| Literature DB >> 30626169 |
Luigi Cembalo1, Daniela Caso2, Valentina Carfora3, Francesco Caracciolo4, Alessia Lombardi5, Gianni Cicia6.
Abstract
The present study focused on an environmental scandal that occurred in Italy, the Land of Fires toxic waste scandal, which caused consumer concerns related to the safety of food produced in the affected region, as well as massive market reduction in products associated with the polluted area. Based on a representative sample of Italian households (N = 1134), this study applied an extended Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) model to analyze consumer purchases of regional food products after this environmental hazard. In addition to attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control, the model included risk perception, trust, and actual purchases. Using a structural equation model, our results provided support to the hypothesis that consumer perceptions of risk negatively impacted their purchase behaviors and suggested that increasing Italians' trust in government information could reduce their perceived risk and, consequently, increase their intention to purchase regional food.Entities:
Keywords: Campania; Italy; Land of fires; environmental scandal; regional food safety; theory of planned behavior
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30626169 PMCID: PMC6339117 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16010165
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The extended hypothesized model, PBC: perceived behavioral control.
Items included in the model.
| Items |
|---|
|
|
| I.1 I intent to purchase Campania food |
| I.2 I plan to purchase Campania food |
| I.3 I want to purchase Campania food |
|
|
| PBC.1 Controlling my purchase of Campania food is easy |
| PBC.2 Whether or not I purchase Campania food is completely up to me |
| PBC.3 During my purchases, if I want, I can be sure of the healthiness of the Campania products |
|
|
| A.1 Purchasing of Campania food is worthless/valuable |
| A.2 Purchasing of Campania food is positive/negative |
| A.3 Purchasing of Campania food is interesting/boring |
|
|
| SN.1 People who are important to me think I can purchase Campania food |
| SN.2 People who are important to me would approve my purchasing of Campania food |
| SN.3 People who are important do not want me to purchase Campania food (R) |
|
|
| T.1 Do you trust the Italian Government initiatives (certification system and traceability) in response to the potential risks of Campania food? |
| T.2 Do you trust the public research initiatives (University and Public research system) in response to the potential risks of Campania food? |
| T.3 Do you trust the Campania farmers’ initiatives in response to the potential risks of Campania food? |
|
|
| R.1 Do you think that there are potential risks associated with the consumption of Campania food? |
| R.2 Do you think that potential risks associated with the consumption of Campania food are known to the scientific community? |
| R.3 Do you think that potential risks associated with the consumption of Campania food are acceptable? |
| R.4 How do you think that Campania food is risky for the community? |
|
|
| B.1 How often do you purchase mozzarella produced in Campania |
| B.2 How often do you purchase fruit and vegetable produced in Campania |
| B.3 How often do you purchase other Campania products? |
Means and standard deviations of each items.
| Items | M | SD | CR |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| I.1 | 2.66 | 1.93 | 0.62 |
| I.2 | 2.51 | 1.88 | |
| I.3 | 2.62 | 1.89 | |
|
| |||
| PBC.1 | 3.18 | 1.97 | 0.58 |
| PBC.2 | 4.58 | 2.17 | |
| PBC.3 | 4.11 | 2.19 | |
|
| 0.69 | ||
| A.1 | 2.79 | 1.62 | |
| A.2 | 2.80 | 1.63 | |
| A.3 | 2.82 | 1.67 | |
|
| |||
| SN.1 | 4.07 | 2.20 | 0.60 |
| SN.2 | 3.30 | 1.90 | |
| SN.3 | 3.07 | 1.90 | |
|
| |||
| T.1 | 3.91 | 1.87 | 0.65 |
| T.2 | 3.74 | 1.74 | |
| T.3 | 3.55 | 1.84 | |
|
| |||
| R.1 | 4.51 | 1.96 | 0.71 |
| R.2 | 5.07 | 1.94 | |
| R.3 | 2.54 | 1.97 | |
| R.4 | 5.67 | 1.72 | |
|
| |||
| B.1 | 2.04 | 1.04 | 0.62 |
| B.2 | 2.67 | 1.67 | |
| B.3 | 2.72 | 1.60 |
Note: M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation, CR = Composite Reliability.
Descriptive finding and correlations between study variables.
| 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. | M | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Intention | 1 | 2.60 | 1.81 | ||||||
| 2. PBC | 0.56 ** | 1 | 3.96 | 1.59 | |||||
| 3. Attitude | 0.74 ** | 0.51 ** | 1 | 2.80 | 1.56 | ||||
| 4. Subjective norm | 0.62 ** | 0.43 ** | 0.65 ** | 1 | 3.50 | 1.50 | |||
| 5. Trust | 0.37 ** | 0.38 ** | 0.41 ** | 0.33 ** | 1 | 3.75 | 1.58 | ||
| 6. Risk Perception | 0.03 | 0.10 ** | −0.02 | −0.01 | 0.05 | 1 | 4.44 | 1.30 | |
| 7. Purchasing Behavior | 0.27 ** | 0.07 * | 0.21 ** | 0.22 ** | 0.08 ** | −0.01 | 1 | 2.47 | 1.18 |
Note: ** p < 0.001; * p < 0.05.
Figure 2Path model with standardized regression coefficients and standard loadings. Note: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.05.