4.7 Article

Consumer Awareness of the Regional Food Market: The Case of Eastern European Border Regions

期刊

FOODS
卷 8, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods8100467

关键词

food choice; consumer behavior; consumer competence; regional food products; Eastern Poland; Western Ukraine

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Higher Education [224/06/S, RKU/DS/2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this paper is to determine the awareness measures of consumers from Eastern Poland and Western Ukraine towards regional food products, including consumer knowledge on regional products available in the media and their availability on the food market. The effort was made to compare consumers' opinions on the reasons for purchasing regional food and ways of distinguishing it from conventional products, as well as on the availability of regional products. Consumer awareness-that is, making informed choices based on the knowledge we have-is a measure of attitudes and cognition, and sometimes can be directed towards the brand, which is the product's regional designation. Therefore, it is necessary to comment that attitudes towards regionality can generate a behavioral intent. A diagnostic survey with an author's questionnaire was used in the study, which helped to survey 1128 respondents from Eastern Poland-that is, from the Podlaskie, Lublin, and Subcarpathia regions-and 1072 from Western Ukraine, including the Volyn, Lviv, and Transcarpathia regions. Discriminant function analysis was used in statistical analysis. Both residents of Eastern Poland and Western Ukraine obtained information on regional food products from their friends or family and from television (TV), internet, and regional fairs. Consumers from both countries pointed at too many possibilities of purchasing regional products; at the same time, they paid attention to a limited number of points of sale. TV and Internet have a great promotional potential to educate young consumers focused on the purchase of regional food products.

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

4.7
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