Next Article in Journal
Small Wins through Inducement Prizes: Introducing Challenge-Oriented Regional Prizes (CORP)
Previous Article in Journal
Mixed Exponentially Weighted Moving Average—Moving Average Control Chart with Application to Combined Cycle Power Plant
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sustainable Management Behavior of Farmland Shelterbelt of Farmers in Ecologically Fragile Areas: Empirical Evidence from Xinjiang, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/su15043238
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Price of Organic Foods as a Limiting Factor of the European Green Deal: The Case of Tomatoes in Spain

by
Rodolfo Bernabéu
1,
Margarita Brugarolas
2,
Laura Martínez-Carrasco
2,
Roberto Nieto-Villegas
1 and
Adrián Rabadán
1,*
1
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Agronómica y de Montes y Biotecnología (ETSIAMB), Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Campus Universitario s/n, 02071 Albacete, Spain
2
Escuela Politécnica Superior de Orihuela (EPSO), Universidad Miguel Hernández, Avenida de la Universidad de Elche s/n, 03202 Elche, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(4), 3238; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043238
Submission received: 30 December 2022 / Revised: 4 February 2023 / Accepted: 8 February 2023 / Published: 10 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Agricultural Environment and Rural Economy, Policy and Sustainable Development)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The consumption of organic food in the EU remains very low, mainly as a result of the higher price of such food compared to conventional products. To determine consumer preferences, 415 consumer surveys were conducted in Madrid (Spain), using tomatoes as the reference for analysis given their significant market recognition in terms of price, types, origin, and production systems. The data analysis was carried out using conjoint analysis and consumer segmentation techniques, maximum willingness to pay, and market share simulations using the maximum utility method. In addition, to better characterize the consumers, their attitudes towards the environment and their lifestyle indicators were defined. Consequently, 25.2% of consumers were found to be the most willing to pay a higher price to consume organic food. The simulation verified that price is the main problem as regards consuming organic food, with a preference for local markets being identified. In general, it is observed that these consumers have a more positive attitude towards the environment and healthier lifestyles. The implementation of the European Green Deal may have the impact of an additional increase in prices owing to higher production costs. To reduce this impact, it would be advisable to stimulate the economic activity of local markets.

1. Introduction

In 2018, the European Commission presented its legislative proposals on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period, the aim of which is to continue providing robust support for European agriculture, enhance the prosperity of rural areas, and produce quality food products. A further aim is to make a significant contribution to the European Green Deal and to maintain the crucial place of agriculture in the European Union, especially under the framework of the Farm to Fork (F2F) and Biodiversity strategies, setting as general goals the equitable treatment of farmers, a stable economic future and strategy, and more ambitious protection for the environment and climate than that established in the period 2014–2020 [1].
As part of maintaining the pivotal place of agriculture in European Society, a cross-cutting measure is to strengthen the role of organic agriculture. The objective is to promote changes in agricultural practices, entailing a positive contribution to the production of quality food and food safety, the environment and the climate, sustainable development and the efficient use of resources, their reuse, and the reduction of waste generation, all within the framework of the circular economy and bioeconomy. In this context, organic farming is also viewed as an effective tool for revitalizing economic activity in rural areas at risk of depopulation.
In this sense, organic agriculture is a holistic production management system which promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It emphasizes the use of management practices in preference to the use of off-farm inputs, taking into account that regional conditions require locally adapted systems. This is accomplished by using, where possible, agronomic, biological, and mechanical methods, as opposed to using synthetic materials, to fulfill any specific function within the system [2].
The emergence of organic foods has played a major role in influencing and establishing the agenda in public debate on sustainable food production and consumption [3]. Policy makers are currently seen as key actors in the change to a more sustainable food system, given that organic production is gaining a significant position in public debate, as well as in political strategies on agri-food development [4]. Consequently, consumption is positioned to play a key role in this new quality food policy, as reflected in the political objectives for organic farming [5].
Consequently, changes in production and consumption need to be analyzed in the context of regulatory policy. From the perspective of consumption of sustainable food, numerous consumer-specific instruments have been used, particularly in the case of organic food consumption, which has been the object of attention, as it regards both policies and regulations, as well as information campaigns and product labeling, supported by changes in awareness and attitudes of consumers [6].
Recent years have witnessed a change in consumption and purchasing habits, with an increase in the number of consumers choosing sustainable products, as a response to the impacts of humanity on our planet [7,8]. In this context, given the impact of agriculture on the planet, the role of organic farming lies in becoming one of the forms of sustainable production that can help mitigate climate change [9], the scarcity of natural resources [10], and consumers’ growing concern for food safety, given their perception of organic food as natural, healthy, safe and environmentally friendly [11,12,13,14].
As implications for promoting sustainability, it is worth noting, first, that environmental values are not among the most significant values consumers attach importance to in their consumption choices [13,15,16,17] and are not associated with large-scale consumption of organic food [17], despite organic food products contributing to sustainability, and one of their distinguishing characteristics is their role in protecting the environment [18,19,20].
Results show, however, that health and quality attributes are more important to consumers that purchase organic food than attributes related to the environment or the development of sustainable rural areas [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32].
The priority of concern for health over the environment, and, to a lesser extent, social issues, and animal welfare, suggests that consumers are more conditioned by personal factors (health) than other, more altruistic interests. This indicates that the organic food market is essentially guided by its perceived benefits for health and its eco-friendly nature [33].
The findings of surveys on healthy attitudes and behaviors conducted by research centers across the world show that, when choosing food products, consumers increasingly focus on the benefits of their consumption, with potential health-related advantages being perceived as the most important [34,35,36,37,38].
It is also worth underlining that the concept of quality of life transcends social class and is strongly linked to the issue of healthy lifestyles [33]. This includes the consumption of organic food [39] as a way to achieve healthy lifestyles through eating habits that are consistent with this principle [17]. Recognizing the behavioral and motivational values [40] that circulate around organic food is essential to understanding their close link to the principal factors that characterize this type of alternative healthy consumption [41], which is marked by social differentiation [42].
Consequently, it should first be considered that organic food consumers could drive the consolidation of a new production model based on sustainable consumption. Second, the correct labeling of organic food and the availability of information on its benefits and traceability may be key elements to bolster this market. Third, it is necessary to explore the capacity of organic food to generate trust and attract new consumers, drawing on the conventionalization of organic production. Nonetheless, short supply chains, correct labelling, certification and availability of information on the benefits of organic foods for health and the environment could be a much more effective marketing strategy than the conventionalization of organic production [43].
To facilitate commercialization between producers and consumers of organic food, and, consequently, its success, it is key to determine as the main objective (1) consumers’ preferences with regard to the different attributes of these food products and to determine as secondary objectives (2) consumer segments according to individual preferences and (3) their willingness to pay for organic products. (4) By means of market simulation, it is also important to determine the market shares of the most popular organic food products and the price elasticity of consumer demand. (5) Further, it is essential to identify consumers’ lifestyles and their attitudes towards the environment.

2. Materials and Methods

The data used in this study were collected in face-to-face interviews with consumers of organic food products aged over 18 years. The survey was conducted in the city of Madrid, which is the main center of organic food consumption in Spain, an important business center, and a commercial showcase.
A total of 415 surveys were conducted in different parts of the main shopping areas. To design the sample, we used population data for Madrid provided by the Spanish National Statistics Institute [44]. Stratified random sampling by gender and age (between 18 and 34 years, 35 and 64 years, and over 65) was used for a sampling error of less than 5% and a confidence interval of 95.5% (p = q = 0.5; k = 2). Before the fieldwork, a preliminary questionnaire was administered to 25 food consumers to ensure the questions had been properly designed and were easily understandable.
The descriptive characteristics of the 415 participants in the study were as follows. By gender, 50.6% were male and 49.4% were female. By employment status, 3.6% were employed in the agricultural sector, 7.5% in the industrial sector, 46.7% in the services sector, and 42.2% were students, retired, or unemployed. By level of education, 1.4% had completed primary education, 19.6% had completed secondary education, and 79% had a university degree. By age, 34.2% were aged between 18 and 34 years, 48.7% were aged between 35 and 64, and 17.1% were aged 65 years or over. By net monthly family income, 9.9% earned less than 900 €, 20.1% earned between 900 and 1500 €, 29.2% earned between 1501 and 2100 €, 21.7% earned between 2101 and 3000 €, and finally, 18.6% earned more than 3000 €.
Of the multiple applications that can be implemented, conjoint analysis [45] has emerged as an appropriate technique for evaluating consumers’ preferences towards the different attributes of a type of food, determining the relative importance of each of the food’s attributes in the purchasing decision process.
Regarding the total number of participants in the study, the percentage of responses in the determination of preferences was 100%. In the determination of consumer attitudes towards the environment it was 85.6%, and with regard to the descriptive statistical indicators for consumer lifestyle, the percentage of responses was 100%.
To determine the relative importance of the attributes, we chose tomatoes, as they are characteristic of local farming production and of Spanish cooking. They also represent an important part of household daily spending and are easy to find in the market in both conventionally and organically produced forms. Meanwhile, they were also selected since they belong to the fruit and vegetable food group, so they are one of the foods whose production has fewest negative effects on the environment [46]. Moreover, focusing the study on a specific product (namely, organic tomato) at the expense of organic foods in general facilitates the understanding and evaluation of preferences, as suggested by Muñoz-Sánchez and Pérez-Flores [43].
The attributes were selected by means of consultation with experts and a preliminary questionnaire to identify the most representative attributes in a consumer’s tomato purchasing process. The attributes (and their levels) identified as the most representative when buying tomatoes were as follows: price (6 €/kg, 4 €/kg and 2 €/kg), type (smooth, ribbed and cherry), origin (regional, national and imported), and production system (organic and conventional).
These four attributes and their eleven levels gave rise to 54 profiles, which is a high number of stimuli for a consumer to be shown. Hence, we used an orthogonal design [47], which allowed us to reduce the combinations to nine cards that facilitated our consumers’ evaluations.
The choice of an orthogonal design, rather than presenting all the possible combinations of products, reduces the obtainable information to only the main effects of attributes, eliminating interactions. It has, however, the advantage of only offering nine products to each respondent, and this advantage was deemed to outweigh the drawback mentioned [48].
Once the cards had been designed, they were presented to the respondents, who were asked to express their preferences and assign a rating between 1 and 10, with one being the least preferred product and 10 the most preferred. The aim of this method is to identify and quantify the consumers’ attitudes in order to determine what they actually prefer, as well as establishing the characteristics with the greatest impact on overall preferences as regards the product (Table 1).
The specification of the joint analysis model is based on the hypothesis that the respondents’ preferences, or their overall evaluation of the products included in the survey, are obtained from the individual scores for each attribute, such that the sum of these scores generates the total evaluation [49]. We used an additive model, as it explains, in almost all cases, a very large percentage (between 80% and 90%) of the variation in individuals’ preferences [50]. It is formulated by the following equation:
V a l u a t i o n = β 0 + ∑ i = 1 3 β 1 D 1 i + ∑ j = 1 3 β j D 2 j + ∑ k = 1 3 β k D 3 k + ∑ l = 1 2 β l D 4 l
where  β 1 i ,   β 2 j ,   β 3 k   and   β 4 l  are the coefficients associated with levels i (i = 1, 2, 3); j (j = 1, 2, 3), k (k = 1, 2, 3), and l (l = 1, 2) of the attributes of price (1), type (2), origin (3), and system (4), respectively, where D1i, D2j, D3k, and D4l are the fictitious variables for each attribute, considering the levels of each attribute to be categorical.
The result allowed us to estimate the partial utilities of each of the attributes and the total utility of each profile. With the partial utilities of each respondent, and to determine the consumers’ preference structure, we calculated the relative importance of each of the attributes of each of these preferences and the proportion of the range assigned to each attribute over the variation in the entire range [50,51].
R I   % = max U i − min U i ∑ ( max U i − min U i )   ×   100
where RI is the relative importance, max Ui, is the maximum utility, and min Ui is the minimum utility.
Subsequently, and according to the relative importance consumers attached to the attributes (price, type, origin, and production system), we conducted a k-means segmentation analysis, using the Quick Segmentation Analysis algorithm [47].
Additionally, we calculated the maximum marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for organic tomatoes as the coefficient of the organic level obtained divided by the slope of price with the sign changed [52].
The market shares for production system (organic/conventional) were then determined by means of simulation. In the simulation process, we used the maximum utility (MU) model [53]. MU assumes that a consumer chooses the product that gives them the maximum utility (satisfaction). The market share was thus obtained as the proportion of times that each product proposed was chosen as the most preferred by the respondents.
Finally, we determined consumers’ attitudes towards the environment and their lifestyles in each of the identified segments. This was done by presenting respondents with different statements on which they were asked to rate their level of agreement on a 5-point Likert-type scale, where 1 was strongly disagree and 5 strongly agree.
Attitudes towards the environment appear to be of particular significance in the lifestyle of consumers of organic food, which, consequently, affects their purchasing behavior. Although some authors have positively related environmental issues to consumers’ behavior towards organic food products [54,55,56,57], others report no significant findings in this respect [58].
Lifestyle attitudes were used to characterize consumer behavior, as it is now generally agreed demographic variables are unlikely to predict consumer behavior due to the considerable differences in behavior within the same demographic sector [59,60,61]. Although the effects of demographic criteria on purchasing behavior are statistically significant, the size of these effects tend to be small [62].
In this sense, consumers’ lifestyles are defined as a series of behavioral patterns as regards how they live, spend their money and use their free time [63]. Additionally, these lifestyles may also be a useful criterion to standardize a global marketing strategy [64,65].
The data in our study were processed using SPSS for Windows, version 22.0 [47].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Organic Food

For our overall sample, consumers’ most preferred attributes were origin, production system, price, and type of tomato, in that order. Specifically, they prefer regionally grown (national), organic, low-price, ribbed tomatoes.
Nonetheless, given that the relative importance of the attributes of price, origin, and production system in the sample is somewhat similar, in order to implement a targeted marketing strategy, a classification of consumers according to similar purchasing behaviors is needed. To this end, we carried out a segmentation analysis according to individual consumer preferences, which yielded three segments with statistically significant differences (p < 0.01) (Table 2).
The three cards most preferred by the consumers in Segment 1 were 7, 5, and 9, with mean scores of 6.37, 6.18, and 5.43, respectively, while cards 7, 5, and 8 were those most preferred by consumers in Segment 2, with mean scores of 6.86, 6.60, and 5.86, respectively. Finally, 7, 5, and 6 were the cards most preferred by consumers in Segment 3, with mean scores of 7.05, 6.83, and 6.01, respectively.
Segment 1 is characterized by consumers that largely choose tomatoes according to price, and, to a lesser extent, according to type, origin and production system. We call this segment price, given the importance these consumers attach to this attribute in their preferences. Consumers in Segment 2 are essentially typified by their preference for the origin of the tomatoes they purchase, followed by system, price, and type. We refer to this segment by the name of origin, given the importance they give to this particular attribute in their purchasing decisions. In Segment 3, the consumers are characterized by their seeking out the production system when purchasing tomatoes, followed by the attributes of origin, price, and type of tomato. This segment was called system, as this attribute dominates the preference of the consumers in this group.
Figure 1 graphically represents the differentiation of each segment, according to the relative importance of the attributes.
The figure shows a normal demand curve with a downward slope, in which the three segments of tomato consumers present normal market behavior. That is, the higher the levels of the price attribute, the more consumer satisfaction, or utility, falls. Specifically, the consumers in Segment 1 are those that most value the price attribute, preferring ribbed tomatoes that are produced in their own country, if possible. This segment attaches least importance to the organic production system. They account for 49.6% of the market.
In Segment 2, the origin attribute is the most highly valued. These are the consumers that attach most importance to regionally produced tomatoes, although national production is also significant to them. They prefer ribbed tomatoes, and if these are not available, they prefer the smooth variety. They represent 25.2% of the market. Meanwhile, the organic production system is the most important attribute for consumers in Segment 3, who are willing to buy them at low price and prefer locally produced ribbed tomatoes to those produced in the rest of Spain or abroad. This may be due to the trust generated by the regional, organic production system. These consumers account for 25.2% of the market.
As regards the MWTP for organic tomatoes, we find that the greater the preference of consumers for organic food products, the more their maximum willingness to pay increases, as reported by Bean and Sharp [66], Gil, et al. [67], Lund, et al. [68], and Ureña, et al. [69].
In a study of tomato consumers in Germany in 2019, the results show the high market potential for locally grown tomatoes. In this respect, the origin of production was the main attribute, above price and production method, in consumer preferences [70].
In another study conducted in 2019 in Benin to discover the preferences of tomato consumers, the importance given to the attributes analyzed was as follows: origin (26.68%), flavor (23.25%), color (22.51%), shelf life (17.84%), consistency (8.26%), and price (1.46%) [71].
More recently, another tomato consumer study was conducted in Germany in 2020, which found that the least sustainable attributes for consumers were air transport and plastic packaging. In the same study, when analyzing tomato purchase preferences, it was found that the most important attributes were the color and price of the tomato, such that consumers mainly chose tomatoes on the basis of color, rejecting green and yellow tomatoes [72].
Similarly, when analyzing the preferences of tomato consumers in relation to traditional tomato varieties in local markets, two consumer segments were detected. The first consumer segment (43.7%) preferred hybrid varieties of tomatoes and valued price more, while the second consumer segment (57.3%) preferred tomatoes of local varieties, the most valued attributes being, in this order, flavor, and origin [73]. In this sense, in 2022, tomato consumers are willing to pay a higher price for traditional local tomato varieties (0.90 euros more per kg), which in turn demonstrates the growing attention of consumers for sustainable food [74].
Analyzing the attributes of previous studies on tomato consumer preferences in relation to the present research, it can be concluded that while in the previous studies tomatoes are chosen for attributes other than price, in the present research tomatoes are chosen primarily for their price, and to a lesser extent for their origin and production system. However, analyzing the origin and production system together, a market opportunity appears which is analyzed below by means of different market simulations.
The level of importance of the production system for was determined by simulating the market shares of different hypothetical tomato products, taking two scenarios into account. Scenario I was based on cards 5, 7, and 9, which are those most preferred by the overall sample. In this case, given the same price, the aim was to determine the importance of the production system for the consumers in each of the three segments. Scenario II analyzed a plausible market situation in which the sale price of organic tomatoes is higher than that of conventionally produced tomatoes. We considered that the sale price of organic tomatoes could reach twice that of conventionally produced ones (Table 3).
In Scenario I and for the same price, the overall market share of organic tomatoes is 69.7% for Segment 1, 74.8% for Segment 2, and 83.6% for Segment 3, compared to conventionally produced tomatoes. According to the origin of organic tomatoes, the market share for regionally produced tomatoes for Segments 1, 2, and 3 is 46.7%, 61.2% and 71.8%, respectively. According to product type, in the three segments, ribbed tomatoes present a larger market share than smooth ones (Segment 1, 56.0% vs. 44.0%; Segment 2, 53.5% vs. 46.5% and Segment 3, 52.5% vs. 47.5%). The market share of organically produced smooth tomatoes grows as consumer preference for the organic product system increases.
In Scenario II, the overall market share of organic tomatoes is 45.0% for Segment 1, 60.1% for Segment 2 and 79.1% for Segment 3, compared to their conventionally produced counterparts. Consumers of organic tomatoes show an inelastic demand with respect to price, which means that in the case of rising prices for organic tomatoes, not all the consumers shift to the conventionally produced tomato market. The consumers of organic tomatoes that show a higher price inelastic demand are, however, those in Segment 3, followed by those in Segment 2 and, finally, those of Segment 1.
The results for Scenarios I and II suggest that, at the same price, the three consumer segments are all more willing to buy organic tomatoes compared to conventionally produced ones. Nonetheless, an increase in organic tomato prices, compared to conventional ones, leads to a lower fall in market share as consumer preference for the organic production system increases. Finally, the greater the preference of consumers for the organic production system, the greater is the market share of regionally produced, organic ribbed tomatoes.
These findings are consistent with studies that suggest the existence of price inelasticity of demand [75,76] and that organic food consumers rarely substitute conventionally produced products for organic ones when the prices of the latter increase [77]. The demand for organic food products might, however, increase strongly if organic food prices fell, as highlighted by Zhang, Huang, Lin, Epperson, and Houston [76].
Nonetheless, it is worth bearing in mind there may be differences in price elasticity between different categories of organic food and also between countries [78]. The results corroborate that price plays a key role in determining preferences towards organic tomatoes, particularly at a medium price level rather than a low one, arguably because consumers are aware that the prices of organic food products are higher than their conventional counterparts [30].
In this sense, other studies have also shown that price is one of the main obstacles to the purchase and consumption of eco-labelled sustainable food products [79,80]. Consequently, it is worth considering implementing communication campaigns to motivate greater support for the development of organic farming, with the aim of enhancing and promoting regionally produced organic products, which, in turn, would improve the local food system [30].
The primary advantage of local markets is that consumers are nearer, fewer intermediaries are needed for goods to reach the market and producers have greater control over the food [81]. They also generate employment and wealth and are a more environmentally friendly alternative as they create less pollution from transport [82]. Moreover, they will likely be more accessible to individuals that wish to consume organic products but lack large disposable incomes [21].

3.2. Consumers’ Environmental Values and Lifestyles

As suggested by Dubois and Rovira [83] and Fraj and Martínez [84], psychographic variables related to lifestyle and environmental attitudes better define the current organic consumer profile, besides expediting the identification of market segments and improving the predictability offered by demographic variables.
As regards consumers’ attitudes towards the environment, agreement with the statements in the survey is generally strong across the three segments, although the strongest agreement with the different statements is found in the consumers in Segment 3, where we also find significant differences with the other two segments. In particular, consumers in Segment 3 believe the current civilization is destroying nature and that agricultural activity is a major source of pollution, and hence tend to take part in environmental conservation activities (p < 0.01). Indeed, they believe that unless measures are taken, environmental deterioration will be irreversible, and, in short, are concerned about the effects of human activity on climate change (p < 0.05) (Table 4).
As in the work by Ureña, Bernabéu and Olmeda [69], scores above 4 are found on the items of current civilization is destroying nature and unless measures are taken, environmental deterioration will become irreversible, and below 3 on the items of I think agricultural activity is a big environmental contaminant and I help with environmental conservation tasks. While the study by Ureña, Bernabéu and Olmeda [69] reported no differences between men and women with regard to attitudes towards the environment, in the present work, significant differences are found depending on consumers’ preferences, with these differences being greater as the their preference for organic food increases.
The consumers with the greatest preference for the organic production system (Segment 3) lead healthier lifestyles than those in Segment 1, controlling their salt intake more, more frequently following a vegetarian diet, periodically having medical check-ups, more frequently reading the labels on the products they buy (p < 0.01), and preferring to use recycled products (p < 0.05). The consumers in Segment 2, who present similar characteristics to those in Segment 1, differ, however, from the latter in that they contribute more to non-governmental organizations (p < 0.01), although they tend not to prefer recycled products (p < 0.05) (Table 5).
De Magistris and Gracia [85] report that consumers who follow a healthy diet and lead a balanced lifestyle tend to have more positive attitudes towards the environment. According to Díaz and Bernabéu [86], the characteristics that appear to determine the lifestyle of organic food consumers are that they are organized, reconcile family and work time and would probably not sacrifice their free time to earn more money. They are concerned about the effects of diet on their health and collaborate in the conservation of nature. The eco-friendly attitude of such consumers is shown both individually, in their preference for recycled products, their collaboration in activities to protect the environment and their concern about the effects of human productive activity on nature, and also societally, as they consider that civilization is in the process of destroying the natural world.
Furthermore, Lockie, Lyons, Lawrence, and Mummery [21] underline the robust correlation between greater consumption of organic foods and higher levels of formal education, such that the higher the level of an individual’s educational qualifications, the more likely they are to consume organic products.
Lockie [87] considers food industry information needs to be improved, as regards food quality and environmental issues, redefining food consumption as a right and a collective responsibility. It is a question of bolstering the mobilizing factor of well-informed and empowered consumers, avoiding reductive constructions based on creating stereotypes of the “ethical consumer”, which, ultimately, limit the access of particular people. This approach is grounded in a broader and more inclusive construction.
Another way in which to differentiate food is the use of organic labels. Such labels are gaining increasing importance, partly because they guarantee quality but also because they safeguard production systems that respect the environment [88].
Consumers typically perceive organic foods to be healthier, more eco-friendly products with a greater guarantee of quality [21,22,26,27,28,69,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96]. The primary characteristics of organic food consumers are their concern for health, nutrition, and the environment, together with their quest for better organoleptic qualities. Concern for health and the environment have particularly bolstered the production and consumption of organic products in recent years.
Finally, Lockie and Halpin [97] report finding no considerable differences between large, potentially conventionalized, organic producers and small-scale organic growers.
According, then, to findings, the consumption of organic food can be considered the result of an interaction between following a healthy diet, respect for the environment, and the sociality of individuals [98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110].

4. Conclusions

Over time, despite increased production and consumption of organic food products, the consumption of organic food has been essentially limited by its higher prices compared to conventional products. For most consumers, the benefits of this type of production for health and the environment do not sufficiently compensate for the price premium.
Indeed, although consumers, overall, show a preference for the organic production system, around half of them mainly base their consumption preferences on price, with the rest being divided between those whose preference lies in product origin and those whose main preference leans towards the production system.
The three consumer segments identified in our study present a negative linear slope for price, which means that the utility of the product falls as price increases, which can be regarded as normal market behavior. Additionally, the maximum marginal willingness to pay for organic tomatoes, compared to conventionally produced ones, increases in line with consumers’ preferences for the organic production system.
Broadly speaking, the most highly valued tomatoes are regionally produced, organic ribbed tomatoes, and, in their absence, nationally produced ones respecting a short supply chain. The market share simulation conducted, apart from confirming that the most preferred tomatoes are organic, also suggests that the consumers in all three segments present price inelasticity of demand, indicating that not all the consumers stop purchasing organic tomatoes when the price goes up.
The findings of the present article reveal that individuals’ consumption of organic food is primarily driven by health concerns, and, secondly, by greater awareness of the environment, as manifested in consumers’ lifestyles. The future of agriculture potentially lies in reducing the environmental impacts of pollution from transportation, thus mitigating climate change. This, in turn, might benefit local markets in the organic food trade.
In a scenario based on local producers, food safety and climate change continue to be interconnected and complex global questions that have no national frontiers. These changes must be addressed at a worldwide level, by means of close cooperation between regions, with the aim of implementing joint actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Such actions involve technological innovation, digitalization of farms, reduction of food losses and waste, and greater investment in research and development.
The main limitation of the present work is that it was conducted in Spain, a large producer country that consumes limited amounts of organic food. Accordingly, it would be of interest to replicate the study in other places and at different times, given the dynamic nature of evolution in consumer preferences. This would allow periodic research into any changes that might occur. In addition to the above limitation, the study was limited by only the variables of gender and age being taken into account in the stratification of the sample.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.N.-V., A.R. and R.B.; Formal analysis, A.R., R.B., L.M.-C., M.B. and R.N.-V.; Methodology, A.R. and R.B.; Project administration, M.B. and L.M.-C.; Resources, R.B., M.B. and L.M.-C.; Software, R.B.; Supervision, A.R., R.B., L.M.-C. and M.B.; Writing—original draft, A.R., R.B., R.N.-V., L.M.-C. and M.B.; Writing—Review & Editing A.R., R.B., R.N-V., L.M.-C. and M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Castilla-La Mancha and the European Regional Development Fund [2020-GRIN-29021].

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the University of Castilla-La Mancha (2020-GRIN-29021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be available under request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. European Comission. The European Green Deal; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. FAO; WHO. Codex Alimentarius Commission. In Twenty-Third Session; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1999; p. 109. [Google Scholar]
  3. Klintman, M.; Boström, M. Political consumerism and the transition towards a more sustainable food regime: Looking behind and beyond the organic shelf. In Food Practices in Transition: Changing Food Consumption, Retail and Production in the Age of Reflexive Modernity; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 107–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Oosterveer, P.; Spaargaren, G. Green consumption practices and emerging sustainable food regimes: The role of consumers. In Food Practices in Transition; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 151–172. [Google Scholar]
  5. Vittersø, G.; Tangeland, T. The role of consumers in transitions towards sustainable food consumption. The case of organic food in Norway. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 92, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sedlacko, M.; Reisch, L.; Scholl, G. Sustainable food consumption: When evidence-based policy making meets policy-minded research–Introduction to the special issue. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2013, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Moser, A.K. Consumers’ purchasing decisions regarding environmentally friendly products: An empirical analysis of German consumers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 31, 389–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Prakash, G.; Choudhary, S.; Kumar, A.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Khan, S.A.R.; Panda, T.K. Do altruistic and egoistic values influence consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions towards eco-friendly packaged products? An empirical investigation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 50, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Skinner, C.; Gattinger, A.; Krauss, M.; Krause, H.-M.; Mayer, J.; van der Heijden, M.G.A.; Mäder, P. The impact of long-term organic farming on soil-derived greenhouse gas emissions. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Moisander, J. Motivational complexity of green consumerism. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 404–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gan, C.; Chang, Z.; Tran, M.C.; Cohen, D.A. Consumer Attitudes toward the Purchase of Organic Products in China. Int. J. Bus. Econ. 2016, 15, 117–144. [Google Scholar]
  12. Singh, A.; Verma, P. Factors influencing Indian consumers’ actual buying behaviour towards organic food products. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 473–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vega-Zamora, M.; Torres-Ruiz, F.J.; Murgado-Armenteros, E.M.; Parras-Rosa, M. Organic as a Heuristic Cue: What Spanish Consumers Mean by Organic Foods. Psychol. Mark. 2014, 31, 349–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Żakowska-Biemans, S. Polish consumer food choices and beliefs about organic food. Br. Food J. 2011, 113, 122–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Barker, M.; Wong, F.; Jones, C.; Russell, J. Food Purchasing Decisions and Environmental Ideology: An Exploratory Survey of UK Shoppers. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nguyen, T.T.M.; Phan, T.H.; Nguyen, H.L.; Dang, T.K.T.; Nguyen, N.D. Antecedents of Purchase Intention toward Organic Food in an Asian Emerging Market: A Study of Urban Vietnamese Consumers. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vega-Zamora, M.; Parras-Rosa, M.; Torres-Ruiz, F.J. You Are What You Eat: The Relationship between Values and Organic Food Consumption. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fuller, R.J.; Norton, L.R.; Feber, R.E.; Johnson, P.J.; Chamberlain, D.E.; Joys, A.C.; Mathews, F.; Stuart, R.C.; Townsend, M.C.; Manley, W.J.; et al. Benefits of organic farming to biodiversity vary among taxa. Biol. Lett. 2005, 1, 431–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Maeder, P.; Fliessbach, A.; Dubois, D.; Gunst, L.; Fried, P.; Niggli, U. Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming. Science 2002, 296, 1694–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vega-Zamora, M.; Parras-Rosa, M.; Murgado-Armenteros, E.M.; Torres-Ruiz, F.J. A powerful word: The influence of the term’organic’on perceptions and beliefs concerning food. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2013, 16, 51–76. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lockie, S.; Lyons, K.; Lawrence, G.; Mummery, K. Eating ‘Green’: Motivations behind organic food consumption in Australia. Sociol. Rural. 2002, 42, 23–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Schifferstein, H.N.J.; Oude Ophuis, P.A.M. Health-related determinants of organic food consumption in The Netherlands. Food Qual. Prefer. 1998, 9, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Squires, L.; Juric, B.; Bettina Cornwell, T. Level of market development and intensity of organic food consumption: Cross-cultural study of Danish and New Zealand consumers. J. Consum. Mark. 2001, 18, 392–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Torjusen, H.; Lieblein, G.; Wandel, M.; Francis, C.A. Food system orientation and quality perception among consumers and producers of organic food in Hedmark County, Norway. Food Qual. Prefer. 2001, 12, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zanoli, R.; Naspetti, S. Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food. Br. Food J. 2002, 104, 643–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Magnusson, M.K.; Arvola, A.; Hursti, U.-K.K.; Åberg, L.; Sjödén, P.-O. Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour. Appetite 2003, 40, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chryssohoidis, G.M.; Krystallis, A. Organic consumers’ personal values research: Testing and validating the list of values (LOV) scale and implementing a value-based segmentation task. Food Qual. Prefer. 2005, 16, 585–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Padel, S.; Foster, C. Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 606–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yiridoe, E.K.; Bonti-Ankomah, S.; Martin, R.C. Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: A review and update of the literature. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2005, 20, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Annunziata, A.; Vecchio, R. Organic Farming and Sustainability in Food Choices: An Analysis of Consumer Preference in Southern Italy. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016, 8, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Roitner-Schobesberger, B.; Darnhofer, I.; Somsook, S.; Vogl, C.R. Consumer perceptions of organic foods in Bangkok, Thailand. Food Policy 2008, 33, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zanoli, R. How country-specific are consumer attitudes towards organic food. In Proceedings of the Annual IBL Meeting:“Looking for a Market! Which Knowledge Is Needed for Further Development of the Market on Organic Farming?”, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 15 December 2021. [Google Scholar]
  33. Dangi, N.; Gupta, S.K.; Narula, S.A. Consumer buying behaviour and purchase intention of organic food: A conceptual framework. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2020, 31, 1515–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kita, P.; Furková, A.; Reiff, M.; Konštiak, P.; Sitášová, J. Impact of Consumer Preferences on Food Chain Choice: An empirical study of consumers in Bratislava. Acta Univ. Agric. Et Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2017, 65, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bosona, T.; Gebresenbet, G. Swedish Consumers’ Perception of Food Quality and Sustainability in Relation to Organic Food Production. Foods 2018, 7, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bernard, J.C.; Duke, J.M.; Albrecht, S.E. Do labels that convey minimal, redundant, or no information affect consumer perceptions and willingness to pay? Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 71, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jakubowska, D.; Radzymińska, M. Health and environmental attitudes and values in food choices: A comparative study for Poland and Czech Republic. Oeconomia Copernic. 2019, 10, 433–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Profeta, A.; Hamm, U. Do consumers prefer local animal products produced with local feed? Results from a Discrete-Choice experiment. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 71, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Balderjahn, I. Personality variables and environmental attitudes as predictors of ecologically responsible consumption patterns. J. Bus. Res. 1988, 17, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. McCarthy, B.; Murphy, L. Who’s buying organic food and why? Political consumerism, demographic characteristics and motivations of consumers in North Queensland. Tour. Manag. Stud. 2013, 9, 72–79. [Google Scholar]
  41. Katzeff, C.; Milestad, R.; Zapico, J.L.; Bohné, U. Encouraging organic food consumption through visualization of personal shopping data. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Paddock, J. Invoking Simplicity: ‘Alternative’ Food and the Reinvention of Distinction. Sociol. Rural. 2015, 55, 22–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Muñoz-Sánchez, V.-M.; Pérez-Flores, A.-M. The Connections between Ecological Values and Organic Food: Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Review at the Start of the 21st Century. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Demografía y Población; INE: Madrid, Spain, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  45. Green, P.E.; Rao, V.R. Conjoint measurement from quantifying judgemental data. J. Mark. Res. 1971, 8, 355–363. [Google Scholar]
  46. Tukker, A.; Huppes, G.; Guinée, J.; Heijungs, R.; Koning, A.; Oers, L.; Suh, S.; Geerken, T.; Van Holderbeke, M.; Jansen, B.; et al. Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO) Analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU-25. In Technical Report Series; Publications Office of the European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 1–136, EUR 22284 EN. [Google Scholar]
  47. SPSS. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0; Guide user; IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kirk, R.E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  49. Steekamp, J.B. Conjoint measurement in ham quality evaluation. J. Agric. Econ. 1987, 38, 473–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hair, J.; Anderson, R.; Tatham, R.; Black, W. Análisis Multivariante; Prentice-Hall: Madrid, Spain, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  51. Halbrendt, C.K.; Wirth, F.F.; Vaughn, G.F. Conjoint Analysis of the Mid-Atlantic Food-Fish Market for Farm-Raised Hybrid Striped Bass. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 1991, 23, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gan, C.; Luzar, E.J. A Conjoint Analysis of Waterfowl Hunting in Louisiana. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 1993, 25, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bretton-Clark. Conjoint Designer and Conjoint Analyzer, Version 2.0; Bretton-Clark: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  54. Dispoto, R.G. Interrelationships Among Measures of Environmental Activity, Emotionality, and Knowledge. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1977, 37, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Grunert, S.C.; Røhme, N. Consumer’s environmental concern: Are we really tapping true concern that relates to environmentally ethic behavior? In Proceedings of ESOMAR Conference on Marketing and Research under a New World Order, Tokyo, Japan, 6–8 July 1992.
  56. Park, C.W.; Mothersbaugh, D.L.; Feick, L. Consumer Knowledge Assessment. J. Consum. Res. 1994, 21, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chan, R.Y.K. Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior. Psychol. Mark. 2001, 18, 389–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Schahn, J.; Holzer, E. Studies of Individual Environmental Concern:The Role of Knowledge, Gender, and Background Variables. Environ. Behav. 1990, 22, 767–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hartman, H. The Evolving Organic Marketplace; Hartman New Hope: Bellevue, WA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hamzaoui-Essoussi, L.; Zahaf, M. Canadian Organic Food Consumers’ Profile and Their Willingness to Pay Premium Prices. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2012, 24, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Grymshi, D.; Crespo-Cebada, E.; Elghannam, A.; Mesías, F.J.; Díaz-Caro, C. Understanding consumer attitudes towards ecolabeled food products: A latent class analysis regarding their purchasing motivations. Agribusiness 2022, 38, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hustad, T.P.; Pessemier, E.A. The Development and Application of Psychographic Life Style and Associated Activity and Attitude Measures; American Marketing Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 1974; pp. 31–70. [Google Scholar]
  63. Mowen, J.C. Consumer Behavior; Macmillan Publishing Company: New York, NY, USA, 1987; pp. 413–423. [Google Scholar]
  64. Buzzell, R.D. Can You Standardize Multinational Marketing? Reprint Service, Harvard Business Review: Brighton, MA, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
  65. Jain, S.C. Standardization of International Marketing Strategy: Some Research Hypotheses. J. Mark. 1989, 53, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bean, M.; Sharp, J. Profiling alternative food system supporters: The personal and social basis of local and organic food support. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2011, 26, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gil, J.M.; Gracia, A.; Sánchez, M. Market segmentation and willingness to pay for organic products in Spain. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2000, 3, 207–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lund, T.B.; Andersen, L.M.; O’Doherty Jensen, K. The Emergence of Diverse Organic Consumers: Does a Mature Market Undermine the Search for Alternative Products? Sociol. Rural. 2013, 53, 454–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ureña, F.; Bernabéu, R.; Olmeda, M. Women, men and organic food: Differences in their attitudes and willingness to pay. A Spanish case study. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2008, 32, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Meyerding, S.G.H.; Trajer, N.; Lehberger, M. What is local food? The case of consumer preferences for local food labeling of tomatoes in Germany. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Adegbola, Y.P.; Ahoyo Adjovi, N.R.; Adekambi, S.A.; Zossou, R.; Sonehekpon, E.S.; Assogba Komlan, F.; Djossa, E. Consumer Preferences for Fresh Tomatoes in Benin using a Conjoint Analysis. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2019, 31, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jürkenbeck, K.; Spiller, A.; Meyerding, S.G.H. Tomato attributes and consumer preferences—A consumer segmentation approach. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 328–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pérez-Caselles, C.; Brugarolas, M.; Martínez-Carrasco, L. Traditional Varieties for Local Markets: A Sustainable Proposal for Agricultural SMEs. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Posadinu, C.M.; Rodriguez, M.; Madau, F.; Attene, G. The value of agrobiodiversity: An analysis of consumers preference for tomatoes. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2022, 37, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Fourmouzi, V.; Genius, M.; Midmore, P. The Demand for Organic and Conventional Produce in London, UK: A System Approach. J. Agric. Econ. 2012, 63, 677–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zhang, F.; Huang, C.L.; Lin, B.-H.; Epperson, J.E.; Houston, J.E. National Demand for Fresh Organic and Conventional Vegetables: Scanner Data Evidence. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2011, 17, 441–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lopez, E.; Lopez, R.A. Demand for differentiated milk products: Implications for price competition. Agribusiness 2009, 25, 453–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Liu, Q.; Otter, T.; Allenby, G.M. Measurement of own- and cross-price effects. In Handbook of Pricing Research in Marketing; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2009; pp. 61–75. [Google Scholar]
  79. Röös, E.; Tjärnemo, H. Challenges of carbon labelling of food products: A consumer research perspective. Br. Food J. 2011, 113, 982–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Grunert, K.G. Sustainability in the food sector: A consumer behaviour perspective. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2011, 2, 207–218. [Google Scholar]
  81. Wallnoefer, L.M.; Riefler, P.; Meixner, O. What Drives the Choice of Local Seasonal Food? Analysis of the Importance of Different Key Motives. Foods 2021, 10, 2715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Brugarolas, M.; Martinez-Carrasco, L.; Bernabeu, R.; Martinez-Poveda, A. A contingent valuation analysis to determine profitability of establishing local organic wine markets in Spain. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2010, 25, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Dubois, B.; Rovira, A. Comportamiento del Consumidor: Comprendiendo al Consumidor; Prentice-Hall: Madrid, Spain, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  84. Fraj, E.; Martínez, E. Comportamiento del Consumidor Ecológico; ESIC: Madrid, Spain, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  85. De Magistris, T.; Gracia, A. The decision to buy organic food products in Southern Italy. Br. Food J. 2008, 110, 929–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Díaz, M.; Bernabéu, R. Consumer attitudes to organic foods. A Spanish case study. Stud. Appl. Econ. 2012, 30, 755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Lockie, S. Responsibility and agency within alternative food networks: Assembling the “citizen consumer”. Agric. Hum. Values 2009, 26, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Díaz, M.; Prieto, A.; Bernabeú, R. Estructura de preferencias de los consumidores de carne de cordero en Castilla-La Mancha. ITEA 2013, 109, 476–491. [Google Scholar]
  89. Alvensleben, R.V.; Altmann, M. Determinants of The Demand for Organic Food in Germany (F.R.). Acta Hortic. 1987, 203, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Gil, J.; Soler, F.; Díez, I.; Sánchez, M.; Sanjuán, A.; Ben Kaakia, M.; Gracia, A. Potencial de mercado de los productos ecológicos en Aragón; Diputación General de Aragó: Zaragoza, Spain, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  91. Jones, P.; Clarke-Hill, C.; Shears, P.; Hillier, D. Retailing organic foods. Br. Food J. 2001, 103, 358–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Aguirre, M.S.; Aldamiz-Echevarría, C.; Charterina, J.; Vicente, A. El consumidor ecológico. Un modelo de comportamiento a partir de la recopilación y análisis de la evidencia empírica. Distrib. Y Consumo 2003, 67, 41–54. [Google Scholar]
  93. Mann, S. Why organic food in Germany is a merit good. Food Policy 2003, 28, 459–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Saba, A.; Messina, F. Attitudes towards organic foods and risk/benefit perception associated with pesticides. Food Qual. Prefer. 2003, 14, 637–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Rozan, A.; Stenger, A.; Willinger, M. Willingness-to-pay for food safety: An experimental investigation of quality certification on bidding behaviour. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2004, 31, 409–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030; An FAO perspective; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  97. Lockie, S.; Halpin, D. The ‘Conventionalisation’ Thesis Reconsidered: Structural and Ideological Transformation of Australian Organic Agriculture. Sociol. Rural. 2005, 45, 284–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Banterle, A.; Ricci, E.C. Does the Sustainability of Food Products Influence Consumer Choices? The Case of Italy. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2013, 4, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Cavaliere, A.; Ricci, E.C.; Solesin, M.; Banterle, A. Can Health and Environmental Concerns Meet in Food Choices? Sustainability 2014, 6, 9494–9509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Comisión Europea (CE). Reglamento (CE) No 834/2007 del Consejo de 28 de junio de 2007 sobre producción y etiquetado de los productos ecológicos. In Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea de 20 Julio de 2007; Unión Europea: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  101. Esteve, M.; Roca, J. Calidad de vida relacionada con la salud: Un nuevo parámetro a tener en cuenta. Med. Clín. 1997, 108, 458–459. [Google Scholar]
  102. European Comission. Key Policy Objectives of the Future CAP; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  103. Jakubowska, D.; Radzymińska, M. Attitudes and behaviour of Warmia and Mazury residents towards issues related to environmental protection. In Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Morskiej w Gdyni; Gdynia Maritime University: Gdynia, Poland, 2015; Volume 88. [Google Scholar]
  104. Lazzarini, G.A.; Zimmermann, J.; Visschers, V.H.M.; Siegrist, M. Does environmental friendliness equal healthiness? Swiss consumers’ perception of protein products. Appetite 2016, 105, 663–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Lockie, S.; Lyons, K.; Lawrence, G.; Grice, J. Choosing organics: A path analysis of factors underlying the selection of organic food among Australian consumers. Appetite 2004, 43, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Long, M.A.; Murray, D.L. Ethical Consumption, Values Convergence/Divergence and Community Development. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2013, 26, 351–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Mason, P.; Lang, T. Sustainable diets: How ecological nutrition can transform consumption and the food system; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  108. Muñoz-Sánchez, V.M.; Pérez Flores, A.M. Acercamiento a las implicaciones existentes entre alimentación, calidad de vida y hábitos de vida saludables en la actualidad. Rev. De Humanid. 2015, 25, 11–30. [Google Scholar]
  109. Onozaka, Y.; Nurse, G.; Thilmany, D.D. Local food consumers: How motivations and perceptions translate to buying behavior. Choices 2010, 25, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  110. Reisch, L.; Eberle, U.; Lorek, S. Sustainable food consumption: An overview of contemporary issues and policies. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2013, 9, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 03238 g001 550
Figure 1. Relative importance of tomato attributes (%).
Figure 1. Relative importance of tomato attributes (%).
Sustainability 15 03238 g001
Table
Table 1. Hypothetical tomato cards shown to those surveyed.
Table 1. Hypothetical tomato cards shown to those surveyed.
Card NumberPrice (€/kg) aTypeOriginSystem
16RibbedImportedOrganic
26CherryRegionalConventional
34SmoothImportedConventional
44CherryNationalOrganic
54RibbedRegionalOrganic
62CherryImportedOrganic
72SmoothRegionalOrganic
86SmoothNationalOrganic
92RibbedNationalConventional
a At the time of the survey, as the average of retail prices in the distribution sector. Source: Authors’ own preparation.
Table
Table 2. Relative importance (RI) of attributes and utilities of levels of tomato consumers.
Table 2. Relative importance (RI) of attributes and utilities of levels of tomato consumers.
Attributes and LevelsSegment 1
Price
(49.6%) 1		Segment 2
Origin
(25.2%) 1		Segment 3
System
(25.2%) 1
RI (%)UtilitiesRI (%)UtilitiesRI (%)Utilities
Price (€/kg) ***40.6 11.8 18.7
 2 *** 0.636 0.317 0.422
 4 *** 0.032 −0.052 −0.109
 6 *** −0.668 −0.265 −0.303
Type ***25.5 9.6 6.3
 Smooth *** −0.063 0.139 −0.018
 Ribbed *** 0.441 0.168 0.134
 Cherry *** −0.378 −0.307 −0.116
Origin ***18.1 59.3 23.9
 Regional *** 0.140 1.113 0.545
 National *** 0.221 0.696 −0.148
 Imported *** −0.361 −1.809 −0.397
System ***15.8 19.3 51.1
 Organic *** 0.253 0.476 1.004
 Conventional *** −0.253 −0.476 −1.004
Constant 4.803 4.838 5.150
Price slope −0.652 −0.291 −0.367
MWTP 2 (€/kg) *** 0.39 1.64 2.74
1 Size of segment. 2 Marginal Willingness To Pay. *** Indicate significant differences with a maximum error of 1%. Pearson’s R and Kendall’s Tau for significant correlations (p < 0.001) between observed and estimated preferences.
Table
Table 3. Market shares (MS) of tomato from different production systems (organic/ conventional) calculated by the Maximum Utility method a.
Table 3. Market shares (MS) of tomato from different production systems (organic/ conventional) calculated by the Maximum Utility method a.
Landscape/ProductSegment 1
Price
MS (%)		Segment 2
Origin
MS (%)		Segment 3
System
MS (%)
SystemOriginTypePrice
IOrganicRegionalSmooth2.00 €11.925.230.8
ConventionalRegionalSmooth2.00 €4.61.91.9
OrganicRegionalRibbed2.00 €22.423.931.8
ConventionalRegionalRibbed2.00 €7.810.27.3
OrganicNationalSmooth2.00 €18.51512.9
ConventionalNationalSmooth2.00 €94.41.9
OrganicNationalRibbed2.00 €16.910.78.1
ConventionalNationalRibbed2.00 €8.98.75.3
IIOrganicRegionalSmooth4.00 €6.318.228.9
ConventionalRegionalSmooth2.00 €10.393.9
OrganicRegionalRibbed4.00 €15.923.831.6
ConventionalRegionalRibbed2.00 €14.210.17.5
OrganicNationalSmooth4.00 €129.711.8
ConventionalNationalSmooth2.00 €15.59.72.9
OrganicNationalRibbed4.00 €10.88.36.8
ConventionalNationalRibbed2.00 €1511.26.6
a The maximum utility model implies that the consumer chooses the product that gives him the greatest satisfaction. Market share is then obtained as the proportion of times that each product is chosen [53].
Table
Table 4. Consumer attitudes towards the environment.
Table 4. Consumer attitudes towards the environment.
IndicatorsSegment 1
Price
(49.6%) 		Segment 2
Origin
(25.2%) 		Segment 3
System
(25.2%)
AverageSDAverageSDAverageSD
Current civilization is destroying nature ***4.21 a±1.094.29 a±1.074.56 b±0.75
Unless measures are taken, environmental deterioration will become irreversible **4.09 a±1.124.43 b±0.934.48 b±1.00
I think agricultural activity is a major environmental contaminant ***2.92 a±1.243.05 a±1.303.41 b±1.19
Ecology is a way for businesses to make sales3.30±1.283.54±1.093.41±1.16
I help in environmental conservation activities ***2.74 a±1.253.18 b±1.413.27 b±1.15
I am concerned about the effects of human activity on climatic change and act accordingly **3.61 a±1.143.75 a±1.163.99 b±1.12
SD, standard deviation. *** and ** indicate the existence of significant differences for a maximum error level of 1% and 5%, respectively. Different letters in the same row mean significant differences for the segments.
Table
Table 5. Descriptive statistical indicators for consumer lifestyle.
Table 5. Descriptive statistical indicators for consumer lifestyle.
IndicatorsSegment 1
Price
(49.6%) 		Segment 2
Origin
(25.2%) 		Segment 3
System
(25.2%)
AverageSDAverageSDAverageSD
I control salt intake ***3.46 b±1.363.66 a±1.383.91 a±1.25
I eat a vegetarian diet ***1.67 b±1.012.21 a±1.412.09 a±1.40
I exercise regularly3.42±1.303.76±1.233.41±1.22
I try not to eat industrially produced food3.16±1.293.65±1.263.38±1.13
I often eat fruit and vegetables3.97±1.164.30±1.024.14±1.18
I eat red meat in moderation3.52±1.253.71±1.123.64±1.26
I belong to a nature defence association1.70±1.141.90±1.371.94±1.30
I try to eat food without artificial additives2.99±1.223.46±1.283.19±1.42
I voluntarily get periodic health check-ups ***3.05 b±1.403.61 a±1.273.51 a±1.31
I try to reduce stress3.34±1.343.52±1.243.35±1.24
I contribute to non-profit organizations **2.46 b±1.543.29 a±1.622.76 b±1.59
I try to lead a methodical, orderly life3.66±1.123.80±1.153.60±1.13
I try to balance work and private time3.80±1.143.84±1.163.67±1.17
I read product labels ***3.54 b±1.344.08 a±1.133.90 a±1.13
I prefer to use recycled products **3.55 b±1.213.53 b±1.303.86 a±1.08
I separate rubbish selective containers (organic, non-organic, batteries)4.11±1.264.24±1.334.06±1.36
SD, standard deviation. *** and ** indicate the existence of significant differences for a maximum error level of 1% and 5%, respectively. Different letters in the same row mean significant differences for the segments.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bernabéu, R.; Brugarolas, M.; Martínez-Carrasco, L.; Nieto-Villegas, R.; Rabadán, A. The Price of Organic Foods as a Limiting Factor of the European Green Deal: The Case of Tomatoes in Spain. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3238. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043238

AMA Style

Bernabéu R, Brugarolas M, Martínez-Carrasco L, Nieto-Villegas R, Rabadán A. The Price of Organic Foods as a Limiting Factor of the European Green Deal: The Case of Tomatoes in Spain. Sustainability. 2023; 15(4):3238. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043238

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bernabéu, Rodolfo, Margarita Brugarolas, Laura Martínez-Carrasco, Roberto Nieto-Villegas, and Adrián Rabadán. 2023. "The Price of Organic Foods as a Limiting Factor of the European Green Deal: The Case of Tomatoes in Spain" Sustainability 15, no. 4: 3238. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043238

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop