bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423

Role of gastronomic, externality and feasibility attributes in

consumer demand for organic and local foods: The case of
honey and apples
Jrgen D. Jensen1 and Morten R. Mrkbak2
1
Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark
2
COHERE Centre of Health Economics Research, Department of Business and Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M,
Denmark

Keywords
Local foods, organic, attributes, gastronomic,
externality, feasibility.
Correspondence
Jrgen D. Jensen, Institute of Food and
Resource Economics, University of
Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, Frederiksberg
DK-1958, Denmark.
E-mail: Jorgen@foi.ku.dk
doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12049
Abstract
Local food systems providing high-value products are seen as a tool to sustain economic
activity on family farms in rural areas. The objective of this study is to investigate the role
of gastronomic, externality and feasibility characteristics in consumers demand for local
and for organic foods. An Internet questionnaire survey was conducted in 2010 among
Danish consumers. 3211 respondents completed the questionnaire, which included ques-
tions about respondents food-related values and their specific perception of organic and
local varieties of honey and apples. Variables related to consumers food-related values and
product perception were analysed using principal component analysis, in order to identify
overall dimensions (factors) in these variables. Although statements about gastronomic
attributes (e.g. taste, appearance, quality) were quite strongly represented in three of these
factors, externality and availability concerns also contributed significantly to the overall
variation in the variables. Multinomial logit choice modelling was used for describing the
relationship between these dimensions and respondents stated choices regarding organic
and local varieties of honey and apples. Results suggest that although both organic and
local food supply chains are often associated with special attributes such as gastronomic
characteristics and relatively beneficial externality attributes, these attributes are perceived
differently for the two types of supply chains. Perceived gastronomic quality is the most
important determinant for food choice, but externality and feasibility aspects are also
important correlates.

ronmental benefits (Marsden and Smith, 2005; Marsden et al.,

Introduction
As a tool to sustain economic activity on family farms in rural
areas, the European Union (EU) attempts to establish incentives
for producers to develop local food systems providing high-value
products (Clements, 2004). Efforts include the use of protection of
geographical indications (protected designation of origin PDO,
protected geographical indication PGI and traditional speciali-
ties guaranteed TSG) at the EU level, regional products at the
national level and local products, which are linked to a local areas
culture and history.
Local food production seems to be increasingly important
from consumers point of view (Groves, 2001; Zepeda and
Leviten-Reid, 2004; Zepeda and Deal, 2009; Sims, 2010), reflect-
ing a wish to support geographical and cultural-regional specific
food systems (Kuznetsof et al., 1997). Local food systems are
claimed to yield local economic gains via promotion of local jobs
(Carpio and Isengildina-Massa, 2009), more direct communica-
tion between producers and consumers (Martinez, 2010) and envi-
2000; European Union Committee of the Regions, 2011). The
international scientific literature shows some evidence for a will-
ingness among consumers to pay extra for food products of local
origin (see, e.g. Loureiro and McCluskey, 2000; Loureiro and
Hine, 2002; Giraud et al., 2005; Darby et al., 2006, 2008; Stefani
et al., 2006; Batte et al., 2007; Carlsson et al., 2007; Carpio and
Isengildina-Massa, 2009; Yue and Tong, 2009; Hbert, 2011).
According to parts of the literature, local foods share some
features with organic foods in consumers minds. Both food
concepts are (correctly or incorrectly) perceived environmental
friendly, animal friendly and natural by the consumers (Yiridoe
et al., 2005; Chambers et al., 2007; Hughner et al., 2007; Zepeda
and Deal, 2009) and seem to appeal to consumer segments with
similar socio-economic characteristics, although the consumer-
perceived or -believed properties of locally produced foods are
documented to a much lower extent than for organic products.
Gastronomic/pleasure quality in a broad sense (including
terroir, freshness, appearance) and externality attributes (local

634 International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 634641

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
J.D. Jensen and M.R. Mrkbak Role of gastronomic, externality and feasibility attributes

environment, reduced food miles, local jobs) are important factors Table 1 Descriptive statistics socio-demographic variables
in determining consumers preferences for local and/or organic
Population
foods, e.g. in gastronomic concepts like the New Nordic Cuisine
(Statistics Denmark)
(Bocuse, dOr, 2013). Furthermore, feasibility aspects such as Mean Mean
price or availability could be expected to play an important role for
these preferences to materialize in consumption. Gender: (male = 1, female = 2) 1.50 1.50
Better marketing has been suggested as a means to stimulate the Age (years) 42.5 41.8
demand for local produce (Carpio and Isengildina-Massa, 2009; Number of children 1.6 0.7
Yue and Tong, 2009). If such marketing strategies should be suc- Household income 606 000 DKK 558 317 DKK
cessful, a thorough understanding of the demand for such local Capital region (share of 0.34 0.32
national)
foods is however crucial. With the aim of identifying relevant
Sealand region (share of 0.12 0.14
mechanisms to develop the markets for organic and local food
national)
products, it is the objective of this paper to explore the role of
South Denmark region (share of 0.23 0.21
gastronomic, externality and feasibility dimensions in the forma-
national)
tion of consumers values and product perceptions, and to deter- Central Jutland region (share of 0.23 0.23
mine the importance of the respective dimensions and their national)
interactions in consumers choice of local and/or organic product North Jutland region (share of 0.08 0.10
varieties. The studys objective is pursued on the basis of a ques- national)
tionnaire survey among Danish consumers, using honey and
apples as illustrative case products. For both honey and apples,
local conditions (climate, local vegetation, soil quality, etc.) influ-
ence the gastronomic quality, and in a Danish context, both kept by the Userneeds market analysis company (http://
product types are often sold locally. www.userneeds.dk/markedsanalyse). 3211 questionnaires were
completed. The sample was checked for representativeness by
Methods comparing with corresponding figures for the Danish adult popu-
lation (Table 1). There was an overrepresentation of middle aged,
Theory of households with children and of individuals with above-average
income. Non-responders had a socio-economic profile similar to
The point of departure is a micro-economic theoretical setting that of responders.
where consumers are expected to maximize utility. The consum- One section of the questionnaire included general questions
ers utility from a product depends on the perceived quality, which about the respondents normal choice of honey or apples (Most
in turn depends on the consumers knowledge about the products, often, I buy . . .) in terms of production method (organic, conven-
but also on his values, norms and attitudes. tional, other production method) and geographic origin (local,
Food quality exhibits different dimensions, including gastro- Danish, European, other). Organic is interpreted as following the
nomic, health and externality characteristics (Grunert et al., 2004). standards underlying the authorized Danish organic label, and
The consumer derives benefits directly from gastronomic and local is a product from the respondents own local area.
health (intrinsic) characteristics. Products with characteristics like Another section of the questionnaire included respondents
high animal welfare, environmental friendliness or fair trade value statements regarding different product attributes (It is
(external characteristics) may yield benefits to others than the important to me that the product is . . .), such as organic, local,
consumer, but may also increase the consumers utility because of environmentally friendly, low fat, accessible or low cost, when
ethical or social motivations. buying different food categories (meats, dairy or fruits/
The consumers perceptions of product attributes are translated vegetables), on a 5-point agreement scale (fully disagree, partly
into consumption choices via his preferences. Such preferences disagree, neither agree nor disagree, partly agree or fully agree).
may be expressed in value statements by the consumers, e.g. stated As the responses within these three product categories were almost
concern for taste, freshness, health, environment, costs, conveni- identical, they were averaged into one (food) in the subsequent
ence, etc. (Lassen and Korzen, 2009) or in willingness to pay statistical analysis.
estimates for the respective attributes elicited (e.g. Loureiro The questionnaire also included questions about the respond-
and Hine, 2002). ents subjective perception and expectations of product attributes
Consumers are assumed to maximize utility subject to a budget and feasibility related to organic or locally produced honey and
constraint, and possibly other feasibility constraints on, e.g. time apples (e.g. organic products are more environmentally friendly)
or product availability, which in turn affect the consumer utility to be answered on a 5-point agreement scale. For a complete list of
indirectly via their influence on consumption decisions. Hence, we value and perception questions, see the Appendix.
hypothesize that consumers choice of organic or local product
varieties depends on their values, on their perception of product
variety attributes and on feasibility. Statistical methods
Statements reflecting knowledge/perceptions and values yielded
Data
40 variables. As some of these were suspected to be mutually
An Internet questionnaire survey was conducted in 2010 among correlated, they were aggregated into a smaller number of
Danish consumers aged 1865, recruited from an online panel orthogonal factors zi, using principal components analysis (PCA).

International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 634641 635

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Role of gastronomic, externality and feasibility attributes J.D. Jensen and M.R. Mrkbak

Perception and value statements were included in one PCA, in Table 2 Descriptive statistics stated buying behaviour variables
order to reveal possible correlations between the types of state-
Honey Apples
ment. Each factor constituted a new variable, which was inter-
preted as an aggregate dimension in respondents perceptions or Most often, I buy Average Average
values, based on varimax-rotated factor loadings.
Production method
In a next step of the analysis, these factors were used as explana- Organic 0.24 0.26
tory variables in a model describing respondents stated normal Conventional 0.38 0.59
choice between different product varieties (Aguilera et al., 2006). Other method 0.05 0.05
We assume that individual hs utility with respect to product No answer 0.33 0.10
variety i depends on the factors z. Furthermore, interactions Geographic origin
between some of the explanatory factors were suspected, in that Local 0.14 0.06
value variables were assumed to mediate the effects of Danish 0.43 0.54
knowledge-/perception-oriented factors, augmenting the specifi- Imported 0.06 0.15
cation of the utility function No answer 0.37 0.25
Combinations
Uih = i zh + v iv zhv zh + ih, Organic and local 0.05 0.02
where i {0} , v {value factors} Organic, not local 0.20 0.24
Local, not organic 0.09 0.03
(s and s are parameters). The probability of individual h choos- Neither organic nor local 0.66 0.71
ing product variety i is

P (Uih U jh j i ) = P (i zh + v iv zhv zh
+ ih j zh + v jv zhv zh + jh j i
where the varieties (i, j) are unordered. Assuming independent
Gumbel distributions of the stochastic elements ih, the choice
situations can be represented within an unordered multinomial
logit modelling framework, with probabilities of choosing the
respective varieties given by
ei zh + v iv zhv zh
Pi = m 1
, i = 1, , m 1
1 + j =1 ei zh + v iv zhv zh
1 for about 6% of total variation and represents value statements
Pm = m 1
1 + j =1 e j zh + v jv zhv zh
Results
Table 2 shows the distribution of the respondents stated normal
product variety choice for honey and apples.
About one quarter stated that they normally buy organic honey
or apples. Fourteen and 6% normally buy locally produced honey
and apples respectively. Five percent stated that they normally
choose honey that is both organic and locally produced, whereas
only 2% of the respondents replied similarly for apples, suggesting
only moderate overlap between the choice of organic and local
varieties of the two product categories.
Principal components analysis
The pool of 10 value variables and 30 perception variables (15 for
honey and 15 for apples) was analysed in a PCA. Based on the
number of eigenvalues larger than one, 10 factors were retained,
explaining almost 70% of the variation in the data (Table 3). Using
varimax rotation, these factors represented relatively clear dimen-
sions, of which some were interpreted as perceived gastronomic or
pleasure dimensions, some represent externality or public good
aspects, and some represent feasibility related to purchase and
) consumption, some reflecting consumers values and some reflect-
ing the respondents knowledge/perception of organic and local
foods characteristics.
The most significant factor (perceived quality, organic),
accounting for about 26% of total variation in the 40 variables,
represents respondents perception of gastronomic quality in
organic honey and apples, with relatively high, positive loadings
from responses to statements such as organic honey tastes better,
etc. The second most important factor (perceived quality, local)
accounts for 11% of total variation.
The third most important factor (value, externalities) accounts
regarding externality and product history issues related to foods.
The fourth factor (perceived availability, local) represents
respondents perception of feasibility aspects (accessibility and
price) of local foods and the fifth factor represents perceived health
and environmental attributes in terms of lower pesticide residues
in organic products (perceived environment effect, organic). Two
mutually uncorrelated factors representing high perceived acces-
sibility (perceived availability, organic) and low perceived price
(perceived price, organic) of organic products, were identified.
Finally, the PCA yielded factors representing perceived environ-
mental friendliness of local products (perceived environment
effect, local), high valuation of geographic origin (value, geo-
graphic origin) and high valuation of feasibility aspects (value,
feasibility).
Supplementary analysis of the components suggested that
value, geographic origin was relatively more important for
respondents in the Capital and Sealand regions, indicating that the
interest in local or domestic products may be highest in the Capital
and its surroundings.
There is only limited overlap between consumers perception of
organic and local foods gastronomic characteristics, represented
by perceived quality, organic and perceived quality, local. A
similar observation applies to the perceived externality character-
istics, perceived environment effect, organic and perceived
environment effect, local, whereas there appears to be more

636 International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 634641

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Table 3 Results of principal components analysis

Perceived Perceived Perceived Perceived Value,

quality, Perceived Value, Perceived environment availability, Perceived environment geographic Value,
organic quality, local externalities availability, local effect, organic organic price, organic effect, local origin feasibility Communality

Variance 0.262 0.110 0.060 0.056 0.046 0.037 0.033 0.032 0.030 0.027
Cumulated var 0.262 0.372 0.432 0.488 0.533 0.570 0.603 0.635 0.665 0.691
OrgEnvHoney 0.52 0.01 0.11 0.03 0.42 0.00 0.01 0.27 0.05 0.13 0.56
OrgHealthHoney 0.71 0.07 0.16 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.63

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

OrgTasteHoney 0.82 0.18 0.11 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.72
J.D. Jensen and M.R. Mrkbak

OrgPestHoney 0.31 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.86 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.84
OrgAppealHoney 0.71 0.18 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.12 0.02 0.13 0.01 0.58
OrgQualHoney 0.82 0.14 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.72
OrgAccessHoney 0.10 0.08 0.02 0.13 0.04 0.90 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.85
OrgPriceHoney 0.10 0.09 0.04 0.14 0.01 0.11 0.88 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.83
LocEnvHoney 0.13 0.31 0.10 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.78 0.08 0.00 0.75
LocHealthHoney 0.21 0.74 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.15 0.06 0.65

International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 634641

LocTasteHoney 0.14 0.83 0.06 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.73
LocQualHoney 0.09 0.83 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.74
LocAccessHoney 0.01 0.23 0.07 0.70 0.02 0.17 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.58
LocPriceHoney 0.07 0.11 0.02 0.74 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.61
OrgEnvAppl 0.53 0.04 0.15 0.00 0.45 0.04 0.03 0.32 0.09 0.13 0.64
OrgHealthAppl 0.73 0.06 0.21 0.04 0.26 0.01 0.04 0.18 0.06 0.05 0.70
OrgTasteAppl 0.83 0.18 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.75
OrgPestAppl 0.31 0.05 0.11 0.02 0.84 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.82
OrgAppealAppl 0.70 0.19 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.59
OrgQualAppl 0.82 0.13 0.13 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.71
OrgAccessAppl 0.13 0.08 0.01 0.11 0.03 0.88 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.84
OrgPriceAppl 0.10 0.09 0.00 0.15 0.02 0.13 0.88 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.83
LocEnvAppl 0.18 0.35 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.79 0.03 0.03 0.82
LocHealthAppl 0.20 0.76 0.09 0.13 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.23 0.08 0.05 0.72
LocTasteAppl 0.16 0.80 0.11 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.19 0.03 0.00 0.74
LocQualAppl 0.15 0.80 0.10 0.19 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.18 0.03 0.00 0.74
LocAccessAppl 0.00 0.24 0.09 0.73 0.02 0.20 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.64
LocPriceAppl 0.05 0.13 0.02 0.78 0.02 0.05 0.18 0.09 0.13 0.01 0.69
FoodOrg 0.63 0.07 0.44 0.02 0.16 0.07 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.18 0.70
FoodOri 0.18 0.10 0.79 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.67
FoodImp 0.02 0.04 0.35 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.06 0.65 0.11 0.59
FoodDK 0.16 0.22 0.70 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.10 0.06 0.60
FoodSpec 0.12 0.27 0.40 0.19 0.00 0.09 0.02 0.09 0.72 0.10 0.83
FoodMy 0.11 0.24 0.39 0.23 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.14 0.71 0.11 0.82
FoodAcc 0.04 0.08 0.14 0.08 0.03 0.14 0.03 0.01 0.16 0.71 0.59
FoodEnv 0.38 0.06 0.68 0.04 0.14 0.07 0.07 0.19 0.07 0.05 0.68
FoodWelf 0.28 0.05 0.67 0.01 0.14 0.08 0.06 0.12 0.04 0.05 0.58
FoodFat 0.11 0.03 0.29 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.57 0.43
FoodDate 0.08 0.02 0.60 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.35 0.50
FoodPrice 0.11 0.02 0.36 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.18 0.66 0.63

637
Role of gastronomic, externality and feasibility attributes

Note: Explanation for detailed variables see Appendix Tables A1 and A2.
Role of gastronomic, externality and feasibility attributes J.D. Jensen and M.R. Mrkbak

Table 4 Results of unordered multinomial logit regression honey

Without interaction With interaction

Organic Local Organic and local Organic Local Organic and local

Mean dep. 0.199 0.092 0.045 0.199 0.092 0.045

Perceived quality, organic 1.106 *** 0.425 ** 0.538 ** 1.235 *** 0.400 * 0.598 **
Perceived quality, local 0.196 0.656 *** 0.617 ** 0.128 0.676 *** 0.701 ***
Perceived environment effect, organic 0.230 * 0.366 * 0.119 0.171 0.727 ** 0.349
Perceived environment effect, local 0.231 0.120 0.266 0.148 0.232 0.470
Value, externalities 0.798 *** 0.673 *** 0.894 *** 0.267 0.423 0.800 *
Value, externalities perceived 0.829 *** 0.671 * 0.494
environment effect, organic
Value, Externalities perceived 0.266 0.134 0.179
environment effect, local
Perceived availability, organic 0.239 * 0.287 0.401 * 0.170 0.201 0.732 **
Perceived availability, local 0.426 *** 0.788 *** 0.115 0.719 *** 0.771 *** 0.278
Perceived price, organic 0.083 0.090 0.032 0.040 0.102 0.084
Value, feasibility 0.720 *** 0.556 *** 0.472 ** 0.995 *** 0.455 1.246 ***
Value, feasibility perceived 0.766 ** 0.048 0.923 *
availability, organic
Value, feasibility perceived 0.040 0.164 0.742
availability, local
Value, geographic origin 0.110 0.090 0.462 * 0.034 0.100 0.534 **
Intercept 1.545 *** 2.353 *** 3.474 *** 1.475 *** 2.340 *** 3.379 ***
Log likelihood 1959.0 1918.8

*Significant at 95% level, **significant at 99% level, ***significant at 99.9% level.

congruence in respondents perception of availability attributes of
organic and local foods respectively.
Multinomial logit analysis
The 10 factors were used as explanatory variables in unordered
multinomial logit models for honey (Table 4) and apples (Table 5).
Four response levels were assumed (organic/not local, local/not
organic, organic/local, not organic/not local), with the latter as the
reference outcome. For each product, we estimated a model
without interaction between the components, and an extended
model, where the two value factors value, externalities and
value, feasibility were assumed to mediate the effects of the
associated perception variables on the respondents choices.
High-quality perception of organic products is positively asso-
ciated with higher propensity to choose organic varieties (and
negatively associated with choice of local, non-organic varieties),
and vice versa. The coefficients in Tables 4 and 5 represent mar-
ginal effects of the variables on the propensity to choose different
product varieties, represented in log odds ratios. For example, for
a respondent with a score of 0.1 above average in the perceived
quality, organic dimension, the log odds ratio for choosing
organic, non-local honey would be 0.1235 higher than average in
the extended model for honey. With an average probability of
choosing organic, non-local honey of 0.2 (cf. Table 2), this corre-
sponds to a 3.1% higher probability of choosing this variety.
The value factor value, externalities is positively associated
with stated propensity to buy both organic and local product vari-
eties. Respondents perception of the organic and local products
environmental friendliness seemed to have only modest direct
influence on their stated choice behaviour, according to the models
without interaction effects, but the extended model for honey
suggests that value, externalities works as a mediator for organic
honeys perceived environmental friendliness.
Respondents general concern for feasibility aspects value,
feasibility is negatively associated with their propensity to choose
organic or local products, but perception of availability of certain
varieties tends to affect the choice of these varieties positively.
This effect is mediated by respondents concern for availability in
the case of honey. Perception of local foods availability influences
the choice of these foods positively. Perception of organic prod-
ucts availability surprisingly affects the propensity to choose
organic negatively for both honey and apples, whereas the per-
ceived price of organic honey does not significantly influence the
choice of honey product.
Supplementary estimations of the four econometric models
indicated that the influence of perceived feasibility tended to be
more significant in western regions than in the rest of the country,
whereas concern for origin and perceived quality attributes in
locally produced foods were less influential in the models for
western Denmark.1 These findings might suggest an east-west
or urban-rural divide in the importance of feasibility and geo-
graphic origin to the consumers.
Discussion
The PCA identified fairly distinct dimensions in the 40 response
variables, with clear distinctions between value dimensions and
perception dimensions. Furthermore, rather clear distinctions were
found between perception dimensions related to organic and local
1
Results can be obtained from the authors upon request.

638 International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 634641

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
J.D. Jensen and M.R. Mrkbak Role of gastronomic, externality and feasibility attributes

Table 5 Results of unordered multinomial logit regression apples

Without interaction With interaction

Organic Local Organic and local Organic Local Organic and local

Mean dep. 0.235 0.032 0.025 0.235 0.032 0.025

Perceived quality, organic 1.513 *** 0.528 * 0.936 *** 1.577 *** 0.522 * 1.082 ***
Perceived quality, local 0.101 0.469 * 0.361 0.044 0.499 * 0.520 *
Perceived environment effect, organic 0.037 0.003 0.190 0.074 0.192 1.193 *
Perceived environment effect, local 0.123 ** 0.122 0.674 0.099 0.247 0.192
Value, externalities 1.016 *** 0.810 *** 0.981 *** 0.711 *** 1.038 ** 0.146
Value, externalities perceived 0.273 0.263 1.567 **
environment effect, organic
Value, externalities perceived 0.431 0.140 0.979
environment effect, local
Perceived availability, organic 0.522 *** 0.118 0.665 ** 0.565 *** 0.508 0.894 *
Perceived availability, local 0.296 ** 0.853 *** 0.437 0.363 * 0.793 * 0.347
Perceived price, organic 0.207 0.056 0.177 0.227 * 0.041 0.226
Value, feasibility 1.028 *** 0.447 0.673 ** 1.198 *** 0.935 * 1.149 *
Value, feasibility perceived availability, 0.256 0.121 0.496
organic
Value, feasibility perceived availability, 0.162 0.818 0.600
local
Other value, geographic origin 0.213 * 0.078 0.668 ** 0.162 0.095 0.806 **
Intercept 1.521 *** 3.649 *** 4.579 *** 1.481 *** 3.939 *** 4.294 ***
Log likelihood 1553.2 1527.9

*Significant at 95% level, **significant at 99% level, ***significant at 99.9% level.

foods respectively. This suggests that consumers tend to perceive
characteristics of organic and local products differently, as regards
gastronomic, externality and feasibility attributes. Somewhat cor-
responding patterns were found by Weatherell et al. (2003) and
Zepeda and Deal (2009).
Findings from the multinomial logit analysis suggest that
although consumers perception of foods gastronomic quality is a
main driver of their stated product variety choice, their values and
perceptions regarding externality and feasibility attributes are
important co-drivers for their propensity to choose organic or local
products. Whereas consumers concern for feasibility affects the
propensity of choice directly, their concern for externality aspects
tends rather to mediate the effects of perceived externality attrib-
utes. Hence, provision of information on such attributes may have
strongest influence on the purchasing behaviour of already con-
cerned consumers.
A difference in results and identified mechanisms regarding
externality attributes between honey and apples suggest a differ-
ence in consumers perception of the organic varieties environ-
mental friendliness for the two product categories.
An important implication of these findings is that efforts to
promote the demand for organic and/or local foods, through
product information and building of product image should be
carefully targeted because synergy between these variety types can
only be anticipated to a limited extent. In contrast, initiatives that
increase consumers general concern for externality issues may
affect the demand for both organic and local varieties positively.
In relation to geographic labelling schemes in broader contexts,
such as the European PDO, PGI or TSG schemes, our findings
imply that initiatives to improve and sustain consumers positive
perception of geographically labelled products gastronomic
quality (and to a lesser extent the products externality and feasi-
bility characteristics) may stimulate the propensity to choose these
products.
It may appear surprising that high perception of organic prod-
ucts availability affects the propensity to choose organic nega-
tively. An interpretation could be that non-organic consumers have
biased subjective estimates of the availability, or that high avail-
ability undermines the exclusiveness of organic products.
Some methodological issues should be mentioned. First, the
analysis is based on respondents stated purchasing behaviour,
which may deviate from actual choice behaviour. This is suspected
to induce an upward bias in the estimated propensity to choose
organic or local varieties, whereas the influence on ranking and
significance of the explanatory variables in the statistical analysis
is unclear. Second, the sequence of questions in the questionnaire
may have affected some of the results, if questions cross-
contaminate each other. Third, aggregation of 40 response vari-
ables into 10 principal components makes the representation of
consumers values and perceptions more parsimonious, but may
also blur some of the detailed nuances from the individual state-
ments. Fourth, due to the cross-section nature of the data, causal
interpretations should be made with care. Fifth, as the socio-
demographic composition of the survey participants has an over-
representation of high-income households and households with
children, the results may provide a biased representation of the
population as a whole. Whereas high income level is suspected to
imply an upward bias in estimated propensity to choose organic
products, the implications for choice of local products are less
clear. Furthermore, it is not a priori clear, to what extent the
findings for honey and apples can be generalized to other product
categories, e.g. highly processed foods.

International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 634641 639

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Role of gastronomic, externality and feasibility attributes
Conclusion
Results of this study show that although both organic and local
food supply chains are often associated with special attributes such
as gastronomic characteristics and beneficial externality attributes,
these attributes are perceived differently for the two types of
supply chains and by different consumers.
High perception of organic or local products gastronomic
quality was directly and positively associated with the propensity
to choose these respective product varieties. Concern for external
effects of food production was also found to be an important
correlate for the choice of both organic and local products either
directly (for apples) or indirectly by mediating consumers per-
ception of products externality attributes (for organic honey).
Consumers concern for feasibility seemed to have a negative
influence on choice propensities, and positive perception of the
organic or local products feasibility characteristics was not suffi-
cient to compensate for this concern. More positive perception of
organic or local varieties externality characteristics does not seem
to influence consumers propensity to choose these varieties much,
whereas more positive feasibility perception of local products
might have a positive influence on the propensity to choose local
foods.
These findings could have important implications for the devel-
opment of marketing strategies for organic and local foods, respec-
tively, and in particular for the content of information to be
communicated in such marketing strategies.
References
Aguilera, A.M., Escabias, M. & Valderrama, M.J. (2006) Using princi-
pal components for estimating logistic regression with high-
dimensional multicollinear data. Computational Statistics & Data
Analysis, 50, 19051924.
Batte, M.T., Hooker, N.H., Haab, T.C. & Beaverson, J. (2007) Putting
their money where their mouths are: consumer willingness to pay for
multi-ingredient, processed organic food products. Food Policy, 32,
145159.
Bocuse, dOr (2013) The Bocuse dOr winners academy 2012. [WWW
document]. URL http://www.bocusedor-europe.com/the-winners
-of-the-2-aa2-bocuse-d-or-europe (accessed on 9 January
2013).
Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P. & Lagerkvist, C.-J. (2007) Consumer willing-
ness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transpor-
tation to slaughter. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 34,
321344.
Carpio, C.E. & Isengildina-Massa, O. (2009) Consumer willingness to
pay for locally grown products: the case of South Carolina. Agribusi-
ness, 25, 412426.
Chambers, S., Lobb, A., Butler, L., Harvey, K. & Traill, W.B. (2007)
Local, national and imported foods: a qualitative study. Appetite, 49,
208213.
Clements, R. (2004) Keeping farmers on the land: agritourism in the
European Union. Iowa Agricultural Review, 10, 89. [WWW docu-
ment]. URL http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/summer_04/
article4.aspx (accessed on 5 April 2012).
Darby, K., Batte, M.T., Ernst, S. & Roe, B. (2006) Willingness to Pay
for Locally Produced Foods: A Customer Intercept Study of Direct
Market and Grocery Store Shoppers. Paper presented at American
640
J.D. Jensen and M.R. Mrkbak
Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach,
California.
Darby, K., Batte, M.T., Ernst, S. & Roe, B. (2008) Decomposing local:
a conjoint analysis of locally produced foods. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 90, 476486.
European Union Committee of the Regions (2011) Local food systems
can boost rural development and improve the CAP. Committee of the
Regions Tells Commissioner Ciolos. press release COR/11/3, Brus-
sels, 27 January 2011. [WWW document]. URL http://europa.eu/
rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=COR/11/3&format=PDF
&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en (accessed on 5 April
2012).
Giraud, K.L., Bond, C.A. & Bond, J.J. (2005) Consumer preferences
for locally made specialty food products across Northern New
England. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 34,
204216.
Groves, A.M. (2001) Authentic British food products: a review of con-
sumer perceptions. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 25 (e),
246254.
Grunert, K.G., Bredahl, L. & Bruns, K. (2004) Consumer perception of
meat quality and implications for product development in the meat
sector a review. Meat Science, 66, 259272.
Hbert, M. (2011) Examining current research on local food: a
review. Studies by Undergraduate Researchers at Guelph, 4,
8892.
Hughner, R.S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C.J. & Stanton, J.
(2007) Who are organic consumers? A compilation and review of why
people purchase organic food. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6,
94110.
Kuznetsof, S., Tregear, A. & Moxey, A. (1997) Regional foods: a con-
sumer perspective. British Food Journal, 99, 1992006.
Lassen, J. & Korzen, S. (2009) The environment overlooked? The role
of environmental concerns in organic food discourses. Anthropology
of Food, S5 . [WWW document]. URL http://aof.revues.org/6412
(accessed on 28 August 2012).
Loureiro, M.L. & McCluskey, J.J. (2000) Assessing consumer response
to protected geographical identification labelling. Agribusiness, 16,
309320.
Loureiro, M.L. & Hine, S. (2002) Discovering niche markets: a com-
parison of consumer willingness to pay for local (Colorado grown),
organic and GMO-free products. Journal of Agricultural and Applied
Economics, 34, 477487.
Marsden, T., Banks, J. & Bristow, G. (2000) Food supply chain
approaches: exploring their role in rural development. Sociologia
Ruralis, 40, 424438.
Marsden, T. & Smith, E. (2005) Ecological entrepreneurship: sustainable
development in local communities through quality food production
and local branding. Geoforum, 36, 440451.
Martinez, S. (2010) Local Food Systems Concepts, Impacts and
Issues, ERS-USDA, Economic Research Report Number 97.
Sims, R. (2010) Putting place on the menu: the negotiation of locality in
UK food tourism, from production to consumption. Journal of Rural
Studies, 26, 105115.
Stefani, G., Romano, D. & Cavicchi, A. (2006) Consumer expectations,
liking and willingness to pay for specialty foods: do sensory charac-
teristics tell the whole story. Food Quality and Preference, 17,
5362.
Weatherell, C., Tregear, A. & Allinson, J. (2003) In search of the con-
cerned consumer: UK public perceptions of food, farming and buying
local. Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 233244.
Yiridoe, E.K., Bonti-Ankomah, S. & Martin, R.C. (2005) Comparison of
consumer perceptions and preferences towards organic versus conven-
tionally produced foods: a review and update of the literature. Renew-
able Agriculture and Food Systems, 20, 193205.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 634641
2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
J.D. Jensen and M.R. Mrkbak Role of gastronomic, externality and feasibility attributes

Yue, C. & Tong, C. (2009) Organic or local? Investigating consumer Zepeda, L. & Leviten-Reid, C. (2004) Consumers views on local food.
preference for fresh produce using a choice experiment with real eco- Journal of Food Distribution Research, 35, 16.
nomic incentives. HortScience, 44, 366371.
Zepeda, L. & Deal, D. (2009) Organic and local food consumer behav-
iour: alphabet theory. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33,
697705.

Appendix
Table A1 Descriptive statistics stated product perception for honey and apples, organic vs. conventional production, or local vs. non-local production

Honey Apples

Mean SD Mean SD

OrgEnvHoney Organic products are more environmentally friendly (honey) 3.14 1.04 3.22 0.95
OrgHealthHoney Organic products are healthier (honey) 2.82 1.14 2.97 1.09
OrgTasteHoney Organic products taste better (honey) 2.51 1.11 2.55 1.13
OrgPestHoney The are no pesticide residues in organic products (honey) 3.11 1.01 3.13 0.96
OrgAppealHoney Organic products look more appealing (honey) 1.88 1.05 1.83 1.04
OrgQualHoney The quality is better in organic products (honey) 2.50 1.12 2.49 1.11
OrgAccessHoney Organic products are easier to find in the shop (honey) 1.83 1.01 1.78 1.01
OrgPriceHoney Organic products are cheaper (honey) 0.50 0.73 0.55 0.75
LocEnvHoney Locally produced goods are more environmentally friendly (honey) 2.53 1.11 2.61 1.09
LocHealthHoney Locally produced goods are healthier (honey) 1.80 0.99 1.98 1.01
LocTasteHoney Locally produced goods taste better (honey) 2.10 1.03 2.17 1.01
LocQualHoney The quality is better in locally produced goods (honey) 2.08 1.00 2.11 0.99
LocAccessHoney Locally produced goods are more accessible (honey) 1.99 1.08 1.99 1.07
LocPriceHoney Locally produced goods are cheaper (honey) 1.48 0.97 1.55 0.98
LocMyHoney Locally produced goods are produced in my area (honey) 2.74 1.23 2.73 1.22

Response levels: 1, fully agree; 2, partly agree; 3, neither agree nor disagree; 4, partly disagree; 5, fully disagree.
Variable names are shown for honey. Corresponding names apply for apples, e.g. OrgEnvAppl represents the statement Organic products are more
environmentally friendly (apples).

Table A2 Descriptive statistics stated attribute importance variables

Meat Dairy Fruit/veg Food

It is important to me that . . . Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

FoodOrg . . . the product is organic 1.94 1.28 2.38 1.40 2.27 1.25 2.20 1.31
FoodOri . . . that I can see the origin 3.35 0.97 3.22 1.00 3.20 1.01 3.26 0.99
FoodImp . . . the product is produced abroad 0.65 0.89 0.59 0.88 0.81 0.92 0.68 0.90
FoodDK . . . the product is produced in Denmark 2.69 1.18 3.03 1.12 2.58 1.15 2.77 1.15
FoodMy . . . the product is produced in my local area 1.50 1.09 1.64 1.08 1.66 1.02 1.60 1.06
FoodAcc . . . the product is easily accessible 3.09 0.81 3.23 0.80 3.17 0.80 3.16 0.80
FoodEnv . . . the product is produced in an 2.86 0.99 2.98 0.99 3.01 0.96 2.95 0.98
environmentally friendly way
FoodWelf . . . the product is produced with high animal 3.10 0.93 3.11 0.96 3.11 0.95
welfare
FoodFat . . . the product is low fat 3.06 0.98 3.02 1.05 3.04 1.02
FoodPrice . . . the price is low 2.26 1.08 2.34 1.13 2.36 1.10 2.32 1.10

Response levels: 1, fully agree; 2, partly agree; 3, neither agree nor disagree; 4, partly disagree; 5, fully disagree.

International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 634641 641

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd