A Study on Perceptions towards Organic and Local Production, and Individuals’ Socio-Demographic and Geographical Affiliation Influencing Fruit and Vegetable Purchasing Preferences of EU Households
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Collection
2.2. Questionnaire Structure
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Consumer Orientation and Preferences towards F&V
3.2. Cluster Composition and Membership
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
6. Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ditlevsen, K.; Denver, S.; Christensen, T.; Lassen, J. A Taste for Locally Produced Food—Values, Opinions and Sociodemographic Differences among ‘Organic’ and ‘Conventional’ Consumers. Appetite 2020, 147, 104544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barker, M.; Dombrowski, S.U.; Colbourn, T.; Fall, C.H.D.; Kriznik, N.M.; Lawrence, W.T.; Norris, S.A.; Ngaiza, G.; Patel, D.; Skordis-Worrall, J.; et al. Intervention Strategies to Improve Nutrition and Health Behaviours before Conception. Lancet 2018, 391, 1853–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guillaumie, L.; Boiral, O.; Baghdadli, A.; Mercille, G. Integrating Sustainable Nutrition into Health-Related Institutions: A Sys-tematic Review of the Literature. Can. J. Public Health 2020, 111, 845–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bojnec, Š.; Petrescu, D.C.; Petrescu-Mag, R.M.; Radulescu, C.V. The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania Locally Produced Organic Food: Consumer Preferences. Amfiteatru Econ. 2019, 21, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumann, S.; Engman, A.; Huddart-Kennedy, E.; Johnston, J. Organic vs. Local: Comparing Individualist and Collectivist Motiva-tions for “Ethical” Food Consumption. Can. Food Stud. Rev. Can. Études Sur Aliment. 2017, 4, 68–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Annunziata, A.; Agovino, M.; Mariani, A. Sustainability of Italian Families’ Food Practices: Mediterranean Diet Adherence Com-bined with Organic and Local Food Consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 206, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Kokthi, E.; Kruja, D.; Guri, F.; Zoto, O. Are the Consumers Willing to Pay More for Local Fruits and Vegetables? An Empirical Research on Albanian Consumers. Prog. Agric. Eng. Sci. 2021, 17, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hempel, C.; Hamm, U. How Important Is Local Food to Organic-Minded Consumers? Appetite 2016, 96, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Occhiuzzi, C.; D’Uva, N.; Nappi, S.; Amendola, S.; Giallucca, C.; Chiabrando, V.; Garavaglia, L.; Giacalone, G.; Marrocco, G. Ra-dio-Frequency-Identification-Based Intelligent Packaging: Electromagnetic Classification of Tropical Fruit Ripening. IEEE An-tennas Propag. Mag. 2020, 62, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giuggioli, N.; Girgenti, V.; Peano, C. Qualitative Performance and Consumer Acceptability of Starch Films for the Blueberry Modified Atmosphere Packaging Storage. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2017, 67, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goudis, A.; Skuras, D. Consumers’ Awareness of the EU’s Protected Designations of Origin Logo. Br. Food J. 2020, 123, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massaglia, S.; Merlino, V.M.; Borra, D.; Bargetto, A.; Sottile, F.; Peano, C. Consumer Attitudes and Preference Exploration to-wards Fresh-Cut Salads Using Best–Worst Scaling and Latent Class Analysis. Foods 2019, 8, 568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Annunziata, A.; Vecchio, R.; Kraus, A. Awareness and Preference for Functional Foods: The Perspective of Older Italian Consum-ers. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2015, 39, 352–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gracia, A.; Barreiro-Hurlé, J.; Galán, B.L. Are Local and Organic Claims Complements or Substitutes? A Consumer Preferences Study for Eggs. J. Agric. Econ. 2014, 65, 49–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massaglia, S.; Borra, D.; Peano, C.; Sottile, F.; Merlino, V.M. Consumer Preference Heterogeneity Evaluation in Fruit and Vege-table Purchasing Decisions Using the Best–Worst Approach. Foods 2019, 8, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Haas, R.; Canavari, M.; Imami, D.; Gjonbalaj, M.; Gjokaj, E.; Zvyagintsev, D. Attitudes and Preferences of Kosovar Consumer Segments Toward Quality Attributes of Milk and Dairy Products. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2016, 28, 407–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teuber, R. Consumers’ and Producers’ Expectations towards Geographical Indications: Empirical Evidence for a German Case Study. Br. Food J. 2011, 113, 900–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weatherell, C.; Tregear, A.; Allinson, J. In Search of the Concerned Consumer: UK Public Perceptions of Food, Farming and Buying Local. J. Rural Stud. 2003, 19, 233–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akkucuk, U.; Esmaeili, J. The Impact of Brands on Consumer Buying Behavior: An Empirical Study on Smartphone Buyers. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2016, 5, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merlino, V.M.; Sciullo, A.; Pettenati, G.; Sottile, F.; Peano, C.; Massaglia, S. “Local Production”: What Do Consumers Think? Sustainability 2022, 14, 3623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanc, S.; Massaglia, S.; Borra, D.; Mosso, A.; Merlino, V.M. Animal Welfare and Gender: A Nexus in Awareness and Preference When Choosing Fresh Beef Meat? Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 19, 410–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geel, L.; Kinnear, M.; de Kock, H.L. Relating Consumer Preferences to Sensory Attributes of Instant Coffee. Food Qual. Prefer. 2005, 16, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Julia, C.; Péneau, S.; Buscail, C.; Gonzalez, R.; Touvier, M.; Hercberg, S.; Kesse-Guyot, E. Perception of Different Formats of Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels According to Sociodemographic, Lifestyle and Dietary Factors in a French Population: Cross-Sectional Study among the NutriNet-Santé Cohort Participants. BMJ Open 2017, 7, e016108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cummins, A.M.; Widmar, N.J.O.; Croney, C.C.; Fulton, J.R. Understanding Consumer Pork Attribute Preferences. Theor. Econ. Lett. 2016, 6, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saba, A.; Sinesio, F.; Moneta, E.; Dinnella, C.; Laureati, M.; Torri, L.; Peparaio, M.; Saggia Civitelli, E.; Endrizzi, I.; Gasperi, F.; et al. Measuring Consumers Attitudes towards Health and Taste and Their Association with Food-Related Life-Styles and Preferences. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 73, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinto, V.R.A.; Melo, L.F.; Balbino, D.F.; de Novaes, J.F.; Negrete, M.C.; de Sousa, T.D. The Evaluation of Consumer Behavior In-fluence on the Buying Process of Dairy Products in Minas Gerais State, Brazil. J. Food Nutr. Res. 2016, 4, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bean, M.; Sharp, J.S. Profiling Alternative Food System Supporters: The Personal and Social Basis of Local and Organic Food Support. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2011, 26, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weir, J.P.; Vincent, W.J. Statistics in Kinesiology; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Baji, P.; Pavlova, M.; Gulácsi, L.; Groot, W. Exploring Consumers’ Attitudes towards Informal Patient Payments Using the Com-bined Method of Cluster and Multinomial Regression Analysis—The Case of Hungary. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2013, 13, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Merlino, V.M.; Borra, D.; Bargetto, A.; Blanc, S.; Massaglia, S. Innovation towards Sustainable Fresh-Cut Salad Production: Are Italian Consumers Receptive? AIMS Agric. Food 2020, 5, 365–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabacco, E.; Merlino, V.M.; Coppa, M.; Massaglia, S.; Borreani, G. Analyses of Consumers’ Preferences and of the Correspondence between Direct and Indirect Label Claims and the Fatty Acid Profile of Milk in Large Retail Chains in Northern Italy. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 12216–12235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Merlino, V.M.; Borra, D.; Girgenti, V.; Dal Vecchio, A.; Massaglia, S. Beef Meat Preferences of Consumers from Northwest Italy: Analysis of Choice Attributes. Meat Sci. 2018, 143, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baudino, C.; Giuggioli, N.R.; Briano, R.; Massaglia, S.; Peano, C. Integrated Methodologies (SWOT, TOWS, LCA) for Improving Production Chains and Environmental Sustainability of Kiwifruit and Baby Kiwi in Italy. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Massaglia, S.; Merlino, V.; Borra, D.; Peano, C. Consumer Perception of Organic Blueberry Labeling in Italy. Quality-Access to Success 2018, 19, 312–318. [Google Scholar]
- Kaczorowska, J.; Rejman, K.; Halicka, E.; Szczebyło, A.; Górska-Warsewicz, H. Impact of Food Sustainability Labels on the Per-ceived Product Value and Price Expectations of Urban Consumers. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Riivits-Arkonsuo, I.; Leppiman, A.; Hartšenko, J. Quality Labels in Estonian Food Market. Do the Labels Matter. Agron. Res. 2016, 14, 896–906. [Google Scholar]
- Sarda, B.; Julia, C.; Serry, A.-J.; Ducrot, P. Appropriation of the Front-of-Pack Nutrition Label Nutri-Score across the French Population: Evolution of Awareness, Support and Purchasing Behaviors between 2018 and 2019. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spendrup, S.; Fernqvist, F. Innovation in Agri-food Systems – A Systematic Mapping of the Literature. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2018, 10, 402–427. [Google Scholar]
- Vecchio, R.; Annunziata, A. The Role of PDO/PGI Labelling in Italian Consumers’ Food Choices. Agric. Econ. Rev. 2011, 12, 80–98. [Google Scholar]
- Resano, H.; Sanjuán, A.I.; Albisu, L.M. Consumers’ Response to the EU Quality Policy Allowing for Heterogeneous Preferences. Food Policy 2012, 37, 355–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massaglia, S.; Peano, C.; Merlino, V.M.; Gregis, A.; Ghisalberti, C.; Sottile, F. Food Sustainability Perception at Universities: Edu-cation and Demographic Features Effects. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2022, 20, 100653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Questionnaire Section | Variable Category | Variables/Question | Codification |
---|---|---|---|
Section 1 | Socio-demographic questions | Country | 1 = Italy; 2 = France; 3 = Germany |
Age | 1 = 18–25; 2 = 26–35; 3 = 36–45; 4 = 46–55; 5 = 56–65; 6 ≥ 65 | ||
Gender | 0 = male; 1 = female | ||
Family size | 1 = 1 component; 2 = 2 components; 3 = 3 components; 4 = 4 components; 5 ≥ 4 components | ||
Economic situation | 0 = very difficult; 1 = difficult; 2 = satisfactory; 3 = very satisfactory | ||
Section 2 | Importance of organic and local food |
| 5-points Likert scale (1 = not important; 5 = very important) |
| |||
Food attributes preferences | When buying food products, how much importance do you give to the following attributes? (packaging; nutritional value; origin of raw materials; production area) | 5-points Likert scale (1 = not important; 5 = very important) | |
Food packaging attributes preferences | When buying food products, how much importance do you give to the following packaging attributes? (images/colors; brands/logos guaranteeing origin and quality; brands/logos guaranteeing a sustainable product) | 5-points Likert scale (1 = not important; 5 = very important) | |
Awareness | We will now show you some logos; for each one, please indicate if you are familiar with it (The pictures of PDO, Organic and PGI logos were shown). | 1 = Yes, I know it; 2 = Yes, I know it, but I do not recognize the meaning; 3 = No, I do not know it | |
Section 3 | Frequency of fruit purchase | With reference only to products from the European Union, how often do you buy fruit? | 0 = never; 1 = on special occasions; 2 = a few times a year; 3 = a few times a month; 4 = 1–3 times a week; 5 = 3–5 times a week; 6 = more than 5 times a week |
Frequency of vegetable purchase | With reference only to products from the European Union, how often do you buy vegetables? | 0 = never; 1 = on special occasions; 2 = a few times a year; 3 = a few times a month; 4 = 1–3 times a week; 5 = 3–5 times a week; 6 = more than 5 times a week | |
Opinion about European and national F&V products (How much you agree with the following statements? Compared to products from other countries, European and national products…) | Have a superior quality image; have a high level of safety, thanks to inspections and traceability; taste better; have great nutritional value; are healthy foods; the organic products are better; cost a bit more but I am willing to pay; are more sustainable. | 5-points Likert scale (1 = not in agreement; 5 = totally in agreement) | |
Preference of fruit origin during purchasing decision | Thinking about your fruit purchasing choices; which countries does the fruit you buy come from? (respondents can indicate up to a maximum of three countries) | The respondent indicated the country of fruit origin for each column related to the first, second and third choices. | |
Preference of vegetable origin during purchasing decision | Thinking about your vegetable purchasing choices, which countries does the fruit you buy come from? (respondents can indicate up to a maximum of three countries) | The respondent indicated the country of vegetable origin for each column related to the first, second and third choices. |
Socio-Demographic Variables | Country (% within the Country) | Total | χ2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Italy | France | Germany | ||||
Family size (n. of components) | 1 | 6.4% | 16.5% | 26.3% | 16.4% | 21.87 * |
2 | 18.9% | 20.9% | 29.8% | 23.2% | ||
3 | 34.0% | 26.4% | 24.5% | 28.3% | ||
4 | 31.5% | 25.2% | 15.0% | 23.9% | ||
More than 4 | 9.2% | 11.0% | 4.4% | 32.1% | ||
Gender | Male | 50.6% | 49.8% | 49.3% | 49.9% | 0.344 |
Female | 49.4% | 50.2% | 50.7% | 50.1% | ||
Age | 18–25 | 39.9% | 0.3% | 7.4% | 12.4% | 1307.394 *** |
26–35 | 0.0% | 26.6% | 0.0% | 11.2% | ||
36–45 | 54.4% | 40.1% | 38.9% | 43.2% | ||
45–55 | 5.7% | 33.0% | 34.9% | 26.9% | ||
>55 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 18.8% | 6.3% | ||
Economic situation | Very difficult | 8.3% | 3.1% | 6.7% | 6.0% | 63.421 *** |
Difficult | 33.3% | 31.4% | 31.4% | 32.0% | ||
Satisfactory | 50.9% | 53.2% | 45.5% | 49.9% | ||
Very satisfactory | 7.5% | 12.3% | 16.4% | 12.1% |
Variables | Components | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
European Is Better | Organic Is Local | Quality Is Origin-Related | Clothes Do Not Make the Product | |
Opinion about European and national F&V products (How much you agree with the following statements? Compared to products from other countries, European and national products… | ||||
Have a superior quality image | 0.744 | |||
Have a high level of safety, thanks to controls and traceability | 0.751 | |||
Taste better | 0.747 | |||
Have great nutritional values | 0.736 | |||
Are healthy foods | 0.769 | |||
The organic products are better | 0.584 | |||
Cost a bit more but I am willing to pay | 0.628 | |||
Are more sustainable | 0.722 | |||
Importance of organic and local food | ||||
When buying food products, how much importance do you give to organic products? | 0.799 | |||
When buying food products, how much importance do you give to local products? | 0.671 | |||
Food packaging attributes preferences | ||||
Images/colors | −0.419 | |||
Brands/logos guaranteeing origin and quality | 0.601 | |||
Brands/logos guaranteeing a sustainable product) | 0.740 | |||
Food attributes preferences | ||||
Origin of the raw materials | 0.719 | |||
Nutritional value | 0.654 | |||
Production area | −0.910 | |||
Packaging | −0.930 | |||
Cronbach’s Alpha | 0.839 | 0.676 | 0.777 | |
Pearson correlation | r = 0.830 |
Principal Component | Clusters | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Organic and Local-Sensitive | Origin and Quality Assessment | Credence and Intrinsic Attributes Sensitive | Global Quality Evaluation | F | |
Cluster size | 29% | 10% | 20% | 41% | |
European is better | 0.001 a | −0.048 b | −0.145 c | 0.083 d | 296.447 *** |
Organic is local | 0.094 a | −0.027 b | −1.290 c | 0.573 d | 324.307 *** |
Quality is origin-related | −1.320 a | 1.163 b | 0.332 c | 0.473 c | 19.091 *** |
Clothes do not make the product | −0.144 a | −2.092 b | 0.481 c | 0.401 c | 768.627 *** |
Socio-Demographic Variables | Organic and Local-Sensitive | Origin and Quality Assessment | Credence and Intrinsic Attributes | Global Quality Evaluation | χ2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Socio-Demographic Composition (%) | ||||||
Economic situation | Very difficult | 4.8% | 12.7% | 5.8% | 4.9% | 19,357 * |
Difficult | 31.9% | 46.9% | 34.3% | 29.6% | ||
Satisfactory | 50.6% | 32.5% | 50.3% | 52.3% | ||
Very satisfactory | 12.8% | 7.9% | 9.5% | 13.2% | ||
Country | Italy | 19.1% | 30.8% | 44.8% | 30.2% | 175,812 *** |
France | 28.2% | 26.8% | 35.1% | 40.2% | ||
Germany | 52.6% | 42.5% | 20.1% | 29.6% | ||
Age | 18–25 | 12.1% | 11.4% | 16.0% | 10.8% | 70,001 *** |
26–35 | 12.1% | 7.9% | 11.2% | 14.1% | ||
36–45 | 40.2% | 42.7% | 49.0% | 40.8% | ||
45–55 | 29.5% | 29.8% | 22.9% | 25.9% | ||
>55 | 6.1% | 8.3% | 0.9% | 8.5% | ||
Gender | Male | 53.5% | 46.0% | 54.8% | 47.9% | 16,612 *** |
Female | 46.5% | 54.0% | 45.2% | 52.1% | ||
Family size (n. of components) | 1 | 20.3% | 16.3% | 14.7% | 16.1% | 21,487 * |
2 | 24.8% | 24.1% | 23.8% | 20.8% | ||
3 | 29.2% | 26.5% | 30.1% | 28.2% | ||
4 | 18.0% | 25.6% | 22.8% | 26.0% | ||
>4 | 7.7% | 7.4% | 8.6% | 8.9% | ||
Awareness | ||||||
PDO logo awareness | Yes, I know it | 39.9% | 60.5% | 67.7% | 58.9% | 103.409 *** |
Yes, I know it, but I do not recognize the meaning | 21.4% | 17.9% | 14.7% | 14.6% | ||
No, I do not know it | 38.7% | 21.7% | 17.6% | 26.5% | ||
PGI logo awareness | Yes, I know it | 39.2% | 58.9% | 65.3% | 60.0% | 93.486 *** |
Yes, I know it, but I do not recognize the meaning | 22.8% | 19.9% | 16.3% | 16.6% | ||
No, I do not know it | 38.0% | 21.1% | 18.4% | 23.3% | ||
Organic logo awareness | Yes, I know it | 49.9% | 60.8% | 60.4% | 63.2% | |
Yes, I know it, but I do not recognize the meaning | 29.2% | 25.2% | 26.0% | 23.6% | 26.676 *** | |
No, I do not know it | 21.0% | 14.0% | 13.6% | 13.2% | ||
Purchasing habits | ||||||
Frequency of vegetables purchase | 1–3 times a week | 44.6% | 49.7% | 43.4% | 42.9% | 38.184 * |
3–5 times a week | 19.1% | 23.2% | 24.4% | 23.2% | ||
Never | 1.4% | 0.8% | 0.5% | 0.8% | ||
>5 times a week | 9.1% | 10.0% | 12.8% | 12.5% | ||
A few times a month | 23.0% | 13.9% | 15.8% | 16.7% | ||
A few times a year | 2.1% | 2.4% | 2.5% | 3.2% | ||
On special occasions | 0.7% | 0.1% | 0.5% | 0.6% | ||
Frequency of fruits purchase | 1–3 times a week | 45.8% | 46.3% | 42.5% | 44.9% | 31.738 * |
3–5 times a week | 17.5% | 23.9% | 22.4% | 21.3% | ||
Never | 0.9% | 0.6% | 1.3% | 0.2% | ||
>5 times a week | 11.4% | 11.1% | 13.5% | 14.7% | ||
A few times a month | 21.0% | 15.3% | 16.8% | 15.9% | ||
A few times a year | 2.7% | 2.3% | 3.2% | 2.1% | ||
On special occasions | 0.7% | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.9% | ||
First choice of country of origin during fruit purchase | Argentina | 0.9% | 0.6% | 1.2% | 0.7% | 187.013 *** |
Australia | 0.5% | 0.4% | 0.4% | 0.8% | ||
Belgium | 1.6% | 0.9% | 0.5% | 0.7% | ||
Chile | 1.4% | 0.4% | 1.5% | 0.5% | ||
France | 22.1% | 20.9% | 28.2% | 31.1% | ||
Germany | 31.9% | 25.1% | 10.5% | 19.9% | ||
Italy | 16.4% | 30.3% | 37.4% | 26.7% | ||
No answer | 7.7% | 5.2% | 7.8% | 5.6% | ||
New Zealand | 1.1% | 0.4% | 1.1% | 1.1% | ||
Netherland | 1.1% | 2.4% | 0.8% | 1.7% | ||
Spain | 11.6% | 12.0% | 8.6% | 9.6% | ||
South Africa | 2.7% | 1.0% | 1.7% | 1.4% | ||
USA | 0.9% | 0.4% | 0.4% | 0.3% | ||
First choice of country of origin during vegetable purchase | Argentina | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.9% | 185.487 *** |
Australia | 0.5% | 0.3% | 0.4% | 0.3% | ||
Belgium | 0.9% | 0.9% | 0.7% | 0.6% | ||
Chile | 1.6% | 0.3% | 0.9% | 0.3% | ||
France | 22.3% | 23.0% | 30.7% | 31.8% | ||
Germany | 33.9% | 27.6% | 11.9% | 20.8% | ||
Italy | 17.3% | 31.9% | 38.4% | 27.9% | ||
No answer | 8.2% | 4.8% | 7.8% | 5.1% | ||
New Zealand | 0.2% | 0.4% | 0.1% | 0.7% | ||
Netherland | 3.6% | 2.5% | 1.3% | 4.2% | ||
Spain | 10.3% | 6.9% | 6.4% | 6.4% | ||
South Africa | 0.2% | 0.5% | 0.4% | 0.6% | ||
USA | 0.5% | 0.3% | 0.4% | 0.3% |
Predictor Variables | Organic and Local-Sensitive | Origin and Quality Assessment | Credence and Intrinsic Attributes | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | Std. Error | β | Std. Error | β | Std. Error | |
Intercept | −1.456 *** | 0.314 | −0.185 | 0.229 | −0.388 *** | 0.155 |
(Age group = 1] | 1.424 *** | 0.366 | 0.326 | 0.286 | 2.188 *** | 0.520 |
[Age group = 2] | 1.170 *** | 0.365 | −0.008 | 0.290 | 1.714 *** | 0.521 |
[Age group = 3] | 1.052 | 0.301 | 0.426 | 0.229 | 2.146 *** | 0.492 |
[Age group = 4] | 0.988 | 0.305 | 0.514 * | 0.232 | 1.910 *** | 0.496 |
[Country = 1] | −1.435 *** | 0.225 | −0.238 | 0.169 | 0.476 * | 0.182 |
[Country = 2] | 1.012 *** | 0.173 | −0.453 ** | 0.142 | 0.281 *** | 0.161 |
Awareness | ||||||
[PDO Awareness = 1] | −0.216 | 0.192 | 0.400 * | 0.161 | 0.701 *** | 0.176 |
[PDO Awareness = 2] | 0.254 | 0.204 | 0.490 ** | 0.180 | 0.557 ** | 0.200 |
[PGI Awareness = 1] | −0.676 ** | 0.200 | −0.098 | 0.169 | −0.018 | 0.182 |
[ORGANIC Awareness = 1] | −0.387 * | 0.176 | −0.131 | 0.152 | −0.222 | 0.162 |
Frequency of F&V purchase | ||||||
[Fruits-frequency of purchase = 0] | 1.609 | 1.221 | 1.840 | 1.122 | 3.918 ** | 1.233 |
[Fruits-frequency of purchase = 2] | 0.735 | 0.806 | 0.695 | 0.714 | 1.837 * | 0.874 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Varaldo, A.; Borra, D.; Vassallo, E.; Massimelli, F.; Massaglia, S.; Merlino, V.M. A Study on Perceptions towards Organic and Local Production, and Individuals’ Socio-Demographic and Geographical Affiliation Influencing Fruit and Vegetable Purchasing Preferences of EU Households. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 670. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8080670
Varaldo A, Borra D, Vassallo E, Massimelli F, Massaglia S, Merlino VM. A Study on Perceptions towards Organic and Local Production, and Individuals’ Socio-Demographic and Geographical Affiliation Influencing Fruit and Vegetable Purchasing Preferences of EU Households. Horticulturae. 2022; 8(8):670. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8080670
Chicago/Turabian StyleVaraldo, Alice, Danielle Borra, Emanuela Vassallo, Fabrizio Massimelli, Stefano Massaglia, and Valentina Maria Merlino. 2022. "A Study on Perceptions towards Organic and Local Production, and Individuals’ Socio-Demographic and Geographical Affiliation Influencing Fruit and Vegetable Purchasing Preferences of EU Households" Horticulturae 8, no. 8: 670. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8080670