4.4 Article

Characterising convinced sustainable food consumers

期刊

BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL
卷 117, 期 3, 页码 1082-1104

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/BFJ-01-2014-0003

关键词

Sustainable development; Consumption; Tea; Consumer choice; Organic food; Fair trade

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to identify the distinguishing socio-demographic and psychographic features of convinced sustainable consumers in contrast to convinced conventional consumers. Furthermore, it contributes to the sparse literature about tea consumption. Design/methodology/approach - This study is based on data collected via an online consumer survey. First respondents took part in a choice experiment with tea varying in its price (four levels) and quality (conventional/organic/fairtrade/organic and fair trade). Then they had to complete a questionnaire about their attitudes towards food consumption. Respondents, who always chose sustainable tea, at no matter what price, were grouped and those that always chose the conventional tea. A bivariate logistic regression is used to analyse the influencing socio-demographic and attitudinal dimensions that characterise the two groups of convinced consumers. Findings - Convinced sustainable consumers are more often female than male and perceive that their personal purchase decision has an impact on overall sustainable development. They show a higher willingness to increase sustainability through their consumption behaviour. They are very much interested in high food quality and are not as much influenced by advertisements and offers in their purchase decision making as convinced conventional consumers. Originality/value - The main contribution of this study is to provide practical information for actors in the field of sustainable food marketing about how to target their most relevant segment, the convinced sustainable consumer with special regard to sustainable tea consumption.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据