Choice Drivers for Quality-Labelled Food: A Cross-Cultural Comparison on PDO Cheese
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. The Theoretical Framework
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Data Collection and Sample
3.2. Measures
3.3. Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2. Predicting Intentions and the Behaviour
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Construct | Code | Item | Sources |
---|---|---|---|
Attitude (ATT) | Buying PDO-labelled hard cheese instead of hard cheese without such a label would make me feel: | [29,39] | |
A1 | 1 = unsatisfied; 7 = satisfied | ||
A2 | 1 = unhappy; 7 = happy | ||
A3 | 1 = bad; 7 = good | ||
I think that buying PDO-labelled hard cheese instead of hard cheese without such a label is: | |||
A4 | 1 = meaningless; 7 = meaningful | ||
A5 | 1 = harmful; 7 = beneficial | ||
A6 | 1 = unimportant; 7 = important | ||
Subjective Norms (SN) | SN1 | Most people who are important to me would like me to buy PDO-labelled hard cheese instead of hard cheese without such a label (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) | [29] |
SN2 | My close friends and family expect me to buy PDO-labelled hard cheese instead of hard cheese without such a label (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) | ||
SN3 | Most of my close friends and family generally buy PDO-labelled hard cheese instead of hard cheese without such a label (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) | ||
Perceived Behavioural Control (PBC) | PBC1 | Whether or not I buy PDO-labelled hard cheese instead of hard cheese without such a label on a regular basis is completely up to me (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) | [29] |
PBC2 | I am confident that I can buy PDO-labelled hard cheese instead of hard cheese without such a label on a regular basis (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) | ||
PBC3 | For me buying PDO-labelled hard cheese instead of hard cheese without such a label on a regular basis is easy (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) | ||
Behavioural Intention (BI) | BI1 | I intend to buy PDO-labelled hard cheese instead of hard cheese without such a label on a regular basis. (1 = extremely unlikely, 7 = extremely likely) | [29] |
BI2 | I will make an effort to buy PDO-labelled hard cheese instead of hard cheese without such a label on a regular basis. (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) | ||
BI3 | In the future when you buy hard cheese how often will you buy PDO-labelled hard cheese? (1 = never, 7 = every time) | ||
Trust in Label (T) | T1 | Products with the EU PDO label fulfil strict rules (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) | [40] |
T2 | The EU PDO label guarantees that the products are of a higher quality (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) | ||
T3 | I have great trust in the control system behind the EU PDO label (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) | ||
Moral Norm (MN) | Buying PDO-labelled hard cheese instead of hard cheese without such a label… | [30,41] | |
MN1 | … would feel like I am making a personal contribution to something better (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) | ||
MN2 | … would feel like the morally right thing to do (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) | ||
MN3 | … makes me feel like a better person (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) | ||
Past Behaviour (PB) | When you buy hard granular cheese, how often do you… | [29] | |
PB1 | … buy hard granular cheese with a PDO label (1 = never, 7 = almost every time) | ||
PB2 | … buy hard granular cheese carries a brand (1 = never, 7 = almost every time) | ||
PB3 | … buy hard granular cheese at a farmers’ market or butcher (1 = never, 7 = almost every time) | ||
PB4 | On average, how often do you buy hard granular cheese? (1 = less than once a month, 6 = more than once a week) | ||
PB5 | On average, how often do you eat hard granular cheese? (1 = less than once a month, 6 = every day) |
References
- Verbeke, W.; Pieniak, Z.; Guerrero, L.; Hersleth, M. Consumers’ awareness and attitudinal determinants of European Union quality label use on traditional foods. Bio-Based Appl. Econ. 2012, 1, 213–229. [Google Scholar]
- Wirth, D.A. Geographical indications, food safety, and sustainability: Conflicts and synergies. Bio-Based Appl. Econ. 2016, 5, 135–151. [Google Scholar]
- Ismea. Fondazione Qualivita Rapporto 2019 ISMEA-Qualivita Sulle Produzioni Agroalimentari e Vitivinicole Italiane DOP, IGP e STG; Edizioni Qualivita: Siena, Italy, 2020; ISBN 978-88-96530-45-0. [Google Scholar]
- INAO. Les Produits Sous Signe D’identification de la Qualité et de L’origine; INAO: Montreuil, France, 2018.
- CNAOL. Produits Laitiers AOP et IGP, Chiffres Clés 2019; CNAOL: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Arfini, F.; Antonioli, F.; Cozzi, E.; Donati, M.; Guareschi, M.; Mancini, M.C.; Veneziani, M. Sustainability, Innovation and Rural Development: The Case of Parmigiano-Reggiano PDO. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ferrer-Pérez, H.; Arfini, F.; Gil, J.M. Modelling Price Transmission within the Supply Chain under a European Protected Designation of Origin Framework: The Case of Parmigiano Reggiano in Italy. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mancini, M.C.; Menozzi, D.; Donati, M.; Biasini, B.; Veneziani, M.; Arfini, F. Producers’ and Consumers’ Perception of the Sustainability of Short Food Supply Chains: The Case of Parmigiano Reggiano PDO. Sustainability 2019, 11, 721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mora, C.; Menozzi, D. International Marketing and Trade of Protected Designation of Origin Products; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2009; ISBN 9789086860890. [Google Scholar]
- Husson, E.; Delesse, L.; Paget, A.; Courbou, R.; Bellassen, V.; Drut, M. PDO Comté Cheese in France; Arfini, F., Bellassen, V., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; ISBN 9783030275082. [Google Scholar]
- Van Der Lans, I.A.; Van Ittersum, K.; De Cicco, A.; Loseby, M. The role of the region of origin and EU certificates of origin in consumer evaluation of food products. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2001, 28, 451–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bureau, J.-C.; Valceschini, E. European Food-Labeling Policy: Successes and Limitations. J. Food Distrib. Res. 2003, 34, 7. [Google Scholar]
- Mancini, M.C.; Consiglieri, C. Innovation and marketing strategies for PDO products: The case of “parmigiano reggiano” as an ingredient. Bio-Based Appl. Econ. 2016, 5, 153–174. [Google Scholar]
- Grunert, K.G.; Aachmann, K. Consumer reactions to the use of EU quality labels on food products: Areview of the literature. Food Control 2016, 59, 178–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Ittersum, K.; Meulenberg, M.T.G.; van Trijp, H.C.M.; Candel, M.J.J.M. Consumers’ appreciation of regional certification labels: A pan-European study. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 58, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menozzi, D.; Finardi, C. May trust and solidarity defy food scares? The case of Parmigiano-Reggiano PDO sales in the aftermath of natural disaster. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 3119–3134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerz, A.; Dupont, F. Comté cheese in France: Impact of a geographical indication on rural development. In Origin-Based Products: Lessons for Pro-Poor Market Development; van de Kop, P., Sautier, D., Gerz, A., Eds.; Bulletin: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006; ISBN 0922-7911. [Google Scholar]
- Menozzi, D.; Halawany-Darson, R.; Mora, C.; Giraud, G. Motives towards traceable food choice: A comparison between French and Italian consumers. Food Control. 2015, 49, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Rijswijk, W.; Frewer, L.J.; Menozzi, D.; Faioli, G. Consumer perceptions of traceability: A cross-national comparison of the associated benefits. Food Qual. Prefer. 2008, 19, 452–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Kruglanski, A.W. Reasoned action in the service of goal pursuit. Psychol. Rev. 2019, 126, 774–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 40, 471–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Biasini, B.; Rosi, A.; Giopp, F.; Turgut, R.; Scazzina, F.; Menozzi, D. Understanding, promoting and predicting sustainable diets: A systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 111, 191–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McEachan, R.R.C.; Conner, M.; Taylor, N.J.; Lawton, R. Prospective prediction of health-related behaviours with the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta-analysis. Heal. Psychol. Rev. 2011, 5, 97–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDermott, M.S.; Oliver, M.; Svenson, A.; Simnadis, T.; Beck, E.J.; Coltman, T.; Iverson, D.C.; Caputi, P.; Sharma, R. The theory of planned behaviour and discrete food choices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hassan, L.M.; Shiu, E.; Parry, S. Addressing the cross-country applicability of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB): A structured review of multi-country TPB studies. J. Consum. Behav. 2015, 15, 72–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heeren, A.J.; Singh, A.S.; Zwickle, A.; Koontz, T.M.; Slagle, K.M.; McCreery, A.C. Is sustainability knowledge half the battle? Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2016, 17, 613–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beaulieu, D.; Godin, G. Factors predicting staying in school to eat lunch. Heal. Educ. 2011, 111, 20–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Arvola, A.; Vassallo, M.; Dean, M.; Lampila, P.; Saba, A.; Lähteenmäki, L.; Shepherd, R. Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: The role of affective and moral attitudes in the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Appetite 2008, 50, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Han, T.-I.; Stoel, L. Explaining Socially Responsible Consumer Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2016, 29, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gragnani, M. The EU Regulation 1151/2012 on Quality Schemes for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs. Eur. Food Feed Law Rev. 2013, 8, 376–385. [Google Scholar]
- Hartmann, M.; Yeh, C.-H.; Amilien, V.; Čeliković, Z.; Csillag, P.; Filipović, J.; Giraud, G.; Gorton, M.; Kuč, V.; Menozzi, D.; et al. Report on Quantitative Research Findings on European Consumers’ Perception and Valuation of EU Food Quality Schemes as well as Their Confidence in such Measures; University of Bonn: Bonn, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 8–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, 4th ed.; Methodology in the Social Sciences Series; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lobb, A.; Mazzocchi, M.; Traill, W. Modelling risk perception and trust in food safety information within the theory of planned behaviour. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 384–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loomis, J.B. What’s to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies? J. Econ. Surv. 2011, 25, 363–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Povey, R.; Wellens, B.; Conner, M. Attitudes towards following meat, vegetarian and vegan diets: An examination of the role of ambivalence. Appetite 2001, 37, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Teng, C.-C.; Wang, Y.-M. Decisional factors driving organic food consumption. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 1066–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dean, M.; Raats, M.M.; Shepherd, R. Moral Concerns and Consumer Choice of Fresh and Processed Organic Foods. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 38, 2088–2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Socio-Demographic Classes and Levels | France | Italy | All | |
---|---|---|---|---|
n = 400 | n = 408 | n = 808 | ||
Food purchase responsibility | Mainly responsible | 72.0 | 63.7 | 67.8 |
Partly responsible | 28.0 | 36.3 | 32.2 | |
Gender | Female | 50.0 | 49.8 | 49.9 |
Male | 50.0 | 50.2 | 50.1 | |
Age | Average years | 40.0 | 42.9 | 41.5 |
Living area | Rural area | 49.5 | 12.7 | 30.9 |
Urban medium town | 25.0 | 41.9 | 33.5 | |
City | 25.5 | 45.3 | 35.5 | |
Education | Lower secondary/primary or below | 4.5 | 7.1 | 5.8 |
Upper secondary education | 31.8 | 38.5 | 35.1 | |
University or college entrance qualification | 27.5 | 16.4 | 21.9 | |
Bachelor’s degree or equivalent level | 20.5 | 16.4 | 18.4 | |
Master, Postgraduate, or doctoral degree | 15.8 | 21.6 | 18.7 | |
Household monthly net income | (FR) < EUR 1130/(IT) < EUR 900 | 11.5 | 7.1 | 9.3 |
(FR) EUR 1131–1450/(IT) EUR 901–1500 | 6.5 | 18.4 | 12.5 | |
(FR) EUR 1451–2090/(IT) EUR 1501–2500 | 20.8 | 30.9 | 25.9 | |
(FR) EUR 2091–2890/(IT) EUR 2501–3500 | 18.5 | 21.6 | 20.0 | |
(FR) EUR 2891–4100/(IT) EUR 3501–4500 | 24.5 | 5.9 | 15.1 | |
(FR) ≥ EUR 4101/(IT) ≥ EUR 4501 | 12.5 | 1.7 | 7.1 | |
Prefer not to answer | 5.8 | 14.5 | 10.1 | |
Household size | Number of persons | 2.6 | 3.1 | 2.9 |
Children | Number of children | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
Constructs and Items | France | Italy | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | λ | α | CR | AVE | Mean | SD | λ | α | CR | AVE | |
Attitude | 5.33 | 1.11 | - | 0.87 | 0.83 | 0.47 | 5.30 | 1.17 | - | 0.86 | 0.82 | 0.50 |
A1 | 5.54 | 1.26 | 0.50 *** | 5.38 | 1.50 | 0.35 *** | ||||||
A2 | 5.19 | 1.54 | 0.52 *** | 5.06 | 1.68 | 0.44 *** | ||||||
A3 | 5.33 | 1.50 | 0.52 *** | 5.16 | 1.66 | 0.47 *** | ||||||
A4 | 5.31 | 1.22 | 0.83 *** | 5.42 | 1.39 | 0.76 *** | ||||||
A5 | 5.36 | 1.51 | 0.75 *** | 5.28 | 1.52 | 0.88 *** | ||||||
A6 | 5.24 | 1.48 | 0.89 *** | 5.49 | 1.45 | 0.93 *** | ||||||
Subjective Norm | 4.17 | 1.51 | - | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.75 | 4.58 | 1.36 | - | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.70 |
SN1 | 4.20 | 1.69 | 0.89 *** | 4.64 | 1.58 | 0.89 *** | ||||||
SN2 | 4.05 | 1.75 | 0.93 *** | 4.49 | 1.58 | 0.88 *** | ||||||
SN3 | 4.27 | 1.55 | 0.76 *** | 4.62 | 1.44 | 0.73 *** | ||||||
PBC | 5.05 | 1.03 | - | 0.76 | 0.77 | 0.53 | 5.29 | 1.14 | - | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.63 |
PBC1 | 5.27 | 1.22 | 0.50 *** | 5.41 | 1.32 | 0.69 *** | ||||||
PBC2 | 4.98 | 1.26 | 0.87 *** | 5.26 | 1.31 | 0.87 *** | ||||||
PBC3 | 4.90 | 1.28 | 0.78 *** | 5.18 | 1.31 | 0.81 *** | ||||||
Intention | 4.80 | 1.16 | - | 0.87 | 0.89 | 0.73 | 5.21 | 1.16 | - | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.71 |
BI1 | 4.88 | 1.29 | 0.86 *** | 5.29 | 1.33 | 0.84 *** | ||||||
BI2 | 4.84 | 1.39 | 0.82 *** | 5.19 | 1.38 | 0.88 *** | ||||||
BI3 | 4.70 | 1.16 | 0.88 *** | 5.16 | 1.18 | 0.80 *** | ||||||
Trust | 5.10 | 1.13 | - | 0.91 | 0.91 | 0.78 | 5.29 | 1.25 | - | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.83 |
T1 | 5.21 | 1.18 | 0.90 *** | 5.34 | 1.28 | 0.90 *** | ||||||
T2 | 5.09 | 1.24 | 0.87 *** | 5.34 | 1.32 | 0.92 *** | ||||||
T3 | 5.00 | 1.27 | 0.87 *** | 5.19 | 1.40 | 0.91 *** | ||||||
Moral Norm | 4.92 | 1.16 | - | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.73 | 4.80 | 1.33 | - | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.80 |
MN1 | 5.06 | 1.23 | 0.90 *** | 4.96 | 1.40 | 0.88 *** | ||||||
MN2 | 5.15 | 1.25 | 0.91 *** | 4.84 | 1.44 | 0.89 *** | ||||||
MN3 | 4.56 | 1.39 | 0.73 *** | 4.61 | 1.45 | 0.90 *** | ||||||
Past Behaviour | 3.83 | 1.48 | - | 0.78 | 0.78 | 0.42 | 4.06 | 1.37 | - | 0.68 | 0.69 | 0.31 |
PB1 | 4.42 | 1.33 | 0.83 *** | 5.23 | 1.16 | 0.75 *** | ||||||
PB2 | 4.57 | 1.21 | 0.62 *** | 4.73 | 1.36 | 0.48 *** | ||||||
PB3 | 3.40 | 1.65 | 0.63 *** | 3.24 | 1.66 | 0.36 *** | ||||||
PB4 1 | 3.18 | 1.41 | 0.61 *** | 3.21 | 1.34 | 0.59 *** | ||||||
PB5 1 | 3.34 | 1.42 | 0.51 *** | 3.91 | 1.32 | 0.55 *** | ||||||
Discrete Choice Behaviour 2 | −0.17 | 56.80 | 16.70 | 49.50 |
Constructs | Country | ATT | SN | PBC | MN | Trust | BI | PB | DCB |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ATT | FR | 0.686 | 0.298 | 0.447 | 0.492 | 0.354 | 0.534 | 0.250 | 0.274 |
IT | 0.678 | 0.227 | 0.306 | 0.337 | 0.303 | 0.313 | 0.097 | 0.118 | |
SN | FR | 0.866 | 0.486 | 0.409 | 0.315 | 0.584 | 0.376 | 0.338 | |
IT | 0.837 | 0.571 | 0.527 | 0.315 | 0.541 | 0.268 | 0.129 | ||
PBC | FR | 0.728 | 0.550 | 0.483 | 0.721 | 0.419 | 0.433 | ||
IT | 0.794 | 0.547 | 0.463 | 0.760 | 0.251 | 0.147 | |||
MN | FR | 0.854 | 0.582 | 0.632 | 0.357 | 0.310 | |||
IT | 0.843 | 0.378 | 0.576 | 0.243 | 0.171 | ||||
Trust | FR | 0.883 | 0.458 | 0.257 | 0.214 | ||||
IT | 0.911 | 0.450 | 0.247 | 0.166 | |||||
BI | FR | 0.854 | 0.458 | 0.455 | |||||
IT | 0.894 | 0.330 | 0.200 | ||||||
PB | FR | 0.648 | 0.279 | ||||||
IT | 0.557 | 0.076 | |||||||
DCB | FR | 1.000 | |||||||
IT | 1.000 |
Model | Constructs | France | Italy | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R2 | Beta | S.E. | p | R2 | Beta | S.E. | p | ||
Model a | BI predictors: | 0.842 | 0.818 | ||||||
ATT | 0.319 | 0.095 | 0.000 | 0.193 | 0.097 | 0.015 | |||
SN | 0.104 | 0.039 | 0.000 | 0.014 | 0.053 | 0.799 | |||
PBC | 1.182 | 0.216 | 0.000 | 0.957 | 0.130 | 0.000 | |||
MN | 0.147 | 0.068 | 0.029 | 0.076 | 0.072 | 0.292 | |||
Trust | −0.090 | 0.053 | 0.090 | 0.033 | 0.050 | 0.510 | |||
PB predictors: | 0.441 | 0.290 | |||||||
BI | 0.553 | 0.174 | 0.000 | 0.583 | 0.225 | 0.003 | |||
PBC | 0.211 | 0.300 | 0.482 | −0.240 | 0.252 | 0.329 | |||
Model b1 | BI predictors: | 0.845 | 0.823 | ||||||
ATT | 0.325 | 0.097 | 0.001 | 0.204 | 0.097 | 0.009 | |||
SN | 0.101 | 0.039 | 0.010 | 0.001 | 0.053 | 0.982 | |||
PBC | 1.174 | 0.216 | 0.000 | 0.965 | 0.137 | 0.000 | |||
MN | 0.152 | 0.067 | 0.022 | 0.089 | 0.071 | 0.214 | |||
Trust | −0.091 | 0.053 | 0.090 | 0.021 | 0.052 | 0.676 | |||
DCB predictors: | 0.245 | 0.049 | |||||||
BI | 16.042 | 7.564 | 0.000 | 13.104 | 8.082 | 0.099 | |||
PBC | 18.369 | 14.203 | 0.189 | −4.705 | 9.751 | 0.630 | |||
Model b2 | BI predictors: | 0.855 | 0.851 | ||||||
ATT | 0.301 | 0.094 | 0.001 | 0.193 | 0.089 | 0.009 | |||
SN | 0.083 | 0.039 | 0.034 | 0.020 | 0.050 | 0.680 | |||
PBC | 1.059 | 0.204 | 0.000 | 0.907 | 0.136 | 0.000 | |||
MN | 0.143 | 0.066 | 0.027 | 0.094 | 0.068 | 0.172 | |||
Trust | −0.085 | 0.051 | 0.100 | −0.005 | 0.051 | 0.923 | |||
PB | 0.143 | 0.052 | 0.007 | 0.243 | 0.059 | 0.000 | |||
DCB predictors: | 0.248 | 0.051 | |||||||
BI | 13.725 | 7.808 | 0.079 | 14.856 | 9.337 | 0.107 | |||
PBC | 17.971 | 13.930 | 0.191 | −5.171 | 10.342 | 0.618 | |||
PB | 3.720 | 4.051 | 0.357 | −3.540 | 4.822 | 0.474 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Menozzi, D.; Giraud, G.; Saïdi, M.; Yeh, C.-H. Choice Drivers for Quality-Labelled Food: A Cross-Cultural Comparison on PDO Cheese. Foods 2021, 10, 1176. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10061176
Menozzi D, Giraud G, Saïdi M, Yeh C-H. Choice Drivers for Quality-Labelled Food: A Cross-Cultural Comparison on PDO Cheese. Foods. 2021; 10(6):1176. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10061176
Chicago/Turabian StyleMenozzi, Davide, Georges Giraud, Monia Saïdi, and Ching-Hua Yeh. 2021. "Choice Drivers for Quality-Labelled Food: A Cross-Cultural Comparison on PDO Cheese" Foods 10, no. 6: 1176. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10061176