Consumers’ Attitude towards Sustainable Food Consumption during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Romania
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Perception of Sustainable Behavior
2.2. Factors Affecting Consumers’ Sustainable Behavior
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Questionnaire Design
3.2. Sample Size
3.3. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Perceptions on Sustainable Food Behavior
4.2. Consumers’ Segmentation Based on Sustainable Food Behavior
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Limitations of the Study
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Phipps, M.; Ozanne, L.K.; Luchs, M.; Subrahmanyan, S.; Kapitan, S.; Catlin, J.R.; Gau, R.; Naylor, R.W.; Rose, R.L.; Simpson, B.; et al. Understanding the inherent complexity of sustainable consumption: A social cognitive framework. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 66, 1227–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.; Li, L.; Zhang, J. Understanding Consumers’ Sustainable Consumption Intention at China’s Double-11 Online Shopping Festival: An Extended Theory of Planned Behavior Model. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schrader, U.; Thøgersen, J. Putting Sustainable Consumption into Practice. J. Consum. Policy 2011, 34, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Testa, F.; Pretner, G.; Iovino, R.; Bianchi, G.; Tessitore, S.; Iraldo, F. Drivers to green consumption: A systematic review. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 23, 4826–4880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Qu, Y.; Lei, Z.; Jia, H. Understanding the Evolution of Sustainable Consumption Research. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 25, 414–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, T. Sustainable consumption. In Handbook of Sustainable Development, 2nd ed.; Atkinson, G., Dietz, S., Neumayer, E., Agarwala, M., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham, UK, 2014; pp. 279–290. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, Y.-N.; Thyroff, A.; Rapert, M.I.; Park, S.-Y.; Lee, H.J. To be or not to be green: Exploring individualism and collectivism as antecedents of environmental behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 66, 1052–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IISD Earth Negotiations Bulettin. Available online: https://enb.iisd.org/topics/sustainable-consumption-production (accessed on 18 August 2021).
- Roman, T.; Bostan, I.; Manolică, A.; Mitrica, I. Profile of Green Consumers in Romania in Light of Sustainability Challenges and Opportunities. Sustainability 2015, 7, 6394–6411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kadic-Maglajlic, S.; Arslanagic-Kalajdzic, M.; Micevski, M.; Dlacic, J.; Zabkar, V. Being engaged is a good thing: Understanding sustainable consumption behavior among young adults. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 104, 644–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epstein, M.J.; Buhovac, A. Making Sustainability Work, 2nd ed.; Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Quoquab, F.; Mohammad, J.; Sukari, N.N. A multiple-item scale for measuring “sustainable consumption behaviour” construct: Development and psychometric evaluation. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2019, 31, 791–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanner, C.; Kast, S.W. Promoting sustainable consumption: Determinants of green purchases by Swiss consumers. Psychol. Mark. 2003, 20, 883–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fanelli, R. Changes in the Food-Related Behaviour of Italian Consumers during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Foods 2021, 10, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ćirić, M.R.; Ilić, D.S.; Ignjatijević, S.D.; Brkanlić, S.D. Consumer behaviour in online shopping organic food during the COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia. Food Feed. Res. 2020, 47, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, M.; Chang, B.P.I.; Hristov, H.; Pravst, I.; Profeta, A.; Millard, J. Changes in Food Consumption During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Analysis of Consumer Survey Data from the First Lockdown Period in Denmark, Germany, and Slovenia. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 635859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robert, K.W.; Parris, T.M.; Leiserowitz, A.A. What is Sustainable Development? Goals, Indicators, Values, and Practice. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2005, 47, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.N.; Lobo, A.; Greenland, S. The influence of Vietnamese consumers’ altruistic values on their purchase of energy efficient appliances. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2017, 29, 759–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paavola, J. Towards Sustainable Consumption: Economics and Ethical Concerns for the Environment in Consumer Choices. Rev. Soc. Econ. 2001, 59, 227–248. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29770107 (accessed on 14 October 2021). [CrossRef]
- Hanson, C.B. Environmental concern, attitude toward green corporate practices, and green consumer behavior in the United States and Canada. ASBBS J. 2013, 9, 62. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, Y.; Choi, S.M. Antecedents of green purchase behavior: An examination of collectivism, environmental concern, and perceived consumer effectiveness. Adv. Consum. Res. 2005, 32, 592–599. [Google Scholar]
- Mostafa, M.M. A hierarchical analysis of the green consciousness of the Egyptian consumer. Psychol. Mark. 2007, 24, 445–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdulrazak, S.; Quoquab, F. Exploring Consumers’ Motivations for Sustainable Consumption: A Self-Deterministic Approach. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2017, 30, 14–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, R.; Jha, M. Values influencing sustainable consumption behaviour: Exploring the contextual relationship. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 76, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunn, E.W.; Aknin, L.B.; Norton, M.I. Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness. Science 2008, 319, 1687–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, J.J.; Li, H. Sustainable Consumption and Life Satisfaction. Soc. Indic. Res. 2010, 104, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leary, R.B.; Vann, R.; Mittelstaedt, J.D.; Murphy, P.E.; Sherry, J.F. Changing the marketplace one behavior at a time: Perceived marketplace influence and sustainable consumption. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1953–1958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, R.Y.K. Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior. Psychol. Mark. 2001, 18, 389–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, Y.; Hansen, H. Determinants of Sustainable Food Consumption: A Meta-Analysis Using a Traditional and a Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Int. J. Psychol. Stud. 2012, 4, 22–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ma, G.; Rau, P.-L.P.; Guo, Z. The Effects of Environmental Awareness and Consumption Value on Green Makeup Product Purchase Intentions. Psychology 2018, 9, 1898–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dangelico, R.M.; Nonino, F.; Pompei, A. Which are the determinants of green purchase behaviour? A study of Italian consumers. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2021, 30, 2600–2620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brumă, I.S.; Ulman, S.-R.; Cautisanu, C.; Tanasă, L.; Hoha, G.V. Sustainability in the Case of Small Vegetable Farmers: A Matrix Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaw, D.; Moraes, C. Voluntary simplicity: An exploration of market interactions. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2009, 33, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shaw, D.; Newholm, T. Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption. Psychol. Mark. 2002, 19, 167–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huneke, M.E. The face of the un-consumer: An empirical examination of the practice of voluntary simplicity in the United States. Psychol. Mark. 2005, 22, 527–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osikominu, J.; Bocken, N. A Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyle: Values, Adoption, Practices and Effects. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Autio, M.; Heininen, V. To Consume or Not to Consume? Young People’s Environmentalism in the Affluent Finnish Society. Young Nord. J. Youth Res. 2004, 12, 137–153. [Google Scholar]
- Dolnicar, S.; Grün, B. Environmentally Friendly Behavior: Can Heterogeneity Among Individuals and Contexts/Environments Be Harvested for Improved Sustainable Management? Environ. Behav. 2008, 41, 693–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paço, A.M.F.D.; Raposo, M.L.B. Determining the characteristics to profile the “green” consumer: An exploratory approach. Int. Rev. Public Nonprofit Mark. 2008, 5, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laroche, M.; Bergeron, J.; Barbaro-Forleo, G. Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. J. Consum. Mark. 2001, 18, 503–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haws, K.L.; Winterich, K.; Naylor, R.W. Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. J. Consum. Psychol. 2014, 24, 336–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paço, A.D.; Shiel, C.; Alves, H. A new model for testing green consumer behaviour. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 207, 998–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiciudean, G.O.; Harun, R.; Muresan, I.C.; Arion, F.H.; Chiciudean, D.I.; Ilies, G.L.; Dumitras, D.E. Assessing the Importance of Health in Choosing a Restaurant: An Empirical Study from Romania. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Śmiglak-Krajewska, M.; Wojciechowska-Solis, J. Consumer versus Organic Products in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Opportunities and Barriers to Market Development. Energies 2021, 14, 5566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahra, S.; McCarthy, B.; Chaiechi, T. Sustainable meat consumption intentions: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Br. Food J. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, W.; Hwang, K.; McDonald, S.; Oates, C.J. Sustainable consumption: Green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 18, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrington, M.J.; Neville, B.; Whitwell, G. Why Ethical Consumers Don’t Walk Their Talk: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Gap Between the Ethical Purchase Intentions and Actual Buying Behaviour of Ethically Minded Consumers. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 97, 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eckhardt, G.M.; Belk, R.; Devinney, T.M. Why don’t consumers consume ethically? J. Consum. Behav. 2010, 9, 426–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamoah, F.A.; Acquaye, A. Unravelling the attitude-behaviour gap paradox for sustainable food consumption: Insight from the UK apple market. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 217, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juvan, E.; Dolnicar, S. The attitude–behaviour gap in sustainable tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 48, 76–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prothero, A.; Dobscha, S.; Freund, J.; Kilbourne, W.E.; Luchs, M.G.; Ozanne, L.K.; Thøgersen, J. Sustainable Consumption: Opportunities for Consumer Research and Public Policy. J. Public Policy Mark. 2011, 30, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vecchio, R.; Annunziata, A. Consumers’ attitudes towards sustainable food: A cluster analysis of Italian university students. New Medit. 2013, 2, 47–56. [Google Scholar]
- Rincón, A.; Barbosa, R.; Álamo, E.; Rodríguez-Cánovas, B. Sustainable Consumption Behaviour in Colombia: An Exploratory Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sesini, G.; Castiglioni, C.; Lozza, E. New Trends and Patterns in Sustainable Consumption: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Resurreccion, Pamela Fuentes. Cluster Analysis Approach to Understanding the Philippine Sustainable Consumer: An Initial Empirical Study. Asian J. Soc. Sci. Manag. Stud. 2015, 2, 70–76.
- Roberts, J.A. Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for advertising. J. Bus. Res. 1996, 36, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loureirro, M.L.; McCluskey, J.J.; Mittlehammer, R.C. Will consumers pay a premium for eco-labeled apples? J. Consum. Aff. 2002, 36, 203–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, R.C.; Hansen, E.N. Impact of environmental certification on preferences for wood furniture: A conjoint analysis approach. For. Prod. J. 2004, 54, 42–50. [Google Scholar]
- Furlow, N.E.; Knott, C. Who’s reading the label? Millennials’ use of environmental product labels. J. Appl. Bus. Econ. 2009, 10, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, K. Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing behavior. J. Consum. Mark. 2009, 26, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Casaló, L.V.; Escario, J.-J. Heterogeneity in the association between environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior: A multilevel regression approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 175, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, T.S. Concerns for Environmental Issues and Consumer Purchase Preferences. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 1996, 9, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Straughan, R.D.; Roberts, J.A. Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. J. Consum. Mark. 1999, 16, 558–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ottman, J.A. Green Marketing: Challenges and Opportunities for the New Marketing Age; NTC Business Books: Lincolnwood, IL, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Fisher, C.; Bashyal, S.; Bachman, B. Demographic impacts on environmentally friendly purchase behaviors. J. Target. Meas. Anal. Mark. 2012, 20, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paço, A.M.F.D.; Raposo, M.; Filho, W.L. Identifying the green consumer: A segmentation study. J. Target. Meas. Anal. Mark. 2009, 17, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Samarasinghe, D.S. A green segmentation: Identifying the green consumer demographic profiles in Sri Lanka. Int. J. Mark. Technol. 2012, 2, 318–331. [Google Scholar]
- Harris, B.; Burress, D.; Eicher, S. Demand for Local and Organic Product: A Brief Review of Literature; Report No. 254A; University of Kansas Institute for Public Policy and Business Research: Lawrence, KS, USA, 2000; Available online: https://ipsr.ku.edu/resrep/pdf/m254A.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2021).
- Davidson, D.J.; Freudenburg, W.R. Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns. Environ. Behav. 1996, 28, 302–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diamantopoulos, A.; Schlegelmilch, B.B.; Sinkovics, R.; Bohlen, G.M. Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. J. Bus. Res. 2003, 56, 465–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiciudean, G.O.; Harun, R.; Ilea, M.; Chiciudean, D.I.; Arion, F.H.; Ilies, G.; Muresan, I.C. Organic Food Consumers and Purchase Intention: A Case Study in Romania. Agronomy 2019, 9, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, J.; Zhang, D.; Cai, J.; Davenport, J. Legal Systems, National Governance and Renewable Energy Investment: Evidence from Around the World. Br. J. Manag. 2019, 32, 579–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, J.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, D.; Ji, Q. Does gender inequality affect household green consumption behaviour in China? Energy Policy 2019, 135, 111071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borau, S.; Elgaaied-Gambier, L.; Barbarossa, C. The green mate appeal: Men’s pro-environmental consumption is an honest signal of commitment to their partner. Psychol. Mark. 2020, 38, 266–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tung, T.-Y.; Koenig, H.F.; Chen, H.-L. Effects of Green Self-Identity and Cognitive and Affective Involvement on Patronage Intention in Eco-Friendly Apparel Consumption: A Gender Comparison. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agentia de Dezvoltare Regionala Nord-Vest. Available online: https://www.nord-vest.ro/regiunea/ (accessed on 14 October 2021).
- Romanian National Institute of Statistics—National Institute of Statistics. Tempo-Online Time Series. Available online: http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/ (accessed on 14 October 2021).
- European CommissionInternal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEsRegional Innovation Monitor Plus. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regional-innovation-monitor/base-profile/north-west-0 (accessed on 14 October 2021).
- Liu, A.; Niyongira, R. Chinese consumers food purchasing behaviors and awareness of food safety. Food Control 2017, 79, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sufyan, D.; Februhartanty, J.; Bardosono, S.; Khusun, H.; Ermayani, E.; Rachman, P.H.; Worsley, A. Food purchasing behaviour among urban slum women in East Jakarta: A qualitative study. Malays. J. Nutr. 2019, 25, 33–46. [Google Scholar]
- Bottcher, C.; Underhill, S.J.R.; Aliakbari, J.; Burkhart, S.J. Food Purchasing Behaviors of a Remote and Rural Adult Solomon Islander Population. Foods 2019, 8, 464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saleh, A.; Bista, K. Examining Factors Impacting Online Survey Response Rates in Educational Research: Perceptions of Graduate Students. J. Multidiscip. Eval. 2017, 13, 63–74. [Google Scholar]
- Marinescu, V. Internet and Third Age in Romania—An exploratory study. In Forum on Studies of Society, 2nd ed.; Pro Universitaria Bucuresti: București, Romania, 2018; pp. 225–235. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R.; Tatham, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Uppersaddle River, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Pearson, D.; Henryks, J.; Sultan, P.; Anisimova, T. Organic food: Exploring purchase frequency to explain consumer behaviour. J. Org. Syst. 2013, 8, 50–63. [Google Scholar]
- Petrescu-Mag, R.; Vermeir, I.; Petrescu, D.; Crista, F.; Banatean-Dunea, I. Traditional Foods at the Click of a Button: The Preference for the Online Purchase of Romanian Traditional Foods during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristics | Research Population * (%) | Sample (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Female | 50.1 | 61.1 |
Male | 49.9 | 38.9 | |
Age | 18–29 years | 20.4 | 29.0 |
30–39 years | 21.2 | 24.1 | |
40–49 years | 22.3 | 18.6 | |
50–59 years | 18.1 | 14.9 | |
>60 years | 17.9 | 13.4 | |
Education level | Less than 8 classes | n.a. | 2.8 |
High school | n.a. | 23.2 | |
Upper studies | n.a. | 74.0 | |
Monthly net household income (RON) | <2800 | n.a. | 19.9 |
2801–4200 | n.a. | 24.1 | |
4201–5600 | n.a. | 19.7 | |
>5601 | n.a. | 36.3 | |
Occupation | Student | n.a. | 11.1 |
Unemployed | n.a. | 1.7 | |
Retired | n.a. | 10.0 | |
Employed | n.a. | 62.7 | |
Entrepreneur | n.a. | 9.1 | |
Maternity leave | n.a. | 4.0 | |
Other | n.a. | 1.4 | |
Place of residency | Rural | 45.4 | 26.1 |
Urban | 54.6 | 73.9 | |
County | Bihor | 22.0 | 19.1 |
Bistrita-Nasaud | 10.6 | 10.8 | |
Cluj | 28.4 | 39.6 | |
Maramures | 18.1 | 16.5 | |
Satu Mare | 13.1 | 9.0 | |
Salaj | 7.9 | 5.0 |
Eigenvalue | Variance % | Factor | Item | Factor Loading | Mean | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5.828 | 52.986 | Sustainable consumption α = 0.896 Mean = 3.98 SD = 0.249 | It is good to support domestic agriculture by buying regional products (S1) | 0.810 | 4.36 | 0.889 |
Health issues play an important role for me when I plan my menus (S2) | 0.778 | 4.22 | 0.937 | |||
It is important to me to support local farmers when making purchase (S3) | 0.778 | 4.13 | 0.927 | |||
I try to avoid food waste (S4) | 0.726 | 4.22 | 0.907 | |||
I buy mainly local products (S5) | 0.675 | 3.87 | 0.957 | |||
Genetically engineered food products are dangerous for human beings (S6) | 0.634 | 3.85 | 1.122 | |||
I pay attention to fair trade labels (S7) | 0.620 | 3.72 | 0.967 | |||
I would be willing to pay a higher price to support small growers from third-world countries (S8) | 0.528 | 3.50 | 1.042 | |||
1.001 | 9.101 | Environment α = 0.779 Mean = 3.58 SD = 0.291 | I am involved in environmental protection actions (E1) | 0.860 | 3.26 | 1.067 |
I recycle more food packaging (E2) | 0.748 | 3.82 | 1.066 | |||
I pay more attention to save water and energy while cooking (E3) | 0.723 | 3.67 | 1.105 | |||
Total variance % | 62.087 | α = 0.909 |
Factors | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | F-Value | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sustainable consumption | −1.99772 | 0.12358 | 0.50755 | 537.271 | 0.000 *** |
Environment | −0.48064 | 0.66851 | −0.99575 | 635.229 | 0.000 *** |
Factor | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Kruskal–Wallis χ2 Statistic | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sustainable consumption | 2.55 (0.787) | 4.35 (0.434) | 4.1395 (0.456) | χ2 = 288.432 df = 2 | 0.000 *** |
Environment | 2.58 (0.840) | 4.16 (0.492) | 2.87 (0.612) | χ2 = 570.735 df = 2 | 0.000 *** |
Characteristics | Cluster 1 (n = 100, 11.7%) | Cluster 2 (n = 483, 56.2%) | Cluster 3 (n = 276, 32.1%) | Chi-Square DF | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | |||||
Female | 48 (48.0%) | 299 (61.9%) | 178 (64.5%) | χ2 = 8.690 df = 2 | 0.013 * |
Male | 52 (52.0%) | 184 (38.1%) | 98 (35.5%) | ||
Age | |||||
18–29 years | 35 (35.0%) | 119 (24.6%) | 95 (34.4%) | χ2 = 14.494 df = 8 | 0.070 |
30–39 years | 26 (26.0%) | 116 (24.0%) | 65 (23.6%) | ||
40–49 years | 19 (19.0%) | 97 (20.1%) | 44 (15.9%) | ||
50–59 years | 13 (13.0%) | 79 (16.4%) | 36 (13.0%) | ||
>60 years | 7 (7.0%) | 72 (14.6%) | 36 (13.0%) | ||
Education | |||||
Less than 8 classes | 8 (8.0%) | 7 (1.4%) | 9 (3.2%) | χ2 = 35.074 df = 4 | 0.000 *** |
Medium studies | 39 (39.0%) | 93 (19.3%) | 67 (24.3%) | ||
Upper studies | 59 (59.0%) | 383 (79.3%) | 200 (72.5%) | ||
Monthly net household income (RON) | |||||
<2800 | 30 (30.0%) | 88 (18.3%) | 53 (19.2%) | χ2 = 15.095 df = 6 | 0.020 * |
2801–4200 | 29 (29.0%) | 110 (22.8%) | 67 (24.3%) | ||
4201–5600 | 11 (11.0%) | 96 (19.9%) | 63 (22.8%) | ||
>5601 | 30 (30.0%) | 189 (39.1%) | 93 (33.7%) | ||
Occupation | |||||
Student | 15 (15.0%) | 41 (8.5%) | 39 (14.1%) | χ2 = 28.003 df = 12 | 0.006 ** |
Unemployed | 0 (0.0%) | 15 (3.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
Retired | 7 (7.0%) | 48 (9.9%) | 31 (11.2%) | ||
Employed | 55 (55.0%) | 311 (64.4%) | 173 (62.7%) | ||
Entrepreneur | 15 (15.0%) | 41 (8.5%) | 22 (8.0%) | ||
Maternity leave | 6 (6.0%) | 19 (3.9%) | 9 (3.3%) | ||
Other | 2 (2.0%) | 8 (1.7%) | 2 (0.7%) | ||
Place of residency | |||||
Rural | 32 (32.0%) | 123 (25.5%) | 69 (25.0%) | χ2 = 2.080 df = 2 | 0.354 |
Urban | 68 (68.0%) | 360 (74.5%) | 207 (75.0%) |
Variables | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Odds Ratio | p-Value | 95% CI | Odds Ratio | p-Value | 95% CI | Odds Ratio | p-Value | 95% CI | ||||
Lower | Higher | Lower | Higher | Lower | Higher | |||||||
Gender | ||||||||||||
Male a | 1.656 | 0.024 * | 1.070 | 2.563 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Age b | ||||||||||||
30–39 years | 0.787 | 0.395 | 0.456 | 1.367 | 1.249 | 0.233 | 0.867 | 1.798 | 0.726 | 0.100 | 0.496 | 1.063 |
40–49 years | 0.735 | 0.331 | 0.395 | 1.367 | 1.565 | 0.028 * | 1.049 | 2.336 | 0.598 | 0.018 * | 0.391 | 0.915 |
50–59 years | 0.463 | 0.031 * | 0.230 | 0.931 | 1.780 | 0.009 ** | 1.152 | 2.751 | 0.599 | 0.028 * | 0.379 | 0.947 |
>60 years | 0.271 | 0.003 ** | 0.120 | 0.643 | 1.759 | 0.014 * | 1.124 | 2.753 | 0.702 | 0.132 | 0.443 | 1.112 |
Education c | ||||||||||||
Medium studies | 0.385 | 0.001 ** | 0.224 | 0.661 | 0.616 | 0.009 ** | 0.429 | 0.884 | 0.705 | 0.066 | 0.486 | 1.023 |
Upper studies | 0.147 | 0.000 *** | 0.087 | 0.248 | 1.151 | 0.273 | 0.895 | 1.480 | 0.604 | 0.000 *** | 0.467 | 0.728 |
Monthly net household income d (RON) | ||||||||||||
2801–4200 | 0.787 | 0.406 | 0.447 | 1.385 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
4201–5600 | 0.368 | 0.008 ** | 0.175 | 0.775 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
>5601 | 0.698 | 0.243 | 0.382 | 1.275 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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
Muresan, I.C.; Harun, R.; Arion, F.H.; Brata, A.M.; Chereches, I.A.; Chiciudean, G.O.; Dumitras, D.E.; Oroian, C.F.; Tirpe, O.P. Consumers’ Attitude towards Sustainable Food Consumption during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Romania. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1050. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111050
Muresan IC, Harun R, Arion FH, Brata AM, Chereches IA, Chiciudean GO, Dumitras DE, Oroian CF, Tirpe OP. Consumers’ Attitude towards Sustainable Food Consumption during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Romania. Agriculture. 2021; 11(11):1050. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111050
Chicago/Turabian StyleMuresan, Iulia C., Rezhen Harun, Felix H. Arion, Anca Monica Brata, Ioan Aurel Chereches, Gabriela O. Chiciudean, Diana E. Dumitras, Camelia F. Oroian, and Olivia Paula Tirpe. 2021. "Consumers’ Attitude towards Sustainable Food Consumption during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Romania" Agriculture 11, no. 11: 1050. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111050