Choices in Sustainable Food Consumption: How Spanish Low Intake Organic Consumers Behave
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Questionnaire Design
2.2. Best-Worst Scaling Methodology
2.3. Sampling Method and Survey Administration
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. The Best and the Worst Preferred Attributes
3.2. Impact of Classification Variables on Attributes
3.3. Applying Ordinal Regression Models
3.4. Health Benefits Attribute
3.5. Absence of GMOs Attribute
3.6. Limitations and Future Paths for Research
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Attribute Category | Perception | Authors |
---|---|---|
Credence | Health benefits | Chekima et al. (2017); Ditlevsen et al. (2018); Rana and Paul (2020) |
Environmental impact | Nguyen et al. (2019); Kushwah et al. (2019) | |
Nutritional value | Apaolaza et al. (2018); Srednicka-Tobel et al. (2016) | |
Search | price | Rana and Paul (2017); Hjelmar (2011); Hernández et al. (2019) |
More natural appearance | Kuhar et al. (2012); Rodríguez-Bermudez et al. (2020) | |
Certification warranty (EU logo) | De- Magistris et al. (2017); Lee et al. (2017) | |
Origin | Siegrist and Hartmann (2019); Hempel and Hamm (2016) | |
Availability | Hernández et al. (2019); Caldwell et al. (2009) | |
Absence of GMO | Massey, Cass and Otahal (2018); Mauracher et al. (2013) | |
Experience | Better taste | Hjelmar (2011) |
Appendix B
Classification Variable | Modality | N | (%) | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | (%) | ||||
V.1—Age | 15–34 years’ old | 14 | 5.6 | ||
35–54 years’ old | 154 | 61.6 | |||
55–69 years’ old | 71 | 28.4 | |||
70 years’ old or more | 11 | 4.4 | 250 | 100 | |
V.2—Gender | Male | 83 | 33.2 | ||
Female | 167 | 66.8 | 250 | 100 | |
V.3—Academic level | None | 4 | 1.6 | ||
Professional Qualification | 21 | 8.4 | |||
Compulsory Secondary Education | 20 | 8.0 | |||
Superior (Degree or more) | 205 | 82.0 | 250 | 100 | |
V.4—Area of residence | Metropolitan Area of Sevilla | 150 | 60.0 | ||
Metropolitan Area of Malaga | 25 | 10.0 | |||
Metropolitan Area of Cordoba | 35 | 14.0 | |||
Metropolitan Area of Granada | 40 | 16.0 | 250 | 100 | |
V.5—Do you have children under 18 living with you? | Yes | 122 | 48.8 | ||
No | 128 | 51.2 | 250 | 100 | |
V.6—What is the best place to purchase certified organic products? | Fairs/Producer markets (no certified organic) | 56 | 22.4 | ||
Organic supermarkets | 53 | 21.2 | |||
Generalist super and hypermarkets | 28 | 11.2 | |||
Home delivery organic baskets | 37 | 14.8 | |||
Natural/local stores (mostly certified organic) | 76 | 30.4 | 250 | 100 |
References
- Basha, M.B.; Mason, C.; Shamsudin, M.F.; Hussain, H.I.; Salem, M.A. Consumers Attitude towards Organic Food. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 31, 444–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Massey, M.; O’Cass, A.; Otahal, P. A meta-analytic study of the factors driving the purchase of organic food. Appetite 2018, 125, 418–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rana, J.; Paul, J. Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food: A review and research agenda. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 38, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- IFOAM. The World of Organic Agriculture; IFOAM: Bonn, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Ecological. El Sector Ecológico en España 2018. 2018. Available online: https://www.ecological.bio/es/sectorbio2018/ (accessed on 8 June 2020).
- Robina-Ramírez, R.; Chamorro-Mera, A.; Moreno-Luna, L. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications Organic and online attributes for buying and selling agricultural products in the e-marketplace in Spain. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2020, 42, 100992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernández, J.L.S.; Seguí, A.E. ¿Alternativa o Adaptación? Los Grupos de Consumo de Alimentos Ecológicos en el Área Urbana de Alicante; Universitat de Barcelona: Barcelona, Spain, 2014; Volume VI, pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Grzybowska-Brzezinska, M.; Grzywinska-Rapca, M.; Zuchowski, I.; Borawski, P. Organic Food Attributes Determing Consumer Choices. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 2017, 20, 164–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jang, Y.; Bonn, M. Consumer Purchase Intentions of Organic Wines; Florida State University: Tallahassee, FL, USA, 2011; Volume 2008, Available online: http://scholarworks.umass.edu/gradconf_hospitality/2011/Poster/26/ (accessed on 7 April 2020).
- Lee, H.-J.; Yun, Z.-S. Consumers’ perceptions of organic food attributes and cognitive and affective attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions toward organic food. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 39, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schleenbecker, R.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ perception of organic product characteristics. A review. Appetite 2013, 71, 420–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Voon, J.P.; Ngui, K.S.; Agrawal, A. Determinants of willingness to purchase organic food: An exploratory study using structural equation modeling. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2011, 14, 103–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anacleto, C.A.; Catarina, S.; Pacheco, E. The quality attributes for organic food: Exploratory factor analysis. In Proceedings of the POMS 25th Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 9–12 May 2014; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Pearson, D.; Henryks, J.; Jones, H. Organic food: What we know (and do not know) about consumers. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2011, 26, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chekima, B.; Oswald, A.I.; Wafa, S.A.W.S.K.; Chekima, K. Narrowing the gap: Factors driving organic food consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 1438–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ditlevsen, K.; Sandøe, P.; Lassen, J. Healthy food is nutritious, but organic food is healthy because it is pure: The negotiation of healthy food choices by Danish consumers of organic food. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 71, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hansen, T.; Sørensen, M.I.; Eriksen, M.-L.R. How the interplay between consumer motivations and values influences organic food identity and behavior. Food Policy 2018, 74, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hjelmar, U. Consumers’ purchase of organic food products. A matter of convenience and reflexive practices. Appetite 2011, 56, 336–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rana, J.; Paul, J. Health motive and the purchase of organic food: A meta-analytic review. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2019, 44, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaharudin, M.R.; Pani, J.J.; Mansor, S.W.; Elias, S. Purchase Intention of Organic Food; Perceived Value Overview. Can. Soc. Sci. 2010, 6, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer “Attitude-Behavioral Intention” Gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2006, 19, 169–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministerio de Agricultura; Alimentación y Medio Ambiente. Evolución de la Caracterización de la Tipología y Perfil Sociodemográfico del Consumidor de Alimentos Ecológicos en España. 2014; p. 72. Available online: https://cpage.mpr.gob.es/producto/evolucion-de-la-caracterizacion-de-la-tipologia-y-perfil-sociodemografico-del-consumidor-de-alimentos-ecologicos-en-espana/ (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Hwang, J. Organic food as self-presentation: The role of psychological motivation in older consumers’ purchase intention of organic food. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 28, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ling, C.Y. Consumers’ purchase intention of green products: An investigation of the drivers and moderating variable. Elixir Mark. Manag. 2013, 1, 14503–14509. [Google Scholar]
- Mostafa, M.M. Gender differences in Egyptian consumers? green purchase behaviour: The effects of environmental knowledge, concern and attitude. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, H.V.; Nguyen, N.; Nguyen, B.K.; Lobo, A.; Vu, P.A. Organic Food Purchases in an Emerging Market: The Influence of Consumers’ Personal Factors and Green Marketing Practices of Food Stores. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ottman, J.A.; Stafford, E.R.; Hartman, C.L. Avoiding Green Marketing Myopia: Ways to Improve Consumer Appeal for Environmentally Preferable Products. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2006, 48, 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kushwah, S.; Dhir, A.; Sagar, M. Ethical consumption intentions and choice behavior towards organic food. Moderation role of buying and environmental concerns. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 236, 117519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, J.; Rana, J. Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food. J. Consum. Mark. 2012, 29, 412–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apaolaza, V.; Hartmann, P.; D’Souza, C.; López, C.M. Eat organic-Feel good? The relationship between organic food consumption, health concern and subjective wellbeing. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 63, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Maroscheck, N.; Hamm, U. Are organic consumers preferring or avoiding foods with nutrition and health claims? Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 30, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Średnicka-Tober, D.; Barański, M.; Seal, C.; Sanderson, R.; Benbrook, C.; Steinshamn, H.; Gromadzka-Ostrowska, J.; Rembiałkowska, E.; Skwarło-SońtaK.; Eyre, M.; et al. Composition differences between organic and conventional meat: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Nutr. 2016, 115, 994–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gracia, A.; de Magistris, T. The demand for organic foods in the South of Italy: A discrete choice model. Food Policy 2008, 33, 386–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wirth, F.F.; Stanton, J.L.; Wiley, J.B. The Relative Importance of Search versus Credence Product Attributes: Organic and Locally Grown. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2011, 40, 48–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucas, M.R.V.; Röhrich, K.; Marreiros, C.; Fragoso, R.; Kabbert, R.; Clara, A.M.; Martins, I.; Böhm, S. Quality, Safety and Consumer Behaviour towards Organic Food in Germany and Portugal; University of Evora: Évora, Portugal, 2008; pp. 1–26, CEFAGE-UE Work. Pap. [Google Scholar]
- Hernández, D.G.; Saracho-Domínguez, H.; Rivera-Ferré, M.G.; Vara-Sánchez, I. Eating Well with Organic Food: Everyday (Non-Monetary) Strategies for a Change in Food Paradigms: Findings from Andalusia, Spain. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, H.-C.; Chang, C.-T.; Cheng, Z.-H.; Chen, Y.-T. Will an organic label always increase food consumption? It depends on food type and consumer differences in health locus of control. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 63, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, J.D.; Christensen, T.; Denver, S.; Ditlevsen, K.; Lassen, J.; Teuber, R. Heterogeneity in consumers’ perceptions and demand for local (organic) food products. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 73, 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zundel, C.; Kilcher, L. Organic Agriculture and Food Availability. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security, Rome, Italy, 3–5 May 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Deliana, Y. Market Segmentation for Organic Products in Bandung West Java, Indonesia. Res. J. Recent Sci. 2012, 1, 48–56. Available online: www.isca.in (accessed on 27 July 2019).
- Briz, T.; Ward, R. Consumer awareness of organic products in Spain: An application of multinominal logit models. Food Policy 2009, 34, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mauracher, C.; Tempesta, T.; Vecchiato, D. Consumer preferences regarding the introduction of new organic products. The case of the Mediterranean sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in Italy. Appetite 2013, 63, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegrist, M.; Hartmann, C. Impact of sustainability perception on consumption of organic meat and meat substitutes. Appetite 2019, 132, 196–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grimmer, M.; Kilburn, A.P.; Miles, M.P. The effect of purchase situation on realized pro-environmental consumer behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1582–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohsen, M.G.; Dacko, S. An extension of the benefit segmentation base for the consumption of organic foods: A time perspective. J. Mark. Manag. 2013, 29, 1701–1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuhar, A.; Slabe, A.; Juvanci, L. Determinants of Purchasing Behaviour for Organic and Integrated Fruits and Vegetables: The Case of the Post Socialist Economy. In Organic Food and Agriculture—New Trends and Developments in the Social Sciences; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Santhi, P.; Jerinabi, U.; Gandhi, N. Green Consumerism-Issues and Implications. Indian J. Mark. 2007, 37. Available online: http://indianjournalofmarketing.com/index.php/ijom/article/view/34411 (accessed on 6 September 2020).
- Tsakiridou, E.; Boutsouki, C.; Zotos, Y.; Mattas, K. Attitudes and behaviour towards organic products: An exploratory study. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2008, 36, 158–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azzurra, A.; Massimiliano, A.; Angela, M. Measuring sustainable food consumption: A case study on organic food. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 17, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chekima, B.; Chekima, K.; Chekima, K. Understanding factors underlying actual consumption of organic food: The moderating effect of future orientation. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 74, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rabadán, A.; Díaz, M.; Brugarolas, M.; Bernabéu, R. Why don’t consumers buy organic lamb meat? A Spanish case study. Meat Sci. 2020, 162, 108024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koklic, M.K.; Golob, U.; Podnar, K.; Zabkar, V. The interplay of past consumption, attitudes and personal norms in organic food buying. Appetite 2019, 137, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, J.; Mattila, A.S. When organic food choices shape subsequent food choices: The interplay of gender and health consciousness. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 76, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molinillo, S.; Vidal-Branco, M.; Japutra, A. Understanding the drivers of organic foods purchasing of millennials: Evidence from Brazil and Spain. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 52, 101926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finn, A.; Louviere, J.J. Determining the Appropriate Response to Evidence of Public Concern: The Case of Food Safety. J. Public Policy Mark. 1992, 11, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunes, F.; Madureira, T.; Veiga, J. The Organic Food Choice Pattern: Are Organic Consumers Becoming More Alike? Foods 2021, 10, 983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rodríguez-Bermúdez, R.; Miranda, M.; Orjales, I.; Ginzo-Villamayor, M.J.; Al-Soufi, W.; López-Alonso, M. Consumers’ perception of and attitudes towards organic food in Galicia (Northern Spain). Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2019, 44, 206–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De-Magistris, T.; Gracia, A.; Barreiro-Hurle, J. Do consumers care about European food labels? An empirical evaluation using best-worst method. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 2698–2711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hempel, C.; Hamm, U. How important is local food to organic-minded consumers? Appetite 2016, 96, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caldwell, E.M.; Kobayashi, M.M.; DuBow, W.; Wytinck, S. Perceived access to fruits and vegetables associated with increased consumption. Public Health Nutr. 2009, 12, 1743–1750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Louviere, J.; Woodworth, G. Best-Worst Scaling: A Model for Largest Difference Judgments; Working Paper; Faculty of Business, University of Alberta: Edmonton, AB, Canada, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Burke, P.F.; Schuck, S.; Aubusson, P.; Buchanan, J.; Louviere, J.J.; Prescott, A. Why do early career teachers choose to remain in the profession? The use of best-worst scaling to quantify key factors. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2013, 62, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erdem, S.; Rigby, D.; Wossink, A. Using best-worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety. Food Policy 2012, 37, 661–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, A.; Jones, D.; Edwards-Jones, G.; Cross, P. Informing decision making in agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation policy: A Best-Worst Scaling survey of expert and farmer opinion in the sheep industry. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 29, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirieix, L.; Remaud, H.; Lockshin, L.; Thach, L.; Lease, T. Determinants of restaurant’s owners/managers selection of wines to be offered on the wine list. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2011, 18, 500–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orme, B. How Good Is Best-Worst Scaling? Quirk’s Mark. Res. 2018, 32, 20–23. [Google Scholar]
- Flynn, T.N.; Louviere, J.J.; Peters, T.; Coast, J. Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 70, 1957–1965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marti, J. A best-worst scaling survey of adolescents’ level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking. Soc. Sci. Med. 2012, 75, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paquin, R.S.; Fischer, R.; Mansfield, C.; Mange, B.; Beaverson, K.; Ganot, A.; Martin, A.S.; Morris, C.; Rensch, C.; Ricotti, V.; et al. Priorities when deciding on participation in early-phase gene therapy trials for Duchenne muscular dystrophy: A best-worst scaling experiment in caregivers and adult patients. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2019, 14, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ochs, D.; Wolf, C.A.; Widmar, N.J.; Bir, C. Is There a cage-free lunch in U.S. Egg production? Public views of laying-hen housing attributes. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2019, 44, 345–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madureira, H.; Nunes, F.; Oliveira, J.V.; Cormier, L.; Madureira, T. Urban residents’ beliefs concerning green space benefits in four cities in France and Portugal. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sever, I.; Verbič, M. Assessing recreational values of a peri-urban nature park by synthesizing perceptions and preferences of trail users. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 63, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shoji, Y.; Kim, H.; Kubo, T.; Tsuge, T.; Aikoh, T.; Kuriyama, K. Understanding preferences for pricing policies in Japan’s national parks using the best–worst scaling method. J. Nat. Conserv. 2021, 60, 125954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ratcliffe, J.; Cameron, I.; Lancsar, E.; Walker, R.; Milte, R.; Hutchinson, C.L.; Swaffer, K.; Parker, S. Developing a new quality of life instrument with older people for economic evaluation in aged care: Study protocol. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e028647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cohen, E. Applying best-worst scaling to wine marketing. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2009, 21, 8–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dekhili, S.; Sirieix, L.; Cohen, E. How consumers choose olive oil: The importance of origin cues. Food Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22, 757–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunes, F.; Madureira, T.; Oliveira, J.V.; Madureira, H. The consumer trail: Applying best-worst scaling to classical wine attributes. Wine Econ. Policy 2016, 5, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Muunda, E.; Mtimet, N.; Schneider, F.; Wanyoike, F.; Dominguez-Salas, P.; Alonso, S. Could the new dairy policy affect milk allocation to infants in Kenya? A best-worst scaling approach. Food Policy 2021, 101, 102043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartwell, H.; Appleton, K.M.; Bray, J.; Price, S.; Mavridis, I.; Giboreau, A.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.; Ronge, M. Shaping smarter consumer food choices: The Food SMART project. Nutr. Bull. 2019, 44, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- MAPA. Informe Sobre Evaluación Y Medio Rural Español. 2019. Available online: http://publicacionesoficiales.boe.es/ (accessed on 23 February 2020).
- Flyvbjerg, B. Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research. Qual. Inq. 2006, 12, 219–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sawtooth Software. The MaxDiff System, Technical Paper; Sawtooth Software: Orem, Utah, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Rizzo, G.; Borrello, M.; Guccione, G.D.; Schifani, G.; Cembalo, L. Organic Food Consumption: The Relevance of the Health Attribute. Sustainability 2020, 12, 595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agresti, A. Categorical Data Analysis, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Norusis, M. SPSS 14.0 Advanced Statistical Procedures Companion; Prentice Hall: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Long, J.S.; Freese, J. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, 2nd ed.; Stata Press: College Station, TX, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Bellows, A.C.; Onyango, B.; Diamond, A.; Hallman, W. Understanding Consumer Interest in Organics: Production Values vs. Purchasing Behavior. J. Agric. Food Ind. Organ. 2008, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wier, M.; Andersen, L.M.; Millock, K. Consumer Demand for Organic Foods—Attitudes, Values and Purchasing Behaviour. 2014. Available online: https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/4754/ (accessed on 26 March 2020).
- 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]
- Di Vita, G.; Pappalardo, G.; Chinnici, G.; La Via, G.; D’Amico, M. Not everything has been still explored: Further thoughts on additional price for the organic wine. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 520–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansmann, R.; Baur, I.; Binder, C.R. Increasing organic food consumption: An integrating model of drivers and barriers. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 123058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boizot-Szantai, C.; Hamza, O.; Soler, L.-G. Organic consumption and diet choice: An analysis based on food purchase data in France. Appetite 2017, 117, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mielby, H.; Sandøe, P.; Lassen, J. The role of scientific knowledge in shaping public attitudes to GM technologies. Public Underst. Sci. 2012, 22, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magnusson, M.K.; Hursti, U.-K.K. Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Appetite 2002, 39, 9–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
1 | Price |
2 | More natural appearance |
3 | Certification warranty (EU logo) |
4 | Origin |
5 | Expectation of better taste |
6 | Availability |
7 | Health benefits |
8 | Environmental impact |
9 | Nutritional value |
10 | Absence of GMOs |
Attribute | Times Selected Best | Times Selected Worst | (B-W)/n | Sqrt (B/W) | Standardized Ratio Scale | Standardized Importance Weights (%) | Rescaled Scores Average | 95% Lower | 95% Upper |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Health benefits | 572.0 | 13.0 | 2.236 | 6.63 | 100.0 | 39.147 | 24.1 | 23.5 | 24.7 |
Environmental impact | 320.0 | 24.0 | 1.184 | 3.65 | 55.1 | 21.550 | 18.0 | 17.2 | 18.8 |
Absence of GMOs | 249.0 | 109.0 | 0.560 | 1.51 | 22.8 | 8.920 | 14.0 | 12.9 | 15.2 |
Nutritional value | 171.0 | 117.0 | 0.216 | 1.21 | 18.2 | 7.135 | 9.9 | 9.1 | 10.8 |
Origin | 185.0 | 168.0 | 0.068 | 1.05 | 15.8 | 6.193 | 9.7 | 8.7 | 10.8 |
Certification warranty (EU logo) | 188.0 | 230.0 | −0.168 | 0.90 | 13.6 | 5.336 | 9.0 | 7.9 | 10.1 |
Availability | 123.0 | 270.0 | −0.588 | 0.67 | 10.2 | 3.983 | 5.7 | 4.9 | 6.6 |
Expectation of better taste | 97.0 | 261.0 | −0.656 | 0.61 | 9.2 | 3.598 | 4.7 | 4.0 | 5.5 |
Price | 70.0 | 306.0 | −0.944 | 0.48 | 7.2 | 2.823 | 3.8 | 3.0 | 4.5 |
More natural appearance | 25.0 | 502.0 | −1.908 | 0.22 | 3.4 | 1.317 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.2 |
Classification Variable | Modality | N | |
---|---|---|---|
V.1—Age | ≤54 years old | 168 | 250 |
≥55 years old | 82 | ||
V.2—Gender | Male | 83 | 250 |
Female | 167 | ||
V.3—Academic level | Not superior | 45 | 250 |
Superior (degree or more) | 205 | ||
V.4—Area of residence | Metropolitan Area 1 = Sevilla | 150 | 250 |
Metropolitan Area 2 = Malaga, Cordoba, Granada | 100 | ||
V.5—Do you have children under 18 living with you? | Yes | 122 | 250 |
No | 128 | ||
V.6—What is the best place to purchase certified organic products? | Generalist = fairs/producer markets, general super, and hypermarkets (no certified organic) | 84 | 250 |
Organic = organic supermarkets, home delivery baskets, natural/local stores (mostly certified organic) | 166 |
Classification Variable | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attribute | Age | Gender | Academic Level | Area of Residence | Children Under 18 at Home | Place to Purchase Organic Food |
p | ||||||
Price | 0.248 | 0.341 | 0.161 | 0.531 | 0.249 | 0.210 |
More natural appearance | 0.629 | 0.354 | 0.097 b | 0.237 | 0.470 | 0.012 a |
Certification warranty (EU logo) | 0.022 a | 0.157 | 0.447 | 0.207 | 0.760 | 0.225 |
Origin | 0.013 a | 0.971 | 0.033 a | 0.408 | 0.978 | 0.774 |
Expectation of better taste | 0.436 | 0.957 | 0.179 | 0.022 a | 0.020 a | 0.182 |
Availability | 0.850 | 0.049 a | 0.650 | 0.544 | 0.011 a | 0.645 |
Health benefits | 0.262 | 0.982 | 0.097 b | 0.823 | 0.064 b | 0.031 a |
Environmental impact | 0.533 | 0.516 | 0.450 | 0.607 | 0.905 | 0.965 |
Nutritional value | 0.109 | 0.980 | 0.915 | 0.245 | 0.501 | 0.006 a |
Absence of GMOs | 0.380 | 0.273 | 0.071 b | 0.529 | 0.852 | 0.001 a |
Attribute | Link Function | −2LL Sig. | Pearson Sig. | Parallel Sig. | Significance Levels of the Explanatory Variables with p < 0.05 | −2LL with Significant var. | Level of Importance | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | Gender | Academic Level | Area of Residence | Children Under 18 at Home | Place to Purchase Organic Food | ||||||||
1 | Price | 1 | 0.506 | 0.128 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 9 |
2 | More natural appearance | 1 | 0.025 | 1.000 | 0.148 | - | - | - | - | - | 0.013 a | 0.009 | 10 |
3 | Certification warranty (EU logo) | 1 | 0.007 | 0.186 | 0.250 | 0.005 b | - | - | 0.055 b | - | 0.050 a | 0.006 | 6 |
4 | Origin | 1 | 0.008 | 0.546 | 0.310 | 0.029 a | - | 0.020 b | - | - | - | 0.001 | 5 |
5 | Expectation of better taste | 1 | 0.018 | 0.697 | 0.408 | - | - | - | 0.005 a | - | - | 0.003 | 8 |
6 | Availability | 1 | 0.627 | 0.000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 7 |
7 | Health benefits | 2 | 0.018 | 0.999 | 0.077 | - | - | 0.021 a | - | 0.032 a | - | 0.005 | 1 |
8 | Environmental impact | 2 | 0.768 | 0.540 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 |
9 | Nutritional value | 1 | 0.046 | 0.122 | 0.083 | - | - | - | - | - | 0.005 b | 0.003 | 4 |
10 | Absence of GMOs | 3 | 0.006 | 0.354 | 0.057 | - | - | 0.006 a | - | - | 0.001 b | 0.001 | 3 |
Desirable value of p | <0.050 | >0.050 | >0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 | <0.050 |
Estimate | Std. Error | Wald | df | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||||
Threshold | (HBenef = 1) | −4.823 | 0.620 | 60.511 | 1 | 0.000 | −6.038 | −3.607 |
(HBenef = 2) | −3.336 | 0.440 | 57.557 | 1 | 0.000 | −4.198 | −2.474 | |
(HBenef = 3) | −1.820 | 0.382 | 22.658 | 1 | 0.000 | −2.569 | −1.071 | |
Location | (Age ≤ 54) | −0.412 | 0.297 | 1.929 | 1 | 0.165 | −0.994 | 0.169 |
(Age ≥ 55) | 0 a | 0 | ||||||
(Gender = M) | 0.029 | 0.266 | 0.012 | 1 | 0.912 | −0.492 | 0.550 | |
(Gender = F) | 0 a | 0 | ||||||
(Acadlevel = NSup) | 0.957 | 0.440 | 4.722 | 1 | 0.030 | 0.094 | 1.821 | |
(Acadlevel = Sup) | 0 a | 0 | ||||||
(Residence = Area1) | 0.005 | 0.261 | 0.000 | 1 | 0.984 | −0.506 | 0.516 | |
(Residence = Area2) | 0 a | 0 | ||||||
(Children = No) | −0.685 | 0.264 | 6.712 | 1 | 0.010 | −1.203 | −0.167 | |
(Children = Yes) | 0 a | 0 | ||||||
(Place = Generalist) | −0.388 | 0.258 | 2.252 | 1 | 0.133 | −0.894 | 0.119 | |
(Place = Organic) | 0 a | 0 |
Estimate | Std. Error | Wald | df | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||||
Threshold | (HBenef = 1) | −4.309 | 0.524 | 67.539 | 1 | 0.000 | −5.336 | −3.281 |
(HBenef = 2) | −2.830 | 0.290 | 95.491 | 1 | 0.000 | −3.397 | −2.262 | |
(HBenef = 3) | −1.325 | 0.198 | 44.830 | 1 | 0.000 | −1.713 | −0.937 | |
Location | (Acadlevel = NSup) | 0.999 | 0.432 | 5.344 | 1 | 0.021 | 0.152 | 1.846 |
(Acadlevel = Sup) | 0 a | 0 | ||||||
(Children = No) | −0.541 | 0.252 | 4.620 | 1 | 0.032 | −1.035 | −0.048 | |
(Children = Yes) | 0 a | 0 |
Estimate | Std. Error | Wald | df | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||||
Threshold | (AbsenceGMO = 1) | −1.046 | 0.328 | 10.168 | 1 | 0.001 | −1.689 | −0.403 |
(AbsenceGMO = 2) | −0.368 | 0.305 | 1.459 | 1 | 0.227 | −0.966 | 0.229 | |
(AbsenceGMO = 3) | 0.537 | 0.317 | 2.864 | 1 | 0.091 | −0.085 | 1.158 | |
Location | (Age ≤ 54) | −0.135 | 0.236 | 0.328 | 1 | 0.567 | −0.597 | 0.327 |
(Age ≥ 55) | 0 a | 0 | ||||||
(Gender = M) | 0.350 | 0.216 | 2.618 | 1 | 0.106 | −0.774 | 0.074 | |
(Gender = F) | 0 a | 0 | ||||||
(Acadlevel = NSup) | 0.757 | 0.280 | 7.324 | 1 | 0.007 | 0.209 | 1.305 | |
(Acadlevel = Sup) | 0 a | 0 | ||||||
(Residence = Area1) | −0.038 | 0.209 | 0.034 | 1 | 0.855 | −0.447 | 0.371 | |
(Residence = Area2) | 0 a | 0 | ||||||
(Children = No) | −0.142 | 0.214 | 0.438 | 1 | 0.508 | −0.561 | 0.278 | |
(Children = Yes) | 0 a | 0 | ||||||
(Place = Generalist) | −0.623 | 0.227 | 7.532 | 1 | 0.006 | −1.068 | −0.178 | |
(Place = Organic) | 0 a | 0 |
Estimate | Std. Error | Wald | df | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||||
Threshold | (AbsenceGMO = 1) | −0.747 | 0.163 | 21.098 | 1 | 0.000 | −1.066 | −0.428 |
(AbsenceGMO = 2) | −0.082 | 0.131 | 0.391 | 1 | 0.532 | −0.337 | −0.174 | |
(AbsenceGMO = 3) | 0.813 | 0.173 | 22.064 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.474 | 1.152 | |
Location | (Acadlevel = NSup) | 0.742 | 0.271 | 7.477 | 1 | 0.006 | 0.210 | 1.274 |
(Acadlevel = Sup) | 0 a | 0 | ||||||
(Place = Generalist) | −0.734 | 0.224 | 10.732 | 1 | 0.001 | −1.172 | −0.295 | |
(Place = Organic) | 0 a | 0 |
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
Madureira, T.; Nunes, F.; Veiga, J.; Saralegui-Diez, P. Choices in Sustainable Food Consumption: How Spanish Low Intake Organic Consumers Behave. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1125. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111125
Madureira T, Nunes F, Veiga J, Saralegui-Diez P. Choices in Sustainable Food Consumption: How Spanish Low Intake Organic Consumers Behave. Agriculture. 2021; 11(11):1125. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111125
Chicago/Turabian StyleMadureira, Teresa, Fernando Nunes, José Veiga, and Pablo Saralegui-Diez. 2021. "Choices in Sustainable Food Consumption: How Spanish Low Intake Organic Consumers Behave" Agriculture 11, no. 11: 1125. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111125