Citation: Valentina M. Merlino, Danielle Borra, Aurora Bargetto, Simone Blanc, Stefano Massaglia. Innovation towards sustainable fresh-cut salad production: Are Italian consumers receptive?[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(3): 365-386. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.3.365
[1] | Nara Bobko, Jorge P. Zubelli . A singularly perturbed HIV model with treatment and antigenic variation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2015, 12(1): 1-21. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2015.12.1 |
[2] | Peter Rashkov, Ezio Venturino, Maira Aguiar, Nico Stollenwerk, Bob W. Kooi . On the role of vector modeling in a minimalistic epidemic model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 4314-4338. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019215 |
[3] | Pei Yu, Xiangyu Wang . Analysis on recurrence behavior in oscillating networks of biologically relevant organic reactions. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 5263-5286. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019263 |
[4] | OPhir Nave, Shlomo Hareli, Miriam Elbaz, Itzhak Hayim Iluz, Svetlana Bunimovich-Mendrazitsky . BCG and IL − 2 model for bladder cancer treatment with fast and slow dynamics based on SPVF method—stability analysis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 5346-5379. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019267 |
[5] | Agustín Gabriel Yabo, Jean-Baptiste Caillau, Jean-Luc Gouzé . Optimal bacterial resource allocation: metabolite production in continuous bioreactors. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(6): 7074-7100. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020364 |
[6] | Xiaoxia Zhao, Lihong Jiang, Kaihong Zhao . A nonlinear population dynamics model of patient diagnosis and treatment involving in two level medical institutions and its qualitative analysis of positive singularity. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(3): 2575-2591. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022118 |
[7] | Zhilan Feng, Robert Swihart, Yingfei Yi, Huaiping Zhu . Coexistence in a metapopulation model with explicit local dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2004, 1(1): 131-145. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2004.1.131 |
[8] | Xu Song, Jingyu Li . Asymptotic stability of spiky steady states for a singular chemotaxis model with signal-suppressed motility. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(12): 13988-14028. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022652 |
[9] | Hany Bauomy, Ashraf Taha . Nonlinear saturation controller simulation for reducing the high vibrations of a dynamical system. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(4): 3487-3508. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022161 |
[10] | Xiaohan Yang, Yinghao Cui, Zhanhang Yuan, Jie Hang . RISE-based adaptive control of electro-hydraulic servo system with uncertain compensation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(5): 9288-9304. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023407 |
Concerns about increasing rates of obesity and other diet-related diseases have led researchers and practitioners to examine the relationship between food environments and residents’ diets. Several studies have found associations between local food stores and diet, as well as neighborhood disparities in the availability of healthy food based on race/ethnicity and income [1,2]. A number of strategies have been implemented across the country to improve food environments, including providing incentives for new supermarkets to locate in underserved neighborhoods and encouraging corner stores to carry and promote healthier foods [2,3]. Despite the substantial literature demonstrating relationships among food deserts, poor dietary patterns, and obesity, there has been little quantitative evidence confirming how neighborhood residents interact with their food environments [1]. Qualitative research on food shopping behavior has found that a number of factors influence consumer choices. Several studies have found that shoppers favored stores that were closest to their homes or workplaces, offered the most affordable merchandise, and/or offered the best variety or quality of products [4,5,6]. However, limited focus has been placed on understanding the food shopping behaviors of residents in low-income neighborhoods, including the types of stores patronized and frequency of visits. This paper aims to contribute to the body of research on local residents’ shopping behaviors at neighborhood food stores.
The New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (Health Department) explored food shopping behaviors among residents of West Farms and Fordham, two adjacent neighborhoods located in the borough of the Bronx in NYC. From 2012 to 2013, the Health Department implemented a program called Shop Healthy NYC (Shop Healthy) in these neighborhoods in order to increase access to and consumption of healthier food. The Shop Healthy model builds on lessons learned through almost a decade of Health Department programs with food retailers in low-income neighborhoods, including work with more than 50 supermarkets and 1,000 bodegas. Bodegas, also referred to as corner stores, are common throughout NYC and carry a range of mostly non-perishable products. Shop Healthy’s approach is based on the social-ecological model, which recognizes that individuals interact with multiple levels of influence, including societal, community, institutional, interpersonal, and individual, and illustrates the need to intervene at all of these levels [7]. Following this model, Shop Healthy employs a comprehensive approach to food retail by addressing multiple components of the food environment. The initiative develops relationships with supermarkets, bodegas, and food suppliers/distributors to improve placement, promotion, and availability of healthier products, while providing tools and technical assistance to community members and partners to increase demand for healthier foods and support participating retailers [7]. As part of the evaluation of Shop Healthy in West Farms and Fordham, street-intercept surveys were conducted with residents of these neighborhoods [8]. This paper reports on survey findings relating to respondents’ food shopping behaviors.
This project was reviewed by the DOHMH Institutional Review Board (IRB) and was determined to be exempt from IRB oversight as it constituted a public health programevaluation.
The Bronx is the northernmost of NYC’s five boroughs (Figure 1), each of which constitutes a county. Among all 62 counties in New York State, the Bronx ranks lowest in terms of health outcomes, income, and educational attainment [9]. The South Bronx, where West Farms is located, and Fordham/Bronx Park, where Fordham is located, have significantly higher proportions of residents that are overweight or obese than the rest of the city (71% in the South Bronx, 72% in Fordham/Bronx Park, and 55% in the rest of NYC). These neighborhoods also have a high prevalence of diabetes, with 16% in the South Bronx and 15% in Fordham/Bronx Park compared to 10% in the rest of NYC [10]. The West Farms and Fordham ZIP codes also have high rates of poverty. Forty-one perecent of the 56,084 West Farms residents and 38% of the 74,859 Fordham residents fall below the federal poverty level, compared with 20% citywide. About two-thirds of residents have a high school education or less (68% in West Farms, 64% in Fordham) compared with 45% citywide. The majority of residents are Hispanic/Latino (71% in West Farms, 64% in Fordham), followed by non-Hispanic black (24% in West Farms, 19% in Fordham) [11]. In 2012 there were more than 10 bodegas for every supermarket in West Farms and Fordham, with 189 bodegas and 18 supermarkets in total [8].
In April 2012, street-intercept surveys were conducted with residents of West Farms (ZIP code 10460) and Fordham (ZIP code 10458) in order to assess the community-level impact of implementing Shop Healthy in these neighborhoods. The street-intercept method can be more effective in obtaining a representative sample among low-income populations than more traditional sampling strategies [12]. Pairs of interviewers were stationed at five locations per ZIP code including one transportation hub, one library, and three areas with a high concentration of food retail outlets. The target sample size was 500 surveys, with 50 per location. Interviewers received a 2-hour classroom training followed by field training. To recruit respondents, interviewers asked passersby if they would be willing to complete a short survey about food in the neighborhood, for which they would receive a single-fare public transit pass, valued at $2.25, as an incentive. Respondents were required to be 18 years of age or older and to live in either West Farms or Fordham. Consent was not obtained as the survey was anonymous and collected no identifying information. Surveys were conducted in English and Spanish on Mondays through Saturdays from 8 am to 11 am, 12 pm to 3 pm, and 4 pm to 7 pm.
The measures used for our analyses are described below. Several questions were developed by the Health Department specifically for this project or adapted from previously developed internal evaluation tools. Additional questions were from publicly available surveys as cited below. The survey was pretested for clarity and length, revised accordingly, and pretested again before being finalized.
Questions about supermarket shopping included how often respondents shopped at neighborhood supermarkets, how often they purchased fruits and vegetables at a neighborhood supermarket, whether their usual supermarket was within or outside of their neighborhood, and the mode of transportation and travel time to their usual supermarket. Questions on bodega shopping included how often respondents shopped at neighborhood bodegas and how many blocks the bodega they visited most often was from their home. A question was taken from the NYC Community Health Survey on how many servings of fruits and vegetables the respondent consumed on the previous day. Two separate NYC Community Health Survey questions on consumption of soda and consumption of other sweetened drinks were combined to create one question on how often the respondent drank sugary drinks like soda, sweetened iced tea, sports drinks, fruit punch or other fruit-flavored drinks [10]. Respondents were asked an open-ended question about what they thought could be done to improve the eating habits of people in their neighborhood, which was adapted from a health-related survey from the office of the Bronx Borough President [13]. For this question, several response options were listed, and interviewers were instructed to select all options that applied based on the respondent’s answer. Finally, respondents were asked several demographic questions including their residential ZIP code, gender, age, race/ethnicity, and education level. Educational level reported in this paper was restricted to those 25 years and up, consistent with the US Census and NYC Community Health Survey methodology [10,11].
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize respondents’ shopping behaviors, opinions on improving neighborhood eating habits, and demographic characteristics. Bivariate significance testing was used to assess associations between respondent demographics and shopping behaviors and to explore whether daily versus non-daily bodega shoppers differed in terms of consumption of fruits and vegetables and sugary drinks. All analyses were conducted with SPSS version 18.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago) with α = .05.
A total of 505 baseline surveys were collected, with a 40% response rate. The median respondent age was 45 years, with a range of 18 to 87. The sample was 53% female, 59% Hispanic, and 34% black. Thirty-four percent of respondents had less than a high school education, 30% were high school graduates or had their GED, and 36% had attended some college. Forty-seven percent lived in the Fordham ZIP code and 53% lived in West Farms (Table 1).
N (%) | 95% CI | |
Residential ZIP code | ||
10458 (Fordham) | 239 (47.3) | (43.0, 51.7) |
10460 (West Farms) | 266 (52.7) | (48.3, 57.0) |
Gender | ||
Male | 234 (46.5) | (42.1, 50.1) |
Female | 267 (53.1) | (48.7, 57.5) |
Age Group | ||
18-24 | 55 (10.9) | (8.2, 13.6) |
25-44 | 189 (37.4) | (33.2, 41.7) |
45-64 | 229 (45.3) | (41.0, 49.7) |
65+ | 32 (6.3) | (4.2, 8.5) |
Race/Ethnicity | ||
Hispanic | 294 (59.2) | (54.8, 63.5) |
Black | 169 (34.0) | (29.8, 38.2) |
White | 18 (3.6) | (2.0, 5.3) |
Other | 16 (3.2) | (1.7, 4.8) |
Education* | ||
Less than HS | 153 (34.3) | (29.9, 38.7) |
HS Graduate/GED | 132 (29.6) | (25.3, 33.8) |
Any College | 161 (36.1) | (31.6, 40.6) |
*Education is presented among those aged 25 and up |
Almost all respondents shopped at supermarkets in their neighborhood (97%), and most (60%) did so once per week or more (Table 2). Overall, 83% of respondents walked to their usual supermarket and 16% drove a personal car or used public transportation. However, transportation varied based on whether respondents usually shopped within or outside of their neighborhood. Among respondents (84%) who most often shopped at a supermarket within their neighborhood, 94% walked to their usual supermarket with a mean travel time of 7 minutes. A notable minority of respondents (16%) usually shopped at a supermarket outside of their neighborhood. Among these respondents, the most common methods of transportation to their usual supermarket were personal car (43%), bus (26%), and walking (23%), with an overall mean travel time of 19 minutes (Table 3). Notably, of the respondents whose usual supermarket was outside of their neighborhood, 91% still shopped at supermarkets in their neighborhoods on occasion, and 93% shopped at neighborhood bodegas (data not shown). The majority of respondents (76%) bought most of their fresh produce from supermarkets (Table 2); these respondents reported buying produce at their supermarket 1.4 times per week on average (data not shown).
N | % | |
Supermarket Shopping | ||
Ever shops at neighborhood supermarkets | 485 | 96.8 |
Frequency of shopping at neighborhood supermarkets | ||
Never | 16 | 3.2 |
Less than once per week | 184 | 36.7 |
Once per week or more | 301 | 60.1 |
Usual supermarket is within respondents' neighborhood | 413 | 83.8 |
Usual supermarket is outside respondents' neighborhood | 80 | 16.2 |
Bodega Shopping | ||
Ever shop at neighborhood bodegas | 477 | 94.6 |
Frequency of shopping at neighborhood bodegas | ||
Never | 27 | 5.4 |
1-2 times per month | 5 | 1.0 |
1-6 times per week | 142 | 28.2 |
Once per day or more | 330 | 65.5 |
Fruit and Vegetable Purchasing | ||
Most common source for fruit and vegetable purchases | ||
Supermarket | 376 | 75.8 |
Fruit and vegetable store | 51 | 10.3 |
Green Cart (sell fresh produce in areas with limited access to healthy foods) or other fruit & vegetable cart | 28 | 5.6 |
Bodega | 23 | 4.6 |
Farmers' Market | 5 | 1.0 |
Other | 13 | 2.6 |
Location of Usual Supermarket | ||||||
Overall | Within Neighborhood | Outside Neighborhood | ||||
N(%) | Mean time (min) | N(%) | Mean time (min) | N(%) | Mean time (min) | |
Overall | 493 (100.0) | 9.1 | 413 (100.0) | 7.3 | 80 (100.0) | 18.6 |
Mode of travel to usual supermarket | ||||||
Walk | 408 (82.8) | 7.6 | 390 (94.4) | 7.1 | 18 (22.5) | 18.1 |
Personal Car | 45 (9.1) | 14.4 | 11 (2.7) | 7.7 | 34 (42.5) | 16.5 |
Bus | 29 (5.9) | 19.7 | 8 (1.9) | 14.4 | 21 (26.3) | 21.7 |
Cab | 6 (1.2) | 16.7 | 2 (0.5) | 12.5 | 4 (5.0) | 18.8 |
Train | 4 (0.8) | 20.0 | 1 (0.2) | 5.0 | 3 (3.8) | 25.0 |
*missing data not reported |
The vast majority (95%) of respondents shopped at bodegas in their neighborhood and 65% visited a neighborhood bodega once per day or more (Table 2). Among respondents who shopped at neighborhood bodegas, the store visited most often was an average of 1.4 blocks from their home (data not shown).
Most supermarket and bodega shopping behaviors did not vary significantly by demographic subcategories. There were no significant differences by gender, age group, race/ethnicity, or educational attainment of shoppers who primarily patronized a supermarket within their neighborhood, or most often purchased fruits and vegetables at supermarkets or other locations. We did find that as age increased, a lower percentage of respondents reported shopping at bodegas daily. Among respondents aged 65 and older, 53% were daily shoppers, compared with 84% among ages 18-24. Additionally, a higher percentage of men reported daily bodega shopping than women (72% vs. 59%, p < 0.01) (Table 4). Daily bodega shoppers reported consuming significantly more sugary drinks per week compared with other shoppers (10.9 vs. 4.6, p <.001) (data not shown).
Overall | Gender | Age Group | Race/Ethnicity | Education* | ||||||||||||||
Male | Female | 18-24 | 25-44 | 45-64 | 65+ | Hispanic | Black | White | Other | Less than HS | HS Grad/GED | Any College | ||||||
N | N | N | p-value | N | N | N | N | p-value | N | N | N | N | p-value | N | N | N | p-value | |
% | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |||||
Supermarket Shopping | ||||||||||||||||||
Ever shops at neighborhood | 485 | 225 | 256 | 0.811 | 50 | 186 | 219 | 30 | 0.190 | 286 | 162 | 15 | 16 | < 0.01 | 150 | 126 | 156 | 0.783 |
supermarkets | 96.8 | 97.0 | 96.6 | 92.6 | 98.4 | 96.5 | 96.8 | 97.6 | 96.4 | 83.3 | 100 | 98 | 96.9 | 96.9 | ||||
Shops at supermarkets at | 301 | 133 | 165 | 0.471 | 25 | 114 | 139 | 23 | 0.099 | 177 | 98 | 10 | 11 | 0.057 | 82 | 81 | 111 | 0.049 |
least once a week | 60.1 | 57.3 | 62.3 | 46.3 | 60.3 | 61.2 | 74.2 | 60.4 | 58.3 | 55.6 | 68.8 | 53.6 | 62.3 | 68.9 | ||||
Usual supermarket is inside | 413 | 190 | 220 | 0.849 | 43 | 150 | 190 | 30 | 0.070 | 245 | 134 | 14 | 15 | 0.531 | 132 | 108 | 128 | 0.285 |
respondents' neighborhood | 83.8 | 83.3 | 84 | 86 | 79.4 | 85.2 | 96.8 | 84.8 | 81.2 | 82.4 | 93.8 | 87.4 | 82.4 | 81 | ||||
Bodega Shopping | ||||||||||||||||||
Ever shops at neighborhood | 477 | 226 | 247 | 0.066 | 55 | 182 | 213 | 27 | < 0.01 | 277 | 160 | 18 | 14 | 0.765 | 144 | 125 | 149 | 0.849 |
bodegas | ||||||||||||||||||
94.6 | 96.6 | 92.9 | 100 | 96.3 | 93.4 | 84.4 | 94.2 | 94.7 | 100 | 93.3 | 94.1 | 94.7 | 93.1 | |||||
Shops at bodegas | 30 | 169 | 158 | < 0.01 | 46 | 123 | 144 | 17 | 0.013 | 188 | 117 | 10 | 9 | 0.507 | 98 | 91 | 92 | 0.126 |
at least once a day | ||||||||||||||||||
65.5 | 72.2 | 59.4 | 83.6 | 65.1 | 63.2 | 53.1 | 64 | 69.2 | 55.6 | 60 | 64.1 | 68.9 | 57.5 | |||||
Most Common Fruit & Vegetable Source | ||||||||||||||||||
Supermarket | 376 | 178.0 | 195 | 0.402 | 43 | 141 | 168 | 24 | 0.819 | 219 | 126 | 13 | 13 | 0.760 | 116 | 98 | 117 | 0.741 |
76 | 77.4 | 74.1 | 81.1 | 75.4 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75.9 | 72.2 | 86.7 | 77.3 | 74.8 | 73.6 | |||||
Any other location | 120 | 52.0 | 68 | 0.402 | 10 | 46 | 56 | 8 | 0.819 | 73 | 40 | 5 | 2 | 0.760 | 34 | 33 | 42 | 0.741 |
24 | 23 | 25.9 | 18.9 | 24.6 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 24.1 | 27.8 | 13.3 | 22.7 | 25.2 | 26.4 | |||||
*Education is presented among those aged 25 and up |
In response to the question on what could be done to improve eating habits of neighborhood residents, the top three responses were “nutrition education” (26%), “improved access to quality produce” (23%), and “more affordable healthy foods” (21%) (data not shown).
The large majority of residents surveyed in the Bronx communities of West Farms and Fordham have high exposure to the neighborhood food environment through frequent trips to local supermarkets and bodegas. We found that 97% of respondents shopped at neighborhood supermarkets, with 83% walking to their usual supermarket and 16% driving or using a bus or train. These corroborate results from a study in the Bronx neighborhood of Morrisania, which found that 94% of respondents shopped at a local supermarket or discount store, and that most people (77%) walked to their usual store and 11% drove or used public transportation [12]. This pattern contrasts with other cities, including Seattle and Philadelphia, where researchers have noted that most people use their cars for food shopping [16,17]. This points to the place-based nature of shopping behaviors and highlights the need for approaches which are tailored to local community practices.
Exposure to bodegas was high, with 95% of all respondents shopping at neighborhood bodegas and 65% going to bodegas on a daily basis. These findings are consistent with related studies conducted in NYC. Surveys with bodega shoppers at 171 stores throughout NYC showed that 71% of respondents shopped at bodegas five or more times per week [18]. Another study which surveyed shoppers at four bodegas in the South and Central Bronx reported that 68% of shoppers went to bodegas once per day or more [3].
Our findings demonstrate the important role of supermarkets and bodegas in residents’ shopping patterns and support the inclusion of these stores in efforts to create food environments that support and promote healthy eating. Even among respondents whose usual supermarket was outside their neighborhood, the majority still shopped at neighborhood supermarkets and bodegas. Given research showing that people most often use bodegas for purchasing convenience items such as beverages and snacks and do the majority of their grocery shopping at supermarkets [3,12,17,18], retail-based interventions should consider strategies that reflect how people use different types of stores. The evolution of the NYC Health Department’s own retail-focused work reflects this learning. While many of the agency’s early efforts encouraged bodegas to expand produce offerings, the focus has since shifted to instead encourage bodegas to offer and promote healthier convenience items such as water, healthier snacks, and healthier deli options. Additionally, the agency broadened its food retail work to include established supermarkets. Although supermarkets have many healthy options, they also tend to offer and promote a wide range of unhealthy products [19]. Recent studies questioning whether proximity to supermarkets is sufficient to change diets points to the importance of ensuring that the supermarkets are not only present in a neighborhood but also promote high-quality and healthy foods [12].
We found that daily bodega shoppers were younger, more likely to be male, and consumed more sugary beverages than non-daily shoppers. Other studies have found sugary drinks to be among the top 3 items purchased from bodegas, with 18% to 31% of customers purchasing sugary drinks at the visit when they were surveyed [3,18]. Research shows that sugary drink consumption is significantly correlated with population-level overweight and obesity rates [20], and that regular consumption of sugary drinks is also associated with increased risk of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, regardless of weight status [21]. Future interventions may consider tailoring efforts to younger, male audiences and developing store-based strategies to address sugary drink consumption. Finally, our finding that nutrition education, improved access to quality produce, and more affordable healthy foods were the top strategies identified by respondents to improve the diet of neighborhood residents points to the opportunity to develop initiatives which simultaneously address multiple barriers to eating healthy including knowledge, access, and price.
A strength of this study is that our data were obtained through surveys with neighborhood residents, and therefore may offer a more general indication of shopping behaviors than surveys conducted with shoppers at specific store locations. An important limitation is the lack of generalizability of our findings. NYC is a unique environment, with high population density, limited reliance on cars, and a unique food environment featuring a high density of food retail outlets [22,23]. Our data only reflect two Bronx neighborhoods, which may feature distinct food environment characteristics and related behaviors in comparison to other NYC neighborhoods. Additional research is needed to compare shopping behaviors across NYC neighborhoods and between NYC and other cities. Our sample had a somewhat lower proportion of Hispanic/Latino respondents and a higher proportion of African American respondents than the population estimates reported by the U.S. Census Bureau for these neighborhoods. Additionally, we are unable to draw conclusions about how shopping behaviors among our study sample relate to the specific characteristics of their neighborhood food environment in comparison with other neighborhoods.
The findings from our study have important implications for public health practitioners seeking to work with local food retailers to create a more health-promoting food environment. Our results indicate that residents of the study neighborhoods have high exposure to local food stores and support the need to work with bodegas and supermarkets to encourage healthier behaviors.
This project was supported by funding from the Center for Economic Opportunity. The authors would like to thank Cathy Nonas, Shannon Farley, Rachel Sacks, Craig Willingham, Michele Silver, and Jenna Larsen for their review of this paper, and Susan Resnick, Sabrina Baronberg, Miguelina Diaz, Lillian Dunn, Nora Gilbert, Giselle Jabalera, Claire Kiefer, Casey Luber, Karen Roth and Barbara Wong for their assistance with this project.
[1] | Pomarici E, Amato M, Vecchio R (2016) Environmental friendly wines: A consumer segmentation study. Agric Agric Sci Procedia 8: 534-541. |
[2] |
Phipps M, Ozanne LK, Luchs MG, et al. (2013) Understanding the inherent complexity of sustainable consumption: A social cognitive framework. J Bus Res 66: 1227-1234. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.016
![]() |
[3] |
Balderjahn I, Buerke A, Kirchgeorg M, et al. (2013) Consciousness for sustainable consumption: Scale development and new insights in the economic dimension of consumers' sustainability. AMS Review 3: 181-192. doi: 10.1007/s13162-013-0057-6
![]() |
[4] | Lombardi GV, Berni R, Rocchi B (2017) Environmental friendly food. Choice experiment to assess consumer's attitude toward "climate neutral" milk: The role of communication. J Cleaner Prod 142: 257-262. |
[5] |
Williamson PO, Lockshin L, Francis IL, et al. (2016) Influencing consumer choice: Short and medium term effect of country of origin information on wine choice. Food Qual Preference 51: 89-99. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.02.018
![]() |
[6] | Aguinis H, Glavas A (2012) What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. J Manage 38: 932-968. |
[7] |
Steenkamp JBEM, de Jong MG (2010) A global investigation into the constellation of consumer attitudes toward global and local products. J Mark 74: 18-40. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.74.5.018
![]() |
[8] |
Winter S, Lasch R (2016) Environmental and social criteria in supplier evaluation-Lessons from the fashion and apparel industry. J Cleaner Prod 139: 175-190. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.201
![]() |
[9] |
Tait P, Saunders C, Dalziel P, et al. (2019) Estimating wine consumer preferences for sustainability attributes: A discrete choice experiment of Californian Sauvignon blanc purchasers. J Cleaner Prod 233: 412-420. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.076
![]() |
[10] |
Vanderhaegen K, Akoyi KT, Dekoninck W, et al. (2018) Do private coffee standards 'walk the talk' in improving socio-economic and environmental sustainability? Global Environ Change 51: 1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.04.014
![]() |
[11] |
Banterle A, Stranieri S (2013) Sustainability standards and the reorganization of private label supply chains: A transaction cost perspective. Sustainability 5: 5272-5288. doi: 10.3390/su5125272
![]() |
[12] | Forney CF (2007) New innovations in the packaging of fresh-cut produce. Acta Hortic 53-60. |
[13] |
Hao Y, Liu H, Chen H, et al. (2019) What affect consumers' willingness to pay for green packaging? Evidence from China. Resour, Conserv Recycl 141: 21-29. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.001
![]() |
[14] |
Klaiman K, Ortega DL, Garnache C (2016) Consumer preferences and demand for packaging material and recyclability. Resour, Conserv Recycl 115: 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.021
![]() |
[15] |
Ren H, Endo H, Hayashi T (2001) Antioxidative and antimutagenic activities and polyphenol content of pesticide-free and organically cultivated green vegetables using water-soluble chitosan as a soil modifier and leaf surface spray. J Sci Food Agric 81: 1426-1432. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.955
![]() |
[16] | Shewfelt RL, Prussia SE, Sparks SA (2014) Chapter 2-Challenges in handling fresh fruits and vegetables, In: Florkowski WJ, Shewfelt RL, Brueckner B, et al. (Eds.), Postharvest Handling (Third Edition), San Diego, Academic Press, 11-30. |
[17] | Diamond A, Barham J (2012) AgEcon Search, moving food along the value chain: Innovations in regional food distribution, 2012. Available from: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/145618. |
[18] |
Guerrero Lara L, Pereira L, Ravera F, et al. (2019) Flipping the tortilla: Social-ecological innovations and traditional ecological knowledge for more sustainable agri-food systems in spain. Sustainability 11: 1222. doi: 10.3390/su11051222
![]() |
[19] |
Lee CKC, Levy DS, Yap CSF (2015) How does the theory of consumption values contribute to place identity and sustainable consumption? Int J Consum Stud 39: 597-607. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12231
![]() |
[20] |
García-Herrero L, Menna FD, Vittuari M (2019) Sustainability concerns and practices in the chocolate life cycle: Integrating consumers' perceptions and experts' knowledge. Sustainable Prod Consum 20: 117-127. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2019.06.003
![]() |
[21] |
Galan MB, Peschard D, Boizard H (2007) ISO 14 001 at the farm level: Analysis of five methods for evaluating the environmental impact of agricultural practices. J Environ Manage 82: 341-352. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.06.025
![]() |
[22] | GLOBALG.A.P. (2019) Available from: https://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/. |
[23] | Colelli G, Elia A (2009) I prodotti ortofrutticoli di IV gamma: aspetti fisiologici e tecnologici. Italus Hortus 16: 55-78. |
[24] | ISMEA (2020) Consumi alimentari-I consumi domestici delle famiglie italiane. Available from: http://www.ismeamercati.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/9468. |
[25] | IV gamma e aromi: il mercato, i consumi, le preferenze degli italiani (2020) Available from: http://www.italiafruit.net/DettaglioNews/39091/la-categoria-del-mese/iv-gamma-e-aromi-il-mercato-iconsumi-le-preferenze-degli-italiani. |
[26] |
Faour-Klingbeil D, Murtada M, Kuri V, et al. (2016) Understanding the routes of contamination of ready-to-eat vegetables in the Middle East. Food Control 62: 125-133. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.10.024
![]() |
[27] |
Fusi A, Castellani V, Bacenetti J, et al. (2016) The environmental impact of the production of fresh cut salad: A case study in Italy. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21: 162-175. doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-1019-z
![]() |
[28] |
Stranieri S, Baldi L (2017) Shelf life date extension of fresh-cut salad: A consumer perspective. J Food Prod Mark 23: 939-954. doi: 10.1080/10454446.2017.1266545
![]() |
[29] |
Ramos B, Miller FA, Brandão TRS, et al. (2013) Fresh fruits and vegetables-An overview on applied methodologies to improve its quality and safety. Innovative Food Sci Emerging Technol 20: 1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.ifset.2013.07.002
![]() |
[30] |
Grunert KG, Hieke S, Wills J (2014) Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy 44: 177-189. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001
![]() |
[31] | Peano C, Merlino VM, Sottile F, et al. (2019) Sustainability for food consumers: Which perception? Sustainability 11: 1-15. |
[32] |
Casini L, Corsi MAM, Lockshin L, et al. (2009) Consumer preferences of wine in Italy applying Best-Worst Scaling. Int J Wine Bus Res 21: 64-78. doi: 10.1108/17511060910948044
![]() |
[33] | Liu C, Li J, Steele W, et al. (2018) A study on Chinese consumer preferences for food traceability information using Best-Worst Scaling. PloS one 13: 1-16. |
[34] |
Massaglia S, Borra D, Peano C, et al. (2019) Consumer preference heterogeneity evaluation in fruit and vegetable purchasing decisions using the Best-Worst Approach. Foods 8: 266. doi: 10.3390/foods8070266
![]() |
[35] |
Hersleth M, Monteleone E, Segtnan A, et al. (2015) Effects of evoked meal contexts on consumers' responses to intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes in dry-cured ham. Food Qual Preference 40: 191-198. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.10.002
![]() |
[36] |
Merlino VM, Borra D, Girgenti V, et al. (2018) Beef meat preferences of consumers from Northwest Italy: Analysis of choice attributes. Meat Sci 143: 119-128. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.023
![]() |
[37] |
Rahman I, Reynolds D (2015) Wine: Intrinsic attributes and consumers' drinking frequency, experience, and involvement. Int J Hospitality Manage 44: 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.09.004
![]() |
[38] |
Merlino VM, Brun F, Versino A, et al. (2020) Milk packaging innovation: Consumer perception and willingness to pay. AIMS Agric Food 5: 307-326. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.2.307
![]() |
[39] |
Almli VL, Verbeke W, Vanhonacker F, et al. (2011) General image and attribute perceptions of traditional food in six European countries. Food Qual Preference 22: 129-138. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.08.008
![]() |
[40] |
Morgado C, Pestana JM, Guerra MM, et al. (2018) Microbiological quality in convenient ready-to-eat vegetables during shelf life. AIMS Agric Food 3: 372-383. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2018.4.372
![]() |
[41] |
Baselice A, Colantuoni F, Lass DA, et al. (2017) Trends in EU consumers' attitude towards fresh-cut fruit and vegetables. Food Qual Preference 59: 87-96. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.01.008
![]() |
[42] |
Massaglia S, Merlino VM, Borra D, et al. (2019) Consumer attitudes and preference exploration towards fresh-cut salads using Best-Worst Scaling and Latent Class Analysis. Foods 8: 568. doi: 10.3390/foods8110568
![]() |
[43] |
Dinnella C, Torri L, Caporale G, et al. (2014) An exploratory study of sensory attributes and consumer traits underlying liking for and perceptions of freshness for ready to eat mixed salad leaves in Italy. Food Res Int 59: 108-116. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2014.02.009
![]() |
[44] |
Spadoni R, Lombardi P, Canavari M, et al. (2014) Private food standard certification: Analysis of the BRC standard in Italian agri-food. Br Food J 116: 142-164. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-08-2012-0201
![]() |
[45] | Annunziata A, Vecchio R (2016) Organic farming and sustainability in food choices: an analysis of consumer preference in Southern Italy. Agric Agric Sci Procedia 8: 193-200. |
[46] |
Annunziata A, Mariani A, Vecchio R (2019) Effectiveness of sustainability labels in guiding food choices: Analysis of visibility and understanding among young adults. Sustain Prod Consump 17: 108-115. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2018.09.005
![]() |
[47] |
Meyerding SG, Schaffmann AL, Lehberger M (2019) Consumer preferences for different designs of carbon footprint labelling on tomatoes in Germany-Does design matter? Sustainability 11: 1587-1617. doi: 10.3390/su11061587
![]() |
[48] |
Chintakayala PK, Young W, Barkemeyer R, et al. (2018) Breaking niche sustainable products into the mainstream: Organic milk and free-range eggs. Bus Strategy Environ 27: 1039-1051. doi: 10.1002/bse.2050
![]() |
[49] |
Girgenti V, Massaglia S, Mosso A, et al. (2016) Exploring perceptions of raspberries and blueberries by Italian consumers. Sustainability 8: 1027-1043. doi: 10.3390/su8101027
![]() |
[50] |
Rana J, Paul J (2017) Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food: A review and research agenda. J Retailing Consum Serv 38: 157-165. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.06.004
![]() |
[51] | Barbera F, Dagnes J, Di Monaco R (2018) Quality and price setting by producers in AFNs, Alternative Food Networks, Springer, 215-243. |
[52] |
Theotokis A, Pramatari K, Tsiros M (2012) Effects of expiration date-based pricing on brand image perceptions. J Retailing 88: 72-87. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2011.06.003
![]() |
[53] | Canfora I (2016) Is the short food supply chain an efficient solution for sustainability in food market? Agric Agric Sci Procedia 8: 402-407. |
[54] | Maurya UK, Mishra P (2012) What is a brand? A perspective on brand meaning. Eur J Bus Manage 4: 122-134. |
[55] |
Świda J, Halagarda M, Popek S (2018) Perceptions of older consumers regarding food packaging as a prerequisite for its improvement: A case study of Polish market. Int J Consum Stud 42: 358-366. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12427
![]() |
[56] |
Oliveira D, Machín L, Deliza R, et al. (2016) Consumers' attention to functional food labels: Insights from eye-tracking and change detection in a case study with probiotic milk. LWT-Food Sci Technol 68: 160-167. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.11.066
![]() |
[57] |
Visschers VH, Hess R, Siegrist M (2010) Health motivation and product design determine consumers' visual attention to nutrition information on food products. Public Health Nutr 13: 1099-1106. doi: 10.1017/S1368980009993235
![]() |
[58] |
Van Calker KJ, Berentsen PB, Giesen GW, et al. (2005) Identifying and ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming. Agric Hum Values 22: 53-63. doi: 10.1007/s10460-004-7230-3
![]() |
[59] | Finn A, Louviere JJ (1992) Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: The case of food safety. J Pub Policy Mark 11: 12-25. |
[60] |
Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. (2007) Best-Worst Scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ 26: 171-189. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.04.002
![]() |
[61] | Goodman S, Lockshin L, Cohen E (2005) Best-worst scaling: a simple method to determine drinks and wine style preferences. Int Wine Mark Symp, 1-16. |
[62] |
Liu C, Li J, Steele W, et al. (2018) A study on Chinese consumer preferences for food traceability information using Best-Worst Scaling. PloS one 13: e0206793. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206793
![]() |
[63] | Au Yong HN (2009) Implementation of integrated management system: Environmental and safety performance and global sustainability, 2009 3rd International Conference on Energy and Environment (ICEE), 232-241. |
[64] | Krucken L (2008) Designing innovative forms of intermediation and communication-Towards sustainable production and consumption systems, Changing the change, 1-10. |
[65] |
van Dam J, Junginger M, Faaij AP (2010) From the global efforts on certification of bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 14: 2445-2472. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.010
![]() |
[66] |
Scarlat N, Dallemand JF (2011) Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability certification: A global overview. Energy Policy 39: 1630-1646. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.039
![]() |
[67] | Stilo A, Parisi S, Delia S, et al. (2009) La Sicurezza Alimentare in Europa: confronto tra il "Pacchetto Igiene" e gli standard british retail consortium (BRC) ed international food standard (IFS). Ann Ig 21: 387-401. |
[68] | Schulze H, Albersmeier F, Gawron JC, et al. (2008) Heterogeneity in the evaluation of quality assurance systems: the International Food Standard (IFS) in European agribusiness. Int Food Agribusiness Manage Rev 11: 99-138. |
[69] |
Falguera V, Aliguer N, Falguera M (2012) An integrated approach to current trends in food consumption: Moving toward functional and organic products? Food Control 26: 274-281. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.01.051
![]() |
[70] |
MacDonald JP (2005) Strategic sustainable development using the ISO 14001 Standard. J Cleaner Prod 13: 631-643. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.06.001
![]() |
[71] |
Marimon F, Llach J, Bernardo M (2011) Comparative analysis of diffusion of the ISO 14001 standard by sector of activity. J Cleaner Prod 19: 1734-1744. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.06.003
![]() |
[72] |
Stranieri S, Cavaliere A, Banterle A (2016) Voluntary traceability standards and the role of economic incentives. Br Food J 118: 1025-1040. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-04-2015-0151
![]() |
[73] | CSQA Certificazioni-ISO 22005 CSQA. Available from: https://www.csqa.it/CSQA/Norme/Sicurezza-Alimentare/ISO-22005. |
[74] | Grant DB, Shaw S (2019) Environmental or sustainable supply chain performance measurement standards and certifications, Handbook on the Sustainable Supply Chain, Edward Elgar Publishing, 357-376. |
[75] |
Jamaludin NF, Ab Muis Z, Hashim H (2019) An integrated carbon footprint accounting and sustainability index for palm oil mills. J Cleaner Prod 225: 496-509. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.312
![]() |
[76] | Drummond C, Harris C (2008) Linking environment and farming: integrated systems for sustainable farmland management. Sustainable Farmland Management: Transdisciplinary Approaches, 169-177. |
[77] | Reed M, Lewis N, Dwyer JC (2017) The effect and impact of LEAF Marque in the delivery of more sustainable farming: A study to understand the added value to farmers. The CCRI, Gloucester, England, 1-92. |
[78] | LEAF Marque Standard (2020) https://leafuk.org/farming/leaf-marque/leaf-marque-standard. |
[79] | Tecco N, Giuggioli N, Girgenti V, et al. (2016) Environmental and social sustainability in the fresh fruit and vegetables supply chain: A competitiveness' asset. In: Evelin K, Sustainable Supply Chain Management, Intech, 121-137. |
[80] | Shen D, Richards J, Liu F (2013) Consumers' awareness of sustainable fashion. Mark Manage J 23: 134-147. |
[81] |
Biggs EM, Bruce E, Boruff B, et al. (2015) Sustainable development and the water-energy-food nexus: A perspective on livelihoods. Environ Sci Policy 54: 389-397. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.002
![]() |
[82] |
Rasul G, Sharma B (2016) The nexus approach to water-energy-food security: an option for adaptation to climate change. Clim Policy 16: 682-702. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2015.1029865
![]() |
[83] |
Cai W, Lai K, Liu C, et al. (2019) Promoting sustainability of manufacturing industry through the lean energy-saving and emission-reduction strategy. Sci Total Environ 665: 23-32. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.069
![]() |
[84] | Zhang Y, Shan BG, Wu P, et al. (2018) A Three-level Sustainability Evaluation Framework for Electric Energy Substitution Project. International Conference on Energy, Power and Materials Engineering, 20-25. |
[85] |
Mourad M (2016) Recycling, recovering and preventing "food waste": competing solutions for food systems sustainability in the United States and France. J Cleaner Prod 126: 461-477. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.084
![]() |
[86] |
Yellishetty M, Mudd GM, Ranjith PG, et al. (2011) Environmental life-cycle comparisons of steel production and recycling: Sustainability issues, problems and prospects. Environ Sci Policy 14: 650-663. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.008
![]() |
[87] |
Álvarez-Chávez CR, Edwards S, Moure-Eraso R, et al. (2012) Sustainability of bio-based plastics: general comparative analysis and recommendations for improvement. J Cleaner Prod 23: 47-56. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.003
![]() |
[88] |
Eltayeb TK, Zailani S, Ramayah T (2011) Green supply chain initiatives among certified companies in Malaysia and environmental sustainability: Investigating the outcomes. Resour, Conserv Recycl 55: 495-506. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.09.003
![]() |
[89] |
Giannakis M, Papadopoulos T (2016) Supply chain sustainability: A risk management approach. Int J Prod Econ 171: 455-470. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.06.032
![]() |
[90] | Boyle G (2004) Renewable energy. In: Godfrey B, Renewable Energy, Oxford University Press, 456. |
[91] |
Byrne J, Shen B, Wallace W (1998) The economics of sustainable energy for rural development: A study of renewable energy in rural China. Energy Policy 26: 45-54. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(97)00099-2
![]() |
[92] | Blanc S, Gasol CM, Blanco JM, et al. (2019) Economic profitability of agroforestry in nitrate vulnerable zones in Catalonia (NE Spain). Span J Agric Res 17: 1-16. |
[93] |
Caliman JP, Berthaud A, Dubos B, et al. (2005) Agronomy, sustainability and good agricultural practices. Ol, Corps Gras, Lipides 12: 134-140. doi: 10.1051/ocl.2005.0134
![]() |
[94] | Mancuso T, Verduna T, Blanc S, et al. (2019) Environmental sustainability and economic matters of commercial types of common wheat. Agric Econ 65: 194-202. |
[95] |
Bartolacci F, Paolini A, Quaranta AG, et al. (2018) Assessing factors that influence waste management financial sustainability. Waste Manage 79: 571-579. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.050
![]() |
[96] |
Brown MT, Buranakarn V (2003) Emergy indices and ratios for sustainable material cycles and recycle options. Resour, Conserv Recycl 38: 1-22. doi: 10.1016/S0921-3449(02)00093-9
![]() |
[97] | Qasim JM, Khazima M, Arshad A (2018) Global warming, climate change and its threats to sustainable agriculture. Региональные проблемы 21: 37-40. |
[98] |
Blanc S, Massaglia S, Brun F, et al. (2019) Use of bio-based plastics in the fruit supply chain: An integrated approach to assess environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Sustainability 11: 2475-2493. doi: 10.3390/su11092475
![]() |
[99] |
Peano C, Merlino VM, Sottile F, et al. (2019) Sustainability for food consumers: Which perception? Sustainability 11: 5955. doi: 10.3390/su11215955
![]() |
[100] | Moscatelli S, Gamboni M, Dernini S, et al. (2017) Exploring the socio-cultural sustainability of traditional and typical agro-food products: case study of Apulia Region, South-eastern Italy. J Food Nutr Res 5: 6-14. |
[101] | Gunden C, Atis E, Salali HE (2019) Investigating consumers' green values and food-related behaviours in Turkey. Int J Consum Stud 44: 53-63. |
[102] |
Ricci EC, Banterle A, Stranieri S (2018) Trust to Go Green: An exploration of consumer intentions for eco-friendly convenience food. Ecol Econ 148: 54-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.02.010
![]() |
[103] | Saraiva AMV (2018) The green consumer identity formation process: The context of organic food consumption, 1-292. |
[104] | Barrion ASA, Hurtada WA, Yee MG (2015) Food quality aspects of fresh green salads in selected retail stores in Los Baños, Laguna, The Philippines. Malays J Nutr 21: 121-126. |
[105] |
Davies IA, Gutsche S (2016) Consumer motivations for mainstream "ethical" consumption. Eur J Mark 50: 1326-1347. doi: 10.1108/EJM-11-2015-0795
![]() |
[106] |
Fennell D, Markwell K (2015) Ethical and sustainability dimensions of foodservice in Australian ecotourism businesses. J Ecotourism 14: 48-63. doi: 10.1080/14724049.2015.1080716
![]() |
[107] | Meulenberg MTG (2003) 'Consument en burger', betekenis voor de markt van landbouwproducten en voedingsmiddelen. Tijdschrift voor sociaalwetenschappelijk onderzoek van de landbouw 18: 43-54. |
[108] |
Vermeir I, Verbeke W (2006) Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer "Attitude - Behavioral Intention" Gap. J Agric Environ Ethics 19: 169-194. doi: 10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3
![]() |
[109] |
Voegtlin C, Scherer AG (2017) Responsible innovation and the innovation of responsibility: Governing sustainable development in a globalized world. J Bus Ethics 143: 227-243. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2769-z
![]() |
[110] | I numeri del commercio equo e solidale in Italia, bottega per bottega (2019) Altreconomia. Available from: https://altreconomia.it/vendita-controtendenza/. |
[111] | Vitterso G, Tangeland T (2015) The role of consumers in transitions towards sustainable food consumption. The case of organic food in Norway. J Cleaner Prod 92: 91-99. |
[112] | Merlino VM, Borra D, Lazzarino LL, et al. (2019) Does the organic certification influence the purchasing decisions of milk consumers? Quality-Access to Success 20: 382-387. |
[113] |
Asioli D, Canavari M, Malaguti L, et al. (2016) Fruit branding: Exploring factors affecting adoption of the new pear cultivar 'Angelys' in Italian large retail. Int J Fruit Sci 16: 284-300. doi: 10.1080/15538362.2015.1108894
![]() |
[114] |
Diallo MF, Burt S, Sparks L (2015) The influence of image and consumer factors on store brand choice in the Brazilian market: Evidence from two retail chains. Eur Bus Rev 27: 495-512. doi: 10.1108/EBR-03-2013-0048
![]() |
[115] |
Adams DC, Salois MJ (2010) Local versus organic: A turn in consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay. Renewable Agric Food Syst 25: 331-341. doi: 10.1017/S1742170510000219
![]() |
[116] |
Campbell BL, Mhlanga S, Lesschaeve I (2013) Perception versus Reality: Canadian Consumer Views of Local and Organic. Can J Agric Econ/Rev Canadienne d'Agroeconomie 61: 531-558. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2012.01267.x
![]() |
[117] |
Denver S, Jensen JD (2014) Consumer preferences for organically and locally produced apples. Food Quality Preference 31: 129-134. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.08.014
![]() |
[118] |
Silva AR de A, Bioto AS, Efraim P, et al. (2017) Impact of sustainability labeling in the perception of sensory quality and purchase intention of chocolate consumers. J Cleaner Prod 141: 11-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.024
![]() |
[119] | Hussin SR, Yee WF, Bojei J (2010) Essential quality attributes in fresh produce purchase by Malaysian consumers. J Agribusiness Mark 3: 1-19. |
[120] |
Alongi M, Sillani S, Lagazio C, et al. (2019) Effect of expiry date communication on acceptability and waste of fresh-cut lettuce during storage at different temperatures. Food Res Int 116: 1121-1125. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.09.056
![]() |
1. | Nikolaos Kazantzis, Vasiliki Kazantzi, Emmanuel G. Christodoulou, Pollutant concentration profile reconstruction using digital soft sensors for biodegradation and exposure assessment in the presence of model uncertainty, 2014, 21, 0944-1344, 9553, 10.1007/s11356-014-2572-x |
N (%) | 95% CI | |
Residential ZIP code | ||
10458 (Fordham) | 239 (47.3) | (43.0, 51.7) |
10460 (West Farms) | 266 (52.7) | (48.3, 57.0) |
Gender | ||
Male | 234 (46.5) | (42.1, 50.1) |
Female | 267 (53.1) | (48.7, 57.5) |
Age Group | ||
18-24 | 55 (10.9) | (8.2, 13.6) |
25-44 | 189 (37.4) | (33.2, 41.7) |
45-64 | 229 (45.3) | (41.0, 49.7) |
65+ | 32 (6.3) | (4.2, 8.5) |
Race/Ethnicity | ||
Hispanic | 294 (59.2) | (54.8, 63.5) |
Black | 169 (34.0) | (29.8, 38.2) |
White | 18 (3.6) | (2.0, 5.3) |
Other | 16 (3.2) | (1.7, 4.8) |
Education* | ||
Less than HS | 153 (34.3) | (29.9, 38.7) |
HS Graduate/GED | 132 (29.6) | (25.3, 33.8) |
Any College | 161 (36.1) | (31.6, 40.6) |
*Education is presented among those aged 25 and up |
N | % | |
Supermarket Shopping | ||
Ever shops at neighborhood supermarkets | 485 | 96.8 |
Frequency of shopping at neighborhood supermarkets | ||
Never | 16 | 3.2 |
Less than once per week | 184 | 36.7 |
Once per week or more | 301 | 60.1 |
Usual supermarket is within respondents' neighborhood | 413 | 83.8 |
Usual supermarket is outside respondents' neighborhood | 80 | 16.2 |
Bodega Shopping | ||
Ever shop at neighborhood bodegas | 477 | 94.6 |
Frequency of shopping at neighborhood bodegas | ||
Never | 27 | 5.4 |
1-2 times per month | 5 | 1.0 |
1-6 times per week | 142 | 28.2 |
Once per day or more | 330 | 65.5 |
Fruit and Vegetable Purchasing | ||
Most common source for fruit and vegetable purchases | ||
Supermarket | 376 | 75.8 |
Fruit and vegetable store | 51 | 10.3 |
Green Cart (sell fresh produce in areas with limited access to healthy foods) or other fruit & vegetable cart | 28 | 5.6 |
Bodega | 23 | 4.6 |
Farmers' Market | 5 | 1.0 |
Other | 13 | 2.6 |
Location of Usual Supermarket | ||||||
Overall | Within Neighborhood | Outside Neighborhood | ||||
N(%) | Mean time (min) | N(%) | Mean time (min) | N(%) | Mean time (min) | |
Overall | 493 (100.0) | 9.1 | 413 (100.0) | 7.3 | 80 (100.0) | 18.6 |
Mode of travel to usual supermarket | ||||||
Walk | 408 (82.8) | 7.6 | 390 (94.4) | 7.1 | 18 (22.5) | 18.1 |
Personal Car | 45 (9.1) | 14.4 | 11 (2.7) | 7.7 | 34 (42.5) | 16.5 |
Bus | 29 (5.9) | 19.7 | 8 (1.9) | 14.4 | 21 (26.3) | 21.7 |
Cab | 6 (1.2) | 16.7 | 2 (0.5) | 12.5 | 4 (5.0) | 18.8 |
Train | 4 (0.8) | 20.0 | 1 (0.2) | 5.0 | 3 (3.8) | 25.0 |
*missing data not reported |
Overall | Gender | Age Group | Race/Ethnicity | Education* | ||||||||||||||
Male | Female | 18-24 | 25-44 | 45-64 | 65+ | Hispanic | Black | White | Other | Less than HS | HS Grad/GED | Any College | ||||||
N | N | N | p-value | N | N | N | N | p-value | N | N | N | N | p-value | N | N | N | p-value | |
% | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |||||
Supermarket Shopping | ||||||||||||||||||
Ever shops at neighborhood | 485 | 225 | 256 | 0.811 | 50 | 186 | 219 | 30 | 0.190 | 286 | 162 | 15 | 16 | < 0.01 | 150 | 126 | 156 | 0.783 |
supermarkets | 96.8 | 97.0 | 96.6 | 92.6 | 98.4 | 96.5 | 96.8 | 97.6 | 96.4 | 83.3 | 100 | 98 | 96.9 | 96.9 | ||||
Shops at supermarkets at | 301 | 133 | 165 | 0.471 | 25 | 114 | 139 | 23 | 0.099 | 177 | 98 | 10 | 11 | 0.057 | 82 | 81 | 111 | 0.049 |
least once a week | 60.1 | 57.3 | 62.3 | 46.3 | 60.3 | 61.2 | 74.2 | 60.4 | 58.3 | 55.6 | 68.8 | 53.6 | 62.3 | 68.9 | ||||
Usual supermarket is inside | 413 | 190 | 220 | 0.849 | 43 | 150 | 190 | 30 | 0.070 | 245 | 134 | 14 | 15 | 0.531 | 132 | 108 | 128 | 0.285 |
respondents' neighborhood | 83.8 | 83.3 | 84 | 86 | 79.4 | 85.2 | 96.8 | 84.8 | 81.2 | 82.4 | 93.8 | 87.4 | 82.4 | 81 | ||||
Bodega Shopping | ||||||||||||||||||
Ever shops at neighborhood | 477 | 226 | 247 | 0.066 | 55 | 182 | 213 | 27 | < 0.01 | 277 | 160 | 18 | 14 | 0.765 | 144 | 125 | 149 | 0.849 |
bodegas | ||||||||||||||||||
94.6 | 96.6 | 92.9 | 100 | 96.3 | 93.4 | 84.4 | 94.2 | 94.7 | 100 | 93.3 | 94.1 | 94.7 | 93.1 | |||||
Shops at bodegas | 30 | 169 | 158 | < 0.01 | 46 | 123 | 144 | 17 | 0.013 | 188 | 117 | 10 | 9 | 0.507 | 98 | 91 | 92 | 0.126 |
at least once a day | ||||||||||||||||||
65.5 | 72.2 | 59.4 | 83.6 | 65.1 | 63.2 | 53.1 | 64 | 69.2 | 55.6 | 60 | 64.1 | 68.9 | 57.5 | |||||
Most Common Fruit & Vegetable Source | ||||||||||||||||||
Supermarket | 376 | 178.0 | 195 | 0.402 | 43 | 141 | 168 | 24 | 0.819 | 219 | 126 | 13 | 13 | 0.760 | 116 | 98 | 117 | 0.741 |
76 | 77.4 | 74.1 | 81.1 | 75.4 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75.9 | 72.2 | 86.7 | 77.3 | 74.8 | 73.6 | |||||
Any other location | 120 | 52.0 | 68 | 0.402 | 10 | 46 | 56 | 8 | 0.819 | 73 | 40 | 5 | 2 | 0.760 | 34 | 33 | 42 | 0.741 |
24 | 23 | 25.9 | 18.9 | 24.6 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 24.1 | 27.8 | 13.3 | 22.7 | 25.2 | 26.4 | |||||
*Education is presented among those aged 25 and up |
N (%) | 95% CI | |
Residential ZIP code | ||
10458 (Fordham) | 239 (47.3) | (43.0, 51.7) |
10460 (West Farms) | 266 (52.7) | (48.3, 57.0) |
Gender | ||
Male | 234 (46.5) | (42.1, 50.1) |
Female | 267 (53.1) | (48.7, 57.5) |
Age Group | ||
18-24 | 55 (10.9) | (8.2, 13.6) |
25-44 | 189 (37.4) | (33.2, 41.7) |
45-64 | 229 (45.3) | (41.0, 49.7) |
65+ | 32 (6.3) | (4.2, 8.5) |
Race/Ethnicity | ||
Hispanic | 294 (59.2) | (54.8, 63.5) |
Black | 169 (34.0) | (29.8, 38.2) |
White | 18 (3.6) | (2.0, 5.3) |
Other | 16 (3.2) | (1.7, 4.8) |
Education* | ||
Less than HS | 153 (34.3) | (29.9, 38.7) |
HS Graduate/GED | 132 (29.6) | (25.3, 33.8) |
Any College | 161 (36.1) | (31.6, 40.6) |
*Education is presented among those aged 25 and up |
N | % | |
Supermarket Shopping | ||
Ever shops at neighborhood supermarkets | 485 | 96.8 |
Frequency of shopping at neighborhood supermarkets | ||
Never | 16 | 3.2 |
Less than once per week | 184 | 36.7 |
Once per week or more | 301 | 60.1 |
Usual supermarket is within respondents' neighborhood | 413 | 83.8 |
Usual supermarket is outside respondents' neighborhood | 80 | 16.2 |
Bodega Shopping | ||
Ever shop at neighborhood bodegas | 477 | 94.6 |
Frequency of shopping at neighborhood bodegas | ||
Never | 27 | 5.4 |
1-2 times per month | 5 | 1.0 |
1-6 times per week | 142 | 28.2 |
Once per day or more | 330 | 65.5 |
Fruit and Vegetable Purchasing | ||
Most common source for fruit and vegetable purchases | ||
Supermarket | 376 | 75.8 |
Fruit and vegetable store | 51 | 10.3 |
Green Cart (sell fresh produce in areas with limited access to healthy foods) or other fruit & vegetable cart | 28 | 5.6 |
Bodega | 23 | 4.6 |
Farmers' Market | 5 | 1.0 |
Other | 13 | 2.6 |
Location of Usual Supermarket | ||||||
Overall | Within Neighborhood | Outside Neighborhood | ||||
N(%) | Mean time (min) | N(%) | Mean time (min) | N(%) | Mean time (min) | |
Overall | 493 (100.0) | 9.1 | 413 (100.0) | 7.3 | 80 (100.0) | 18.6 |
Mode of travel to usual supermarket | ||||||
Walk | 408 (82.8) | 7.6 | 390 (94.4) | 7.1 | 18 (22.5) | 18.1 |
Personal Car | 45 (9.1) | 14.4 | 11 (2.7) | 7.7 | 34 (42.5) | 16.5 |
Bus | 29 (5.9) | 19.7 | 8 (1.9) | 14.4 | 21 (26.3) | 21.7 |
Cab | 6 (1.2) | 16.7 | 2 (0.5) | 12.5 | 4 (5.0) | 18.8 |
Train | 4 (0.8) | 20.0 | 1 (0.2) | 5.0 | 3 (3.8) | 25.0 |
*missing data not reported |
Overall | Gender | Age Group | Race/Ethnicity | Education* | ||||||||||||||
Male | Female | 18-24 | 25-44 | 45-64 | 65+ | Hispanic | Black | White | Other | Less than HS | HS Grad/GED | Any College | ||||||
N | N | N | p-value | N | N | N | N | p-value | N | N | N | N | p-value | N | N | N | p-value | |
% | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |||||
Supermarket Shopping | ||||||||||||||||||
Ever shops at neighborhood | 485 | 225 | 256 | 0.811 | 50 | 186 | 219 | 30 | 0.190 | 286 | 162 | 15 | 16 | < 0.01 | 150 | 126 | 156 | 0.783 |
supermarkets | 96.8 | 97.0 | 96.6 | 92.6 | 98.4 | 96.5 | 96.8 | 97.6 | 96.4 | 83.3 | 100 | 98 | 96.9 | 96.9 | ||||
Shops at supermarkets at | 301 | 133 | 165 | 0.471 | 25 | 114 | 139 | 23 | 0.099 | 177 | 98 | 10 | 11 | 0.057 | 82 | 81 | 111 | 0.049 |
least once a week | 60.1 | 57.3 | 62.3 | 46.3 | 60.3 | 61.2 | 74.2 | 60.4 | 58.3 | 55.6 | 68.8 | 53.6 | 62.3 | 68.9 | ||||
Usual supermarket is inside | 413 | 190 | 220 | 0.849 | 43 | 150 | 190 | 30 | 0.070 | 245 | 134 | 14 | 15 | 0.531 | 132 | 108 | 128 | 0.285 |
respondents' neighborhood | 83.8 | 83.3 | 84 | 86 | 79.4 | 85.2 | 96.8 | 84.8 | 81.2 | 82.4 | 93.8 | 87.4 | 82.4 | 81 | ||||
Bodega Shopping | ||||||||||||||||||
Ever shops at neighborhood | 477 | 226 | 247 | 0.066 | 55 | 182 | 213 | 27 | < 0.01 | 277 | 160 | 18 | 14 | 0.765 | 144 | 125 | 149 | 0.849 |
bodegas | ||||||||||||||||||
94.6 | 96.6 | 92.9 | 100 | 96.3 | 93.4 | 84.4 | 94.2 | 94.7 | 100 | 93.3 | 94.1 | 94.7 | 93.1 | |||||
Shops at bodegas | 30 | 169 | 158 | < 0.01 | 46 | 123 | 144 | 17 | 0.013 | 188 | 117 | 10 | 9 | 0.507 | 98 | 91 | 92 | 0.126 |
at least once a day | ||||||||||||||||||
65.5 | 72.2 | 59.4 | 83.6 | 65.1 | 63.2 | 53.1 | 64 | 69.2 | 55.6 | 60 | 64.1 | 68.9 | 57.5 | |||||
Most Common Fruit & Vegetable Source | ||||||||||||||||||
Supermarket | 376 | 178.0 | 195 | 0.402 | 43 | 141 | 168 | 24 | 0.819 | 219 | 126 | 13 | 13 | 0.760 | 116 | 98 | 117 | 0.741 |
76 | 77.4 | 74.1 | 81.1 | 75.4 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75.9 | 72.2 | 86.7 | 77.3 | 74.8 | 73.6 | |||||
Any other location | 120 | 52.0 | 68 | 0.402 | 10 | 46 | 56 | 8 | 0.819 | 73 | 40 | 5 | 2 | 0.760 | 34 | 33 | 42 | 0.741 |
24 | 23 | 25.9 | 18.9 | 24.6 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 24.1 | 27.8 | 13.3 | 22.7 | 25.2 | 26.4 | |||||
*Education is presented among those aged 25 and up |