Are Local Dairy Products Better? Using Principal Component Analysis to Investigate Consumers’ Perception towards Quality, Sustainability, and Market Availability
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Collection
2.2. Data Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Consumers’ Profile
3.2. Purchasing and Consumption Habits of Dairy Products
3.3. Dairy Products Consumption Patterns Based on Quality, Sustainability, and Availability Perception of Individuals
3.4. Effect of Socio-Demographic Variables on Local Dairy Products Sustainability and Quality Perception
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hendrickson, M.K.; Heffernan, W.D. Opening Spaces through Relocalization: Locating Potential Resistance in the Weaknesses of the Global Food System. Sociol. Rural. 2002, 42, 347–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Hara, S.U.; Stagl, S. Global Food Markets and Their Local Alternatives: A Socio-Ecological Economic Perspective. Popul. Environ. 2001, 22, 533–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearson, D.; Henryks, J.; Trott, A.; Jones, P.; Parker, G.; Dumaresq, D.; Dyball, R. Local Food: Understanding Consumer Motivations in Innovative Retail Formats. Br. Food J. 2011, 113, 886–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nemes, G.; Chiffoleau, Y.; Zollet, S.; Collison, M.; Benedek, Z.; Colantuono, F.; Dulsrud, A.; Fiore, M.; Holtkamp, C.; Kim, T.-Y. The Impact of COVID-19 on Alternative and Local Food Systems and the Potential for the Sustainability Transition: Insights from 13 Countries. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 591–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben Hassen, T.; El Bilali, H.; Allahyari, M.S.; Karabašević, D.; Radosavac, A.; Berjan, S.; Vaško, Ž.; Radanov, P.; Obhođaš, I. Food Behavior Changes during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Statistical Analysis of Consumer Survey Data from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feldmann, C.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ Perceptions and Preferences for Local Food: A Review. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 40, 152–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coelho, F.C.; Coelho, E.M.; Egerer, M. Local Food: Benefits and Failings Due to Modern Agriculture. Sci. Agric. 2018, 75, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Granvik, M.; Joosse, S.; Hunt, A.; Hallberg, I. Confusion and Misunderstanding—Interpretations and Definitions of Local Food. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Costanigro, M.; Kroll, S.; Thilmany, D.; Bunning, M. Is It Love for Local/Organic or Hate for Conventional? Asymmetric Effects of Information and Taste on Label Preferences in an Experimental Auction. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 31, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-Ferrín, P.; Calvo-Turrientes, A.; Bande, B.; Artaraz-Miñón, M.; Galán-Ladero, M.M. The Valuation and Purchase of Food Products That Combine Local, Regional and Traditional Features: The Influence of Consumer Ethnocentrism. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 64, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirog, R.S. Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II: Consumer Perceptions of Local Foods. Leopold Cent. Sustain. Agric. 2004, 140, 8–97. [Google Scholar]
- Gracia, A.; De Magistris, T.; Nayga, R.M., Jr. Importance of Social Influence in Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Local Food: Are There Gender Differences? Agribusiness 2012, 28, 361–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brečić, R.; Sinčić Ćorić, D.; Lučić, A.; Gorton, M.; Filipović, J. Local Food Sales and Point of Sale Priming: Evidence from a Supermarket Field Experiment. Eur. J. Mark. 2021, 55, 41–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinho, V.J.P.D. Food Marketing as a Special Ingredient in Consumer Choices: The Main Insights from Existing Literature. Foods 2020, 9, 1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berg, N.; Preston, K.L. Willingness to Pay for Local Food?: Consumer Preferences and Shopping Behavior at Otago Farmers Market. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 103, 343–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, A.; Gardent, C.; Braud, C.; Bordes, A. Using Local Knowledge Graph Construction to Scale Seq2seq Models to Multi-Document Inputs. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1910.08435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Soroka, A.; Wojciechowska-Solis, J. Consumer Awareness of the Regional Food Market: The Case of Eastern European Border Regions. Foods 2019, 8, 467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Szegedyné Fricz, Á.; Ittzés, A.; Ózsvári, L.; Szakos, D.; Kasza, G. Consumer Perception of Local Food Products in Hungary. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 2965–2979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vapa-Tankosić, J.; Ignjatijević, S.; Kiurski, J.; Milenković, J.; Milojević, I. Analysis of Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic and Local Honey in Serbia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cappelli, L.; D’Ascenzo, F.; Ruggieri, R.; Gorelova, I. Is Buying Local Food a Sustainable Practice? A Scoping Review of Consumers’ Preference for Local Food. Sustainability 2022, 14, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pampalon, R.; Hamel, D.; De Koninck, M.; Disant, M.-J. Perception of Place and Health: Differences between Neighbourhoods in the Québec City Region. Soc. Sci. Med. 2007, 65, 95–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Penney, U.; Prior, C. Exploring the Urban Consumer’s Perception of Local Food. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2014, 42, 580–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annunziata, A.; Mariani, A. Consumer Perception of Sustainability Attributes in Organic and Local Food. Recent Pat. Food Nutr. Agric. 2018, 9, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bernués, A.; Ripoll, G.; Panea, B. Consumer Segmentation Based on Convenience Orientation and Attitudes towards Quality Attributes of Lamb Meat. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 26, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paloviita, A. Consumers’ Sustainability Perceptions of the Supply Chain of Locally Produced Food. Sustainability 2010, 2, 1492–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Polenzani, B.; Riganelli, C.; Marchini, A. Sustainability Perception of Local Extra Virgin Olive Oil and Consumers’ Attitude: A New Italian Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schäufele, I.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ Perceptions, Preferences and Willingness-to-Pay for Wine with Sustainability Characteristics: A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 379–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanc, S.; Massaglia, S.; Borra, D.; Mosso, A.; Merlino, V.M. Animal Welfare and Gender: A Nexus in Awareness and Preference When Choosing Fresh Beef Meat? Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 19, 410–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cristovam, E.; Russell, C.; Paterson, A.; Reid, E. Gender Preference in Hedonic Ratings for Espresso and Espresso-Milk Coffees. Food Qual. Prefer. 2000, 11, 437–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCluskey, J.J.; Durham, C.A.; Horn, B.P. Consumer Preferences for Socially Responsible Production Attributes Across Food Products. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2009, 38, 345–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohd Suki, N. Young Consumer Ecological Behaviour: The Effects of Environmental Knowledge, Healthy Food, and Healthy Way of Life with the Moderation of Gender and Age. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2013, 24, 726–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreira, M.J.; García-Díez, J.; de Almeida, J.; Saraiva, C. Evaluation of Food Labelling Usefulness for Consumers. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2019, 43, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tonkin, E.; Webb, T.; Coveney, J.; Meyer, S.B.; Wilson, A.M. Consumer Trust in the Australian Food System–the Everyday Erosive Impact of Food Labelling. Appetite 2016, 103, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Abrams, K.M.; Soukup, C. Matching Local Food Messages to Consumer Motivators: An Experiment Comparing the Effects of Differently Framed Messages. J. Appl. Commun. 2017, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Commission. European Innovation Scoreboard 2021; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Mora, M.; de Matos, A.D.; Vázquez-Araújo, L.; Puente, V.; Hernando, J.; Chaya, C. Exploring young consumers’ attitudes and emotions to sensory and physicochemical properties of different red wines. Food Res. Int. 2021, 143, 110303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harpe, S.E. How to Analyze Likert and Other Rating Scale Data. Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn. 2015, 7, 836–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Graaf, S.; Van Loo, E.J.; Bijttebier, J.; Vanhonacker, F.; Lauwers, L.; Tuyttens, F.A.; Verbeke, W. Determinants of Consumer Intention to Purchase Animal-Friendly Milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 8304–8313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, C.; Bai, J.; Lohmar, B.T.; Huang, J. How Do Consumers Determine the Safety of Milk in Beijing, China? China Econ. Rev. 2010, 21, S45–S54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haas, R.; Canavari, M.; Imami, D.; Gjonbalaj, M.; Gjokaj, E.; Zvyagintsev, D. Attitudes and Preferences of Kosovar Consumer Segments Toward Quality Attributes of Milk and Dairy Products. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2016, 28, 407–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalač, P. The Effects of Silage Feeding on Some Sensory and Health Attributes of Cow’s Milk: A Review. Food Chem. 2011, 125, 307–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tempesta, T.; Vecchiato, D. An Analysis of the Territorial Factors Affecting Milk Purchase in Italy. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 27, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, S.; Lv, S.; Chen, Y.; Wu, L.; Chen, M.; Yan, J. Consumer Preference for Infant Milk-Based Formula with Select Food Safety Information Attributes: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in China. Can. J. Agric. Econ./Rev. Can. D’agroeconomie 2018, 66, 557–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merlino, V.M.; Brun, F.; Versino, A.; Blanc, S. Milk Packaging Innovation: Consumer Perception and Willingness to Pay. AIMS Agric. Food 2020, 5, 307–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massaglia, S.; Borra, D.; Peano, C.; Sottile, F.; Merlino, V.M. Consumer Preference Heterogeneity Evaluation in Fruit and Vegetable Purchasing Decisions Using the Best–Worst Approach. Foods 2019, 8, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Merlino, V.M.; Borra, D.; Lazzarino, L.L.; Blanc, S. Does the Organic Certification Influence the Purchasing Decisions of Milk Consumers? Qual.-Access Success 2019, 20, 382–387. [Google Scholar]
- Palmieri, N.; Pesce, A.; Verrascina, M.; Perito, M.A. Market Opportunities for Hay Milk: Factors Influencing Perceptions among Italian Consumers. Animals 2021, 11, 431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovarelli, D.; Bava, L.; Zucali, M.; D’Imporzano, G.; Adani, F.; Tamburini, A.; Sandrucci, A. Improvements to Dairy Farms for Environmental Sustainability in Grana Padano and Parmigiano Reggiano Production Systems. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 18, 1035–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Verduna, T.; Blanc, S.; Merlino, V.M.; Cornale, P.; Battaglini, L.M. Sustainability of Four Dairy Farming Scenarios in an Alpine Environment: The Case Study of Toma Di Lanzo Cheese. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 569167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tirado, A.A.; Morales, M.R.; Lobato-Calleros, O. Additional Indicators to Promote Social Sustainability within Government Programs: Equity and Efficiency. Sustainability 2015, 7, 9251–9267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Akkerman, R.; Farahani, P.; Grunow, M. Quality, Safety and Sustainability in Food Distribution: A Review of Quantitative Operations Management Approaches and Challenges. OR Spectr. 2010, 32, 863–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, M.; Toppinen, A. Effects of Perceived Product Quality and Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS) on Consumer Price Preferences for Children’s Furniture in China. J. For. Econ. 2016, 22, 52–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broom, D.M. Animal Welfare: An Aspect of Care, Sustainability, and Food Quality Required by the Public. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2010, 37, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tucker, C.B.; Mench, J.A.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Kebreab, E. Animal Welfare: An Integral Component of Sustainability. In Sustainable Animal Agriculture; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2013; pp. 42–52. [Google Scholar]
- Arsil, P.; Brindal, M.; Sularso, K.E.; Mulyani, A. Determinants of Consumers’ Preferences for Local Food: A Comparison Study from Urban and Rural Areas in Indonesia. J. Bus. Retail. Manag. Res. 2018, 13, 184–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zepeda, L.; Li, J. Who Buys Local Food? J. Food Distrib. Res. 2006, 37, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chapman, K.W.; Lawless, H.T.; Boor, K.J. Quantitative Descriptive Analysis and Principal Component Analysis for Sensory Characterization of Ultrapasteurized Milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2001, 84, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asioli, D.; Næs, T.; Granli, B.S.; Almli, V.L. Consumer Preferences for Iced Coffee Determined by Conjoint Analysis: An Exploratory Study with Norwegian Consumers. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 49, 1565–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Denver, S.; Jensen, J.D. Consumer Preferences for Organically and Locally Produced Apples. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 31, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muziri, T.; Chaibva, P.; Chofamba, A.; Madanzi, T.; Mangeru, P.; Mudada, N.; Manhokwe, S.; Mugari, A.; Matsvange, D.; Murewi, C.T.F.; et al. Using Principal Component Analysis to Explore Consumers’ Perception toward Quinoa Health and Nutritional Claims in Gweru, Zimbabwe. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 9, 1025–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Vita, G.; Blanc, S.; Brun, F.; Bracco, S.; D’Amico, M. Quality Attributes and Harmful Components of Cured Meats: Exploring the Attitudes of Italian Consumers towards Healthier Cooked Ham. Meat Sci. 2019, 155, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pourová, M.; Stehlik, V. Czech Consumers Evaluation of Choosen Meat Products. Agric. Econ. 2012, 48, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Delmond, A.R.; McCluskey, J.J.; Yormirzoev, M.; Rogova, M.A. Russian Consumer Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Food. Food Policy 2018, 78, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weng, L.-J.; Cheng, C.-P. Parallel Analysis with Unidimensional Binary Data. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2005, 65, 697–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herath, H.M.T.; Udugama, J.M.; Jayasinghe-Mudalige, U.K. Women Consumer Preferences for Socially Responsible Food Production Attributes: Evidence from Urban Supermarket Setting in the Anuradhapura District. J. Agric. Sci. 2013, 8, 57–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nobi, A.; Alam, S.; Lee, J.W. Dynamic of Consumer Groups and Response of Commodity Markets by Principal Component Analysis. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2017, 482, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vlontzos, G.; Kyrgiakos, L.; Duquenne, M.N. What Are the Main Drivers of Young Consumers Purchasing Traditional Food Products? European Field Research. Foods 2018, 7, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaiser, H.F.; Rice, J. Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1974, 34, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verbeke, W.A.; Viaene, J. Ethical Challenges for Livestock Production: Meeting Consumer Concerns about Meat Safety and Animalwelfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2000, 12, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Vita, G.; Blanc, S.; Mancuso, T.; Massaglia, S.; La Via, G.; D’Amico, M. Harmful Compounds and Willingness to Buy for Reduced-Additives Salami. An Outlook on Italian Consumers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- ISTAT. Il Censimento Permanente della Popolazione in Puglia. 2020. Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/files//2022/03/Censimento-della-popolazione-in-Puglia_focus.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2022).
- Merlino, V.M.; Borra, D.; Girgenti, V.; Dal Vecchio, A.; Massaglia, S. Beef Meat Preferences of Consumers from Northwest Italy: Analysis of Choice Attributes. Meat Sci. 2018, 143, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, W.; Batte, M.T.; Woods, T.; Ernst, S. Consumer Preferences for Local Production and Other Value-Added Label Claims for a Processed Food Product. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2012, 39, 489–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pícha, K.; Navrátil, J.; Švec, R. Preference to Local Food vs. Preference to “National” and Regional Food. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2018, 24, 125–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Januszewska, R.; Mettepenningen, E.; Majchrzak, D.; Williams, H.G.; Mazur, J.; Reichl, P.; Regourd, A.; Jukna, V.; Tagarino, D.; Konopacka, D.; et al. Regional Embeddedness Segments Across Fifteen Countries. J. Culin. Sci. Technol. 2013, 11, 322–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mettepenningen, E.; Mazodier, M.; Vandermeulen, V.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. Regional Identity as a Trigger for Agricultural Regional Development. In Proceedings of the 2010 118th uropean Association of Agricultural Economists Seminar, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 25–27 August 2010; pp. 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zepeda, L.; Deal, D. Organic and Local Food Consumer Behaviour: Alphabet Theory. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2009, 33, 697–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuan, Y.-F.T. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira, J.; Roca, Z.; Leitão, N. Territorial Identity and Development: From Topophilia to Terraphilia. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 801–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISMEA. Settore Lattiero Caseario, Scheda di Settore; ISMEA: Roma, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- ISMEA. I Consumi Delle Famiglie Italiane; ISMEA: Roma, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Adamski, T.; Gorlach, K. One Tradition, Many Recipes: Social Networks and Local Food Production—The Oscypek Cheese Case. In Naming Food After Places; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 173–195. [Google Scholar]
- Berti, G.; Mulligan, C. Competitiveness of Small Farms and Innovative Food Supply Chains: The Role of Food Hubs in Creating Sustainable Regional and Local Food Systems. Sustainability 2016, 8, 616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brown, C.; Miller, S. The Impacts of Local Markets: A Review of Research on Farmers Markets and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 90, 1296–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunori, G. Local Food and Alternative Food Networks: A Communication Perspective. Anthropol. Food 2007, 2, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chintagunta, P.K.; Bonfrer, A.; Song, I. Investigating the Effects of Store-Brand Introduction on Retailer Demand and Pricing Behavior. Manag. Sci. 2002, 48, 1242–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Deming, S.N.; Michotte, Y.; Massart, D.L.; Kaufman, L.; Vandeginste, B.G.M. Chemometrics: A Textbook; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1988; ISBN 978-0-08-086829-5. [Google Scholar]
- Andreyeva, T.; Long, M.W.; Brownell, K.D. The Impact of Food Prices on Consumption: A Systematic Review of Research on the Price Elasticity of Demand for Food. Am. J. Public Health 2010, 100, 216–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bimbo, F.; Bonanno, A.; Liu, X.; Viscecchia, R. Hedonic Analysis of the Price of UHT-Treated Milk in Italy. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 1095–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paananen, J.; Forsman, S. Lähiruoka Elintarvikealan Maaseutuyritysten Ja Suurkeitti Öiden Kokemana; MTT Talous-Tutkimus (MTTL) Tutkimuksia 252; Tiivistelmä: Helsinki, Finland, 2001; 94p. [Google Scholar]
- Zepeda, L.; Leviten-Reid, C. Consumers’ Views on Local Food. J. Food Distrib. Res. 2004, 35, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Grunert, K.G.; Sonntag, W.I.; Glanz-Chanos, V.; Forum, S. Consumer Interest in Environmental Impact, Safety, Health and Animal Welfare Aspects of Modern Pig Production: Results of a Cross-National Choice Experiment. Meat Sci. 2018, 137, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grunert, K.G.; Bech-Larsen, T.; Bredahl, L. Three Issues in Consumer Quality Perception and Acceptance of Dairy Products. Int. Dairy J. 2000, 10, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morales, L.E.; Griffith, G.; Fleming, E.; Mounter, S.; Wright, V.; Umberger, W. Preferences for Certified Beef with Animal Welfare and Other Credence Attributes in Australia. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borra, D.; Tarantola, M. Il Consumatore Europeo e Il Benessere Animale. Indagine di Slow Food Sui Consumi e le Abitudini di Acquisto Della Carne in Funzione Della Percezione Dell’animal Welfare; Franco Angeli Ed.: Milan, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Zuliani, A.; Esbjerg, L.; Grunert, K.G.; Bovolenta, S. Animal Welfare and Mountain Products from Traditional Dairy Farms: How Do Consumers Perceive Complexity? Animals 2018, 8, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bosworth, R.C.; Bailey, D.; Curtis, K.R. Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local Designations: Brand Effects and Heterogeneity at the Retail Level. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2015, 21, 274–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, K.-N. Health and Nutrition Messages in the Baby Food Advertisements of Women’s Magazines. J. Community Nutr. 2003, 5, 178–185. [Google Scholar]
- Crutzen, P.J. The “Anthropocene”. In Proceedings of the Journal de Physique IV (Proceedings); EDP Sciences: Ulis, France, 2002; Volume 12, pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Massaglia, S.; Merlino, V.; Borra, D. Marketing Strategies for Animal Welfare Meat Identification: Comparison of Preferences between Millennial and Conventional Consumers. Calit.-Acces Succes 2018, 19, 305–311. [Google Scholar]
- Merlino, V.M.; Borra, D.; Verduna, T.; Massaglia, S. Household Behavior with Respect to Meat Consumption: Differences between Households with and without Children. Vet. Sci. 2017, 4, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Casini, L.; Contini, C.; Marone, E.; Romano, C. Food Habits. Changes among Young Italians in the Last 10 Years. Appetite 2013, 68, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liem, D.G.; Turchini, G.M.; Wanich, U.; Keast, R. Sustainability Descriptive Labels on Farmed Salmon: Do Young Educated Consumers like It More? Sustainability 2018, 10, 2397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Coderoni, S.; Perito, M.A. Approaches for Reducing Wastes in the Agricultural Sector. An Analysis of Millennials’ Willingness to Buy Food with Upcycled Ingredients. Waste Manag. 2021, 126, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- OzgEn, E.E.O. Association between Nutrition Label Reading Status and the Healthy Diet Indicator-2015. J. Food Nutr. Res. 2021, 60, 263–270. [Google Scholar]
- Vecchio, R. Local Food at Italian Farmers’ Markets: Three Case Studies. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 2010, 17, 122–139. [Google Scholar]
- Vroegindewey, R.; Richardson, R.B.; Ortega, D.L.; Theriault, V. Consumer and retailer preferences for local ingredients in processed foods: Evidence from a stacked choice experiment in an African urban dairy market. Food Policy 2021, 103, 102106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badenhop, A.; Frasquet, M. Online Grocery Shopping at Multichannel Supermarkets: The Impact of Retailer Brand Equity. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2021, 27, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISMEA. Consumi Alimentari I Consumi Domestici Delle Famiglie Italiane; ISMEA: Roma, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, S.; Dhir, A.; Talwar, S.; Chakraborty, D.; Kaur, P. What Drives Brand Love for Natural Products? The Moderating Role of Household Size. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 58, 102329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annunziata, A.; Mariani, A.; Vecchio, R. Effectiveness of Sustainability Labels in Guiding Food Choices: Analysis of Visibility and Understanding among Young Adults. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 17, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Description | Frequency | Share of Sample (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Female | 299 | 56 |
Male | 239 | 44 | |
Age (years) | 18–25 | 68 | 12 |
26–35 | 146 | 27 | |
36–45 | 99 | 18 | |
46–55 | 136 | 25 | |
56–65 | 73 | 13 | |
>65 | 24 | 4 | |
Education | Lower secondary school | 14 | 3 |
Upper secondary school | 172 | 32 | |
Degree or higher | 354 | 66 | |
Household financial situation | Very satisfactory | 25 | 5 |
Satisfactory | 316 | 59 | |
Sufficient to make ends meet | 175 | 32 | |
Difficult | 18 | 3 | |
Very difficult | 6 | 1 | |
Residence | Town with more than 500,000 inhabitants | 34 | 6 |
Cities with 250–500,000 inhabitants | 87 | 16 | |
Cities with 100–250,000 inhabitants | 47 | 9 | |
Towns with 50–100,000 inhabitants | 109 | 20 | |
Towns with 50,000 inhabitants | 71 | 13 | |
Country-rural location | 194 | 36 |
Variables | Principal Components | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
PC1 (Responsive to Quality Attributes) | PC2 (Local Is Better) | PC3 (Local Is Sustainable) | PC4 (Availability Request) | |
Preferences Questions (Degree of Preferences for Quality Attributes of Dairy Products) | ||||
Certified geographical indication | 0.840 | |||
Sustainability certification | 0.815 | |||
Product linked to the tradition of the territory | 0.789 | 0.324 | ||
Organic certification | 0.779 | |||
Type of production system | 0.735 | |||
Local origin | 0.735 | 0.398 | ||
Type of milk used in the production system | 0.730 | 0.363 | ||
Brand knowledge | 0.720 | |||
Fat content | 0.684 | |||
Quality and safety of the production | 0.376 | 0.801 | ||
Taste | 0.776 | |||
Country of origin | 0.494 | 0.631 | ||
Price | 0.352 | |||
Aspect/packaging | 0.372 | |||
Sustainability Perception Questions | ||||
Local dairy products are more sustainable for the environment | 0.767 | |||
Local dairy products are more sustainable for the society | 0.722 | |||
Local dairy products are better in quality, safer, and healthier | 0.325 | 0.666 | ||
Local dairy products derive from the production system with higher animal welfare standards | 0.612 | |||
Local Products Availability | ||||
If local products were promoted more widely on the market, would you buy them more often? | 0.832 | |||
If local products were more available on the market, would you buy them more often? | 0.816 | |||
Are local dairy products easily available on the market? | −0.484 |
Principal Component | n | Mean | SD | Mean Rank | Mann–Whitney U | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Man | Woman | ||||||
PC1-Responsive to quality attributes | 543 | 0.001 | 0.999 | 261.15 | 276.22 | 33,757.000 | 0.264 |
PC2-Local is better | 543 | −0.001 | 0.999 | 259.61 | 277.47 | 33,386.000 | 0.000 |
PC3-Local is sustainable | 543 | −0.004 | 1.003 | 270.55 | 268.65 | 35,507.000 | 0.888 |
PC4-Availability request | 543 | −0.003 | 1.002 | 269.72 | 269.32 | 35,707.000 | 0.976 |
Principal Component | Age Range * | n | Mean Rank | Kruskal–Wallis H | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PC1-Responsive to quality attributes | 18–25 a | 68 | 216.11 | 20.346 | 0.000 |
26–35 a,b | 146 | 254.96 | |||
36–45 b | 99 | 268.96 | |||
46–55 c | 133 | 311.65 | |||
56–65 b,c | 73 | 293.41 | |||
>65 a,b,c | 24 | 261.73 | |||
Total | 543 | ||||
PC2-Local is better | 18–25 a | 68 | 329.14 | 34.411 | 0.006 |
26–35 a | 146 | 297.90 | |||
36–45 a | 99 | 293.27 | |||
46–55 b | 133 | 236.03 | |||
56–65 b | 73 | 234.05 | |||
>65 b | 24 | 179.56 | |||
Total | 543 | ||||
PC3-Local is sustainable | 18–25 a | 68 | 233.98 | 14.318 | 0.003 |
26–35 a,b | 146 | 247.12 | |||
36–45 c | 99 | 290.54 | |||
46–55 b,c | 133 | 282.76 | |||
56–65 c | 73 | 311.55 | |||
>65 a,c | 24 | 274.69 | |||
Total | 543 | ||||
PC4-Availability request | 18–25 a | 68 | 326.40 | 16.663 | 0.007 |
26–35 b | 146 | 280.72 | |||
36–45 a,b | 99 | 279.06 | |||
46–55 b,c | 133 | 258.21 | |||
56–65 c | 73 | 225.14 | |||
>65 a,b,c | 24 | 254.60 | |||
Total | 543 |
Principal Component | Place of Residence * | n | Mean Rank | Kruskal–Wallis H | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PC1-Responsive to quality attributes | Rural location | 194 | 289.13 | 6.305 | 0.278 |
Towns with 50,000 inhabitants | 70 | 255.80 | |||
Towns with 50–100,000 inhabitants | 109 | 271.70 | |||
Cities with 100–250,000 inhabitants | 45 | 267.93 | |||
Cities with 250–500,000 inhabitants | 87 | 249.37 | |||
Towns with more than 500,000 inhabitants | 34 | 240.16 | |||
Total | 539 | ||||
PC2-Local is better | Country-rural location | 194 | 267.51 | 3.354 | 0.646 |
Towns with 50,000 inhabitants | 70 | 263.14 | |||
Towns with 50–100,000 inhabitants | 109 | 267.36 | |||
Cities with 100–250,000 inhabitants | 45 | 288.67 | |||
Cities with 250–500,000 inhabitants | 87 | 287.21 | |||
Towns with more than 500,000 inhabitants | 34 | 238.07 | |||
Total | 539 | ||||
PC3-Local is sustainable | Country-rural location | 194 | 279.96 | 3.505 | 0.623 |
Towns with 50,000 inhabitants | 70 | 264.24 | |||
Towns with 50–100,000 inhabitants | 109 | 252.31 | |||
Cities with 100–250,000 inhabitants | 45 | 265.22 | |||
Cities with 250–500,000 inhabitants | 87 | 284.09 | |||
Towns with more than 500,000 inhabitants | 34 | 251.99 | |||
Total | 539 | ||||
PC4-Availability request | Country-rural location a | 194 | 270.55 | 7.368 | 0.035 |
Towns with 50,000 inhabitants a | 70 | 273.31 | |||
Towns with 50–100,000 inhabitants a | 109 | 264.88 | |||
Cities with 100–250,000 inhabitants a | 45 | 266.13 | |||
Cities with 250–500,000 inhabitants a | 87 | 249.61 | |||
Towns with more than 500,000 inhabitants b | 34 | 333.75 | |||
Total | 539 |
Principal Component | Educational Level * | n | Mean Rank | Kruskal–Wallis H | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PC1-Responsive to quality attributes | Lower secondary school | 14 | 320.43 | 1.585 | 0.453 |
Upper secondary school | 171 | 266.87 | |||
Degree or higher | 352 | 267.99 | |||
Total | 537 | ||||
PC2-Local is better | Lower secondary school a | 14 | 198.00 | 13.536 | 0.001 |
Upper secondary school a | 171 | 239.32 | |||
Degree or higher b | 352 | 286.24 | |||
Total | 537 | ||||
PC3-Local is sustainable | Lower secondary school | 14 | 278.4 | 0.11 | 0.946 |
Upper secondary school | 171 | 271.1 | |||
Degree or higher | 352 | 267.6 | |||
Total | 537 | ||||
PC4-Availability request | Lower secondary school | 14 | 210.79 | 2.861 | 0.239 |
Upper secondary school | 171 | 279.46 | |||
Degree or higher | 352 | 266.23 | |||
Total | 537 |
Principal Components Household Financial Situation | n | Mean Rank | Kruskal–Wallis H | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PC1- Responsive to quality attributes | Very difficult | 6 | 236.33 | 5.256 | 0.262 |
Difficult | 18 | 342.53 | |||
Sufficient to make ends meet | 174 | 270.12 | |||
Satisfactory | 314 | 263.07 | |||
Very satisfactory | 25 | 290.52 | |||
Total | 537 | ||||
PC2- Local is better | Very difficult | 6 | 237.67 | 4.150 | 0.386 |
Difficult | 18 | 223.53 | |||
Sufficient to make ends meet | 174 | 279.31 | |||
Satisfactory | 314 | 269.60 | |||
Very satisfactory | 25 | 229.92 | |||
Total | 537 | ||||
PC3- Local is sustainable | Very difficult | 6 | 212 | 4.195 | 0.380 |
Difficult | 18 | 311 | |||
Sufficient to make ends meet | 174 | 255 | |||
Satisfactory | 314 | 275 | |||
Very satisfactory | 25 | 277 | |||
Total | 537 | ||||
PC4- Availability request | Very difficult | 6 | 143.00 | 5.951 | 0.203 |
Difficult | 18 | 245.14 | |||
Sufficient to make ends meet | 174 | 268.31 | |||
Satisfactory | 314 | 270.08 | |||
Very satisfactory | 25 | 307.64 | |||
Total | 537 |
Principal Component | Family Size | n | Mean Rank | Kruskal–Wallis H | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PC1-Responsive to quality attributes | 1 component | 51 | 254.45 | 5.232 | 0.207 |
2 components | 97 | 262.99 | |||
3 components | 107 | 277.87 | |||
4 components | 222 | 280.26 | |||
5 or more components | 60 | 233.62 | |||
Total | 537 | ||||
PC2-Local is better | 1 component | 51 | 247.69 | 5.515 | 0.210 |
2 components | 97 | 281.06 | |||
3 components | 107 | 278.76 | |||
4 components | 222 | 256.20 | |||
5 or more components | 60 | 241.57 | |||
Total | 537 | ||||
PC3-Local is sustainable | 1 component | 51 | 244.9 | 4.637 | 0.346 |
2 components | 97 | 278.5 | |||
3 components | 107 | 276.8 | |||
4 components | 222 | 275.1 | |||
5 or more components | 60 | 237.8 | |||
Total | 537 | ||||
PC4-Availability request | 1 component | 51 | 278.78 | 2.352 | 0.671 |
2 components | 97 | 266.81 | |||
3 components | 107 | 256.19 | |||
4 components | 222 | 267.52 | |||
5 or more components | 60 | 292.53 | |||
Total | 537 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Merlino, V.M.; Renna, M.; Nery, J.; Muresu, A.; Ricci, A.; Maggiolino, A.; Celano, G.; De Ruggieri, B.; Tarantola, M. Are Local Dairy Products Better? Using Principal Component Analysis to Investigate Consumers’ Perception towards Quality, Sustainability, and Market Availability. Animals 2022, 12, 1421. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12111421
Merlino VM, Renna M, Nery J, Muresu A, Ricci A, Maggiolino A, Celano G, De Ruggieri B, Tarantola M. Are Local Dairy Products Better? Using Principal Component Analysis to Investigate Consumers’ Perception towards Quality, Sustainability, and Market Availability. Animals. 2022; 12(11):1421. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12111421
Chicago/Turabian StyleMerlino, Valentina Maria, Manuela Renna, Joana Nery, Arianna Muresu, Alessandro Ricci, Aristide Maggiolino, Giuseppe Celano, Barbara De Ruggieri, and Martina Tarantola. 2022. "Are Local Dairy Products Better? Using Principal Component Analysis to Investigate Consumers’ Perception towards Quality, Sustainability, and Market Availability" Animals 12, no. 11: 1421. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12111421
APA StyleMerlino, V. M., Renna, M., Nery, J., Muresu, A., Ricci, A., Maggiolino, A., Celano, G., De Ruggieri, B., & Tarantola, M. (2022). Are Local Dairy Products Better? Using Principal Component Analysis to Investigate Consumers’ Perception towards Quality, Sustainability, and Market Availability. Animals, 12(11), 1421. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12111421