copyright is owned by the author of the thesis. permission ... · te kunenga ki p-cueltutoa...
TRANSCRIPT
Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author.
CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR AND FOOD PROCESSOR RESPONSE TOWARDS ETHNIC FOOD IN EAST JAVA,
INDONESIA
A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Inst itute o f Natural Res ource s
Massey University Palmerston North, New Zealand
HARI DWI UTAMI ------- -
2004
o MasseyUniversity COLLEGE OF SCIENCES
CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION
INSTITUTE OF NATURAL
RESOURCES
Agricuhural/Horticultural
Systems & Management
Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North,
New Zealand
Telephone: 64 6 356 9099 Facsimile: 64 6 350 5680
This is to certify that the research carried out for my Doctoral thesis entitled
"Consumer behaviour and food processor response towards ethnic food in East
Java, Indonesia" in the Institute of Natural Resources, College of Sciences, Massey
University, Turitea Campus, New Zealand is my own work and that the thesis
material has not been used in part or in whole for any other qualification.
Candidate's Name
Signature
�() -01 - J-oO �
Te Kunenga ki P-CuelTuToa Inception to Infinity: Massey University's commitment to learning as a life-long journey
o MasseyUniversity COLLEGE OF SCIENCES
SUPERVISOR'S OECLARA TION
INSTITUTE OF NATURAL
RESOURCES
Agricuhural/Horticuhural
Systems 8. Management
Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North,
New Zealand
Telephone: 64 6 356 9099
Facsimile: 64 6 350 5680
,--
This is to certify that the research carried out for the Doctoral thesis entitled
"Consumer behaviour and food processor response towards ethnic food in East
Java, Indonesia" was done by Hari Dwi Utami in the Institute of Natural Resources,
College of Sciences, Massey University, Turitea Campus, New Zealand. The thesis
material has not been used in part or in whole for any other qualification, and I
confirm that the candidate has pursued the course of study in accordance with the
requirements of the Massey University regulations.
Supervisor's Name: Associate Professor Steven Morris
( (D ,� UI £�-v J. C� hr u rS£u
Signature 17 A-1 & �/I..A. � C'-- �-
/V ';jj �
Te l{unenga ki Pun: hUToa ,�
Inception to Infinity: Massey University's commitment to learning as a life-long journey
o Massey University COLLEGE OF SCIENCES
CERTIFICATE OF REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
INSTITUTE OF NATURAL
RESOURCES
Agricultural/Horticultural
Systems 8. Management
Private Bag 11 222. Palmerston North.
New Zealand
Telephone: 64 6 356 9099
Facsimile: 64 6 350 5680
This is to certify that the research carried out in the Doctoral Thesis entitled
"Consumer behaviour and food processor response towards ethnic food in East
Java, Indonesia" in the Institute of Natural Resources, College of Sciences, at
Massey University, New Zealand:
(a) is the original work of the candidate, except as indicated by appropriate
attribution in the text and/or in the acknowledgements;
(b) that the text, excluding appendices/annexes, does not exceed 100,000 words;
(c) all the ethical requirements applicable to this study have been complied with
as required by Massey University, other organisations and/or committees
which had a particular association with this study, and relevant legislation.
Please insert Ethical Authorisation code(s) here: (if applicable) F)tJ p(O�oc...e-e 01(71
Candidate's Name: t-t�\ Dlut \)\-A\V\\ Supervisor's Name: .S .T- ('10..'-;<� �.� (tui1�v�� Signature: � Signature: (/()f�
Date: "h - I - 01 Date:
'le Kunen!!3. ki P·urehuroa �-)
Inception to Infinity: Massey University's commitment to learning as a life-long journey
ABSTRACT
This research examined two ethnic foods, Malang meatballs and Kediri tofu as representative of ethnic foods in East Java, Indonesia. The study examined how consumers behave in relation to their own ethnic food and how food processors respond towards these foods. Consumer behaviour was viewed as the purchasing decision process : purchasing intention, purchasing action and the satisfaction towards these foods. Food processor response was explained by the processing and marketing strategies towards ethnic foods.
Multistage area sampling was used to randomly select 400 households from either Malang or Kediri areas (200 urban and 200 rural) as consumer respondents. One hundred meatball processors and 86 tofu processors respondents were selected from urban areas using cluster sampling. Respondents were interviewed using a structured questionnaire by the researcher and enumerators. Logistic regression analysis was used to analyse consumer behaviour towards ethnic food. Multiple and logistic regression procedures were applied to analyse the response of the home meatball industries (the HMls) or the home tofu industries (the HTls) towards ethnic food.
The results from this study can contribute to a better understanding of consumers' preferences towards Malang meatballs (an animal protein based food) or Kediri tofu (a plant protein based food). Firstly, consumers preferred Malang meatballs compared to street foods (i .e . 'soto', 'tahu campur', and fried noodle), and Kediri tofu than other types of tofu (i .e . fried tofu and regular tofu). Consumers who preferred unique taste and lived in urban areas would choose Kediri tofu, whereas younger consumers who concerned freshness and a 'halal food' may select Malang meatballs. Unlike Kediri tofu, the availability of Malang meatballs can increase consumers' purchasing action towards this product. However, surrounding cold air temperature influenced consumers In selecting these foods. Similar to Malang meatballs, an increase in repeat purchase towards Kediri tofu might be used as representative of consumers satisfaction towards this food.
Secondly, urban and rural consumers' preference towards Malang meatballs and Kediri tofu is characterised by the type of ethnic food. Unlike Malang meatballs, rural
11 ABSTRACT
consumers' choice towards Kediri tofu was associated with an actual purchase,
however this appeared no relationship with their satisfaction towards Kediri tofu. This
was related to rural consumers' choice for Kediri tofu being based more on product
appearance, aroma, originality, place (i .e. a clean and a convenient place), and the
offering good service. Rural consumers who perceived the importance of knowledge
(i .e. food quality, nutrition, and 'halal food'), other people's influence, and surrounding
air temperature may select Malang meatballs as snack due to self-service offered by
sellers. Married urban consumers tended to select Kediri tofu, whereas single
consumers who had more female household members would improve the choice for
Malang meatballs . Urban and rural consumers who had a high education level (�
secondary school) might choice Kediri tofu because they preferred unique taste of this
product, whereas female consumers selected Malang meatballs more . In contrast to
Kediri tofu, the availabil ity of Malang meatballs would increase consumers in
purchasing this product. Consumers would repurchase towards either Malang
meatballs or Kediri tofu if they were satisfied with these foods.
The study offers an explanation of processing and marketing strategies used by the
HMIs and the HTIs when responding towards consumers. Firstly, processing
strategies focused on machine techniques (meat cutting combined with mixing meat
and other ingredients) for the 'medium to large' (the 'MTL') group of the HMIs (using
� 5 Kg of meat per day) ; and on a manual techniques strategy (using a combination
local and imported soybean types with manual techniques in processing Kediri tofu)
for the 'MTL' group of the HTIs (using � 50 Kg of soybeans per day). Secondly, the
mixed marketing strategies are used by the HMIs: unique taste combined with
promotional tools (general); a mixing between a clean and convenient place with
good service and the time daily in selling meatballs (both groups); unique taste
combining with a low price (the 'SM') group (using < 5 Kg of meat per day); and a
low price strategy (the 'MTL' group) to meet consumers' needs (i .e . a 'halal food',
unique taste, a low price, and a convenient purchasing place). The HTIs offered a
combination of marketing strategies such as promotional tools with a convenient
selling place; the time daily for sel ling Kediri tofu mixed with the offering of a low
price, and promotional tools combined with a convenient selling place strategies (the
111 ABSTRACT
'MTL' group); offering fresh product and a low price combined with word of mouth,
and applying a convenient selling place (the ' SM' group) (using < 50 Kg of soybeans per day) to fulfil consumers' demand towards low price, originality of Kediri tofu and a convenient purchasing place.
IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Praise is to Allah Almighty, the most Gracious, and the most Merciful, with whose
help I have been able to complete my studies.
I would like to thank to my supervisors: Dr Ganesh Rauniyar, Professor Bil l Bai ley,
Associate Professor Stephen Morris, and Professor Dr. Hari Purnomo for their
guidance, encouragement, patience, and for providing constructive ideas which made
the completion of this dissertation possible.
I am also very grateful to Professor Russ Tillman, Head of Institute Natural
Resources, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand, in providing funding
for field research in Indonesia and during my thesis completion. Thanks also to
Professor Alex Chu who has initiated a collaborative project between Massey and
Brawij aya University and for providing me with the opporturIity to get a scholarship
for my Doctorate programme at Massey University.
I gratefully acknowledge the help of Professor Ken Milne, Chairperson Doctorate
Research Committee (DRC) and Mrs. Sylvia Hooker, Team Leader International
Students Support Services at Massey University whose dedicated efforts and strong
enthusiasm made this dissertation possible.
My gratitude is extended to the New Zealand Official Development Assistance
(NZODA) programme, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Wellington, New
Zealand for the Student Scholarship and the Indonesian Government for allowing me
to study in New Zealand.
Thanks also to Professor Dr. Afnan Troena (ex-Rector of Brawijaya University) and
Professor Dr Bambang Guritno, Rector of Brawijaya University, Malang, East Java,
Indonesia in providing research funding for field research in Indonesia. Dr. Ifar
Subagyo (Dean of Faculty of Animal Husbandry, Brawijaya University), Dr.
Bambang Ali Nugroho, my colleagues and students from Brawijaya University at
v Acknowledgements
Malang city and from Kediri Islamic University at Kediri city, East Java, Indonesia for the help during field research in Indonesia.
I would to acknowledge Robert and Ruth Thompson for providing assistance in English language writing. I thank Denise Stewart (secretary in Natural Resources Management), and Denise Brunskill (secretary of Institute of Natural Resources, Massey University, Palmerston North) who always very pleased in giving assistance every time I needed. Also, I thank all my friends in New Zealand who always support me during my study at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Finally, I want to express my greatest thanks and deepest gratitude to my beloved mother Sundari, sisters Ir. Setyo Hari Purwati and Hari Tri Wahyuni, brothers Drs. Hari Agus Basuki and Drs. Hari Budi Wiyono, niece Ainun Pizar Seruni and nephew Prima Setyo Wiyono for their prayers, enduring love, and encouragement during my studies at Massey University, New Zealand.
Hari Dwi Utami
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ta ble of contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
List of Fig ures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
List of Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
<:lIJ\j>lllCIt ()�IC: I�llIt()])lJ<=llI()� ........................................................ .
1 . 1 Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .
1 .2
1 . 3
1 .4
The view of Malang meatballs and Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Background and problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thesis str ucture and outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV VI
XIV XVll
XVlll
1
3
4
7
1 4
<:lIJ\j>lllCIt llW(): LIllKRA llUM MVIICW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5
2 . 1 Ethnic food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5
2 . 2
2 .3
Cosumer behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 .2 . 1
2 .2 .2
2 .2 .3
What is consumer behaviour? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical review of consumer behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 .2 . 1
2 .2 .2 .2
Economic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Psychology approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 .2 .2 .1 Fishbein model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 .2 .2 .2 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 .2 .2 .3 EKB model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Factors influencing cons umers' purchasing behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 .2 . 3 . 1 Consumer chara cteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 .2 .3 .2 Food characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 1
2 1
22
23
26
26
27
33
37
39
43
2 .2 .3 .3 Environmental charac teris tics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Food processor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 .3 . 1 Agroindustry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 .2 Food processor response towards consumers and their
52
52
competitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2 .3 .3
2 .3 .2 . 1 Processing strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55
2 .3 .2 .2 Marke ting strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
The linkages of food enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 .3. 1 Vertical l inkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 .3 . 3 . 2 Horisontal linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vi
6 1
62
64
vu
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.3.4 The research relating to food processor response to consumers
2.3.5
and their competitors . ................. ........................................ 65
2.3.4.1 The studies related to marketing strategy...................... 65
2.3.4.2
2.3.4.1.1 The studies related to ethnic food marketing
strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 68
Factors influence on food processor response towards
consumers and their competitors ............................... .
The linkage of literature review to present study ....................... ' "
69
71
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGy .................................................. 74
3.1 Theoretical framework.................................................................... 74
3.1.1
3.1.2
Consumer behaviour model ................................................. .
Food processor response ..................................................... .
3.1.2.1
3.1.2.2
Processing strategy .............................................. .
Marketing strategy ............................................... .
74
84
84
88
3.2 Area selection.............................................................................. 91
3.2.1 The selection of respondents ................................................. . 92
3.2.1.1 The selection of consumer respondents........................ 92
3.2.1.2 The selection of food processor respondents.................. 97
3.3 Data collection............................................................................. 99
3.4 Analytical methods ....................................................................... 101
3.4.1 Analytical methods for consumer purchasing behaviour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.4.2 Analytical methods for food processor.......................... ............ 102
3.4.3 Data analysis procedures ..................................................... 103
3.4.3.1
3.4.3.2
3.4.3.3
3.4.3.4
Consumer purchasing behaviour towards Malang
meatballs ......................................................... 104
Consumer purchasing behaviour towards Kediri tofu ....... 109
Food processor's response towards Malang meatballs....... 109
Food processor's response towards Kediri tofu ............... 114
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS and DISCUSSIONS - Consumer behaviour
towards Malang meatballs ............................................................ 1 15
4.1 The profile of Malang meatballs consumer respondents ............................ 115
4.2 Consumer behaviour towards Malang meatballs ..................................... 119
4.2.1 Consumers' attitudes towards Malang meatballs and social norms .... 119
4.2.2 Cosumers' perceptions towards Malang meatballs ....................... 118
4.2.3 Purchasing intentions towards Malang meatballs ......................... 12 1
4.2.3.1 Factors associated with consumers' purchasing
intentions towards Malang meatballs ...................... ... 123
Vlll
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.2.4 Factors associated with consumers' purchasing actions towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.5 Factors associated with consumers' satisfaction towards 1 28
Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 29 4.3 Comparison of urban and rural consumers' purchasing behaviour towards
4.4
Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 1 4.3 .1 Similarity of urban and rural consumers' attitudes and social norms
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3 .4
towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 31 Urban and rural consumers' perceptions about Malang meatballs 1 33 4.3 .2 .1 Similarity urban and rural consumers' perceptions
towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 33 4.3 .2.2 Different between urban and rural consumers'
perceptions towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 35 Urban and rural consumers' purchasing intentions towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 .3 .1 Similarity factors associated with urban and rural consumers' purchasing intentions towards Malang
1 37
meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 37 4.3. 3 .2 Different factors associated with urban and rural
consumers' purchasing intentions towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 39
Factors explaining urban and rural consumers' purchasing actions towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 45
4.3 .5 Factors explaining urban and rural consumers' satisfaction towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
General discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 46 1 47
CHAPT ER FIV E: R ESU LTS and DISCUSSIONS - Food processor response
towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 50 5 .1 The profile of Malang meatball processor respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 50
5 .1 .1 General characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 50 5.1 .2 Perceptions regarding the raw materials used for Malang metaballs . . . 1 52
5 . 1 .2.1 Perceptions regarding the raw materials used for Malang meatballs by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of food processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 54 5 .1 .2.1 .1 Perceptions regarding the raw materials
used for Malang meatballs by the 'small' group of food processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 54
IX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5 . 1 .3
5 . 1 .2 . 1 .2 Perceptions regarding the raw materials
used for Malang meatballs by the 'medium
to large' group of food processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 54
Perceptions towards consumers and other external factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 56
5 .1 .3 . 1 Perceptions towards consumers and other external
factors by the 'small ' and the 'medium to large' groups
of meatball processors . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 58
5. 2 Processing strategies used by meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 59
5 .2. 1 The types of processing strategies . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 59
5 .2 .1 . 1 Factor analysis of processing strategies used by
meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 59
5 .2.2 Fac tors explaining processing strategies used by meatball
processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 1
5 .2.3 The types of processing strategies used by the 'small ' and the
'medium to large' groups of meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . 1 64
5 .2.3 . 1 Factor analysis of processing st rategies used by
the 's mall ' group of meatbal l processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 .2 .3 .2 Factor analysis of processing s trategies used by the
1 64
'medium to large' group of meatball processors . . . . . ... .. . . . . 1 64
5 .2.4 Factors associated with processing strategies used by the 'small '
and the 'medium to large' groups of meatball processors . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 1 65
5 .2.4. 1 Factors explaining processing strategies used by
the 'medium to large' group of meatball processors . . . ... . . . 1 67
5.3 Marketing strategies used by meatball processors . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 68
5 . 3 . 1 The types of marketing strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 1 69
5 .3 . 1 . 1 Factor analysis of marketing strategies used by
meatbal l processors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 69
5 . 3.2 Factors influencing the marketing strategies used by meatball
5 .3 .3
processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 1
The types of marketing strategies used by the 'small ' and the
'medium to large' groups of meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 76
5 .3 . 3 . 1 Factor analysis-l of market ing stra tegies used by
5 . 3 . 3 .2
5 .3 .3 .3
the 'small ' group of meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 77
Factor analysis-2 of marketing strategies used by
the 's mall ' group meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 77
Factor analysis of marketing strategies used by
the 'medium to large' group of meatball processors . . . . . . .. . . 1 78
5 .3 .4 Factors explaining the marketing strategies used by the 's mall '
and the 'medium to large' groups of meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 80
x TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.3.4.1
5.3.4.2
5.4 General discussion
Similarity factors influencing the marketing strategies used by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of meatball processors . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Different factors influencing the marketing strategies used by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . 183
184
CHAPT ER SI X: R ESU LTS and DISCUSSIONS - Consumer behaviour
towards Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
6.1
6.2
The profile of Kediri tofu consumer respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Consumer behaviour towards Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Consumer attitudes towards Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
188
191
191
6.2.2 Consumer perceptions towards Kediri tofu . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . ..... 193
6.2.3 Consumers' purchasing intentions towards Kediri tofu ... . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . 195
6.2.3.1 Factors associated with consumers' purchasing intentions towards Kediri tofu . . . .... . . . . . . . ... . . . ... . . . ... . . . . . 195
6.2.4 Factors associated with consumers' purchasing action towards Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. . . . . . 200
6.2.5 Factors associated with consumers' satisfaction towards Kediri tofu . ... . . . ... . ...... . . . ........... . .... . ....... . . . . . . . ............ . . .. . . . 201
6.3 Comparison of urban and rural consumers' purchasing behaviour towards Kediri tofu .... . ............. . ......... . ... . ...... . ...... . . ... ......... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 202
6.3.1 Attitudes and social norms towards Kediri tofu by location (urban vs. rural) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ..... . . ... . . . 202
6.3.1.1 Different of the urban and rural consumers' attitudes towards Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
6.3.2 Urban and rural consumers' perceptions related to Kediri tofu . . . . . . 205
6.3.2.1 Different of the urban and rural consumers' perceptions towards Kediri tofu . . ......... . . . .. . . .. . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
6.3.3 Urban and rural consumers' purchasing intentions towards Kediri tofu . . . . . . .... ....... ........ ............ ..... ....... ....... ..... ......... .... .... 209
6.3.3.1
6.3.3.2
Similarity factors explaining urban and rural consumers purchasing intentions towards Kediri tofu . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 209
Different factors explaining urban and rural consumers' purchasing intention towards Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
6.3.4 Factors associated with urban and rural consumers' purchasing actions towards Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 2 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.3.5 Factors associated with rural consumers' satisfaction towards
Xl
Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
6.4 General discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
CHAPT ER S EVEN: RESU LTS and DISCUSSIONS - Food processor
response towards Kediri tofu ................................................................... 222
7.1 The profile of Kediri tofu processor respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
7.1.1 General characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
7.1.2 Perceptions about the raw materials used for Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
7.1.2.1 Perceptions about the raw materials used for Kediri tofu by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of food processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
7.1.2.1.1 Similarity perceptions about the raw materials used for Kediri tofu between the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups . . . . . ... . 226
7.1.2.1.2 Different perceptions about the raw materials used for Kediri tofu between the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups . . . . . . . . . 226
7.1.3 Perceptions towards consumers and other external factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
7.1.3.1 Perceptions towards consumers and other external factors by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of tofu processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 229
7.1.3.1.1 Similarity perceptions towards consumers and other external factors for the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of tofu processors 229
7.1.3.1.2 Different perceptions towards consumers and other external factors for the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of tofu processors 229
7.2 Processing strategies used by tofu processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
7.2.1 Factors explaining the processing strategies used by tofu processors . . . ... . .... . . .. ... . . ........ . . . . .. .... . ... ... .. ....... . . ... .. . ... 232
7.2.2 Types of processing strategies used by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of tofu processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
7.2.2.1 Factor analysis of processing strategies used by the 'medium to large' group of tofu prpocessors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
7.2.3 Factors associated with processing strategies used by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of tofu processors . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
XlI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7.2.3.1
7.2.3.2
Similarity factors explaining processing strategies used by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of food processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Different factors explaining processing strategies used by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of food processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
7.3 Marketing strategies used by tofu processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . ..... . 240
7.3.1 Factor analysis of the marketing strategies used by tofu processors . . . . . . 242
7.3.1.1 Factor associated with marketing strategies used by tofu processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .. ..... ... .. . . ... . .... . .. . ... .. . .. .... . 242
7.3.2 Types of marketing strategies used by the 'small' and the 'medium
7.3.3
to large' groups of tofu processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
7.3.2.1 Factor analysis of marketing strategies used by the 'small' group of tofu processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
7.3.2.2 Factor analysis of marketing strategies used by the 'medium to large' group of tofu processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Factors influencing marketing strategies used by the 'small ' and the 'medium to large' groups of tofu processors . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
7.3.3.1 Similarity factors influencing marketing strategies used by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of
7.3.3.2
tofu processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Different factors influencing the marketing strategies used by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of
251
tofu processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
7.4 General discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
CHAPT ER EIGHT: SUMMARY, CONC LUS IONS, and IMP LICATIONS ........ 260
8.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ....... , . .. ... .. .. ..... 260
8.1.1 Methodological considerations . . . . . . . ............... ... . .. . .. . .. . .. ... ... . ... . 260
8.1.2 Do consumers prefer ethnic food? . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
8.1.3 What regional characteristics differentiate consumer preferences towards ethnic food? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
8.1.4 Do food processors respond to consumer demand? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
8.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
8.2.1 Consumers' preferences for Malang meatballs (an animal protein based food) and Kediri tofu (a plant protein based food) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
8.2.2 Different between urban and rural condumers' preferences towards Malang meatballs and Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
X III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
8 . 3
8.2 .3 Processing and marketing strategies used by food processors in responding to consumers demand for Malang meatballs and Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2i 269 8.2.3 .1 Processing strategies used by food processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 8.2 .3 .2 Marketing strategies offered by food processors . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
8 .2.4 Different between the 'small ' and the 'medium to large' groups of Malang meatballs and Kediri tofu processors' response towards consumer demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 8.2.4.1
8.2.4.2
Implications
Processing strategies used by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of food processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . , 272 Marketing strategies used by the 'small' and the 'medium 273 to large' groups of food processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
274
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . 296
Table 1.1
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3.1
Table 4.3.2
Table 4.3.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6.1
Table 4.6.2
Table 4.6.3
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 5.5
Table 5.6
Table 5.7
LIST OF TABLES
Nutritive value of some foods (100 gram) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Factor loading patterns of consumers' attitudes and social norms towards Malang meatballs (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 120 Factor loading patterns of consumers' perceptions towards Malang meatballs (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Factors associated with consumers' purchasing intention towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Factors associated with consumers' purchasing action towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Factors associated with consumers' satisfaction towards Malang meatballs Factor loading patterns of urban and rural consumers' attitudes and social norms towards Malang meatballs (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Factor loadings pattern of urban and rural consumers' perceptions towards Malang meatballs (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Factors associated with urban and rural consumers' purchasing intention towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Factors associated with urban and rural consumers' purchasing action towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Factors associated with urban and rural consumers' satisfaction towards
122
124
124 124
132
134
138
138
Malang meatballs ................................................................... 138 Factor loading patterns of food processors' perceptions towards raw materials used for Malang meatballs (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Factor loading patterns of the perceptions towards the raw materials for the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Factor loading patterns of food processors' perceptions towards consumers and other external factors (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Factor loading patterns of food processors' perceptions towards consumers and other factors by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups (varimax rotation) ................................................................... 157 Percentage of processing strategies used by meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . .
Factor loading patterns of processing strategies used by meatball processors . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Factors explaining the processing strategies used by meatball processors .
xiv
160
160 162
xv LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.8
Table 5.9
Table 5.10
Table 5.11
Table 5.12
Table 5 .1 3
Table 5.14
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3.1
Table 6.3.2
Table 6.3.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 6.6.1
Table 6.6.2
Table 6.6.3
Table 7.1
Factor loading patterns of processing strategies used by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of meatball processors (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . 162
Factors associated with processing strategies used by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Percentage of marketing strategies used by meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Factor loading patters of marketing strategies used by meatball processors (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Factors associated with the marketing strategies used by meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Factor loading patterns of marketing strategies used by the 'small' and the 'medium to large groups of meatball processors(varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . . 179
Factors associated with the marketing strategies used by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1
Factor loading patterns of consumers' attitudes towards Kediri tofu (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Factor loading patterns of consumers' perceptions towards Kediiri tofu (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Factors associated with consumers' purchasing intention towards Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Factors associated with consumers' purchasing action towards Kediri tofu 196
Factors associated with consumers' satisfaction towards Kediri tofu . . . . . . . 196
Factor loading patterns of attitudes and social norms towards Kediri tofu by location (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Factor loading patterns of perceptions towards Kediri tofu by location (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Factors associated with urban and rural consumers' purchasing intention towards Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 10
Factors associated with urban and rural consumers' purchasing action towards Kediri tofu ................................................................. 2 10
Factors associated with urban and rural consumers' satisfaction towards Kediri tofu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Factor loading patterns of tofu processors' perceptions towards the raw materials used for Kediri tofu (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
LIST OF TABLES
Table 7.2
Table 7.3
Table 7.4
Table 7.S Table 7.6 Table 7.7
Table 7.8
Table 7.9 Table 7.1 0
Table 7.11 Table 7.1 2
Table 7.1 3
XVI
Factor loading patterns of perceptions towards the raw materials for Kediri tofu by groups of tofu processors (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Factor loading patterns of perceptions towards consumers and other external factors (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Factor loading patterns of perceptions towards consumers and other external factors by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Percentage of processing stategies used by tofu processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Factors associated with the purchasing strategies used by tofu processors . . 23 1
Factor loading patterns of processing strategies used by the 'medium to large' group of tofu processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Factors associated with processing strategies used by the 'small' and the 'medium to large' groups of tofu processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
The percentage of marketing strategies used by tofu processor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1
Factor loading patterns of marketing strategies used by tofu procesors (varimax roration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1
Factors associated with the marketing strategies used by tofu processors Factor loading patterns of marketing strategies used by the 'small' and the ' d· l ' ( . . ) me IUm to arge groups vanmax roratIon . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Factors associated with marketing strategies used by the 'small' and the
244
247
'medium to large' groups of tofu procesors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Figure 1. 1
Figure 1 .2
Figure 1 . 3
Figure 1 .4
Figure 3 . 1
Figure 3 .2
Figure 3 . 3
Figure 3 .4
Figure 3 .5
Figure 3.6
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
LIST OF FIGURES
Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Malang meatball seller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Kediri tofu stalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Consumer purchasing behaviour towards Malang meatballs . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 75
Consumer purchasing behaviour towards Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Food processor response towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Food processor response towards Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Multistage area sampling for consumer behaviour towards ethnic food .... 94
Multistage cluster sampling for food processor response towards ethnic
food . . . . . . ................. ....... ....... ............................... ..... .... ...... 98
The profile of meatball consumer respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
The profile of Malang meatball processor respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
The profile of tofu consumer respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
The profi le of Kediri tofu processor respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
xvii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Correlation analysis of the explanatory variables for consumers' purchasing behaviour towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
Appendix 1 .1 Correlation analysis of the explanatory variables for urban consumers' purchasing behaviour towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
Appendix 1 .2 Correlation analysis of the explanatory variables for rural consumers' purchasing behaviour towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 300
Appendix 1 .3 Regression analysis results of the explanatory variables for urban and rural
Appendix 2
Appendix 2.1
consumers' purchasing behaviour towards Malang meatballs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 302
Correlation analysis of explanatory variables for processing strategies used by meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. ... .. . . . . . . . . . 303
Correlation analysis of explanatory variables for processing strategies used by the 'small' group of meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
Appendix 2.2 Correlation analysis of explanatory variables of processing strategies used by the 'medium to large' group of meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 305
Appendix 3 Correlation analysis of explanatory variables for marketing strategies used by meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
Appendix 3.1 Correlation analysis of explanatory variables for marketing strategies used by the 'small' group of meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Appendix 3.2 Correlation analysis of explanatory variables for marketing strategies used
Appendix 4
by the 'medium to large' group of meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
Percentage of processing and marketing strategies used by meatball processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Appendix 5 Correlation analysis of explanatory variables for consumers' purchasing behaviour towards Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
Appendix 5 .1 Correlation analysis of explanatory variables for urban consumers' purchasing behaviour towards Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
Appendix 5 .2 Correlation analysis of explanatory variables for rural consumers' purchasing behaviour towards Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
Appendix 5 . 3 Results of regression analysis of explanatory variables for urban and rural
Appendix 6
consumers' purchasing behaviour towards Kediri tofu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
Correlation analysis of explanatory variables for processing strategies used by tofu processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
xviii
XIX
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 6.1 Correlation analysis of explanatory variables for processing strategies used by the 'small' group of tofu processors . . . . .. . ....... . ... . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 18
Appendix 6.2 Correlation analysis of explanatory variables for processing strategies used
Appendix 7
by the 'medium to large' group of tofu processors . . . . . . . ...... . ..... . .... . . .. . 319
Correlation analysis of explanatory variables for marketing strategies used by tofu processors . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . .. ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 320
Appendix 7.1 Correlation analysis of explanatory variables for marketing strategies used by the 'small' group of tofu processors . ... . . . ... . .. . ...... . .. . ... . . . . . .. . . . ..... . 321
Appendix 7.2 Correlation analysis of explanatory variables for marketing strategies used
Appendix 8
Appendix 9
Appendix 10
Appendix 11
Appendix 12
Appendix 13
by the 'medium to large' group of tofu processors . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of processing and marketing strategies used by tofu processors Factor loading patterns of processing strategies used by general and the 'small' group of tofu processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . Survey Form 1: 'Consumer behaviour towards Malang meatballs' . . . . . . . .. . . Survey Form 2: 'Food processor response towards Malang meatballs' . . . . . .
Survey Form 3: 'Consumer behaviour towards Kediri tofu' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey Form 4: 'Food processor response towards Kediri tofu' . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
322
323
323
324
332
339
347