IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ddj/fserec/y2016p525-530.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Perception of Aquaponics Products in Romania

Author

Listed:
  • Adrian Gheorghe Zugravu

    (Dunarea de Jos University of Galati, Romania)

  • Maria Magdalena Turek Rahoveanu

    (Dunarea de Jos University of Galati, Romania)

  • Adrian Turek Rahoveanu

    (University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, Romania)

  • Mohamed S. Khalel

    (Animal Production Research Institute, Agriculture Research Center, Dokki, Giza, Egypt)

  • Mostafa Abdel Rahman Ibrahim

    (Kafr el-Sheick University, El – Geish Street, 33516 Kafr el-Sheick, Egypt)

Abstract

The paper follows two main objectives: to understand consumers' perception and image of aquaponics products and to identify levers communication in order to improve the perceived image of aquaponics products. Orientations in terms of communication aims product-focused and aim at enhancing the reputation of products, consequently with impact on product consumption. The present research is focused on the aquaponics products, regardless of their presentation - fresh, frozen or processed. This paper conducted a questionnaire survey of Romanian consumers' perception of aquaponics products. The empirical study for aquaponics products indicated box that consumers shown different awareness to domestic and foreign aquaponics products. Aquaponics national products got more attention from the consumers. Foreign aquaponics products had insightful higher price, but Romanian aquaponics products acquired insightful higher value, and got a better rank in the preference list and in the purchase intention of the consumers.

Suggested Citation

  • Adrian Gheorghe Zugravu & Maria Magdalena Turek Rahoveanu & Adrian Turek Rahoveanu & Mohamed S. Khalel & Mostafa Abdel Rahman Ibrahim, 2016. "The Perception of Aquaponics Products in Romania," Risk in Contemporary Economy, "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, pages 525-530.
    • Handle: RePEc:ddj:fserec:y:2016:p:525-530
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rce.feaa.ugal.ro/images/stories/RCE2016/ZugravuTurekTurekKhalelIbrahim.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Armstrong, J. Scott & Morwitz, Vicki G. & Kumar, V., 2000. "Sales forecasts for existing consumer products and services: Do purchase intentions contribute to accuracy?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 383-397.
    2. East, Robert & Hammond, Kathy & Lomax, Wendy, 2008. "Measuring the impact of positive and negative word of mouth on brand purchase probability," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 215-224.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gianna Short & Chengyan Yue & Marie Abbey & Neil Anderson & Nicholas Phelps & Paul Venturelli & Zata Vickers, 2018. "Consumer preferences for aquaponic produce: Implications from an experimental auction," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 742-755, October.
    2. Theresa Eichhorn & Oliver Meixner, 2020. "Factors Influencing the Willingness to Pay for Aquaponic Products in a Developed Food Market: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-19, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baxendale, Shane & Macdonald, Emma K. & Wilson, Hugh N., 2015. "The Impact of Different Touchpoints on Brand Consideration," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 235-253.
    2. Horstmann, Felix, 2017. "Measuring the shopper's attitude toward the point of sale display: Scale development and validation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 112-123.
    3. Roper, Stuart & Parker, Cathy, 2013. "Doing well by doing good: A quantitative investigation of the litter effect," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(11), pages 2262-2268.
    4. László Kovács, 2019. "Insights from Brand Associations: Alcohol Brands and Automotive Brands in the Mind of the Consumer," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 31(1), pages 97-121.
    5. Yap, Kenneth B. & Soetarto, Budi & Sweeney, Jillian C., 2013. "The relationship between electronic word-of-mouth motivations and message characteristics: The sender’s perspective," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 66-74.
    6. Claus, Bart & Geyskens, Kelly & Millet, Kobe & Dewitte, Siegfried, 2012. "The referral backfire effect: The identity-threatening nature of referral failure," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 370-379.
    7. Heejae Shin & Wirawan Dahana, 2017. "Asymmetric Persuasive Effects of Gain- and Loss-related Messages in Electronic Word of Mouth," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(12), pages 1-82, November.
    8. Agnieszka Zablocki & Bodo Schlegelmilch & Michael J. Houston, 2019. "How valence, volume and variance of online reviews influence brand attitudes," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 9(1), pages 61-77, June.
    9. Zeng, Guojun & Cao, Xinning & Lin, Zhibin & Xiao, Sarah H., 2020. "When online reviews meet virtual reality: Effects on consumer hotel booking," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    10. McLelland, Melinda A. & Foster, Jamye, 2015. "Reactions of the jilted consumer," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 53-60.
    11. Williams, Martin & Buttle, Francis, 2011. "The Eight Pillars of WOM management: Lessons from a multiple case study," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 85-92.
    12. Relling, Marleen & Schnittka, Oliver & Sattler, Henrik & Johnen, Marius, 2016. "Each can help or hurt: Negative and positive word of mouth in social network brand communities," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 42-58.
    13. Koert Van Ittersum, 2012. "The effect of decision makers’ time perspective on intention–behavior consistency," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 263-277, March.
    14. Ali Rfieda, 2013. "Investigating Factors that affecting the Continued use of Internet Banking: Case Study of Libya," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 5(7), pages 313-323.
    15. Philipp Wunderlich & Andreas Größler & Nicole Zimmermann & Jac A. M. Vennix, 2014. "Managerial influence on the diffusion of innovations within intra-organizational networks," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 30(3), pages 161-185, July.
    16. Takumi Kato, 2022. "Demand Prediction in the Automobile Industry Independent of Big Data," Annals of Data Science, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 249-270, April.
    17. Nguyen, Cathy & Faulkner, Margaret & Yang, Song & Williams, John & Tong, Luqiong, 2022. "Mind the gap: Understanding the gap between intentions and behaviour in the charity context," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 216-224.
    18. Junjie Lv & Zichen Wang & Yuqing Huang & Tong Wang & Yuanzhuo Wang, 2020. "How Can E-Commerce Businesses Implement Discount Strategies through Social Media?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-19, September.
    19. Pescher, Christian & Reichhart, Philipp & Spann, Martin, 2014. "Consumer Decision-making Processes in Mobile Viral Marketing Campaigns," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 43-54.
    20. Agnieszka Bitkowska & Joanna Moczydłowska & Krystyna Leszczewska & Karol Karasiewicz & Joanna Sadkowska & Beata Żelazko, 2022. "Young Consumers’ Perceptions of Family Firms and Their Purchase Intentions—The Polish Experience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-19, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ddj:fserec:y:2016:p:525-530. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gianina Mihai (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fegalro.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.