| Literature DB >> 31652520 |
Ahsan Akbar1, Saqib Ali2, Muhammad Azeem Ahmad3, Minhas Akbar4, Muhammad Danish5.
Abstract
Environmental and health problems have increased the interest of researchers and practitioners in investigating the factors that affect organic food consumption. However, little attention has been paid to the actual organic food buying behavior, particularly in developing countries like Pakistan. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to determine the actual buying patterns of consumers. For this purpose, a conceptual model based on green perceived value framework which predicts consumer's purchase intention and purchase behavior has been empirically tested. Likewise, moderating role of food neophobia has also been explored. Data is collected from millennials that are under rated but constitute the most important consumer segment in Pakistan. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is employed to analyze the data. Results from 221 university students reveal that functional value, social value, emotional value, and conditional value positively influence the consumer purchase intention. Moreover, purchase intention is positively linked to the consumer purchase behavior of organic food. Furthermore, the study findings also confirm the moderating role of food neophobia between purchase intention and consumption of organic food. This paper depicts some noteworthy insights of consumer behavior for organic food producers, marketers, and researchers. At the end, limitations and recommendations for future research are elaborated.Entities:
Keywords: Green Perceived Value model; food neophobia; organic food
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31652520 PMCID: PMC6844079 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16204043
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Theoretical Framework.
Demographic profile.
| Characteristics | Frequency | Percentage% | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 147 | 66.5 |
| Female | 74 | 33.5 | |
| Age | 18–21 | 21 | 9.5 |
| 22–25 | 53 | 24.0 | |
| 26–29 | 88 | 39.8 | |
| 30–over | 59 | 26.7 | |
| Education | Intermediate | 40 | 18.0 |
| Undergraduate | 102 | 46.2 | |
| Graduate | 58 | 26.3 | |
| Professional | 21 | 9.5 | |
| Household Income (PKR) | Less than 50,000 ($320) | 54 | 24.5 |
| 50,001 ($320)–75,000 ($480) | 88 | 39.8 | |
| 75,001 ($480)–100,000 ($638) | 39 | 17.6 | |
| 100,001 ($638)–125,000 ($797) | 24 | 10.8 | |
| 125,001 ($797) and over | 16 | 7.3 |
Measurement Model Assessment.
| Construct | Item | Loadings | AVE | CR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Functional Value | FV1 | 0.848 | 0.642 | 0.877 |
| FV2 | 0.857 | |||
| FV3 | 0.732 | |||
| FV4 | 0.760 | |||
| Social value | SV1 | 0.702 | 0.595 | 0.854 |
| SV2 | 0.790 | |||
| SV3 | 0.811 | |||
| SV4 | 0.779 | |||
| Emotional Value | EMV1 | 0.677 | 0.606 | 0.820 |
| EMV2 | 0.850 | |||
| EMV3 | 0.798 | |||
| Conditional value | CDV1 | 0.852 | 0.722 | 0.886 |
| CDV2 | 0.869 | |||
| CDV3 | 0.827 | |||
| Consumer Intention for Organic Food | CIOF1 | 0.814 | 0.723 | 0.912 |
| CIOF2 | 0.858 | |||
| CIOF3 | 0.899 | |||
| CIOF4 | 0.826 | |||
| Food Neophobia | FN1 | 0.804 | 0.566 | 0.811 |
| FN | 0.657 | |||
| FN | 0.693 | |||
| FN | 0.560 | |||
| FN | 0.675 | |||
| Consumption Behavior for Organic Food | CBOF1 | 0.729 | 0.723 | 0.830 |
| CBOF2 | 0.761 | |||
| CBOF3 | 0.781 | |||
| CBOF4 | 0.689 |
Figure 2Structural model evaluation (Bootstrap).
Discriminant validity (HTMT).
| CV | CBOF | CIOF | EMV | FN | FV | SV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
|
| 0.197 | ||||||
|
| 0.314 | 0.512 | |||||
|
| 0.133 | 0.597 | 0.771 | ||||
|
| 0.204 | 0.573 | 0.738 | 0.792 | |||
|
| 0.188 | 0.473 | 0.620 | 0.661 | 0.739 | ||
|
| 0.067 | 0.352 | 0.394 | 0.457 | 0.466 | 0.479 |
Structural Model Results (Hypotheses testing).
| Hypothesis | Relationship | Path Coefficient | Std. Error | Supported | R2 | Q2 | f2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | FV -> CIOF | 0.233 | 0.043 | 5.364 | 0.000 | Yes | 0.493 | 0.328 | 0.073 |
| H2 | SV -> CIOF | 0.080 | 0.037 | 2.142 | 0.016 | Yes | 0.010 | ||
| H3 | EMV-> CIOF | 0.469 | 0.038 | 12.448 | 0.000 | Yes | 0.315 | ||
| H4 | CDV -> CIOF | 0.197 | 0.040 | 4.932 | 0.000 | Yes | 0.074 | ||
| H5 | CIOF -> CBOF | 0.243 | 0.053 | 4.608 | 0.000 | Yes | 0.222 | 0.113 | 0.049 |
| H6 | Moderating effect FN -> CBOF | 0.080 | 0.036 | 2.042 | 0.000 | Yes | 0.243 | 0.068 |
Figure 3Moderating effect of food neophobia.