DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Consumption Behaviors and Satisfaction Levels of Consumer towards Environmentally-Friendly Agricultural and Animal Products

국내 친환경 농축산물의 소비행태와 만족도 분석

Kim, Gyewoong;Kim, Minjin
김계웅;김민진

  • Received : 2013.10.15
  • Accepted : 2014.01.24
  • Published : 2014.02.28

Abstract

This study was carried out to investigate the consumption behaviors of environmentally-friendly agricultural products, including satisfaction of purchases. Questionnaires completed consumers were statistically analyzed. Regarding purchase frequencies of environmentally-friendly agricultural and animal products, consumers consumed them 1 time per month. No significant differences in consumption by age, living area, family type, or BMI were found. Exactly 38.2% of consumers preferred to purchase items in the packing amount of 0.2-0.5 kg, whereas 39.7% of consumers preferred amounts from 0.5-1.0 kg. Significant differences in packing amount were found according to age (p<0.05) and family type (p<0.01). However, there were no significant differences according to living area or BMI group. Many consumers made decisions based on the outer packing label (69.6%). Significant differences by age and living area were not found, whereas there was significant difference according to family type (p<0.05). Consumers answered that they purchased products in a general supermarket (24.7%) and cooperative (24.2%). Significant differences were found by age and living area (p<0.01) but not by family type. Consumer satisfaction of purchases scored 3.39 out of 5 points. In conclusion, significant differences in consumer satisfaction were not found according to age, living area, family type, or BMI.

Keywords

Consumption behaviors;environmentally-friendly agricultural products;BMI

References

  1. Jolly DA, Schutz HG, Diaz-Knauf KV, Johal J. 1989. Consumer attitudes and use. Food Technol. 43:60-66
  2. Ahn PR, Ro CY, Kim DH. 2005. An analysis of consumer's satisfaction for environmentally friendly agricultural products in Gwangju. Korean J. of Food Marketing Econimics. 22(4):109-122
  3. Dittus KL, Hillers VN, Beerman KA. 1993. Attitudes and behaviors about pesticide residues, susceptibility to cancer, and consumption of fruits and vegetables. J Nutr Edu. 25:245-250 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3182(12)81003-X
  4. Jang JH, Kim IH, Cho JU, Lee SY. 2009. The relationship between oral concern and the purchase behavior of environmental friendly agricultural products. J. Korean Soc Dent Hyg. 9(4):1-13
  5. Kang CY, Jeong EM. 1999. Analysis of producer and consumer behavior for environment-friendly agricultural products. Journal of Rural Development. 22(4):61-74
  6. Kim GW, In KK, Shin YH. 2012. Analysis of current situation for management skill and manures treatment in pig farms. J. Lives. Hous. & Env. 18(1):35-44
  7. Kim CG, Seo SC, Kim TY. 2005. Analysis of consumer preferences and purchasing behaviors towards environmentally-friendly agricultural products. Journal of Rural Development. 27:91-112
  8. Kim CJ, 2009. A comparative analysis on the production, distribution and consumption situations by organization for environmental-friendly agricultural products. Master's thesis, The Graduate School of Dankook University. pp 15-35
  9. Kim GW, Kim SE. 2009. Analysis of the domestic consumer's preference and consumption behaviors on pork. J. Anim & Technol. (Kor.). 51(1):81-90 https://doi.org/10.5187/JAST.2009.51.1.081
  10. Kim H, Heo SW, Lee JE. 2010. An analysis and implications on the consumption and consciousness situation of green consumers. Korean J. of Food Marketing Economics. 2(3):43-6
  11. Korean Society for the Study of Obesity. 2000. 2000 Guide of Obesity. pp 10-15
  12. Kwon OS, Kim WB, Kim KS, Sohn IS. 2009. Analysis of consumer's preference for brandization of environmentfriendly agricultural products. Journal of Rural Development. 32(1):89-109
  13. Lee YS, Hong MH, Ryu K, Kim AJ, Ha SD. 2009. A survey of consumer's consumption characteristics of environmentalfriendly agricultural products (EFAP) -Focused on consumers in discount stores-. J. Fd Hyg. Safely. 24(2):111-123
  14. Lee YS, Oh SY, Kim GW. 2010. Analysis on the health condition, meal type and snack preference of university students in Chungnam province. Korean J. of Human Eco. 19(2):409-416 https://doi.org/10.5934/KJHE.2010.19.2.409
  15. Park JY. 2007. A study on use status of and satisfaction with environmental-friendly agricultural products by female consumers in Jeju area. Master's thesis, The Graduate School of Jeju National University. pp 16-25
  16. Ministry of Agricultural Food and Rural Affair. 2012. Main Statistical Data of Agriculture. pp 249-250
  17. NamKung S, Lee JY, Kim KD. 2007. A study on the recognition of organic food of housewives in Seoul area. Korean J. Food Preserv. 14(6):676-680
  18. Park HT, Kang CY, Jeong EM. 2000. Types of marketing channels of environment-friendly agricultural products and their development direction. Journal of Rural Development. 23(3):15-34
  19. Ro CY, Ahn PR. 2005. Comparison of satisfaction for environmental friendly agricultural products among life styles. Journal of Rural Development. 28(3):57-68
  20. Sin CR, Kim JS. 2009. Consumer's recognition for the system and policy of environment-friendly agricultural products. Jounal of Agriculture & Life Science. 43(3):63-75
  21. Sohn HJ. 2008. A study on the perception of the organic agricultural products and the state of purchasing them among housewives. Master's thesis, The Graduate School of Sangji University. pp 35-40
  22. Yang GSa. 2009. Distribution conditions and marketing strategies for environmentally friendly agricultural products. The Korean Association of Island. 21(1):153-170
  23. Yang SYb. 2009. A study on the utilization of environmentfriendly agricultural products of housewives in Busan. Master's thesis, The Graduate School of Dong-A University. pp 14-25
  24. Wilkins JL, Hillers VN. 1994. Influences of pesticide residue and environmental concerns on organic food preference among food cooperative members and nonmembers in Washington state. J Nutr Edu. 26:26-33 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3182(12)80831-4