Next Article in Journal
A Method for Calculating the Leaf Area of Pak Choi Based on an Improved Mask R-CNN
Next Article in Special Issue
End of the Cage Age? A Study on the Impacts of the Transition from Cages on the EU Laying Hen Sector
Previous Article in Journal
A First View on the Competencies and Training Needs of Farmers Working with and Researchers Working on Precision Agriculture Technologies
Previous Article in Special Issue
Food Consumption Habits of Hungarian Organic Food Consumers and Their Policy Implications
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/agriculture14010100
agriculture-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

National Labelling System of Organic Agriculture and Food Products—How Familiar Are Czech Consumers with the National Organic Agri-Food Brand?

by
Martina Zámková
1,
Stanislav Rojík
2,
Martin Prokop
1,*,
Simona Činčalová
3 and
Radek Stolín
1
1
Department of Mathematics, College of Polytechnics Jihlava, Tolstého 16, 58601 Jihlava, Czech Republic
2
Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 129, 16500 Prague, Czech Republic
3
Department of Economics Studies, College of Polytechnics Jihlava, Tolstého 16, 58601 Jihlava, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2024, 14(1), 100; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010100
Submission received: 11 December 2023 / Revised: 27 December 2023 / Accepted: 3 January 2024 / Published: 4 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Agri-Food System: Marketing, Economics and Policies)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The organic market in the Czech Republic has been growing dynamically, mainly in the last two decades. It is increasing the number of organic farms and producers of organic food. It was also identified as growing in popularity with Czech customers in the period before the COVID-19 pandemic. In the Czech Republic, organic products are labelled with a national brand called “bio zebra” under direct control of the Czech Ministry of Agriculture. The dependence of the recognition of this brand on selected socio-demographic indicators (gender, age, education, net monthly household income, number of household members, number of children in the family, size of the municipality) was evaluated in a sample of 1197 respondents in total using logistic regression, and the course of partial dependence on individual sociodemographic indicators was monitored in more detail using contingency table analysis. Significant relationships were found between the recognition of this agri-food brand and gender, education, net monthly household income, number of members and children in the family, and size of the municipality where the consumers live. The proportion of respondents who know the label was higher among women and increased with education level, net monthly household income, number of household members and municipality size.

1. Introduction

In recent years, consumers have become increasingly concerned about what they consume. Healthy living is on the rise among consumers. This is based, among other things, on their purchasing behaviour and the growing interest in fresh, healthy and, above all, organic agriculture and food products [1,2]; these products are certified and labelled with specific brands [3,4]. The Czech brand (logo) (see Figure 1 left), used since 2010, is the so-called “bio or green zebra” (see also brand) with the inscription “BIO products of organic farming”. For the consumer, the brand is a confirmation of the criteria of organic farming (due to the agrarian policy of the Czech Republic, e.g., no use of chemical substances [5]).
For example, the European brand of organic agriculture and food products (see Figure 1 right) is mandatory used on packaged organic products, and there is also an obligation to indicate on the packaging where the agricultural raw materials were produced. For organic agriculture and food products imported into the EU from third countries, the European logo is optional [6,7]
Agriculture 14 00100 g001
Figure 1. Czech national (a) and European (b) brands of organic products. Source: [6].
Figure 1. Czech national (a) and European (b) brands of organic products. Source: [6].
Agriculture 14 00100 g001
Act No. 242/2000 sets up rules for the implementation of EU organic legislation in the Czech Republic. Decree 16/2006 covers other rules in detail. The authority responsible for the implementation of EU and national organic legislation is the Czech Ministry of Agriculture [8].
Packaged organic products available on the Czech market must be branded with the EU logo. In addition, as already mentioned, there is a mandatory national organic logo known as “Biozebra”. It is under the control of the Czech Ministry of Agriculture and must be applied when the product has its origin (even repackaged) or was branded (also recertified) in the Czech market. Detailed rules for its use are set out in Act No. 242/2000 Coll. on organic farming and in Decree No. 16/2006 [8].
The main purpose of bio-labels and brands is to provide important data about organic products and, at the same time, to inform customers about the product’s manufacture and its environmental impacts. Customers value these brands, and they will pay more (if they are able) compared to conventional products [9,10,11]. According to the results of several studies (e.g., [12,13,14]), bio-labels are a suitable tool to attract consumers to organic products. Some consumers always read the information on packages, and it is these brands that prove the ecological origin of the product and the ecological process of its production. Actually, there has been growth in the number of brands showing origin [15,16].
Companies use certification and bio-labels for a variety of reasons. Some authors argue that bio-labelling helps companies improve their competitive position [17,18], improve their reputation [19,20], gain access to new markets [20,21], increase their market share [22] and offer additional economic benefits [23,24]. On the other hand, it is important to mention that not all bio-labels are successful [25].
The bio-label is a marketing tool that facilitates the market development of organic production and product sales [26,27]. The use of these brands on the market is effective as an influencing market development factor [28]. There also exist different terms for these product labels. For example, British and American regions use the term “organic”, Germany uses “ecological”, while, e.g., in the Czech Republic, Italy and Hungary is use the term “bio” [29,30].
Summarising the facts mentioned above, it can be argued that bio-labels are a valuable tool for marketers to help them convey information to their customers and differentiate what they offer from other available products [31,32]. A bio or organic brand can also be defined as a label which serves as a guarantee for customers of the environmentally friendly characteristic of a product [33]. It is also used as a tool to inform customers—the aim of which is to spread awareness about ecological production and the positive influence of the product on the environment and nature [34].
It is understood that consumers’ recognition of bio-labels can affect both the level of consumer trust and their willingness to purchase the product [35]. With increasing knowledge, the consumer has a better perception of the product’s features, and this makes it easier for them to make a decision [36]. In contrast, at a low level of product knowledge, consumers do not have enough information to successfully evaluate product attributes [37].
Consumers perceive organic agriculture and food product labelling systems mostly subjectively, and therefore lack objective recognition [38]. Zander et al. [7] say that expanding the agriculture and food branding of organic products is as important as the logo awareness and recognition of consumers to enhance successful branding. This is also supported by Fotopoulos and Krystallis [39], who discovered a lack of knowledge of organic brands in consumers in Greece. Cca. 30% of the consumers in their study said they know of existing ecolabels, and some did not even know the national brand for organic products.
A German study [37] proves that the recognition of bio-labels has an influence on the overall behaviour of the consumer. It has influence on whether the consumer buys the product or not. Other authors (e.g., [40,41]) agree with this research. Paper [42], focusing on Danish consumers, shows that the higher the level of recognition of eco-labels and the higher the degree of trust in these labels, the more likely consumers are to buy organic agriculture and food products. Other authors (e.g., [43,44,45]) have identified increasing organic market in Poland in last two decades and point out changes in the food market during COVID-19 pandemic from a customer behaviour perspective [46].
Consumer behaviour in organic production and agri-food marketing is a very popular topic for researchers (e.g., [44,47,48,49,50]); however, the area of the recognition of their labelling systems needs to be given considerable attention. Sustainable food and agricultural products are based on four main pillars. The first pillar is availability, the second pillar is access, the third pillar is utilisation and stability, and the last pillar of the dimensions of sustainability is based on economic factors and the environmental and social characteristics of the product’s production [51].
The aim of our article is to evaluate the recognition of the Czech national labelling system for organic agriculture and food products, also called “biozebra”, from the point of view of consumers in the Czech Republic depending on selected socio-demographic indicators (gender, age, education, net monthly household income, number of household members, number of children in the family, size of the municipality). Brand awareness is the most basic and important entity within brand equity for marketing brand management. Consumer behaviour shows the level of knowledge of this label on the Czech market, and the results of this study can be applied by the coordinator of this label, organic farms and food producers, and retailers, as well as in the framework of prediction and planning within the agricultural production of organic products.

2. Materials and Methods

As part of the conducted research, a total of 1197 responses from surveyed respondents from the Czech Republic were included in further processing. This is a quota selection; the individual categories are shown in Table 1. The research was conducted in 2020 via an online questionnaire. Respondents were addressed through an online questionnaire, and the researchers tried to meet the quotas of socio-demographic indicators (gender, education, net monthly income) according to the data of the Czech Statistical Office. By using quota sampling, a maximally representative sample was achieved. The research focused on recognition of the brand of the Czech national system for labelling organic agriculture and food products, the so-called “biozebra” (see also brand). The main research question, which investigated whether customers know the logo of this branding system, was analysed in relation to basic socio-demographic indicators on a selected sample of respondents in the Czech Republic.
The issue of gender preferences in the purchase of organic food is addressed in, e.g., [11,48,52,53,54,55,56]. The issue of preferences for buying organic food according to education has been addressed by, e.g., [48,52,53,54,57,58,59]. The issue of preferences for buying organic food according to income has been addressed by, e.g., [48,53,54,58,59,60,61]. The research questionnaire also included information on the frequency of buying organic food, where it was found that 9% buy organic food regularly, 51% buy organic food occasionally, approximately 17% do not believe that it is organic food and 23% do not buy organic food.
First, an analysis of the dependency of knowledge of the “biozebra” label on all identification variables was performed simultaneously. Next, this dependence on each identification variable was tested separately using contingency table analysis. Finally, for selected pairs of identification variables, a combined analysis of knowledge of the “biozebra” label on this pair of variables was performed. This dependence was presented graphically.
Logistic regression and analysis of contingency tables were chosen for the analysis of the obtained data [62,63,64]. Logistic regression maps the dependence of the researched variable (Do you know the Czech national logo “biozebra”, which denotes organic agriculture and food products?) on several selected socio-demographic variables at the same time. Using pivot tables, partial dependencies of the researched question on individual socio-demographic variables (sex/gender, age, education, net monthly household income, number of household members, number of children and size of municipality) were evaluated, and the analysis included Pearson’s chi-square test; for more details, see [65,66].
Regarding the significance of the logistic regression model, a null hypothesis was established: all regression coefficients are equal to zero, i.e., the knowledge of the brand “biozebra” among Czech consumers does not depend on any of the identifying variables, i.e., gender, age, education, monthly household income, number of family members and number of children. Furthermore, a hypothesis for the test of independence in contingency tables was established: brand knowledge does not depend on all these variables individually.
The research results can be used to define and refine the target group and create a profile of the target customer group [67].
The logistic regression model parameters were based on maximum likelihood estimation. The quality of the model was evaluated, for example, by a chi-square test of goodness of fit [68,69,70]. Unistat 5.1 and Statistica 13 software were used to evaluate the results.

3. Results

The aim of this research was to assess the recognition of the so-called “biozebra” (see also brand) label among Czech consumers depending on selected socio-demographic indicators. First, this recognition was examined depending on all indicators at the same time using logistic regression. Furthermore, this recognition was assessed in more detail depending on each indicator separately using an analysis of contingency tables.
The recognition of the logo was rated as 1 (yes) or 0 (no). The gender variable was coded as 0 (female) or 1 (male). Other socio-demographic indicators were defined on an increasing scale of 0, 1, 2, 3, ….
The results of the logistic regression can be seen in Table 2. A positive sign for the regression coefficient means that the frequency of respondents who know the organic food label increases with increasing value of the independent variable. For a negative sign, this frequency decreases with increasing value of the independent variable. Table 2 also contains the 95% confidence interval for the value of the regression parameters. Recognition of the “biozebra” label significantly depends on gender, education, net monthly household income, the number of members and children in the family, and the size of the municipality in which consumers live. According to the signs of the regression coefficients, the proportion of respondents who know this logo is higher among women and increases with education level, net monthly household income, number of household members and municipality size. On the contrary, this proportion decreases with an increasing number of children in the family.
The regression model is statistically significant (the p-value of the likelihood ratio test is 0.0000) and at the same time, the fit of the regression model with the data cannot be rejected (the p-value of the fit is 1.0000; see Table 3). The good quality of the regression model is also evident from the area of 0.65 below the ROC curve (see Figure 2).
The null hypothesis testing the significance of the logistic regression model was rejected, i.e., it cannot be said that knowledge does not depend on any of the identifying variables. Regarding the individual variables, knowledge of the brand “biozebra” was found to be significantly related to gender, education, monthly household income, number of family members, number of children and size of the municipality in which you live and shop. There was no statistically significant dependence on the age of consumers. In the case of contingency tables, all null hypotheses were rejected, i.e., knowledge of the brand “biozebra” depends on all identifying variables separately.
Furthermore, the dependence of knowledge of the brand “biozebra” on the individual identification variables was tested separately using contingency table analysis.
Women (61.97%) know the brand significantly more often than men (48.97%) (see Table 4 (part I)). A statistically significant dependence of the recognition of the brand on gender was demonstrated (p-value < 0.01; χ2 = 19.17; Cramer’s V = 0.13).
The recognition of the brand changes significantly with the age of consumers; it increases until the age of approximately 45 years (from a value of 53.64% to a value of 68.15%) and decreases among older respondents (see Table 4 (part II)). A statistically significant dependence of recognition of the brand on age is demonstrated (p-value < 0.01; χ2 = 15.27; Cramer’s V = 0.11).
Table 4 (part III) shows that the recognition of the brand increases significantly with consumer education. For consumers with a primary education, the value is 37.93%; for consumers with a high school education, it reaches 53.49%; and for those with a university education, it is 68.27%. A statistically significant dependence of recognition of the brand on education is demonstrated (p-value < 0.01; χ2 = 36.96; Cramer’s V = 0.18).
From Table 4 (part IV), it is clear that recognition of the brand increases significantly with increasing net monthly household income of consumers. These values range from 47.96% for consumers with a net monthly income of up to CZK 20,000 to 65.02% for consumers with an income of over CZK 50,000. A statistically significant dependence of recognition of the brand on net monthly household income is demonstrated (p-value < 0.01; χ2 = 16.45; Cramer’s V = 0.12).
The recognition rate of the brand changes significantly with the number of members in the consumer’s household (see Table 4 (part V)). The highest values of around 60% are reached in households with two to four members, while households with at least five members show a lower recognition rate (51.63%). The lowest recognition rate is among single-member households (only 41.06%). A statistically significant dependence of the recognition of the brand on number of household members is demonstrated (p-value < 0.01; χ2 = 25.38; Cramer’s V = 0.15).
Table 4 (part VI) shows that the recognition of the brand is highest among households with one child (64.25%). With a higher number of children in the family, this recognition drops significantly from a value of 57.76% in households with two children to a value of 37.5% in households with at least four children. In childless households, it is around 56%. A statistically significant dependence of recognition of the brand on the number of children in the household is demonstrated (p-value < 0.05; χ2 = 11.49; Cramer’s V = 0.10).
From Table 4 (part VII), it is clear that the recognition of the brand increases very slightly with an increasing number of inhabitants of the municipality in which the consumers live. This recognition is around 55%. Only for consumers living in large cities with more than 200,001 inhabitants does this recognition significantly increase to a value of 66.14%. A statistically significant dependence of recognition of the brand on the size of the municipality is demonstrated (p-value < 0.05; χ2 = 11.70; Cramer’s V = 0.10).
The graphical output in Figure 3 shows that knowledge of the brand “biozebra” is always higher for women than for men, and the most significant difference is for respondents with a primary education.
The graphical output in Figure 4 shows that knowledge of the brand “biozebra” is always higher for women than for men, and the most significant difference is for respondents with the lowest income.
The graphical output in Figure 5 shows that knowledge of the brand “biozebra” is always higher for women than for men, but this knowledge increases significantly with the size of the municipality for women. For men, knowledge of the brand “biozebra” does not depend so much on the size of the municipality.
The graphical output in Figure 6 shows that knowledge of the brand “biozebra” is always higher for women than for men, but this knowledge increases significantly with age for women. For men, knowledge of the brand “biozebra” does not depend so much on age.

4. Discussion

The knowledge that consumers have about the standards for organic products is limited [71], and the same is true for organic agriculture and food products [72]. Consumers subjectively interpret what “organic” means [73,74]. Regardless of a country’s level of development, knowledge about organic agriculture and food products is lacking. For example, Zepeda et al. [75] proved in their study that, e.g., African Americans do not prefer organic products because many of those respondents do not recognise these products. A research study conducted in Tennessee showed that 13.6% of respondents had no knowledge about organic agriculture and food products [76].
The conclusions of our research confirm that awareness of the studied brand significantly depends on gender, education, net monthly household income, the number of members and children in the family, and the size of the municipality where consumers live. The share of respondents who know this label is higher among women and increases with education level, net monthly household income, number of household members and the size of the municipality. On the contrary, this number decreases with an increasing number of children in the family. Conversely, this proportion decreases as the number of children in the family increases. Recognition of this agri-food brand varies significantly with consumer age, increasing up to about 45 years of age and decreasing for older respondents. Recognition of the brand varies significantly with the number of household members, with the highest values for households with two to four members and the lowest values for households with one member. Consumers in large cities with over 200,000 inhabitants have significantly higher recognition rates than those in smaller settlements.
A statistically significant dependence of the recognition of the brand on gender was demonstrated. Most of the decisions about food products are in families by women, which is confirmed by these research results, and women recognise the brand more than men. Women (61.97%) are significantly more familiar with the brand than men (48.97%). Razeghi et al. [77] also found a positive relationship between awareness of organic products and sex. On the other hand, Demirtas et al. [78] came to the conclusion that respondents’ gender does not influence their recognition of organic products, as the results for both genders were similar (men 53%, women 47%).
In our research, it was found that the recognition of the brand changes significantly with the age of consumers, increasing up to the age of approximately 45 years and decreasing among older respondents. This generation prefers organic food more, the reasons being, for example, greater education, more information and access to modern sources of information. A statistically significant dependence of the recognition of the brand on age was demonstrated. This statement is matched by a study [78] in which it was shown that Turkish youth have more knowledge about organic agriculture and food product brands, while the proportion of respondents aged 45 or more who have this knowledge is only 20%. However, the conclusions of foreign studies differ. Dahm et al. [79] say that young respondents identify organic food and agricultural products as “ecological”, but other authors, like, e.g., McReynolds et al. [71], state that the recognition of organic labels does not depend on the respondents’ age.
From the conducted research, it is clear that the recognition of the brand increases significantly with increasing net monthly household income of consumers. Organic food is still significantly more expensive in the Czech Republic compared to conventional food (e.g., compared to Western European countries), which is why it is preferred by customers with higher incomes, as well as for economic reasons. Often, these customers are also more educated with better access to information. Studies by Dangi et al. [80] and Demirtas et al. [78] also came to the conclusion that as income increases, so does the recognition of organic agriculture and food products.
However, since a higher level of education corresponds to better recognition [81,82], for more educated respondents and respondents with higher academic achievements, organic products were more valuable. Such consumers are often more interested in health and healthy lifestyles, are more educated and show greater knowledge of organic products, and are more willing to eat more healthy foods [83]. The conclusions of study [84] agree with this opinion, as the recognition of organic products is positively related to the level of education of the respondents. It can also be confirmed in our research that the recognition of the brand increases significantly with the education of consumers.
According to [78], families with children have a positive effect on organic agriculture and food product recognition, and a relationship was found between the number of household members and the recognition of organic agriculture and food products. Also from our investigation, it can be claimed that the recognition of the brand changes significantly with the number of members in the consumer’s household. At the same time, a statistically significant dependence of the recognition of the brand on the number of children in the household is demonstrated.
Research by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic [85] shows that consumers buy organic agriculture and food products primarily to benefit themselves, and the environmental impact is not as important to them. A total of 92% of respondents are aware of the sale of organic agriculture and food products in our country, but only a third of them buy these products, only 46% of respondents know the brand (after being presented with it) and 22% of respondents know the European logo for organic products.

5. Conclusions

This research was focused on the evaluation of the recognition of the national agri-marketing labelling system, “biozebra”, in the Czech Republic (see also brand) from the perspectives of Czech customers depending on selected socio-demographic indicators. Using logistic regression, the dependence of recognition of this brand on all selected indicators was evaluated simultaneously. A significant dependence of recognition of this brand on gender, education, net monthly household income, the number of children and family members and the size of the village or city where consumers live was demonstrated. The share of respondents who know this label is higher among women and increases with education level, the net monthly income of the family, the number of family members and the size of the municipality. On the contrary, this share decreases with more children in the family.
In addition to the general trend, the course of partial dependencies on individual socio-demographic indicators was monitored in more detail using contingency table analysis. It was proven that women (61.97%) know the brand significantly more often than men (48.97%). Recognition of the brand changes significantly with the age of consumers, increasing up to the age of approximately 45 and decreasing among older respondents. This recognition increases significantly with consumer education and increases significantly with increasing net monthly household income of consumers. These are values from 47.96% for consumers with a net monthly income of up to CZK 20,000 to 65.02% for consumers with an income of over CZK 50,000. Recognition of the brand changes significantly with the number of members in the consumer’s household; the highest values of around 60% are reached in households with two to four members, and the lowest recognition rate is in households with one member (only 41.06%). Recognition of the brand is highest among households with one child (64.25%). With a higher number of children in the family, this recognition rate drops significantly from a value of 57.76% in households with two children to a value of 37.5% in households with at least four children. For consumers in large cities with more than 200,001 inhabitants, this recognition rate is significantly higher than for smaller municipalities (66.14% versus approximately 55% for smaller municipalities). In a combined analysis of the dependence of knowledge of the brand “biozebra” on two identifying variables, it is found that this knowledge among women increases with education, income, the size of the village and the age of these women. Such differences are observed primarily among women.
Based on these results, the aim of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic should be to target marketing communication activities, especially for the population of the Czech Republic with higher and middle incomes, especially families with children and higher education and residing in larger residences. Appropriate marketing could be via social networks, distribution channels, etc. The current general communication campaign carried out by the Ministry in relation to the organic food brand in the Czech Republic should, in our opinion, be significantly changed, and should be communicated in terms of both health benefits and ecological or other positive externalities brought by products labelled with this brand. Mainly the young generation in the education system from the elementary school and higher education levels should be targeted and educated in the area of organic foods and their benefits for health, ecology and sustainability. Food products for pupils are freely available in elementary schools and should be mostly organic too.
Research limitations: This research was conducted among consumers in Czech markets, where each market is specific and consumer behaviour cannot be generalised to other markets. In order to compare our results and their relevance to other countries, such research should also be carried out in other countries, which would be an interesting but very expensive subject for further research, and would require obtaining a source of funding in the form of a significant grant. Another limitation is the focus on brand knowledge only and the abstraction of entities such as perceived quality, brand loyalty and other brand-related attributes. However, brand knowledge is the most important entity because without brand knowledge, it is not possible to analyse the level of other brand value factors. A comprehensive assessment of brand equity would be too extensive for the level of a single paper; it is suitable content for further publications by the authors or for a complex publication in the form of, for example, a scholarly book.

Author Contributions

This article was written by M.Z., S.R., S.Č., M.P. and R.S.; the statistical results were obtained by M.Z., S.R., M.P. and R.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the College of Polytechnics in Jihlava under Grant IGS–Nr.: INT/2022/0006: “Analysis of consumer shopping behaviour when buying food, organic agriculture and food products and regional food during the COVID-19 pandemic”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest in this research from any internal or external factors.

References

  1. Katt, F.; Meixner, O. A Systematic Review of Drivers Influencing Consumer Willingness to Pay for Organic Food. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 100, 374–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wu, Y.; Wang, L.; Patras, A. Safety, Nutrition, and Health Aspects of Organic Food. In Organic Farming for Sustainable Agriculture; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 89–106. [Google Scholar]
  3. Murphy, B.; Martini, M.; Fedi, A.; Loera, B.L.; Elliott, C.T.; Dean, M. Consumer Trust in Organic Food and Organic Certifications in Four European Countries. Food Control 2022, 133, 108484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. The Mandatory EU Logo for Organic Food: Consumer Perceptions. Br. Food J. 2012, 114, 335–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ministry of Agriculture. Organic Production and Organic Food. Available online: https://eagri.cz/public/portal/en/mze/organic-production-and-organic-food (accessed on 26 November 2023).
  6. eAGRI Loga pro Ekologické Zemědělství. Available online: https://eagri.cz/public/web/mze/zemedelstvi/ekologicke-zemedelstvi/dokumenty-statistiky-formulare/loga-a-znaceni/ (accessed on 2 November 2022).
  7. Zander, K.; Padel, S.; Zanoli, R. EU Organic Logo and Its Perception by Consumers. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 1506–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture. FiBL Mandatory Organic Standards and Labels. Available online: https://www.organicexport.info/czech-republic.html (accessed on 26 November 2023).
  9. Liang, R.-D. Predicting Intentions to Purchase Organic Food: The Moderating Effects of Organic Food Prices. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 183–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wang, L.; Wang, J.; Huo, X. Consumer’s Willingness to Pay a Premium for Organic Fruits in China: A Double-Hurdle Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Zámková, M.; Blašková, V. The Popularity of Organic Products among Young People in the Czech Republic. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2013, 60, 475–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mamouni Limnios, E.; Schilizzi, S.G.M.; Burton, M.; Ong, A.; Hynes, N. Willingness to Pay for Product Ecological Footprint: Organic vs Non-Organic Consumers. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2016, 111, 338–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Delmas, M.A.; Gergaud, O. Sustainable Practices and Product Quality: Is There Value in Eco-Label Certification? The Case of Wine. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 183, 106953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Monier-Dilhan, S. Food Labels: Consumer’s Information or Consumer’s Confusion. OCL Oilseeds Fats Crops Lipids 2018, 25, D202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liebig, M.; Knacker, T. Eco-Labelling of Shampoos, Shower Gels and Foam Baths (6 Pp). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2007, 14, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. De Canio, F.; Martinelli, E. EU Quality Label vs Organic Food Products: A Multigroup Structural Equation Modeling to Assess Consumers’ Intention to Buy in Light of Sustainable Motives. Food Res. Int. 2021, 139, 109846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Gillot, M.; Blasquiet-Revol, H.; Jeanneaux, P. Différenciation et Compétitivité: Quelle Performance Pour Les Exploitations Viticoles Françaises Sous Signe de Qualité? Cah. Agric. 2022, 31, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lee, Y.; Bateman, A. The Competitiveness of Fair Trade and Organic versus Conventional Coffee Based on Consumer Panel Data. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 184, 106986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Knight, J.G.; Mather, D.W.; Holdsworth, D.K. Genetically Modified Crops and Country Image of Food Exporting Countries. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 653–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Anagnostou, A.; Ingenbleek, P.T.M.; van Trijp, H.C.M. Sustainability Labelling as a Challenge to Legitimacy: Spillover Effects of Organic Fairtrade Coffee on Consumer Perceptions of Mainstream Products and Retailers. J. Consum. Mark. 2015, 32, 422–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kim, G.; Seok, J.; Mark, T. New Market Opportunities and Consumer Heterogeneity in the U.S. Organic Food Market. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hidalgo-Baz, M.; Martos-Partal, M.; González-Benito, Ó. Assessments of the Quality of Organic versus Conventional Products, by Category and Cognitive Style. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 62, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fuerst, F.; McAllister, P. Eco-Labeling in Commercial Office Markets: Do LEED and Energy Star Offices Obtain Multiple Premiums? Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1220–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Macchia, E.; Manoli, K.; Di Franco, C.; Picca, R.A.; Österbacka, R.; Palazzo, G.; Torricelli, F.; Scamarcio, G.; Torsi, L. Organic Field-Effect Transistor Platform for Label-Free, Single-Molecule Detection of Genomic Biomarkers. ACS Sens. 2020, 5, 1822–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wu, L.; Yin, S.; Xu, Y.; Zhu, D. Effectiveness of China’s Organic Food Certification Policy: Consumer Preferences for Infant Milk Formula with Different Organic Certification Labels. Can. J. Agric. Econ./Rev. Can. Agroecon. 2014, 62, 545–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Delmas, M.A.; Lessem, N. Eco-Premium or Eco-Penalty? Eco-Labels and Quality in the Organic Wine Market. Bus. Soc. 2017, 56, 318–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hosseinikhah Choshaly, S.; Mirabolghasemi, M. The Role of Viral Marketing Strategies in Predicting Purchasing Intention of Eco-Labelled Products. J. Islam. Mark. 2022, 13, 997–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Walter, J.M. Comparing the Effectiveness of Market-Based and Choice-Based Environmental Policy. J. Policy Model. 2020, 42, 173–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Atanasoaie, G.S. Eco-Label and Its Role in the Development of Organic Products Market. Econ. Transdiscipl. Cogn. 2013, 16, 122–129. [Google Scholar]
  30. Drexler, D.; Fiala, J.; Havlíčková, A.; Potůčková, A.; Souček, M. The Effect of Organic Food Labels on Consumer Attention. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2018, 24, 441–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nagy-Pércsi, K.; Fogarassy, C. Important Influencing and Decision Factors in Organic Food Purchasing in Hungary. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Martinho, V.J.P.D. Food and Consumer Attitude(s): An Overview of the Most Relevant Documents. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Buhociu, F.M.; Augustin, C.L.; Turek Rahoveanu, M.M.; Turek Rahoveanu, A.; Zugravu, G.A. Fuzzy Sensory Quality Certification in Intensive Organic Beekeeping. Agriculture 2021, 11, 644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bougherara, D.; Combris, P. Eco-Labelled Food Products: What Are Consumers Paying For? Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2009, 36, 321–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mazur-Włodarczyk, K.; Gruszecka-Kosowska, A. Conventional or Organic? Motives and Trends in Polish Vegetable Consumption. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Stanton, J.V.; Cook, L.A. Product Knowledge and Information Processing of Organic Foods. J. Consum. Mark. 2019, 36, 240–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bartels, J.; Hoogendam, K. The Role of Social Identity and Attitudes toward Sustainability Brands in Buying Behaviors for Organic Products. J. Brand Manag. 2011, 18, 697–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Product Labelling in the Market for Organic Food: Consumer Preferences and Willingness-to-Pay for Different Organic Certification Logos. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 25, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fotopoulos, C.; Krystallis, A. Purchasing Motives and Profile of the Greek Organic Consumer: A Countrywide Survey. Br. Food J. 2002, 104, 730–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Laroche, M.; Kim, C.; Zhou, L. Brand Familiarity and Confidence as Determinants of Purchase Intention: An Empirical Test in a Multiple Brand Context. J. Bus. Res. 1996, 37, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Richetin, J.; Mattavelli, S.; Perugini, M. Increasing Implicit and Explicit Attitudes toward an Organic Food Brand by Referencing to Oneself. J. Econ. Psychol. 2016, 55, 96–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Daugbjerg, C.; Smed, S.; Andersen, L.M.; Schvartzman, Y. Improving Eco-Labelling as an Environmental Policy Instrument: Knowledge, Trust and Organic Consumption. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2014, 16, 559–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Łuczka, W.; Kalinowski, S. Barriers to the Development of Organic Farming: A Polish Case Study. Agriculture 2020, 10, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Smoluk-Sikorska, J.; Malinowski, M.; Łuczka, W. Identification of the Conditions for Organic Agriculture Development in Polish Districts—An Implementation of Canonical Analysis. Agriculture 2020, 10, 514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Smoluk-Sikorska, J.; Malinowski, M. An Attempt to Apply Canonical Analysis to Investigate the Dependencies between the Level of Organic Farming Development in Poland and the Chosen Environmental Determinants. Energies 2021, 14, 8390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dudek, M.; Śpiewak, R. Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Sustainable Food Systems: Lessons Learned for Public Policies? The Case of Poland. Agriculture 2022, 12, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zámková, M.; Prokop, M. Consumers Behaviour of Students When Shopping for Organic Food in the Czech Republic. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2013, 61, 1191–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zámková, M.; Rojík, S.; Pilař, L.; Chalupová, M.; Prokop, M.; Stolín, R.; Dziekański, P.; Maitah, M. Customer Preferences for Organic Agriculture Produce in the Czech Republic: 2016 and 2019. Agriculture 2021, 11, 968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zámková, M.; Prokop, M.; Stolín, R. A Profile of the Organic Produce Consumer. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2018, 66, 1043–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zámková, M.; Rojík, S.; Prokop, M.; Stolín, R.; Střelec, L. Methods for categorical data analysis: Illustrating consumer behaviour with relation to organic produce. In Proceedings of the XXIX. Agrarian Perspectives, Prague, Czech Republic, 16–17 September 2020; Czech University of Life Sciences: Prague, Czech Republic, 2020; pp. 426–433. [Google Scholar]
  51. FAO. Sustainable Food and Agriculture. Available online: https://www.fao.org/sustainability/en/ (accessed on 26 November 2023).
  52. Zámková, M.; Rojík, S.; Prokop, M.; Činčalová, S.; Stolín, R. Consumers’ Behavior in the Field of Organic Agriculture and Food Products during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Czech Republic: Focus on a Comparison of Hyper-, Super- and Farmers’ Markets and Direct Purchases from Producers. Agriculture 2023, 13, 811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zámková, M.; Rojík, S.; Prokop, M.; Činčalová, S.; Stolín, R. Czech Consumers’ Preference for Organic Products in Online Grocery Stores during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rojík, S.; Zámková, M.; Chalupová, M.; Pilař, L.; Prokop, M.; Stolín, R.; Malec, K.; Appiah-Kubi, S.N.K.; Maitah, M.; Dziekański, P.; et al. Pre-COVID-19 Organic Market in the European Union—Focus on the Czech, German, and Slovak Markets. Agriculture 2022, 12, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lea, E.; Worsley, T. Australians’ Organic Food Beliefs, Demographics and Values. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 855–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sharma Scholar, N.; Singhvi Professor, R.; Scholar, S.; Sharma, N.; Singhvi, R. Consumers Perception and Behaviour towards Organic Food: A Systematic Review of Literature. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2018, 7, 2152–2155. [Google Scholar]
  57. Paul, J.; Rana, J. Consumer Behavior and Purchase Intention for Organic Food. J. Consum. Mark. 2012, 29, 412–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dimitri, C.; Dettmann, R.L. Organic Food Consumers: What Do We Really Know about Them? Br. Food J. 2012, 114, 1157–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yin, S.; Wu, L.; Du, L.; Chen, M. Consumers’ Purchase Intention of Organic Food in China. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 1361–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Zielke, S. Can’t Buy Me Green? A Review of Consumer Perceptions of and Behavior Toward the Price of Organic Food. J. Consum. Aff. 2017, 51, 211–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ankrah Twumasi, M.; Zheng, H.; Asante, I.O.; Ntiamoah, E.B.; Amo-Ntim, G. The Off-Farm Income and Organic Food Expenditure Nexus: Empirical Evidence from Rural Ghana. Cogent Food Agric. 2023, 9, 2258845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zámková, M.; Střelec, L.; Rojík, S.; Prokop, M.; Stolín, R. Selected Methods of Categorical Data Analysis and Their Application in Consumer Behaviour Research. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Mathematical Methods in Economics, Brno, Czech Republic, 9–11 September 2020; Mendel University Publishing Center: Brno, Czech Republic, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  63. Zámková, M.; Prokop, M. Consumer Behaviour of Young People from Slovak Republic on the Field of the Bioproducts by Using the Correspondence and Dependence Analysis. In Proceedings of the Mathematical Methods in Economics 2014, Olomouc, Czech Republic, 10–12 September 2014; Palacký University: Olomouc, Czech Republic, 2014; pp. 1113–1119. [Google Scholar]
  64. Staňková, M.; Hampel, D.; Janová, J. Micro-Data Efficiency Evaluation of Forest Companies. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2022, 43, 441–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hendl, J. Přehled Statistických Metod Zpracování Dat: Analýza a Metaanalýza Dat; Portál: Prague, Czech Republic, 2006; ISBN 8073671239. [Google Scholar]
  66. Hindls, R.; Hronová, S.; Seger, J. Statistika pro Ekonomy, 3rd ed.; Professional Publishing: Prague, Czech Republic, 2003; ISBN 80-86419-34-7. [Google Scholar]
  67. Hebák, P.; Hustopecký, J.; Průša, M.; Řezánková, H.; Svobodová, A.; Vlach, P. Vícerozměrné Statistické Metody (3); Informatorium: Praha, Czech Republic, 2005; ISBN 80-7333-039-3. [Google Scholar]
  68. Agresti, A. Categorical Data Analysis; Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002; ISBN 0471360937. [Google Scholar]
  69. Anděl, J. Základy Matematické Statistiky, 1st ed.; Matfyzpress: Prague, Czech Republic, 2005; ISBN 80-86732-40-1. [Google Scholar]
  70. Hosmer, D.W.; Lemeshow, S. Applied Logistic Regression; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000; ISBN 9780471722144. [Google Scholar]
  71. Quah, S.-H.; Tan, A.K.G. Consumer Purchase Decisions of Organic Food Products: An Ethnic Analysis. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2009, 22, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Salam, A.; Mulye, R.; Rahman, K. Eating for the Soul: A Netnographic Study of the Ethical Motives for Organic Food Consumption. Br. Food J. 2022, 124, 4868–4887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Colom-Gorgues, A. The Challenges of Organic Production and Marketing in Europe and Spain: Innovative Marketing for the Future with Quality and Safe Food Products. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2009, 21, 166–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bhavsar, H.; Tegegne, F.; Baryeh, K.; Illukpitiya, P. Attitudes and Willingness to Pay More for Organic Foods by Tennessee Consumers. J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 10, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zepeda, L.; Chang, H.-S.; Leviten-Reid, C. Organic Food Demand: A Focus Group Study Involving Caucasian and African-American Shoppers. Agric. Hum. Values 2006, 23, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. McReynolds, K.; Gillan, W.; Naquin, M. An Examination of College Students’ Knowledge, Perceptions, and Behaviors Regarding Organic Foods. Am. J. Health Educ. 2018, 49, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Razeghi, F.; Haghi, E.; Yunesian, M. Data about Knowledge and Tendency towards Organic Foods Use in Tehran. Data Brief 2018, 16, 955–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Demirtas, B.; Parlakay, O.; Tapki, N. Organic Food Awareness in Turkey. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2015, 27, 407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Dahm, M.J.; Samonte, A.V.; Shows, A.R. Organic Foods: Do Eco-Friendly Attitudes Predict Eco-Friendly Behaviors? J. Am. Coll. Health 2009, 58, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. 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]
  81. Liefländer, A.K.; Fröhlich, G.; Bogner, F.X.; Schultz, P.W. Promoting Connectedness with Nature through Environmental Education. Environ. Educ. Res. 2013, 19, 370–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Stobbelaar, D.J.; Casimir, G.; Borghuis, J.; Marks, I.; Meijer, L.; Zebeda, S. Adolescents? Attitudes towards Organic Food: A Survey of 15- to 16-Year Old School Children. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 349–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Krystallis, A.; Fotopoulos, C.; Zotos, Y. Organic Consumers’ Profile and Their Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Selected Organic Food Products in Greece. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2006, 19, 81–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Nie, C.; Zepeda, L. Lifestyle Segmentation of US Food Shoppers to Examine Organic and Local Food Consumption. Appetite 2011, 57, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ministerstvo Zemědělství. Propagační Kampaň Na Podporu Značek BIO a Ekologického Zemědělství; Ministerstvo Zemědělství: Prague, Czech Republic, 2019.
Agriculture 14 00100 g002
Figure 2. ROC curve: x-axis—specificity, y-axis—sensitivity. Source: authors.
Figure 2. ROC curve: x-axis—specificity, y-axis—sensitivity. Source: authors.
Agriculture 14 00100 g002
Agriculture 14 00100 g003
Figure 3. Combined dependence of knowledge of the brand “Biozebra” on gender and education. Source: own research.
Figure 3. Combined dependence of knowledge of the brand “Biozebra” on gender and education. Source: own research.
Agriculture 14 00100 g003
Agriculture 14 00100 g004
Figure 4. Combined dependence of knowledge of the brand “Biozebra” on gender and income. Source: own research.
Figure 4. Combined dependence of knowledge of the brand “Biozebra” on gender and income. Source: own research.
Agriculture 14 00100 g004
Agriculture 14 00100 g005
Figure 5. Combined dependence of knowledge of the brand “Biozebra” on gender and municipality size. Source: own research.
Figure 5. Combined dependence of knowledge of the brand “Biozebra” on gender and municipality size. Source: own research.
Agriculture 14 00100 g005
Agriculture 14 00100 g006
Figure 6. Combined dependence of knowledge of the brand “Biozebra” on gender and age. Source: own research.
Figure 6. Combined dependence of knowledge of the brand “Biozebra” on gender and age. Source: own research.
Agriculture 14 00100 g006
Table 1. Relative distribution of respondents in individual categories.
Table 1. Relative distribution of respondents in individual categories.
CountryVariablesValuesPercentage
Czech RepublicSexWomen63.49%
Men36.51%
EducationPrimary7.27%
Secondary59.82%
University32.92%
Net monthly incomeUp to CZK 20,00018.46%
CZK 20,001–30,00021.14%
CZK 30,001–40,00025.40%
CZK 40,001–50,00018.05%
CZK 50,001 or more16.96%
Source: own research.
Table 2. Regression model parameters.
Table 2. Regression model parameters.
CoefficientStandard ErrorWald StatisticsSignificanceLower 95%Upper 95%
Constant−0.89460.224515.87780.0001−1.3347−0.4546
Gender−0.75220.131832.58370.0000−1.0105−0.4939
Age0.09080.06941.71290.1906−0.04520.2268
Education0.53030.117620.32970.00000.29980.7608
Monthly household income0.17270.053210.53700.00120.06840.2769
Number of family members0.20670.08206.35410.01170.04600.3675
Number of children−0.22810.08347.47760.0062−0.3916−0.0646
Size of municipality you live and shop in 0.08170.03754.75460.02920.00830.1552
Source: own research.
Table 3. Statistical significance of the model.
Table 3. Statistical significance of the model.
−2 Log Likelihood:
Initial model =1634.3032
Final model =1543.4513
Reliability ratio statistics:
Chi-square statistics =90.8519
Degrees of freedom =7
Right-tail probability =0.0000
Interpolation consistency:
Chi-square statistics =1193.1617
Degrees of freedom =1189
Right-tail probability =1.0000
Source: own research.
Table 4. Pivot table—recognition of the “BIOZEBRA” label and respondents’ gender, age, education, net monthly household income, number of household members, numbers of children in family and size of municipality the respondent lives in (column relative frequencies).
Table 4. Pivot table—recognition of the “BIOZEBRA” label and respondents’ gender, age, education, net monthly household income, number of household members, numbers of children in family and size of municipality the respondent lives in (column relative frequencies).
VariablesValuesI Don’t KnowI Know
I.
Sex
(p-value < 0.01)
Men51.03%48.97%
Women38.03%61.97%
II.
Age
(p-value < 0.01)
Less than 25 years46.36%53.64%
26–35 years34.83%65.17%
36–45 years31.85%68.15%
46 years or more43.86%56.14%
III.
Education
(p-value < 0.01)
Primary62.07%37.93%
Secondary46.51%53.49%
University31.73%68.27%
IV.
Net monthly income
(p-value < 0.01)
Up to CZK 20,00052.04%47.96%
CZK 20,001–30,00045.45%54.55%
CZK 30,001–40,00043.09%56.91%
CZK 40,001–50,00037.04%62.96%
CZK 50,001 or more34.98%65.02%
V.
Number of members
(p-value < 0.01)
158.94%41.06%
236.05%63.95%
338.02%61.98%
441.94%58.06%
5 or more48.37%51.63%
VI.
Number of children
(p-value < 0.05)
None43.73%56.27%
135.75%64.25%
242.24%57.76%
350.00%50.00%
4 or more62.50%37.50%
VII.
Size of municipality the
respondent lives in
(p-value < 0.05)
Less than 2,000 inh.48.20%51.80%
2,001–5,000 inh.45.45%54.55%
5,001–20,000 inh.42.36%57.64%
20,001–50,000 inh.44.64%55.36%
50,001–200,000 inh.44.26%55.74%
200,001 or more inh.33.86%66.14%
Source: own research.
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

Zámková, M.; Rojík, S.; Prokop, M.; Činčalová, S.; Stolín, R. National Labelling System of Organic Agriculture and Food Products—How Familiar Are Czech Consumers with the National Organic Agri-Food Brand? Agriculture 2024, 14, 100. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010100

AMA Style

Zámková M, Rojík S, Prokop M, Činčalová S, Stolín R. National Labelling System of Organic Agriculture and Food Products—How Familiar Are Czech Consumers with the National Organic Agri-Food Brand? Agriculture. 2024; 14(1):100. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010100

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zámková, Martina, Stanislav Rojík, Martin Prokop, Simona Činčalová, and Radek Stolín. 2024. "National Labelling System of Organic Agriculture and Food Products—How Familiar Are Czech Consumers with the National Organic Agri-Food Brand?" Agriculture 14, no. 1: 100. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010100

APA Style

Zámková, M., Rojík, S., Prokop, M., Činčalová, S., & Stolín, R. (2024). National Labelling System of Organic Agriculture and Food Products—How Familiar Are Czech Consumers with the National Organic Agri-Food Brand? Agriculture, 14(1), 100. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010100

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