| Literature DB >> 29614785 |
Techane Bosona1, Girma Gebresenbet2.
Abstract
Consumers' demand for locally produced and organic foods has increased in Sweden. This paper presents the results obtained from the analysis of data acquired from 100 consumers in Sweden who participated in an online survey during March to June 2016. The objective was to identify consumers' demand in relation to organic food and sustainable food production, and to understand how the consumers evaluate food quality and make buying decisions. Qualitative descriptions, descriptive statistics and Pearson's Chi-square test (with alpha value of p < 0.05 as level of significance), and Pearson's correlation coefficient were used for analysis. About 72% of participants have the perception that organic food production method is more sustainable than conventional methods. Female consumers have more positive attitudes than men towards organic food. However, age difference, household size and income level do not significantly influence the consumers' perception of sustainable food production concepts. Regionality, sustainable methods of production and organic production are the most important parameters to characterize the food as high quality and make buying decisions. On the other hand, product uniformity, appearance, and price were found to be relatively less important parameters. Food buying decisions and food quality were found to be highly related with Pearson's correlation coefficient of r = 0.99.Entities:
Keywords: consumers’ food buying decision; food quality; organic food; sustainable food production
Year: 2018 PMID: 29614785 PMCID: PMC5920419 DOI: 10.3390/foods7040054
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Examples of logos that can be used for organic products.
List of null hypotheses and measurement variables.
| Variables under Comparison | Null Hypothesis (Ho) |
|---|---|
| Relation between gender difference and perception of sustainable food production system | |
| Relation between consumers’ age and perception of sustainable food production | |
| Relation between education level and perception towards sustainable food production methods | |
| Relation between household size and attitude towards sustainable farming methods | |
| Relation between income level and perception of sustainable food production | |
| Relationship between consumers’ income level and their evaluation of food quality | |
| Relation between consumers’ income level and their food buying decision |
Demographic description of participants (N = 100).
| Demographic Characteristics | Variable | Number of Participants | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 39 | 100 |
| Female | 61 | ||
| Age | 18–24 | 4 | 100 |
| 25–34 | 15 | ||
| 35–44 | 32 | ||
| 45–54 | 22 | ||
| 55–64 | 17 | ||
| 65+ | 10 | ||
| Education level | Primary education | 1 | 100 |
| Lower secondary education | 2 | ||
| Upper secondary education | 6 | ||
| University education | 86 | ||
| Vocational education | 5 | ||
| Household income (€/month) | 500–900 | 5 | 100 |
| 901–1300 | 3 | ||
| 1301–1500 | 1 | ||
| 1501–1700 | 0 | ||
| 1701–2000 | 7 | ||
| 2001–2600 | 17 | ||
| 2601–3200 | 16 | ||
| 3201–4500 | 23 | ||
| ≥4500 | 27 | ||
| can’t answer | 1 | ||
| Number of family members | 1 | 19 | 100 |
| 2 | 38 | ||
| 3 | 17 | ||
| 4 | 19 | ||
| ≥5 | 7 | ||
| Occupation | Employee or running own business | 79 | 100 |
| No job (searching for job) | 2 | ||
| Student | 6 | ||
| Pensioner | 12 | ||
| other (no data) | 4 | ||
| Number of children per household | No child | 54 | 100 |
| <5 years old | 14 | ||
| 5–14 years old | 28 | ||
| 14–18 years old | 4 |
Figure 2Perception of consumers on sustainable food production: in % of participants (N = 100).
Arguments behind the responses on perception on sustainable food production.
| Perceived Sustainable Food Production | Major Arguments Indicated |
|---|---|
| Organic production | Avoiding use of chemicals, less toxins, and improving animal husbandry |
| Nutrient cycles and less chemicals | |
| Better conditions for environment and animals | |
| Organic farming has environmental and ecosystem protection mindset | |
| Better preservation of biodiversity, small-scale farming and important cultural sites | |
| Organic farming ensures food for future generation i.e., Less exploitation of resources | |
| Organic farming requires less investment fund | |
| Less chemical; locally produced | |
| Organic farming avoids genetically modified organisim (GMOs) | |
| Organic products have good taste and food quality | |
| Conventional production | Organic farming disregards importance of using GMO |
| No convincing scientific reason for organic farming being better than conventional | |
| Organic cannot feed growing demand of increasing population | |
| Depending on country conventional farming can be sustainable e.g., some of participants believe that Swedish conventional farming is sustainable | |
| Conventional farm needs less land (and less leaking of nutrients in relation to production) than organic farming | |
| Conventional farming is more free from disease infestation | |
| There are more restrictions on organic farming. That can hinder it from being sustainable | |
| Cannot assess | It depends on how well methods used in both cases |
| More expert knowledge needed to decide | |
| Both organic and conventional methods are not sustainable at present e.g., From an economic and social point of view |
Description of gender and responses on sustainable farming method.
| Gender | Organic Farming | Conventional Farming | Cannot Assess * | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 21 | 6 | 12 | 39 |
| Female | 51 | 2 | 8 | 61 |
| Total | 72 | 8 | 20 | 100 |
| Chi-square test parameters | ||||
* ‘Cannot assess’—Some participants respond that they cannot judge which method (organic or conventional) is more sustainable; ** df = degree of freedom.
Responses regarding sustainable food production by age group.
| Age | Organic Farming | Conventional Farming | Cannot Assess | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18–24 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 25–34 | 11 | 1 | 3 | 15 |
| 35–44 | 23 | 2 | 7 | 32 |
| 45–54 | 18 | 0 | 4 | 22 |
| 55–64 | 12 | 1 | 4 | 17 |
| 65+ | 4 | 4 | 2 | 10 |
| Total | 72 | 8 | 20 | 100 |
| Chi-square test parameters | ||||
Relation between education level and perceptions of sustainable farming methods.
| Education Status | Organic Farming | Conventional Farming | Cannot Asses | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary school education | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| High school education—incomplete | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| High school education—complete | 5 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| Higher education—Vocational training | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Higher education—University education | 60 | 7 | 19 | 86 |
| Total | 72 | 8 | 20 | 100 |
| Chi-square test parameters | ||||
Relation between household size and sustainable farming method.
| Household Size | Organc Production | Conventonal Production | Cannot Asses | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 13 | 2 | 4 | 19 |
| 2 | 27 | 4 | 7 | 38 |
| 3 | 14 | 1 | 3 | 18 |
| 4 | 15 | 0 | 4 | 19 |
| ≥5 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| Total | 72 | 8 | 20 | 100 |
| Pearson’s Chi-square test parameters | ||||
Income level and perceived sustainable food production method. The values are in number of participants (N = 100).
| Perceived Sustainable Production Method | Monthly Income Range | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 500–900 € | 901–1300 € | 1301–2000 € | 2001–2600 € | 2601–3200 € | 3201–4500 € | >4500 € | Cannot Decide | Total | |
| Conventional | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 8 |
| Organic | 4 | 3 | 6 | 15 | 13 | 14 | 16 | 1 | 72 |
| Do not know | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 0 | 20 |
| TOTAL | 5 | 3 | 8 | 17 | 16 | 23 | 27 | 1 | 100 |
| Pearson’s Chi-Square test | |||||||||
Figure 3Description of food quality ranking according to income level-based household groups (N = 99).
Figure 4Description of food buying decision ranking according to income level based household groups (N = 99).
Figure 5Relationship between perceived product quality and buying decisions. The average (N = 100) rank values (Y-axis) were computed for each of the eight parameters (see horizontal-axis).
Figure 6Relationship between perceived product quality and buying decision by participants who believed organic farming is more sustainable. The average (N = 72) rank values (vertical-axis) were computed for each of the eight parameters (see horizontal axis).
Figure 7Expenditure on organic food and purchasing frequency. (a) Spending >14 € on organic produce per each purchase of food; (b) frequency of purchasing different organic items.