British Food JournalDoes the consumers’ buying behavior differ for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products? –evidences from an emerging marketNiraj Kumar Sanjeev Kapoor

Article information:To cite this document:Niraj Kumar Sanjeev Kapoor , (2015),"Does the consumers’ buying behavior differ for vegetarian and non-vegetarian foodproducts? – evidences from an emerging market", British Food Journal, Vol. 117 Iss 8 pp. -Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2014-0324

Downloaded on: 14 June 2015, At: 20:48 (PT)References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 12 times since 2015*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Md. Mohsan Khudri, Saida Sultana, (2015),"Determinants of service quality and impact of service quality and consumercharacteristics on channel selection", British Food Journal, Vol. 117 Iss 8 pp. -

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:602494 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Pleasevisit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

1

Does the consumers’ buying behavior differ for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food

products? – evidences from an emerging market

Introduction

What consumers buy, how much, when, in what form and from where: these are some of

the questions, answers to which every marketer is curious to know. Knowing consumers’

wishes is an important condition for making an efficient sales concept (Cerjak et al., 2010).

This assumes paramount importance in an evolving business like food retailing where

there has been large scale transformation across the globe in general and in Asia in

particular since the last one decade (Timmers, 2005). Throughout the world, major shifts in

dietary patterns are occurring, even in the consumption of basic staples towards more

diversified diet (Kearney, 2010). With high product involvement (as food products are

basic necessities), purchase involvement of the consumers for these products is also

increasing. The buying process of food is no more characterized by impulse buying as in

the past (Kumar and Kapoor, 2014) and has undergone change in the last few years (Boon

and Kurtz, 1998; Ali et al., 2010; NABARD, 2011; Domdaran and Kulkarni, 2012). A shift in

food consumption patterns towards more diversified and high value products like milk and

milk products, fruits and vegetables and meat is being experienced across the world

(Huang and Bouis, 1996; Meenakshi, 1996; D’Monte, 2011).

In India, though cereal continues to be an important constituent of a household food

basket, the share of high value food such as vegetables, fruits, milk meat, fish and eggs is

increasing (Mittal, 2006). There has been considerable increase in consumption of meat

and other protein-rich foods like fish, milk, fruits and vegetables in developing countries

(Kearney, 2010). This shift in dietary pattern is a consistent change associated with

economic growth the world over (Huang and Bouis, 1996; Meenakshi, 1996). During the

1990s and the 2000s the output per capita of vegetables, fruits, milk, fish, meat and

poultry increased in India, though not as much as the rise in per capita income. So, there

has been a widening demand-supply gap in the country (Joseph, 2013). Food consumption

and purchase in India has changed because of change in food preferences, socio-

demographic factors, increasing awareness about health benefits of fruits and vegetables,

and the food industry’s marketing policies (Sharma and Jain, 2011). It has also been

reported that the growth of sales of fruits and vegetables by organized retails in Asian

countries including India lags behind that of processed food as most of the households

continue to buy fruits and vegetables from traditional retailers (Chen et al., 2005). Most of

the urban consumers (80 – 90%) in Asia use wet markets regularly (AC Neilsen, 2003).

Unorganised retails (like, neighborhood shops, hawkers, pushcart sellers, roadside shops,

kirana shops, daily or weekly evening markets) are the major sources of fresh fruits and

vegetables in India (Ali, et. al., 2010; Bulsara and Matharu, 2010; NABARD, 2011).

Researchers on food choices have considered product attributes as one of the perspective

to increase the understanding of consumers (Assael, 1998). Food can be classified into

search, experience, and credence goods according to its level of quality that can be

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

2

discovered (Nelson, 1970; Darby and Karni, 1973; Ford et al., 1988). The peculiarities of

products are among the most critical factors determining the consumers’ purchase

decision. In recent decades, efforts to understand the relative importance of various

product attributes and their influence on the overall buying behavior of consumers have

been considerably explored (Kiesel and Villas Boas, 2007). Studies have found that

customers attach varying importance to different product attributes while purchasing

fruits and vegetables (Ernst et al., 2006; Mahaliyanaarachchi, 2007; Dimech et al., 2011)

and their attitude and perception have been influenced by a number of personal

characteristics of customers (Fearne and Lavelle, 1996). Cognitive and emotional elements

have been found to have more influence on consumers’ purchase decisions for fruits and

vegetables than advertising and other campaigns (Nicolae and Corina, 2011). Indian

customers prefer buying food products on a regular basis and consider branded products

as expensive (Mukherjee et al., 2011). Distance, convenience merchandise and loyalty are

rated as very important factors in deciding the outlet for the purchase (Sinha et al., 2002).

Food purchasing behavior of consumers in developing economies such as India has

significantly changed due to an increase in per capita disposable income, global

interaction, information and communication technologies, urbanization, education,

change in life style, family structure, and health awareness (KPMG, 2005; Pingali, 2006;

Kaur and Singh, 2007; Ali, et al., 2010). The agri-food market system has become more

organized, customer focused and, in fact, is facilitating the growth of organized food

retailing (Chen et al. 2005). Many studies have predicted that modern retail will continue

to witness double-digit growth in India (McKinsey & Company, 2007; Kearny, 2011;

Mukherjee et al. 2011; NABARD 2011). It has been predicted that the share of organized

retailing in the food and grocery segment could grow up to 15-20 percent (Reardon and

Gulati, 2008). A report of Boston Consulting Group has estimated that in India, the

domestic food market is likely to triple to USD 900 billion by 2020 (Jagran Post, 2011).

According to a study the annual spending of each middle class household on fast food

restaurants in India’s tier-II & tier-III cities has increased by 108% in the last two years

(ASSOCHAM, 2014). Though retailing of fresh fruits, vegetables, and grocery is considered

a very low margin business, the huge market potential in India has attracted India business

houses to make their entry through different retail formats (Sengupta, 2008). Indian-

owned retail outlets are already active and aggressive in the meat, fish, fruit and vegetable

sector of the food market (Vaish, 2007; Sruthijith and Chakravarty, 2010; Ali et al., 2010;

Mamgain, 2011). Unlike in the past, the debate today is no longer whether food and

grocery retail in India would grow but rather how fast it can grow and what challenges

need to be overcome (Gupta, 2007). Although food retail growth has by and large occurred

in Metropolitan (with a population of more than 5 million) and bigger cities (with a

population of more than one million) in India, the focus has now shifted to lesser known

smaller cities. With increasing spending power of the consumers, the retail business in the

smaller cities will increase by 50 to 60 percent due to easy and relatively cheap availability

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

3

of land and increasing demand among consumers (Damodaran, 2009; Rastogi, 2010).

According to a study by Ginesys, industrial townships and tier II cities are emerging as the

new retail centres (Economic Times, 2013) and these emerging markets hold the maximum

business potential for food retailers. Realizing this immense potential, many organized

retail corporations are aggressively venturing into the market and targeting middle and

smaller cities, where the potential is still untapped.

Food preferences and behavior are likely to vary from culture to culture (Falk, et al., 2001;

Akamatsu et. al., 2005; Coveney, 2006) and there is need to identify these differences

(Chang, 2014). Therefore, there is dire need to understand the true drivers of shopping

behavior of Indian customers for food products as they get fairly involved in store choice

decision (Sinha et al., 2002). Simultaneously, it is important for a store to understand the

consumers’ behavior for developing the marketing strategy (Sinha, 2003). It is necessary to

understand food purchasing behavior of consumers to attract them to the organized retail

outlets. Most of the organized retail stores are involved in selling both vegetarian and non-

vegetarian food products. Retailers are interested to know whether the consumers’ buying

process for these two categories of food products is more or less the same or different in

nature. This would help them to customize their product specific marketing strategies as

per the customers’ preferences and requirements. Although there have been a good

number of studies to understand the Indian consumers’ behavior for individual categories

of food i.e., vegetarian or non-vegetarian products (Srinivasan and Elangovan, 2000; Raju

and Suryanarayana, 2005; Upadhyay and Pathania, 2013, Devi Prasad and Madhavi, 2014,

Kumar and Kapoor, 2014), there is hardly any research in which a comparative study has

been made to study the consumers behavior for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food

products. These two different food product categories are of varying importance for the

consumers in India. While vegetables are one of the regular and essential constituents of

food, consumption of non-vegetarian food is considered as ‘special food’ for most of the

consumers, and even within the category their frequency and quantity has varied (CIRAD,

2014).

An Individual’s socio-demographic characteristics can influence the perceived importance

of various food attributes (Weirenga, 1983), and his purchase behavior of health related

products (Aschemann-Witzel and hamm, 2010). Traditionally, the price of a product has

been considered as the prime factor for the consumers’ decision making process in India.

Ali et al. (2010) reported that Indian consumers are still price-conservative and adopt the

cheapest and the best while purchasing quality food products, and their income affects

their purchase behavior of food products (Upadhyay and Pathania, 2013). It would be

interesting to analyze how demographic characteristics of consumers of middle and

smaller cities influence their buying behavior for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food

products. Product attributes as perceived by consumers are critical factors in the food

choice process and are considered to be a major determinant for the success of many

product marketing strategies (Batra and Sinha, 2000; Kupiec and Revell, 2001). Fruits and

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

4

vegetables are purchased in raw form, whereas, some sort of processing is required to

make non-vegetarian products available to the consumers. What are these attributes of

vegetarian and non-vegetarian products, which influence the consumers’ perception of

quality? Are these the same or different? How do consumers treat search, experience and

credence product attributes while making their preferences and choices for these two

different categories of the products? Answers to these questions are vital for food

companies to decide about their marketing strategies. Consumers’ selection of a store is

based on their perception and confidence in retail outlet which in turn is dependent on the

availability of quality products (Dash, et al., 1976), ambience, hygiene, and credibility (Devi

Prasad and Madhavi, 2014). The importance of a store increases for the products it offers

when quality cannot be perceived by search attributes, and when the brand loyalty of the

consumers cannot be established. These food products meet both these criteria. It is

important to know the relative role of convenience, ambience, market services, choices of

products and quality of products for the customers’ preference of organized retail for

vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products. The results would provide a clue to the

organized retailers whether to adopt store exclusiveness or not for the two categories of

the food products?

Research Purpose and Hypotheses

This paper attempts to identify and compare the factors which affect the consumers’

buying behavior of vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products in an emerging middle-

size market. The paper compares the choices of the consumers for various vegetarian and

non-vegetarian food products and their market attributes. The specific hypotheses tested

in the present research are as follows:

H1. Consumers’ buying behaviour in terms of frequency, quantity of purchase and form of

purchase is different for vegetarian and non-vegetarian products.

Based on the frequency and volume of purchase, necessary strategies can be developed

not only to make fresh products available to the consumers, but also to minimize the

wastage and inventory cost to the retailers.

H2. The demographic characteristics of consumers (gender, age, education and income)

significantly influence the buying behavior for both the categories of food products.

Understanding the demographic characteristics of consumers would help the retailers to

design promotional programs for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products.

H3. The importance of different product attributes is expected to be similar for the

consumers while purchasing vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products.

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

5

H4. The different market attributes are expected to play similar roles for the consumers

while purchasing vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products.

Research Methods

The consumers’ buying behavior has been captured through quantity and frequency of

purchase, form of purchase, and preferred location of store for different vegetarian and

non-vegetarian products. The factors influencing the buying behavior have been broadly

categorized under customer-related (gender, age, education, and income), product related

(quality, hygiene and price) and market-related (convenience, credit sale, vendor behavior,

availability in desired quantity and quality) behaviors. The different products and market

attributes were selected based on qualitative research. Frequency-distribution and cross-

tabulation were conducted to assess the buying behavior of the consumers. Analysis of

variance (ANOVA) was conducted to test whether socio-economic factors of consumers

are important in explaining their buying behavior of vegetarian and non-vegetarian food

products. The importance of different sets of products and market attributes was

determined using factor-analysis. For this purpose, the Principle component analysis (PCA)

was conducted using Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization. Factor analysis is used to

describe variability among observed, correlated variables in terms of a potentially lower

number of unobserved variables called factors. Importance of attributes can be described

in terms of assessed mean score (if rated on certain point scale, say 5 point scale). A

Varimax solution yields results which make it as easy as possible to identify each variable

with a single factor. This is the most common rotation option. However, the orthogonality

(i.e., independence) of factors is often an unrealistic assumption.

The data for this research were collected through questionnaire survey in two major cities

of the state of Odisha [1], namely Bhubaneswar and Rourkela [2]. A total of 282

households (182 households from Bhubaneswar and 100 households from Rourkela) were

selected from economically developed areas and having sufficient purchasing power for

organized retail shopping. The data were collected by interviewing the family head in the

household. The selection of items under vegetarian (fruits and vegetables) and non-

vegetarian food (fish, chicken and mutton) was based on the review of literature and on

the findings of a pilot study. The results of a small pilot study conducted on the same

sample indicated that in majority of households (54.1 percent), the housewives decide the

menu of food items. On the other hand, it was found that in 60 per cent cases, the

husband did the shopping. The analysis indicated that purchase of food products is a

family affair.

The survey questionnaire had questions representing socio-economic profile of consumers

(gender, age, monthly family income, and level of education), their buying behavior

(purchase frequency, quantity, and form of purchase) of vegetarian and non-vegetarian

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

6

food products, and the various product (freshness, quality, and nutrition) and market

attributes (convenience, availability of assured quality, market ambience and market

services). The consumers’ perception of these attributes was taken on a Likert scale (1 =

not at all important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = important, 4 = very important and 5 =

extremely important).

Results and Discussion

Consumers’ profile

Consumers’ profile in terms of their gender, age, education, and income, has been

presented in Table 1. A majority (more than 50 percent) of the respondents were male and

about 65 percent of the respondents belonged to the age group of 30 to 50 years. In

respect of qualification more than 90 percent hold graduation or higher degrees. About

40% of the households stated their monthly income to be between Rs. 20,000 and Rs.

40,000 (1US$ = Rs. 60) and above. This category of households is considered as middle

class in India. Fifty two percent of the sample households were from the upper middle

class having monthly income in the range of Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 70,000. The consumers’

profile indicates that the chosen sample was appropriate to understand the consumers’

behavior for buying vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products from the organized

retail.

>Table 1: Socio-economic Profile of Respondents<

Buying behavior

The purchase behavior of the consumers was assessed on the basis of the frequency of

purchase, volume of transaction and form of purchase (Table 2). The results indicate that

vegetables and fish are frequently purchased products with a mode value of 2. It indicates

that these two commodities are purchased twice or thrice in a weak. On the other hand,

fruits, chicken and meat are purchased mostly on a weekly basis. Odisha being a coastal

State, both vegetables and fish are an important constituent of the consumers’ food

basket. Consumption of fruits and vegetables is more (with an average shopping of 3.5 and

2.7 kg., respectively) as compared to that of non-vegetarian products (average transaction

quantity of about 1.00 kg.). The results present another interesting aspect that for both

the product categories, majority of the consumers are interested in seeing the products

physically before buying so that they personally examine and select the product (Tables 3).

In case of vegetarian products, consumers prefer physically verifying and selecting the

products; whereas in case of non-veg products, they only verify the sample. There was no

significant response towards purchase of packaged branded products in both of these

categories of the food products. The results reflect that consumers are more interested in

freshness of the products and they want to evaluate it through their search attributes.

Further, brand loyalty in buying vegetarian or non-vegetarian food items has not been

developed so far in Indian consumers. Thus, our first hypothesis that the buying behavior

of the consumers is not altogether different for the two categories of food products can be

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

7

partially accepted. The organized retailers can take these findings for maintaining the

inventory level for their packed vegetarian or non-vegetarian food products. Vigorous

efforts in terms of promotional programs have to be undertaken to bring non-interested

customers to organized retail outlets.

>Table 2: Buying behavior for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products<

>Table 3: Preferred Method for buying the products<

The influence of the demographic profile of the consumers on their buying behavior for

vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products was studied using Analysis of Variance

(ANOVA) technique. The results in terms of F ratios and their significance levels are given

in Table 4. The results reveal that for purchase decisions in respect of both frequency and

transaction quantity, the responses of males and females are similar for both vegetarian

and non-vegetarian products (the F ratios are non-significant for gender characteristics of

consumers). This contradicts the findings of Haddock-Fraser et al. (2009), which showed

that gender differences were significant in respect of frequency of shopping for food

products in the Japanese market. The age of the consumers affect the frequency of buying

of both the vegetables and fruits. The consumers of 35 years and above prefer more

frequent purchase of fruits and vegetables. In case of non-vegetarian food products, the

effect of consumers’ age was visible on frequency of purchase and transaction quantity for

mutton as young consumers (less than 25 years) prefer frequent purchase of mutton as

reported by Kumar and Kapoor (2014). The monthly income of the consumers had no

influence on their purchase decisions for non-vegetarian food products (the F ratios are

non-significant for income characteristics of consumers), but it had a highly significant

effect on the frequency and amount of purchase of fruits and vegetables (F ratios are

significant at 1 % significance level). Haddock-Fraser et al. (2009) also reported that except

for the price sensitivity, there was no other income effect on the food purchase factors of

Japanese consumers. The findings indicate that by and large, age and income of the

consumers play an important role in influencing their buying behavior for vegetarian food

products, but the demographic characteristics of consumers do not significantly influence

the buying behavior for non-vegetarian food products. Therefore, the H2 is partly true.

>Table 4: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) between purchase behaviour and demographic

characteristics of consumers<

Importance of product attributes

The buying decisions for a product are based on how consumers perceive the quality of

the product. The consumers’ perception about the product quality depends upon a

combination of its search, experience and credence attributes. The mean value of

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

8

consumers’ response to the importance of various vegetarian food product attributes has

been presented in Table 5. The results indicate that consumers attach more importance to

credence attributes like, freshness, nutrition, and medicinal value. These product

attributes get the first three ranks with a mean value of 4.9, 4.8 and 4.6, respectively. The

search attributes like size, colour, variety, and grading are ranked low by the consumers.

The experience attribute ‘taste’ got the rank of 5 with the mean value of consumers’

response as 4.5. The mean value of consumers’ response on the importance of various

non-vegetarian food product attributes has been presented in Table 6. Freshness and

nutritional value (free from chemicals) were also ranked as extremely important product

attributes by the consumers of non-vegetarian food products, with a mean value of 4.9

and 4.55, respectively. The importance of credence attributes has also been highlighted in

the study conducted by Dimech et al. (2011) for the Maltese consumers of fruits and

vegetables. Freshness has been found to be the most important criterion consumers look

for while purchasing non-vegetarian foods (Haddock-Fraser, et al. 2009; Becker, et al.,

1997; Raju and Suryanarayana, 2005; NABARD, 2011). These results contradict that that

Indian consumers are always price conservative in their buying behavior. Rather, the

results indicate that the consumers are moving more towards product attributes for

buying the vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products, as has been reported by Goyal

and Singh (2007). The organized retailers have to maintain the quality of food products

with high priority.

>Table 5: Importance of product attributes for vegetarian food products<

>Table 6: Importance of product attributes for non-vegetarian food products<

Consumers’ response to different product attributes were clubbed into three and two sets

of related attributes, respectively, for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products using

principal component analysis (Tables 7 and 8). Using factor analysis, these attributes

explain 66.38 percent and 69 percent of variance in consumers’ preference for vegetarian

products and non-vegetarian products, respectively. For vegetarian food products, the

variance indicated by the factor “Credence Attributes” is 30.83 percent, and the product

attributes like nutritional value, hybrid variety and organic cultivation practices, medicinal

value, and freshness load high on this factor in the descending order. The second factor

“Search Attributes” explains 19.25 percent variation in consumers’ preference and product

attributes like grading/sorting, variety, size, and colour load high on this factor in the

descending order. The variance shown by the third factor called “Experience Attributes”

turned out to be 16.30 percent and product attributes like taste and odour load high on

this factor.

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

9

>Table 7: Factor Analysis - rotated component matrix for vegetarian food product

attributes<

In case of non-vegetarian products, the variance indicated by the first factor called “Food

Safety” is 55 percent, and the product attributes like chemical-free meat, animal kept well

before slaughter, and meat served fresh load high on this factor in the descending order

(Table 8). The second factor termed as “Food Quality” explains 14 percent variation and

the product attributes like meat from healthy animal, quality of animal feed, age of animal

and hygienic conditions while processing load high on this factor in the descending order..

In India, in most of the meat shops, animals are slaughtered and processed in retail

outlets. Sometimes animals are slaughtered in front of customers if they want to see

personally what they buy (Winter, 2008). Thus the results confirm that the Food Safety

(credence attributes) also play a dominant role in influencing the consumers’ behavior for

non-vegetarian food products. It leads to the acceptance of H3 which states that the

importance of different product attributes is expected to be similar for the consumers

while purchasing vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products.

>Table 8: Factor Analysis - rotated component matrix for non-vegetarian food product

attributes<

Significance of market attributes

The preferences of consumers for different market attributes for vegetarian food products

are presented in Table 9. The figures indicate that for fruits and vegetables, market

convenience, availability of quality fresh products with availability of choices are the

preferred market attributes . The ranks of these attributes are high in terms of mean score

of consumers’ response. In case of non-vegetarian food products, assured good quality

with the mean score of 4.64 was ranked first (Table 10) followed by the meat preparation

in front of the customers’ eye (mean score of 4.50). Importantly, price turned out to be a

much less important market attribute both for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food

products. This rejects the assumption that Indian consumers resort to cheap product

strategy for purchasing food items. For Sri Lankan vegetable consumers, quality, freshness,

and low prices were the major considerations in deciding about the place of purchase of

vegetable (Mahaliyanaarachchi, 2007). In Malaysia, lower income consumer groups were

prepared to bear with dirty market places in order to keep the price affordable (Sheng et

al., 2008). A study in Vietnam on the factors affecting consumers’ preference for

traditional markets v/s supermarket revealed that freshness, price, and convenience were

important in shaping the choice of consumers for traditional outlets for fresh foods

(Maruyama and Trung, 2007). It has been reported that factors affecting choice of retail

outlets varied across the gender; while men gave more prominence to proximity, women

emphasized the merchandise offered by stores (Sinha, 2003). Factors like, value for

money, availability of variety of products at same place, good display of products, nearby

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

10

availability, and good ambience were rated very high for food purchasing decisions

(Haddock-Fraser, et al., 2009; Gupta, 2009, Devi Prasad and Madhavi, 2014).

>Table 9: Importance of market attributes for vegetarian food products<

>Table 10: Importance of market attributes for non-vegetarian food products<

The principal component extraction method with Varimax rotation has yielded four factors

which together explain 77.97 per cent of the variance in preference of market attributes

for buying vegetables (Table 11). The first factor, termed “Physical Appearance of Market”

indicates the important attributes of markets such as cleanliness and ambience.

Physical appearances turned out to be the most important factor explaining a total of

26.82 percent variation in preference of market attributes for buying vegetables. The

second factor “Market Convenience and Services” explains 21.73 percent variation, where

attributes like market convenience, services, and its hours of operation load very high . It

signifies that consumers need the market to remain open for a long duration so that they

can make their purchases when they have time. Availability of Quality Products can be

defined as the third factor which shows 16.74 percent variation in preference of market

attributes. Here, the attributes like availability of fresh products, availability of quality

products, and availability of choices load high on the factor. The last factor “Consumer

Bargaining Power” explains only 12.68 percent variation and attributes like consumer

bargaining power and price load high on this factor.

>Table 11: Factor analysis – rotated component matrix for market attributes:

vegetables<

In case of fruits, which are relatively costly products, the results of principal component

extraction method in explaining the variance in preference of market attributes are

opposite to those found in case of vegetables. Here the factor “Consumers Bargaining

Power” explains maximum variance of 23.22 percent, whereas the factor “Market

Convenience and Services” turned out to be the least important factor explaining only

15.60 percent of variation (Table 12).

>Table 12: Factor analysis – rotated component matrix for market attributes: fruits<

For non-vegetarian products, the factor “Market Facilities and Services” turned out to be

the most important factor as it explains a total of 45.3 percent variation and attributes like

special treatment given by the vendor to the consumer, sale on credit and availability of

meat in desired quantity, load high on this factor (Table 13). The second factor “Market

Convenience and Familiarity” explains 18.9 percent variation. The attributes like familiarity

of consumers with vendors, market convenience, and meat prepared in front of

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

11

consumers, load high on this factor. It signifies that trust on the seller plays an important

role in explaining the consumers’ choice of market for non- vegetarian food products.

Goyal and Singh (2007) have found that Indian consumers of fast food have the highest

value of taste and quality followed by hygiene and ambience. Since the credence

attributes of these products are more important for consumers, trust on seller is a

substitute for judging the quality of the products. Given the differences in the importance

of various market attributes in explaining the consumers’ responses for vegetarian and

non-vegetarian food products, we reject the H4which states that the importance of

different market attributes is expected to be similar for the consumers while purchasing

vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products.

>Table 13: Factor Analysis - rotated component matrix for market attributes for non-

vegetarian food products<

Summary and conclusions

The present research identifies and compares the factors which affect the consumers’

buying behavior of vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products in an emerging middle-

size market. Realizing the immense potential, many organized retail corporations are

aggressively venturing into the market and targeting middle and smaller cities, where the

potential is untapped till now. Most of the organized retail stores are involved in selling

both categories of food products. The study helps the marketers who are interested to

know whether the consumers’ buying process for these two categories of food products is

more or less the same or different in nature. This would help them to customize their

product specific marketing strategies as per the customers’ preferences and requirements.

The results indicate that vegetables and fish are frequently purchased products (twice or

thrice in a weak) as compared to fruits, chicken and meat which are purchased mostly on a

weekly basis. Consumption of fruits and vegetables is more as compared to that of non-

vegetarian products. The results present that a majority of the consumers in both the

categories of food products, are interested in seeing the products before buying so that

they can select the product themselves. There was no significant response towards

purchase of packaged branded products in both the categories of the food products

indicating that organized retailing in food products is still at an infant stage. Further, brand

loyalty in buying vegetarian or non-vegetarian food items has not been developed so far in

Indian consumers. The findings indicate that by and large, age and income of the

consumers play important role in influencing their buying behavior for vegetarian food

products, but the demographic characteristics of consumers do not significantly influence

the buying behavior for non-vegetarian food products. These results contradict the belief

that Indian consumers are always price conservative in their buying behavior. Rather, the

results show that the consumers are moving more towards product and market attributes

for buying vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products. The results confirm that credence

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

12

attributes play a dominant role in influencing the consumers’ behavior for both vegetarian

and non-vegetarian food products. Physical appearance of the market (cleanliness and

ambience), market convenience and services are significant factors affecting consumers’

purchase decisions for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products. Additionally, trust on

the seller plays an important role in explaining the consumers’ choice of the market for

non-vegetarian food products.

It is clear that there are perceptible differences in buying behavior of the consumers for

the two categories of food products. Consumers do not give similar emphasis to frequency

and volume of purchase, while purchasing vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products,

but their buying behavior remains the same for both the categories of products in terms of

preferred form of purchase. The importance of different product attributes is not similar

for the consumers while purchasing vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products as

credence attributes dominate the buying behavior of consumers of vegetarian food

products. For non-vegetarian food products, search attributes are equally important along

with credence attributes. On the other hand, the importance of different market attributes

is also not similar for the consumers while purchasing vegetarian and non-vegetarian food

products. The research establishes that vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products

cannot be treated as homogenous products, and therefore, product specific information

would play the key role in promoting organized retail. These results provide strategic

inputs to the retail industry to customize food retailing as per the consumers’ choices and

their preferences.

Implications for the organized retail industry

Given a very dismal consumers’ response towards purchase of packaged branded products

in both the categories of the food products, vigorous efforts in terms of promotional

programs have to be undertaken to bring customers to organized retail outlets. Since the

credence attributes of these products are more important for consumers, trust on the

seller is a substitute for judging the quality of the products. Food labeling would be the key

source of information to the consumers and marketers can use it as an important

instrument for influencing the buying decisions of the consumers. The results clearly spell

out that the consumers’ purchase decisions are different for vegetarian and non-

vegetarian food products in terms of frequency and transaction quantity. The organized

retailers can take these findings for maintaining the inventory level for their packed

vegetarian or non-vegetarian food products. It would require designing robust supply

chain to make sure the availability of food products and simultaneously minimizing the

wastage and inventory cost of the different food products. The organized retailers have to

maintain the quality of food products at the top, irrespective of the category of the

product. The organized retailers should reap the benefits of having good market ambience

and services to attract the young and affluent consumers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

13

End Notes

1. Odisha is located on the east coast of India. It, is considered as one of the poorest states

of the country. However, during the last decade it has experienced all round development

and has developed at a higher rate than the national average. Organized retail has already

taken root in major cities of Odisha and its share in overall sale is on the rise. For instance,

in Bhubaneswar, a city having a population of under one million, there were no organised

retailers till 2003 but by the year 2008, it had 21 such retailers (Harper, 2010).

2. Bhubaneswar and Rourkela are the two cities in the State of Odisha, which are

developing very fast though they come under non-metro cities of the country. These two

cities had the maximum Gross District Domestic Product (GDDP) during the year 2012-13

among all the 30 districts of the State of Odisha. To study the future of retail in India, the

National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development has classified Bhubaneswar as a B1

city, i.e. non-metro middle sized city (NABARD, 2011).

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

14

References

AC Nielsen (2003) 'Asia retail and shopper trends', available at http://www. acnielsen.com

(accessed on 28 September 2003)

Akamtsu, R., Maeda, Y., Hagihara, A., and Shirakawa, T. (2005) Interpretation and attitude

towards health eating among Janpanese workers, Appetite, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 123 -

129

Ali, J., Kapoor, S. and Moorthy, J. (2010) “Buying behavior of consumers for food products

in an emerging economy”, British Food Journal, Vol. 112 No 2, pp. 109 – 124.

Aschemann-Witzel, J., Hamm, U. (2010) “Do consumers prefer foods with nutrition and

health claims? Results of purchase simulation” Journal of Marketing

Communication, Vol. 16, No. 1-2, pp. 47 - 58

Assael, H. (1998), Consumer behaviour and marketing action, 6th edition, International

Thompson, Cincinnati, USA.

ASSOCHAM (2014) “Indian fast food market new destination: Tier-II, III cities; beating the

slowdown trend” available at http://www.assocham.org/prels/shownews-

archive.php?id=4493 accessed on 4th September, 2014

Bulsara, H. P. and Matharu, M. (2010) “Retailing and Branding Vegetables and Fruits: An

Exploratory Study” Pranjana, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 60 - 70

Batra, R. and Sinha, I. (2000) “Consumer-level factors moderating the success of private

label brands”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp 175 - 191

Becker T., Benner, E., and Glitsch K (1997) “Quality policy and consumer behavior towards

fresh meat”, National Quality Policy Report, Germany, available at

https://marktlehre.uni-hohenheim.de/fileadmin

/einrichtungen/marktlehre/Forschung/EU-Research/gerqp1.pdf (accessed on 20th

April, 2012).

Boon, L. E. and Kurtz, D. L. (1998) Contemporary Marketing, 4th Edition, The Dryden Press,

Orlando.

Cerjak, M., Mesic, Z., Kopic, M., Kovacic, D., and Markovina, J. (2010) “What motivates

consumers to buy organic food: comparison of Croatia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and

Slovenia” Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 16, No.3, pp 278 – 292.

Chen, K., Shepherd, A.W. and Silva, C. D. (2005) “Changes in food retailing in Asia:

implications of supermarket procurement practices for farmers and traditional

marketing systems”, Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance occasional

paper no. 8. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.

CIRAD (2014) “Meat Consumption in Andhra Pradesh), available at

http://pigtrop.cirad.fr/content/pdf/1067 (accessed on 2nd September, 2014)

Coveney, J. (2006) Food morals and meaning. The Pleasure of anxiety of eating, (2nd Ed.),

Abingdon, OX: Routledge.

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

15

Damodaran, S. (2009) Retail in India – “The past, present and future”, eQuestIndia,

available at http://www.equestindia.com/eq/article_3.asp, (accessed on 19th

December, 2011).

Damodaran, H. and Kulkarni, V. (2012) “How vegetarian are we really?” The Hindu

Business Line, Available at http://www.thehindubusinessline.com

/opinion/columns/harish-damodaran/article2769196 .ece?homepage=true

(accessed at 4th April, 2012)

Darby, M. R. and Karni, E. (1973) “Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud”

Journal of law and Economics, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp 67 – 88.

Dash, J. F., Schiffman, L. G. and Berenson, C. (1976). "Information Search and Store choice”

Journal of Advertising Research, Vol 16, No 3, pp 35-40.

Devi Prasad, U. and Madhavi, S. (2014) “Fish Consumption Behaviour in West Godavari

District, AP, India” Research Journal of Management Science, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 1-5.

Dimech, M., Caputo,V. andCanavari,M. (2011) “Attitudes of Maltese Consumers Towards

Quality in Fruit and Vegetables in Relation to Their Food-Related Lifestyles”

International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4,pp 21 –

35

D’Monte, D. (2011) “One man’s meat is simply another’s poison”, Asian Conversation,

available at http://www.asianconversation.com/indiaNonVeg.php (accessed on 3rd

March, 2012)

Ernst, S., Batte, M. T., Darby, K. and Worley, T. (2006) “What matters in consumer berry

preferences: Price? Source? Quality?” Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol.

37, No. 1, pp 68 – 71.

Economic Times (2013) “Tier II cities, industrial townships are new retail hotspots”

Economic Times, May 1, 2013, available at

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-05-

01/news/38958077_1_retail-centres-penetration-cities , (accessed on 1st

September, 2014)

Falk, L. W., Sobal, J., Bisogni, C.A., Connors, M., and Devine, C.M. (2001) “Managing

healthy Eating: definitions, classifications, ans Strategies’, Health Education and

Behavior, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 425 – 439

Ford, G. T., Smith D. B. and Swasy, J. L. (1988) “ An Empirical test of the search, experience

and credence attributes framework” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp

239 - 244

Fearne, A., and Lavelle, D. (1996) “Segmenting the UK egg market: results of a survey of

consumer attitudes and perception”, British Food Journal, Vol. 98 No. 1, pp 7-12.

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

16

Goyal, A. and Singh, N. P. (2007) “Consumer perception about fast food in India: an

exploratory study” British Food Journal, Vol 109, No. 2, pp 182-195.

Gupta, K.B. (2009). “Consumer behaviour for food products in India”, paper presented in

19th Annual World Symposium of International Food & Agribusiness Management

Association, held at Budapest, Hungary (June, 20 – 21) available at

https://www.ifama.org/events/conferences/2009/cmsdocs/1063_paper.pdf

(accessed on 3rd March, 2012)

Gupta, P. (2007) “Food retailing: Challenges and trends” Tata Strategic Management

Group, available at http://www.tsmg.com/article-consumer-a-retail.html,

(accessed on 4th September, 2014)

Haddock-Fraser, J., Poole, N.D. and Doishita, M. (2009) “The failure of multinational food

retailers in Japan: a matter of convenience”? British Food Journal, vol. 11, No. 4,

pp. 327-348.

Harper, Malcolm (2010) - "Retail Winners and Losers - The Impact of Orgainsed Retailing" ,

in Inclusive Value Chains: A Pathway Out of Poverty (Ed. Malcolm Harper), World

Scientific, London, pp. 16 - 27.

Huang, J and Bouis, H. (1996) “Structural change in the demand for food in Asia, Food”,

Agriculture, and Environment Discussion Paper, 11, International Food Policy

Research Institute, Washington, DC, Available at;

http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/2020_dp_dp11.pdf (accessed

on 3rd March, 2012)

Jagran Post (2011) ‘Indian food market to triple to USD 900 billion by 2020: Report”,

Available at http://post.jagran.com/Indian-food-market-to-triple-to-USD-900-

billion-by-2020-Report-1321467379 (accessed on 15th April, 2012).

Kapoor, S. and Kumar, N. (Unpublished), “Fruits and vegetables consumers’ behavior:

implications for organized retailers in emerging markets”, paper accepted for

publication in Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing.

Kaur, P. and Singh, R. (2007) “ Uncovering retail shopping motives of Indian youth” Young

Consumers, Vol. 8 no. 2, pp. 128 – 38.

Kearney, J. (2010) “Food Consumption Trends and Drivers’, Philosophical Transaction of

Royal Soceity B, Vol. 365, N0. 1554, pp. 2793 - 2807

Kearney, A. T, (2011) “ Retail global expansion: A portfolio of opportunities-2011 Global

retail index” A.T. Kearney 2011 http://www.atkearney.com/

images/global/pdf/Global_Retail_Expansion-GRDI_2011.pdf

Kiesel, K. and Villas-Boas S. B. (2007). “Got Organic Milk? Consumer Valuations of Milk

Labels after the Implementation of the USDA Organic Seal”. Journal of Agricultural

& Food Industrial Organization, Vol 5, No. 1, Article 4.

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

17

KPMG (2005) “Consumer Markets in India: The Next Big Things”, Publication no. 213 – 405,

KPMG International.

Kumar, N. and kapoor S. (2014), “Study of consumers’ behavior for non-vegetarian

products in emerging market of India”, Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and

Emerging Economies, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 59-77.

Kupiec, B. and Revell, B. (2001) “ Measuring consumer quality judgements” British Food

Journal, Vol. 103, No. 1, pp. 7 -22.

Mahaliyanaarachchi, R. P. (2007) “The impact of the behavioural patterns of vegetable

consumers on marketing activities” ,The Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Vol. 3 No.

1, pp 63 – 74

Mamgain, P. (2011) Food retail chains sell vegetables & fruits up to 40% cheaper than local

vendors, Economic Times, Jan 7, 2011, available at

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-01-07/news/284270231

vegetable-prices-safal-price-rise accessed on 19th July, 2012.

Mahaliyanaarachchi, R. P. (2007) “The impact of the behavioural patterns of vegetable

consumers on marketing activities” ,The Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Vol. 3 No.

1, pp 63 – 74

Maruyama, M. and Trung, L.V. (2007) “Traditional bazaar or supermarkets: a probit

analysis of affluent consumer perception in Hanoi” The International Review of

Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp 233 - 252

Mathew, J. (2013) “Freeing up India’s food markets”, East Asia Forum, on 18th October,

available at http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/10/18/freeing-up-indias-food-

markets/ (accessed on 4th

September, 2014)

McKinsey & Company (2007) “The Bird of Gold’: The rise of India’s consumer Market”

McKinsey Global Institute, 2007

http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/reports/pdfs/india_consumer_market/MGI_india_full_rep

ort.pdf

Meenakshi, J.V. (1996) “How important are changes in Taste? A state level analysis of food

demand”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 31, No.50, pp. 3265 –69.

Mittal, S. (2006) “Structural shift in demand for food: projection for 2020”, Working Paper

No. 184, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New

Delhi, Available at http://www.icrier.org/pdf/WP_184.pdf.

Mukherjeee A., Satija, D., Goyal, T.M., Mantrala, M.K. and Zou, A. (2011) “Impact of the

retail FDI policy on Indian consumers and the way forward” , ICRIER Policy Series

No. 5, August 2011, Indian Council for Research on International Economic

Relations, India.

NABARD (2011) “Current scenario of Indian food retail industry and future outlook of

development of organised food retail”, Chapter in OrganisedAgri-Food Retailing In

India, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. Mumbai, Pp. 26 -46.

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

18

Nicolae, I., and Corina P. (2011) “Consumer behavior on the fruits and vegetable market”,

Annals of the University of Oradea : Economic Science, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 749 – 754

Pingali, P. (2006) “Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems:

implications for research and policy” Food Policy, Vol. 32 No.3, pp. 281 – 98.

Raju, D. T. and Suryanarayana, M.V.A.N. (2005) “Meat consumption in Prakasam district of

Andhra Pradesh: an analysis”, Livestock Research of Rural Development, Vol. 17,

No. 11, Article #130. Available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/11/raju17130.htm,

(accessed on 10th March, 2014).

Rastogi, A. (2010) “Rural and small towns, the next big opportunity for Indian retail?’

available at http://trak.in/tags/business/2010/09/24/rural-india-retail-opportunity/

(accessed on 20th April, 2012).

Reardon, T. and Gulati A. (2008), “The rise of supermarkets and their development

implications: international experiences relevant for India”, IFPRI Discussion Paper

No. 00752, IFPRI, Washington, DC, February.

Sengupta, A. (2008) “Emergence of modern retail: an historical perspective”, International

Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 36, No. 9, pp. 689 -700.

Sinha, P.K. (2003) “Shopping Orientation in the evolving Indian market”, Vikalpa, Vol. 28,

No. 2, pp. 13 -22.

Sinha, P. K., Banerjee A., Uniyal, D.P. (2002) “Deciding where to buy: store choice

behavior of Indian Shoppers”, Vikalpa, Vol.27, No. 2, pp- 13 - 28

Sharma, V. P. and Jain, D. (2011) “High Value Agriculture in India: Past Trends and Future

Prospects”, Working Paper No. 2011-07-02; July 2011, Indian Institute of

Management, Ahmedabad, India.

Sheng, T.Y, Shamsudin, M.N., Mohamed, Z. A., Abdullah, A. M., and Radam, A. (2008)

“Food Consumption behavior of Malays in Malaysia” IIUM Journal of Economics

and Management, Vo. 16, no. 2 pp. 209-219

Srinivasan, N. and Elangovan, D. (2000) “Consumer perception towards processed fruits

and vegetable products”, International Journal of Marketing, Vol 30, No. 11-12, pp.

22- 25.

Timmer, C.P. (2005) “Agriculture and pro-poor growth: an Asian perspective” CGD Working

paper no. 63. Washington DC, Centre for Global Development

Upadhyay, H., and Pathania, R. (2013) “Consumer expenditure behavior in India: a case of

rural and urban consumer” International Journal of Business and Management

Invention, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp 68 – 73.

Vaish, N. (2007) Retail Vegetable market boom with Reliance, Future Group entry, India

Today available athttp://indiatoday.indiatoday.in/story/sabzi-madis-enhanced-

grading/1 /155962.html (accessed on 12th August, 2012).

Weirenga, B. (1983) “Model and Measurement Methodology for Analysis of consumer

choice of food products”, Journal of Food Quality, Vol. 6, No. pp. 119- 137

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

19

Winter, M.A (2008) “Traditional meat shop in India, available at

http://www.foodindustryindia.com/newfood/detailnews.jsp?n=Traditional+Meat+

Shops+in+India&id=496 (accessed on 3rd March, 2013).

About the authors

Dr. Niraj Kumar is a Professor of Rural Management at Xavier Institute of Management,

Bhubaneswar (India). His areas of interest are Agri-Business, Rural Marketing, and

Development Communication.

Dr. Sanjeev Kapoor is a professor at Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow (India). He

holds Ph.D. in Rural Banking and Agriculture Economics. His current research areas are

Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance.

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

1

Table 1: Socio-economic Profile of Respondents

Sl.

No.

Characteristics No. of Respondents

( %)

1 Gender

Male 55.3

Female 44.7

2. Age (years)

< 30 32.6

31 - 40 35.8

41 - 50 28.7

> 50 2.9

3. Education

Intermediate 7.0

Graduate 48.0

Post Graduate 45.0

4. Family monthly income (Rs.)

10,000 -20,000 7.4

20,000-40,000 40.0

40,000-75,000 48.1

>75,000 4.5

Table 2: Buying behavior for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food products

Product Frequency of

Purchase (mode value)

Average Transaction

Quantity (Kg.)

Vegetables 2 3.5

Fruits 3 2.7

Mutton 3 0.9

Chicken 3 0.9

Fish 2 1.0

Note: 1: Daily, 2: Twice to thrice in a week, 3: Once in a week, 4:Twice in a month ,5: Once

in a month

Table 3: Preferred Method for buying different food products (percentage of

respondents)

Decision Criteria

Non- Vegetarian

Products

Vegetarian Products

Physically verifying and selecting 35.4 69.0

Seeing the sample 56.6 26.5

Properly packed by vendor 1.0 3.5

Take branded product (packaged) 0.0 1.0

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

2

Table 4: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) between purchase behaviour and demographic

characteristics of consumers

Purchase Decision Product Gender Age Income

Frequency of Purchase Vegetables 1.73 9.84** 22.74***

Fruits 2.04 7.29* 21.27***

Mutton 0.038 2.313* 0.204

Chicken 0.096 1.045 0.170

Fish 0.652 0.424 1.478

Transaction Quantity Vegetables 0.96 4.76* 10.43***

Fruits 0.034 1.84 05.52***

Mutton 0.065 2.617** 1.322

Chicken 2.261 3.133** 0.958

Fish 0.238 0.673 0.427

Note: *** Significant at 1 percent level, **Significant at 5 percent level, * Significant at 10 percent level

Table 5: Importance of product attributes for vegetarian food products

Product Attributes Mean*

Freshness 4.9

Nutrition 4.8

Medicinal value 4.6

Hybrid/Local variety 4.5

Taste 4.5

Variety 4.5

Size 4.3

Colour 4.2

Odour 4.2

Grading/Sorting 4.2

Organically grown 3.9

*1= not at all important, 5= most important

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

3

Table 6: Importance of product attributes for non-vegetarian food products

Product Attributes Mean*

Served fresh 4.90

Chemical free 4.58

From healthy animal 4.55

Age 4.41

Maintained total hygienic

condition while processing 4.36

Kept well before slaughter 3.83

Animal with good quality

feed 3.62

*1= not at all important, 5= most important

Table 7: Factor Analysis - rotated component matrix for vegetarian food product

attributes

Product Attributes

Credence

Attributes

Search

Attributes

Experience

Attributes

Nutrition 0.841 0.121 0.007

Hybrid/Desi variety 0.808 0.162 -0.017

Organically grown 0.772 0.074 0.042

Medicinal value 0.643 0.276 0.068

Freshness 0.629 0.211 0.302

Grading/Sorting -0.043 0.856 0.000

Variety 0.356 0.678 -0.018

Size 0.448 0.655 0.087

Colour 0.442 0.495 0.371

Taste -0.152 0.223 0.896

Odour 0.284 -0.188 0.863

Total variance

explained (%) 30.83 19.25 16.30

Cumulative variance

explained (%) 30.83 50.08 66.38

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

4

Table 8: Factor Analysis - rotated component matrix for non-vegetarian food product

attributes

Attributes Food Safety Food Quality

Chemical free 0.900 0.163

Kept well before slaughter 0.869 0.248

Served fresh 0.718 0.402

From healthy animal 0.163 0.906

Animal fed in good quality food 0.244 0.706

Age 0.220 0.634

Maintained total hygienic condition while processing 0.534 0.606

Total Variance Explained (%) 55 14

Cumulative Variance Explained (%) 55 69

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Table 9: Importance of market attributes for vegetarian food products

Attributes Mean*

Vegetables Fruits

Market convenience 4.36 3.90

Availability of quality products 3.68 3.90

Availability of variety/choices 3.60 3.50

Availability of Fresh products 3.48 3.90

Hours of market operation 3.20 3.30

Price 3.08 3.10

Bargaining power 3.04 3.10

Market ambience 3.00 3.10

Market cleanliness 2.84 3.10

Market services 2.84 3.00

*1= not at all important, 5= most important

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

5

Table 10: Importance of market attributes for non-vegetarian food products

Factors Mean*

Assured good quality 4.64

Prepared in front 4.50

Near to house/ convenience 3.69

Acquaintance with shop keeper 3.37

Desired quantity 3.16

Special treatment 2.41

Cheaper than market 2.23

Credit transaction 1.62

*1= not at all important, 5= most important

Table 11: Factor analysis – rotated component matrix for market attributes: vegetables

Attributes

Factors

Physical

Appearance of

Market (M1)

Market

convenience

and services

(M2)

Availability

of quality

products

(M3)

Consumer

bargaining

power

(M4)

Market cleanliness 0.791 0.364 -0.219 0.078

Market ambience 0.550 0.227 -0.555 -0.238

Market convenience -0.205 0.839 -0.195 0.148

Market services 0.174 0.825 -0.014 -0.009

Hours of market

operation -0.076 0.933 -0.208 0.144

Availability of Fresh

products 0.040 0.091 0.864 -0.082

Availability of quality

products 0.540 0.205 0.751 0.052

Availability of

variety/choices 0.288 0.386 0.758 -0.062

Bargaining power -0.169 -0.249 -0.186 0.684

Price 0.371 -0.038 0.544 0.611

Total variance

explained (%) 26.82 21.73 16.74 12.68

Cumulative variance

explained (%) 26.82 48.55 65.29 77.97

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)

6

Table 12: Factor analysis – rotated component matrix for market attributes: fruits

Attributes

Factors

Consumer

bargaining

power (M4)

Physical

Appearance

of Market

(M1)

Availability

of quality

products

(M3)

Market

convenience

and

services

(M2)

Bargaining power 0.861 -0.146 0.060 -0.144

Price 0.812 -0.116 0.364 0.187

Market ambience -0.018 0.905 0.070 0.039

Market cleanliness -0.101 0.844 0.347 0.144

Availability of

variety/choices 0.201 0.405 0.763 -0.064

Availability of quality

products 0.240 0.128 0.858 0.145

Availability of Fresh

products 0.301 0.175 0.834 -0.009

Hours of market operation 0.146 -0.427 0.330 0.715

Market convenience 0.095 0.460 -0.302 0.695

Market services -0.388 0.267 0.170 0.679

Total variance explained

(%) 23.22 21.18 20.86 15.60

Cumulative variance

explained (%) 23.22 44.40 65.26 80.86

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Table 13: Factor Analysis - rotated component matrix for market attributes for non-

vegetarian food products

Attributes Facilities & Services (M1) Convenience (M2)

Special treatment 0.822 -0.285

Credit transaction 0.736 0.387

Desired quantity 0.679 -0.297

Cheaper than market 0.477 -0.635

Assured quality -0.761 -0.034

Acquaintance with shop keeper -0.021 0.892

Convenience -0.038 0.664

Prepared in front of eyes -0.711 0.436

Total Variance Explained (%) 45.3 18.9

Cumulative Variance Explained (%) 45.3 64.2

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

eaki

n U

nive

rsity

At 2

0:48

14

June

201

5 (P

T)