| Literature DB >> 31323883 |
Stefano Massaglia1, Danielle Borra1, Cristiana Peano1, Francesco Sottile2, Valentina Maria Merlino3.
Abstract
This study assesses consumer preferences during fruit and vegetable (FV) sales, considering the sociodemographic variables of individuals together with their choice of point of purchase. A choice experiment was conducted in two metropolitan areas in Northwest Italy. A total of 1170 consumers were interviewed at different FV purchase points (mass retail chains and open-air markets) using a paper questionnaire. The relative importance assigned by consumers to 12 fruit and vegetable product attributes, including both intrinsic and extrinsic quality cues, was assessed by using the best-worst scaling (BWS) methodology. The BWS results showed that "origin", "seasonality", and "freshness" were the most preferred attributes that Italian consumers took into account for purchases, while no importance was given to "organic certification", "variety", or "brand". Additionally, a latent class analysis was employed to divide the total sample into five different clusters of consumers, characterized by the same preferences related to FV attributes. Each group of individuals is described on the basis of sociodemographic variables and by the declared fruit and vegetable point of purchase. This research demonstrates that age, average annual income, and families with children are all discriminating factors that influence consumer preference and behavior, in addition to affecting which point of purchase the consumer prefers to acquire FV products from.Entities:
Keywords: best–worst scaling; cluster analysis; consumer preferences; fruits and vegetables
Year: 2019 PMID: 31323883 PMCID: PMC6678484 DOI: 10.3390/foods8070266
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
The 12 attributes of fruits and vegetables used for the best–worst scaling analysis and associated references.
| Fruit & Vegetable Quality Attributes | Attribute Description | References |
|---|---|---|
| Brand (or seller) | Brand allows the consumer to identify and discriminate a product. The evaluation of the brand associates “research”, in relation to the “experience” of the characteristics of a product, together with information about the manufacturer. | [ |
| Organic label | Organic certification has been recognized, in various studies, as an attribute that positively influences consumer choices at the time of purchase. | [ |
| Quality certifications | This attribute is often related to greater product safety and wholesomeness that, in FV, often results in the reduction of pesticide risk. | [ |
| Origin | Product origin is an intrinsic cue, linked to the consumer information acquisition of product/producer identification in addition to product quality assessment. Consumers believe in a higher quality of domestic food, in comparison to foreign products. | [ |
| Price | Several studies have given evidence that the selection of fresh fruit and vegetables is often not influenced by price. Thus, considering a broader product category in our study, fruit and vegetables, price becomes relevant. | [ |
| Offer | The evaluation of special offers (promotional prices) for fruit and vegetables is an important tool for this category of products, often characterized by medium–high prices. This factor often depends on the place of purchase and seasonality. | [ |
| Appearance | The outward appearance of FV is one of the attributes that highly influences decisions at the time of purchase. | [ |
| Local | Local production has a lower perception of risk, which helps to increase loyalty to local producers and to guarantee the sustainability of local companies. | [ |
| Geographical indication label | The consumer attitude towards certified products (e.g., Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI)) has been studied in various researches, evaluating different fruit and vegetable products and confirming the recognition by consumers of a higher quality compared to a conventional or commercial product, with higher organoleptic and taste properties. | [ |
| Seasonality | The consumption of seasonal fruit and vegetables is associated with consumer choice behavior oriented towards an ecological product; one that avoids excessive packaging (such as tin and plastic) and waste, and which is considered to have a higher organoleptic quality and freshness. | [ |
| Variety | Greater attention to this attribute differs by various types of consumers, especially in identifying targets that are more attentive to the variety (cultivars). | [ |
| Freshness | Freshness is a very important quality criterion for FV acceptability. Consumer assessment of freshness of fruit and vegetables occurs through the analysis of sensory and visual aspects of the product appearance during purchase, but also during/after consumption. | [ |
FV: fruit and vegetable.
Latent class clustering (lClass) analysis results: Comparison between the BIC (Bayesian information criterion) for cluster segmentation choice.
| Groups | Replication 1 | BIC |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 3 | 46257.960 |
| 3 | 4 | 45162.476 |
| 4 | 2 | 44564.793 |
| 5 | 4 | 44171.250 |
1 Number of replications of data coupling performed by software, based on initial setting (replication set = 5).
Sociodemographic characteristics of the interviewed sample population (n = 1170).
| Sample ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | male | 31% | Employment | housewife | 6% |
| female | 69% | unemployed | 6% | ||
| Age | ≤30 | 9% | employed | 42% | |
| 31–45 | 24% | self-employed | 9% | ||
| 46–55 | 22% | retired | 34% | ||
| 56–65 | 22% | student | 3% | ||
| >65 | 23% | Annual average income (€/year) | <25,000 | 40% | |
| Education | primary school | 6% | 25,000–35,000 | 33% | |
| lower secondary school | 26% | >35,000 | 8% | ||
| upper secondary school | 49% | n.d. | 18% | ||
| master’s degree | 19% | ||||
Best–worst scaling count report (number of BEST and number of WORST), BW average raw score (A-RS), and standard deviation for each considered attribute.
| Rank | Attribute | Number of Best | Number of Worst | BW Average Raw Score 1 | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Origin (Italian/foreign) | 1521 | 345 | 1.6840 | 1.673 |
| 2 | Seasonality | 1563 | 278 | 1.6790 | 1.394 |
| 3 | Freshness | 1489 | 305 | 1.6170 | 1.052 |
| 4 | Local | 842 | 559 | 0.4030 | 1.461 |
| 5 | Price | 902 | 685 | 0.3700 | 2.003 |
| 6 | Offer | 798 | 831 | −0.0260 | 1.913 |
| 7 | Appearance | 704 | 914 | −0.2960 | 1.520 |
| 8 | Geographical indication labels | 444 | 1145 | −0.8820 | 1.575 |
| 9 | Certification | 458 | 1102 | −1.0110 | 1.407 |
| 10 | Brand (or seller) | 400 | 1166 | −1.0240 | 1.227 |
| 11 | Variety | 319 | 1133 | −1.0770 | 1.027 |
| 12 | Organic | 406 | 1383 | −1.4380 | 1.918 |
1 A negative BW (best-worst) average raw score value is due to the attribute not commonly chosen as the best factor.
The average BW raw score for each fruit and vegetable attribute resulting from the five clusters of consumers: price sensitive, proposed loyalty, value for money, undecided consumer, and local sensitive.
| Price Sensitive | Proposed Loyalty | Value for Money | Undecided Consumer | Local Sensitive | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster dimension | 17.50% | 25.50% | 15.24% | 16.50% | 25.26% | |
|
|
| |||||
| Offer | 50.21 | −20.27 | −8.80 | 20.99 | −45.83 | 0.966 |
| Geographical indication labels | −30.48 | 18.74 | −41.19 | −32.70 | 5.71 | 0.548 |
| Seasonality | 11.91 | 45.11 | 51.82 | 23.17 | 54.17 |
|
| Appearance | 3.22 | −11.70 | 39.14 | −10.54 | −39.42 | 0.777 |
| Origin (Italian/foreign) | 7.92 | 20.44 | 31.11 | 48.21 | 50.45 |
|
| Price | 64.25 | −16.92 | 3.75 | 24.52 | −36.37 | 0.675 |
| Organic | −35.75 | −39.25 | −37.70 | −51.79 | 6.03 |
|
| Certification | −26.40 | 10.66 | −33.82 | −37.71 | −6.84 | 0.107 |
| Variety | −14.47 | −38.02 | −7.86 | −30.22 | −30.50 |
|
| Local | −13.97 | −28.89 | −11.80 | 24.61 | 37.54 | 0.911 |
| Brand (or seller) | −26.20 | −0.65 | −42.33 | −6.48 | −32.80 | 0.051 |
| Freshness | 9.76 | 60.75 | 57.67 | 27.93 | 37.87 |
|
1 The significant scores are highlighted in bold (p-value < 0.05).
Figure 1Sociodemographic characteristics of consumers belonging to the proposed loyalty cluster: (a) Gender and age group proportions, (b) educational level, (c) annual average income, and (d) number of family components.
Figure 2Sociodemographic characteristics of consumers belonging to the local sensitive cluster: (a) Gender and age groups proportion, (b) educational level, (c) yearly average income bracket, and (d) number of family components.
Figure 3Sociodemographic characteristics of consumers belonging to price sensitive cluster: (a) Gender and age groups proportion, (b) educational level, (c) yearly average income bracket, and (d) number of family components.
Figure 4Sociodemographic characteristics of consumers belonging to the undecided cluster: (a) Gender and age groups proportion, (b) educational level, (c) yearly average income bracket, and (d) number of family components.
Figure 5Sociodemographic characteristics of consumers belonging to value for money cluster: (a) Gender and age groups proportion, (b) educational level, (c) yearly average income bracket, and (d) number of family components.
Figure 6The points of purchase of fruit and vegetables chosen by consumers belonging to the five selected clusters.