Warning: mkdir(): Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 81

Warning: fopen(upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-11.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 83

Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 84
The Housewives' Purchase Behaviors on Environment-friendly Agricultural Products in Daejeon Area


Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

The Housewives' Purchase Behaviors on Environment-friendly Agricultural Products in Daejeon Area

Article information

Korean J Community Nutr. 2011;16(3):386-397
Publication date (electronic) : 2011 June 30
doi : https://doi.org/10.5720/kjcn.2011.16.3.386
In-Jung Kim, Joon-Ho Lee
Department of Consumers' Life Information, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea.
Corresponding author: Joon-Ho Lee, Department of Consumers' Life Information, Chungnam National University, 99 Daehangno, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-764, Korea. Tel: (042) 821-6847, Fax: (042) 821-8887, joonho@cnu.ac.kr
Received 2011 April 22; Revised 2011 May 11; Accepted 2011 June 21.

Abstract

This study was to investigate the housewives' purchase behaviors on the environment-friendly agricultural products (EFAP) by survey in Daejeon area housewives. 390 questionnaires were used and analysed. Most of the subjects were female (92.6%) distributed evenly in their 40's (55.4%), and graduated from high school (43.6%) or college (36.4%). Subjects' occupation was most housewives (64.1%) and 77.4% of the subjects had monthly family income of 2 million won or more. 76.9% of the subjects had purchased EFAP already. The reason of purchasing EFAP was mainly "good for health" (80.3%), and reason for non-purchasing was "high prices" (28%) or "not so trustworthy" (25.6%). The most purchasing frequency was "once a week" (29%). 46.7% of the subjects spent 20% of their agricultural product cost for EFAP and 38.7% of them spent less than 30,000 won per month for EFAP. On checking of EFAP labeling, the housewives scored 3.59 for the validate date, 3.25 for the place of origin, 2.8 for the quality certification mark by 4-point Likert scale. 65.1% of the subject had intention to increase purchasing of EFAP in future. To promote the consumption of EFAP, the improvement factors were price-cutting (47.9%), trust on producers (18.2%) and quality betterment (17.7%). Accordingly, the consumers prefer EFAP for wellbeing health of families; however, they hesitate to buy due to their high price and the low reliability on producers of EFAP. Thus the producers and the related organization of EFAP should contrive proper countermeasures to increase consumer's satisfaction level on their credibility and price of EFAP.

Keywords: environment-friendly agricultural products (EFAP); purchase behavior

References

1. An JH, Kang KO. Consumption type of housewives about organic and instant food. Korean J Food Nutr 2006. 19(1)28–37.
2. Choi HS, Chang GJ. The utilization of environment-friendly agricultural products of college students in Seoul and Incheon areas. Korean J Community Nutr 2007. 12(6)742–751.
3. Jang JK. A study on marketing promotion of environmentally friendly agricultural product 2006. Graduate School of Agricultural Economics, Chonnam National University; 1–62. MS thesis.
4. Jeong EM. The development and characteristics of the environment-friendly agricultural policy in Korea. Korean J Org Agric 2006. 14(2)117–137.
5. Kim CK, Jung HK, Moon DH. Recent production status and market prospect of environmentally friendly agricultural products in domestic and foreign countries. Report on Agricultural Research 2009. Seoul: Korea Rural Economic Institute; 58.
6. Kim CK, Lee YS, Lee SG. Consumer's attitudes and marketing strategies for environmentally friendly agricultural products. Policy Analysis 2008a. Seoul: Korea Rural Economic Institute; 98.
7. Kim IH. The effect of health concern on purchase behavior of the environmental friendly agricultural products 2010a. Graduate School of Public Administration, Hanseo University; 16–17. MS thesis.
8. Kim JW. The effect of consumer knowledge and attitude about environment-friendly agricultural products on the purchasing behavior for those products 2010b. Graduate School of Education, Ulsan University; 28–29. MS thesis.
9. Kim JY. A study on the distribution structure of organic farming products for environmentally sustainable agriculture 2001. Graduate School of Urban and Regional Planning. Dankook University; 1–81. MS thesis.
10. Kim KD, Lee JY, Namkung S. Purchase behavior of environment-friendly agricultural products by housewives in Seoul area. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr 2008b. 37(12)1667–1673.
11. Kim NR, Cho YS, Kim SA. Satisfaction and recognition level of environment-friendly agricultural products in Cheongju area. Korean J Community Nutr 2011. 16(1)75–85.
12. Kim SH. A study on the marketing promotion of environmentally friendly agricultural products 2009. Graduate School of Management, Mokpo National University; 1–73. MS thesis.
13. Kim SO, Kim MH, Shim JH. Understanding of consumers' perceptions on environment-friendly agricultural products (EAP) and purchasing behavior by comparing purchasers and nonpurchasers. Korean J Org Agric 2008c. 16(1)21–42.
14. Kim YS. A study on the utilization present status and the satisfaction with environment-friendly agricultural products 2005. Graduate School of Traditional Culture and Arts, Sookmyung Women's University; 47–88. MS thesis.
15. Kim YT. A study on the efficient plan of improving environmental-friendly agriculture 2006. Graduate School of Industry Kwangju University; 1–90. MS thesis.
16. Ko BS, Ko PS. The study on the characteristics of circulation of environmentally friendly agricultural products and the consumer's purchase intention. Korean J Culinary Res 2005. 11(4)214–227.
17. Lee HW, Yun JH. Studies on change of organic farming in Korea from 1907~2007. Korean J Org Agric 2007. 15(4)399–411.
18. Lee JS. An analysis of production on environmental friendly agriculture in Korea. Korean J Org Agric 2002. 1029–50.
19. Lee JY. Analysis of consumer's behavior on the environment-friendly agricultural products 2006. Graduate School of Agricultural Economics, Chungnam National University; 26–68. MS thesis.
20. National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service 2010. cited 2010 February 1. Available from http://www.naqs.go.kr/serviceInfo/service_01_01.jsp.
21. The preferance analysis and demand forecast of consumers on environment-friendly agricultural products. 2005. 4. 12. Nongmin Newspaper 2005. cited 2010 January 5. Available from http://www.nongmin.com/download/index.htm?mode=detail&no=938.
22. Park JY. A study on use status of and satisfaction with environmental-friendly agricultural products by female consumers in Jeju area 2007. Graduate School of Education, Jeju National University; 37. MS thesis.
23. Park YE. An analysis on consumption behavior of environment-friendly agricultural products 2002. Graduate School at Dong-A University; 32–34. MS thesis.
24. Shin CN. A survey on consumption pattern of environment-friendly agricultural products -with special reference to consumer in Changwon, Jinju and Sacheon area 2006. Graduate School of Human Ecology and Environment, Kyungsang National University; 50–52. MS thesis.
25. Yang GS. Distribution conditions and marketing strategies for environmentally friendly agricultural products. The Journal of Korean Island 2009. 21(1)153–170.

Article information Continued

Copyright © 2011 The Korean Society of Community Nutrition

Table 1

General characteristics of the subjects

Table 1

1) N (%)

Table 2

Purchased experience of environment-friendly agricultural products

Table 2

1) N (%)

Table 3

Reasons on purchasing environment-friendly agricultural products

Table 3

1) N (%)

Table 4

Reasons on non-purchasing environment-friendly agricultural products1)

Table 4

1) Multiple response, 2) N (%)

(Total N = 90)

Table 5

Purchasing frequencies of environment-friendly agricultural products

Table 5

1) N (%), *: p < 0.05

Table 6

Purchasing ratio of environment-friendly agricultural products among total agricultural products

Table 6

1) N (%), *: p < 0.05

Table 7

Purchasing cost of environment-friendly agricultural products per month (unit : Won)

Table 7

1) N (%), **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001

Table 8

Purchasing frequencies of environment-friendly agricultural products's food groups

Table 8

1) N (%)

Table 9

Purchasing place of environment-friendly agricultural products

Table 9

1) N (%)

Table 10

Choosing factors of purchasing place1)

Table 10

1) Multiple response, 2) N (%)

(Total N=300)

Table 11

The most considerable factors on purchasing environment-friendly agricultural products

Table 11

1) N (%) *: p < 0.05, ***: p < 0.001

Table 12

The housewives' satisfaction on taste, safety and price of environment-friendly agricultural products2)

Table 12

1) Mean ± SD, **: p < 0.01

2) 5 points Likert scale: 'Very satisfied' (5 points) ~ 'Very dissatisfied' (1 point)

3) Different superscripts in the same column mean significant differences among groups by Duncan's multiple range test (p < 0.05)

Table 13

Checking on environment-friendly agricultural products labeling2)

Table 13

1) Mean ± SD, *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01

2) 4 points Likert scale : 'Always check' (4 points) ~ 'Almost not check' (1 point)

3) Different superscripts in the same column mean significant differences among groups by Duncan's multiple range test (p < 0.05)

Table 14

The purchasing intention of environment-friendly agricultural products at hereafter

Table 14

1) N (%), **: p < 0.01

Table 15

The improvement factors for consumption promotion of environment-friendly agricultural products

Table 15

1) N (%)