 

16. Another issue that has appeared is that the last segment is extremely small (N=6 if all participants are included). Segmentation in marketing considers that the segments are large enough to focus on -which is not the case here.

Accepted. We are fully aware of this. Because of many limitations in the study, we specify in this latest version that the study at hand has an explorative purpose and provides a preliminary segmentation analysis only. We re-run the cluster analysis reducing the number of allowed groups from 4 to 3, to test the possibility that their size may increase. Accordingly the size is largely for the two groups, but still remains very small for the last segment. This suggested us to focus more in the discussion on the larger groups.

17. It seems that two clusters could better (not sure don’t know your data) since 1+2 and 3+4 seem to be very near. See your data and see that the segments derived have meaningful interpretations. For example, the 4th cluster cares only about taste and is indifferent to price, therefore why are they the price sensitive group and not the hedonic consumption group or taste experiential group or something like that?

Accepted. We thank the reviewer for commenting. Based on this and on the results from previous “segmentation” we observed that cluster 1 and 2 were very similar, and opted to first re-run the analysis using 3 clusters. We also tried a 2-segments option, but it was found not reasonable to go ahead with discussing on this because of the clusters size, consisting in a very small group and in a very numerous group (that could be assimilated to the full sample, failing in the presuppositions of a homogeneous grouping).

18. There are no limitations of this study (and there are a lot to write down)

We improved the “limitations” description that was already provided in the Conclusion section (the template does not provide a specific section for limitations of the study). We made reference to:

1. Sample not representative
2. Pseudorandom sampling method
3. Confirmation bias risk

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Consumers' Attitudes toward Whole Dried Figs: A Segmentation Study in Italy." I have several observations that, if addressed, would significantly enhance the quality and clarity of the study.

1. I suggest the authors review the title. While "towards" is commonly used in British English, "toward" is more prevalent in American English. It would be beneficial to consult a proofreader or copy editor to ensure consistency in language and style throughout the manuscript.

2. The introduction does not clearly outline the key research questions that the study aims to address. I recommend the authors include a set of well-defined research questions, such as:
   RQ1...., RQ2.....

3. One of the most significant shortcomings of the manuscript is the absence of a literature review section. Following the introduction, the manuscript jumps directly to the survey (Section 2.1). I strongly advise the authors to include a comprehensive review of relevant literature, critically analyzing prior studies on consumer segmentation and attitudes toward fruits. The literature review should be presented as Section 2, and the methods section should follow as Section 3.

4. The authors should elaborate on why the offline method of data collection was deemed appropriate for this study. A brief discussion on the benefits of this method, given the specific context of the research, would provide valuable insight.

5. It would be helpful if the authors provided a detailed list of the survey items, statements, and questions used in the study, either in the main manuscript or as an appendix.

6. Another major issue is the coding of responses, particularly the use of "1" to represent "Not at Important at All." I recommend the authors revise this to "Not at all important" or "Least important," which would be more grammatically correct and intuitive for respondents.

7. On Page 3, Line 100, the authors mention that "The possibility 'Prefer not to answer' was also available." It is unclear how this option was handled in the analysis, especially since the study uses a 1 to 5 Likert scale. The authors should discuss in detail how this option was coded and accounted for in the analysis.

8. I suggest the authors create a new sub-section dedicated to the questionnaire development process. This section should describe how many sections the questionnaire contained, which sections targeted specific variables, and the precautions taken during the design process. Additionally, the authors should discuss any challenges encountered during the pilot testing of the questionnaire and how these challenges were addressed.

9. Given that the survey was conducted in 2022, the authors should include a brief justification for the relevance of the data in 2024. Two lines explaining why the findings are still applicable today would suffice.

10. On Page 4, Table 2 provides a profile of Clusters 1 to 4, but the actual cluster analysis and consumer segmentation are not discussed until Page 7. As a reader, it is confusing to encounter detailed cluster descriptions before the analysis is explained. I suggest reordering the manuscript to ensure that the cluster analysis is introduced before the results are presented.

By addressing these points, the authors will significantly improve the structure, clarity, and overall quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

1. I suggest the authors review the title. While "towards" is commonly used in British English, "toward" is more prevalent in American English. It would be beneficial to consult a proofreader or copy editor to ensure consistency in language and style throughout the manuscript.

Rejected. We used British English consistently throughout the manuscript.

1. The introduction does not clearly outline the key research questions that the study aims to address. I recommend the authors include a set of well-defined research questions, such as:
   RQ1...., RQ2.....

Accepted. We now provided explicit research questions.

1. One of the most significant shortcomings of the manuscript is the absence of a literature review section. Following the introduction, the manuscript jumps directly to the survey (Section 2.1). I strongly advise the authors to include a comprehensive review of relevant literature, critically analyzing prior studies on consumer segmentation and attitudes toward fruits. The literature review should be presented as Section 2, and the methods section should follow as Section 3.

Partially accepted. The template of the journal does not include a specific section for literature review. As usual, we inserted a short literature review about consumers attitudes towards the Italian dried figs (very few studies are available). Following the reviewer suggestion we expanded the literature review.

 

1. The authors should elaborate on why the offline method of data collection was deemed appropriate for this study. A brief discussion on the benefits of this method, given the specific context of the research, would provide valuable insight.

Accepted. We used an mobile-based survey application called Kobo Collect (it is the mobile software of Kobo Toolbox, a widely accepted platform for surveys) to digitalize the data in real-time. Nevertheless, we adopted a face-to-face interview method, so that we expanded the description of the methodology and we added specific reference in the manuscript.

1.  

Partially accepted. We thank the author but we thing that it is redundant to add the survey form as annex. Anyway, we added more information on the survey form structure (number of questions per section) in table 1.

1. Another major issue is the coding of responses, particularly the use of "1" to represent "Not at Important at All." I recommend the authors revise this to "Not at all important" or "Least important," which would be more grammatically correct and intuitive for respondents.

Accepted. Modified as suggested.

1. On Page 3, Line 100, the authors mention that "The possibility 'Prefer not to answer' was also available." It is unclear how this option was handled in the analysis, especially since the study uses a 1 to 5 Likert scale. The authors should discuss in detail how this option was coded and accounted for in the analysis.

Accepted. In the revised version (methodological section) it is specified that respondents could select this answering option only for personal/sensitive questions, such as those related to socio-demographic and economic conditions, so as he/she can feel comfortable and not obliged to answer. It was not envisaged that such an answer could be provided in relation to other questions and to the attribution of scores/importance levels to attributes.

1. I suggest the authors create a new sub-section dedicated to the questionnaire development process. This section should describe how many sections the questionnaire contained, which sections targeted specific variables, and the precautions taken during the design process. Additionally, the authors should discuss any challenges encountered during the pilot testing of the questionnaire and how these challenges were addressed.

Accepted. We added the following text: “The close-ended anonymous survey form,  was elaborated in collaboration with experts in nutritional studies, quality certifications and consumer behavior during the prepara-tion phase, that included the testing and validation of the questionnaire through subse-quent iterations[10]”

We added table 1 resuming the survey form structure and questions.

 

1. Given that the survey was conducted in 2022, the authors should include a brief justification for the relevance of the data in 2024. Two lines explaining why the findings are still applicable today would suffice.

Accepted. We commented in the limitations (in conclusion section). “…, the research took place in 2022 and considering the evolving state of figs production and consumption, the analysis may restitute different findings today. Nevertheless, as mentioned, this study was conducted at pilot scale in the framework of a wider study that constitute the natural and main perspective of future researches aimed at supporting the Italian fig value chain. ”

1. On Page 4, Table 2 provides a profile of Clusters 1 to 4, but the actual cluster analysis and consumer segmentation are not discussed until Page 7. As a reader, it is confusing to encounter detailed cluster descriptions before the analysis is explained. I suggest reordering the manuscript to ensure that the cluster analysis is introduced before the results are presented.

Partially accepted. We understand and thank the reviewer for highlighting the issue for the sake of clarity. Nevertheless we would like to maintain Table 2 (now table 3) in its place because it reports the descriptive statistics of the sample (and, for reference in the discussion section, of clusters). Anyway, we added a recall in the table’s caption to the next subsection, which contains the description of the clustering analysis.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is more like a research report than an academic paper.

The following issues require the attention of authors

Firstly, the introduction section is overly verbose, containing redundant information.

Secondly, the number of valid questionnaires is insufficient, and these questionnaires were obtained from an exhibition rather than from Italy.Additionally, the questionnaire design is excessively simplistic, rendering the data derived from it and the corresponding analyses unreliable.

Thirdly, the conclusions lack innovation and are written in a rather generic manner.

Author Response

1. Firstly, the introduction section is overly verbose, containing redundant information.

Accepted. We modified substantially the introduction section, focusing on building the interest behind the research questions we wanted to address.

1. Secondly, the number of valid questionnaires is insufficient, and these questionnaires were obtained from an exhibition rather than from Italy.Additionally, the questionnaire design is excessively simplistic, rendering the data derived from it and the corresponding analyses unreliable.

Partially accepted. We thank the reviewer for pointing out but we only run a pilot and preliminary study explicitly focusing on a fair intended to attract people interested in traditional food such as the target product (Fico di Cosenza). We can’t modify the number of interviews now, but we mentioned this important limitation of our study in the conclusion section (the template of the journal does not include a specific section).

1. Thirdly, the conclusions lack innovation and are written in a rather generic manner.

We thank the reviewer for helping to improve the conclusion section.

We can say that our results are quite general because it is a preliminary study and conclusions can’t be generalized. We are aware of the limitations of the study, which are at the basis of this weakness, and we now commented limitations in this section. 

Nevertheless, the study updates existing knowledge about the Italian dried fig value chain.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

thank you for the revised paper

it is now improved and  publishble 

good luck with citations & stay safe

Author Response

We thank the Editor for this second round of reviews, which allowed for substantial improvement of our paper. We addressed all the specific commentaries within the manuscript file and modified them accordingly (in Track change mode, to allow the editor to check). All commentaries asking for confirmation have been checked and confirmed.

Please note that the order of the author has changed. The new confirmed order is: Federica Monaco, Pietro De Marinis(*corresponding author), Guido Sali

We than addressed the following requested modifications as follows:

1. One area that may benefit from refinement is the aim of your study. I encourage you to re-evaluate and clarify this focus..
   Although you mention segmentation, the limited sample size could lead to confusion regarding the study’s objectives. It may be more effective to frame the main objective as identifying the key attributes of dried figs that consumers consider important in their purchasing decisions. Following this, you could provide a cluster analysis to profile consumer groups based on the attributes identified from your sample. Although these findings are preliminary due to the small sample size, they can still offer useful insights for producers, including potential implications for PDO designation.

Accepted. We thank the editor as we agree, we reworded following the suggestion:

• We avoid the use of “segmentation” in favor or a softer “preliminary profiling” through out the text,
• We avoid the use of “drivers” in favor of “dried figs attributes”

 

2. Regarding the PDO mentioned, your discussion of the "Fico di Cosenza" PDO is unclear. It appears you aim to link this attribute to a specific product, yet your questionnaire only asks if respondents know it. The results indicate that a significant portion (80.4%) of respondents were unaware of the "Fico di Cosenza" PDO, which raises questions about its relevance in your analysis. Additionally, your results may be skewed because nearly 60% of respondents live in northern Italy, where familiarity with this southern Italian product may be limited. This could suggest that your sample may not fully represent the target market for this product. If your primary focus is not specifically on the "Fico di Cosenza" PDO, I recommend avoiding a detailed discussion of this product. A more appropriate focus might be the general attributes of dried figs, as Italian consumers broadly appreciate.

Partially accepted. We thank the editor. We would like to improve the paper but to keep explicit reference to the PDO value chain. It is important for us, and we now clarify that the focus is on the PDO because:

• PDO have to be supported due to their positive economic, social and environmental role in the transition;
• The information created is useful for the whole dried figs market, but especially for the PDO, whose attributes were among the ones tested (and we now clearly define them in the text lines ).

 

3. Based on this, I suggest adjusting the title to emphasize "dried fig attributes" and the "Italian sample."

Accepted. The title now is “Consumers’ Attitudes towards Whole Dried Figs attributes: A Preliminary Study in Italy”

4. Introduction Structure: Combining the introduction’s subsections into a single, cohesive section would improve flow. A literature review section should provide a comprehensive overview of existing research, highlighting key aspects and limitations relevant to the study. Please merge the two subsections into one main "Introduction" section.

 

5. Introduction Conclusion: At the end of the introduction, briefly describe how the paper addresses the research questions, noting the study’s small sample size. Then outline the paper’s organization.

Accepted. We added “The research questions were addressed by conducting an initial profiling of dried fig consumers, based on a set of attributes designed to distinguish potential PDO buyers within a targeted sample.”

6. Terminology: Consider replacing the term "drivers" with "attributes" or "factors." "Attributes" may be clearer and more fitting for describing product characteristics.

Accepted.

7. Section Titles: Rename Section 2.1 as "Survey Design and Data Collection" and Section 2.2 as "Data Analysis."

Accepted.

8. Software Specification: Specify the software used in your analysis.

Accepted.

9. Table Renaming: Rename "Table 3" to "Table A1."

Accepted.

10. Questionnaire Description: Provide a more detailed description of the questionnaire. You mention four sections, but Table 1 only shows three. Please clarify this inconsistency.

Accepted. We corrected the number of sections in the text and we added information about the question types in Table 1.

11. Conclusion References: Avoid including references in the conclusion. If you consider these references essential, move them to the discussion section.

Accepted. We removed the three references as they were superfluous.

 

12. Line 212: "espondents are for over 60% from Northern Italy". not true, looking the Table in the appendix is 58.8.

Accepted. Now the sentence is “Respondents are mainly (58.8%) from orthern Italy”.

13. Line 351: "individuals are younger people prevalently from Northern Italy (74.3%)". You have to consider that nearly 60% of the sample is from Northern Italy. Avoid!

Accepted. We removed “prevalently from Northern Italy (74.3%)”.