Consumer Behaviour Towards Organic Food Consumption in Hong Kong

Consumer behaviour towards
Organic Food Consumption in Hong Kong:

An Empirical Study
BY
Lau Kwan Yi
06011446
Marketing Option
An Honours Degree Project Submitted to the

School of Business in Partial Fulfillment
of the Graduation Requirement for the Degree of
Bachelor of Business Administration (Honours)
Hong Kong Baptist University

Hong Kong
April 2009
Acknowledgement
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge those who helped me in
completing my honours project.
To begin with, I would like to express my whole-hearted gratitude to my supervisor,
Dr. David Ko, for his unfailing guidance and support. He has provided me with a lot of
valuable advices and insightful feedback in the research process, so that I can complete
this study smoothly. Secondly, I would like to thanks the Hong Kong Organic Centre,
especially Miss Claudia Tsui, for their generosity and kindness in supplying me with
precious information. Thanks must also be given to my friends for their kind support and
help. Most importantly, I am indebted to my beloved family for their love and care.
Page i
Abstract
With the recent rise of concern in food safety and environmental protection, the
organic food market in Hong Kong expands rapidly. Being free of chemical fertilizers,
patricides and preservatives, organic food represent a type of food that can free people
from the threat of food poisoning or any other harmful effects arising from excess or
illegal uses of harmful chemical in food. The organic industry is considered new to Hong
Kong, and there has not been any legal regulation on certifying standard of self-claimed
organic food. In view of the imbalance between a rising need for organic food and little
regulated organic certification system, this research attempts to investigate on the
consumption of organic food in Hong Kong.
Through examining the demographic characteristics of general public, attitude
towards organic food, health consciousness, environmental concerns and organic food
knowledge, the study aims to identify associations between all these factors and the
frequency in organic food consumption.
For research design, both exploratory and descriptive researches were conducted in
this study. Concerning methodology, the quota sampling method was adopted with the
sample size of 330. To analyze the collected data, the statistical analysis of Statistical
Package for Social Science was applied.
Findings show that gender and presence of children in household have significant
relationship with the organic food consumption. Positive relationships of attitude, health
consciousness, environmental concerns and organic food knowledge with the frequency
of organic food consumption are proved. Surprisingly, age, education and income are
found not related positively to consumption of organic food.
Recommendations are then provided based on the findings. Marketing strategies can
be formulated by targeting in groups of customers which have a higher consumption
potential. The supply and production volume can be increased, so as to lower the selling
price of organic food to a more competitive level which is not more than above
conventional food price level. Distribution channels of organic food can be increased with
supermarkets, health food stores and market as main development distribution network to
match with consumers shopping behaviour. Larger quantity and larger variety of organic
food can be obtained by local and over-border sourcing to broaden consumer base. A
system of organic food certification can be introduced to aid identification of real organic
products. Education should be blended well into marketing mix and be carried out in the
aspect of health, environmental and organic knowledge to boost the special
competitiveness in health maintenance, environmental protection and in rearing a more
favourable attitude towards organic food.
Page ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement .........................................................................................................i
Abstract.........................................................................................................................ii
1. Introduction..............................................................................................................1
1.1 Background ....................................................................................................1
1.2 Definition of Organic Food ...........................................................................1
1.3 Purpose of Research ......................................................................................2
1.4 Organic Food Consumption in Hong Kong.................................................3
1.5 Research Objectives.......................................................................................4
2. Literature Review ....................................................................................................4
2.1 Variables Influencing Consumption of Organic Food................................4
2.1.1 Demographic Factors..........................................................................5
2.1.2 Attitude.................................................................................................6
2.1.3 Health Consciousness..........................................................................7
2.1.4 Environmental Concerns....................................................................7
2.1.5 Organic Food Knowledge...................................................................8
2.2 Proposed Framework and Hypotheses ........................................................8
3. Methodology ...........................................................................................................10
3.1 Research Design ...........................................................................................10
3.2 Sampling Plan and Sample Size ................................................................. 11
3.3 Questionnaire Design...................................................................................12
3.4 Data Analysis ................................................................................................13
4. Analysis and Findings ............................................................................................14
4.1 Demographics...............................................................................................14
4.2 Nutrient Content Usage Pattern .................................................................16
4.3 Attitudes towards Organic Food.................................................................17
4.3.1 General Attitudes towards Organic Food.......................................17
4.3.2 Relationship between Attitudes and Age Group ............................18
4.3.3 Relationship between Attitudes and Gender ..................................20
4.3.4 Relationship between Attitudes and Education Level ...................20
4.3.5 Relationship between Attitudes of Income .....................................21
4.3.6 Relationship between Attitudes of Presence of Children in
household ....................................................................................................24
4.4 Health Consciousness...................................................................................24
4.5 Environmental Concerns.............................................................................25
4.6 Organic Food Knowledge............................................................................26
4.7 Variables Affecting Frequency of Organic Food Consumption...............27
Page iii
4.7.1 Relationship between Frequency and Age ......................................27

4.7.2 Relationship between Frequency and Gender ...............................28
4.7.3 Relationship between Frequency and Education Level ................29
4.7.4 Relationship between Frequency and Income................................30
4.7.5 Relationship between Frequency and Presence of Children in
Household ...................................................................................................33
4.7.6 Relationship between Frequency and Attitude ..............................34
4.7.7 Relationship between Frequency and Health Consciousness .......34
4.7.8 Relationship between Frequency and Environmental Concerns .35
4.7.9 Relationship between Frequency and Organic Food Knowledge.35
5. Discussion................................................................................................................36
6. Recommendations ..................................................................................................39
6.1 Strategies based on Demographics .............................................................39
6.2 Strategies based on Consumption Pattern.................................................39
6.3 Strategies based on Attitude towards Organic Food ................................40
6.3.1 Coping with limited availability, variety and selling locations .....40
6.3.2 Coping with difficulty in identifying real organic food and
confusing labels ..........................................................................................41
6.4 Strategies based on Health Consciousness.................................................41
6.5 Strategies based on Environmental Concerns...........................................42
6.6 Strategies based on Organic Knowledge....................................................42
7. Limitations and Further Research .......................................................................43
8. Conclusion ..........................................................................................................44
References ...................................................................................................................45
Appendices.................................................................................................................A1
Page iv
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Food consumption patterns are rapidly changing nowadays as a result of
environmental issues, concern about the nutritional value of food and health issues. Issues
such as quality and safety in food attract consumer interest in organic food that is free
from pesticides and chemical residues (Childs and Polyzees, 1997; Zotos et al., 1999;
Baltas, 2001; Fotopoulos and Krystallis, 2002).
Although the concept of "organic food" seems to be well known to many consumers
(Roddy et al., 1996; Von Alvensleben, 1998), the proportion of consumers who purchase
organic foods on a regular basis is low (Grunert, 1993; Wandel and Bugge, 1997; Roddy
et al., 1996; Fotopoulos and Krystallis, 2002).
To better protect consumers from harmful and fake organic food, knowing the
factors affecting consumers consumption of organic products is therefore important.
Through investigation, the profile of buyers and non-buyers of organic products can be
figured out. This can be very critical for designing organic food labeling certification,
improving public health and enhancing the profitability of the food industry (Drichoutis et
al., 2005).
1.2 Definition of Organic Food
There is no common definition of organic due to the fact that different countries
have different standard for products to be certified organic. In simplest words, organic
Page 1
foods are minimally processed to maintain the integrity of the food without artificial
ingredients, preservatives or irradiation. Organic products are obtained by processes
friendly to the environment, by cultivation techniques that consider both the attributes of
the final product and the production methods (Chinnici et al., 2002).
Generally speaking, Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from
animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced
without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or
sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation (United States Department of
Agriculture National Organic Program, 2000).
More than that, "organic" is not only a set of harmless agricultural production
technique, its ultimate meaning behind is to respect the nature and life, pay attention to
the conservation of the ecology to enhance environmental quality for future generations.
1.3 Purpose of Research
With rising concern of health issues and food safety, many consumers have turned
their site to organic products (Laroche et al., 2001). The increased consumers' interest in
organic food has been attributed among others to the growing demand for food free from
pesticides and chemical residues (Childs and Polyzees, 1997; Zotos et al., 1999; Baltas,
2001; Fotopoulos and Krystallis, 2002).
Page 2
Organic food promotes a balance of human, other living organisms and the nature. It
also promotes no artificial preservatives and best maintain the originality of food. This
prevents excess use harmful ingredients and thereby ensures health.
The aim of the study is to gain knowledge about Hong Kong consumers' demographic
characteristics, attitudes, health consciousness, environmental concerns, organic food
knowledge and behaviour towards organic foods. From the research, the attitudes and
purchase behaviour of organic food will be assessed. It will give organic food marketers a
direction to improve the marketing strategies of their products. If organic food is
consumed by more consumers, society can greatly benefit from a public and global health
perspective (Wang et al., 1995). This results in a favourable situation benefiting the
consumers, manufacturers as well as the whole society.
1.4 Organic Food Consumption in Hong Kong
Following the worldwide trend, Hong Kong residents are becoming increasingly
health conscious and tend to consume healthier and more nutritious. In a public opinion
survey on customer behaviour (Hong Kong Organic Resource Centre, 2008), 90% of
respondents have consumed organic products, showing a 30% increase while compared to
a similar research done by the same organization in 2005. Demand for organic products
for Hong Kong consumers is rising speedily.
There are many researchers investigated the consumers attitudes towards organic
Page 3
food but most of the empirical works on organic food are related to western regions like
Canada (Barbara, 2008), America and Europe Makatouni, 2002; Verdurme et al., 2002,
Baker et al., 2004; Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002). However, there is an inadequate study that
focuses on the consumer behaviour in Hong Kong. To redress the imbalance, this study
attempts to investigate consumer behaviour of organic food in Hong Kong.
1.5 Research Objectives
The research objectives are summarized as follows:
i.
To figure out the consumption pattern of Hong Kong people for organic food.
ii.
To find out the attitudes towards organic food of the general public.
iii.
To find out the demographic characteristics, attitude, health consciousness,

environmental concerns and organic knowledge level in relation to the frequency
of organic food consumption.
iv.
To provide recommendations for marketers on how to improve the organic claims

and formulate relevant strategies to attract potential consumers.
In this paper, the term buyers will be used to refer for those who always, often or
sometimes buy organic products, while non-buyers refer for those who never buy
organic products.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Variables Influencing Consumption of Organic Food
Page 4
A review of the literature on organic food consumption shows that several attempts
have been made to examine consumers' perception of organic food, factors that have
facilitated or prevented the organic food choice, consumers' attitudes, as well as reasons
for purchase or non-purchase in many foreign countries.
2.1.1 Demographic Factors
In particular, organic food buyers tend to be younger than non-buyers (Jolly, 1991).
Age seems also to affect consumer attitudes towards organic food. Young people are
more environmentally conscious but less willing to pay more due to their lower
purchasing power, whereas older people are more health conscious and more willing to
pay an extra price for organic food (Wandel and Bugge, 1997; Thompson and Kidwell,
1998; Von Alvensleben, 1998; Fotopoulos and Krystallis, 2002).
Women seem to be more interested in organics than men, and they are more frequent
buyers than men (Davis et al., 1995; Wandel and Bugge, 1997). Overall, more positive
attitudes towards organic food have been detected in women as opposed to men (Lea and
Worsley, 2005).
Education has also been reported as a significant factor affecting consumer attitudes
towards organic food products. People with higher education are more likely to express
positive attitudes towards organic products, require more information about the
production and process methods of organics (Magnusson et al., 2001; Hill and
Page 5
Lynchehaum, 2002; Wier et al., 2003), have the confidence to negotiate conflicting
claims in relation to organic food (Padel and Foster, 2005), and are more willing to pay a
premium for organic food (Jolly, 1991; Wandel and Bugge, 1997).
Moreover, demand for organic food seems to be positively correlated to income
(Von Alvensleben, 1998). Higher income households are more likely to form positive
attitudes and to purchase more organic food (Grunert and Kristensen, 1991; Magnusson et
al., 2001). However, income appears to affect mainly the quantity of organic products
bought and not the general willingness to buy. Higher income households do not
necessarily indicate higher likelihood of organic purchases. Some lower income segments
seem to be more entrenched buyers (Fotopoulos and Krystallis, 2002).
The presence of children in the household has also been regarded as a significant
factor, which positively influences consumers' organic food attitudes as well as buying
behaviour (Davis et al., 1995; Thompson and Kidwell, 1998; Fotopoulos and Krystallis,
2002). However, children's age can be considered as a key factor, meaning that the higher
the age of children in the household, the lower the propensity to buy organic food (Wier
et al., 2003).
2.1.2 Attitude
The socio-demographic profile seems to affect consumer attitudes and buying
behaviour towards organic food. Organic food attitudes are mainly influenced by gender,
Page 6
age, income, level of education and the presence of children in the household (Davis et al.,
1995; Wandel and Bugge, 1997; Thompson and Kidwell, 1998; Magnusson et al., 2001;
Wier et al., 2003).
2.1.3 Health Consciousness
Health consciousness refers to the degree to which health concerns are integrated
into a persons daily activities (Jayanti and Burns, 1998). Health consciousness is
considered as a subjective intention or motivation to improve an individuals health. Past
studies have shown that the most important reason for purchasing and consuming organic
food appears to be health consciousness (Tregear et al., 1994; Huang, 1996;
Schlegelmilch et al., 1996; Hutchins and Greenhalgh, 1997; Wandel and Bugge, 1997;
Von Alvensleben, 1998; Magnusson et al., 2001; Squires et al., 2001, Padel and Foster,
2005).
2.1.4 Environmental Concerns
The consumers' level of ecological concern is related to their willingness to purchase
green products (Amyx et al., 1994). Although it is not a priority issue, it also has
significant effect in affecting consumption of organic products (Kristensen and Grunert,
1991; Tregear et al., 1994; Von Alvensleben, 1998; Schifferstein and Oude Ophuis, 1998).
Organic products use environmental friendly ways to produce and process, people who
Page 7
are more concern for the environment is proposed to have a positive effect on the
purchase of organic products.
2.1.5 Organic Food Knowledge
Organic knowledge refers to the extent to which consumers have enduring
organic-related cognitive structures (Grunert and Grunert, 1995). Knowledge is proposed
to have a positive effect on a persons perceived diet effectiveness and his or her
consumption of organic products (Peter et al, 1999). In addition, knowledge is expected to
have a negative effect on a persons skepticism level (Szykman et al., 1997).
2.2 Proposed Framework and Hypotheses
With reference to the foregoing literature review and the extension of the work of
Boutsouki et al. (2008) conceptual framework, a framework is proposed in Figure 1 to
explain the consumption of organic products of Hong Kong consumers. The framework
shows the hypothesized relationships among consumers demographic factors, attitude,
health consciousness, environmental concerns, organic knowledge and consumption of
organic products.
Page 8
Figure 1: The Proposed Framework
H1
Demographic Factors
H3
Attitude
a. Age
b. Gender
c. Education Level
d. Income
e. Presence of
Children in household
Health
Consciousness
H4
Environmental
Concerns
H5
Organic Food
Consumption
of organic
products
H6
Knowledge
H2
The research hypotheses are as follows:

H1:
There is association between demographic factors and attitude.
H1a:
There is a negative relationship between age and attitude.
H1b:
There is a positive relationship between women and attitude.
H1c:
There is a positive relationship between education level and attitude.
H1d:
There is a positive relationship between income and attitude.
H1e:
There is a positive relationship between presence of children in household and

attitude.
H2:
There is association between demographics factors and the frequency of

organic food consumption.
H2a:
There is a negative relationship between age and the frequency of organic food
Page 9
consumption.
H2b:
There is a positive relationship between women and the frequency of organic

food consumption.
H2c:
There is a positive relationship between education level and the frequency of

organic food consumption.
H2d:
There is a positive relationship between income and the frequency of organic

food consumption.
H2e:
There is a positive relationship between presence of children in household and

the frequency of organic food consumption.
H3:
There is a positive relationship between attitude and the frequency of organic

food consumption.
H4:
There is a positive relationship between health consciousnesses and the

frequency of organic food consumption.
H5:
There is a positive relationship between environmental concerns and the

H6:
There is a positive relationship between organic food knowledge and the

3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design
Page 10
Both exploratory and descriptive researches were conducted in this study. For
exploratory research, secondary data were collected from academic journals, the Internet
and reference books. In terms of descriptive research, a questionnaire was structured and
personal interviews were conducted to determine the attitudes and behaviour of
consumers in Hong Kong towards organic food.
3.2 Sampling Plan and Sample Size
As one of the research objectives is to compare the buyers and non-buyers group, the
sample size formula for the estimation of proportion was applied (Malhotra, 2004). Based
on a past research done in Hong Kong (Hong Kong Organic Resource Centre, 2005), the
proportion of buyers is 30%. By substituting it into formula, the number 3231can be
obtained. Therefore, 330 questionnaires were distributed and the sample size should be
large enough to minimize Type II error.
In order to obtain the maximum socio-economic scattering of consumers
characteristics, the quota sampling method was adopted as to follow the sampling plan of
a similar study (Siu and Tsoi, 1998). Three districts, Wan Chai, Sha Tin and Sham Shui
Po were selected as to represent the high income district, middle income district and low
income district respectively. 110 questionnaires were distributed in each district. The
respondent was selected from every three passed-by to avoid self-selection bias.
Assuming confidence level is 95% and standard error is 5%, therefore

2
n=0.3*(1-0.7)*1.96 /0.05 = 323

Page 11
A pretest of questionnaire was conducted with 10 respondents prior to avoid

ambiguous wording and inapplicable questions in the questionnaire. Also, the survey was
completed through face-to-face interview in order to minimize misunderstanding of the
questions.
3.3 Questionnaire Design
A structured questionnaire will be used which employed with true-false questions,
multiple-choice questions and Likert scale questions.
Part 1 is aimed at identifying organic food buyers and non-buyers, and their consumer
behaviour. Statements are extracted from 2 similar reports done in Hong Kong by the
Hong Kong Organic Resources Centre (2005, 2008).
Part 2 consists of statements developed by previous research (Tsakiridou et al., 2008)
to assess attitudes towards organic food. The statements are short listed and slightly
modified from the original 23 statements to be better suit in gauging attitudes.
In Part 3, a six-item Likert-type scale to measure health consciousness was adapted
from Kraft and Goodell (1993) and expanded to 10 items with another research (Cheung,
2005) to examine personal health and diet.
The ten-item Likert type scale to measure environmental consciousness was selected
from Shepherd et al. (2005) and expanded based on the reference from the Green Power
in Part 4.
Page 12
In Part 5, 10 true or false questions is used to test knowledge of organic products with
reference to the statements developed by the Agricultural, Fisheries and Conservation
Department (2008). A Do Not Know option is created to avoid unreliable answers.
Finally, in Part 6, demographic information of gender, age, occupation, marital status,
presence of children in household, members in household, income and educational level
are collected.
3.4 Data Analysis
To analyze the collected data, the statistical analysis of Statistical Package for Social
Science (SPSS) was applied. Different data analysis methods are as follow:
1.
Reliability Test was employed to determine the Cronbachs alpha of attitude towards
organic food, health consciousness and environmental concerns. The resulting alpha
coefficients of the three variables are 0.835, 0.830 and 0.840 respectively, which all
above the minimum acceptable threshold of 0.7 suggested by Nunnally (1978). The
reliability test is contained in Appendix 4.1 for reference.
2.
Frequency counts and descriptive statistics were used to summarize the result of
respondents.
3.
Regarding attitudes towards organic food, One-way ANOVA was employed to find
out the significant differences between each of the five demographic factors.
4.
One-way ANOVA, independent sample T-test and Linear Regression were used to
Page 13
examine the relationship between the independent variables (demographic factors,

health consciousness, environmental concerns, organic food knowledge) and
dependent variable (frequency of label usage).
5.
Chi-square analysis and independent sample T-test were applied again to investigate
the significant differences between users and non-users on their demographics,
health consciousness, environmental concerns and organic food knowledge.
For all analysis, a probability level of <0.05 was considered significant.
4. Analysis and Findings

4.1 Demographics
In this research, a total of 330 questionnaires were collected. A description of
respondents demographic profile is shown in Table 1.
The samples consist of 147 male (44.5%) and 183 female (55.5%). The age group
16-25 constitutes the largest proportion of the sample with 122 respondents (37.0%),
while 66 or above has the smallest number with 5 respondents (1.5%). Most of the
respondents are well educated, with 174 of them (52.7%) having obtained at least higher
education or above. In terms of occupation, students with 89 respondents have the biggest
share (27.0%). In the sample, 152 respondents (46.4%) are married while 169 (51.2%) are
single. 220 of the respondents (66.7%) live with their children and 112 (33.96%) has 4
members in a household. Besides, 125 respondents (37.9%) fall into the personal income
Page 14
group of earning less than $5,000 per month. Yet, 138 respondents (41.9%) indicated that
their family monthly income is more than $30000.
In terms of organic food consumption frequency, 265 respondents (80.3%) claimed
that they are buyers of organic food. Of those 252 users, the majority of respondents, with
the number of 166 (50.3%) stated that they sometimes use the label, which indicate the
consumption of organic food has not yet become a usual practice for general consumers.
Table 1: Demographics profile of overall sample
Variables
Frequency
Frequency
Gender
Male
147
44.5
Female
183
55.5
Age
16 - 25
122
37.0
46 - 55
53
16.1
26 - 35
53
16.1
56 - 65
24
7.3
36 - 45
73
22.1
66 or above
1.5
Primary or below
38
11.5
Undergraduate
160
48.5
Junior secondary school
41
12.4
Postgraduate
14
4.2
Senior secondary school
77
23.3
Single
169
51.2
2.7
Married
152
46.4
Yes
220
66.7
No
110
33.3
Education
Marital Status
Children in
Others
Household
Members in
15
4.5
112
33.9
Household
63
19.1
45
13.6
75
22.7
>5
20
6.1
Executive/Manager
15
4.5
Housewife
35
10.6
Professionals
31
9.4
Student
89
27.0
Clerk
63
19.1
Unemployed
0.3
Service worker/Salesperson
31
9.4
Retired
2.4
Labour Worker
11
3.3
Self-employed
12
3.6
2.4
Others
26
7.9
125
37.9
$30,000-$34,999
18
5.5
Occupation
Technician
Personal
$5,000 or below
Monthly
$5,000-$9,999
46
13.9
$35,000-$39,999
15
4.5
Income
$10,000-$14,999
65
19.7
$40,000-$44,999
1.5
$15,000-$19,999
22
6.7
$45,000-$49,999
1.8
Page 15
$20,000-$24,999
22
6.7
$50,000 or above
0.0
$25,000-$29,999
1.8
Total Family
$5,000 or below
15
4.5
$30,000-$34,999
38
11.5
Monthly
$5,000-$9,999
13
3.9
$35,000-$39,999
23
7.0
Income
$10,000-$14,999
32
9.7
$40,000-$44,999
19
5.8
$15,000-$19,999
39
11.8
$45,000-$49,999
17
5.2
$20,000-$24,999
55
16.7
$50,000 or above
41
12.4
$25,000-$29,999
38
11.5
Frequency of
At least Once/week
37
112
Seldom
166
50.3
Consumption
At least Once/month
41
12.4
Never
65
19.7
Once half a year
21
6.4
Buyers
99
30.0
Non-buyers
65
19.7
Consumption
of Organic
Food
4.2 Nutrient Content Usage Pattern

265 buyers were asked to identify their consumption pattern in organic food
consumption. As shown in Table 2, 34.3% and 38.1% of the respondents indicated a
past and future spending of $51-$200 respectively in organic food. Most buyers
bought organic vegetables most often while 83.8% of the respondents shop for
organic food in supermarkets. 41.1% respondents always read organic food labels
when shopping for organic food. For the price premium consumers are willing to pay
when compared with conventional food, 67.5% of the respondents are willing to pay a
higher price for organic food.
Table 2: Consumption Pattern of Organic Food Buyers
Variables
Frequency
Frequency
Past Spending on
$50 or below
76
28.7
$501 - $700
23
8.7
Organic Food
$51-$200
91
34.3
$701 1000
15
5.7
$201-$500
44
16.6
$1001or above
16
6.0
Page 16
Planned Future
$50 or below
34
12.8
$501 - $700
22
8.3
Spending on
$51-$200
101
38.1
$701 1000
24
9.1
Organic Food
$201-$500
56
21.1
$1001or above
28
10.6
Type of Organic
Vegetables
133
50.2
Processed food
59
22.3
Food Bought
Fruits
41
15.5
Raw Material
19
7.2
Most Often
Meat
13
4.9
Markets
44
16.6
97
36.6
222
83.8
Stores
0.4
0.8
Others
1.1
Shopping Place
for Organic Food
Supermarkets
Convenient
Stores
Health Food
Stores
Frequency to
Always
109
41.1
Seldom
28
10.6
Read Organic
Usually
69
26.0
Never
11
4.2
Food Labels
Sometimes
48
18.1
Price Premium
Negative
3.4
1/2 higher
42
15.8
Willing to Pay
77
29.1
double
13
4.9
(compared with
1/4 higher
124
46.8
conventional food)
4.3 Attitudes towards Organic Food

4.3.1 General Attitudes towards Organic Food
Both buyers and non-buyers of organic food were asked about the attitudes towards
organic food and the result is presented in Table 3. Generally speaking, the general public
have a favourable attitude towards organic food (Mean = 3.18) while the buyers have a
more favourable attitude (Mean = 3.24). Viewing organic food healthier scores the
highest mean of 4.12. The lowest means of 2.43, 2.48 and 2.49 are scored by the views
that it is difficult to identify real organic products, organic products labels in the
market are confusing and organic products are very expensive respectively.
Table 3: Attitudes towards Organic Food
Page 17
Buyers
General
Std.
Item
Std.
Mean Deviation Mean Deviation
1.
I am not interested in organics.
3.65
.897
3.81
.842
2.
I prefer buying organics.
3.45
.854
3.62
.785
3.
Organic products are safer and more reliable.
4.03
.724
4.08
.749
4.
Organic products are of better quality.
3.96
.672
4.01
.666
5.
Organic products are healthier.
4.12
.720
4.21
.673
6.
Organic products taste better.
3.27
.775
3.30
.778
7.
Organic products are of higher nutrition value.
3.61
.789
3.65
.785
8.
Organic products are very expensive.
2.49
.848
2.55
.852
9.
The packaging of organic products looks less pleasing to the
3.14
.796
3.20
.797
10. The outlook of organic products is less attractive.
3.16
.815
3.24
.818
11. Organics are supreme products consumed only by rich people.
3.17
1.013
3.30
.984
12. Consumption of organic products represents higher social
2.63
.917
2.45
.932
13. Not many organic products are available in the market.
2.61
.811
2.61
.842
14. There is a small variety of organic products.
2.61
.834
2.61
.842
15. There are a lot of selling locations for organic products.
2.83
.806
2.85
.826
16. It is difficult to identify real organic products.
2.43
.914
2.48
.917
17. The organic products labels in the market are confusing.
2.48
.840
2.65
.845
18. I trust organic products.
3.12
.787
3.19
.775
19. I trust organic producers.
3.06
.812
3.11
.823
20. Organics consumption helps protecting the environment.
3.71
.764
3.80
.715
eye.
status.
Overall Mean
3.18
3.24
4.3.2 Relationship between Attitudes and Age Group

One-way ANOVA reveals statistically significant differences in attitudes towards
organic food of different age groups. As shown in Table 4, 4.1 and 4.2, the figure
(F=6.246, p<0.001) suggests different age group have significant difference in attitudes.
The age group 16-25 illustrate a more negative attitude than the age group 26-35 and
Page 18
36-45 while the groups 26-35 and 36-45 both indicate a more positive attitude than 16-25
and 56-65. The age group 66 or above has a more negative attitude with the lowest
mean score of 2.81 when compared with the 36-45 age group of the highest mean score of
3.3. Yet, the other pair groups have comparable frequency (p>0.05). There is no
relationship between attitude and age group, hence, hypothesis H1a can be rejected
(Appendix 4.2).
Table 4: Descriptive statistics of Attitudes between Age Group
Frequency
Mean
Std. Deviation
16-25
122
3.10
.322
26-35
53
3.30
.466
36-45
73
3.32
.444
46-55
53
3.15
.404
56-65
24
2.98
.232
2.81
.282
66 or above
Table 4.1: Result of One-Way ANOVA for significant differences between Attitudes and Age
Group
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
df
Mean Square
4.631
.926
48.049
324
.148
52.68
329
Sig
6.246
.000
Table 4.2: Result of Turkey Test for significant differences between Attitudes and Age Group
(I) Age
16-25
26-35
36-45
(J) Age
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error
Sig.
26-35
-.196
.063
.026
36-45
-.218
.057
.002
16-25
.196
.063
.026
56-65
.320
.095
.011
16-25
.218
.057
.002
56-65
.342
.090
.003
Page 19
.511
.178
.049
26-35
-.320
.095
.011
36-45
-.342
.090
.003
36-45
-.511
.178
.049
66 or above
56-65
66 or above
4.3.3 Relationship between Attitudes and Gender

To examine the significant difference between attitude and gender, Independent
Sample T-test is applied in Table 5 and 5.1. Levenes Test for Equality of Variances
p>0.05 means assumption of equal variances is met. The figure (t=-5.376, p<0.001)
suggests there is a significant difference between attitude and gender. Female have a
higher mean of 3.28 than that of mean with mean value 3.05. Therefore, the hypothesis
H1b is not rejected (Appendix 4.3).
Table 5: Descriptive statistics of Attitudes between Genders
Frequency
Mean
Std. Deviation
Male
147
3.05
.357
Female
183
3.28
.405
Table 5.1: Independent Sample T-test for significant difference between Attitudes and Genders
Levene's Test
for Equality of
t-test for Equality of Means
Variances
F
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed
3.089
Sig.
.080
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
-5.376
328
.000
-5.450
325.179
.000
4.3.4 Relationship between Attitudes and Education Level

One-way ANOVA and Turkey Test are used to check the significant differences
between attitudes and education level. The result is presented in Table 6, 6.1 and 6.2. The
Page 20
figure (F=4.993, p=0.001) reveals different education levels differentiate themselves in

attitudes. By the Turkey Test, the pairwise comparisons of the mean frequency shows that
Education with primary or below has the lowest mean of 2.93 and has a more negative
attitudes towards organic food when compared with senior secondary and undergraduate
education. As the other pair groups have comparable frequency (p.>0.05) (Appendix 4.4),
consumers education level is not positively related to attitudes towards organic food.
Hypothesis H1c can therefore be rejected.
Table 6: Descriptive statistics of Attitudes between Education Level
Frequency
Mean
Std. Deviation
Primary or below
38
2.93
.378
41
3.14
.367
77
3.26
.421
160
3.20
.387
14
3.25
.370
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
Table 6.1: Result of One-Way ANOVA for significant differences between Attitudes and
Education Level
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
3.050
.762
Within Groups
49.631
325
.153
Total
52.680
329
Sig
4.993
.001
Table 6.2: Result of Turkey Test for significant differences between Attitudes and Education
Level
(I) Age
Primary or below
(J) Age
Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error
Sig.
-.330
.077
.000
Undergraduate
-.270
.071
.001
Primary or below
330
.077
.000
Undergraduate
Primary or below
270
.071
.001
4.3.5 Relationship between Attitudes of Income

Page 21
2 separate One-way ANOVAs and Turkey Tests are employed to investigate on

significant difference between attitude and income including personal and family income
respectively as shown in Table 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4. For personal income, the outcome
reveals a difference between groups (F=3.711, p<0.001). For the personal income group
$40,000-$44,999, it has the highest mean of 3.82 that show a more favourable attitude
towards organic food over the income group of $5,000 or below, $5,000-$9,000,
$10,000-$14,999 and $20,000-$24,999. As for family income, the statistic also shows a
difference between groups (F=3.335, p<0.001). Both group of $5,000-$9,999 and
$15,000-$19,000 have more negative attitude than the groups $45,000-$49,999 and
$50,000 or above. While other pairs shows comparable results (p>0.05) (Appendix 4.5), it
is proved that there is no relationship between attitude and income, hypothesis H1d is to
be rejected.
Table 7: Descriptive statistics of Attitudes between Income
Personal Income
Frequency
Mean
Family Income
Std. Deviation
Frequency
Mean
Std. Deviation
125
3.13
.362 $5,000 or below
15
3.03
.439
46
3.01
.361
13
2.93
.266
65
3.19
.443 $10,000-$14,999
32
3.10
.370
22
3.24
.448 $15,000-$19,999
39
3.05
.404
22
3.21
.344 $20,000-$24,999
55
3.11
.304
3.40
.447 $25,000-$29,999
38
3.24
.382
18
3.31
.463 $30,000-$34,999
38
3.14
.415
15
3.28
.310 $35,000-$39,999
23
3.26
.331
3.82
.135 $40,000-$44,999
19
3.29
.467
3.49
.229 $45,000-$49,999
17
3.44
.416
$50,000 or above
41
3.34
.442
$5,000-$9,999
Page 22
Table 7.1: Result of One-Way ANOVA for significant differences between Attitudes and Personal
Income
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
4.978
.553
Within Groups
47.702
320
.149
Total
52.680
329
Sig
3.711
.000
Table 7.2: Result of Turkey Test for significant differences between Attitudes and Personal
Income
(I) Age
(J) Age
Mean Difference (I-J)
Std. Error
Sig.
$5,000 or below
$40,000-$44,999
-.687
.176
.005
$5,000-$9,999
$40,000-$44,999
-.810
.182
.001
$10,000-$14,999
$40,000-$44,999
-.630
.179
.018
$20,000-$24,999
$40,000-$44,999
-.611
.191
.049
$40,000-$44,999
$5,000 or below
.687
.176
.005
$5,000-$9,999
.810
.182
.001
$10,000-$14,999
.630
.179
.018
$20,000-$24,999
.611
.191
.049
Table 7.3: Result of One-Way ANOVA for significant differences between Attitudes and Family
Income
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
4.987
10
.499
Within Groups
47.694
319
.150
Total
52.680
329
Sig
3.335
.000
Table 7.4: Result of Turkey Test for significant differences between Attitudes and Family Income
(I) Age
$5,000-$9,999
$1,5000-$19,999
$45,000-$49,999
$50,000 or above
(J) Age
Std. Error
Sig.
$45,000-$49,999
-.501
.142
.021
$50,000 or above
-.403
.123
.045
$45,000-$49,999
-.385
.112
.028
$50,000 or above
-.288
.086
.039
$5,000-$9,999
.501
.142
.021
$15,000-$19,999
.385
.112
.028
$5,000-$9,999
.403
.123
.045
$15,000-$19,999
.288
.086
.039
Page 23
4.3.6 Relationship between Attitudes of Presence of Children in household

To examine the significant difference of attitudes between presence of children in
household, Independent Sample T-test is applied in Table 8 and 8.1. The result of
Levenes Test for Equality of Variances (F=1.494, p>0.05) confirmed the assumption of
equal variance. However, due to an insignificant test result (t=0.607, p>0.05), there is no
relationship between attitudes and presence of children. Hypothesis H1e is there fore
rejected (Appendix 4.6).
Table 8: Descriptive statistics of Attitudes between Presence of Children
Frequency
Mean
Std. Deviation
Yes
110
3.20
.041
No
220
3.17
.026
Table 8.1: Independent Sample T-test for significant difference between Attitudes and Presence of
Children
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
F
Equal cariances assumed
1.494
Sig.
.223
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
.607
328
.544
.588
200.408
.557
4.4 Health Consciousness

Overall, the mean score of health consciousness is 3.62, which shows a fair level in
health and diet of Hong Kong people as shown in Table 9. The item I worry that there
are harmful chemicals in my food has the highest mean of 3.93, reflecting a rise of
concern in food safety.
Page 24
Table 9: Descriptive statistic of Health Consciousness

Std.
Item
Mean Deviation
1.
I worry that there are harmful chemicals in my food.
3.93
0.69
2.
I always avoid eating foods with additives and preservatives.
3.43
0.867
3.
I am concerned about my drinking water quality.
3.85
0.664
4.
I usually read the ingredients on food labels.
3.33
1.027
5.
I read more health-related articles than I did 3 years ago.
3.35
0.973
6.
I am interested in information about my health.
3.91
0.655
7.
I always eat fresh and healthy foods, e.g. fruits, vegetables,
3.81
0.763
etc.
8.
I am concerned about my health all the time.
3.86
0.696
9.
I always pay attention to a balanced diet.
3.61
0.792
10.
I always avoid eating snacks.
3.09
1.063
Overall mean
3.62
4.5 Environmental Concerns

The mean score of environmental concerns is 3.44, which shows a fair to favourable
level of environmental concerns as shown in Table 10. The item I use double sides of a
paper before throwing it away or taking it recycled scores the highest mean of 3.98 while
the item I avoid purchasing products in environmental unfriendly packages and I
prefer to buy environmental friendly labeled products both have the lowest mean score
of 3.05.
Table 10: Descriptive statistics of Environmental Concerns
Std.
Mean Deviation
Item
1.
I avoid purchasing products in environmental unfriendly packages.
3.05
0.903
2.
I always save energy.
3.67
0.790
3.
I prefer to buy environmental friendly labeled products.
3.05
1.008
4.
I always recycle plastic bottles and newspaper etc.
3.66
0.858
5.
I use double sides of a paper before throwing it away or taking it recycled.
3.98
0.868
Page 25
6.
I bring my shopping bag when I go shopping.
7.
I always donate things I do not need (like electric appliances, computers, toys,
clothes) to the charity.
8.
I always avoid using disposable tableware.
Overall Mean
3.38
1.124
3.42
0.933
3.28
1.026
3.44
4.6 Organic Food Knowledge

The knowledge variable is based on ten true or false questions. For each question a
correct answer was assigned a 1 and a wrong answer was assigned a 0, giving a total
score between 0 and 10 for each respondent. The distribution of score and the percentage
of correct responses for each question are presented in Table 11 and 12. The average
score is 4.98, showing a fair level of organic food knowledge among the respondents.
Table 11: Scores of Organic Food Knowledge
0
Score
10
Frequency
12
16
44
51
64
57
40
21
12
3.6
2.4
4.8
13.3
15.5
19.4
17.3
12.1
6.4
3.6
1.5
Overall Mean = 4.98
Table 12: Percentage of correct responses for each organic food question
Item (Notes: Correct answers are written in blankets)
1.
Organic production does not apply chemical pesticides and fertilizers. (True)
79.1
2.
Organic food is not natural products. (False)
66.4
3.
Organic food involves genetic modification. (False)
57.3
4.
Organic food has higher nutrition content than conventional food. (False)
27.0
5.
We can judge if a product is organic or not by its outlook appearance. (False)
62.1
6.
There is no preservative in organic food. (True)
71.2
7.
Organic farming use animal excretion as fertilizers. (False)
23.3
8.
ISO9001 (Product management certification) is organic certification. (False)
24.5
9.
Real organic products can only be bought in large supermarkets, department

stores or organic food stores. (False)
10.
Only those products with organic-certified labels are real organic products. (True)
47.6
39.7
Page 26
4.7 Variables Affecting Frequency of Organic Food Consumption

4.7.1 Relationship between Frequency and Age
Referring to Table 13, 13.1 and 13.2, One-way ANOVA shows statistically
significant differences in frequency of organic food consumption of different age groups.
The figure (F=12.967, p<0.001) reveals different age groups have difference in frequency.
Through the Turkeys Honestly Significant Difference test, it compares all pairs of group
means without increasing the risk of making a Type I error. The result shows that the
youngest age group with the second lowest frequency mean of 1.96 and the oldest group
with the lowest frequency mean of 1.00 both portraits a significant lower frequency in
organic food consumption than the two groups with highest frequency mean (26-35,
mean=2.87; 36-45, mean=3.15). The 36-45 age group with the highest frequency mean of
3.15 also reveals a higher frequency over the 46-55 (mean=2.43) and 56-65 (mean=2.25)
age group. Yet, not all pair groups are able to attain a significant frequency (p>0.05)
(Appendix 4.7). Therefore, consumers age is not positively related to the frequency of
organic food consumption and hypothesis H2a can be rejected.
Table 13: Descriptive statistics of Frequency between Age Group
Frequency
Mean
Std. Deviation
16-25
122
1.96
.322
26-35
53
2.87
.466
36-45
73
3.15
.444
46-55
53
2.43
.404
56-65
24
2.25
.232
1.00
.282
66 or above
Page 27
Table 13.1: Result of One-Way ANOVA for significant differences between Frequency and Age
Group
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
85.992
17.198
Within Groups
429.732
324
1.326
Total
515.724
329
Sig
12.967
.000
Table 4.2: Result of Turkey Test for significant differences between Frequency and Age Group
(I) Age
16-25
(J) Age
Std. Error
Sig.
26-35
-.909
.189
.000
36-45
-1.192
.170
.000
16-25
.909
.189
.000
66 or above
1.868
.539
.008
16-25
1.192
.170
.000
46-55
.717
.208
.008
56-65
.901
.271
.013
66 or above
2.151
.532
.001
46-55
36-45
-.717
.208
.008
56-65
36-45
-.901
.271
.013
66 or above
26-35
-1.868
.539
.008
36-45
-2.151
.532
.001
26-35
36-45
4.7.2 Relationship between Frequency and Gender

To examine the significant difference of frequency of organic food consumption
between genders, Independent Sample T-test is applied in Table 14 and 14.1. Levenes
Test for Equality of Variances p<0.001 means the equal variances are not assumed. The
T-test result (t=-2.675, p<0.01) suggests there is a moderate difference between frequency
and gender. Female have a higher mean in frequency than male do (Mean of Male=2.61,
Mean of Female=2.25) Therefore, hypothesis H2b is not rejected (Appendix 4.8).
Table 14: Descriptive statistics of Frequency between Genders
Frequency
Mean
Std. Deviation
Page 28
Male
147
2.25
1.109
Female
183
2.61
1.337
Table 14.1: Independent Sample T-test for significant difference between Frequency and Genders
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
F
Equal cariances assumed
Sig.
15.73
.000
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
-2.621
328
.009
-2.675
327.547
.008
4.7.3 Relationship between Frequency and Education Level
One-way ANOVA and Turkey Test are used to check the significant differences
in frequency of label usage of different education level and the result is presented in
Table 15, 15.1 and 15.2. The figure (F=3.966, p<0.01) reveals different education
levels have different frequency in consumption of organic food. By the Turkey Test,
the pairwise comparisons of the mean frequency indicated that senior secondary
education has a higher frequency than education of primary of below level (Mean
difference=0.923, p=0.002) and undergraduate level (Mean difference=0.47, p=0.48)
As not all pairs shows significant results (p<0.05), it is proved that there is no
relationship between frequency and education level, hypothesis H2c is to be rejected
(Appendix 4.9).
Table 15: Descriptive statistics of Frequency between Education Level
Frequency
Mean
Std. Deviation
Primary or below
38
1.95
1.207
41
2.37
1.280
77
2.87
1.311
Page 29
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
160
2.40
1.193
14
2.36
1.082
Table 15.1: Result of One-Way ANOVA for significant differences between Frequency and
Education Level
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
24.002
6.000
Within Groups
491.723
325
1.513
Total
515.724
329
Sig
3.966
.004
Table 15.2: Result of Turkey Test for significant differences between Frequency and Education
Level
(I) Age
(J) Age
Primary or below
Undergraduate
Std. Error
Sig.
-.923
.244
.002
Primary or below
.923
.244
.002
Undergraduate
.470
.171
.048
-.470
.171
.048
Primary or below
4.7.4 Relationship between Frequency and Income

Both personal income and family income are investigated by employing 2 separate
One-way ANOVAs and Turkey Tests respectively on significant difference in Table 16,
16.1, 16.2, 16.3 and 16.4. For personal income, the outcome reveals a difference between
groups (F=3.711, p<0.001). The 3 highest income groups ($40,000-$44,999,
$35,000-$39,999, $30,000-$34,999) all pose a higher frequency over the 2 lowest income
groups ($5,000 or below, $5,000-$9,999) while the group $40,000-$44,999 has a higher
frequency over groups below personal monthly income level of $25,000.
As for family income, the statistic also shows a difference between groups (F=4.999,
p<0.001). The group $45,000-$49,000 stances a higher frequency across all groups below
Page 30
the family monthly income level of $30,000. The highest income level group also poses a
higher frequency over groups $5,000-$9,999, $15,000-$19,999 and $20,000-$24,999.
Since not all pairs shows significant results (p<0.05), it is proved that there is no
relationship between frequency and income, hypothesis H2d is rejected (Appendix 4.10).
Table 16: Descriptive statistics of Frequency between Income
Personal Income
Family Income
Frequency Mean Std. Deviation
Frequency
Mean
Std. Deviation
125
1.99
1.051
$5,000 or below
15
1.87
1.506
46
2.13
1.002
$5,000-$9,999
13
1.77
1.092
65
2.57
1.159
$10,000-$14,999
32
2.44
1.076
22
2.82
1.435
$1,5000-$19999
39
1.92
.870
22
2.73
1.202
$20,000-$24,999
55
2.20
.989
3.83
1.169
$25,000-$29,999
38
2.24
1.149
18
2.78
1.215
$30,000-$34,999
38
2.47
1.059
15
3.40
1.352
$35,000-$39,999
23
2.78
1.204
5.00
.000
$40,000-$44,999
19
3.00
1.528
4.00
1.095
$45,000-$49,999
17
3.59
1.228
$50,000 or above
41
3.00
1.533
Table 16.1: Result of One-Way ANOVA for significant differences between Frequency and Personal
Income
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Between Groups
110.396
12.266
Within Groups
405.329
320
1.267
Total
515.724
329
Sig
9.684
.000
Table 16.2: Result of Turkey Test for significant differences between Frequency and Personal
Income
(I) Age
$5,000 or below
(J) Age
Std. Error
Sig.
$10,000-$14,999
-.577
.172
.030
$25,000-$29,999
-1.841
.470
.004
$35,000-$39,999
-1.408
.308
.000
$40,000-$44,999
-3.008
.513
.000
Page 31
$45,000-$49,999
-2.008
.470
.001
$25,000-$29,999
-1.703
.489
.020
$35,000-$39,999
-1.270
.335
.007
$40,000-$44,999
-2.870
.530
.000
$45,000-$49,999
-1.870
.489
.006
$5,000 or below
0.577
0.172
0.03
$40,000-$44,999
-2.431
.522
.000
$15,000-$19,999
$40,000-$44,999
-2.182
.558
.004
$20,000-$24,999
$40,000-$44,999
-2.273
.558
.002
$25,000-$29,999
$5,000 or below
1.841
.470
.004
$5,000-$9,999
1.703
.489
.020
$30,000-$34,999
$40,000-$44,999
2.222
.560
.004
$35,000-$39,999
$5,000 or below
1.408
.308
.000
$5,000-$9,999
1.270
.335
.007
$5,000 or below
3.008
.513
.000
$5,000-$9,999
2.870
.530
.000
$10,000-$14,999
2.431
.552
.000
$1,5000-$19999
2.182
.558
.004
$20,000-$24,999
2.273
.558
.002
$30,000-$34,999
2.222
.569
.004
$5,000 or below
2.008
.470
.001
$5,000-$9,999
1.870
.489
.006
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
Table 16.3: Result of One-Way ANOVA for significant differences between Frequency and Family
Income
df
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
Mean Square
69.866
10
6.987
Within Groups
445.858
319
1.398
Total
515.724
329
Sig
4.999
.000
Table 16.4: Result of Turkey Test for significant differences between Frequency and Family Income
(I) Age
(J) Age
Std. Error
Sig.
$5,000 or below
$45,000-$49,999
-1.722
.419
.002
$5,000-$9,999
$45,000-$49,999
-1.819
.436
.002
$50,000 or above
-1.231
.376
.046
$10,000-$14,999
$45,000-$49,999
-1.151
.355
.050
$15,000-$19,999
$40,000-$44,999
-1.077
.331
.048
Page 32
$45,000-$49,999
-1.665
.344
.000
$50,000 or above
-1.077
.264
.003
$45,000-$49,999
-1.388
.328
.002
$50,000 or above
-.800
.244
.045
$25,000-$29,999
$45,000-$49,999
-1.351
.345
.005
$40,000-$44,999
$15,000-$19,999
1.077
.331
.048
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
1.722
.419
.002
$5,000-$9,999
1.819
.436
.002
$10,000-$14,999
1.151
.355
.050
$15,000-$19,999
1.665
.344
.000
$20,000-$24,999
1.388
.328
.002
$25,000-$29,999
1.351
.345
.005
$5,000-$9,999
1.231
.376
.046
$1,5000-$19999
1.077
.264
.003
$20,000-$24,999
.800
.244
.045
$20,000-$24,999
$50,000 or above
4.7.5 Relationship between Frequency and Presence of Children in Household

Independent Sample T-test is applied to examine the significant difference between
frequency and the presence of children in a household. In Table 17 and 17.1, Levene's
Test for Equality of Variances <0.001 means the variances are not equal. The result (t
=2.453, p<0.05) shows that there is a mild difference between frequency and presence of
children in household. Thus, hypothesis H2e is not rejected (Appendix 4.11).
Table 17: Descriptive statistics for Frequency between Presence of Children
Frequency
Mean
Std. Deviation
Yes
110
2.70
1.358
No
220
2033.00
1.176
Table 17.1: Independent Sample T-test for significant difference between Frequency and Presence of
Children
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

F
Sig.
14.146
t
.000 2.571
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
328
011
Page 33
2.453
192.967
0.15
4.7.6 Relationship between Frequency and Attitude

Linear Regression is used to test the relationship between frequency of organic food
consumption and attitude and the result is presented in Table 18. The estimated slope
(B=1.954, p<0.001) and the adjusted R of 0.388 indicate a strong positive relationship
between the two variables. The hypothesis H3 is therefore supported and cannot be
rejected (Appendix 4.12).
Table 18: Linear regression of Frequency and Attitude
Unstandardized Coefficients
B
Standardized Coefficients
Std. Error
Beta
Constant
-3.756
.432
Attitude
1.954
.135
.625
Sig.
-8.696
.000
14.484
.000
Adjusted R Square = 0.388
4.7.7 Relationship between Frequency and Health Consciousness

Referring to Table 19, Linear Regression is applied to test the relationship between
frequency and health consciousness. The estimated slope (B=0.941, p<0.001) and the
adjusted R 0.152 reflects a fair positive relationship between frequency and health
consciousness. Therefore, hypothesis H4 cannot be rejected (Appendix 4.13).
Table 19: Linear regression of Frequency and Health Consciousness
B
Constant
Health
Consciousness
Std. Error
-.953
.444
.941
.121
Beta
.393
Sig.
-2.146
.033
7.747
.000
Page 34
4.7.8 Relationship between Frequency and Environmental Concerns

Again, Linear Regression is employed in testing the relationship between frequency
and environmental concerns as shown in Table 20. The estimated slope (B=0.740,
p<0.001) and the adjusted R 0.144 reflects a fair positive relationship between frequency
and environmental concerns. Thus, hypothesis H5 cannot be rejected (Appendix 4.14).
Table 20: Linear regression of Frequency and Environmental Concerns
B
Constant
Environmental
Std. Error
-.089
.344
.740
.098
t
Beta
.3836
Sig.
-.260
.795
7.509
.000
4.7.9 Relationship between Frequency and Organic Food Knowledge

Relationship between frequency of organic food consumption and organic food
knowledge is tested by Linear Regression in Table 21. The estimated slope (B=0.261,
p<0.001) and the adjusted R 0.202 shows a moderate positive relationship between
frequency and knowledge. Hence, hypothesis H6 cannot be rejected (Appendix 4.15).
Table 21: Linear regression of Frequency and Organic Food Knowledge
B
Constant
Knowledge
Std. Error
t
Beta
1.150
.156
.261
.029
.449
Sig.
7.378
.000
9.099
.000
Page 35
5. Discussion
The majority of the respondents have a positive attitude towards organic food.
However, over 50% of them indicated that they seldom consume organic food. Despite
the fact that a portion of the consumers claimed that they will spend more on organic food
in the future, most of them spent only $51-$200 on organic food in a year, which reflect
organic food, still, as a niche market in Hong Kong.
The socio-demographic profile of organic food buyers are revealed as women buying
more frequently then men. Although age is not an important factor, consumers aged
between 36-45 shows the highest frequency in the consumption of organic products
(Davis et al., 1995). It was explained by some studies that although younger consumers
has a higher willingness to buy due to their greater environmental concerns, they cannot
always afford it, and therefore being replaced by the mid-age group who has higher
financial power (Fotopoulos and Krystallis, 2002, Baker et al., 2002, Solomon et al.,
1999). Households with the presence of children are also found to consume organic food
more often. The reason behind may be perceived as a higher level of concern in food
safety with the presence of children, especially for women.
As expected, people who are more health conscious, environmental friendly and
have higher level of organic food knowledge are also confirmed to purchase organic food
more frequently. The item I worry that there are harmful chemicals in my food has the
Page 36
highest mean value of 3.93 in the health consciousness scale implies a general high
awareness in the threat of food safety. Together with the 3 highest-mean-valued attitudes
of organic food of being healthier, safer and more reliable and are of higher quality,
an opportunity in the expansion and raise of the organic food market can be seen.
In term of price premium, nearly 70% of the consumers denoted a willingness to pay
a premium for organic food. Among them, the most bearable price premium is evaluated
at a 1/4 price level higher than non-organic conventional food. All these seem
contradictory to the phenomenon that organic food is surprisingly consumed at a low
frequency level. The reason behind can possibly be explained by some of the findings of
the survey. Among the attitudes towards organic food, the statements it is difficult to
identify real organic products, organic products labels in the market are confusing and
organic products are very expensive scored the lowest in mean values. They can be
interpreted as the main reasons failing organic products in becoming popular, which
coincide with rationalizations in past researches (Dent and McGregor 1994, An Bord Glas
1991, Stopes and Woodward 1988, Dixon and Holmes 1987, von Alvensleben and
Altmann 1987). This suggests a space for development or improvement in areas of price
competitiveness and organic food labeling certification.
Other negative attitudes towards organic food include few organic products available
in the market, small variety of organic products and few selling locations for organic
Page 37
products. These negative attitudes act as barriers for consumption of organic products
(An Bord Glas 1991, Stopes and Woodward 1988; Jolly et al. 1989).
While talking about the difficulty in identifying real organic food products and
labels, the study about organic knowledge brings a lack of knowledge on organic food
into light. The average score of 4.98 out of 10 reveals lack adequate information in
identifying real organic food products and labels. Over 70% of the respondents mixed up
the product management certification ISO9001 with organic certification and did not
know that organic-certified labels represent real organic products. There is also a serious
misunderstanding about a higher nutrition content and the use of animal excretion as
fertilizers in organic food which are both actually false. Past studies have pointed out that
such a misunderstanding in organic ways of production will prevent consumers from
buying organic food (Verdurme et al., 2002, Worner and Meier-Ploeger, 1999)
In environmental aspect, the overall mean of environmental concerns is 3.44 which
represent a fair to moderate level of environmental concerns of the general public. The
same association has been captured by Fotopoulos and Krystallis (2002). However, it is
generally recognized that there are also numerous barriers to the diffusion of
environmentally friendly products, like organic food, despite the green trend in consumer
values and attitudes. The most common barriers stressed in the marketing literature
include consumer's reluctance to pay higher costs, both in terms of money and in time and
Page 38
effort, their skepticism regarding the higher quality of these products (Vindigni et al.,
2002) and the lack of availability of these products (Lea and Worsley, 2005). Therefore,
marketing should be carefully handled to avoid collision of such barriers.
6. Recommendations
6.1 Strategies based on Demographics
As discovered in the survey, female and households with children are more likely to
consume organic products. These two groups therefore have a bigger potential as the
major consumption group and can be identified as target customers. A marketing mix
could focus on these groups and investigate in any special needs in the groups. As female
consumers are becoming more needy for detail information and knowledge about organic
facts and benefits, in terms of advertising, for example, rational appeals should be used
instead of emotional appeals in order to enhance the rate of return. Likewise, when
designing advertisement and packaging of products, more feminine designs, like more use
of warm colours, will be more appealing to the target group customers.
6.2 Strategies based on Consumption Pattern
According to the survey, a majority of the consumers take a price 1/4 higher than
non-organic conventional food. This can act as a reference when organic food marketers
develop their pricing strategies. As a matter of fact, organic products do require a higher
production cost due to more intensive farming, slower crops growth and less government
Page 39
subsidies which pose an understandable difficulty in drawing down the prices. Therefore,
in long term, development of local organic agriculture could be encouraged to increase
production volumes of organic products. More organic food could also be imported from
China or overseas in order to decrease the price by driving up the supply, thereby
attracting more customers.
6.3 Strategies based on Attitude towards Organic Food
As mentioned before, negative attitudes towards organic food other than prices are
limited availability, limited variety, limited selling locations, difficulty in
identifying real organic products and confusing organic products labels.
6.3.1 Coping with limited availability, variety and selling locations
Selling locations and distribution channels could be increased and broadened, so that
the increase in convenience could attract both buyers and noon-buyers of organic food.
By increasing the production volume or supply of more variety organic food as
mentioned, not only the price could be reduced, selling locations could also be directly or
indirectly increased.
Further, the pattern of distribution channels could also be changed. As supermarkets,
health food stores and markets occupied a large share as organic food shopping points,
emphasis should be placed in these 3 channels, especially supermarket as it is the most
often shopping place for consumers. More organic food, especially vegetables and fruits,
Page 40
should also be directed to markets in order to absorb a broader consumption group.

6.3.2 Coping with difficulty in identifying real organic food and confusing labels
The difficulty and confusion reflect a cluttered organic food labeling and
certification system. Need for an independent and standardized organic labeling system is
clearly indicated. This calls for cooperation and aids from local and international
governments. Organic food marketers should encourage the government to propose legal
standard on organic food certification in order to protect health of the general public. In
shorter term, organic food marketers could educate the public about certified labels by
means of advertisements or promotion such as TV advertisements.
6.4 Strategies based on Health Consciousness
Since consumers are increasingly aware of the threat of harmful additives and food
safety, organic food provide a safe and reliable way to eat healthy. Aspects like safe,
and healthy should be stressed in packaging, brand image development and advertising
to draw favourable attitude towards the brand or products.
Moreover, efforts in educating consumers about health awareness can foster more
favourable attitude and consumption for organic food. To do this, food marketers should
work together with the Government for developing promotional campaigns to influence
consumers beliefs about the relationship between food safety and disease. The
promotional campaign can be in different forms, depending on the target audience.
Page 41
6.5 Strategies based on Environmental Concerns

Being a part of green food, environmental friendliness is advised to be maintained
when establishing brand image and formulating marketing mix. For example, the
packaging of food is advised to be environmental friendly, with less excessive packaging
to maintain a consistent image and impression for the product.
More than that a type of food, "organic" is not only a set of harmless agricultural
production technique, but a more important idea behind to protect the environmental and
create a mutual beneficial living environment for both nature and man. During marketing,
marketers can stress the importance in this aspect by means of education and promotion,
so that consumers will one day consider their social responsibility in environmental
protection.
6.6 Strategies based on Organic Knowledge
The framework reinforces the basic notion that, to increase consumers use of
nutrition label, policy can focus on education about health knowledge. Educational
programmes targeted at increasing levels of diet-disease knowledge can be effective in
teaching consumers that diet-related diseases may be preventable. This, in run, may lead
to healthier eating habits (Szykman et al., 1997).
To increase the nutrition knowledge, the food sector can cooperate with the
Government and public organizations to produce brochures, campaigns and TV
Page 42
programmes for the general public. In addition, compulsory nutrition class and seminars
can be provided by schools to target the students. The younger they learn about nutrition,
the more benefits of healthy food choices they can enjoy.
7. Limitations and Further Research

This exploratory study provides some valuable information on attitudes and
frequency of organic food consumption, yet several questions remain unanswered.
First, due to cost limitation and time constraint, the study has placed emphasis on
isolating the role of health consciousness, environmental concerns and organic food
knowledge on organic food consumption apart from the role of demographic
characteristics in affecting them. As the variables are examined separately, estimates
linking demographic factors with organic food consumption without controlling for health
consciousness, environmental concerns and organic food knowledge into account may not
be accurate.
The study has also focus on the role of demographics in affecting attitude but
exclude other factors such as health consciousness, environmental concerns and organic
food knowledge.
This search focuses on demographics variables, health consciousness, environmental
concerns and organic food knowledge in relation to the frequency of organic food
consumption. However, it may have ignored other possible factors like consumers
Page 43
skepticism, psychographic variables, health status, cost of information search, etc.

Besides, an experimental nature of study may provide a broader scope of understanding.
Knowing the characteristics of individuals who purchase organic food is a critical
part of the organic food consumption analysis. Yet, a key question still remains as to why
customers buy or not buy organic food. In the study, attitude is used as a way to
interpreter the reason behind, but it is not reliable as it is only a perception based on
findings. Further research should extend this study and determine the factors influencing
consumers purchase decision.
8. Conclusion
All in all, this study provides a preliminary analysis of the proposed framework that
underlies the consumption of organic food. Interestingly, age, education and income are
proved for not having a positive relationship with consumption of organic food. A
significant difference between gender and the organic food consumption is found.
Positive relationships among organic food consumption frequency and four aspects are
established, namely attitude, health consciousness, environmental concerns and organic
food knowledge. Findings in this study help marketers and government to develop
specific strategies for organic food customers and provide insights and directions for
future research.
Page 44
References
Baker, S., Thompson, K.E. and Engelken, J. (2002), "Mapping the values driving organic
food choice - Germany versus the UK", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 8,
pp. 995-1012.
Baltas, G. (2001), "Nutrition labeling: issues and policies", European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 708-21.
Bitsaki, A., Vassiliou, A. and Kabourakis, E. (2003), "Organic farming in Greece, trends
and perspectives", Cahiers Options Mediterraneennes, Vol. 61, pp. 53-66.
Childs, N. and Polyzees, G.H. (1997), "Foods that help prevent disease: consumer
attitudes and public policy implications", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 6,
pp. 433-47.
Chinnici, G., D'Amico, M. and Pecorino, B. (2002), "A multivariate statistical analysis on
the consumers of organic products", British Food Journal, Vol. 104 Nos 3/4/5, pp. 17-23.
Davis, A., Titterington, A.J. and Cochrane, A. (1995), "Who buys organic food? A profile
of the purchasers of organic food in N. Ireland", British Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 10, pp.
17-23.
Fotopoulos, C. and Krystallis, A. (2002), "Purchasing motives and profile of the Greek
organic consumer: a countrywide survey", British Food Journal, Vol. 104 No. 9, pp.
730-65.
Grunert, C.S. and Juhl, J.H. (1995), "Values, environmental attitudes and buying
behaviour of organic foods", Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 39-62.
Grunert, G.K. (1993), "Green consumerism in Denmark: some evidence from the EKO
foods project", Der Markt, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 140-51.
Grunert, K.G. and Kristensen, K. (1991), "On some factors influencing consumers'
demand for organically grown foods", in Mayer, R.N. (Ed.), Enhancing Consumer Choice,
American Council on Consumer Interests, Columbia, MI, pp. 37-48.
Halbrendt, C., Sterling, L., Snider, S. and Santoro, G. (1995), "Contingent valuation of
consumers' willingness to purchase pork with lower saturated fat", in Caswell, J.A. (Ed.),
Page 45
Valuing Food Safety and Nutrition, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Jolly, D. (1991), "Differences between buyers and nonbuyers of organic produce and
willingness to pay organic price premiums", Journal of Agribusiness, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp.
97-111.
Jonas, A. and Roosen, J. (2005), "Private labels for premium products - the example of
organic food", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 33 No. 8,
pp. 636-53.
Krystallis, A. and Chryssohoidis, G. (2005), "Consumers' willingness to pay for organic
food - factors that affect it and variation per organic product type", British Food Journal,
Vol. 107 No. 5, pp. 320-43.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J. and Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001), "Targeting consumers who are
willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products", Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 503-20.
Lea, E. and Worsley, T. (2005), "Australians' organic food beliefs, demographics and
values", British Food Journal, Vol. 107 No. 11, pp. 855-69
Magnusson, M., Arvola, A., Koivisto Hursti, U., Aberg, L. and Sjoden, P. (2001),
"Attitudes towards organic foods among Swedish consumers", British Food Journal, Vol.
103 No. 3, pp. 209-26.
Marketing Week (2004), "Organic food and drinks: special report", Marketing Week, 26
July 2004, pp. 48-55.
Mehta, R. and Patel, N. (1996), SPSS Exact Tests 7.0 for Windows, Chicago SPSS Inc.,
Chicago, IL.
Misra, S., Huang, C.L. and Ott, S. (1991), "Georgia consumers' preference for organically
grown fresh produce", Journal of Agribusiness, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 53-65.
Padel, S. and Foster, C. (2005), "Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food", British Food Journal, Vol.
107 No. 8, pp. 606-25.
Page 46
Papastefanou, G. (1997), "Paying attention to eco-labels in purchase decisions:

socio-economic and demographic determinants", Preliminary draft paper, ZUMA,
Germany.
Reicks, M., Splett, P. and Fishman, A. (1999), "Shelf labeling of organic foods: customer
response in Minnesota grocery stores", Journal of Food Distribution Research, July, pp.
11-23.
Reuters (2002), The Outlook of Organic Food and Drinks: Consumer Trends and New
Product Development, Datamonitor, London.
Roddy, G., Cowan, C.A. and Hutchinson, G. (1996), "Consumer attitudes and behaviour
to organic foods in Ireland", Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 41-63.
Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Oude Ophuis, P.A.M. (1998), "Health-related determinants of
organic food consumption in The Netherlands", Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 9 No.
3, pp. 119-33.
Schlegelmilch, B.B., Bohlen, G.M. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1996), "The link between
green purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness", European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 35-55.
Squires, L., Juric, B. and Cornwell, T.B. (2001), "Level of market development and
intensity of organic food consumption: cross-cultural study of Danish and New Zeland
consumers", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 392-409.
Thompson, G.D. and Kidwell, J. (1998), "Explaining the choice of organic produce:
cosmetic defects, prices and consumer preferences", American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 277-87.
Tregear, A., Dent, J.B. and McGregor, M.J. (1994), "The demand for organically grown
produce", British Food Journal, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 21-5.
Vindigni, G., Janssen, M.A. and Wander, J. (2002), "Organic food consumption. A
multi-theoretical framework of consumer decision-making", British Food Journal, Vol.
104 No. 8, pp. 624-42.
Page 47
von Alvensleben, R. (1998), "Ecological aspects of food demand: the case of organic
food in Germany", AIR-CAT 4th Plenary Meeting: Health, Ecological and Safety Aspects
in Food Choice, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 68-79.
Wandel, M. and Bugge, A. (1997), "Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of
food quality", Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 19-26.
Wier, M., Andersen, L.M. and Millock, K. (2003), "Consumer demand for organic foods
- attitudes, values and purchasing", paper presented at SOM Workshop, Environment,
Information and Consumer, Frederiksdal, April.
Wilkins, J.L. and Hillers, V.N. (1994), "Influences of pesticide residue and environmental
concerns on organic food preference among food cooperative members and non-members
in Washington State", Journal of Nutrition Education, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 26-33.
Worner, F. and Meier-Ploeger, A. (1999), "What the consumer says?", Ecology and
Farming, Vol. 20, pp. 14-15.
Zotos, Y., Ziamou, P. and Tsakiridou, E. (1999), "Marketing organically produced food
products in Greece: challenges and opportunities", Greener Management International,
Vol. 25, pp. 91-104.
Page 48
Appendices
Appendix 1: Questionnaire on Organic Food Consumption English Version
Questionnaire No:
Date / Time:
Venue: SSP / ST / WC
A Questionnaire on Organic Food Consumption

Hello! I am a Year 3 student from the Hong Kong Baptist University majoring in
Marketing. I am now conducting a research project about organic food consumption
in Hong Kong. Please spare 5-10 minutes to fill in this questionnaire. All your
information given will be used for academic purpose only. Here, I would like to
express my gratitude for your help.
Part 1
The following statements measure your consumption of organic food.
Please tick the appropriate box(es).
1.
Have you ever heard of the term organic food?

Yes
No (End of questionnaire, thank you)
2.
How often do you purchase organic food?

At least once/week At least once/month Once half a year
Seldom
Never (Please jump to Part 2)
3.
In the past year, how much do you and your family spend on organic food
monthly?
$50 or below
$51 - $200
$201 - $500
$501 - $700
$701 $1000
$1001or above
4.
In the coming year, how much will you and your family spend on organic food?
$50 or below
$51 - $200
$201 - $500
$501 - $700
$701 $1000
$1001or above
5.
Which type of organic food do you and your family buy most often?
Organic vegetables (e.g. Chinese cabbage, botany)
Organic fruits (e.g. apples, oranges)
Page A1
Organic meat (e.g. chicken, beef)

Processed organic food (e.g. coffee, biscuits)
Organic raw materials (e.g. sugar, flour)
6.
Where is the shopping place that you go most often when you buy organic food?
(You may choose more than one item.)
Markets
Supermarkets
Convenient stores
Health food shops Stores
Others: ________________
7.
How often do you pay attention to information on food labels on food products if
you need to purchase organic food?
Always
Usually
Often
Seldom
Never
8.
When compared with the price of conventional food, what is the maximum level
you are willing to spend on organic food?
When organic food is cheaper than conventional food
When organic food and conventional food are priced the same
When organic food is priced 1/4 higher than conventional food
When organic food is priced half way higher than conventional food
When organic food is priced double than conventional food
Part 2
The following statements describe your attitudes towards organic food.
Please indicate your agreeableness on a five-point scale with 1 representing strongly
disagree and 5 representing strongly agree.
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
1.
I am not interested in organics.
2.
I prefer buying organics.
3.
Organic products are safer and more

reliable.
4.
Organic products are of better quality.
5.
Organic products are healthier.
6.
Organic products taste better.
7.
Organic products are of higher nutrition
5
Page A2
value.
8.
Organic products are very expensive.
9.
The packaging of organic products looks

less pleasing to the eye.
10. The outlook of organic products is less

attractive.
11. Organics are supreme products

consumed only by rich people.
12. Consumption of organic products

represents higher social status.
13. Not many organic products are available

in the market.
14. There is a small variety of organic

products.
15. There are a lot of selling locations for

organic products.
16. It is difficult to identify real organic

products.
17. The organic products labels in the

market are confusing.
18. I trust organic products.
19. I trust organic producers.
20. Organics consumption helps protecting

the environment.
Part 3
The following statements describe your personal opinions about health consciousness.
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
1.
I worry that there are harmful chemicals

in my food.
2.
I always avoid eating foods with

additives and preservatives.
3.
I am concerned about my drinking water
5
Page A3
quality.
4.
I usually read the ingredients on food

labels.
5.
I read more health-related articles than I

did 3 years ago.
6.
I am interested in information about my

health.
7.
I always eat fresh and healthy foods, e.g.

fruits, vegetables, etc.
8.
I am concerned about my health all the

time.
9.
I always pay attention to a balanced diet.
10. I always avoid eating snacks.
Part 4
The following statements describe your behaviour on environmental friendliness.
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
1.
I avoid purchasing products in

environmental unfriendly packages.
2.
I always save energy.
3.
I prefer to buy environmental friendly

labeled products.
4.
I always recycle plastic bottles and

newspaper etc.
5.
I use double sides of a paper before

throwing it away or taking it recycled.
6.
I bring my shopping bag when I go
shopping.
7.
I always donate things I do not need (like

electric appliances, computers, toys, clothes)
to the charity.
8.
I always avoid using disposable tableware.
Page A4
Part 5
Please answer the following questions about nutrition and food products according to
your knowledge. Please put a tick in the corresponding box.
True
1.
Organic production does not apply chemical

pesticides and fertilizers.
2.
Organic food is not natural products.
3.
Organic food involves genetic modification.
4.
Organic food has higher nutrition content

than conventional food.
5.
We can judge if a product is organic or not by

its outlook appearance.
6.
There is no preservative in organic food.
7.
Organic farming use faeces as fertilizers.
8.
ISO9001 (Product management certification)

is organic certification.
9.
Real organic products can only be bought in

large supermarkets, department stores or
organic food stores.
False
Do Not
Know
10. Only those products with organic-certified

labels are real organic products.
Part 6
Personal Information
Gender
Male
Female
Age
16 - 25
46 - 55
26 - 35
56 - 65
Education Level
36 - 45
66 or above
Primary or below
Junior secondary school (S1-S3)
Senior secondary school (S4-S7)
Undergraduate
Page A5
Postgraduate
Marital Status
Single
Married
Children in a
Yes
No
Members in a
Household
1
4
2
5
Occupation
Executive / Manager
Clerk
Labour Worker
Housewife
Unemployed
Self-employed
Others
Household
3
>5
Professionals
Service worker / Salesperson
Technician
Student
Retired
Others
Personal
$5,000 or below
Monthly Income $10,000-$14,999
$20,000-$24,999
$30,000-$34,999
$40,000-$44,999
$50,000 or above
$5,000-$9,999
$15,000-$19,999
$25,000-$29,999
$35,000-$39,999
$45,000-$49,999
Total Family
$5,000 or below
Monthly Income $10,000-$14,999
$20,000-$24,999
$30,000-$34,999
$40,000-$44,999
$50,000 or above
$5,000-$9,999
$15,000-$19,999
$25,000-$29,999
$35,000-$39,999
$45,000-$49,999
This is the end of the questionnaire. Thank you!
Page A6
Appendix 2: Questionnaire on Organic Food Consumption Chinese Version
/:
: SSP / ST /
WC
5-10
1.
2.

()
3.
$50
$51 - $200
$201 - $500
$501 - $700
$701 - $1000
$1001
4.
$50
$51 - $200
$201 - $500
$501 - $700
$701 - $1000
$1001
5.
()
()
()
()
()
6.
()

: __________________
Page A7
7.
8.
?

,
,
,
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
5
Page A8
37.
38.
39.
40.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
9.
10.
11.
12.
5
Page A9
13.
14.
15.
16.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18. ISO9001 ()
19.
20.
16 - 25
46 - 55
26 - 35
56 - 65

()

36 - 45
66
()
/
Page A10
()
1
4
2
5
$5,000
$10,000-$14,999
$20,000-$24,999
$30,000-$34,999
$40,000-$44,999
$50,000
$5,000-$9,999
$15,000-$19,999
$25,000-$29,999
$35,000-$39,999
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000
$10,000-$14,999
$20,000-$24,999
$30,000-$34,999
$40,000-$44,999
$50,000
$5,000-$9,999
$15,000-$19,999
$25,000-$29,999
$35,000-$39,999
$45,000-$49,999
3
>5
Page A11
Appendix 3: Pictures of Nutrition Label
Page A12
Page A13
Page A14
Appendix 4: Results of SPSS Outputs

4.1 Reliability Test
4.1.1 Attitude
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
.835
N of Items
20
4.1.2 Health Consciousness

Cronbach's
Alpha
.830
N of Items
10
4.1.3 Environmental Concerns

Cronbach's
Alpha
.840
N of Items
8
Page A15
4.2 Relationship between Attitudes and Age Group
ANOVA
Attitude
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of Squares
4.631
48.049
52.680
df
5
324
329
Mean Square
.926
.148
F
6.246
Sig.
.000
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Attitude
Tukey HSD
Mean Difference
(I-J)
(J) Age
Std. Error
26 - 35
-.19578*
.06335
36 - 45
-.21795*
.05698
46 - 55
-.04389
.06335
56 - 65
.12411
.08599
66 or above
.29328
.17571
26 - 35
16 - 25
.19578*
.06335
36 - 45
-.02218
.06950
46 - 55
.15189
.07481
56 - 65
.31989*
.09475
66 or above
.48906
.18016
36 - 45
16 - 25
.21795*
.05698
26 - 35
.02218
.06950
46 - 55
.17406
.06950
56 - 65
.34207*
.09061
66 or above
.51123*
.17802
46 - 55
16 - 25
.04389
.06335
26 - 35
-.15189
.07481
36 - 45
-.17406
.06950
56 - 65
.16800
.09475
66 or above
.33717
.18016
56 - 65
16 - 25
-.12411
.08599
26 - 35
-.31989*
.09475
36 - 45
-.34207*
.09061
46 - 55
-.16800
.09475
66 or above
.16917
.18931
66 or above 16 - 25
-.29328
.17571
26 - 35
-.48906
.18016
36 - 45
-.51123*
.17802
46 - 55
-.33717
.18016
56 - 65
-.16917
.18931
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
(I) Age
16 - 25
Sig.
.026
.002
.983
.700
.553
.026
1.000
.327
.011
.075
.002
1.000
.126
.003
.049
.983
.327
.126
.485
.422
.700
.011
.003
.485
.948
.553
.075
.049
.422
.948
95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-.3774
-.0142
-.3813
-.0546
-.2255
.1377
-.1224
.3706
-.2105
.7970
.0142
.3774
-.2214
.1771
-.0626
.3664
.0483
.5915
-.0274
1.0056
.0546
.3813
-.1771
.2214
-.0252
.3733
.0823
.6018
.0009
1.0216
-.1377
.2255
-.3664
.0626
-.3733
.0252
-.1036
.4396
-.1793
.8537
-.3706
.1224
-.5915
-.0483
-.6018
-.0823
-.4396
.1036
-.3736
.7119
-.7970
.2105
-1.0056
.0274
-1.0216
-.0009
-.8537
.1793
-.7119
.3736
Page A16
4.3 Relationship between Attitudes and Gender
Group Statistics
Attitude
Gender
Male
Female
N
147
183
Mean
3.0497
3.2784
Std. Deviation
.35671
.40490
Std. Error Mean

.02942
.02993
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances
F
Attitude Equal variances assumed
3.089
Sig.
.080

t
-5.376
-5.450
Std. Error
df
Sig. (2-tailed)Mean Difference Difference
328
.000
-.22876
.04255
325.179
.000
-.22876
.04197

of the Difference
Lower
Upper
-.31247
-.14505
-.31132
-.14619
Page A17
4.4 Relationship between Attitudes and Education Level

ANOVA
Attitude
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of Squares
3.050
49.631
52.680
df
4
325
329
Mean Square
.762
.153
F
4.993
Sig.
.001
Tukey HSD
(I) Education Level

Primary or below
(J) Education Level

Undergraduate
Postgraduate
Primary or below
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
Senior secondary school Primary or below
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
Undergraduate
Primary or below
Postgraduate
Postgraduate
Primary or below
Undergraduate
Mean Difference
(I-J)
-.21252
-.33014*
-.26949*
-.31748
.21252
-.11763
-.05697
-.10497
.33014*
.11763
.06065
.01266
.26949*
.05697
-.06065
-.04799
.31748
.10497
-.01266
.04799
Std. Error
.08800
.07747
.07052
.12217
.08800
.07555
.06840
.12096
.07747
.07555
.05420
.11354
.07052
.06840
.05420
.10891
.12217
.12096
.11354
.10891
Sig.
.114
.000
.001
.073
.114
.526
.920
.909
.000
.526
.796
1.000
.001
.920
.796
.992
.073
.909
1.000
.992

Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-.4539
.0289
-.5427
-.1176
-.4629
-.0760
-.6526
.0177
-.0289
.4539
-.3249
.0896
-.2446
.1307
-.4368
.2269
.1176
.5427
-.0896
.3249
-.0880
.2093
-.2988
.3241
.0760
.4629
-.1307
.2446
-.2093
.0880
-.3468
.2508
-.0177
.6526
-.2269
.4368
-.3241
.2988
-.2508
.3468
Page A18
4.5 Relationship between Attitudes and Income

4.5.1 Relationship between Attitudes and Personal Income
ANOVA
Attitude
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of Squares
4.978
47.702
52.680
df
9
320
329
Mean Square
.553
.149
F
3.711
Sig.
.000
Tukey HSD
(I) Personal Monthly Income

$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
(J) Personal Monthly Income

$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
Mean Difference
(I-J)
.12193
-.05720
-.10356
-.07629
-.25887
-.17276
-.14387
-.68720*
-.35053
-.12193
-.17913
-.22549
-.19822
-.38080
-.29469
-.26580
-.80913*
-.47246
.05720
.17913
-.04636
-.01909
-.20167
-.11556
-.08667
-.63000*
-.29333
.10356
.22549
.04636
.02727
-.15530
-.06919
-.04030
-.58364
-.24697
.07629
.19822
.01909
-.02727
-.18258
-.09646
-.06758
-.61091*
-.27424
.25887
.38080
.20167
.15530
.18258
.08611
.11500
-.42833
-.09167
.17276
.29469
.11556
.06919
.09646
-.08611
.02889
-.51444
-.17778
.14387
Std. Error
.06658
.05904
.08927
.08927
.16136
.09734
.10550
.17609
.16136
.06658
.07439
.10008
.10008
.16759
.10734
.11480
.18181
.16759
.05904
.07439
.09523
.09523
.16474
.10284
.11060
.17919
.16474
.08927
.10008
.09523
.11641
.17782
.12271
.12928
.19128
.17782
.08927
.10008
.09523
.11641
.17782
.12271
.12928
.19128
.17782
.16136
.16759
.16474
.17782
.17782
.18201
.18650
.23379
.22291
.09734
.10734
.10284
.12271
.12271
.18201
.13498
.19518
.18201
.10550
Sig.
.715
.994
.978
.998
.845
.751
.937
.005
.478
.715
.325
.423
.613
.410
.160
.382
.000
.134
.994
.325
1.000
1.000
.968
.982
.999
.018
.747
.978
.423
1.000
1.000
.997
1.000
1.000
.073
.930
.998
.613
1.000
1.000
.990
.999
1.000
.049
.874
.845
.410
.968
.997
.990
1.000
1.000
.714
1.000
.751
.160
.982
1.000
.999
1.000
1.000
.206
.993
.937

Lower Bound Upper Bound
-.0902
.3341
-.2453
.1309
-.3880
.1809
-.3607
.2081
-.7730
.2553
-.4829
.1374
-.4800
.1923
-1.2483
-.1261
-.8647
.1636
-.3341
.0902
-.4162
.0579
-.5444
.0934
-.5171
.1207
-.9148
.1532
-.6367
.0473
-.6316
.1000
-1.3884
-.2298
-1.0064
.0615
-.1309
.2453
-.0579
.4162
-.3498
.2571
-.3225
.2843
-.7266
.3232
-.4432
.2121
-.4390
.2657
-1.2009
-.0591
-.8182
.2316
-.1809
.3880
-.0934
.5444
-.2571
.3498
-.3436
.3982
-.7219
.4113
-.4602
.3218
-.4522
.3716
-1.1931
.0258
-.8136
.3196
-.2081
.3607
-.1207
.5171
-.2843
.3225
-.3982
.3436
-.7492
.3840
-.4874
.2945
-.4795
.3443
-1.2204
-.0014
-.8408
.2923
-.2553
.7730
-.1532
.9148
-.3232
.7266
-.4113
.7219
-.3840
.7492
-.4938
.6660
-.4792
.7092
-1.1732
.3166
-.8019
.6186
-.1374
.4829
-.0473
.6367
-.2121
.4432
-.3218
.4602
-.2945
.4874
-.6660
.4938
-.4012
.4590
-1.1363
.1074
-.7577
.4021
-.1923
.4800
Page A19
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$40,000-$44,999
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$45,000-$49,999
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
-.17778
.14387
.26580
.08667
.04030
.06758
-.11500
-.02889
-.54333
-.20667
.68720*
.80913*
.63000*
.58364
.61091*
.42833
.51444
.54333
.33667
.35053
.47246
.29333
.24697
.27424
.09167
.17778
.20667
-.33667
$35,000-$39,999
.18201
.10550
.11480
.11060
.12928
.12928
.18650
.13498
.19938
.18650
.17609
.18181
.17919
.19128
.19128
.23379
.19518
.19938
.23379
.16136
.16759
.16474
.17782
.17782
.22291
.18201
.18650
.23379
.993
.937
.382
.999
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
.168
.984
.005
.000
.018
.073
.049
.714
.206
.168
.914
.478
.134
.747
.930
.874
1.000
.993
.984
.914
-.7577
-.1923
-.1000
-.2657
-.3716
-.3443
-.7092
-.4590
-1.1786
-.8009
.1261
.2298
.0591
-.0258
.0014
-.3166
-.1074
-.0919
-.4082
-.1636
-.0615
-.2316
-.3196
-.2923
-.6186
-.4021
-.3876
-1.0816
.4021
.4800
.6316
.4390
.4522
.4795
.4792
.4012
.0919
.3876
1.2483
1.3884
1.2009
1.1931
1.2204
1.1732
1.1363
1.1786
1.0816
.8647
1.0064
.8182
.8136
.8408
.8019
.7577
.8009
.4082
4.5.2 Relationship between Attitudes and Family Income

ANOVA
Attitude
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of Squares
4.987
47.694
52.680
df
10
319
329
Mean Square
.499
.150
F
3.335
Sig.
.000
Page A20
Tukey HSD
(I) Total Family
Monthly income
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
(J) Total Family

Monthly income
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$50,000 or above
$5,000 or below
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$50,000 or above
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$50,000 or above
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
Mean Difference
(I-J)
.10205
-.06177
-.01333
-.06970
-.20675
-.10807
-.22420
-.25807
-.39863
-.30114
-.10205
-.16382
-.11538
-.17175
-.30881
-.21012
-.32625
-.36012
-.50068*
-.40319*
.06177
.16382
.04844
-.00793
-.14498
-.04630
-.16243
-.19630
-.33686
-.23937
.01333
.11538
Std. Error
.14652
.12099
.11748
.11263
.11791
.11791
.12833
.13355
.13697
.11668
.14652
.12717
.12383
.11924
.12424
.12424
.13417
.13918
.14246
.12307
.12099
.12717
.09223
.08597
.09277
.09277
.10570
.11199
.11605
.09121
.11748
.12383
Sig.
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
.806
.998
.810
.696
.124
.263
1.000
.970
.998
.937
.317
.839
.350
.260
.021
.045
1.000
.970
1.000
1.000
.897
1.000
.906
.807
.127
.241
1.000
.998

Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-.3730
.5771
-.4541
.3305
-.3942
.3676
-.4349
.2955
-.5890
.1755
-.4904
.2742
-.6403
.1919
-.6911
.1749
-.8427
.0455
-.6794
.0772
-.5771
.3730
-.5762
.2485
-.5169
.2861
-.5584
.2149
-.7116
.0940
-.6129
.1927
-.7613
.1088
-.8114
.0911
-.9626
-.0388
-.8022
-.0041
-.3305
.4541
-.2485
.5762
-.2506
.3475
-.2867
.2708
-.4458
.1558
-.3471
.2545
-.5051
.1803
-.5594
.1668
-.7131
.0394
-.5351
.0564
-.3676
.3942
-.2861
.5169
Page A21
$50,000 or above
-.23937
$5,000 or below
.01333
$5,000-$9,999
.11538
$10,000-$14,999
-.04844
$20,000-$24,999
-.05636
$25,000-$29,999
-.19342
$30,000-$34,999
-.09474
$35,000-$39,999
-.21087
$40,000-$44,999
-.24474
$45,000-$49,999
-.38529*
$50,000 or above
-.28780*
$20,000-$24,999
$5,000 or below
.06970
$5,000-$9,999
.17175
$10,000-$14,999
.00793
$15,000-$19,999
.05636
$25,000-$29,999
-.13706
$30,000-$34,999
-.03837
$35,000-$39,999
-.15451
$40,000-$44,999
-.18837
$45,000-$49,999
-.32893
$50,000 or above
-.23144
$25,000-$29,999
$5,000 or below
.20675
$5,000-$9,999
.30881
$10,000-$14,999
.14498
$15,000-$19,999
.19342
$20,000-$24,999
.13706
$30,000-$34,999
.09868
$35,000-$39,999
-.01745
$40,000-$44,999
-.05132
$45,000-$49,999
-.19187
$50,000 or above
-.09438
$30,000-$34,999
$5,000 or below
.10807
$5,000-$9,999
.21012
$10,000-$14,999
.04630
$15,000-$19,999
.09474
$20,000-$24,999
.03837
$25,000-$29,999
-.09868
$35,000-$39,999
-.11613
$40,000-$44,999
-.15000
$45,000-$49,999
-.29056
$50,000 or above
-.19307
$35,000-$39,999
$5,000 or below
.22420
$5,000-$9,999
.32625
$10,000-$14,999
.16243
$15,000-$19,999
.21087
$20,000-$24,999
.15451
$25,000-$29,999
.01745
$30,000-$34,999
.11613
$40,000-$44,999
-.03387
$45,000-$49,999
-.17442
$50,000 or above
-.07694
$40,000-$44,999
$5,000 or below
.25807
$5,000-$9,999
.36012
$10,000-$14,999
.19630
$15,000-$19,999
.24474
$20,000-$24,999
.18837
$25,000-$29,999
.05132
$30,000-$34,999
.15000
$35,000-$39,999
.03387
$45,000-$49,999
-.14056
$50,000 or above
-.04307
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
.39863
$5,000-$9,999
.50068*
$10,000-$14,999
.33686
$15,000-$19,999
.38529*
$20,000-$24,999
.32893
$25,000-$29,999
.19187
$30,000-$34,999
.29056
$35,000-$39,999
.17442
$40,000-$44,999
.14056
$50,000 or above
.09749
$50,000 or above
$5,000 or below
.30114
$5,000-$9,999
.40319*
$10,000-$14,999
.23937
$15,000-$19,999
.28780*
$20,000-$24,999
.23144
$25,000-$29,999
.09438
$30,000-$34,999
.19307
$35,000-$39,999
.07694
$40,000-$44,999
.04307
$45,000-$49,999
-.09749
$15,000-$19,999
.09121
.11748
.12383
.09223
.08094
.08814
.08814
.10166
.10818
.11238
.08649
.11263
.11924
.08597
.08094
.08156
.08156
.09601
.10289
.10730
.07978
.11791
.12424
.09277
.08814
.08156
.08871
.10215
.10864
.11282
.08707
.11791
.12424
.09277
.08814
.08156
.08871
.10215
.10864
.11282
.08707
.12833
.13417
.10570
.10166
.09601
.10215
.10215
.11987
.12367
.10073
.13355
.13918
.11199
.10818
.10289
.10864
.10864
.11987
.12909
.10731
.13697
.14246
.11605
.11238
.10730
.11282
.11282
.12367
.12909
.11154
.11668
.12307
.09121
.08649
.07978
.08707
.08707
.10073
.10731
.11154
.241
1.000
.998
1.000
1.000
.510
.992
.597
.463
.028
.039
1.000
.937
1.000
1.000
.845
1.000
.878
.761
.083
.127
.806
.317
.897
.510
.845
.990
1.000
1.000
.834
.992
.998
.839
1.000
.992
1.000
.990
.988
.952
.266
.494
.810
.350
.906
.597
.878
1.000
.988
1.000
.945
1.000
.696
.260
.807
.463
.761
1.000
.952
1.000
.991
1.000
.124
.021
.127
.028
.083
.834
.266
.945
.991
.999
.263
.045
.241
.039
.127
.992
.494
1.000
1.000
.999
-.5351
-.3676
-.2861
-.3475
-.3188
-.4792
-.3805
-.5405
-.5955
-.7496
-.5682
-.2955
-.2149
-.2708
-.2061
-.4015
-.3028
-.4658
-.5220
-.6768
-.4901
-.1755
-.0940
-.1558
-.0923
-.1274
-.1889
-.3487
-.4036
-.5577
-.3767
-.2742
-.1927
-.2545
-.1910
-.2261
-.3863
-.4473
-.5023
-.6564
-.4754
-.1919
-.1088
-.1803
-.1187
-.1568
-.3138
-.2151
-.4225
-.5754
-.4035
-.1749
-.0911
-.1668
-.1060
-.1452
-.3009
-.2023
-.3548
-.5591
-.3910
-.0455
.0388
-.0394
.0209
-.0190
-.1739
-.0752
-.2266
-.2780
-.2642
-.0772
.0041
-.0564
.0074
-.0272
-.1879
-.0892
-.2497
-.3049
-.4591
.0564
.3942
.5169
.2506
.2061
.0923
.1910
.1187
.1060
-.0209
-.0074
.4349
.5584
.2867
.3188
.1274
.2261
.1568
.1452
.0190
.0272
.5890
.7116
.4458
.4792
.4015
.3863
.3138
.3009
.1739
.1879
.4904
.6129
.3471
.3805
.3028
.1889
.2151
.2023
.0752
.0892
.6403
.7613
.5051
.5405
.4658
.3487
.4473
.3548
.2266
.2497
.6911
.8114
.5594
.5955
.5220
.4036
.5023
.4225
.2780
.3049
.8427
.9626
.7131
.7496
.6768
.5577
.6564
.5754
.5591
.4591
.6794
.8022
.5351
.5682
.4901
.3767
.4754
.4035
.3910
.2642
Page A22
4.6 Relationship between Attitudes and Presence of Children in household
Group Statistics
Attitude
Children in a Household
Yes
No
N
110
220
Mean
3.1955
3.1670
Std. Deviation
.42634
.38705
Std. Error Mean

.04065
.02610

of Variances
F
Attitude Equal variances assumed 1.494
Sig.
.223

t
.607
.588

of the Difference
Std. Error
df
Sig. (2-tailed)Mean DifferenceDifference Lower
Upper
328
.544
.02841
.04677 -.06360
.12042
200.408
.557
.02841
.04831 -.06684
.12366
Page A23
4.7 Relationship between Frequency and Age Group

ANOVA
Frequency of consumption
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
85.992
Within Groups
429.732
Total
515.724
df
5
324
329
Mean Square
17.198
1.326
F
12.967
Sig.
.000
Dependent Variable: Frequency of consumption
Tukey HSD
Mean Difference
(I-J)
(J) Age
Std. Error
26 - 35
-.909*
.189
36 - 45
-1.192*
.170
46 - 55
-.475
.189
56 - 65
-.291
.257
66 or above
.959
.525
26 - 35
16 - 25
.909*
.189
36 - 45
-.283
.208
46 - 55
.434
.224
56 - 65
.618
.283
66 or above
1.868*
.539
36 - 45
16 - 25
1.192*
.170
26 - 35
.283
.208
46 - 55
.717*
.208
56 - 65
.901*
.271
66 or above
2.151*
.532
46 - 55
16 - 25
.475
.189
26 - 35
-.434
.224
36 - 45
-.717*
.208
56 - 65
.184
.283
66 or above
1.434
.539
56 - 65
16 - 25
.291
.257
26 - 35
-.618
.283
36 - 45
-.901*
.271
46 - 55
-.184
.283
66 or above
1.250
.566
66 or above 16 - 25
-.959
.525
26 - 35
-1.868*
.539
36 - 45
-2.151*
.532
46 - 55
-1.434
.539
56 - 65
-1.250
.566
(I) Age
16 - 25
Sig.
.000
.000
.125
.868
.451
.000
.751
.380
.250
.008
.000
.751
.008
.013
.001
.125
.380
.008
.987
.086
.868
.250
.013
.987
.237
.451
.008
.001
.086
.237

Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-1.45
-.37
-1.68
-.70
-1.02
.07
-1.03
.45
-.55
2.47
.37
1.45
-.88
.31
-.21
1.08
-.19
1.43
.32
3.41
.70
1.68
-.31
.88
.12
1.31
.12
1.68
.62
3.68
-.07
1.02
-1.08
.21
-1.31
-.12
-.63
1.00
-.11
2.98
-.45
1.03
-1.43
.19
-1.68
-.12
-1.00
.63
-.37
2.87
-2.47
.55
-3.41
-.32
-3.68
-.62
-2.98
.11
-2.87
.37
Page A24
4.8 Relationship between Frequency and Gender
Group Statistics
Gender
Male
Female
N
147
183
Mean
2.25
2.61
Std. Deviation
1.109
1.337
Std. Error Mean

.092
.099

of Variances

F
15.730
Sig.
.000

t
-2.621
-2.675
df
328
327.647
Sig. (2-tailed)
.009
.008
Mean Difference
-.360
-.360
Std. Error
Difference
.137
.135

of the Difference
Lower
Upper
-.631
-.090
-.625
-.095
Page A25
4.9 Relationship between Frequency and Education Level

ANOVA
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
24.002
Within Groups
491.723
Total
515.724
df
4
325
329
Mean Square
6.000
1.513
F
3.966
Sig.
.004
Tukey HSD
(I) Education Level

Primary or below
(J) Education Level

Undergraduate
Postgraduate
Primary or below
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
Primary or below
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
Undergraduate
Primary or below
Postgraduate
Postgraduate
Primary or below
Undergraduate
Mean Difference
(I-J)
-.418
-.923*
-.453
-.410
.418
-.504
-.034
.009
.923*
.504
.470*
.513
.453
.034
-.470*
.043
.410
-.009
-.513
-.043
Std. Error
.277
.244
.222
.385
.277
.238
.215
.381
.244
.238
.171
.357
.222
.215
.171
.343
.385
.381
.357
.343
Sig.
.556
.002
.250
.824
.556
.214
1.000
1.000
.002
.214
.048
.605
.250
1.000
.048
1.000
.824
1.000
.605
1.000

Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-1.18
.34
-1.59
-.25
-1.06
.16
-1.46
.65
-.34
1.18
-1.16
.15
-.62
.56
-1.04
1.05
.25
1.59
-.15
1.16
.00
.94
-.47
1.49
-.16
1.06
-.56
.62
-.94
.00
-.90
.98
-.65
1.46
-1.05
1.04
-1.49
.47
-.98
.90
Page A26
4.10 Relationship between Frequency and Income

4.101 Relationship between Frequency and Personal Income
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
110.396
Within Groups
405.329
Total
515.724
df
9
320
329
Mean Square
12.266
1.267
F
9.684
Sig.
.000
Page A27
Tukey HSD
(I) Personal Monthly Income

$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
(J) Personal Monthly Income

$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
Mean Difference
(I-J)
-.138
-.577*
-.826
-.735
-1.841*
-.786
-1.408*
-3.008*
-2.008*
.138
-.439
-.688
-.597
-1.703*
-.647
-1.270*
-2.870*
-1.870*
.577*
.439
-.249
-.158
-1.264
-.209
-.831
-2.431*
-1.431
.826
.688
.249
.091
-1.015
.040
-.582
-2.182*
-1.182
.735
.597
.158
-.091
-1.106
-.051
-.673
-2.273*
-1.273
1.841*
Std. Error
.194
.172
.260
.260
.470
.284
.308
.513
.470
.194
.217
.292
.292
.489
.313
.335
.530
.489
.172
.217
.278
.278
.480
.300
.322
.522
.480
.260
.292
.278
.339
.518
.358
.377
.558
.518
.260
.292
.278
.339
.518
.358
.377
.558
.518
.470
Sig.
.999
.030
.052
.132
.004
.152
.000
.000
.001
.999
.583
.355
.567
.020
.551
.007
.000
.006
.030
.583
.996
1.000
.207
1.000
.233
.000
.089
.052
.355
.996
1.000
.629
1.000
.873
.004
.405
.132
.567
1.000
1.000
.505
1.000
.744
.002
.297
.004

Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-.76
.48
-1.13
-.03
-1.66
.00
-1.56
.09
-3.34
-.34
-1.69
.12
-2.39
-.43
-4.64
-1.37
-3.51
-.51
-.48
.76
-1.13
.25
-1.62
.24
-1.53
.33
-3.26
-.15
-1.64
.35
-2.34
-.20
-4.56
-1.18
-3.43
-.31
.03
1.13
-.25
1.13
-1.13
.64
-1.04
.73
-2.79
.27
-1.16
.75
-1.86
.20
-4.09
-.77
-2.96
.10
.00
1.66
-.24
1.62
-.64
1.13
-.99
1.17
-2.67
.64
-1.10
1.18
-1.78
.62
-3.96
-.41
-2.83
.47
-.09
1.56
-.33
1.53
-.73
1.04
-1.17
.99
-2.76
.55
-1.19
1.09
-1.87
.53
-4.05
-.50
-2.92
.38
.34
3.34
Page A28
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$30,000-$34,999
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$35,000-$39,999
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$40,000-$44,999
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$45,000-$49,999
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
-1.273
1.841*
1.703*
1.264
1.015
1.106
1.056
.433
-1.167
-.167
.786
.647
.209
-.040
.051
-1.056
-.622
-2.222*
-1.222
1.408*
1.270*
.831
.582
.673
-.433
.622
-1.600
-.600
3.008*
2.870*
2.431*
2.182*
2.273*
1.167
2.222*
1.600
1.000
2.008*
1.870*
1.431
1.182
1.273
.167
1.222
.600
-1.000
$25,000-$29,999
.518
.470
.489
.480
.518
.518
.531
.544
.681
.650
.284
.313
.300
.358
.358
.531
.393
.569
.531
.308
.335
.322
.377
.377
.544
.393
.581
.544
.513
.530
.522
.558
.558
.681
.569
.581
.681
.470
.489
.480
.518
.518
.650
.531
.544
.681
.297
.004
.020
.207
.629
.505
.607
.999
.788
1.000
.152
.551
1.000
1.000
1.000
.607
.856
.004
.389
.000
.007
.233
.873
.744
.999
.856
.158
.984
.000
.000
.000
.004
.002
.788
.004
.158
.904
.001
.006
.089
.405
.297
1.000
.389
.984
.904
-2.92
.34
.15
-.27
-.64
-.55
-.63
-1.30
-3.34
-2.24
-.12
-.35
-.75
-1.18
-1.09
-2.75
-1.88
-4.04
-2.91
.43
.20
-.20
-.62
-.53
-2.17
-.63
-3.45
-2.33
1.37
1.18
.77
.41
.50
-1.00
.41
-.25
-1.17
.51
.31
-.10
-.47
-.38
-1.90
-.47
-1.13
-3.17
.38
3.34
3.26
2.79
2.67
2.76
2.75
2.17
1.00
1.90
1.69
1.64
1.16
1.10
1.19
.63
.63
-.41
.47
2.39
2.34
1.86
1.78
1.87
1.30
1.88
.25
1.13
4.64
4.56
4.09
3.96
4.05
3.34
4.04
3.45
3.17
3.51
3.43
2.96
2.83
2.92
2.24
2.91
2.33
1.17
4.102 Relationship between Frequency and Family Income

ANOVA
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
69.866
Within Groups
445.858
Total
515.724
df
10
319
329
Mean Square
6.987
1.398
F
4.999
Sig.
.000
Page A29
Page A30
Tukey HSD
(I) Total Family
Monthly income
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
(J) Total Family

Monthly income
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$50,000 or above
$5,000 or below
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$50,000 or above
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$50,000 or above
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$20,000-$24,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$50,000 or above
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$25,000-$29,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$50,000 or above
$5,000 or below
$5,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$19,999
$20,000-$24,999
$30,000-$34,999
$35,000-$39,999
$40,000-$44,999
$45,000-$49,999
$50,000 or above
$5,000 or below
Mean Difference
(I-J)
.097
-.571
-.056
-.333
-.370
-.607
-.916
-1.133
-1.722*
-1.133
-.097
-.668
-.154
-.431
-.468
-.704
-1.013
-1.231
-1.819*
-1.231*
.571
.668
.514
.238
.201
-.036
-.345
-.563
-1.151*
-.563
.056
.154
-.514
-.277
-.314
-.551
-.860
-1.077*
-1.665*
-1.077*
.333
.431
-.238
.277
-.037
-.274
-.583
-.800
-1.388*
-.800*
.370
.468
-.201
.314
.037
-.237
-.546
-.763
-1.351*
-.763
.607
Std. Error
.448
.370
.359
.344
.360
.360
.392
.408
.419
.357
.448
.389
.379
.365
.380
.380
.410
.426
.436
.376
.370
.389
.282
.263
.284
.284
.323
.342
.355
.279
.359
.379
.282
.247
.269
.269
.311
.331
.344
.264
.344
.365
.263
.247
.249
.249
.294
.315
.328
.244
.360
.380
.284
.269
.249
.271
.312
.332
.345
.266
.360
Sig.
1.000
.904
1.000
.997
.995
.843
.413
.172
.002
.061
1.000
.825
1.000
.984
.979
.746
.326
.130
.002
.046
.904
.825
.765
.998
1.000
1.000
.993
.863
.050
.637
1.000
1.000
.765
.989
.986
.619
.176
.048
.000
.003
.997
.984
.998
.989
1.000
.991
.660
.284
.002
.045
.995
.979
1.000
.986
1.000
.999
.810
.438
.005
.139
.843

Lower Bound
Upper Bound
-1.36
1.55
-1.77
.63
-1.22
1.11
-1.45
.78
-1.54
.80
-1.78
.56
-2.19
.36
-2.46
.19
-3.08
-.36
-2.29
.02
-1.55
1.36
-1.93
.59
-1.38
1.07
-1.61
.75
-1.70
.76
-1.94
.53
-2.34
.32
-2.61
.15
-3.23
-.41
-2.45
-.01
-.63
1.77
-.59
1.93
-.40
1.43
-.61
1.09
-.72
1.12
-.96
.88
-1.39
.70
-1.67
.55
-2.30
.00
-1.47
.34
-1.11
1.22
-1.07
1.38
-1.43
.40
-1.08
.53
-1.19
.56
-1.42
.32
-1.87
.15
-2.15
.00
-2.78
-.55
-1.93
-.22
-.78
1.45
-.75
1.61
-1.09
.61
-.53
1.08
-.85
.77
-1.08
.53
-1.53
.37
-1.82
.22
-2.45
-.32
-1.59
-.01
-.80
1.54
-.76
1.70
-1.12
.72
-.56
1.19
-.77
.85
-1.12
.64
-1.56
.47
-1.84
.31
-2.47
-.23
-1.63
.10
-.56
1.78
Page A31
$45,000-$49,999
-1.351*
$50,000 or above
-.763
$30,000-$34,999
$5,000 or below
.607
$5,000-$9,999
.704
$10,000-$14,999
.036
$15,000-$19,999
.551
$20,000-$24,999
.274
$25,000-$29,999
.237
$35,000-$39,999
-.309
$40,000-$44,999
-.526
$45,000-$49,999
-1.115
$50,000 or above
-.526
$35,000-$39,999
$5,000 or below
.916
$5,000-$9,999
1.013
$10,000-$14,999
.345
$15,000-$19,999
.860
$20,000-$24,999
.583
$25,000-$29,999
.546
$30,000-$34,999
.309
$40,000-$44,999
-.217
$45,000-$49,999
-.806
$50,000 or above
-.217
$40,000-$44,999
$5,000 or below
1.133
$5,000-$9,999
1.231
$10,000-$14,999
.563
$15,000-$19,999
1.077*
$20,000-$24,999
.800
$25,000-$29,999
.763
$30,000-$34,999
.526
$35,000-$39,999
.217
$45,000-$49,999
-.588
$50,000 or above
.000
$45,000-$49,999
$5,000 or below
1.722*
$5,000-$9,999
1.819*
$10,000-$14,999
1.151*
$15,000-$19,999
1.665*
$20,000-$24,999
1.388*
$25,000-$29,999
1.351*
$30,000-$34,999
1.115
$35,000-$39,999
.806
$40,000-$44,999
.588
$50,000 or above
.588
$50,000 or above $5,000 or below
1.133
$5,000-$9,999
1.231*
$10,000-$14,999
.563
$15,000-$19,999
1.077*
$20,000-$24,999
.800*
$25,000-$29,999
.763
$30,000-$34,999
.526
$35,000-$39,999
.217
$40,000-$44,999
.000
$45,000-$49,999
-.588
.345
.266
.360
.380
.284
.269
.249
.271
.312
.332
.345
.266
.392
.410
.323
.311
.294
.312
.312
.367
.378
.308
.408
.426
.342
.331
.315
.332
.332
.367
.395
.328
.419
.436
.355
.344
.328
.345
.345
.378
.395
.341
.357
.376
.279
.264
.244
.266
.266
.308
.328
.341
.005
.139
.843
.746
1.000
.619
.991
.999
.996
.888
.052
.665
.413
.326
.993
.176
.660
.810
.996
1.000
.556
1.000
.172
.130
.863
.048
.284
.438
.888
1.000
.922
1.000
.002
.002
.050
.000
.002
.005
.052
.556
.922
.822
.061
.046
.637
.003
.045
.139
.665
1.000
1.000
.822
-2.47
-1.63
-.56
-.53
-.88
-.32
-.53
-.64
-1.32
-1.60
-2.23
-1.39
-.36
-.32
-.70
-.15
-.37
-.47
-.70
-1.41
-2.03
-1.22
-.19
-.15
-.55
.00
-.22
-.31
-.55
-.97
-1.87
-1.06
.36
.41
.00
.55
.32
.23
.00
-.42
-.69
-.52
-.02
.01
-.34
.22
.01
-.10
-.34
-.78
-1.06
-1.69
-.23
.10
1.78
1.94
.96
1.42
1.08
1.12
.70
.55
.00
.34
2.19
2.34
1.39
1.87
1.53
1.56
1.32
.97
.42
.78
2.46
2.61
1.67
2.15
1.82
1.84
1.60
1.41
.69
1.06
3.08
3.23
2.30
2.78
2.45
2.47
2.23
2.03
1.87
1.69
2.29
2.45
1.47
1.93
1.59
1.63
1.39
1.22
1.06
.52
Page A32
4.11 Relationship between Frequency and Presence of Children in household
Group Statistics
Children in a Household
Yes
No
Mean
2.70
2.33
110
220
Std. Deviation
1.358
1.179
Std. Error Mean

.130
.079

of Variances
Frequency of consumption Equal variances assumed

F
14.146
Sig.
.000

t
2.571
2.453
df
328
192.967
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

.011
.373
.015
.373
Std. Error
Difference
.145
.152

of the Difference
Lower
Upper
.088
.658
.073
.672
4.12 Relationship between Frequency and Attitudes
Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
1
.625a
.390
a. Predictors: (Constant), Attitude
Adjusted R
Square
.388
Std. Error of
the Estimate
.979
ANOVA b
Model
1
Sum of Squares
df
Regression
201.185
1
Residual
314.539
328
Total
515.724
329
a. Predictors: (Constant), Attitude
b. Dependent Variable: Frequency of consumption
Mean Square
201.185
.959
F
209.795
Sig.
.000a
Page A33
Coefficients
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
B
Std. Error
1
(Constant)
-3.756
.432
Attitude
1.954
.135
a. Dependent Variable: Frequency of consumption
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
.625
t
-8.696
14.484
Sig.
.000
.000
4.13 Relationship between Frequency and Health Consciousness

Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
1
.393a
.155
a. Predictors: (Constant), Health
Adjusted R
Square
.152
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1.153
ANOVA b
Model
1
Sum of Squares
df
Regression
79.774
1
Residual
435.950
328
Total
515.724
329
a. Predictors: (Constant), Health
Coefficients
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
B
Std. Error
1
(Constant)
-.953
.444
Health
.941
.121
Mean Square
79.774
1.329
F
60.021
Sig.
.000a
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
.393
t
-2.146
7.747
Sig.
.033
.000
4.14 Relationship between Frequency and Environmental Concerns

Model Summary
Adjusted R
Model
R
R Square
Square
1
.383a
.147
.144
a. Predictors: (Constant), Environmental
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1.158
Page A34
ANOVA b
Model
1
Sum of Squares
df
Regression
75.643
1
Residual
440.081
328
Total
515.724
329
a. Predictors: (Constant), Environmental
Mean Square
75.643
1.342
Coefficients
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
B
Std. Error
1
(Constant)
-.089
.344
Environmental
.740
.098
F
56.378
Sig.
.000a
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
.383
Sig.
.795
.000
-.260
7.509
4.15 Relationship between Frequency and Organic Food Knowledge
Model Summary
Adjusted R
Model
R
R Square
Square
1
.449a
.202
.199
a. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1.120
ANOVA b
Model
1
Sum of Squares
df
Regression
103.932
1
Residual
411.793
328
Total
515.724
329
a. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge
Mean Square
103.932
1.255
Coefficients
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
B
Std. Error
1
(Constant)
1.150
.156
Knowledge
.261
.029
F
82.783
Sig.
.000a
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
.449
t
7.378
9.099
Sig.
.000
.000
Page A35
Page A36

Consumer Behaviour Towards Organic Food Consumption in Hong Kong

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Consumer Behaviour Towards Organic Food Consumption in Hong Kong

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Consumer behaviour towards

Organic Food Consumption in Hong Kong:

An Honours Degree Project Submitted to the

Hong Kong Baptist University

4.7.1 Relationship between Frequency and Age ......................................27

To find out the demographic characteristics, attitude, health consciousness,

To provide recommendations for marketers on how to improve the organic claims

Figure 1: The Proposed Framework

The research hypotheses are as follows:

There is association between demographic factors and attitude.

There is a negative relationship between age and attitude.

There is a positive relationship between women and attitude.

There is a positive relationship between education level and attitude.

There is a positive relationship between income and attitude.

There is a positive relationship between presence of children in household and

There is association between demographics factors and the frequency of

There is a positive relationship between women and the frequency of organic

There is a positive relationship between education level and the frequency of

There is a positive relationship between income and the frequency of organic

There is a positive relationship between presence of children in household and

There is a positive relationship between attitude and the frequency of organic

There is a positive relationship between health consciousnesses and the

There is a positive relationship between environmental concerns and the

There is a positive relationship between organic food knowledge and the

Assuming confidence level is 95% and standard error is 5%, therefore

n=0.3*(1-0.7)*1.96 /0.05 = 323

A pretest of questionnaire was conducted with 10 respondents prior to avoid

examine the relationship between the independent variables (demographic factors,

For all analysis, a probability level of <0.05 was considered significant.

4. Analysis and Findings

Junior secondary school

Senior secondary school

Once half a year

4.2 Nutrient Content Usage Pattern

4.3 Attitudes towards Organic Food

Mean Deviation Mean Deviation

I am not interested in organics.

I prefer buying organics.

Organic products are safer and more reliable.

Organic products are of better quality.

Organic products are healthier.

Organic products taste better.

Organic products are of higher nutrition value.

Organic products are very expensive.

The packaging of organic products looks less pleasing to the

10. The outlook of organic products is less attractive.

11. Organics are supreme products consumed only by rich people.

12. Consumption of organic products represents higher social

13. Not many organic products are available in the market.

14. There is a small variety of organic products.

15. There are a lot of selling locations for organic products.

16. It is difficult to identify real organic products.

17. The organic products labels in the market are confusing.

18. I trust organic products.

19. I trust organic producers.

20. Organics consumption helps protecting the environment.

4.3.2 Relationship between Attitudes and Age Group

4.3.3 Relationship between Attitudes and Gender

t-test for Equality of Means

4.3.4 Relationship between Attitudes and Education Level

figure (F=4.993, p=0.001) reveals different education levels differentiate themselves in

Junior secondary school

Senior secondary school

n=0.3(1-0.7)1.96 /0.05 = 323