Why Per Capita Apple Consumption Is Falling: Insights from the Literature and Case Evidence from South Tyrol
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Current Consumption Situation and Apple Consumer Literature
2.1. Per Capita Apple Consumption Trends
2.2. Reasons for the Decline in Per Capita Fruit and Apple Consumption
2.3. Previous Studies on Apple Consumption Determinants
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Area
3.2. The Apple Consumption Survey (Questionnaire and Sampling)
3.3. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Sample Description and Sociodemographic Profile
4.2. Consumption Patterns and Habits
4.3. Determinants of Apple Consumption Decline
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Questionnaire Section | Variable | Unit/Scale | Mean all Sample | SD all Sample | Mean Constant Consumers (n = 172) | Mean Declining Consumers (n = 37) | Significance of Differences |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Purchase and storage of apples | Buy_or_grow | 1 = buy, 2 = grow, 3 = grow partly | 1.26 | 0.613 | 1.25 | 1.31 | p = 0.587 |
Purchase_frequency | 1 = daily, 2 = weekly, 3 = monthly, 4 = once a year | 2.48 | 0.677 | 2.41 | 2.72 | p = 0.018 | |
Purchase_quantity | 1 = below 1 kg, 2 = 1 to 5 kg, 3 = above 5 kg | 1.54 | 0.551 | 1.61 | 1.19 | p = 0.000 | |
Purchase_location_market | 1 = no, 2 = yes | 1.17 | 0.380 | 1.18 | 1.12 | p = 0.384 | |
Purchase_location_supermarket | 1 = no, 2 = yes | 1.42 | 0.495 | 1.41 | 1.45 | p = 0.621 | |
Purchase_location_greengrocer | 1 = no, 2 = yes | 1.37 | 0.485 | 1.37 | 1.39 | p = 0.773 | |
Purchase_location_producer | 1 = no, 2 = yes | 1.26 | 0.438 | 1.27 | 1.22 | p = 0.569 | |
Max_price_1kg | 1 = below €1, 2 = €1–2, 3 = €2–3, 4 = above €3 | 2.21 | 0.654 | 2.21 | 2.21 | p = 0.204 | |
Loose_or_packaged | 1 = loose, 2 = packaged | 1.04 | 0.199 | 1.04 | 1.03 | p = 0.501 | |
Importance_of_taste | 1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = important, 4 = very important | 3.83 | 0.463 | 3.84 | 3.76 | p = 0.373 | |
Importance_of_colour | – as above – | 2.38 | 0.908 | 2.37 | 2.55 | p = 0.309 | |
Importance_of_shape | – as above – | 2.85 | 0.750 | 2.84 | 2.94 | p = 0.536 | |
Importance_of_storability | – as above – | 2.91 | 0.927 | 2.97 | 2.74 | p = 0.185 | |
Importance_of_fruit_size | – as above – | 1.96 | 0.845 | 1.95 | 2.00 | p = 0.757 | |
Importance_of_variety | – as above – | 2.96 | 0.928 | 2.95 | 3.06 | p = 0.553 | |
Importance_of_flesh_firmness | – as above – | 3.33 | 0.715 | 3.35 | 3.32 | p = 0.863 | |
Importance_of_quality_class | – as above – | 2.97 | 0.927 | 3.01 | 2.81 | p = 0.261 | |
Importance_of_local_production | – as above – | 3.44 | 0.839 | 3.45 | 3.38 | p = 0.639 | |
Importance_of_organic_production | – as above – | 2.60 | 1.074 | 2.64 | 2.45 | p = 0.379 | |
Importance_of_price | – as above – | 2.88 | 0.817 | 2.90 | 2.87 | p = 0.858 | |
Preferred_taste | 1 = sweet, 2 = tart, 3 = balanced | 2.37 | 0.836 | 2.43 | 2.12 | p = 0.049 | |
Preferred_colour | 1 = red, 2 = green, 3 = yellow, 4 = bicoloured | 3.10 | 1.181 | 3.17 | 2.91 | p = 0.259 | |
Preferred_size | 1 = small (below 100g), 2 = medium (100–200g), 3 = large (above 200g) | 1.84 | 0.412 | 1.82 | 1.90 | p = 0.351 | |
Preferred_variety_Golden Delicious | 1 = no, 2 = yes | 1.61 | 0.489 | 1.60 | 1.71 | p = 0.200 | |
Preferred_variety_Granny Smith | – as above – | 1.18 | 0.385 | 1.18 | 1.17 | p = 0.960 | |
Preferred_variety_Gala | – as above – | 1.51 | 0.501 | 1.54 | 1.37 | p = 0.065 | |
Preferred_variety_Fuji | – as above – | 1.33 | 0.471 | 1.33 | 1.31 | p = 0.847 | |
Preferred_variety_Pink Lady | – as above – | 1.36 | 0.480 | 1.36 | 1.31 | p = 0.639 | |
Preferred_variety_Braeburn | – as above – | 1.09 | 0.287 | 1.08 | 1.17 | p = 0.075 | |
Preferred_variety_Red Delicious | – as above – | 1.10 | 0.301 | 1.09 | 1.14 | p = 0.320 | |
Preferred variety_Jonathan | – as above – | 1.13 | 0.343 | 1.14 | 1.11 | p = 0.650 | |
Preferred variety_other | – as above – | 1.21 | 0.408 | 1.23 | 1.17 | p = 0.487 | |
Storage_place | 1 = fridge, 2 = cellar, 3 = garage, 4 = in-house, 5 = other | 2.83 | 1.194 | 2.76 | 3.15 | p = 0.087 | |
Storage_time | 1 = few days, 2 = below one month, 3 = above one month, 4 = above six months | 2.00 | 0.879 | 2.00 | 1.97 | p = 0.861 | |
Consumption of apples | Main_consumers_children (<18) | 1 = no, 2 = yes | 1.22 | 0.418 | 1.19 | 1.35 | p = 0.034 |
Main_consumers_adults | – as above – | 1.67 | 0.472 | 1.68 | 1.59 | p = 0.319 | |
Main_consumers_seniors (>65) | – as above – | 1.23 | 0.421 | 1.23 | 1.22 | p = 0.831 | |
Apple_preferred_fruit | 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = strongly agree | 3.53 | 1.045 | 3.64 | 3.03 | p = 0.002 | |
Consume_daily | – as above – | 3.58 | 1.204 | 3.72 | 2.97 | p = 0.001 | |
Consume_when_travelling | – as above – | 3.45 | 1.345 | 3.54 | 3.03 | p = 0.034 | |
Always_have_stock_home | – as above – | 4.11 | 1.125 | 4.26 | 3.41 | P = 0.000 | |
Preferred_moment_morning | 1 = no, 2 = yes | 1.11 | 0.316 | 1.12 | 1.05 | p = 0.232 | |
Preferred_moment_midday | – as above – | 1.14 | 0.343 | 1.16 | 1.05 | p = 0.101 | |
Preferred_moment_afternoon | – as above – | 1.44 | 0.498 | 1.44 | 1.46 | p = 0.796 | |
Preferred_moment_evening | – as above – | 1.29 | 0.452 | 1.30 | 1.24 | p = 0.476 | |
Preferred_moment_anytime | – as above – | 1.22 | 0.415 | 1.21 | 1.24 | p = 0.651 | |
Modality_snack | – as above – | 1.57 | 0.496 | 1.55 | 1.70 | p = 0.082 | |
Modality_dessert | – as above – | 1.30 | 0.459 | 1.34 | 1.16 | p = 0.036 | |
Season_spring_summer | – as above – | 1.08 | 0.278 | 1.08 | 1.11 | p = 0.601 | |
Season_autumn_winter | – as above – | 1.58 | 0.494 | 1.56 | 1.68 | p = 0.213 | |
Season_no preference | – as above – | 1.40 | 0.490 | 1.42 | 1.27 | p = 0.083 | |
During_week | – as above – | 1.60 | 0.490 | 1.60 | 1.59 | p = 0.962 | |
During_weekend | – as above – | 1.41 | 0.493 | 1.45 | 1.22 | p = 0.008 | |
Before_Consuming_wash | – as above – | 1.85 | 0.354 | 1.83 | 1.97 | p = 0.025 | |
Before_Consuming_peel | – as above – | 1.63 | 0.484 | 1.62 | 1.67 | p = 0.599 | |
Before_Consuming_cut | – as above – | 1.82 | 0.381 | 1.81 | 1.89 | p = 0.279 | |
Processing and cooking | Recently_baked_applecake | – as above – | 1.53 | 0.500 | 1.52 | 1.54 | p = 0.841 |
Cooking_frequency | 1 = below once a month, 2 = monthly, 3 = weekly, 4 = daily, 0 = never | 1.66 | 1.151 | 1.76 | 1.27 | p = 0.019 | |
Baking_frequency | – as above – | 1.56 | 1.069 | 1.58 | 1.54 | p = 0.044 | |
Making_juice_frequency | – as above – | 0.43 | 0.805 | 0.48 | 0.24 | p = 0.104 | |
Drying_frequency | – as above – | 0.31 | 0.687 | 0.32 | 0.30 | p = 0.883 | |
Apples_used | 1 = overripe apples, 2 = apples specifically for this use, 3 = self-grown apples, 4 = others | 1.75 | 0.975 | 1.74 | 1.83 | p = 0.673 | |
Existence_of_dedicated_variety | 1 = no, 2 = yes | 1.34 | 0.473 | 1.33 | 1.40 | p = 0.412 | |
Health aspects and image | Reason_pleasure | – as above – | 1.67 | 0.472 | 1.70 | 1.54 | p = 0.066 |
Reason_hunger | – as above – | 1.10 | 0.298 | 1.09 | 1.14 | p = 0.442 | |
Reason_health | – as above – | 1.42 | 0.494 | 1.44 | 1.32 | p = 0.191 | |
Reason_convenience | – as above – | 1.06 | 0.239 | 1.05 | 1.11 | p = 0.204 | |
Healthiest_fruit_banana | – as above – | 1.08 | 0.278 | 1.09 | 1.08 | p = 0.905 | |
Healthiest_fruit_lemon | – as above – | 1.08 | 0.278 | 1.07 | 1.16 | p = 0.070 | |
Healthiest_fruit_orange | – as above – | 1.21 | 0.412 | 1.21 | 1.24 | p = 0.651 | |
Healthiest_fruit_blueberry | – as above – | 1.16 | 0.371 | 1.16 | 1.19 | p = 0.698 | |
Healthiest_fruit_currant | – as above – | 1.20 | 0.398 | 1.19 | 1.24 | p = 0.482 | |
Healthiest_fruit_apple | – as above – | 1.54 | 0.499 | 1.59 | 1.38 | p = 0.020 | |
Healthiest_fruit_kiwi | – as above – | 1.20 | 0.402 | 1.19 | 1.30 | p = 0.130 | |
Main_quality_vitamins | – as above – | 1.67 | 0.470 | 1.69 | 1.65 | p = 0.660 | |
Main_quality_anticancer | – as above – | 1.10 | 0.298 | 1.10 | 1.08 | p = 0.741 | |
Main_quality_minerals | – as above – | 1.13 | 0.333 | 1.12 | 1.16 | p = 0.512 | |
Main_quality_antioxidants | – as above – | 1.17 | 0.379 | 1.16 | 1.24 | p = 0.209 | |
Main_quality_low_fat | – as above – | 1.16 | 0.366 | 1.15 | 1.22 | p = 0.333 | |
Healthier_green | 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = strongly agree | 2.37 | 1.052 | 2.36 | 2.42 | p = 0.770 | |
Healthier_sour | – as above – | 2.55 | 1.056 | 2.53 | 2.67 | p = 0.475 | |
Healthier_organic | – as above – | 3.70 | 1.270 | 3.72 | 3.67 | p = 0.828 | |
Healthier_local | – as above – | 4.07 | 1.055 | 4.14 | 3.80 | p = 0.083 | |
Healthier_unpeeled | – as above – | 3.98 | 1.222 | 4.01 | 3.89 | p = 0.586 | |
Healthier_washed | – as above – | 4.17 | 1.172 | 4.18 | 4.16 | p = 0.922 | |
Test_apple_variety | 1=correct, 2=incorrect | 1.20 | 0.398 | 1.20 | 1.19 | p = 0.869 | |
Test_colour_Granny Smith | – as above – | 1.16 | 0.366 | 1.17 | 1.11 | p = 0.384 | |
Test_club_variety | – as above – | 1.59 | 0.492 | 1.59 | 1.57 | p = 0.788 | |
Test_Fuji_taste | – as above – | 1.65 | 0.479 | 1.62 | 1.73 | p = 0.215 | |
Test_apple_contents | – as above – | 1.65 | 0.478 | 1.66 | 1.62 | p = 0.686 | |
Socio-demographic information | Gender | 1 = male, 2 = female | 1.69 | 0.465 | 1.70 | 1.62 | p = 0.389 |
Language | 1 = German, 2 = Italian | 1.26 | 0.483 | 1.27 | 1.26 | p = 0.964 | |
Age | Mean | 54.5 | 15.53 | 54.6 | 55.1 | p = 0.862 | |
Household_members | Mean | 2.79 | 1.231 | 2.84 | 2.62 | p = 0.344 | |
Net_monthly_income | 1 = below €1000, 2 = €1000–2000, 3 = €2001–3000, 4 = €3001–4000, 5 = above €4000 | 3.02 | 1.117 | 3.07 | 2.82 | p = 0.250 | |
Education | 1 = primary and middle school, 2 = high school, 3 = university | 1.89 | 1.244 | 1.88 | 1.95 | p = 0.624 | |
Area_residence_size | 1 = below 20,000 inhabitants, 2 = above 20,000 inhabitants | 1.35 | 0.478 | 1.34 | 1.43 | p = 0.267 | |
Area_residence_altitude | 1 = below 1000 m a.s.l., 2 = above 1000 m a.s.l. | 1.30 | 0.461 | 1.33 | 1.19 | p = 0.094 | |
Involved_apple_production | 1 = no, 2 = yes | 1.09 | 0.290 | 1.10 | 1.05 | p = 0.364 |
References
- Mditshwa, A.; Fawole, O.; Opara, U.L. Recent Developments on Dynamic Controlled Atmosphere Storage of Apples–A Review. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2018, 16, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, C.; Bossi Fedrigotti, V. ‘An Apple A Day’… Is Going Away. What Can We Do to Stop the Decline in Per Capita Apple Consumption? Am. J. Biomed. Sci. Res. 2020, 10, 226–227. [Google Scholar]
- Bondonno, N.P.; Bondonno, C.P.; Ward, N.C.; Hodgson, J.M.; Croft, K.D. The Cardiovascular Health Benefits of Apples: Whole Fruit vs. Isolated Compounds. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 69, 243–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyson, D.A. A Comprehensive Review of Apples and Apple Components and Their Relationship to Human Health. Adv. Nutr. 2011, 2, 408–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jack, F.R.; O’Neill, J.; Piacentini, M.G.; Schröder, M.J.A. Perception of Fruit as a Snack: A Comparison with Manufactured Snack Foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 1997, 8, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bossi Fedrigotti, V.; Fischer, C. Ein Apfel am Tag? Obstbau Weinbau Fachmag. Berat. 2018, 55, 9–13. [Google Scholar]
- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Food Balance Sheets: A Handbook; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Konopacka, D.; Jesionkowska, K.; Kruczyńska, D.; Stehr, R.; Schoorl, F.; Buehler, A.; Egger, S.; Codarin, S.; Hilaire, C.; Höller, I.; et al. Apple and Peach Consumption Habits Across European Countries. Appetite 2010, 55, 478–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tugault-Lafleur, C.N.; Black, J.L. Differences in the Quantity and Types of Foods and Beverages Consumed by Canadians between 2004 and 2015. Nutrients 2019, 11, 526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lin, B.; Mentzer Morrison, R. A Closer Look at Declining Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Using Linked Data Sources. Amber Waves Feature: Food Choices and Health. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/july/a-closer-look-at-declining-fruit-and-vegetable-consumption-using-linked-data-sources/ (accessed on 22 July 2020).
- Aebischer, C. Cost a Key Factor in Falling Japan Consumption. Available online: http://www.fruitnet.com/asiafruit/article/174931/why-japan-wont-eat-more-fruit/ (accessed on 12 May 2020).
- Nancarrow, T. Could Australia’s First Red Flesh Apples Turn Around Decline in Apple Consumption? ABC Rural. Available online: https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-04-11/industry-pushes-red-fleshed-apple-to-revive-consumption-woes/9641050/ (accessed on 20 May 2020).
- Ceschi, S.; Canavari, M.; Castellini, A. Consumer’s Preference and Willingness to Pay for Apple Attributes: A Choice Experiment in Large Retail Outlets in Bologna (Italy). J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2017, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fotopoulos, C.; Krystallis, A. Quality Labels as a Marketing Advantage. The Case of the “PDO Zagora” Apples in the Greek Market. Eur. J. Mark. 2001, 37, 1352–1374. [Google Scholar]
- Skreli, E.; Imami, D. Analyzing Consumers’ Preferences for Apple Attributes in Tirana, Albania. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2012, 15, 137–156. [Google Scholar]
- Moser, R.; Raffaelli, R. Consumer Preferences for Sustainable Production Methods in Apple Purchasing Behaviour: A Non-Hypothetical Choice Experiment. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012, 36, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denver, S.; Jensen, J.D. Consumer Preferences for Organically and Locally Produced Apples. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 31, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, J.; Mørkbak, M.R. Role of Gastronomic, Externality and Feasibility Attributes in Consumer Demand for Organic and Local Foods: The Case of Honey and Apples. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2013, 37, 634–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thybo, A.K.; Kühn, B.F.; Martens, H. Explaining Danish Children’s Preferences for Apples Using Instrumental, Sensory and Demographic/Behavioural Data. Food Qual. Prefer. 2004, 15, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Péneau, S.; Hoehn, E.; Roth, H.; Escher, F.; Nuessli, J. Importance and Consumer Perception of Freshness of Apples. Food Qual. Prefer. 2006, 17, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Racskó, J.; Miller, D.D.; Duarte, E.E.; Szukics, J.; Szabó, Z.; Soltész, M.; Nyéki, J. Is Consumer Preference for Apple Driven Only by Fruit Quality? Acta Hortic. 2009, 831, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novotorova, N.K.; Mazzocco, M.A. Consumer Preferences and Trade-Offs for Locally Grown and Genetically Modified Apples: A Conjoint Analysis Approach. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2008, 11, 31–53. [Google Scholar]
- Galmarini, M.V.; Symoneaux, R.; Chollet, S.; Zamora, M.C. Understanding Apple Consumers’ Expectations in Terms of Likes and Dislikes. Use of Comment Analysis in a Cross-Cultural Study. Appetite 2013, 62, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moor, U.; Moor, A.; Põldma, P.; Heinmaa, L. Consumer Preferences of Apples in Estonia and Changes in Attitudes Over Five Years. Agric. Food Sci. 2014, 23, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Merwe, A.; Muller, M.; van der Rijst, M.; Labuschagné, I.F.; Næs, T.; Steyn, W.J. Impact of Appearance on Degree of Liking and Eating Quality Expectations of Selected Apple Cultivars. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2015, 50, 492–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Hooge, I.E.; Oostindjer, M.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Normann, A.; Loose, S.M.; Almli, V.L. This Apple is Too Ugly for Me! Consumer Preferences for Suboptimal Food Products in the Supermarket and at Home. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 56, 80–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patterson, P.M.; Richards, T.J. Newspaper Advertisement Characteristics and Consumer Preferences for Apples: A Mimic Model Approach. Agribusiness 2000, 16, 159–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Endrizzi, I.; Torri, L.; Corollaro, M.L.; Demattè, M.L.; Aprea, E.; Charles, M.; Biasioli, F.; Gasperi, F. A Conjoint Study on Apple Acceptability: Sensory Characteristics and Nutritional Information. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 40, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schechter, L. The Apple and Your Eye: Visual and Taste Rank-Ordered Probit Analysis with Correlated Errors. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harker, F.R.; Kupferman, E.M.; Marin, A.B.; Gunson, F.A.; Triggs, C.M. Eating Quality Standards for Apples Based on Consumer Preferences. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2008, 50, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dan, C.; Serban, C.; Sestras, A.F.; Militaru, M.; Morariu, P.; Sestras, R.E. Consumer Perception Concerning Apple Fruit Quality, Depending on Cultivars and Hedonic Scale of Evaluation–A Case Study. Not. Sci. Biol. 2015, 7, 140–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bonany, J.; Buehler, A.; Carbó, J.; Codarin, S.; Donati, F.; Echeverria, G.; Egger, S.; Guerra, W.; Hilaire, C.; Höller, I.; et al. Consumer Eating Quality Acceptance of New Apple Varieties in Different European Countries. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 30, 250–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Symoneaux, R.; Galmarini, M.V.; Mehinagic, E. Comment Analysis of Consumer’s Likes and Dislikes as an Alternative Tool to Preference Mapping. A Case Study on Apples. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 24, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cliff, M.; Sanford, K.; Wismer, W.; Hampson, C. Use of Digital Images for Evaluation of Factors Responsible for Visual Preference of Apples by Consumers. Hort. Sci. 2002, 37, 1127–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schenk, M.F.; van der Maas, M.P.; Smulders, M.J.M.; Gilissen, L.J.W.J.; Fischer, A.R.H.; van der Lans, I.A.; Jacobsen, E.; Frewer, L.J. Consumer Attitudes Towards Hypoallergenic Apples That Alleviate Mild Apple Allergy. Food Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano. Relazione Agraria e Forestale 2019. Available online: http://www.provinz.bz.it/agricoltura/flip/raf2019/ (accessed on 12 August 2020).
- BLS Südtirol South Tyrol. Food Technology. Available online: http://neu.bls.info/upload/file/BLS_food_technology_brochure.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2020).
- ASTAT L’Alto Adige in Cifre-2017. Available online: https://astat.provincia.bz.it/downloads/Siz_2017(11).pdf (accessed on 10 November 2019).
- IRE L’export Come Fattore di Successo nell’Euregio Tirolo-Alto Adige-Trentino. Available online: https://issuu.com/wifobz/docs/2015_export_erfolgsfaktor_it?e=37359578/70065632 (accessed on 10 July 2020).
- Bytyqi, N.; Skreli, E.; Verçuni, A.; Imami, D.; Zhllima, E. Analyzing Consumers’ Preferences for Apples in Pristina, Kosovo. Bodenkultur 2015, 66, 61–69. [Google Scholar]
- Buis, M. Stata Tip 87: Interpretation of Interactions in Nonlinear Models. Stata J. 2010, 10, 305–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- ASTAT Serie Storica Sull’agricoltura 1929–2016. Available online: https://astat.provincia.bz.it/it/news-pubblicazioni-info.asp?news_action=4&news_article_id=617593 (accessed on 22 July 2020).
- Mascarello, G.; Pinto, A.; Parise, N.; Crovato, S.; Ravarotto, L. The Perception of Food Quality. Profiling Italian Consumers. Appetite 2015, 89, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fillion, L.; Kilcast, D. Consumer Perception of Crispness and Crunchiness in Fruits and Vegetables. Food Qual. Prefer. 2002, 13, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tunick, M.H.; Onwulata, C.I.; Thomas, A.E.; Phillips, J.G.; Mukhopadhyay, S.; Sheen, S.; Liu, C.-K.; Latona, N.; Pimentel, M.R.; Cooke, P.H. Critical Evaluation of Crispy and Crunchy Textures: A Review. Int. J. Food Prop. 2013, 16, 949–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Femenia, F. A Meta-Analysis of the Price and Income Elasticities of Food Demand. HAL Id: Hal-02103880. Available online: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02103880 (accessed on 20 August 2020).
- Durham, C.; Eales, J. Demand Elasticities for Fresh Fruit at the Retail Level. Appl. Econ. 2010, 42, 1345–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Durham, C.; Eales, J. Demand Elasticities for Fresh Fruit at the Retail Level. In Proceedings of the Presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, CA, USA, 23–26 July 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Savazzini, F.; Ricci, G.; Tartarini, S. Apple Allergens Genomics and Biotechnology: Unravelling the Determinants of Apple Allergenicity; Applied Plant Genomics and Biotechnology; Poltronieri, P., Hong, Y., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, Cambridge, UK, 2015; pp. 35–54. [Google Scholar]
Determinant | Country | Main Findings | References |
---|---|---|---|
Economic factors | Italy | Income significantly affects the choice of apple origin and production method (organic). Consumers are willing to pay an additional 0.18 €/kg for organic apples whereas a surplus of 1.49 €/kg is paid for apples that originated in the most apple-oriented area of Italy and 1.44 €/kg for apples that originated from the local region. The real average price stated by the interviewed consumers in 2017 is 1.73 €/kg. | [13] |
Greece | Income significantly discriminates between apple buyers (high earnings) and non-buyers (low earnings). | [14] | |
Albania | Income significantly influences the choice of apple colour and apple size. Consumers are ready to pay a surplus of 1.11 €/kg for domestic apples. | [15] | |
Italy | The willingness to pay for local origin in an apple productive region is the highest and reaches 3.60 €/kg. | [16] | |
Denmark | A price surplus of 5.40 DKK/kg (0.72 €/kg) and of 19.00 DKK/kg (2.54 €/kg) would be paid for organic apples and local apples, respectively. | [17] | |
Consumers’ demographic characteristics | Denmark | Living in the capital, rather than anywhere else in the country, significantly affects the choice of apple origin (local or domestic). | [18] |
Denmark | Gender among children significantly influences preferences for apple colour and taste (girls prefer a green colour and the taste of red apples; boys prefer the opposite). | [19] | |
Switzer-land | Gender and age significantly interfere with the consumption habits of apples (more men and elderly people are non-consumers; younger subjects consume apples less frequently). | [20] | |
Italy | Gender and age significantly affect the choice of apple colour (dislike for green apples), of production system (organic) and of producing areas. | [13] | |
Hungary | Gender does not play any significant role in the attribution of important apple characteristics (taste, colour, size, origin and variety). | [21] | |
USA | Age and civil status significantly alter consumers’ perception towards production systems (conventional vs. genetically modified) and production places. | [22] | |
Europe | Gender and age significantly discriminate apple intake. | [8] | |
Cultural factors | France | Different apple cultural backgrounds as well as different presentations to consumers show significant differences in quality perception of apples (colour, taste). Geographical living area significantly influences the frequency of consumption. | [23] |
Estonia | Political contexts (capitalistic vs communistic system) significantly influence the choice of domestic vs. imported apples. | [24] | |
Europe | Different geographic cultures significantly affect apple intake. | [8] | |
South Africa | Presence or absence of visual information significantly influence quality perception. | [25] | |
Attitudinal and ethical factors | Italy | Production system (organic) significantly drives the apple buying decisions. | [16] |
Denmark | Production system (organic) significantly affects choices for local apples. | [17] | |
North-western Europe | Appearance standards (i.e., spotted apples) significantly influence apple intake under different conditions. | [26] | |
USA | Production system (conventional vs. genetically modified) significantly determines apple intake. | [22] | |
Denmark | Production system and apple origin significantly affect buying behaviours. | [18] | |
Switzer-land | Production system (organic) significantly influences frequency of apple intake. | [20] | |
Behavioural factors | Denmark | Peeling significantly influences apple intake among children. | [19] |
USA | Newspaper advertisement size significantly drives consuming preferences. | [27] | |
Italy | Consuming season and peeling significantly affect consuming behaviours. | [28] | |
Apple variety | USA | ‘Jonagold’ is significantly preferred in terms of appearance, while ‘Red Delicious is significantly less preferred in terms of appearance, ‘Fuji’ is significantly preferred in terms of taste and ‘Golden Delicious’ is the least preferred in terms of taste. | [29] |
Italy | ‘Golden Delicious’ is the most well-known variety. | [16] | |
Denmark | ‘Jonagold’ is significantly preferred in terms of appearance and taste. | [19] | |
South Africa | ‘Fuji’ and ‘Pink Lady’ are the most preferred in terms of taste, ‘Granny Smith’ is the least preferred. | [25] | |
USA | Recent cultivars (‘Fuji’ or ‘Braeburn’) are more price-sensitive than more traditional cultivars (‘Red Delicious’, ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Granny Smith’ and ‘Gala’). | [30] | |
Romania | ‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Jonagold’ are the most preferred varieties. | [31] | |
Europe | ‘Goldchief’, ‘Rubens’, ‘Fuji’ and ‘Pink Lady’ are the most preferred varieties | [32] | |
Apple attributes | France | Crunchiness, juiciness and sweetness positively influence apple consumption; lack of taste and mealiness negatively influence apple intake. | [33] |
Denmark | Apple size significantly determines apple preferences (small sized). | [19] | |
Switzer-land | Taste, aroma and freshness significantly affect apple consumption. | [20] | |
Estonia | Taste, health benefits and appearance significantly influence apple choice. | [24] | |
Denmark | Red colour and bicolour positively affect apple preferences; green colour and yellow colour negatively affect apple preferences. | [17] | |
Hungary | Taste, size and colour positively influence consumers’ preferences. | [21] | |
Canada and New Zealand | Red colour and conical shape significantly determine consumers’ preferences; yellow colour and oblong shape negatively affect consumers’ preferences. | [34] | |
Albania | Size significantly alters consumers’ perceptions. | [15] | |
Health aspects | Switzer-land | Apple nutritional value significantly influences frequency of apple intake. | [20] |
Nether-lands | The hypoallergenic variety Santana significantly contributes to the enhancement of apple consumption among allergic consumers. | [35] | |
Italy | Information on antioxidant content increases liking in older consumers and those with a thorough understanding of antioxidants and their health benefits. Information on fibre content increases liking in those who use food as a reward. | [28] |
Own Sample (n = 216) | Population Data [42] | |
---|---|---|
Gender (%) | ||
● female | 68.4 | 50.6 |
● male | 31.6 | 49.4 |
Age (mean years) | 48.8 | 42.4 |
Language group (%) | ||
● German | 76.8 | 69.4 |
● Italian | 23.2 | 26.6 |
● Ladin | 0.0 | 4.5 |
Members per household (mean number) | 2.8 | 2.4 |
Income per household per month (%) | ||
● less than €2000 | 36.0 | Average: €3065 |
● €2001 to €3000 | 37.0 | |
● more than €3000 | 28.0 | |
Highest level of education (%) | ||
● primary and middle school | 37.8 | 49.4 |
● high school | 35.4 | 38.9 |
● university | 26.8 | 10.6 |
Area of residence (%) | ||
● towns with more than 20,000 inhabitants | 64.3 | 68.1 |
● towns with less than 20,000 inhabitants | 35.7 | 31.9 |
Reason | Percent (%) of Ticked Answers |
---|---|
Bigger choice of other fruits | 60.5 |
Less tasty | 27.0 |
Higher price | 10.8 |
Less healthy | 5.4 |
Variable | Coef. | Std. Err. of Coef. | Odds Ratio | P |
---|---|---|---|---|
Higher_income z* low_education | 3.29 *** | 1.16 | 26.9 | 0.009 |
Italian*old_age | 3.22 ** | 1.42 | 25.1 | 0.02 |
Female y* low_income | 2.97 ** | 1.46 | 19.5 | 0.04 |
Prefers_’Braeburn’ | 2.54 *** | 0.92 | 12.7 | 0.006 |
Stores_apples_in_apartment | 1.76 *** | 0.58 | 5.83 | 0.002 |
Infrequent_buyer (< once a week) | 1.61 *** | 0.60 | 4.98 | 0.007 |
Rates_kiwis_as_healthiest_fruit | 1.47 ** | 0.64 | 4.35 | 0.02 |
Male | 1.11 | 0.73 | 3.05 | 0.13 |
German | 0.02 | 0.89 | 1.01 | 0.99 |
Low_income (< €2,000/month) | –0.55 | 1.24 | 0.58 | 0.66 |
Old_age (> 65 years) | –1.18 | 0.90 | 0.31 | 0.19 |
Eats_apples_for_pleasure | –1.23 ** | 0.56 | 0.29 | 0.03 |
Low_education (< high school) | –2.07 ** | 0.97 | 0.12 | 0.03 |
Number of observations | 153 | |||
Log likelihood | –48.6 | |||
LR chi2 | 42.2 | |||
Prob > chi2 | 0.0001 | |||
Pseudo R2 | 0.303 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bossi Fedrigotti, V.; Fischer, C. Why Per Capita Apple Consumption Is Falling: Insights from the Literature and Case Evidence from South Tyrol. Horticulturae 2020, 6, 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6040079
Bossi Fedrigotti V, Fischer C. Why Per Capita Apple Consumption Is Falling: Insights from the Literature and Case Evidence from South Tyrol. Horticulturae. 2020; 6(4):79. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6040079
Chicago/Turabian StyleBossi Fedrigotti, Valérie, and Christian Fischer. 2020. "Why Per Capita Apple Consumption Is Falling: Insights from the Literature and Case Evidence from South Tyrol" Horticulturae 6, no. 4: 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6040079
APA StyleBossi Fedrigotti, V., & Fischer, C. (2020). Why Per Capita Apple Consumption Is Falling: Insights from the Literature and Case Evidence from South Tyrol. Horticulturae, 6(4), 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6040079