| Literature DB >> 31187040 |
Akhter Ali1, Dil Bahadur Rahut2.
Abstract
Using comprehensive primary dataset collected from 400 respondents from all four major provinces of Pakistan, this study assesses consumers' knowledge, awareness, and perception regarding the use of functional foods. The empirical findings show that the majority of the consumers do not have information and knowledge about the functional foods in Pakistan. Hence, the frequency of consumption of functional food was low especially in rural areas. The result revealed that consumers with ill health were more eager to consume functional foods compared to healthier people. Besides health, the level of education and gender (female) of the respondent also play significant role in the acceptability and consumption of the functional foods in Pakistan. Geographically the people in the cities were more aware and willing to pay more for the functional foods as compared to people living in the villages. Majority of the consumers think that consumption of functional foods can help them to maintain good health, hence the policy makers' needs to create more awareness.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31187040 PMCID: PMC6521579 DOI: 10.1155/2019/6390650
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Food Sci ISSN: 2314-5765
Distributions of the respondents by province, rural, and urban areas.
| No. of respondents | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of districts | Urban | Rural | Total | |
| Total | 26 | 203 | 197 | 400 |
| Punjab | 13 | 102 | 98 | 200 |
| Sindh | 6 | 47 | 45 | 92 |
| KPK | 5 | 39 | 37 | 76 |
| Baluchistan | 2 | 17 | 15 | 32 |
Data and description of variables.
| Variable | Description | Mean | Std. Dev |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Age | Age of the respondent in numbers of years | 41.64 | 6.84 |
| Gender (dummy) | 1 if the respondent is male, 0 otherwise | 0.63 | 0.55 |
| Marital status (dummy) | 1 if the respondent is married, 0 otherwise | 0.59 | 0.42 |
| Family size | Number of family members living in the household | 8.24 | 6.34 |
| Children | Number of Children living in the household | 5.13 | 3.16 |
| Family system (dummy) | 1 if living in joint family, 0 otherwise | 0.38 | 0.29 |
|
| |||
| Education | Years of schooling of the respondent | 12.55 | 5.27 |
|
| |||
| Income | Average Income of the household in rupees | 29364 | 1764 |
| Job (dummy) | 1 if the respondent is doing job, 0 otherwise | 0.71 | 0.56 |
|
| |||
| Television (dummy) | 1 if the respondent owns a TV, 0 otherwise | 0.82 | 0.67 |
| House (dummy) | 1 if the respondent owns a House, 0 otherwise | 0.69 | 0.34 |
| Car (dummy) | 1 if the household owns a Car, 0 otherwise | 0.27 | 0.21 |
| Health condition | |||
| Health status (dummy) | 1 if the respondent is in good health, 0 otherwise | 0.88 | 0.68 |
|
| |||
| Price | 1 if the respondent thinks that price is a barrier in the purchase of functional food, 0 otherwise | 0.73 | 0.56 |
| Taste | 1 if the taste prevents the use of functional food, 0 otherwise | 0.36 | 0.24 |
|
| |||
| Internet | 1 if the respondent has access to the Internet, 0 otherwise | 0.82 | 0.37 |
|
| |||
| Urban | 1 if the respondent is living in urban areas, 0 for rural areas | 0.5 | 0.42 |
Figure 1Consumers knowledge level about functional foods.
Figure 2Frequency of functional foods.
Figure 3Source of information/awareness about functional foods.
Figure 4Sources of functional foods.
Determinants of functional foods awareness and demand (Bivariate probit model).
| Variable | Functional Food Awareness | Functional Food Demand | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | t-vales | Coefficient | t-values | |
|
| ||||
| Age | -0.06 | -1.19 | 0.02 | 1.32 |
| Gender | -0.03 | -1.72 | -0.08 | -1.99 |
| Marital Status | 0.04 | 0.87 | 0.11 | 1.35 |
| Family size | 0.01 | 2.19 | 0.07 | 1.62 |
| Family system | 0.03 | 1.27 | 0.05 | 1.58 |
| Children | -0.09 | -1.44 | -0.06 | -1.83 |
|
| ||||
| Education | 0.02 | 2.14 | 0.14 | 3.45 |
|
| ||||
| Income | 0.06 | 1.94 | 0.04 | 2.89 |
| Wage employment | 0.11 | 1.77 | -0.08 | -1.82 |
|
| ||||
| Television | 0.03 | 2.06 | 0.004 | 2.50 |
| House | 0.07 | 2.13 | 0.05 | 2.14 |
| Car | 0.02 | 1.05 | 0.06 | 1.34 |
|
| ||||
| Health status | -0.06 | -2.18 | 0.05 | 1.92 |
| Price | 0.14 | 1.21 | -0.04 | -2.15 |
| Taste | 0.04 | 1.35 | 0.03 | 1.92 |
|
| ||||
| Internet | 0.05 | 2.17 | 0.01 | 2.06 |
|
| ||||
| Urban | 0.01 | 2.73 | 0.02 | 2.19 |
| Constant | 0.04 | 1.90 | 0.03 | 1.23 |
| LR Chi-Square | 284.27 | |||
| Prob>Chi Square | ≤0.001 | |||
| Value of R-square | 0.27 | |||
| Numbers of Observations | 400 | |||
Note: Results are significant at ∗∗∗, ∗∗, ∗ 1, 5, and 10 percent levels, respectively.
Numbers of the functional food items consumed per week (Poisson regression estimates).
| Variable | Coefficient | t-values |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Age | 0.03 | 1.54 |
| Gender (male) | -0.01 | -1.85 |
| Marital Status | 0.11 | 1.36 |
| Family size | -0.02 | -1.40 |
| Family system | -0.01 | -1.73 |
| Children | 0.04 | 1.29 |
|
| ||
| Education | 0.08 | 3.02 |
|
| ||
| Income | 0.02 | 3.19 |
| Job | 0.07 | 2.08 |
|
| ||
| Television | 0.03 | 1.93 |
| House | 0.05 | 0.83 |
| Car | 0.01 | 1.55 |
|
| ||
| Health status | -0.08 | -2.11 |
| Price | 0.06 | 1.42 |
| Taste | 0.03 | 1.36 |
|
| ||
| Internet | 0.13 | 1.52 |
|
| ||
| Urban | 0.09 | 2.05 |
| Constant | 0.08 | 2.04 |
| LR Chi-Square | 153.28 | |
| Prob>Chi Square | ≤0.001 | |
| Value of R-square | 0.31 | |
| Numbers of Observations | 400 | |
Note: Results are significant at ∗∗∗, ∗∗, ∗ 1, 5, and 10 percent levels, respectively.
Preferred source of functional food (multivariate probit model).
| Variables | Fruits | Vegetables | Condiments | Others | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | t-values | Coefficient | t-values | Coefficient | t-values | Coefficient | t-values | |
|
| ||||||||
| Age | -0.05 | -1.28 | 0.07 | 1.42 | 0.01 | 2.15 | 0.04 | 1.23 |
| Gender | -0.03 | -1.76 | -0.04 | -2.11 | -0.06 | 1.80 | 0.09 | 1.72 |
| Marital Status | 0.01 | 1.47 | 0.02 | 1.57 | 0.03 | 1.36 | 0.08 | 1.62 |
| Family size | 0.08 | 1.34 | 0.13 | 1.63 | 0.05 | 1.09 | 0.10 | 1.47 |
| Family system | 0.03 | 1.51 | 0.07 | 1.28 | 0.04 | 1.20 | 0.09 | 1.53 |
| Children | -0.05 | 1.43 | 0.06 | 1.49 | 0.05 | 1.83 | 0.04 | 1.02 |
|
| ||||||||
| Education | 0.02 | 1.93 | 0.05 | 1.68 | 0.14 | 2.96 | 0.02 | 1.46 |
|
| ||||||||
| Income | 0.01 | 3.17 | 0.04 | 2.16 | 0.05 | 1.92 | 0.04 | 1.73 |
| Job | 0.05 | 1.26 | 0.04 | 1.08 | 0.06 | 1.48 | 0.01 | 1.28 |
|
| ||||||||
| Television | 0.03 | 1.91 | 0.02 | 1.95 | 0.04 | 2.16 | 0.09 | 1.68 |
| House | 0.04 | 2.18 | 0.05 | 1.72 | 0.06 | 1.75 | 0.01 | 1.39 |
| Car | 0.06 | 1.73 | -0.01 | -1.57 | 0.03 | 1.29 | 0.04 | 1.10 |
|
| ||||||||
| Health status | -0.02 | 2.57 | 0.03 | 2.12 | 0.11 | 3.06 | 0.05 | 1.25 |
| Price | -0.01 | 2.34 | 0.07 | 1.93 | 0.10 | 1.83 | 0.04 | 1.43 |
| Taste | 0.03 | 1.52 | 0.04 | 1.61 | 0.07 | 1.67 | 0.03 | 1.54 |
| Access to information | ||||||||
| Internet | 0.06 | 1.73 | 0.05 | 1.38 | 0.04 | 1.20 | 0.05 | 1.81 |
|
| ||||||||
| Urban | -0.06 | -1.30 | -0.05 | -2.14 | -0.004 | -1.98 | 0.16 | 2.76 |
| Constant | 0.04 | 1.84 | 0.04 | 1.76 | 0.05 | 1.78 | 0.04 | 1.52 |
|
| ||||||||
| LR Chi Square | 340.94 | |||||||
| Prob>Chi Square | ≤0.001 | |||||||
| Value of R-square | 0.36 | |||||||
| Numbers of Observations | 400 | |||||||
Note: Results are significant at ∗∗∗, ∗∗, ∗ 1, 5, and 10 percent levels, respectively.
Cross equation correlations.
| Dependent variable | Cross equation correlations |
|---|---|
| Fruits and Vegetables | 0.135 |
| Fruits and Condiments | 0.243 |
| Fruits and Others | 0.169 |
| Vegetables and Condiments | 0.207 |
| Vegetables and Others | 0.255 |
| Condiments and Others | 0.162 |
Consumers' willingness to pay for the functional foods (Tobit estimates).
| Variable | Coefficient | t-values |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Age | -0.01 | 1.23 |
| Gender | -0.02 | 2.34 |
| Marital Status | 0.04 | 1.33 |
| Family size | -0.03 | -1.78 |
| Family system | 0.05 | 1.44 |
| Children | -0.03 | -1.23 |
|
| ||
| Education | 0.07 | 2.16 |
|
| ||
| Income | 0.04 | 2.24 |
| Job | 0.03 | 1.45 |
|
| ||
| Television | 0.13 | 2.18 |
| House | 0.06 | 1.93 |
| Car | 0.02 | 2.76 |
|
| ||
| Health status | -0.01 | -1.82 |
| Price | 0.04 | 1.30 |
| Taste | 0.03 | 1.28 |
|
| ||
| Internet | 0.04 | 1.55 |
|
| ||
| Urban resident | 0.12 | 2.51 |
|
| ||
| LR Chi Square | 294.34 | |
| Prob>Chi Square | ≤0.001 | |
| Value of R-square | 0.19 | |
| Numbers of Observations | 400 | |
| Censored Observations | 84 | |
| Final Observations | 316 | |
Note: Results are significant at ∗∗∗, ∗∗, ∗ 1, 5, and 10 percent levels, respectively.
Consumers perception regarding impact of functional food on human health (PSM estimates).
| Outcome | Caliper | ATT | t-values | Critical Level of | Numbers | Numbers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hidden Bias | of Treated | of Control | ||||
| Matching Algorithm: Radius Matching (RM) | ||||||
| Health | 0.03 | +++ | 3.14 | 1.45-1.50 | 235 | 117 |
|
| ||||||
| Matching Algorithm: Splene Matching (SM) | ||||||
| Health | 0.06 | +++ | 2.87 | 1.35-1.40 | 249 | 83 |
Note: ATT stands for the average treatment effect for the treated. RM stands for the radius matching while SM stands for the Splene matching. The results are significant at ∗∗∗ 1 percent levels, respectively.