Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management (품질경영학회지)

Korean Society for Quality Management (한국품질경영학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of Consumer Perceived Naturalness on Benefits, Attitude, and Willingness to Pay a Premium for Smart Farm Vegetables: Low Carbon Label as a Moderating Variable

스마트팜 채소에 대한 소비자의 지각된 자연성이 혜택과 태도 및 추가지불의도에 미치는 영향 : 저탄소 라벨의 조절효과 검증

  • Shin, Chaeyoung (Department of Food Service Management, Graduate Colleage, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Hwang, Johye (Colleage of Hotel & Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University)
  • 신채영 (경희대학교 일반대학원 조리외식경영학과) ;
  • 황조혜 (경희대학교 호텔관광대학)
  • Received : 2024.02.20
  • Accepted : 2024.03.19
  • Published : 2024.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Smart farming is related to the low carbon certification system as it provides many opportunities to cultivate and manage crops in an eco-friendly, thereby reducing carbon footprint. However, there is a significant lack of consumer perception research on low carbon labels for smart farms vegetables. Therefore, this study aims to investigate consumer perceptions of smart farm vegetable and low carbon labels. Methods: This study manipulated cultivation type(general vs. smart farm) and low carbon labels (yes vs. no) as experimental stimuli. Measurement questions and the research model were validated through confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis. Hypotheses testing were conducted using SPSS 29.0, AMOS 28.0. Results: The results of the study showed no significant difference in consumers perceived naturalness based on cultivation types, and there was also no moderating effect of the low carbon label. There was no difference between environmental benefits and health benefits according to the cultivation type. Perceived naturalness had a significant effect on both environmental and health benefits, and environmental benefits showed a higher impact relationship. These benefits positively affected attitudes and willingness to pay a premium, Environmental benefits had a higher impact on attitudes, while health benefits had a higher impact on willingness to pay a premium. Lastly, attitudes were found to have a significant impact on the willingness to pay a premium. Conclusion: This study is valuable in that it investigated consumer perceptions of smart farms and low carbon labels that have not been previously studied. It compares the environmental and health benefits, confirming their influence on attitudes and willingness to pay a premium. The results suggest a potential expansion in academic research on smart farming and low carbon labels, offering practical insights for marketing strategies and policies for relevant companies.

Keywords

References

  1. Abouab, N., & Gomez, P. 2015. Human contact imagined during the production process increases food naturalness perceptions. Appetite 91:273-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.002
  2. Ahn So Hyun & Hwang Jo Hye. 2020. The Effects of Consumers Perceived Benefits of Meat Alternatives on Trust and Purchase Intention. Journal of Foodservice Management 3(6):49-75.
  3. Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2):179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  4. Asioli, D., Zhou, X., Halmemies-Beauchet-Filleau, A., Vanhatalo, A., Givens, D. I., Rondoni, A., & Turpeinen, A. M. 2023. Consumers' Valuation for Low-Carbon Emission and Low-Saturated Fat Butter. Food Quality and Preference 104859.
  5. Benke, K., & Tomkins, B. 2017. Future food-production systems: vertical farming and controlled-environment agriculture. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 13(1):13-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2017.1394054
  6. Canavari, M., & Coderoni, S. 2020. Consumer stated preferences for dairy products with carbon footprint labels in Italy. Agricultural and Food Economics 8(1):1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-019-0138-4
  7. Cerjak, M., Karolyi, D., & KovaCiC, D. 2011. Effect of information about pig breed on consumer's acceptability of dry sausage. Journal of Sensory Studies 26(2):128-134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00329.x
  8. Delmas, M., & Grant, L. 2014. Eco-labeling strategies and price-premium: the wine industry puzzle. Bus. Soc. 53(1):6e44.
  9. Etale, A., & Siegrist, M. 2021. Food processing and perceived naturalness: Is it more natural or just more traditional?. Food Quality and Preference 94:104323.
  10. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. 1977. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
  11. Goldsmith, K., & Dhar, R. 2009. Getting gold by going green: The importance of fitting the message to the mindset. Advances in Consumer Research 36:50-51.
  12. Hamlin, R. P., McNeill, L. S., & Sim, J. 2022. Food neophobia, food choice and the details of cultured meat acceptance. Meat Science 194:108964.
  13. Hartikainen, H., Roininen, T., Katajajuuri, J. M., & Pulkkinen, H. 2014. Finnish consumer perceptions of carbon footprints and carbon labelling of food products. Journal of Cleaner Production 73:285-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.018
  14. Hartmann, P., & V. Apaolaza-Ibanez. 2008. Virtual nature experiences asemotional benefits in green product consumption: The moderating role ofenvironmental attitudes. Environment and Behavior 40(6):818-842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507309870
  15. Hwang Jin Soo, Lee Won Seok, Cho Joo Hyung, & Kim Hyun Joon. 2019. A study on selection attributes of seasoning foods of edible insects on attitude, intentions to use, and willingness to pay more. Event & Convention Research 15(3):77-91.
  16. Jeon Su Jin, Lee Sin Ae, & Hwang Jo Hye. 2022. The consumer perceptions of smart farm ingredients and their influence on willingness to pay a premium: Food labeling and food technophobia. Journal of Tourism Sciences 46(4):31-54.
  17. JRC, E. 2012. Product environmental footprint (PEF) guide. Ispra, European Commission Joint Research Centre.
  18. Ju Seon Hee. 2014. The Effect of Product Label Information on Customer Purchase Decision: Focus on Home Meal Replacement. Journal of Product Research 32(6):1-12. https://doi.org/10.36345/KACST.2014.32.6.001
  19. Kang Jinhee, Park Eunyeong, & Kang Jaehee. 2018. Effect of Expected Value of Smart Farm Produce Ingredients on Innovation Willingness and Sustainability. Korean Journal of Tourism Research 33(8):81-100.
  20. Kang Jung Hwa, & Lee Gyu Min. 2023. The Influence of Food Choice Motives of Vegetarians on Attitude, Satisfaction and Customer Citizenship Behavior toward Vegan Food. The Foodservice Management Society Of Korea 26(3):27-49. https://doi.org/10.47584/jfm.2023.26.3.27
  21. Kang Song Eun, & Hwang Jo Hye. 2019. The Effects of Sustainable Packaging Attributes on Consumers' Perceived Benefits. Jounal of Product Reasearch 37(2):207-219.
  22. Kang Sooram, Cho Kyungchul, & Na MyungHwan. 2021. Forecasting Crop Yield Using Encoder-Decoder Model with Attention. Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management 49(4):569-579. https://doi.org/10.7469/JKSQM.2021.49.4.569
  23. Kang Tae Sun, Kim Youn Sung, & Jung Dexter. 2021. ESG Management Practice Led by BYN Black Yak: The Resource Circulation System for Recycling Domestic Transparent PET Bottle. Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management 49(3):433-446. https://doi.org/10.7469/JKSQM.2021.49.3.433
  24. Keller, K. L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57(1):1-22.
  25. Kim Do Eun, & Son Yong Hoon. 2021. Evaluation of Perceived Naturalness of Urban Parks Using Hemeroby Index. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 49(2):89-100. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2021.49.2.089
  26. Kim Dong Beom. 2021. The Effect of Selection Attributes of Meal Kit on Brand Attitude and Repurchase Intention. Journal of Foodservice Management 24(4):99-123.
  27. Kim Seong Hwi, & Lee Choon Soo. 2022. A Study on Consumers' Perception and Willingness to Pay for Fruits and Vegetables Using Renewable Energy. Korean Journal of Organic Agriculture 30(2):255-277.
  28. Kim Sung Hyuk, Jeong Da Woon, & Kim Gyung Hoon. 2012. Analysis of the Relationship Among Image, Awareness, Public Confidence of Certificate Mark for Environment-Friendly Agricultural Products, and Purchase Intension. Journal of Foodservice Management 15(6):359-383.
  29. Kim Tae Hee, Yuan Ming, & Joo Sung Hui. 2018. The impact of brand experience on brand image, attitude and loyalty : Based on coffee shops in Beijing of China. Korea Academic Society of Hotel Administration 27(8):149-164.
  30. Kotler, P. 2002. Marketing places. Simon and Schuster.
  31. Lami, O., Mesias, F. J., Balas, C., Diaz-Caro, C., Escribano, M., & Horrillo, A. 2022. Does Carbon Footprint Play a Relevant Role in Food Consumer Behaviour? A Focus on Spanish Beef. Foods 11(23):3899.
  32. Lee Na Geum, Lee Yoo Jin, & Kim Tae Hee. 2021. A Study on the Influence of Egoistic and Altruistic Values on the Attitude and Purchase Intention of Vegan Food. Culinary Science & Hospitality Research 27(8):14-27.
  33. Lee Sin Ae, & Hwang Jo Hye. 2020. A Study on the Application of Visually Unattractive Food for Sustainable Consumption: Emotional and Cognitive Reactions to Food Shape and Organic Labeling. Journal of Tourism Sciences 44(2):181-205.
  34. Lee Yoo Jin, & Kim Tae Hee. 2020. The Influence of Consumption Values on Attitude andBehavioral Intention towards Vegetarian Restaurant: Focus on Millennial Generation. Journal of Food service Management 23(5):315-339.
  35. Min So Ra, Lee Seul Ki, & Kim Young Taek. 2020. The Effects of Perceived Benefit of OTA Users on Perceived Value and Intention to Co-Create : Focusing on the Value-based Adoption Model. Journal of Tourism Management Research 96:275-292.
  36. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, [Internet]. https://www.mafra.go.kr/home/5248/subview.do?enc=Zm5jdDF8QEB8JTJGYmJzJTJGaG9tZSUyRjc5NSUyRjQ4NTM4MSUyRmFydGNsVmlldy5kbyUzRg%3D%3D
  37. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, [Internet]. https://www.mafra.go.kr/home/5279/subview.do
  38. Moon Younhee. 2015. The Effect of Social and Personal Benefits of Green Product on the Product Evaluation: A Test of Alternative Model. Journal of Product Research 33(3):121-129. https://doi.org/10.36345/KACST.2015.33.3.012
  39. Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., ..., & Wirth, F. 2004. Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. Journal of Business Research 57(2):209-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00303-4
  40. Panchasara, H., Samrat, N. H., & Islam, N. 2021. Greenhouse gas emissions trends and mitigation measures in Australian agriculture sector-A review. Agriculture 11(2):85.
  41. Park Hyun Jung, & Lee Sang Hwan. 2012. Relationship among Corporate Social Responsibility, Trust in Fair Trade Certified Products, Purchase Intention and Willingness to Pay a Premium Price. Journal of Product Research 30:103-122. https://doi.org/10.36345/KACST.2012.30.7.009
  42. Printezis, I., Grebitus, C., & Printezis, A. 2017. Importance of perceived "naturalness" to the success of urban farming. Choices 32(1):1-7.
  43. Roman, S., Sanchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. 2017. The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology 67:44-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.06.010
  44. Royne, M. B., Levy, M., & Martinez, J. 2011. The public health implications of consumers environmental concern and their willingness to pay for an eco-friendly product. Journal of Consumer Affairs 45(2):329-343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2011.01205.x
  45. Rozin, P., Fischler, C., Imada, S., Sarubin, A., & Wrzesniewski, A. (1999). Attitudes to food and the role of food in life in the USA, Japan, Flemish Belgium and France: Possible implications for the diet-health debate. Appetite 33(2):163-180. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.0244
  46. Schifferstein, H. N., & Ophuis, P. A. O. 1998. Health-related determinants of organic food consumption in the Netherlands. Food Quality and Preference 9(3):119-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(97)00044-X
  47. Siegrist, M., & Sutterlin, B. 2017. Importance of perceived naturalness for acceptance of food additives and cultured meat. Appetite 113:320-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.019
  48. The Korea Agriculture Technology Promotion Agency [Internet]. https://www.smartgreenfood.org/jsp/front/business/b0201.jsp
  49. U.S Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation service. [Internet].https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ guide for organic crop producers, 2012
  50. Virk, A. L., Noor, M. A., Fiaz, S., Hussain, S., Hussain, H. A., Rehman, M., ..., & Ma, W. 2020. Smart Farming: an Overview. Smart Village Technology: Concepts and Developments, 191-201.
  51. Yeoman, I., & McMahon-Beattie, U. 2006. Luxury markets and premium pricing. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 4(4):319-328.
  52. Yoo Joon Woo, Park Junsung, & Park HeeJun. 2021. Evaluating the willingness to pay of public ESS facilities: Focusing on the enviromental benefits. Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management 49(2):161-170.