World Applied Sciences Journal 6 (3): 331-338, 2009
ISSN 1818-4952
© IDOSI Publications, 2009
Analysis of Factors Affecting Agricultural Organic Products Diffusion Among
Consumers: Perception of Extension Workers
1
Ali Asadi, 1Morteza Akbari, 2Aboulghasem Sharifzadeh and 1Seyyed Mahmoud Hashemi
Department of Agricultural Extension and Education,
College of Agricultural Economics and Development, University of Tehran, Iran
2
Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Iran
1
Abstract: Decades ago, agrochemicals were introduced aiming at enhancing crop yields and at protecting crops
from pests. Due to adaptation and resistance developed by pests to chemicals, every year higher amounts and
new chemical compounds are used to protect crops, causing undesired side effects and raising the costs of
food production. The main purpose of this study was to explore factors affecting agricultural organic products
(AOP) diffusion among Iranian consumers. A survey of 289 extension workers was conducted in Iran. To collect
data, a questionnaire was designed. The study found that TV & radio were the most important AOP information
delivery methods. Also results of exploratory factor analysis revealed that four factors determined about
59 percent of variations in diffusion of AOP: institutional (22.36 percent), cultural (16.28 percent), economic
(10.24 percent) and production (9.81percent).
Key words: Agricultural Organic Products (AOP)
Extension Workers
INTRODUCTIN
Agriculture is an important economic sector in
developing countries such as Iran [1]. In the past
two decades, growing environmental awareness in
combination with concerns about safer foods have led
people to question modern agricultural practices [2]. In
response to concerns about conventional agricultural
practices, food safety, human health concerns, [3-5]
and environmental safety [6-9] interests in organically
produced foods is increasing throughout the world.
These concerns along with observed organic consumer
behavior has led to emergence of various groups of
organic consumers, namely environmentalists, food
phobic's, healthy eaters, humanists, welfare enthusiasts
and hedonists [10].
The most common definitions of an organically
produced food emphasize product practices and
principles used and the ‘organic philosophy’ [11-13]
Thus, while some definitions highlight dimensions such
as ‘bio- fair’ or ‘natural product systems’ [13] and ‘green’
or ‘environmental friendliness’ [14], others emphasize the
limited use of artificial chemicals in organic products
[12], or its general philosophy [15]. According to
Perception
Diffusion
Stobbelaar et al., [16] organic products is food produced
without artificial fertilizer or chemical pesticides, nor
containing artificial coloring, flavoring or aromatic
substances, preservatives, or genetically modified
ingredients.
Consumer actions regarding organic products stem
from attitudes that in turn linked to a complex set of ideas,
motivations and experiences [17]. Most of previous
studies concluded that consumers purchase organic
products because of a perception that such products are
safer, healthier and more environmental friendly than
conventionally produced alternatives [18].
Those studies designate how consumers perceive the
organic concept, examining issues related to the demand
for organic products, consumer attitudes and the factors
that facilitate or hinder the acceptance of these
products. The organic purchasing motives should be
attribute to some environmental, ethical, quality, health
consciousness and exploratory products buying
behavior, as well as to specific products attributes such
as nutrition, value, taste and price [6, 7, 10, 19-21].
Other consumer surveys demonstrate that, the major
motive for buying organic products seems to be healthrelated [5,7,22-36]. Environmental concerns are apparently
Corresponding Author: Seyyed Mahmoud Hashemi, Department of Agricultural Extension and Education,
College of Agricultural Economics and Development, University of Tehran, Iran
331
Iran
World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009
not as strong a motive as health [5, 7, 32, 33]. German
consumers, for example, were very concerned about
health and food safety [37]. Brunsoe [38] and Brunsoe
and Bredahl [39] compare consumer segments in various
European countries and show that German consumers are
more interested in organic food than Danish consumers.
Several studies evaluated consumers' willingness to
pay, most often based on interviews. For a review,
Thompson [40] or Wier and Calverley [41], Based on
consumers' own statements [22, 42-45] and Jolly [31] point
to high price premiums to be one of the most important
reasons for not buying organic foods. Jolly [31], found
that consumers were willingness to pay a 37% price
premium for organic products in the USA. By comparison,
Goldman and Glancy [46] reported that a third of
respondents in a New York survey were willingness to
pay a 100% price premium for a residue free product.
Ekelund [47] found that about 55% of respondents in
Sweden were willingness to pay 25% above a regular,
conventionally grown product price, with another 26%
of organic buyers’ willingness to pay 50% more.
Overall, most consumers are not willingness to pay a
price premium higher than 10-20 percent. Yet, analysis
of specific organic products markets across countries
suggests substantially higher actual price mark-ups.
Turco [48], for example, reported organic price premiums
ranging from 10% to as high as 100% depending on the
country.
Demographic variables such as age, marital status,
number and age of children and educational attainment
might be important variables in explaining and predicting
consumer demand for organic products. Estimates of habit
persistence linked to age and household composition
might also be important for measuring the potential
growth of organic foods and income [40]. Income seems
to be the most influential factor to demand for organic
products, although there were significant exceptions from
households of certain types of individuals that have
strong personal ideologies enforcing commitments to
organic products [40]. All of these studies make it difficult
to draw a concrete image of the individuals that demand
organic products. While it was obvious that the variables
such as income, age, gender, marital status, education,
household size and store preference play roles in the
demand for organic products, it is unknown exactly how
large of a role they play and how they interact with one
another. Wandel and Bugge [8] have demonstrated age
differences with respect to purchase motives. Young
consumers appear to base their choice of organic
products more on considerations for the environment,
whereas old consumers were more influenced by
considerations for their own health [8]. Previous research
shows that women tend to be more interested in organic
products than men [8, 33] and that people with higher
education seem to be more willing to pay more for organic
products [8, 31].
The result of Zhou and Chen [49] showed that
56 percent of the consumers had heard about organic
products from TV, 47 percent learned about organic
products from magazines, 23 percent through internet,
16 percent obtain the information from supermarket,
10 percent had the knowledge from friends and 5 percent
obtain the organic food information from other channels.
Because most of previous researches in organic attitude
rely upon consumers not on extension workers [50-52],
hence this study was aimed to provide some important
information and implication for policy making through
analysis of extension workers' perception of AOP and
some other related topics which are crucial to adopt these
products by consumers.
Purpose and Objectives: The main purpose of this
study was to explore factors affecting AOP diffusion
among consumers.
Of Interest Were To:
Describe extension workers' perception of AOP,
Identify important methods and places to supply
AOP
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Selection of Sample: The statistical population of the
study consisted of all the Iranian agricultural extension
workers (N = 2000). Applying stratified random sampling
technique, 289 extension workers from five provinces were
selected. (This value was derived through computing
Cochran's formula).
Instrument: To collect data on extension workers'
attitudes of AOP, a questionnaire was designed.
The questionnaire contained three sections: section 1
pertained to general demographic and professional
variables of the respondents like age, experience, gender
and educational level. section 2 was designed to identify
the most important AOP information delivery methods to
diffuse AOP using 7 items and section 3 was designed to
describe extension workers' perceptions of AOP diffusion
using 18 items which are rated on a five point continuum
332
World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009
ranging ‘‘strongly disagree, disagree, No opinion, agree,
strongly agree. and several independent items to collect
data on respondents' perceptions and knowledge of AOP,
their knowledge of AOP attributes,the most important
places and delivery methods for AOP marketing and at the
end of the questionnaire space was left for subjects’ extra
thoughts.
The questionnaire was found to have content and
face validity by a panel of experts consisting of
faculty members of Tehran University Departments of
Agricultural Extension and Education and food science.
The initial questionnaire was pilot tested among extension
workers out of the study sampling framework (in Tehran
by 30 respondents) to analyze the reliability of each item.
Questionnaire reliability was tested using Cronbach
alpha which is derived from the average correlations
of all the items on the scale (Rodeghier, 1996). The results
indicated that the reliability coefficient was acceptable
(alpha = 0.92).
Table 1: Total respondents by province
Province
Frequency
Percentage
Tehran
39
Fars
75
13.5
26.0
East Azerbaijan
82
28.4
Esfahan
53
18.3
Mazandaran
40
13.8
Total
289
100.0
Table 2: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Variables
Frequency
Percentage
Age
21-30
161
55.7
31-40
72
24.9
41-50
22
7.6
51 and above
34
11.8
Total Mean=27
289
100.0
Table 3: Extension workers' knowledge of chemical products
Knowledge
Data Analysis: Data was analyzed using descriptive
and inferential statistics including frequencies,
percentage, mean score, median, factor analysis and
T-test and so forth.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative percentage
Very low
9
3.1
Low
18
6.2
3.1
9.3
Intermediate
77
26.6
36.0
High
120
41.5
77.5
Very high
60
22.5
100
Table 4: Extension workers' knowledge of AOP
Characteristics of Respondents: As shown in Table 1
the sample used in the present study were 185 men
(64percent) and 90 women (31.1percent). The mean age
was about 27 years. The vast majority of respondents had
bachelor degrees (83.7 percent) and about 16 percent hold
master or PhD degrees.
Awareness level
Extension Workers' Knowledge of Chemical Products
and AOP: Table 3 presents the extension workers'
knowledge of chemical products. The vast majority of
respondents rated their knowledge level as "intermediate
or higher levels"(90.6 percent) and only 27 respondents
(9.3 percent) rated their knowledge level as below
intermediate level.
In the term of knowledge of AOP, 42 percent of
respondents rated their knowledge level as "intermediate"
and knowledge of about 20 and 38 percent of respondents
was below and above intermediate level, respectively
(Table 4).
(in near future), respondents were requested to
assess the importance of these products using a five
point Likert-type scale from 1 to 5 ranging from very
low(1) to very high(2). As shown in Table 5, the most
important AOP types were organic fruits followed by
organic animal products, cereal, vegetable and fishery
products.
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative percent
Very low
16
5.6
Low
21
14.2
5.6
19.8
Intermediate
121
42.00
61.8
High
94
32.6
94.4
Very high
17
5.6
100
Types of AOP Information Delivery Methods: Results
showed that 34.16 percent of respondents (who were
aware of AOP) used TV and radio for obtaining AOP
information and contribution of magazines, web-based
information, colleagues and friends, books and other
types of information delivery was 17.24, 17.2, 17.92 and
13.48 percent of total used information delivery methods,
respectively.
Extension Workers' Perceptions Towards AOP Types:
To describe Extension workers' perceptions towards the
importance of different types of organic products in Iran
333
World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009
Table 5: Importance of different types of organic products in Iran as
Table 7: Ranking AOP attributes
perceived by the respondents
Attribute
AOP types
F
Mean
S.D
C.V
Fruits
279
3.81
1.55
Animal products
2825
3.68
Cereal
280
3.48
vegetable
271
3.46
Fishery products
258
2.50
Important
Unimportant
Rank
Flavor
97.2
2.8
0.357
1
Safety
96.5
3.5
1.26
0.391
2
Availability
85.1
14.9
1.43
0.407
3
Appearance
71.8
28.2
1.35
0.410
4
Color
71.7
28.2
1.89
0.753
5
Price
65.6
34.4
Package quality
56.3
43.7
Size
48.8
51.2
Table 6: Ranking Preferred information delivery methods for promoting
AOP consumption in society
Table 8: Ranking different AOP delivery methods as reported by respondents
Information
Delivery methods
Frequency
Mean
S.D
C.V
0.45
0.093
S.D
C.V
1
Special labels
259
4.46
0.78
0.17
0.240
2
Special packages
282
4.17
0.86
0.21
0.248
3
Place
1.02
0.289
4
Identified Special markets
283
4.00
0.98
0.24
1.02
0.297
5
Selling AOP at the same place
0.308
6
compared to conventional products
279
3.64
1.09
0.30
0.475
7
Farmers markets
275
3.64
1.13
0.31
Roadside stand (local mass supply)
277
2.94
1.20
0.41
Chain supermarkets
280
4.33
3.19
0.74
TV and radio
275
4.86
Internal contact
273
3.86
0.93
Poster and tracts
278
3.91
0.97
Workshop
275
3.54
Magazine
274
3.45
web-based information
275
3.45
1.06
Newspaper
278
3.95
1.87
Rank
Method
Preferred AOP Information Delivery Methods: The
respondents were asked to express their views on the
importance of different information delivery methods to
use for making awareness of AOP among potential
consumers. Table 7 shows TV and radio was considered
as the most important AOP delivery method. Meanwhile,
web-based information and newspaper were determined
as the least important AOP delivery method
Table 9:
Frequency Mean
Extracted Factors, Eigen value, variance percentage and
Cumulative percentage of Effective Factors in AOP diffusion
Factor
Extension Workers' Perception of AOP Attributes: To
determine the most important attributes of organic
products, respondents asked to indicate important
attributes of AOP (Table 9). It was found that flavor
was mentioned as the most important factor, followed
by safety, availability and appearance and so on (Table 9).
Eigen value
Percentage
Cumulative percentage
1
4.70
22.36
22.36
2
3.41
16.26
38.62
3
2.25
10.74
49.35
4
2.06
9.81
59.17
number of factors extracted. The analyses eventually
resulted in the selection of a four-factor solution based on
17 out of the 18 initial variables. These factors accounted
for a total of 59.17 percent of the total variance explained
by the model. Items in this four-factor solution loaded
higher than 0.60 on each factor (except three – 0.50, 0.53
and 0.56). Cronbach’s alpha reliability tests also showed
increased reliability, with values.0.92. KMO value was
0.91 and Bartlet statistic was significant at 1% level,
which implies appropriateness of extracted variables for
factor analysis. Extracted factors, Eigen value, variance
percentage and Cumulative percentage have shown in
Table 11.
AOP Supply: The respondents were asked to express
their views on the importance of different AOP delivery
methods. Table 8 shows using special labels and
packages for AOP were selected as the most important
AOP delivery methods. On the other hand, Identified
Special markets and Selling AOP at the same place
compared to conventional products were determined as
the most important AOP delivery places.
The Four Factors, Which Extracted, Are as Follows
Factor 1: 22.36 percent of the total variance explained,
comprising the following 6 variables as important AOP
diffusion criteria: legally formulating and approving
national food safety standards with special consideration
Factors Affecting the AOP Diffusion: A series of
exploratory factor analyses (SPSS11.5) were conducted
using the 18 variables with Varimax as a rotation method
and Eigen values greater than 1 as a cut-off point for the
334
World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009
of AOP production and consumption; establishing
national organization of AOP producers and consumers;
building national polices for developing AOP chains
including production, processing, marketing and
consumption; legally limit and control chemical and nonnatural inputs in agricultural production chains;
establishing appropriate mechanisms for marketing of
AOP through an AOP supply supermarkets, networks;
and coordinating governmental bodies (different
ministries, such as Agriculture, Health and Medical
Education, Commerce, etc) and other stakeholders in
process of production, marketing, trade. This factor is
named
"Institutional
arrangements/
Institutional
dimension ". Loadings ranged from 0.50 to 0.83.
Institutional
dimension
22.36
Cultural
dimension
16.28
AOP diffusion
59.17
Economical
dimension
10.74
Production
dimension
9.81
Fig. 1: AOP extension process as a multidimensional
process
effect on public health and national food safety and
food healthy and Promoting suitable technologies
and facilities for AOP production and processing in
line with sustainable (low-external input or organic)
agriculture. This factor is named “Production
enhancement/ Production dimension”. Loadings ranged
from 0.55 to 0.75.
Factor 2: 16.28 percent of the total variance explained,
comprising the following six variables: to publish and to
deliver extension materials on AOP to families; Integrating
specific syllabus related to food safety and importance of
AOP production and consumption in related curriculum of
formal and informal education institutions; Appropriate
Public advertisement of AOP through public media such
as Seda _va_ Sima (National Iranian TV and Radio
Organization) and public newspapers; Organize a national
information movement (based on information and
communication and information technologies) aimed at
increasing public awareness about usefulness of AOP;
Training and persuading opinion leaders and social actors
(teachers, extension workers, workers, NGOs members,
etc.) to promote culture of AOP consumption in society;
and Allocating one day or week per year to AOP or safe
food based on AOP consumption as a symbolic cultural
affair. This factor is named "Pro –APO awareness and
cultural building / Cultural dimension". Loadings ranged
from 0.56 to 0.75.
CONCLUSION
It seems developing organic products is an effective
mechanism to achieve food safety and public health. In
addition, organic products are along with sustainable
agricultural development. Organic products are produced
without the use of conventional pesticides and artificial
fertilizers. Facilitating AOP diffusion is a multidimensional
process which consisted of several components, such as
production, processing, marketing and so on.
Indeed, different stakeholders plays effective role
during diffusion of AOP in society. Among involved
stakeholders, extension workers as multi-disciplinary
professionals can provide important information about
effective factors in AOP diffusion in society. Almost all
extension workers involved in this research had heard
about organic food. Although their Knowledge is about
disadvantages of pesticides and fertilizers are high, but
their knowledge of AOP was at the intermediate level.
There is more information need on the hazard
identification and characterization as well as on the intake
of food processing and food packaging chemicals with a
special attention to recycled materials (paper, cardboard)
that used preferentially in the AOP system. In this order,
publishing extension materials about AOP and delivering
them to families could be effective mechanism for
increasing public knowledge of AOP usefulness.
Mass media such as radio and particularly TV, with
offering these programs, help to presentation of these
products to people [49]. Thus, as this research finding
Factor 3: 10.74 percent of the total variance explained,
comprising the following three variables: Allocating
subsidies and other incentives to production of AOP,
Facilitating private sector entrepreneurial investment
in production and market chains of AOP and
Appropriate pricing of AOP with coordination of
producers, consumers and other stakeholders or their
representatives. This factor is named “Economics
affairs and financial facilitating / Economics dimension”.
Loadings range from 0.61 to 0.74.
Factor 4: 9.81 percent of the total variance explained,
comprising the following two variables: Developing
awareness of agricultural producers about pesticides
335
World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009
explains, organizing a national information movement,
based on information and communication and information
technologies, seems as an appropriate mechanism to
increase public knowledge of AOP usefulness.
The results of factor analysis showed that, the first
and the major effective factor in AOP diffusion is
Institutional factors. Therefore, planners and policy
makers must make facilities such as a long term preset. In
addition, they must indicate distinct places for selling of
these products and correspondingly prepare themselves
for citizen’s education in this way.
It is important for the consumers, to be well informed
on the actual content in residues for these various
products methods. This holds not only for nitrates and
pesticides (being synthetic or natural) but also for other
relevant toxicants such as bio toxins and environmental
contaminants. It also recommends collecting more
information on the occurrence and toxicity of pesticides,
herbicides and other natural toxicants that could be
relevant to the consumer’s health and adapt the
monitoring programs.
Finally, these research findings indicate diffusion
of AOP is being as an important mechanism to
enhance food safety in society. The extension of
AOP is a multi-dimensional process that includes
different components, such as production, marketing,
social awareness building, monitoring, institutional
supporting, etc. Definitely, any planning aimed at
promoting AOP production and consumption require
considering different mentioned dimensions of AOP
extension based on collaboration and coordination of
stakeholders.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ACKNOWLEDGEMNT
11.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the scientific
board members of the Department of Agricultural
Extension and Education, Tehran University for their
valuable insights and guidance for carrying out this study
and compiling the questionnaire of the study.
12.
REFERENCES
1.
13.
Nooripoor, M. M. Shahvali and K. Zarafshani,
2008. Integration of Communication Media For
Horticultural Sustainability:The Application of
Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM),
American-Eurasian J. Agric.
Environ. Sci.,
3(1): 137-147.
14.
336
Akbari, M. and A. Asadi, 2008. A comparative
study of Iranian consumers’ versus Extension
Experts’ attitudes towards Agricultural organic
products (AOP). American J. Agricul. Biological Sci.,
3(3): 551-558.
Gregory, N.G., 2000. Consumer concerns about food.
Outlook on Agriculture, 29(4): 251-257.
Grossman, M., 1972. On the concept of health
capital and the demand for health. Journal of Political
Economy, 80(2): 223-255.
Schifferstein, H.N.J. and P.A.M. Oude Ophuis,
1998. Health-related determinants of organic food
consumption in the Netherlands. Food Quality and
Preference, 9(3): 119-133.
Grunert, S.C. and H.J. Juhl, 1995. Values,
environmental attitudes and buying of organic foods.
J. Economic Psychology, 16(1): 63-72.
Tregear, A., J.B. Dent and M.J. McGregor, 1994. The
demand for organically grown produce. British Food
J., 96(4): 21-25.
Wandel, M. and A. Bugge, 1997. Environmental
concerns in consumer evaluation of food quality.
Food Quality and Preferences, 8(1): 19-26.
Wilkins, J.L. and V.N. Hillers, 1994. Influences
of pesticide residue and environmental concerns
on organic food preference among food
cooperative members and non-members in
Washington State. Journal of Nutrition Education,
26(1): 26-33.
Davies, A., A.J. Tittering ton and C. Cochrane, 1995.
Who buys organic food? A profile of the purchasers
of organic in Northern Ireland. British Food Journal.
97(10): 7-23.
Bourn, D. and J. Prescott, 2002. A comparison of the
nutritional value, sensory qualities and food safety
of organically and conventionally produced foods.
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition,
42(1): 1-34.
Food and Agricultural Organization, 1999. Organic
Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/ unfao/bodies/
COAG/ COAG15/X0075E.htm.
Klonsky, K. and L. Tourte, 1998. Organic
agricultural production in the United States: Debates
and directions. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 80(5): 1119-1124.
Goldman, M.C. and W. Hylton, 1972. The Basic Book
of Organically Grown Foods. Erasmus, Pennsylvania,
Rodale Press.
World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009
15. Torjusen, Nyberg and Wandel, 1999. Organic
Food; Consumers’ Perceptions and Dietary Choices.
SIFO-Report No. 5-1999. www.sifo. No/ English /
publications /environment.
16. Stobbelaar, D.J., G. Casimir, J. Orghuis, I. Marks,
L. Meijer and S. Zebeda, 2006. Adolescents’ attitudes
towards organic food: a survey of 15- to 16-year old
school children. International Journal of Consumer
Studies ISSN 1470-6431. Journal compilation © 2006
Blackwell Publishing Ltd, International Journal of
Consumer Studies.
17. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen, 1975. Belief, Attitude,
Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory
and Research. J. Wiley and Sons: New York, USA.
18. Krissoff, B., 1998. Emergence of U.S. organic
agriculture - can we compete? American Journal of
Agricultural Economics. 80(5): 1130-1133.
19. Roddy, G., C. Cowan and G. Hutchinson, 1996.
Consumer attitudes and behavior to Organic foods in
Ireland. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing. 9(2): 1-19.
20. Zotos, Y., P. Ziamou and E. Tsakiridou, 1999.
"Marketing organically produced food products
in Greece", Greener Management International,
25: 91-104.
21. Browne, A.W., P.J.C. Harris, A.H. Hofny-Collins,
N. Pasiecznic and R.R. Wallace, 2000. "Organic
production and ethical trade: definition, practice and
links", Food Policy, 25: 69-89.
22. CMA. 1996. Einstellungen und Marktschatzungen
aus
Verbrauchersicht
zu
“alternativen
Nahrungsmitteln/
Biokost/
Ökoprodukten”
insbesondere zu Obst und Gemüse. MAFO-Briefe.
Bestell-Nr. K 621, Centrale Marketing-Gesellschaft
der deutschen Agrarwirtschaft, Bonn.
23. Meier-Ploeger, A., W. Merkle, I. Mey and F. Wörner,
1996. Stärkung des Verbrauchs ökologischer
Lebensmittel. Hessisches Ministerium des Innern
und für Landwirtschaft, Forsten und Naturschutz,
Wiesbaden.
24. Sylvander, B., 1995. Conventions on Quality in the
Fruit and Vegetables Sector: Results on the Organic
Sector, Acta Horticulture, 340: 241-246.
25. Infood, 1998. Kvalitativ analyse af forbrugernes
holdninger
til
økologiske
fødevarer,
http://www.ecoweb/infood/.
26. Land, B., 1998. Consumers´ Dietary Patterns and
Desires for Change, MAPP Working paper, No.31,
Roskilde University, Roskilde.
27. Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte, 1992. Going organic The Future for Organic Food and Drink Products in
the UK, Birmingham, UK.
28. Byrne, P.J., J.R. Bacon and U.C. Toensmeyer, 1994.
“Pesticide Residue Concerns and Shopping Location
Likelihood”, Agribusiness, 10: 491-501.
29. Huang, C.L., 1996. Consumer preferences and
attitudes towards organically grown produce.
European Rev. Agricul. Econom., 23(3-4): 331-342.
30. Huang, C.L., S. Misra and S.L. Ott, 1990. Modeling
Consumer Risk Perception and Choice Behavior: The
Case of Chemical Residues in Fresh Produce”, in
Mayer, R.N (ed.), Enhancing Consumer Choice,
Proceedings of the Second International Conference
on Research in the Consumer Interest, Snowbird,
Utah, USA, August, 1990, American Council on
Consumer Interests, Columbia, Missouri, USA.
31. Jolly, D., 1991. `Differences between buyers and
no buyers of organic produce and willingness
to pay organic price premiums, J. Agribusiness,
9(1): 97-111.
32. Von Alvensleben, R., 1998. ``Eco fair aspects of food
demand: the case of organic food in Germany, AIRCAT 4th Plenary Meeting: Health, Ecofair and Safety
Aspects in Food Choice, 4(1): 68-79.
33. Mathisson,
K.
and
A.
Schollin, 1994.
Konsumentaspekter pae ekologiskt odlade groe
nsaker ± enjaÈ mfoÈrande studied (Consumer
aspects on organic vegetables ± a comparative
study), Report No. 18, Department of Crop
Production Sciences, Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences.
34. Carboni, R., M. Vassallo, P. Conforti and
A. D’Amicis, 2000. Indagine sulle attitudinal di
consume, la disponibilita` a pagare e la certificazione
dei prodotti biologici: spunti di riflessione e
commento dei risultati scaturiti. La Rivista Italiana di
Scienza dell’Alimentazione, 29(3): 12-21.
35. Rodríguez, E., 2005. The domestic and foreing
markets of organic products in Argentina. Executive
Summary presented to the International Workshop
“How can the poor benefit from the growing markets
for high value agricultural products?” CIAT, Cali,
Colombia, October 2005.
36. Rodríguez, E., 2006. El Mercado de alimentos
orgánicos. Producción y consumo de los principales
productos argentinos. Elsa M. Rodríguez (Comp.).
Prólogo. En: Editorial Universitaria de Mar del Plata
(EUDEM). Serie Tramas. ISBN-10: 987-544-195-3
ISBN-13: 978-987-544-195-3.
337
World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009
37. Kafka, C. and R. Von Alvensleben, 1998.
Consumer Perceptions of Food-Related Hazards
and the Problem of Risk Communication,
http:// www. Unkiel. De:8080/ Agraroekonomie/
Abteilungen/ agrarmarketing.
38. Brunsoe, K., 1996. Fodevarerelaterede livsstil udvikling af et male instrument til marked
sovervagning af forbruger for fodevareindustrien.
PhD dissertation, MAPP center, Aarhus School of
Business, Aarhus.
39. Brunsoe,
K.
and
L.
Bredahl, 1997.
”Fødevarerelaterede livsstil i forskellige europæiske
kulturer”, Dansk Sociologi, 8: 23-35.
40. Thompson, G.D., 1998. Consumer demand for organic
foods: What we know and what we need to know.
American J. Agricul. Econom., 80(5): 1113-1118.
41. Wier, M. and C. Calverley, 2002. Market potential for
organic foods in Europe, British Food Journal,
104(1): 45-62.
42. Fricke, A. and R. Von Alvensleben, 1997. “Consumer
Attitudes towards Organic Food and an Application
of Cohort Analysis - 1984 - 1989 – 1994”. Working
Paper No. 1, Lehrstuhl für Agrarmarketing, ChristianAlbrechts University, Kiel.
43. Kramer, A., B. Harting and S. Stadtfeld, 1998.
Siegeszug der “Bio-Lebensmittel” im Handel?
http://www.agp.uni-bonn.de/mafo/staff/oeko3a.htm
44. Haest, C., 1990. “From Farmer to Shelf: Trade of
Organically Grown Products”, Ecology and Farming,
1: 9-11.
45. Hack, M.D., 1995. “Organically Grown Products:
Perception, Preferences and Motives of Dutch
Consumers”, Acta Horticulture, 340: 247-253.
46. Goldman, B.J. and K.L. Clancy, 1991. A survey of
organic produce purchases and related attitudes of
food cooperative shoppers. American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture, 6(2): 89-96.
47. Ekelund, L., 1990. Vegetable consumption and
consumer attitudes towards organically grown
vegetables – the case of Sweden. Acta Horticulture.
259: 163-172.
48. Turco, G., 2002. Organic Food-An Opportunity, at
Who’s Expense? Industry Note. Food and
Agribusiness Research, Rabobank International,
Sydney. www.rabobank.com/ attachments/ in 043
2002.
49. Zhou, L. and T. Chen, 2007. Consumer Perception of
Organic Food in Urumqi. Contributed Paper prepared
for presentation at the 5th Seminar ‘International
Marketing and International Trade of Quality Food
Products’ Bologna, Italy, March 8-10, 2007.
50. Hutchins, R.K. and L.A. Greenhalgh, 1997. Organic
Confusion: Sustaining Competitive Advantage,
British Food Journal, 99(9): 336-338.
51. Fotopoulos, C. and A. Krystallis, 2001. Defining the
organic consumer and his willingness to pay for
selected food products in Greece, paper presented at
the 51st International Atlantic Economic Society
Conference, Athens and March, pp: 13-20.
52. Fotopoulos, C., A. Krystallis and M. Ness, 2003.
"Wine produced by organic grapes in Greece: using
means-end chains analysis to reveal organic buyers'
purchasing motives in comparison with the nonbuyers", Food Quality and Preference, 14(7): 549-66.
338