Comparison of Consuming Habits on Organic Food—Is It the Same? Hungary Versus China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read the text. I have a few comments I hope that will help the authors improve the quality of the article and make the article more accessible for the reader to understand.

The abstract should be supplemented with information on the tools used to compile the obtained data. Please check English carefully, maybe nativespeaker will check it. The authors use strange linguistic connections, e.g. that the demand is positive among ...

In the IIntroduction part, the authors refer to the FIBL statistics separately from the European Union and to Hungary. The article compares Hungary and China. You should stick to that - all this part needs to be improved. Unless the authors consider comparing the entire territory of the EU and China. Only the two countries of interest should be left with information.

Methodological part. Please state how many Hungarian and Chinese consumers. Why is there such and no other division of the research sample. I have a hint, please see the latest work by Milena Bieniek on organic food in the UK and Poland - the researcher referred very well to the difference of the studied samples. As the authors reported, China is a much larger country in relation to Hungary, so the selection of the sample size should be explained.

Descriptions for each table should be expanded.

What the authors presented as discussions are in fact a conclusion.

Thats why, a very important part of the article is still missing, i.e. the section where own results are compared with the results of other researchers. In this section (Discussion), I recommend that you refer to the works on the consumption of organic products by authors such as: Bartels, J., Liang, R., Śmiglak-Krajewska, M., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Barska, A., Schjøll , A . Rojik, S. This is the minimum.

There should also be a Limitations and Futher Research section.

Also the bibliography is badly done. References in the text should be placed in square brackets and numbered.  Here I advise you to see the format of the journal's publishing  and use it.

When using the literature, please use the newest one - 5 years ago. The product market is changing dynamically - in addition.

The Covid pandemic influenced the development of this market, accelerating its development. Also, post-revision work can be an interesting tweak in consumption research.

 

Author Response

The abstract should be supplemented with information on the tools used to compile the obtained data. Please check English carefully, maybe nativespeaker will check it. The authors use strange linguistic connections, e.g. that the demand is positive among ...

• Thank you for your approval and suggestion
• Added content “and the data was analyzed by SPSS software for correlation analysis the data was analyzed by SPSS software for correlation analysis.”
• “Demand is positive” was changed to “demand is high”.

In the introduction part, the authors refer to the FIBL statistics separately from the European Union and to Hungary. The article compares Hungary and China. You should stick to that - all this part needs to be improved. Unless the authors consider comparing the entire territory of the EU and China. Only the two countries of interest should be left with information.

• The information is left only about Hungary and China. The data about Europe was deleted.

Methodological part. Please state how many Hungarian and Chinese consumers. Why is there such and no other division of the research sample. I have a hint, please see the latest work by Milena Bieniek on organic food in the UK and Poland - the researcher referred very well to the difference of the studied samples. As the authors reported, China is a much larger country in relation to Hungary, so the selection of the sample size should be explained.

• Added statement “Based on the difference of population and agricultural areas from the sampling countries, 374 respondents are from China and 207 of them are from Hungary.”

Descriptions for each table should be expanded.

• Added accordingly for all the tables

What the authors presented as discussions are in fact a conclusion.

• Corrected the content for the conclusion

Thats why, a very important part of the article is still missing, i.e. the section where own results are compared with the results of other researchers. In this section (Discussion), I recommend that you refer to the works on the consumption of organic products by authors such as: Bartels, J., Liang, R., Śmiglak-Krajewska, M., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Barska, A., Schjøll , A . Rojik, S. This is the minimum.

• Removed to “3.5 Concluding remarks on my results and discussion”

There should also be a Limitations and Futher Research section.

• Added

Also the bibliography is badly done. References in the text should be placed in square brackets and numbered.  Here I advise you to see the format of the journal's publishing  and use it.

• Corrected to MDPI format

 

When using the literature, please use the newest one - 5 years ago. The product market is changing dynamically - in addition.

• Thanks

The Covid pandemic influenced the development of this market, accelerating its development. Also, post-revision work can be an interesting tweak in consumption research.

• Thank you

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors and editors for the opportunity to review this article. The comparative analysis of two international markets is a strength of this article, however, the article has serious shortcomings. Throughout the paper, the writing is unclear, the paper is poorly organized, and the results are not presented and explained in a scholarly fashion. The article requires extensive revisions. Please see the following detailed comments:

The manuscript contains many incomplete, grammatically incorrect, or out of context sentences. It would be helpful to have a native speaker read the entire manuscript to correct the grammar errors. The manuscript should also be revised in order to develop a clear narrative.

The Introduction Section is too long. The authors provide too much information about the organic markets in Hungary, China, and Europe. It is important to concentrate on the problem statements and the need for comparison between the Chinese and Hungarian markets, as well as the possible research gap. The introduction should address these issues and be shortened.

On Line 13, what is meant by "have a higher occupation"? Please use inclusive language.

This paragraph is not relevant to the story. It is recommended that the Introduction section be revised.

The Hypothesis section should appear prior to the Methodology, and the hypotheses should be well-grounded in theory.

The data collection procedure should be described in more detail, including measurements of variables and the scales used to measure those variables. The authors should ensure that appropriate references are provided.

Table 3 should be formatted differently. Please combine the values and percentages under each country's column, rather than writing China and Hungary twice.

To present and elaborate your statistical results, please follow standard scholarly norms and improve the presentation of your results.

Section 3.5: “Concluding remarks of my results”. To revise your article, please adhere to the journal's guidelines and avoid using singular personal pronouns. Please also note that Table 10 does not follow a standard format.

Discussion should be placed before the Conclusion, and authors should highlight the major findings, as well as provide comparisons with existing research.

Please describe the limitations of your research. 

Author Response

The Introduction Section is too long. The authors provide too much information about the organic markets in Hungary, China, and Europe. It is important to concentrate on the problem statements and the need for comparison between the Chinese and Hungarian markets, as well as the possible research gap. The introduction should address these issues and be shortened.

• Thank you for your approval and suggestion
• Shortened the mentioned content

On Line 13, what is meant by "have a higher occupation"? Please use inclusive language.

• Changed to “longer-term occupation”

This paragraph is not relevant to the story. It is recommended that the Introduction section be revised.

• Revised

The Hypothesis section should appear prior to the Methodology, and the hypotheses should be well-grounded in theory.

• Removed to the introduction

The data collection procedure should be described in more detail, including measurements of variables and the scales used to measure those variables. The authors should ensure that appropriate references are provided.

• Added in the end of methodology

Table 3 should be formatted differently. Please combine the values and percentages under each country's column, rather than writing China and Hungary twice.

• Corrected accordingly

To present and elaborate your statistical results, please follow standard scholarly norms and improve the presentation of your results.

• Improved

Section 3.5: “Concluding remarks of my results”. To revise your article, please adhere to the journal's guidelines and avoid using singular personal pronouns. Please also note that Table 10 does not follow a standard format.

• Improved

Discussion should be placed before the Conclusion, and authors should highlight the major findings, as well as provide comparisons with existing research.

• Edited the discussion and conclusion session
• Added the comparisons with exsiting research in “3.5 Concluding remarks on questionnaire results and discussion”

Please describe the limitations of your research. 

• Added limitation session as “Limitations and Futher Research”

Reviewer 3 Report

Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1686787

Type: Article

Number of Pages: 14

Title: Comparison of consuming habits on organic food - Is it the same? Hungary versus China.

Dear Authors,

It has been for me a great honour, as well as a pleasantly challenging activity, to review the article entitled “Comparison of consuming habits on organic food - Is it the same? Hungary versus China.”

Overall, the article is interesting and easy to read. It has a good chance of attracting the attention of potential readers. However, I suggest that the Authors introduce a few corrections (given below).

In my opinion, the Introduction chapter well introduces potential readers to the topics discussed by the Authors. The aim of the paper is clearly stated (lines 199-203), but I would suggest adding information about the novelty of the article, what research gap it fills and what its utilitarian use may be. I would also suggest extending the review of the literature to include more items on changes in consumer behavior towards buying food with increased nutritional value, which is now widely discussed in the literature, e.g.: Szczepanek, M., et al. (2018). The assessment of market demand for products obtained from primary wheat forms with increased nutritional value. In Agrarian Perspectives XXVII. Food Safety-Food Security, Proceedings of the 27th International Scientific Conference, 19-20 September 2018, Prague, Czech Republic (pp. 381-387). Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management.

Methodology

The description of the methods and research procedure is a bit laconic. I would also suggest adding more methodological literature that would justify the use of the research methods used.

In my opinion, the Results are presented in an understandable way. This chapter is logically divided into the following three subchapters and is well illustrated by 8 tables.

Discussion - this chapter should be rather titled Conclusions. It is, however, too laconic. There are no direct references to the hypotheses put forward by the Authors. In addition, there is no discussion, i.e. confronting the research results obtained by the Authors with other studies/publications.

I don't feel competent to comment on linguistic correctness as English is not my mother tongue. I can only add that the article is interesting, it reads well and has the potential to attract readers' interest after appropriate corrections are made. I wish the Authors good luck.

Author Response

In my opinion, the Introduction chapter well introduces potential readers to the topics discussed by the Authors. The aim of the paper is clearly stated (lines 199-203), but I would suggest adding information about the novelty of the article, what research gap it fills and what its utilitarian use may be. I would also suggest extending the review of the literature to include more items on changes in consumer behavior towards buying food with increased nutritional value, which is now widely discussed in the literature, e.g.: Szczepanek, M., et al. (2018). The assessment of market demand for products obtained from primary wheat forms with increased nutritional value. In Agrarian Perspectives XXVII. Food Safety-Food Security, Proceedings of the 27th International Scientific Conference, 19-20 September 2018, Prague, Czech Republic (pp. 381-387). Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management.

• Thank you for your approval and suggestion
• Recommended literature was added

Methodology

The description of the methods and research procedure is a bit laconic. I would also suggest adding more methodological literature that would justify the use of the research methods used.

• Added the suggestion

In my opinion, the Results are presented in an understandable way. This chapter is logically divided into the following three subchapters and is well illustrated by 8 tables.

• Thank you

Discussion - this chapter should be rather titled Conclusions. It is, however, too laconic. There are no direct references to the hypotheses put forward by the Authors. In addition, there is no discussion, i.e. confronting the research results obtained by the Authors with other studies/publications.

• Added suggestion into “3.5 Concluding remarks on questionnaire results and discussion”     

I don't feel competent to comment on linguistic correctness as English is not my mother tongue. I can only add that the article is interesting, it reads well and has the potential to attract readers' interest after appropriate corrections are made. I wish the Authors good luck.

• Thank you so much. Good luck as well.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Below is an overview of the submitted article

Incorrect table references in the text at the beginning of the submitted article.

Regarding references to literature: WHAT DOES THE (ANIMAL) FEED MARKET HAVE TO DO WITH HUMAN CONSUMPTION?

If I wrote a reference to the positions of the authors indicated, it is not about quoting just anything, but that it should be in the subject, in this case referring to the HUMAN consumption!

Where are the references to literature in the section "Consumption of organic food in China and Hungar" - this section out of place - should be in Theoretical Backgraund.

There is still no answer on what basis such two different countries are compared in every respect. The methodology level is zero.

Confirming the Hypotheses and confronting the results should be in the DISCUSSION section - which is missing in the article.

The same -  Limitations section must be!!!

The bibliography is POOR - 25 items. There is a lot of material on organic food, both in Europe and Asia - the authors did not bother to reach for it, although they were given instructions in which direction to look for the necessary literature - they did not use it.

Dear authors, you submitted your work as a research paper - but it looks like a conference announcement.

Author Response

Incorrect table references in the text at the beginning of the submitted article.

• Corrected according to the MDPI (table tittle name is put above the table)

 

Regarding references to literature: WHAT DOES THE (ANIMAL) FEED MARKET HAVE TO DO WITH HUMAN CONSUMPTION?

• Thanks, this is really good point. I add more related literature

 

If I wrote a reference to the positions of the authors indicated, it is not about quoting just anything, but that it should be in the subject, in this case referring to the HUMAN consumption!

• Thank you, I will consider carefully the literature I cited and add more literature according to suggestion in the manuscript.

 

Where are the references to literature in the section "Consumption of organic food in China and Hungar" - this section out of place - should be in Theoretical Backgraund.

• This is a part of the result. Sorry for the unclear explaination, I re-edited it in a more clear way.
• The session tittle is changed to “The comparison results of organic food consuming habits among Hungarian and Chinese respondents”

There is still no answer on what basis such two different countries are compared in every respect. The methodology level is zero.

• I have rewrite the methodology and add the basis” The primary research is a comparative study between Hungary and China. In Hungary, the organic food market is relatively more developed compared to China, and organic food was introduced to the market earlier in Hungary. While China’s economy is better than Hungary's overall, and China’s organic food market has been emerging in recent decades. Besides, there is enough population for us to conduct the research[47]. Based on the comparison study, we tried to make Hungary and China engage in organic food trade with each other to understand themselves and each other regarding organic food market, and provide constructive information to each other at an early age for better development of organic food market in two countries[48]. ”

 

Confirming the Hypotheses and confronting the results should be in the DISCUSSION section - which is missing in the article.

• Thanks for this suggestion. I had confirmed the hypotheses, but did not put it into a independent session”discussion”. Now I added this session and edited the content

The same -  Limitations section must be!!!

• Sorry, there is a limitation section. What does this comment mean?

The bibliography is POOR - 25 items. There is a lot of material on organic food, both in Europe and Asia - the authors did not bother to reach for it, although they were given instructions in which direction to look for the necessary literature - they did not use it.

• I have added more literature this time

 

Dear authors, you submitted your work as a research paper - but it looks like a conference announcement.

• Sorry for this feeling. But I still appreciate for your suggestions. I did changes according to the suggestion, hopefully it is better than before.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Please provide appropriate literature review to build each of the hypothesis. The hypotheses should be grounded in theory.
2. The discussion section is still not written well. Please revise it. Follow journal guidelines and see previous papers published in the journal. 
3. Upload the final version of the manuscript in the correct format.

Author Response

Please provide appropriate literature review to build each of the hypothesis. The hypotheses should be grounded in theory.

• Thanks, I added.

The discussion section is still not written well. Please revise it. Follow journal guidelines and see previous papers published in the journal.

 Thanks, I added. 

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the Authors for improving the paper. The manuscript has improved in quality, but I'm sorry, but unfortunately the article in its current form is still not ready for publication.

Below are some comments that I do hope will help the Authors to make the necessary improvements.

The references to literature should be chosen more carefully. I suggest using the literature I gave in the first round. The Conference Proceedings of Agrarian Perspectives XXVII. Food Safety-Food Security are available at https://ap.pef.czu.cz/en/r-12193-conference-proceedings There are more articles that may be useful for your literature review.

There should be given a clearer justification for the choice of the two countries to be compared.

There is still work to be done on the discussion of the research results obtained.

It would be worth mentioning the limitations encountered by the Authors while conducting the research, and indicate how they could have influenced the obtained results and, consequently, the conclusions drawn. I leave it for the Authors' consideration, but I will not insist on that suggestion.

In conclusion, in my opinion, the article has the potential to interest readers, however, it needs to be thoroughly revised. I hope that the Authors will take up this challenge. Good luck!

 

 

Author Response

The references to literature should be chosen more carefully. I suggest using the literature I gave in the first round. The Conference Proceedings of Agrarian Perspectives XXVII. Food Safety-Food Security are available at https://ap.pef.czu.cz/en/r-12193-conference-proceedings There are more articles that may be useful for your literature review.

• Thanks so much. I added this time

 

There should be given a clearer justification for the choice of the two countries to be compared.

• Thanks, I add this content into “introdution”, “methodology””discussion”

 

There is still work to be done on the discussion of the research results obtained.

• I rewrite the discussion part

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The justification for the selection of the sample is insufficient. Comparing Hungary and China: it's like comparing an elephant with an ant.

What the authors wrote that in their opinion it is enough, in fact it is not enough. Within one month, it's hard to do research to make the sample representative. I would describe this research as a pilot.

But it's hard.

In Fig 1-3 it is necessary to add what it concerns, what country (I know that it is written in the text - but the drawing should be described in such a way that it does not arise from the reader questions).

Table 1. (Table 1. Organic area, organic area shares of total farmland, organic producers, and organic retail sales in Hungary between 2018 and 2019) - there are already data for 2020, but if it's good to look, the authors can find data for 2021.

If the authors provide such data for Hungary - it should also be provided for China.

Table 2. Two more columns should be added, what is the distribution of demographic variables in the entire population of the surveyed countries. And then you can see how the studied sample is reflected in the society.

Please add the questionnaire in the attachments.

As for the result section - you should put in front of the table in its description what hypothesis is proven - there are 3 hypotheses so it will be easy.

Discussion section - this is the plane where the authors confront their results with the results of other researchers who deal with the same issues.

The authors included 4 items in the discussion: 30,33,34,53. Whereby 3 items refer to 1 sentence.

I also have disclaimers about the literature that the authors have included - the item in Chinese - the title in English must be given in parentheses.

Author Response

First of all, I would say I really appreciate the reviewer's professional comments in detail. Your effort means a lot to me to improve my research skills and writing ability. I also hope my effort is making progress. Thanks so much for the help and knowledge. Have a nice research time.

In Fig 1-3 it is necessary to add what it concerns, what country (I know that it is written in the text - but the drawing should be described in such a way that it does not arise from the reader questions).

• Thanks so much for this issue. I also noticed now it is a problem. So I renewed the figures and rewrite the figure explaination. And I wrote the explanation in the begging of the paragraph to expain the readers cannot compare the data directly between two countries, we can only see the trend of each country separately. As “To have a better understing of the comparison of organic food market development in Hungary and China, we also explained the data of organic area, organic area shares of total farmland, organic producers, and organic retail sales in China since 2010 to 2020. But the readers should bear in mind that we can only see the trend of organic food market from the mentioned data for each country seperately. It is not feasible to compare each index data from country to country. At the same time, we want to highlight another fact that the data source and data availibility are more available in Hungary relatively [40] because the organic food market is more developed in Hungary [31,37].”

Table 1. (Table 1. Organic area, organic area shares of total farmland, organic producers, and organic retail sales in Hungary between 2018 and 2019) - there are already data for 2020, but if it's good to look, the authors can find data for 2021.

• Thanks, this problem is really important, now I renew the figures and now the comparison data keeps the same in two countries.

If the authors provide such data for Hungary - it should also be provided for China.

• Thanks, now the data are keeping same

Table 2. Two more columns should be added, what is the distribution of demographic variables in the entire population of the surveyed countries. And then you can see how the studied sample is reflected in the society.

• Thanks so much for this information. I did not have this idea before. This is also very important reminding, and I also wrote the explaination about this added two columns and it can also be a limitation from this research (I also added it in discussion and limitation)

Please add the questionnaire in the attachments.

• Thanks for reminding me, I put it now.

As for the result section - you should put in front of the table in its description what hypothesis is proven - there are 3 hypotheses so it will be easy.

• I added it in front of the table

Discussion section - this is the plane where the authors confront their results with the results of other researchers who deal with the same issues.

The authors included 4 items in the discussion: 30,33,34,53. Whereby 3 items refer to 1 sentence.

• Thanks for this information. I added more literature in this session.

I also have disclaimers about the literature that the authors have included - the item in Chinese - the title in English must be given in parentheses.

• Thanks, I corrected it

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, what have you done: it was only necessary to complete the information about China and not to give the total data about the world (figures). Anyway, the drawings are badly done - you should see the values at the ends of the columns.

As far as the discussions are concerned, there is still work to be done on them. If you do not want to use the literature that I have recommended to you, please refer to items such as Hungarian authors - see how extensive the discussion is. Please see the articles on organic food in the journals of the MDPI publishing house.

The article is better compared to what was at the beginning - but the authors still have problems with writing the theoretical part and choosing the literature.

You should change the article form in accordance with the journal

I wish you perseverance.

Author Response

Dear Authors, what have you done: it was only necessary to complete the information about China and not to give the total data about the world (figures). Anyway, the drawings are badly done - you should see the values at the ends of the columns.

• Thanks for this information, I also realized it now, thanks so much. Actually, there is no data about the world, just Hungary and China, my bad explaination caused misunderstanding. I added the information in the figures title, hopefully, it can demonstrate the clear information about China and Hungary, not the world now.

As far as the discussions are concerned, there is still work to be done on them. If you do not want to use the literature that I have recommended to you, please refer to items such as Hungarian authors - see how extensive the discussion is. Please see the articles on organic food in the journals of the MDPI publishing house.

• Thanks, I have added a few lietrature which suggested before, but now I added more related literature from suggestion, and others in “discussion””introduction”, and the reason why I compare this two countries in “introduction”,”methodology”

The article is better compared to what was at the beginning - but the authors still have problems with writing the theoretical part and choosing the literature.

• Thanks, I reviewed the grammar and the spelling. And corrected the literature according to the recommendation

You should change the article form in accordance with the journal

• Thanks for remiding, now it fits the required format