| Literature DB >> 32252221 |
Giuseppe Di Vita1, Massimiliano Borrello2, Riccardo Vecchio2, Giovanni Gulisano3, Mario D'Amico4.
Abstract
While the medical community supports the growth of citrus consumption as part of a healthy diet, there is limited knowledge about consumer preferences for these fruits. The current study analyzed the purchasing patterns and drivers of fresh citrus fruits from a convenience sample of 346 Italian food shoppers. Results revealed that clementines were the citrus fruit purchased most, followed by oranges and tangerines. Sweetness and smell were important product attributes for respondents. Different drivers affect the purchasing frequencies of various citrus fruits. Taste motivation, with a specific preference for acidity, impacts orange purchasing. Similarly, clementines are purchased primarily for taste motivation, however, the core sensory attribute for respondents in this case was sweetness. Meanwhile, for tangerines, the taste motivation is less important than the energy motivation, and the size together with the color are the core purchasing drivers. These outcomes provide food scientists, agronomists and market practitioners with new insights into Italian consumers' preferences for citrus fruits, thus contributing to a potential expansion of this market.Entities:
Keywords: consumer preferences; grapefruit; healthy food; lemon; lime; product attributes; purchasing frequency
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32252221 PMCID: PMC7230660 DOI: 10.3390/nu12040979
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics (N = 346).
|
| % | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Female | 205 | 59.2 |
| Male | 141 | 40.8 |
| Age | ||
| 18–30 | 73 | 21.1 |
| 31–45 | 104 | 30.1 |
| 46–60 | 134 | 38.7 |
| >60 | 35 | 10.1 |
| Educational level | ||
| Primary school | 41 | 11.8 |
| High school | 111 | 32.1 |
| Masters | 163 | 47.1 |
| PhD | 31 | 9 |
| Average monthly income (€) | ||
| <1000 | 24 | 6.9 |
| 1000–2000 | 128 | 37 |
| 2000–4000 | 84 | 24.3 |
| >4000 | 20 | 5.8 |
| No response | 90 | 26 |
| Household size | ||
| 1 | 87 | 25.1 |
| 2 | 81 | 23.4 |
| 3 | 48 | 13.9 |
| 4 | 108 | 31.2 |
| 5 | 13 | 3.8 |
| >5 | 9 | 2.6 |
List and type of variables collected in the survey.
| Variables | Type | Mean (SD) | Scale | Coding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh fruit consumption frequency | Categorical | 5.5 (1.46) | 1–7 (1 = never, 7 = very often) | Fruit consumption |
| Fresh fruit purchasing frequency | Categorical | 2.38 (0.65) | 1–7 (1 = never, 7 = very often) | Fruit purchasing |
| Oranges purchase frequency | Categorical | 5.31 (1.68) | 1–7 (1 = rarely, 7 = very often) | Orange Freq. |
| Clementines purchase frequency | Categorical | 5.38 (1.63) | 1–7 (1 = rarely, 7 = very often) | Clementine Freq. |
| Tangerines purchase frequency | Categorical | 4.59 (1.99) | 1–7 (1 = rarely, 7 = very often) | Tangerine Freq. |
| Lemons purchase frequency | Categorical | 4.43 (1.85) | 1–7 (1 = rarely, 7 = very often) | Lemon Freq. |
| Grapefruits purchase frequency | Categorical | 2.26 (1.52) | 1–7 (1 = rarely, 7 = very often) | Grapefruit Freq. |
| Bergamots purchase frequency | Categorical | 1.40 (0.99) | 1–7 (1 = rarely, 7 = very often) | Bergamot Freq. |
| Citrons purchase frequency | Categorical | 1.54 (1.21) | 1–7 (1 = rarely, 7 = very often) | Citron Freq. |
| Limes purchase frequency | Categorical | 1.65 (1.29) | 1–7 (1 = rarely, 7 = very often) | Lime Freq. |
| Nutritional motivation importance | Categorical | 5.43 (1.68) | 1–7 (1 = very low, to 7 = very high) | Nutritional Mot. |
| Health motivation importance | Categorical | 5.66 (1.48) | 1–7 (1 = very low, to 7 = very high) | Health Mot. |
| Energy motivation importance | Categorical | 4.02 (1.87) | 1–7 (1 = very low, to 7 = very high) | Energy Mot. |
| Taste motivation importance | Categorical | 5.60 (1.58) | 1–7 (1 = very low, to 7 = very high) | Taste Mot. |
| Convenience motivation importance | Categorical | 3.02 (1.82) | 1–7 (1 = very low, to 7 = very high) | Convenience Mot. |
| Diet motivation importance | Categorical | 2.83 (1.88) | 1–7 (1 = very low, to 7 = very high) | Diet Mot. |
| Breakfast as the main fresh fruit consumption occasion | Dummy | 0.23 | (0 = No, 1 = Yes) | Breakfast |
| Peelability importance | Categorical | 1–7 (1 = not important at all, | Peelability | |
| Antioxidant content importance | Categorical | 1–7 (1 = not important at all, | Antioxidant | |
| Acidity importance | Categorical | 1–7 (1 = not important at all, | Acidity | |
| Sweetness importance | Categorical | 1–7 (1 = not important at all, | Sweet | |
| Digestibility importance | Categorical | 1–7 (1 = not important at all, | Digestibility | |
| Size importance | Categorical | 1–7 (1 = not important at all, | Size | |
| Smell importance | Categorical | 1–7 (1 = not important at all, | Smell | |
| Skin color importance | Categorical | 1–7 (1 = not important at all, | Color |
Note: For each citrus fruit, the respective mean value is applied in the econometric model.
Figure 1Citrus fruits’ preference scores. Scale from 1 = disliked totally, to 7 = extremely liked.
Figure 2Importance of specific citrus fruit attributes. Scale from 1 = not at all important when purchasing the product, to 7 = extremely important. ***: means are statistically different according to t-test pairwise comparisons, at least at the 5% level; ns: means are not statistically significant according to the t-test pairwise comparison.
Odd ratios of the ordered logistic regressions.
| Variables | Oranges | Clementines | Tangerines | Lemons |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fruit consumption | 1.664 *** | 1.511 *** | 1.272 *** | 1.011 |
| Nutritional Mot. | 0.955 | 1.031 | 0.909 | 1.216 ** |
| Health Mot. | 1.256 ** | 1.037 | 1.010 | 1.068 |
| Energy Mot. | 0.964 | 1.091 | 1.225 *** | 1.059 |
| Taste Mot. | 1.299 *** | 1.461 *** | 1.187 ** | 0.968 |
| Convenience Mot. | 1.049 | 0.987 | 0.960 | 0.944 |
| Diet Mot. | 0.978 | 0.903 | 0.927 | 0.969 |
| Breakfast | 1.171 *** | 1.061 | 0.992 | 1.149 *** |
| Peelability | 0.986 | 1.086 | 0.845 | 0.895 |
| Antioxidant | 0.959 | 0.891 | 0.948 | 0.821 ** |
| Acidity | 1.227 * | 1.030 | 1.021 | 1.049 |
| Sweet | 1.075 | 1.384 ** | 1.155 | 1.079 |
| Digestibility | 0.978 | 0.955 | 1.033 | 1.047 |
| Size | 1.033 | 1.077 | 1.216 * | 1.003 |
| Smell | 0.977 | 0.910 | 1.016 | 1.119 |
| Color | 1.082 | 1.158 | 1.283 *** | 1.028 |
| Log likelihood | −536.607 | −517.565 | −588.625 | −602.817 |
| Prob > chi2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
Dependent variables: oranges’ purchasing frequency, clementines’ purchasing frequency, tangerines’ purchasing frequency and lemons’ purchasing frequency. *** Statistically significant at 1%; ** statistically significant at 5%; * statistically significant at 10%. Brant test of parallel regression assumption indicated that the proportional odds assumption was not violated.