J East Asian Soc Diet Life 26(2): 152 162 (2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.17495/easdl.2016.4.26.2.152 152 1 2 3 1, 2, 3 Survey on Recognition and Purchase Decision Factors related to Organic Food in Housewives with Young Children Byung-Hee Kim 1, Keun-Young Choi 2 and Kun-Og Kang 3 1 Dept. of Hotel Culinary Foodservice Management, Catholic Kwandong University, Gangnueng 25601, Korea 2 Lotte Hotel, Seoul 04533, Korea 3 Dept. of Nutrition and Culinary Science, Hankyong National University, Anseong 17579, Korea ABSTRACT This study surveyed recognition and purchase decision factors related organic food in housewives with young children. The most common reason for purchasing was environmental-friendly with 47.6%. When checking food labels, nutritional ingredients was the most considered (29.5%). Preference levels for organic food were in the following order: grains (26.8%) > vegetables (23.7%) > dairy (16.9%) > root and tuber crops (14.0%) > fruits (6.0%). For awareness of quality of organic food, the highest awareness factor was safer than normal food at 3.91±0.72. For awareness of confidence in organic food, the highest awareness factor was good for health at 4.11±0.68. For awareness of satisfaction of organic food, the highest awareness factor was origin labeling at 4.02±0.76. Regarding awareness of purchasing intention of organic food, the highest awareness factor was I will purchase organic food as possible as I can at 4.02±0.79. In the correlation analysis, confidence and satisfaction displayed the highest correlation (0.640), and there were other significant correlations between value/purchasing intention (0.586), confidence/purchasing intention (0.560), and satisfaction/purchasing intention (0.575). Further, the analysis showed that among value, quality, and price, only value had direct influence on the purchasing intention. Key words: Organic food, recognition, purchase decision factor Corresponding author : Kun-Og Kang, Tel: +82-31-670-5181, Fax: +82-31-670-5187, E-mail : cocco-9522@hanmail.net,,,, (Choi MH et al 2010). (wellbeing) (Park SJ & You SY 2007). ( )., (Kim DK et al 2011). 1990,, 2000 (You SY et al 2008). Korea agro-fisheries & Food Trade Corporation(2014) 2009 2013 8.1%, 2013 748 1,600. 2018 998 8,160, 1999 150 14 5.,.,.,.
26(2): 152 162 (2016) 153.,,.., (Kim MJ & Park GS 2014), (Kim DK et al 2011), (You SY et al 2008; Choi HS & Lee KK 2012; Kim JH 2012), (Suh BW 2010),, (Choi JE & Kim YG 2011),,,, (Lee HE & Kim HC 2012). (An JH & Kang KO 2006), (Jang JH 2012), (Song HY 2012).,,.. 1., (Jang JH 2012; Song HY 2012)., 7, 9, (10 ), (9 ), (8 ) (6 ) 4 20.,,. 2014 4 6 450, 413 (91.8%). 2. SPSS 21(IBM, USA).,,. ( ),, t-test,,,. Likert 5 1, 5. 1. Table 1. 413 199 (48.2%), 214 (51.8%), 12 19.1%, 1 2 9.4%, 2 3 20.8%, 3 4 30.5%, 4 5 8.5%, 5 11.6%. 30 39 58.4%, 20 29 21.8%, 40 19.9%, 92.9%. 301 400 36.1%, 200 300 27.4%, 401 500 22.5%. 10 15 28.1%, 16 20 25.4%, 21 25 23.5%, 10 14.0%. 2. Table 2. 175 (42.3 %), 36.0%, 12.1%, 9.4%, 0.2%, Likert 5 3.49 ±0.83. Jang JH(2012), 64.1%, 63.0%
154 Table 1. General characteristics of subjects (N=413) Variation Items N % Gender of the child Age of the child (years) Age of the mother (years) Education level of the mother Average monthly income (10,000 won) Weekly food expense (10,000 won) Boys 199 48.2 Girls 214 51.8 <12 months 79 19.1 1 2 39 9.4 2 3 86 20.8 3 4 126 30.5 4 5 35 8.5 5 48 11.6 20 29 90 21.8 30 39 241 58.4 40 82 19.9 High school 29 7.0 University 352 85.2 Graduate school 32 7.7 <200 27 6.5 200 300 113 27.4 301 400 149 36.1 401 500 93 22.5 501 31 7.5 <10 58 14.0 10 15 116 28.1 16 20 105 25.4 21 25 97 23.5 26 37 9.0. Kim MJ & Park GS(2014), 2 5.0%. 41.3%, 38.4%, 12.6%, 6.5%, 1.2%. 3.39 ±0.83. 55.8%, 23.7%, 17.4%, 1.7%, Table 2. Awareness of organic food and status of checking label when purchasing Variation Items N % Mean±S.D. Awareness of organic food Status of checking label Awareness of kinds of organic food sold Hardly aware 1 0.2 A little aware 50 12.1 Moderate 149 36.0 Well aware 175 42.3 Very well aware 39 9.4 Not at all 5 1.2 A little bit 52 12.6 Moderate 159 38.4 Often 171 41.3 Everytime 27 6.5 Hardly aware 6 1.4 A little aware 72 17.4 Moderate 231 55.8 Aware 98 23.7 Well aware 7 1.7 3.49±0.83 3.39±0.83 3.07±0.73 Mean±S.D.: The scores were based on the mean scores measured on a Likert scale from 1 to 5. 1.4%, 3.07±0.73,., Table 3 92.5%, 10 29% 35.5%. 10% 32.4%, 30 49% 14.9%, 50 69% 14.6%,. 53.0%, 27.4%, Embrain Trend Monitor(2011) Jang JH(2012) 76.2%, 52.1%,. Table 4 47.6%, 29.5%, 13.8%, 8.2%. (Jang JH 2012)
26(2): 152 162 (2016) 155 Table 3. Experience, rate, and place of purchase of organic food Variation Items N % Variation Items N % <10 124 32.4 10 29 136 35.5 Purchase rate (%) 30 49 57 14.9 50 69 56 14.6 Purchase experience Yes 383 92.5 Purchase place 70 89 8 2.1 90 2 0.5 Organic market 105 27.4 Supermarket 203 53.0 Farmers market 20 5.2 Department store 53 13.8 Others 2 0.5 No 31 7.5 Total 414 100.0 Table 4. Reason and consideration for purchasing organic food Variation Items N % Reason for purchasing Consideration for purchasing Confidence 34 8.2 Quality 57 13.8 Environment friendly 197 47.6 Healthy 122 29.5 Others 4 1.0 Distribution method 3 0.7 Ingredients 15 3.6 Nutrition 122 29.5 Freshness 106 25.6 Price 50 12.1 Cultivating method 91 22.0 Company name value 27 6.5 63.2%,. Kim HK(2009). Kim DK et al(2011) 40 50,,.,,,,,, 7, 29.5 %. 25.6%, 22.0%, 12.1%, 6.5%, 3.6%, 0.7%.,,,,,,,, 9, 1 3., Table 5 1 26.8%, 23.7%, 16.9%, 14.0%, 6.0%. Embrain Trend Monitor(2011) 67.6%, 62.5%, 58.3%, / / 50.4%, / 46.3%. Kim MJ & Park GS(2014) > > > > >, Hwang JS(2011) 64.7%.
156 Table 5. Preference of organic food Variation Items 1st 2nd 3rd N % N % N % Grains 111 26.8 208 50.2 19 4.6 Vegetables 98 23.7 104 25.1 34 8.2 Dairy 70 16.9 60 14.5 23 5.6 Kinds of organic food Root and tuber crops 58 14.0 14 3.4 40 9.7 Fruits 25 6.0 19 4.6 77 18.6 Seasoning 17 4.1 3 0.7 89 21.5 Nuts 15 3.6 4 1.0 105 25.4 Meat 12 2.9 2 0.5 19 4.6 Drink 8 1.9 0 0.0 8 1.9 3.,, 4. Table 6 3.63 3.91±0.72. 3.90±0.73. 3.09±1.11. Jang JH(2012) 32.7%, 22.8%, 22.1%, 15.7%, 6.7%. 3.80, 4.11±0.68. 3.98±0.62, 3.49±0.83, 3.49±0.79. Embrain Trend Monitor(2011) 80.2%, 61.1%. Jang JH(2012) 67.9%,.. 3.64,, 4.02 ±0.76. 3.76± 0.69, 3.75±0.68, 3.30±0.88. 3.64, 4.02±0.79. 3.73 ±0.73, 3.72±0.77, 3.15±1.07.,, 4. Song HY(2012),,,.800,,.800.. 4.,,,,,, 6
26(2): 152 162 (2016) 157 Table 6. Awareness of quality, confidence, satisfaction and purchasing intention of organic food (N: %) Variation Items Hardly aware A little aware Moderate Well aware Very well aware Mean±S.D. Purchase price is worth the quality 1 (0.2) 13 ( 3.1) 89 (21.5) 233 (56.3) 78 (18.8) 3.90±0.73 Safer than ordinary food 1 (0.2) 10 ( 2.4) 91 (22.0) 235 (56.8) 77 (18.6) 3.91±0.72 Satisfied with overall use 3 (0.7) 14 ( 3.4) 88 (21.4) 230 (55.8) 77 (18.7) 3.88±0.77 Better quality than ordinary food 1 (0.2) 21 ( 5.1) 94 (22.7) 230 (55.6) 68 (16.4) 3.83±0.77 Quality Short expiation date 11 (2.7) 38 ( 9.2) 143 (34.5) 172 (41.5) 50 (12.1) 3.51±0.91 No genetic engineering 1 (0.2) 12 ( 2.9) 90 (21.8) 235 (57.0) 74 (18.0) 3.63±0.85 3.90±0.73 Price is important for purchase decision 0 (0.0) 38 ( 9.2) 114 (27.7) 207 (50.2) 53 (12.9) 3.67±0.82 Must pay high price for purchase 2 (0.5) 57 (13.8) 129 (31.3) 177 (43.0) 47 (11.4) 3.51±0.89 Too expensive to purchase 17 (4.1) 113 (27.4) 120 (29.1) 123 (29.9) 39 ( 9.5) 3.13±1.05 No difference from ordinary food quality 33 (8.0) 95 (23.1) 127 (30.8) 116 (28.2) 41 (10.0) 3.09±1.11 Good for health 1 (0.2) 3 ( 0.7) 59 (14.3) 234 (56.8) 115 (27.9) 4.11±0.68 Environment friendly 0 (0.0) 6 ( 1.5) 67 (16.3) 270 (65.5) 69 (16.7) 3.98±0.62 Trustworthy to eat 1 (0.2) 7 ( 1.7) 74 (18.0) 246 (59.7) 84 (20.4) 3.98±0.69 Confidence Healthier than ordinary food 2 (0.5) 10 ( 2.4) 123 (29.9) 216 (52.4) 61 (14.8) 3.79±0.74 3.80±0.74 More expensive than ordinary food 1 (0.2) 14 ( 3.4) 110 (26.7) 216 (52.4) 71 (17.2) 3.83±0.75 Food taste 2 (0.5) 31 ( 7.5) 184 (44.7) 154 (37.4) 41 (10.0) 3.49±0.79 Overall confidence 4 (1.0) 23 ( 5.6) 137 (33.3) 190 (46.1) 58 (14.1) 3.67±0.82 Better health after use 6 (1.5) 27 ( 6.6) 184 (44.7) 150 (36.4) 45 (10.9) 3.49±0.83 Satisfied with origin labeling 3 (0.7) 7 ( 1.7) 76 (18.4) 220 (53.4) 106 (25.7) 4.02±0.76 Satisfied with associated labeling 2 (0.5) 12 ( 2.9) 112 (27.2) 247 (60.0) 39 ( 9.5) 3.75±0.68 Satisfied with nutrition labeling 0 (0.0) 12 ( 2.9) 148 (35.9) 204 (49.5) 48 (11.7) 3.70±0.71 Satisfaction Satisfied with safety 1 (0.2) 13 ( 3.2) 115 (27.9) 239 (58.0) 44 (10.7) 3.76±0.69 3.64±0.77 Satisfied with healthiness 2 (0.5) 15 ( 3.6) 162 (39.3) 189 (45.9) 44 (10.7) 3.63±0.74 Satisfied with high nutrition 1 (0.2) 16 ( 3.9) 179 (43.4) 169 (41.0) 47 (11.4) 3.59±0.75 Satisfied with price 3 (0.7) 71 (17.2) 171 (41.5) 132 (32.0) 35 ( 8.5) 3.30±0.88 Satisfied with variety 17 (4.1) 60 (14.6) 132 (32.0) 168 (40.8) 35 ( 8.5) 3.35±0.97 I will purchase organic food as possible as I can. 3 (0.7) 13 ( 3.2) 67 (16.3) 218 (52.9) 111 (26.9) 4.02±0.79 I will purchase easy-to-cook products. 1 (0.2) 17 ( 4.1) 124 (30.1) 221 (53.6) 49 (11.9) 3.73±0.73 Purchasing intension I will choose organic food in the future. 1 (0.2) 21 ( 5.1) 127 (30.8) 208 (50.5) 55 (13.3) 3.72±0.77 3.64±0.82 I will continue purchasing. 0 (0.0) 29 ( 7.0) 132 (32.0) 218 (52.9) 33 ( 8.0) 3.62±0.73 I will spend more time while purchasing. 23 (5.6) 103 (25.0) 116 (28.2) 131 (31.8) 39 ( 9.5) 3.15±1.07 I will continue purchasing for health. 4 (1.0) 33 ( 8.0) 136 (33.0) 200 (48.5) 39 ( 9.5) 3.58±0.81 Mean±S.D.: The scores were based on the mean scores measured on a Likert scale from 1 to 5.
158, 3 5. Table 7 25.,, 3, 2.199.,, 3, 1.738.,,, 4, 2.165.,,,, 5, 2.767.,,,, 5, 3.009.,, Table 7. Validity and reliability of the awareness of the purchase decision factors on organic food Variation Factor loading Eigen value Purchase price is worth the quality.878 Cumulative distribution (%) Cronbach's α Value Quality Price Confidence Satisfaction Purchasing intension Satisfied with overall use.861 Safer than ordinary food.829 Better quality than ordinary food.825 No genetic engineering.762 Short expiration date.690 Too expensive to purchase.817 Must pay high price for purchase.752 No difference from ordinary food quality.705 Price is important for purchase decision.659 Good for health.837 Trustworthy to eat.799 Environment friendly.777 Healthier than ordinary food.710 Overall confidence.565 Satisfied with associated labeling.822 Satisfied with origin labeling.791 Satisfied with nutrition labeling.777 Satisfied with safety.754 Satisfied with healthiness.732 I Will purchase organic food as possible as I can.820 I will choose organic food in th future.787 I will purchase easy-to-cook products.783 I will continue purchasing.696 I will continue purchasing for health.564 2.199 73.304.818 1.738 57.938.623 2.165 54.120.712 2.767 55.333.783 3.009 60.182.833 2.708 54.160.781
26(2): 152 162 (2016) 159,, 5, 2.708., 6 1,. (Cronbach's α), 0.818, 0.623, 0.712, 0.783, 0.833, 0.781. 0.6, 6. (Table 8), 0.658, (0.640), (0.592) (0.592), (0.586), (0.575), (0.560). ( 0.164), ( 0.134), ( 0.095), ( 0.089), (0.009). Song HY(2012),. 5.,,,,. Table 9 (p<0.01), (p<0.01), (p<0.01), (p<0.01), (p<0.01) (p<0.01). (p<0.05), (p<0.01), (p<0.05), (p<0.01), (p<0.01). 4.03±0.38, 4.01±0.50, 3.36±0.72. Table 8. Correlation analysis of purchasing status and purchase decision factor on organic food Variation Value Quality Price Confidence Satisfaction Purchasing intension Awareness of organic food Status of checking label Purchase rate Awareness of kind of organic food Intension toward repurchase Value 1 Quality.524 ** 1 Price.095.334 ** 1 Confidence.547 **.346 **.105 * 1 Satisfaction.525 **.324 **.074.640 ** 1 Purchasing intension Awareness of organic food Status of checking label.586 **.380 **.044.560 **.575 ** 1.314 **.088.164 **.234 **.208 **.314 ** 1.280 **.244 **.005.177 **.134 **.299 **.592 ** 1 Purchase rate.238 **.156 **.089.199 **.115 *.312 **.559 **.490 ** 1 Awareness of kind of organic food Intension toward repurchase.395 **.147 **.134 **.264 **.227 **.379 **.487 **.398 **.518 ** 1.389 **.264 **.009.248 **.180 **.342 **.592 **.658 **.451 **.425 ** 1 * p<0.05, ** p<0.01.
160 Table 9. Differences in awareness of purchase decision factors on organic food according to purchasing status Variation Awareness of purchase decision factors on organic food Value Quality Price Confidence Satisfaction Purchase intension Media 3.59±0.77 3.49±0.55 3.10±0.69 3.59±0.62 3.45±0.71 3.47±0.60 Internet 4.01±0.50 3.90±0.56 3.36±0.72 3.99±0.48 3.86±0.53 3.89±0.49 Information source Books etc. 3.96±0.55 3.91±0.55 3.68±0.68 4.03±0.38 3.88±0.33 3.66±0.41 Advertisement 3.94±0.79 3.68±0.65 3.45±0.73 3.97±0.57 3.91±0.60 3.85±0.71 Friends 3.93±0.56 3.61±0.58 3.18±0.62 3.90±0.48 3.73±0.45 3.73±0.50 Others 3.24±1.01 3.10±0.84 3.11±0.60 3.39±0.59 3.27±0.75 3.13±0.89 F 7.354 ** 9.823 ** 6.230 ** 9.513 ** 8.490 ** 9.480 ** Organic market 4.06±0.57 3.78±0.49 3.15±0.77 3.98±0.52 3.78±0.52 3.83±0.47 Supermarket 3.82±0.61 3.71±0.62 3.40±0.69 3.87±0.51 3.76±0.57 3.71±0.56 Purchase place Farmers market 3.70±0.70 3.82±0.68 3.72±0.44 3.91±0.56 3.82±0.53 3.59±0.65 Department store 4.16±0.51 3.89±0.56 3.35±0.68 4.03±0.42 3.86±0.50 3.85±0.44 Others 2.56±0.96 2.67±1.05 3.00±0.91 2.93±0.52 2.83±0.75 2.50±0.75 F 14.020 ** 6.097 ** 5.033 ** 7.080 ** 4.872 ** 10.140 ** Confidence 3.74±0.83 3.44±0.66 3.16±0.53 3.91±0.52 3.75±0.51 3.58±0.61 Reason for purchasing Quality 3.96±0.64 3.77±0.60 3.08±0.77 3.85±0.54 3.71±0.56 3.79±0.47 Environment friendly 3.92±0.58 3.80±0.59 3.40±0.72 3.95±0.47 3.79±0.54 3.75±0.54 Healthy 3.91±0.63 3.75±0.58 3.46±0.70 3.87±0.59 3.78±0.60 3.75±0.58 F 0.944 3.560 * 4.748 ** 0.868 0.276 1.157 Nutrition 4.06±0.67 3.67±0.53 3.14±0.63 4.00±0.54 3.83±0.54 3.84±0.62 Consideration for purchasing Freshness 3.78±0.51 3.80±0.68 3.51±0.71 3.83±0.58 3.75±0.61 3.69±0.58 Price 3.87±0.68 3.75±0.69 3.50±0.76 3.92±0.45 3.68±0.51 3.64±0.62 Cultivation method 3.84±0.58 3.90±0.54 3.55±0.72 3.85±0.44 3.72±0.48 3.68±0.38 Others 3.90±0.77 3.53±0.62 2.97±0.59 3.92±0.52 3.87±0.64 3.76±0.56 F 3.166 * 3.646 ** 10.184 ** 1.672 1.344 1.879 * p<0.05, ** p<0.01. (4.16±0.51) (4.06±0.57), 3.15±0.77. 3.96±0.64, 3.95±0.47, 3.08±0.77. 4.06±0.67, (4.00±0.54), (3.14±0.63). 6..,,
26(2): 152 162 (2016) 161 Table 10. Multiple regression analysis Effect Dependent variable Independent variable β t F (Constant) 7.535 ** Direct effect Purchasing intension Value.564 11.346 ** Quality.057 1.081 74.636 ** Price.079 1.755 (Constant) 9.763 ** Confidence Value.562 11.045 ** Quality.001.022 64.732 ** Price.159 3.443 ** (Constant) 8.398 ** Indirect effect Satisfaction Value.533 10.220 ** Quality.008.151 55.648 ** Price.121 2.573 ** Purchasing intension Confidence.325 6.474 ** 132.238 ** (Constant) 5.659 ** Satisfaction.367 7.323 ** ** p<0.01.. Table 10,,.,.,,.. 92.5%, 10 29% 35.5%. (53.0%), 47.6%, 29.5%, (26.8%) > (23.7%) > (16.9%) > (14.0%) > (6.0%).,, (4.11±0.68).,,,,,, 0.640, (0.586), (0.560), (0.575). 0.095, (0.074), (0.044).,,,,...
162. REFERENCES An JH, Kang KO (2006) Consumption type of housewives about organic and instant food. Korean J Food & Nutr 19: 28-37. Choi HS, Lee KK (2012) A study of the factors influencing behavioral intention for organic food: Using the theory of planned behavior. J Distribution Science 10: 53-62. Choi JE, Kim YG (2011) The relationships of consumers' objective knowledge, subjective knowledge, risk perception and purchase intention of organic food. Korean J culinary Research 17: 153-168. Choi MH, Yoon SJ, Ahn YS, Seo KJ, Park KH, Kim GH (2010) A survey on the consumer's recognition of food labeling in Seoul area. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr 39: 1555-1564. Embrain Trend Monitor (2011) Tracking survey. pp. 4-17. Hwang JS (2011) A survey on use of environment friendly agricultural products for school food service by nutritionists in Kyeonggi province. MS Thesis Chung-Ang University, Seoul. pp. 1-39. Jang JH (2012) Investigation of the recognition of organic foodstuff and purchase behavior of housewives in Daegu area. MS Thesis Yeungnam University, Daegu. pp. 1-60. Kim DK, Kim SJ, Lee KH (2011) The effect of food choice motive on attitude and intention of purchasing organic food. Korean Society Food Culture 26: 506-512. Kim HK (2009) Effect of environmentally friendly foods on children with mild atopic dermatitis. MS Thesis Hanyang University, Seoul. pp. 1-36. Kim JH (2012) The study of attitude and intention of pur- chasing on organic food for female consumers. Tourism Research 34: 199-216. Kim MJ, Park GS (2014) Study on awareness and preference in adults regarding consumption of environmentally friendly organic food while eating-out according to gender and age. Korean J Food Culture 29: 151-162. Korea Agro-Fisheries & Food Trade Corporation (2014) Global organic food market. Organic Food Market Report, Gyeong- gido. pp 1-57. Lee HE, Kim HC (2012) The structural relationship of percei- ved value, perceived quality, environmental commitment, purchasing attitude and purchasing intention of organic food consumer. J Tourism Science 36: 295-318. Park SJ, You SY (2007) A study of the effect of health moti- vation and environmental concern on choosing organic food. Korean Consumption Culture Association 10: 107-126. Suh BW (2010) A study of consumers' food choice behavior by comparison of past experience-focus on organic food. Korean J Food Marketing Economics 27: 19-39. Song HY (2012) Determinants for purchasing organic foods of parents with elementary school students. MS Thesis Joong-Ang University, Seoul. pp. 1-55. You SY, Park SJ, Yin H, Dong X (2008) A study of influ- encing factors of behavioral intention for organic food. J Industrial Economics & Business 21: 441-460. Date Received Date Revised Date Accepted Dec. 11, 2015 Mar. 31, 2016 Mar. 31, 2016