Food Sustainability and Waste Reduction in Spain: Consumer Preferences for Local, Suboptimal, And/Or Unwashed Fresh Food Products
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design: Lancaster Utility Theoretical Background
2.2. Study Setting and Participants
2.3. Data Instrument and Measurement
2.4. Data Analysis
2.4.1. Rank-Ordered Mixed Logit
2.4.2. Preference Heterogeneity
3. Results
3.1. Attribute Importance Ranking
3.2. Analysis of Heterogeneity
3.3. Segments Profiling
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Total | Sex | Age | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Female | Male | 18–34 | 35–44 | 45–54 | 55–64 | More than 64 | ||
Spain | 46,572,132 | 51.0 | 49.0 | 22.9 | 20.2 | 19.0 | 15.2 | 22.9 |
Town * | 953,486 | 51.1 | 48.9 | 21.2 | 19,.6 | 18.7 | 15.4 | 25.2 |
References
- FAO. Public Consultation: Towards the Development of the Programme on Sustainable Food Systems 4 (SFSP) of the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production (10YFP). 2015. Available online: http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/sites/default/files/files/112_Sustainable_Food_Systems/Draft_note_10YFP-SFS_EN.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2018).
- FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019: Moving Forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction. 2019. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf. (accessed on 6 May 2020).
- Poore, J.; Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 2018, 360, 987–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chai, B.C.; van der Voort, J.R.; Grofelnik, K.; Eliasdottir, H.G.; Klöss, I.; Perez-Cueto, F.J. Which diet has the least environmental impact on our planet? A systematic review of vegan, vegetarian and omnivorous diets. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grunert, K.G. How Consumers Perceive Food Quality. In Understanding Consumers of Food Products; Frewer, L., van Trijp, H.C., Eds.; Woodhead: Cambridge, UK, 2007; pp. 181–199. [Google Scholar]
- Aschemann-Witzel, J. Consumer Perception and Preference for Suboptimal Food Under the Emerging Practice of Expiration Date Based Pricing in Supermarkets. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 63, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verain, M.C.; Sijtsema, S.J.; Antonides, G. Consumer Segmentation Based on Food-Category Attribute Importance: The Relation with Healthiness and Sustainability Perceptions. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 48, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehtinen, U. Sustainability and Local Food Procurement: A Case Study of Finnish Public Catering. Br. Food J. 2012, 114, 1053–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paloviita, A. Consumers’ Sustainability Perceptions of the Supply Chain of Locally Produced Food. Sustainability 2010, 2, 1492–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Feldmann, C.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ Perceptions and Preferences for Local Food: A Review. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 40, 152–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanigro, M.; Kroll, S.; Thilmany, D.; Bunning, M. Is it Love for Local/Organic or Hate for Conventional? Asymmetric Effects of Information and Taste on Label Preferences in an Experimental Auction. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 31, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gracia, A.; Barreiro-Hurlé, J.; López-Galán, B. Are Local and Organic Claims Complements or Substitutes? A Consumer Preferences Study for Eggs. J. Agric. Econ. 2014, 65, 49–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meas, T.; Hu, W.; Batte, M.T.; Woods, T.A.; Ernst, S. Substitutes or Complements? Consumer Preference for Local and Organic Food Attributes. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 97, 1044–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-Ferrín, P.; Calvo-Turrientes, A.; Bande, B.; Artaraz-Miñón, M.; Galán-Ladero, M.M. The Valuation and Purchase of Food Products that Combine Local, Regional and Traditional Features: The Influence of Consumer Ethnocentrism. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 64, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jefferson-Moore, K.Y.; Robbinsb, R.D.; Johnsonc, D.; Bradfordd, J. Consumer Preferences for Local Food Products in North Carolina. J. Food Distrib. Res. 2014, 45, 41–46. [Google Scholar]
- Avetisyan, M.; Hertel, T.; Sampson, G. Is local food more environmentally friendly? The GHG emissions impacts of consuming imported versus domestically produced food. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2014, 58, 415–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwarz, J.; Schuster, M.; Annaert, B.; Maertens, M.; Mathijs, E. Sustainability of global and local food value chains: An empirical comparison of peruvian and belgian asparagus. Sustainability 2016, 8, 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- FUSIONS. Estimates of European Food Waste Levels. 2016. Available online: http://www.eu-fusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/Estimates%20of%20European%20food%20waste%20levels.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2018).
- FAO. Global Food Losses and Food Waste-Extent, Causes and Prevention. In Study Conducted for the International Congress Save Food; FAO: Düsseldorf, Germany, 2011; Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2018).
- LEI. Reducing Food Waste by Households and in Retail in the EU. In A Prioritisation Using Economic, Land Use and Food Security Impact; LEI Wageningen UR: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2015; Available online: http://edepot.wur.nl/290135 (accessed on 15 November 2018).
- Collart, A.; Interis, M. Consumer Imperfect Information in the Market for Expired and Nearly Expired Foods and Implications for Reducing Food Waste. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aschemann-Witzel, J.; de Hooge, I.; Amani, P.; Bech-Larsen, T.; Oostindjer, M. Consumer-Related Food Waste: Causes and Potential for Action. Sustainability 2015, 7, 6457–6477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- de Hooge, I.E.; Oostindjer, M.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Normann, A.; Loose, S.M.; Almli, V.L. This Apple is Too Ugly for Me! Consumer Preferences for Suboptimal Food Products in the Supermarket and at Home. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 56, 80–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verain, M.C.; Bartels, J.; Dagevos, H.; Sijtsema, S.J.; Onwezen, M.C.; Antonides, G. Segments of Sustainable Food Consumers: A Literature Review. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012, 36, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabate, J.; Soret, S. Sustainability of plant-based diets: Back to the future. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014, 100, 476S–482S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. Food Loss and Food Waste. Facts, 2015. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4807e.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2018).
- Willersinn, C.; Mouron, P.; Mack, G.; Siegrist, M. Food Loss Reduction from an Environmental, Socio-Economic and Consumer Perspective -The Case of the Swiss Potato Market. J. Waste Manag. 2017, 59, 451–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pearson, D.; Henryks, J.; Trott, A.; Jones, P.; Parker, G.; Dumaresq, D.; Dyball, R. Local food: Understanding consumer motivations in innovative retail formats. Br. Food J. 2011, 113, 886–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richards, T.J.; Hamilton, S.F.; Gomez, M.; Rabinovich, E. Retail intermediation and local foods. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2017, 99, 637–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de-Magistris, T.; Gracia, A.; Barreiro-Hurle, J. Do consumers care about European food labels? An empirical evaluation using best-worst method. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 2698–2711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gracia, A.; de-Magistris, T. Consumer preferences for food labeling: What ranks first? Food Control 2016, 61, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stanco, M.; Lerro, M.; Marotta, G. Consumers’ Preferences for Wine Attributes: A Best-Worst Scaling Analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Defrancesco, E.; Perito, M.A.; Bozzolan, I.; Cei, L.; Stefani, G. Testing consumers’ preferences for environmental attributes of pasta. Insights from an ABR approach. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carley, S.; Yahng, L. Willingness-to-pay for sustainable beer. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0204917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tait, P.; Saunders, C.; Dalziel, P.; Rutherford, P.; Driver, T.; Guenther, M. Estimating wine consumer preferences for sustainability attributes: A discrete choice experiment of Californian Sauvignon blanc purchasers. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 412–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grasso, S.; Asioli, D. Consumer preferences for upcycled ingredients: A case study with biscuits. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 84, 03951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lagerkvist, C.J. Consumer Preferences for Food Labeling Attributes: Comparing Direct Ranking and Best-Worst Scaling for Measurement of Attribute Importance, Preference Intensity and Attribute Dominance. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 29, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Train, K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Lancaster, K. A New Approach to Consumer Theory. J. Political Econ. 1966, 74, 132–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, R.C.; Leed, T.; Havas, N. Consumer Acceptance of Washed and Unwashed Potatoes as Influenced by Type of Container. 1953. Available online: https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/69909/1/CFAES_ESS_242.pdf (accessed on 6 November 2018).
- Jemison, J.M., Jr.; Sexton, P.; Camire, M.E. Factors Influencing Consumer Preference of Fresh Potato Varieties in Maine. Am. J. Potato Res. 2008, 85, 140–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrescu, D.C.; Petrescu-Mag, R.M. Organic food perception: Fad, or healthy and environmentally friendly? A case on Romanian consumers. Sustainability 2015, 7, 12017–12031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Loureiro, L.M.; Hine, S. Discovering Niche markets: A Comparison of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local (Colorado Grown), Organic, and GMO-Free Products. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2002, 34, 477–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- James, J.S.; Rickard, B.J.; Rossman, B.J. Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation in Applesauce: Using a Choice Experiment to Assess the Value of Organic, Local, and Nutrition Attributes. Agric. Res. Econ. Rev. 2009, 38, 357–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moser, R.; Raffaelli, R.; Thilmany-McFadden, D. Consumer Preferences for Fruit and Vegetables with Credence-Based Attributes: A Review. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2011, 14, 121–142. [Google Scholar]
- Costanigro, M.; McFadden, D.T.; Kroll, S.; Nurse, G. An In-Store Valuation of Local and Organic Apples: The Role of Social Desirability. Agribusiness 2011, 27, 465–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, W.; Batte, M.T.; Woods, T.; Ernst, S. Consumer Preferences for Local Production and Other Value-Added Label Claims for a Processed Food Product. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2012, 39, 489–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yue, C.; Tong, C. Organic or Local? Investigating Consumer Preference for Fresh Produce Using a Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives. HortScience 2009, 44, 366–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adams, D.C.; Salois, M.J. Local Versus Organic: A Turn in Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2010, 25, 331–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Onozaka, Y.; Nurse, G.; McFadden, D.T. Local food consumers: How motivations and perceptions translate to buying behavior. Choices 2010, 25, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Bir, C.; Lai, J.; Widmar, N.O.; Thompson, N.; Ellett, J.; Crosslin, C. “There’s No Place Like Home”: Inquiry into Preferences for Local Foods. J. Food Distrib. Res. 2019, 50, 29–45. [Google Scholar]
- Harrison, G.W.; List, J.A. Field Experiments. J. Econ. Lit. 2004, 42, 1009–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, J.B.; Lusk, J.L.; Norwood, F.B. How Closely Do Hypothetical Surveys and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2009, 91, 518–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- List, J.A. Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies? Q. J. Econ. 2003, 118, 41–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tathan, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice-Hall International: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- INE. Padrón Continuo a 1 de Enero de 2017. 2017. Available online: https://www.ine.es/dyngs/INEbase/es/operacion.htm?c=Estadistica_C&cid=1254736177012&menu=resultados&secc=1254736195461&idp=1254734710990 (accessed on 27 November 2018).
- IAEST. Estadística Local de Aragón. Ficha Territorial Zaragoza. 2018. Available online: http://bonansa.aragon.es:81/iaest/fic_mun/pdf/P50.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2018).
- Kallas, Z.; Vitale, M.; Gil, J.M. Health innovation in patty products. The role of food Neophobia in Consumers’ Non-hypothetical willingness to pay, purchase intention and hedonic evaluation. Nutrients 2019, 11, 444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Avni, N.; Fishbain, B.; Shamir, U. Water consumption patterns as a basis for water demand modeling. Water Res. Res. 2015, 51, 8165–8181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peschel, A.O.; Grebitus, C.; Steiner, B.; Veeman, M. How does consumer knowledge affect environmentally sustainable choices? Evidence from a cross-country latent class analysis of food labels. Appetite 2016, 106, 78–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peschel, A.O.; Grebitus, C.; Alemu, M.H.; Hughner, R.S. Personality traits and preferences for production method labeling–A latent class approach. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 74, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skreli, E.; Imami, D.; Chan, C.; Canavari, M.; Zhllima, E.; Pire, E. Assessing consumer preferences and willingness to pay for organic tomatoes in Albania: A conjoint choice experiment study. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2017, 15, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steiner, B.E.; Peschel, A.O.; Grebitus, C. Multi-product category choices labeled for ecological footprints: Exploring psychographics and evolved psychological biases for characterizing latent consumer classes. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 140, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, X.; Hu, B.; Xiong, J. Understanding Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences in Chinese Milk Markets: A Latent Class Approach. J. Agric. Econ. 2020, 71, 184–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Characteristics | Sample (n = 151) | Population * |
---|---|---|
Gender 1 | ||
Male | 24.0 | 49.1 |
Female | 76.0 | 50.9 |
Age (average, standard dev) 1 | 54.4 (13.6) | n.a. |
18–34 | 6.4 | 22.8 |
35–44 | 14.4 | 20.2 |
45–54 | 29.6 | 19.0 |
≥55 | 49.6 | 38.0 |
Studies level 2 | ||
Primary | 20.0 | 23.0 |
Secondary | 24.0 | 48.7 |
Higher | 56.0 | 28.3 |
Income range | ||
≤1500 €/month | 22.4 | n.a. |
1501–2500 €/month | 22.4 | n.a. |
2501–3500 €/month | 20.0 | n.a. |
>3500 €/month | 12.0 | n.a. |
Do not know/refuse to answer | 23.2 | n.a. |
Family size (average, standard dev) | 2.9 (1.0) | n.a. |
Children less than 18 years old | ||
0 | 69.1 | n.a. |
1 | 17.9 | n.a. |
2 | 10.6 | n.a. |
>3 | 2.4 | n.a. |
Vegetarian | 2.4 | n.a. |
Years living in the region (average) | 50.0 | n.a. |
Frequency of shopping food Always Often | 44.8 50.3 | n.a. |
Frequency of cooking at home Every day Several times a week | 81.5 9.6 | n.a. |
Purchase Potatoes Habits | % | Consumption Potatoes Habits | % |
---|---|---|---|
Frequency of purchase | Frequency of consumption | ||
Less than once a month | 13.3 | Less than once a week | 10.5 |
Several times per month | 55.7 | Once a week | 18.5 |
Once a week | 31.0 | Several times a week | 71.0 |
Purchase format | Type of potato | ||
Bulk | 48.2 | White | 83.0 |
Packaged | 71.7 | Red | 41.1 |
Size of package | Type of cooking | ||
1 kg | 2.4 | Fried (never) | 5.6 |
3 kg | 65.5 | Boiled (never) | 5.6 |
5 kg | 33.3 | Baked (never) | 14.4 |
Place of purchase | |||
Green grocery store | 61.9 | ||
Open market | 5.3 | ||
Supermarket | 70.8 | ||
Direct from the farmer | 4.4 | ||
Hypermarket | 12.4 |
Rank 1 | Rank 2 | Rank 3 | Rank 4 | Rank 5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Without visual imperfections | 23.2 | 19.2 | 19.2 | 17.6 | 20.8 |
“Washed/unwashed” | 21.6 | 24.0 | 15.2 | 21.6 | 17.6 |
Size (big, small, etc.) | 12.8 | 19.2 | 25.6 | 24.0 | 18.4 |
Locally produced | 23.2 | 18.4 | 21.6 | 17.6 | 19.2 |
Price | 19.2 | 19.2 | 18.4 | 19.2 | 24.0 |
Coefficient (β′n) | Z-Ratio | Coefficient (β′n) | Z-Ratio | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mean values | Standard deviation | |||
Without visual imperfections | 0.2325 | 1.04 | 1.3035 | 2.70 *** |
“Washed/unwashed” | 0.2888 | 1.35 | 1.0741 | 2.33 ** |
Locally produced | 0.2402 | 1.15 | 1.0999 | 2.49 ** |
Price | 0.0428 | 0.20 | 1.2979 | 2.55 ** |
Cluster 1 Price-Sensitive (24.8%) | Cluster 2 Locavores (21.6%) | Cluster 3 External Appearance Lovers (24.8%) | Cluster 4 Visual Imperfection Takers (28.8%) | Total Sample | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimated coefficients (β′n) | |||||
Without visual imperfections | 0.54 a | 0.47 b | 0.84 c | −0.77 d | 0.22 |
“Washed/unwashed” | 0.04 a | −0.26 b | 0.70 c | 0.51 c | 0.27 |
Locally produced | −0.01 a | 0.79 b | −0.21 a | 0.55 c | 0.25 |
Price | 0.86 a | −0.30 b | −0.53 b | 0.09 c | 0.04 |
Personal characteristics | |||||
Gender [1.71 (0.63)] 1 | |||||
Female | 71.0 | 81.5 | 71.0 | 80.6 | 76.0 |
Age(average) [1.47 (0.22)] 2 | 50.3 a | 54.4 a | 57.2 a | 55.6 a | 54.4 |
45–54 [8.4 (0.04)] 1** | 48.4 | 14.8 | 29.0 | 25.0 | 29.6 |
≥ 55 [7.3 (0.06)] 1* | 29.0 | 51.8 | 58.1 | 58.3 | 49.6 |
Education level [12.0 (0.06)] 1* | |||||
Primary studies | 9.7 | 33.3 | 12.9 | 25.0 | 20.0 |
Secondary studies | 19.3 | 11.1 | 38.7 | 25.0 | 24.0 |
University degree | 71.0 | 55.6 | 48.4 | 50.0 | 56.0 |
Children under 18 years [10.1 (0.12)] 1 | |||||
0 children | 64.5 | 63.0 | 80.0 | 68.6 | 69.1 |
1 child | 9.7 | 22.2 | 13.3 | 25.7 | 17.9 |
More than 1 child | 25.1 | 14.8 | 6.7 | 5.7 | 13.0 |
Years living in the region [2.3 (0.08)] 2* | 43.9 a | 51.7 a | 55.7 b | 49.0 a | 50.0 |
Potatoes purchase habits | |||||
Potatoes are purchased: | |||||
Packaged [8.5 (0.04)] 1** | 74.1 | 52.0 | 70.0 | 87.1 | 71.7 |
In 3 kg bags [5.6 (0.12) 1] | 68.2 | 80.0 | 73.9 | 48.1 | 65.5 |
In 5 kg bags [7.0 (0.07)] 1* | 45.0 | 20.0 | 17.4 | 46.1 | 33.3 |
© 2020 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
Gracia, A.; Gómez, M.I. Food Sustainability and Waste Reduction in Spain: Consumer Preferences for Local, Suboptimal, And/Or Unwashed Fresh Food Products. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4148. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104148
Gracia A, Gómez MI. Food Sustainability and Waste Reduction in Spain: Consumer Preferences for Local, Suboptimal, And/Or Unwashed Fresh Food Products. Sustainability. 2020; 12(10):4148. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104148
Chicago/Turabian StyleGracia, Azucena, and Miguel I. Gómez. 2020. "Food Sustainability and Waste Reduction in Spain: Consumer Preferences for Local, Suboptimal, And/Or Unwashed Fresh Food Products" Sustainability 12, no. 10: 4148. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104148