ELSEVIER

Food Q&i0 and ficfbnce Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1%26, 1997

Copyright 0 1996 Elswicr Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
Pllt SOSSO-3293(96)00004-3 0950-3293/9? 8 17.00 + .oo
ENVl RONMENTALCONCERNI NCONSUMEREVALUATl ONOF
FOODQUALI TY
Margareta Wandel* & Annechen Bugge
National Institute for Consumer Research, P.O. Box 173, N-1324, Lysaker, Oslo, Norway
(Accepted 10 January 1996)
ABSTRACT
Three food groups, which are central in the Norwegian diet,
were chosen for investigation of consumer valuation of
quality: fruits and vegetables, potatoes, and meat. Most
consumers prioritize freshness, taste and nutritional value.
Those consumers who gave priority to environmental aspects
were least satisfied with the quality of these products. A
further investigation of consumer relationship to environ-
mental aspects of food was made through analyses of the
characteristics of consumers who 1) put priority on envir-
onmental aspects in their quality valuation of food, 2) are
willing to pay an extra price for foods produced in an
environmentally sound manner, and 3) buy these products
today.
The results showed that women are more likely to prior-
itize environmental aspects in their quality evaluation of
food, and they are more likely to buy these products, than
men. People in the highest educational group were also more
likely to put priority on environmentally sound production.
There were geographical differences; people living in Oslo
and Northern Norway were least likely to put priority on
ecological production. There was no independent effect of
income, occupation or age. However, the reasons for
buying foods from environmentally sound production were
different in the various age groups. The youngest age group
based their buying behavior on the considerations for the
environment and animal welfare, whereas consideration for
own health was the most prominent reason in the oldest age
group. The results indicate that many consumers are inter-
ested in foods produced in an ecologically sound manner, but
they are not willing to pay the present high prices for these
products. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Keywords: Consumers; food quality; meat; vegetables;
potatoes; environment; Norway.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed.
I NTRODUCTI ON
Background
Food quality can be defined in a number of ways. The
attributes included in the concept of quality depend on
who is making the definition. Typical actors partici-
pating in the valuation of food quality are food pro-
ducers, government officials, marketing people and
consumers (Lien, 1989). The producers commonly give
preference to technical use-attributes, such as increased
yield, suitability for mechanical harvesting and industrial
preparation, as well as resistance against insects and dis-
eases (Nilsson, 1978). The wholesale dealer and the
retailer may give preference to visual attributes, such as
size, form and color and that the products keep well.
Government officials are involved in regulations con-
cerning health aspects, for example amounts of con-
taminants and types of additives allowed in food.
Consumers are interested in many aspects related to food
quality, such as taste, freshness, appearance, nutritional
value and food safety. However, the main focus of inter-
est among the consumers may vary in different societies
and at different times.
Recent studies in a number of countries have shown
that consumers are becoming increasingly interested in
food qualities which cannot be discovered by looking,
tasting or smelling the products (Smith, 1991; Jussaume
& Judson, 1992; Schafer et al., 1993; Wandel, 1994).
Such quality attributes are related to the nutritional
content and hygienic standards of foods, as well as to the
status with regard to food additives, rests of agro-
chemicals and contamination from environmental pollu-
tion. Consumers are also becoming interested in foods
produced according to ethical aspects of animal rearing.
Discussions about food in consumer organizations, have
increasingly included environmentally sound production
and animal welfare principles in the concept of food
quality. This has inspired the international organization
of consumers union to include these aspects in their work
towards improvement of food quality standards (IOCU,
1993).
19
20 M. Wandel, A. Bugge
Environmental orientation and community vs.
personal interests
Whereas conventional quality properties such as taste
and freshness, as well as nutritional quality, are related
to personal interests, the environmental properties of
food may, in addition, be related to wider, more com-
munity oriented interests. Consumers may, for example,
express interest in buying foods from environmentally
sound production, either because of concern for own
health or out of concern for the external environment.
The division between community or group benefit
orientation and personal benefit orientation has been the
focus of interest for psychologists as well as sociologists and
political scientists. The group benefit orientation has been
conceptualized in different ways by various authors.
Cotgrove (1982) maintains that two opposing positions
have emerged in relation to environmental issues. What
he calls the cornupian position entails core values of
economic growth, a commitment to the goal of mastery
and dominion over nature, and the belief that man has
both the right and the ability to use nature instrumentally
for his own ends and purposes. The opposing cata-
strophist position entails a belief that dangers facing
society from pollution growth, and shortages of various
kinds are problems inherent to industrial capitalism.
Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) worked with the concept
of New Environmental Paradigm (NEP), as opposed to
the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP). The proponents
of NEP argue that the belief in abundance and progress,
the faith in science and technology, and a laissez-faire
economy all contribute to environmental degradation.
He found a high degree of consistency between different
attitude indicators of NEP. He also found that the
environmental paradigm had won more acceptance
among the general public than he would have expected.
Cultural theorists have proposed that individuals
choose their objects of concern in order to support their
way of life (Douglas & Wildawsky, 1982; Wildavsky,
1987; Dake, 1991). The point that is made is that what
people are concerned and worried about, can be pre-
dicted from knowledge of cultural characteristics and
social relations. Results from individual level analysis
have also lent support to the cultural theory (Dake, 1991).
However, even though people may be concerned about
environmental issues, it can not be assumed that behavior
has changed accordingly. The link between attitudes and
behavior is often rather tenuous, especially with regard to
environmental issues (Schuman & Johnson, 1976; Grunert
& Kristensen, 1992; Alwitt & Berger, 1993). This is parti-
cularly the case when the product represents a conflict
between environmental soundness and other perceived
benefits, such as convenience, performance, various other
quality attributes, and prices. Uusitalo (1990) has pointed
out that, even though environmental quality is generally
perceived as one of the most important social goals, free
riding tendencies are present as soon as a social goal
interferes with the respondents own economic utility.
Objective and problem issues
The objective of this study is to contribute to a better
understanding of consumers priorities in their choice of
food. The main focus is consumers relationship to envir-
onmentally sound production of food. Since consumer
organizations view environmental aspects as part of the
quality concept, it was interesting to find out to what
degree the general consumer is concerned about these
issues and perceive them as important quality aspects of
food. To this end, environmentally sound manner and
environmental aspects mean that the consumers know
that the food is produced in an environmentally sound
manner, with less industrially produced fertilizer and
less pesticides and herbicides. The following research
questions were posed:
How do consumers evaluate environmentally sound
production in competition with other quality prop-
erties? Studies from Denmark and Germany have
shown that between 60 and 80% of the consumers
respond that they prefer foods which they know are
produced in an environmentally sound manner
(Grunert & Kristensen, 1992). However, even
though most consumers are interested in these
foods, we hypothesize, that when respondents have
to make a choice between different food quality
aspects, the percentage choosing environmentally
sound production is substantially reduced, and that
it varies for different kinds of food products.
How willing are they to pay additional prices for such
products? Based on the evidence above (Uusitalo,
1990), it can be assumed that when the consumers
are faced with additional prices, the group which is
interested in environmentally sound food production
will be small. On the other hand a tendency for
consumers to overestimate their willingness to pay
higher prices for such products, has been described
(Grunert & Kristensen, 1992). We hypothesize that
these two forces will exert differential influence in
various consumer groups.
What are the socio-economic characteristics of the
consumer groups expressing interest in environ-
mentally sound production through 1) giving
priority to this aspect in competition with other
quality aspects 2) being willing to pay additional
prices for such products 3) buying these products
today? What are the similarities and what are the
differences? We wished to find out if only the eco-
nomically well off consumer groups are interested
in these foods. We also wished to examine if gender
and life phase are important and if the interest is
higher in certain regions of the country. Earlier
research has shown that the responses to value
questions about environmental issues are quite
consistent (Dunlap et al., 1978, Uusitalo, 1990).
We therefore hypothesize that the group char-
acteristics with regard to at least 1) and 2) are
similar. These responses may be highly influenced
Environmental Concern in Consumer Evaluation 2 1
TABLE 1. Characteristics of the Sample
Age (r-4
Number
15-24
25-39
40-59
60 and above
sex
Men
Women
Income
Below 160 000 NKr
160 00&300 000
Over 300 000
Did not know
RCgiOll
Oslo
Rest of Eastern part
South/West
Middle
North
191
381
305
226
544
559
211
323
356
213
112
523
233
127
108
by value orientations, whereas 3) concerns behavior,
and may therefore be different.
4. What is the background for the interest in foods
produced in an environmentally sound manner in
different consumer groups? We hypothesize that
this interest is related to own health, general envir-
onmental concerns, animal welfare as well as other
perceived good qualities, such as taste, and that the
orientations are different in various consumer groups.
METHODS
Sampling
The data were obtained from personal interviews of a
representative nationwide sample of the Norwegian
population above the age of 15; 1103 persons in total.
The random sampling was based on households. The
interview was carried out with the person in the house-
hold who had a birthday most recently. The data were
collected with the help of a pre-coded questionnaire in
November/December 1993. The sample characteristics
are shown Table 1.
Questionnaire
Qual i t y properties that are important to the
consumers
The respondents were asked to indicate the properties
which are most important to them when considering the
quality of different products: meat and meat products,
fruits and vegetables, and potatoes. These products were
chosen because they are central in the Norwegian diet.
Although potatoes represent a specific product and
meat and meat products as well as fruits and vege-
tables represent generic products, it was considered
relevant to include potatoes in this survey, since they
constitute the core of the traditional Norwegian diet. The
potato quality will therefore represent an important part
of food quality for most consumers. An example of these
questions are given in regard to vegetables: Which of
the following attributes do you consider to be the two
most important when you judge the quality of vege-
tables? High nutritional value, environmentally sound
production, good appearance, good taste, freshness,
other, do not know. The respondents were asked to
indicate first and second priority.
Degree of sat i sf act i on wi t h t he qual i t y
The questions about satisfaction were constructed in
order to elucidate if the consumers felt that the quality
attributes they were interested in, were well taken care of
in the Norwegian food market. The interviewer included
the interviewees first quality priority in the question, as
shown in the following example: To what degree do you
mean that your wishes about . ..(environmentally sound
production)... are satisfied with regard to vegetables?
Very well, rather well, medium, rather poorly, very
poorly. This question was repeated for all the products.
Wi l l i ngness t o pay mor e f or f oods pr oducedi n an
envi r onment al l y sound manner
These were 6 questions each for environmentally sound
production and for production according to animal wel-
fare principles. The questions were graded with higher
and higher additional prices as follows: Are you willing
to pay 5% more... 10% more... 25% more... 50% more...
75% more... 100% more for foods which you know are
produced in an environmentally sound manner?
Response categories were yes or no for each percentage.
Consumer habi t s r egar di ng envi r onment al l y sound
pr oduct i on
First the question <do you consciously buy products
today, which are produced in an environmentally sound
manner?. The same question was repeated for animal
welfare principles. Response categories were: Yes, often;
yes, sometimes, almost never, never. The respondents
were then divided into those who buy these products
(often, sometimes) and those who never buy them. The
buying group was asked about the reasons for buying,
and the never group was asked about the reasons
for not buying. Response categories for buying were:
own health, environment, ethical animal care, other
perceived good qualities. Response categories for not
buying: poor quality, inadequate information, poor
availability, no interest, high prices.
Data analysis
Data were analyzed using the SPSS/PC program. The
following tests were used: Chi-square test and logistic
regression. Three regression equations were estimated
with dependent variables from the questions about
22 M. Wandel, A. Bugge
environmentally sound production as a quality property,
willingness to pay more for foods produced in an envir-
onmentally sound manner, and buying these foods, as
described above. All the non-continuous variables were
coded as dichotomies. The independent variables were
coded as follows: sex (man = 1, woman = 0), age in years,
education (high school = 1, elementary = 0) (university = 1,
elementary = 0)) income (160 000-300 000 Nkr= 1,
< 160 OOO=O) (300 000 or more= 1, < 160 OOO=O),
region (rest of Eastern Norway = 1, Oslo= 0) (Western
Norway= 1, Oslo=O) (Middle Norway= 1, Oslo=O)
(Northern Norway = 1, Oslo = 0) , occupation (white
collar = 1, worker = 0) (self employed = 1, worker = 0)
(student = 1, worker = 0) (unemployed = 1, worker = 0).
Income was coded in dichotomies, because the data were
collected as income groups in the questionnaire. 100
Norwegian kroner are approximately 16 US$.
RESULTS
Food quality and consumer priorities
The quality properties of first priority for fruits and
vegetables were taste and freshness (Fig. 1). Appearance
and nutritional value were also given first priority by a
substantial part of the respondents. Fifteen per cent gave
environmentally sound production first priority. When
the material was divided in high (consumption of fruits/
vegetables at least 5 times/week) and low consumers
(consumption of fruits/vegetables less than 5 times/week)
it was found that more of the high consumers gave
priority to nutritional value and environmentally sound
production, compared to the low consumers.
Many respondents (40%) rated taste as the most
important quality property for potatoes, whereas fresh-
ness came further down the list. A number of factors were
q Total
0 High consumer
q Low consumer
Quality aspects
FIG. 1. Consumer priorities of different quality aspects
of vegetables. Percent of consumers. High consumers: eat vege-
tables at least 5 times/week; low consumers: eat vegetables less
than 5 times/week. Chi-square 19, df 4, p < 0.001. N = 1052.
regarded as equally important. These were environ-
mental aspects ( 15%) as well as firmness (15%) and
regular size (13%). About ten per cent of the consumers
gave priority to appearance. Taste and environmental
aspects were more important and freshness and appear-
ance less important to the high consumers (consumption
of potatoes 5 times/week or more), compared to the
low consumers (consumption of potatoes less than 5
times/week) (Chi-square 14, df 5, p < 0.02, N = 1076).
Most of the respondents gave freshness (3 l%), taste
(20%) and nutritional value (20%) first priority in
evaluation of meat quality. The respondents did not
rate environmental aspects as very important with
regard to meat; only 5% gave this property first priority.
Less than five per cent of the consumers put priority on
appearance.
These data indicate that environmental concerns in
evaluation of food quality are more prominent with
regard to fruits, vegetables and potatoes than meat. It
has also to be kept in mind that since the respondents
could choose only 2 quality properties, those who choose
environmental aspects had to do that at the expense of
other properties, such as taste, freshness and nutritional
value.
Food quality and consumer satisfaction
The satisfaction with the quality of fruits, vegetables, and
meat was rather high. Between 70% and 80% replied
that they were well satisfied with the quality attributes of
first priority. The only exceptions were those consumers
who put priority on environmental aspects and ethical
animal care. Only about 35% (for meat) and 50% (for
fruits and vegetables) of those who put priority on
environmental aspects, responded that they were well
satisfied, and only 10% of those who put priority on
ethical animal care in meat production were well satisfied.
However, as shown earlier, relatively few regarded these
last aspects as the most important quality properties in
the case of meat.
The consumers were less satisfied with the quality of
potatoes, compared to fruits, vegetables and meat. For
many of the quality properties, only between 50% and
60% of the respondents replied that they were well
satisfied. In agreement with the results for fruits, vege-
tables and meat, few of those who put first priority on
environmental aspects, were well satisfied.
Wtllingness to pay higher prices
The results so far have been focussed on consumers who
value environmentally sound production so much that
they give first priority to this aspect at the expense of
other quality attributes. Another approach to the study
of consumers wishes and priorities regarding environ-
mental aspects of food is to explore their willingness to
pay higher prices for such products. This type of investiga-
tion is always difficult to interpret, since it is not adequately
Environmental Concern in Consumer Evaluation 23
understood how well the results resemble the actual
behavior in the buying situation. However, stepwise
increases in prices have earlier shown to give meaningful
results on questions of willingness to pay (Lavik, 1990).
This was therefore applied in regard to foods produced in
an environmentally sound manner.
The consumers responded that they were willing to pay
a little more for foods produced in an environmentally
sound manner, with less industrially produced fertilizer
and less pesticides and herbicides (Fig. 2). Over 70%
meant that they were willing to pay 5% more. When the
additional price was increased, there was a drastic
decline in the willingness to pay; less than 10% of the
respondents were willing to pay 25% more for such food
products. The respondents were a little less willing to pay
more for meat which they know is produced according to
ethical animal care principles. Even if these results do not
necessarily give a complete picture of how the consumers
will behave in the buying situation, they indicate that
many are interested in buying such foods as long as the
price is not increased more than a small amount.
Buying foods produced in an environmentally sound
manner
The responses to the question of whether or not the
consumers buy products which they know are produced
in an environmentally sound manner were as follows:
Only 13% responded that they often buy such products.
However, a larger proportion (32%) responded that they
buy these products, but not very often. Forty-six per cent
maintained that they almost never or absolutely never
buy these products, whereas 9% did not know if they
have bought them.
Three indicators Factors affecting consumer valuations and behavior
The results above represent three indicators of consumer
interest in environmentally sound food production. The
first indicator concerns priority of environmentally sound
production in competition with other food quality
aspects (Table 2). Thirty-five per cent of the respondents
choose environmentally sound production as first or
second priority for at least one of the products included
in the study. Since this choice was made at the expense
of other quality properties, it is likely that these were
especially motivated consumers.
The next indicator concerns willingness to pay more
for foods produced in an environmentally sound manner
(Table 2). The proportion of consumers who were will-
ing to pay 10% more for such products was similar to the
one which choose environmentally sound production
among the different quality properties. However, it was
not exactly the same respondents, since not more than
54% of those who put priority on environmentally sound
production as a quality attribute, were also willing to
pay 10% more for these products. However, most of
them (87%) were willing to pay 5% more.
Animal welfare
0
5% IO% 25% SO% 75% 100%
Additional price (W)
FIG. 2. Willingness to pay additional price for foods produced
in an environmentally sound manner---or according to animal
welfare principles.
TABLE 2. Consumers who are Interested in Environmentally
Sound Production. Different Approaches
Indicator I Indicator II Indicator III
Priority on environ- Willing to pay 10% Buy foods,
mental aspects in more for foods, produced in an
competition with other produced in an environmentally
quality properties. environmentally sound manner.
(1st or 2nd priority, at sound manner. (often, sometimes)
least 1 type of food)
35% of consumers 38% of consumers 44% of consumers
The third indicator concerns buying behavior (Table 2).
Those who responded that they buy foods produced in
an environmentally sound manner (often, sometimes)
were grouped together and classified as buyers. They
constitute 44% of the respondents, which is a little higher
than those who responded that they were willing to pay
10% more for these products.
We have tested the three indicators described above in
order to find the gender, life phase and regional character-
istics of the groups who show interest in foods produced
in an environmentally sound manner in these three
different ways.
Table 3 shows the results from logistic regression
analyses for the three indicators. The table shows the
regression coefficients and the significance. Only the
independent variables which are significant will be com-
mented upon. Two of the indicators show that women
are more interested than men. They are more likely to
give priority to environmentally sound production in
competition with other quality properties and they are
more likely to buy these products today. However,
men are equally likely to respond that they are willing to
pay 10% more for these products. People with high
education (university) are more likely to be willing to
pay a higher price for these products, and they are
more likely to buy these products today. Those who
do not live in the capital are more likely to put
priority on ecological production, with the exception of
24 M. Wandel, A. Bugge
those who live in Northern Norway. However, region of
residency does not have a significant impact on will-
ingness to pay more for these products, or likelihood to
buy these products today.
There may be many reasons why consumers are inter-
ested in ecologically produced foods, and they may be
different in various consumer groups. Therefore, we
asked those who had responded that they bought ecolo-
gically produced foods (often or sometimes), about the
reasons why they did so.
The reasons were related to own health as well as
the environment (Fig. 3). Rather few responded with
consideration for other quality aspects and for animal
welfare. There was no substantial difference between
men and women on this question. However, there were
large differences between various age groups. The
youngest age group based their buying behavior on the
consideration for the environment and animal welfare,
whereas consideration for own health was the most
prominent reason in the oldest age group. Consideration
for other quality properties did also increase with age.
There was no substantial difference between the
various age groups regarding the reasons not to buy these
products. The main reasons were inadequate information
(41%) and poor availability (24%). Only one fifth of the
consumers responded that they were not interested in
buying such products.
DI SCUSSI ON
This study showed that consumers are interested in some
community oriented aspects of consumption. In this case
the interest was oriented towards environmentally sound
food production, but the same tendency has been seen
with regard to interest in buying Norwegian food pro-
ducts in order to support Norwegian employment and
settlement pattern (Wandel & Bugge, 1994). This comes
in addition to the more personal aspects of consumption,
which is related to other quality aspects and to prices
(Wandel, 1993). However the results indicate that most
consumers do not want to give up much of the personal
aspects in order to contribute to the benefit of the
community.
This was apparent when comparing their priorities for
the different quality properties inherent in various types
of foods. The quality properties that the majority
of consumers value the most are taste, freshness and
nutritional value. When the respondents only could
choose two properties, few selected environmentally
sound production and animal welfare.
The willingness to pay higher prices for foods
produced in an environmentally sound manner, showed
the same tendency. More than 70% of the consumers
TABLE 3. Consumer Interest in Environmentally Sound Production as a Function of Age, Sex, Education, Income and Region.
Regression Coefficients (Logistic Regression)
Priority on environmental Willing to pay more for foods, Buy foods, produced in
aspects in competition with produced in an environmentally an environmentally sound
other quality properties sound manner manner (often, sometimes)
Age
.Ol .Ol .Ol
Sex, man -.47** .05 0.51***
(reference:woman)
Personal income
160 000-200 000 Nkr -.09 .16 -.12
200 000 or more -.30 -.36 -.30
(ref. up to 160 000)
Education
high school .21 .34 .05
university .30 .75*** .52**
(ref. elementary s.)
Region, East .60* .02 .16
South/West .89** .lO .34
Middle 1.10** .25 .51
North .05 -.09 -.25
(reference: Oslo)
Occupation
White collar -.30 -.19 --.I6
Self employed -.18 .41 -.08
Student .53 .14 .26
Unemployed -0.05 -.13 -.04
(reference: worker)
Constant -1.63** -1.08** -.44
Goodness of fit:
Chi-square 851 851 929
df 836
835 917
N 852 851 851
Significance (Wald statistics): * pcO.05; ** p<O.Ol; *** p<O.OOl.
Environmental Concern in Consumer Evaluation 25
were willing to buy these products if the additional price Earlier studies have not given a coherent picture of
did not exceed 5%. However, if the additional price was gender differences in consumer attitudes and behavior
raised to lo%, the willingness to pay was substantially with regard to environmental food issues. Some (Sjoden,
reduced, and when the additional price was 25% higher, 1990; Wandel, 1994), but not all studies (Sellerberg,
only 10% of the respondents were willing to buy these 1991; Schafer et al., 1993) have shown that women are
products. Even if these results do not necessarily give more worried than men about food related health risks.
an exact picture of how the consumers will behave in Other studies registered pronounced gender differences
the buying situation, they do give an indication of the on environmental issues having general safety and health
consumers priorities with regard to the dilemmas related dimensions (Passino & Lounsbury, 1976; Stout-Wiegand
to community vs. personal aspects of food consumption. & Trent, 1983). Furthermore, data presented by Blocker
These data suggest that the Norwegian consumers are & Eckberg (1989) suggests that women are no more
less willing to pay higher prices for these products than concerned than men about general environmental issues,
the Danish consumers, where 54% responded that they but are significantly more concerned about the local
were willing to pay up to 30% more (Grunert & Kris- environmental issues. It was, thus interesting to examine
tensen, 1992). However, there was a large gap between the gender profiles in regard to the three indicators
this willingness to pay and what could be expected from of consumer interest in environmentally sound food
the share for these products in the Danish food market. production in this study.
When we compared the actual price differences
between conventional foods and ecologically produced
foods with the consumers own estimates of their will-
ingness to pay higher prices, we found that consumer
exaggeration of their willingness to pay high prices was
not a prominent feature. Surveys of food prices in Nor-
way and Sweden have shown that ecologically produced
foods are priced 50 to 100% above conventional foods for
most products (Produsentlaget, 1994; Statkorn, 1991). A
comparison between these prices and the results in Fig. 2
revealed that very few of the consumers responded that
they were willing to pay that much for ecologically pro-
duced food. These results indicate that many consumers
are interested in foods produced in an ecologically sound
manner, but most of them were not willing to pay the
present prices for these products.
Two of the indicators showed a higher engagement
by women than men. More women put priority on
environmentally sound production in competition with
other quality aspects and more women bought these
products today. However, there were no gender dif-
ferences with regard to the reasons for buying these
products. Interestingly, the emphasis on own health,
external environment and other food qualities was not
significantly different for women and men.
This study has also shown that the interest in ecologi-
cally produced food was not related only to economically
well off consumer groups. The data from the logistic
regression model indicated that there was no significant
effect of income or occupation. Neither was it related to
life phase, age and the presence of children in the house-
hold. However, even though age did not influence the
decision of whether or not to buy these products, it had a
large influence on the reasons for doing so. The youngest
age group based their buying behavior on the consid-
eration for the environment and animal welfare, whereas
consideration for own health was the most prominent
reason in the oldest age group.
Health
n Ecology
n Animal welfare
n Good quality
25-39 years 40-59 years 60 years+
Age
FIG. 3. Reasons for buying ecologically produced foods. Percent
in different age groups. Significance tests: Own health; Chi-
square 34, df 3, p < 0.001. Ecology; Chi-square 36, df 3,
p < 0.001. Animal welfare; Chi-square 13, df 3, p < 0.01. Quality;
Chi-square 11, df 3, p < 0.01. N = 489. Percent of the consumers.
N= 1093.
Appearance-what we can call food aesthetics (Holm,
1991)-was not given high priority by most of the
consumers in this study. That does not mean that it will
not be used in the buying situation. In fact, it may be
more and more important in the market situation, not
because consumers are particularly interested in this
property in itself, but because it is an indicator of other
quality properties and may be valued by the consumers
in the absence of other good information channels. It is
thus a challenge to food producers, marketing people and
retailers to find other information channels that hit
consumer priorities better.
UNLI NKED REFERENCES
Alwitt & Berger, 1993; Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978
26 M. Wandel, A. Bugge
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by a grant from the Ministry of
Children and Family Affairs.
REFERENCES
Alwitt, L. & Berger, I (1993). Understanding the link
between environmental attitudes and consumer product
usage: Measuring the moderating role of attitude strength.
In Advances in Consumer Research. Provo, eds. L. MC Alister
and M.L. Rothschild, UT. Association for Consumer
Research.
Blocker, T. J. & Eckberg, L. (1989). Environmental issues as
womens issues: general concerns and local hazards. Social Science
Quaterly, 70(3), 586-593.
Cotgrove, S. (1982). Catastrophe or Cornucopia: The Environment,
Politics and the Future. Wiley, New York.
Dake, K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception
of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cul-
tural biases. J ournal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 22( 1),
6182.
Douglas, M. & Wildawsky, A. (1982). Risk and Culture: An essay
on the selection of technological and enuironmental dangers. Uni-
versity of California Press, Berkeley.
Dunlap, R. E. & Van Liere, K. (1978). The New Environ-
mental Paradigm. The J ournal of Environmental Education, 9,
10-18.
Grunert, S. C. & Kristensen K. (1992). Den Danske Forbruger og
Okologiske Fdevarer. Report from the OKO foods project -
series H, nr 62. Department of Information Science, The
Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark.
Holm, L. (1991). Kostens Forandring, Akademisk Forlag,
Copenhagen.
IOCU (International Organization of Consumers Unions
(1993). Food poliv beyond 2000; A poliy paper on food issues in
industrialised countries. IOCU-ROENA, The Hague, The
Netherlands.
Jussaume, R. A. & Judson, D. H. (1992). Public perceptions
about food safety in the United States and Japan. Rural
Sociology, 57(2), 235249.
Lavik, R. (1990). Det vanskelige valget; forbrukernes miljbevissthet.
Work report 14-93, SIFO, Lysaker, Norway.
Lien, M. (1989). Matkvalitet og forbrukerhensyn. In For-
bruksforskning i gdr - i dog og i morgen, ed. E. Bergan, SIFO,
Lysaker.
Nilsson, T. (1978). Quality of vegetables. Chronica Horticulturae,
18(2), 21-24.
Passino, E. & Lounsbury, J. W. (1976). Sex differences in
opposition to and support for construction of a proposed
power plant. In The Behavioral Basis of Design, eds. L. M.
Ward, S. Coren, A. Gruft and J. B. Collins, Dowden,
Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, Pa, USA.
Produsentlaget (1994). Sammenlikning engrospiser mellom Norge og
Sverige, uke, 49, 1993, Bjorkelangen, Norway.
Schafer, E., Schafer, R. B., Bultena, G. L. & Hoiberg, E. 0.
Safety of the US Food Supply: Consumer concerns vs.
behavior. J ournal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 17,
137-144.
Schuman, H. 8t Johnson, M. P. (1976). Attitudes and
behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 161-207.
Sellerberg, A. M. (1991). In food we trust: Vitally necessary
confidence - and unfamiliar ways of attaining it. In
Palatable Worlds; Sociocultural Food Studies, eds. E. Ftirst, R.
Prattala, M. Ekstriim, L. Holm and U. Kjaernes, Solum Forlag,
Oslo.
Sjijden, P.-O. (1990). Or0 och uppfattningar bland
konsumenter. Vdr Foda, 42(3), 176-185.
Smith, J. M. (1991). From policy community to issue network:
Salmonella in eggs and the new politics of food. Public
Administration, 69, 235-255.
Statkorn ( 199 1) . Omsetning au kologisk dyrket korn. Instilling fra et
utvalg nedsatt av Statkorn, Oslo, Norway.
Stout-Wiegand, N. & Trent, R. B. (1983). Sex differences in
attitudes toward new energy resource developments. Rural
Sociology, 48, 637-646.
Uusitalo, L. (1990). Consumer preferences for environmental
quality and other social goals. J ournal of Consumer Policy, 13,
231-251.
Wandel, M. (1993). Pris, kvalitet og tilgiengelighet au grnnsaker.
Forbrukemes vurderinger, SIFO-work report no. l-93, National
Institute for Consumer Research, Lysaker, Norway.
Wandel, M ( 1994). Consumer concern and behavior regarding
food and health in Norway. J ournal of Consumer Studies and
Home Economics, 18, 203-2 15.
Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing preferences by constructing
institutions: A cultural theory of preferences formation.
American Political Science Review, 81, 3-2 1.
Wandel, M. & Bugge, A. (1994). Consumers, Food and the Market;
Consumer Valuations and Priorities in the .hfineties. SIFO-report
no. 2-94. National Institute for Consumer Research, Lysaker,
Norway.