Recognition of Consumers’ Characteristics of Purchasing Farm Produce with Safety Certificates and Their Influencing Factors
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Method
3.2. Data Sources
3.3. Analysis of Sample Characteristics
4. Model Estimation and Result
4.1. Model Building
4.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis Along with Tests of Reliability and Validity
4.2.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis
4.2.2. Test of Reliability and Validity
4.3. Test Results and Analysis
4.3.1. Analysis of Fitting Test and Path Coefficient
4.3.2. Path Analysis of Structural Equation Model
+ 0.531 × attitude to behavior + 0.367 × attitude to behavior × subjective norms + 0.4
× subjective norms × perceived behavior control + 0.22 × attitude to behavior ×
perceived behavior control + e
- (1)
- In terms of attitude to behavior, consumers support the purchase of certified safe pork. The path coefficient of support purchase is the largest and the path value of considering purchase as wise ranks second.
- (2)
- In consumers’ minds, easy characteristics variables to recognize certified pork are the most significant among variables of perceived behavior control as the corresponding path coefficient is 0.736. It also indicates whether pork with certificates has a great influence on their purchase decisions. The next influential factor is that adequate experience can ensure the safety of purchased pork, with a path coefficient of 0.689. Two other observable variables also have similar positive influence on latent variables in the aspect of perceived behavior control, namely the cost to purchase certified safe pork has not been raised and convenient channels to buy are available.
- (3)
- Moreover, government promotion and support as a measurable variable has the greatest influence on consumers’ subjective norms, showing a path coefficient of 0.699. This means that the government plays a crucial role in consumers’ life. As a result, stronger supervision and management by the government can improve information asymmetry, so as to increase consumers’ confidence in certified safe pork and further promote their purchase. Another major factor is the media, with a path coefficient of 0.653. The combination of we-media and mainstream media boosts the prosperity of this industry and thus has a positive influence on consumers. Besides, family relatives, friends, colleagues, bosses, experts, and academic institutions have demonstrated a positive and balanced effect on consumers, while other consumers are the least influential to consumers’ subjective norms.
4.4. Regression Analysis
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Angulo, A.M.; Gil, J.M.; Tamburo, L. Food Safety and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Labelled Beef in Spain. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2005, 11, 89–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Briz, T.; Ward, R.W. Consumer awareness of organic products in Spain: An application of multinominal logit models. Food Policy 2009, 34, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ortega, D.L.; Wang, H.H.; Wu, L.; Olynk, N.J. Modeling Heterogeneity in Consumer preferences for Select Food Safety Attributes in China. Food Policy 2011, 36, 318–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giannakas, K. Information Asymmetries and Consumption Decisions in Organic Food Product Markets. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 2010, 50, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, K.H. Implementing the “Marketing You” Project in Large Sections of Principles of Marketing. J. Mark. Educ. 2004, 26, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Magistris, T.; Gracia, A. The Decision to Buy Organic Food Products in Southern Italy. Br. Food J. 2008, 110, 929–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chryssohoidis, G.M.; Krystallis, A. Organic consumers’ personal values research:testing and validating the list of values (LOV) scale and implementing a value-basedsegmentation task. Food Qual. Prefer. 2005, 16, 585–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brady, J.T.; Brady, P.L. Consumers and Genetically Modified Foods. J. Fam. Consum. Sci. 2003, 95, 12–18. [Google Scholar]
- Owususekyere, E.; Owusu, V.; Jordaan, H. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for beef food safety assurance labels in the Kumasi Metropolis and Sunyani Municipality of Ghana. Food Control 2014, 46, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voon, J.P.; Ngui, K.S.; Agrawal, A. Determinants of willingness to purchase organic food: An exploratory study using structural equation modeling. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2011, 14, 103–120. [Google Scholar]
- Rezai, G.; Phuah, K.T.; Mohamed, Z.A.; Shamsudin, M.N. Consumer willingness to pay for green food in Malaysia. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2013, 25, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claret, A.; Guerrero, L.; Aguirre, E. Consumer Preferences for Sea Fish Using Conjoint Analysis: Exploratory Study of the Importance of Country of Origin, Obtaining Method, Storage Conditions and Purchasing Price. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 26, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alphonce, R.; Alfnes, F. Consumer Willingness to Pay for Food Safety in Tanzania: An Incentive aligned Conjoint Analysis. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012, 36, 394–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baiyegunhi, L.J.S.; Mashabane, S.E.; Sambo, N.C. Influence of Socio-Psychological Factors on Consumer Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Organic Food Products. J. Econ. Behav. Stud. 2018, 10, 208–219. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Ge, J.; Ma, Y. Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment. Sustainability 2018, 10, 603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linda, K. Smoking cessation: An application of theory of planned behavior to understanding progress through stages of change. Addict. Behav. 2006, 31, 1271–1276. [Google Scholar]
- Roncancio, A.M.; Ward, K.K.; Sanchez, I.A.; Cano, M.A.; Byrd, T.L.; Vernon, S.W.; Fernandez-Esquer, M.E.; Fernandez, M.E. Using the Theory of Planned Behavior to Understand Cervical Cancer Screening Among Latinas. Health Educ. Behav. 2015, 42, 621–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tarkiainen, A.; Sundqvist, S. Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 808–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64, 542–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.; Chung, J. Consumer purchase intention fororganic personal care product. J. Consum. Mark. 2011, 28, 40–47. [Google Scholar]
- Bamberg, S. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalafatis, S.; Pollard, M.; East, R.; Tsogas, M.H. Green marketing and Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour: A cross-market examination. J. Consum. Mark. 1999, 16, 441–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, M. Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions in Relation to Organic Foods in Taiwan Moderating Effects of Food-related Personality Traits. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 1008–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior; Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, R.Y.K.; Lau, L.B.Y. Explaining Green Purchasing Behavior: A Cross-Cultural Study on American and Chinese Consumers. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2001, 14, 9–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, H.; Hsu, L.T.; Sheu, C. Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Green Hotel Choice: Testing the Effect of Environmental Friendly Activities. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanton, J.V. Who Are Organic Food Consumers? A Compilation and Review of Why People Purchase Organic Food. J. Consum. Behav. 2010, 6, 94–110. [Google Scholar]
- Thogersen, J. Predicting Consumer Choices of Organic Food: Results from the CONDOR Project. In Proceedings of the Joint Organic Congress, Odense, Denmark, 30–31 May 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Aryal, K.P. Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic products: A case from Kathmandu Valley. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2009, 10, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- And, J.S.E.; Wigfield, A. Motivational Beliefs, Values, and Goals. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002, 53, 109–132. [Google Scholar]
- Bollen, K.A. Structural Equations with Latent Variables; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1989; Volume 35, pp. 289–308. [Google Scholar]
- Lancaster, K.J. A New Approach to Consumer Theory. J. Political Econ. 1966, 74, 132–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Social Demographic Characteristics | Frequency | Percentage | Total Percentage | Social Demographic Characteristics | Frequency | Percentage | Total Percentage |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sex | Family member | ||||||
Female | 473 | 56 | 56 | 1 | 6 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
Male | 371 | 44 | 100 | 2 | 70 | 8.3 | 9 |
Age | 3 | 387 | 45.9 | 54.9 | |||
30 or below | 255 | 30.2 | 30.2 | 4 | 173 | 20.5 | 75.4 |
30-39 | 151 | 17.9 | 48.1 | More than 5 | 208 | 24.6 | 100 |
40-49 | 223 | 26.4 | 74.5 | Family annual income | |||
50-59 | 134 | 15.9 | 90.4 | 50,000 or below | 106 | 12.6 | 12.6 |
60 or above | 81 | 9.6 | 100 | 50,000–80,000 | 183 | 21.7 | 34.2 |
marital status | 80,000–100,000 | 230 | 27.3 | 61.5 | |||
unmarried | 222 | 26.3 | 26.3 | 100,000 or above | 325 | 38.5 | 100 |
married | 622 | 73.7 | 100 | Is there a child under 18? | |||
degree | No | 431 | 51.1 | 51.1 | |||
Junior high school or below | 237 | 28.1 | 28.1 | Yes | 413 | 48.9 | 100 |
High school (including secondary occupation) | 208 | 24.6 | 52.7 | Is it the main purchaser of household daily food? | |||
College | 113 | 13.4 | 66.1 | No | 390 | 46.2 | 46.2 |
Bachelor | 240 | 28.4 | 94.5 | yes | 454 | 53.8 | 100 |
Graduate student or above | 46 | 5.5 | 100 |
Classify | Number | Items |
---|---|---|
AGE | age | |
individual factors | GEND | sex |
EDU | Education degree | |
cultural factors | INCOME | Family annual income |
NUMBER | Family population | |
Social factors | STATUS | Current quality and safety status of pork |
KNOW | Safety certification pork understanding | |
CONCERN | Concern about pork safety issues | |
psychological factors | ENCOUNTER | Whether to encounter the problem of pork quality safety |
DEGREE | Satisfaction with the effectiveness of government regulation |
latent Variable (Code) | Observable Variables (Code) | Cronbach’α | Factor Loading | Bartlett Test of Sphericity | KMO Sample Measure | C.R | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
attitude of behavior (AB) | I think it’s wise to buy safe and certified pork (AB1) | 0.753 | 0.694 | 678.627 (P = 0.000) | 0.66 | 0.821 | 0.606 |
I support the purchase of safe and certified pork (AB2) | 0.825 | ||||||
I believe that implementing pork quality safety certification can increase consumer confidence in food safety (AB3) | 0.809 | ||||||
subjective norm (SN) | Family, relatives and friends have a great influence on my purchase of safe certified pork. (SN1) | 0.738 | 0.682 | 803.192 (P = 0.000) | 0.794 | 0.834 | 0.503 |
Colleagues have a great influence on my purchase of safe certified pork. (SN2) | 0.575 | ||||||
The government’s publicity call has a big impact on my purchase of safely certified pork. (SN3) | 0.641 | ||||||
The media information has a great impact on my purchase of safe certified pork. (SN4) | 0.774 | ||||||
The opinions of experts and academic institutions are very big for me to buy safe certified pork. (SN5) | 0.563 | ||||||
perceived behavioral control (PBC) | I have enough experience to ensure the safety of the pork I purchased (PBC1) | 0.693 | 0.782 | 594.522 (P = 0.000) | 0.692 | 0.808 | 0.514 |
I think it is not difficult to identify the characteristics of safely certified pork at the time of purchase. (PBC2) | 0.78 | ||||||
For me, it’s convenient to buy safe certified pork. (PBC3) | 0.525 | ||||||
For me, the cost of purchasing safely certified pork has not increased significantly. (PBC4) | 0.568 | ||||||
purchase intention (PI) | Do you have the idea of purchasing a safe certified pork? (PI1) | 0.601 | 0.606 | 199.095 (P = 0.000) | 0.5 | 0.752 | 0.504 |
Have you purchased safety certified pork in your daily life? (PI2) | 0.749 |
Index Category | Index Name | Evaluation Standard | ACTUAL FIT | Compared with Evaluation Criteria | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Absolute fit index | χ2/df | <3 | 2.832 | <3 | Ideal |
GFI | >0.90 | 0.968 | >0.90 | Ideal | |
RMR | <0.05 | 0.037 | <0.05 | Ideal | |
RMSEA | <0.05 | 0.044 | <0.05 | Ideal | |
Incremental fitness index | NFI | >0.90 | 0.934 | >0.90 | Ideal |
IFI | >0.90 | 0.958 | >0.90 | Ideal | |
TLI | >0.90 | 0.945 | >0.90 | Ideal | |
CFI | >0.90 | 0.957 | >0.90 | Ideal |
Dependent Variable | Independent Variable | β | Standard β | T Value | R2 | F Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
attitude of behavior | (constant) | −2.308 *** | −16.089 | 0.244 | 90.33 | |
BB1 | 0.146 *** | 0.038 | 3.835 | |||
BB2 | 0.089 *** | 0.039 | 2.293 | |||
BB3 | 0.396 *** | 0.039 | 10.247 | |||
subjective norm | (constant) | −1.497 *** | −14.879 | 0.244 | 135.598 | |
NB1 | 0.218 *** | 0.257 | 7.421 | |||
NB2 | 0.247 *** | 0.312 | 9.014 | |||
perceived behavioral control | (constant) | −0.819 *** | −5.479 | 0.037 | 16.263 | |
CB1 | 0.094 *** | 0.108 | 3.086 | |||
CB2 | 0.141 *** | 0.134 | 3.832 |
Dependent Variable | Classify | Independent Variable | β | Standard β | T Value | R2 | Adjust R2 | F Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
attitude of behavior | (constant) | −2.224 *** | −8.769 | 0.195 | 0.184 | 18.311 | ||
Individual factors | Gender | 0.067 | 0.033 | 1.067 | ||||
Age | 0.034 | 0.045 | 0.961 | |||||
Marital | −0.05 | −0.022 | −0.501 | |||||
cultural factors | Education | 0.082 ** | 0.108 | 2.586 | ||||
Family member | −0.085 ** | −0.082 | −2.589 | |||||
income | 0.051 | 0.053 | 1.567 | |||||
Social Factors | status | 0.221 *** | 0.197 | 4.892 | ||||
degree | 0.138 *** | 0.133 | 3.32 | |||||
Psychological factors | know | 0.181 *** | 0.176 | 5.331 | ||||
concern | 0.121 *** | 0.124 | 3.729 | |||||
encounter | −0.016 | −0.005 | −0.154 | |||||
subjective norm | (constant) | −1.536 *** | −5.776 | 0.115 | 0.104 | 9.857 | ||
Individual factors | Gender | −0.035 | −0.018 | −0.534 | ||||
Age | −0.058 | −0.077 | −1.578 | |||||
Marital | 0.063 | 0.028 | 0.599 | |||||
cultural factors | Education | −0.02 | −0.026 | −0.598 | ||||
Family member | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.363 | |||||
income | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.103 | |||||
social factors | status | 0.068 | 0.061 | 1.434 | ||||
degree | 0.220 *** | 0.213 | 5.062 | |||||
Psychological factors | know | 0.131 *** | 0.128 | 3.684 | ||||
concern | 0.108 ** | 0.11 | 3.167 | |||||
encounter | −0.013 | −0.004 | −0.116 | |||||
perceived behavioral control | (constant) | −2.996 *** | −12.074 | 0.229 | 0.219 | 22.495 | ||
Individual factors | Gender | 0.084 | 0.042 | 1.361 | ||||
Age | 0.032 | 0.043 | 0.942 | |||||
Marital | 0.125 | 0.055 | 1.288 | |||||
cultural factors | Education | 0.072 * | 0.094 | 2.311 | ||||
Familymember | 0.06 | 0.058 | 1.871 | |||||
income | 0.092 ** | 0.096 | 2.906 | |||||
social factors | status | 0.189 *** | 0.169 | 4.271 | ||||
degree | 0.143 *** | 0.139 | 3.522 | |||||
Psychological factors | know | 0.260 *** | 0.253 | 7.833 | ||||
concern | 0.101 ** | 0.103 | 3.173 | |||||
encounter | −0.073 | −0.022 | −0.707 | |||||
purchase intention | (constant) | −2.425 *** | −9.753 | 0.226 | 0.216 | 22.095 | ||
Individual factors | Gender | −0.114 | −0.056 | −1.836 | ||||
Age | −0.032 | −0.042 | −0.916 | |||||
Marital | 0.041 | 0.018 | 0.416 | |||||
cultural factors | Education | 0.083 ** | 0.108 | 2.655 | ||||
Familymember | −0.001 | −0.001 | −0.024 | |||||
income | 0.126 *** | 0.132 | 3.979 | |||||
social factors | status | 0.146 *** | 0.13 | 3.299 | ||||
degree | 0.053 | 0.051 | 1.305 | |||||
Psychological factors | know | 0.266 *** | 0.259 | 7.992 | ||||
concern | 0.163 *** | 0.167 | 5.11 | |||||
encounter | 0.049 | 0.015 | 0.475 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, J.; Gao, Z.; Shen, M. Recognition of Consumers’ Characteristics of Purchasing Farm Produce with Safety Certificates and Their Influencing Factors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2879. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122879
Wang J, Gao Z, Shen M. Recognition of Consumers’ Characteristics of Purchasing Farm Produce with Safety Certificates and Their Influencing Factors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15(12):2879. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122879
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Jianhua, Ziqiu Gao, and Minmin Shen. 2018. "Recognition of Consumers’ Characteristics of Purchasing Farm Produce with Safety Certificates and Their Influencing Factors" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 12: 2879. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122879