D. Menozzi * a , C. Finardi b , U. Davoli a a Department of Food Science, University of Parma, Parma (Italy) b Confederazione Nazionale Coldiretti, Food Safety Dept., Rome, (Italy) 2 nd AIEAA Conference “Between Crisis and Development: which Role for the Bio-Economy” Parma, 6-7 June, 2013 Background Objective Sample and methodology Results Conclusions and Implications
12
Embed
2 AIEAA Conference - Agriregionieuropa · D. Menozzi * a, C. Finardi b, U. Davoli a a Department of Food Science, University of Parma, Parma (Italy) b Confederazione Nazionale Coldiretti,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
D. Menozzi * a, C. Finardi b, U. Davoli a
a Department of Food Science, University of Parma, Parma (Italy)b Confederazione Nazionale Coldiretti, Food Safety Dept., Rome, (Italy)
2nd AIEAA Conference“Between Crisis and Development: which Role for the Bio-Economy”
Parma, 6-7 June, 2013
Background
Objective
Sample and methodology
Results
Conclusions and Implications
Finale Emilia 13th century clock tower
The May 2012 earthquake waves have caused 26 deaths and diffuse damage in the Emilia-Romagna region with widespread national and international media coverage of the topic
Several dairies warehouses where Parmigiano-Reggiano is produced and aged were also seriously damaged
633,700 wheels fell off shelves (about 20% of annual production) and five dairies were declared unfit for use (> 150 million Euros)
The damaged product, named “Parmigiano-Reggiano Terremotato”(PR-T, namely “Parmigiano-Reggiano damaged by earthquake”) was:
1. melted or grated (if < 12 months maturation), 6 €/kg loss
2. sold at discounted price (if marked as PDO), 2 €/kg loss
The damaged product, named “Parmigiano-Reggiano Terremotato”(PR-T, namely “Parmigiano-Reggiano damaged by earthquake”) was:
3. sold during “solidarity” sales (Botteghe di Campagna Amica) in shops owned directly by farmers-producers- if respecting the PDO requirements (12 months of maturation, fair conservation)
What about food safety perception??
This paper aims to investigate the main determinants of “Parmigiano-Reggiano damaged by earthquake” (PR-T) purchasing; the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) was used as a conceptual framework Main research questions:
Besides the traditional TPB variables (i.e. attitude, PBC and subjective norm) which other variables influenced behaviour (i.e. Quantity of damaged PR purchase)?
What was the role of trust in formal (e.g. Consortium) and informal (e.g. word-to-mouth) communication channels about the hygienic and quality properties of PR-T?
What was the role of the PDO brand in reassuring consumers during a “food crisis”?
Was food scare perceived by consumers?
Preliminary focus groupPersonal interviews on a sample of 200 consumers performed in stores/markets where the damaged Parmigiano Reggiano has been sold The theory of planned behaviour (TPB):
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
Source: Ajzen (1991)
[…] the likelihood of a behaviour can be predicted by intention to perform that behaviour, which in turn is determined by personal
attitudes, subjective norms and perceptions of control
[…] the likelihood of a behaviour can be predicted by intention to perform that behaviour, which in turn is determined by personal
attitudes, subjective norms and perceptions of control
Other constructs were added: PDO Quality Warranty, Sense of Belonging, Formal Trust, Informal Trust, Food Scare Perception, Socio-demographic variables, etc.Behaviour is the quantity of PR-T purchasedA questionnaire was developedStructural equation modelling (SEM) technique has been applied to test for the relative importance of intention and behaviour determinants
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
Source: Ajzen (1991)
Quantity purchased: 820 kg
Average quantity purchased(excl. 2 outliers): 2.2 kg
Purchasers score significantly higher for:
• Attitude towards PR‐T purchase
• Subjective norms
• PBC (knew where to purchase PR‐T)
• Intention to purchase
• Sense of belonging to the region of origin
• More reassured by formaland informalcommunication
• Perceived more food scare
• Lower education
Results
51% of the intention and 22% of the behaviour variance can be explained by the TPB model
PBC is the main driver of intention
Attitude is also significant
Subjective norms are significant predictor of behaviour *** p<0.001
** p<0.01* p<0.05() p<0.1
*** p<0.001** p<0.01* p<0.05() p<0.1
70% of the intention variance can be explained by the extended‐TPB modelPBC is the main driver of intention Trust in formal communication (e.g. from Consortium) and PDO quality warranty are significant drivers of intention
*** p<0.001** p<0.01* p<0.05() p<0.1
32% of behaviour (quantity of PR‐T purchased) variance can be explained by the extended‐TPB model Subjective norms are main predictor of behaviourIntention is marginally significant (p‐value <0.1)
Behaviour is also affected by sense of belonging (+) and by food scare (‐) and frequency of consumption of PR (‐) Age (+) and education (‐) also impact actual behaviour
*** p<0.001** p<0.01* p<0.05() p<0.1
PBC influences intention: making it easier the access to key resources (e.g., improving information about the sales points, etc.) and increasing people’s capability seems a major aspect to effectively reach the intended goals
Role of “Formal Trust”: to rationally process information following more robust and accountable sources (e.g., Health authorities, Consortium of Parmigiano‐Reggiano, etc.) – is linked to the role of PDO quality warranty perception
Rational motivations (i.e., intentions) only marginally affect the behaviour, which was more guided by social and emotional motivations
SN and Sense of Belonging predictors of behaviour: the role of community networks and gate‐keepers in facilitating and transmitting a behaviour is confirmed + other emotional constructs (sense of belonging to the region)
Food scare perception was low, but still it negatively affects the behaviour (the quantity of PR‐T purchased)
Our results confirms that persons making PR‐T purchases were firstly motivated by emotional and solidarity reasons and only after, mirroring priorities relevance, gave ground food safety concerns to emerge
More info:Davide MenozziDepartment of Food ScienceUniversity of ParmaEmail: [email protected]