IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i4p1281-d142477.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Acceptance of Food Technologies, Perceived Values and Consumers’ Expectations towards Bread. A Survey among Polish Sample

Author

Listed:
  • Marta Sajdakowska

    (Department of Organization and Consumption Economics, Faculty of Human Nutrition and Consumer Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW-WULS), 159 C Nowoursynowska Street, 02-766 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Maria Królak

    (Department of Organization and Consumption Economics, Faculty of Human Nutrition and Consumer Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW-WULS), 159 C Nowoursynowska Street, 02-766 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Witold Zychowicz

    (Department of Agricultural and Forest Machinery, Faculty of Production Engineering, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS-SGGW), 166 Nowoursynowska Street, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Marzena Jeżewska-Zychowicz

    (Department of Organization and Consumption Economics, Faculty of Human Nutrition and Consumer Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW-WULS), 159 C Nowoursynowska Street, 02-766 Warsaw, Poland)

Abstract

The aims of the study were to identify the perceptions about the technologies that are used to increase the nutritional value of cereal products, and to evaluate relations between consumers’ perceptions of them, expected changes to bread, and the perceived values. Quantitative data was collected through computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPI) within a sample of 1000 Polish adults. Clustering method was used to identify homogeneous groups based on opinions on the technologies used in the production of cereals and cereal products. Neutral attitudes towards technologies were presented in the sample with relatively greater acceptance of traditional crossbreeding of varieties and enrichment processes. Nevertheless, three homogeneous clusters were identified: technological sceptics (33.6%), technological traditionalists (15.0%) and technological enthusiasts (51.4%). Technological traditionalists appreciated the naturalness of food, tradition, natural environment, quality of life and health more than the other clusters. Perceiving themselves as a person valuing tradition and quality of life was associated with belonging to the technological sceptics. Both sceptics and traditionalists declared greater fears resulting from the application of new technologies in food production, including threats to the environment, health, naturalness of food and quality of life. Technological enthusiasts were anticipating more changes in bread. The differences among the clusters, including perceived values, require communication that is adapted to the profile of the consumers. The results can be useful for bread manufacturers to predict the demand and deliver against it and for marketers who are responsible for the process of effective product labelling and communication in order to meet the consumer needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Marta Sajdakowska & Maria Królak & Witold Zychowicz & Marzena Jeżewska-Zychowicz, 2018. "Acceptance of Food Technologies, Perceived Values and Consumers’ Expectations towards Bread. A Survey among Polish Sample," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1281-:d:142477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1281/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1281/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Govindan, Kannan, 2018. "Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: A conceptual framework," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 419-431.
    2. Sylwia Żakowska-Biemans & Agnieszka Tekień, 2017. "Free Range, Organic? Polish Consumers Preferences Regarding Information on Farming System and Nutritional Enhancement of Eggs: A Discrete Choice Based Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, November.
    3. Xianbing Liu & Jie Yang & Sixiao Qu & Leina Wang & Tomohiro Shishime & Cunkuan Bao, 2012. "Sustainable Production: Practices and Determinant Factors of Green Supply Chain Management of Chinese Companies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 1-16, January.
    4. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    5. Emilie Ginon & Youenn Lohéac & Christophe Louis Martin & Pierre Combris & Sylvie Issanchou, 2009. "Effect of fibre information on consumer willingness to pay for French baguettes," Post-Print halshs-00372807, HAL.
    6. Johannes J. Bauer, 2014. "Selection Errors of Random Route Samples," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 43(3), pages 519-544, August.
    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. Maria Królak & Hanna Górska-Warsewicz & Magdalena Mądra-Sawicka & Krystyna Rejman & Sylwia Żakowska-Biemans & Julita Szlachciuk & Maksymilian Czeczotko & Bartosz Kwiatkowski & Robert Zaremba & Michał , 2022. "Towards Sustainable Innovation in the Bakery Sector—An Example of Fibre-Enriched Bread," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, February.

    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. Shivam Goyal & Dixit Garg & Sunil Luthra, 2021. "Sustainable production and consumption: analysing barriers and solutions for maintaining green tomorrow by using fuzzy-AHP–fuzzy-TOPSIS hybrid framework," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16934-16980, November.
    2. Edward Royzman & Corey Cusimano & Robert F. Leeman, 2017. "What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 466-480, September.
    3. Prajogo, Daniel & Toy, Jordan & Bhattacharya, Ananya & Oke, Adegoke & Cheng, T.C.E., 2018. "The relationships between information management, process management and operational performance: Internal and external contexts," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 95-103.
    4. Kentaka Aruga, 2017. "Consumer responses to food produced near the Fukushima nuclear plant," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(4), pages 677-690, October.
    5. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    6. Szilvia Molnár & László Szőllősi, 2020. "Sustainability and Quality Aspects of Different Table Egg Production Systems: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, September.
    7. Ran, Tao & Yue, Chengyan & Rihn, Alicia, 2015. "Are Grocery Shoppers of Households with Weight-Concerned Members Willing to Pay More for Nutritional Information on Food?," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 46(3), pages 1-18, November.
    8. Dominic Lemken & Mandy Knigge & Stephan Meyerding & Achim Spiller, 2017. "The Value of Environmental and Health Claims on New Legume Products: A Non-Hypothetical Online Auction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-18, July.
    9. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    10. Ali Saeed Almuflih & Janpriy Sharma & Mohit Tyagi & Arvind Bhardwaj & Mohamed Rafik Noor Mohamed Qureshi & Nawaf Khan, 2022. "Leveraging the Dynamics of Food Supply Chains towards Avenues of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, June.
    11. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    12. Miao Su & Su‐Han Woo & Xiaochun Chen & Keun‐sik Park, 2023. "Identifying critical success factors for the agri‐food cold chain's sustainable development: When the strategy system comes into play," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 444-461, January.
    13. Stanley Kam Sing Wong, 2013. "Environmental Requirements, Knowledge Sharing and Green Innovation: Empirical Evidence from the Electronics Industry in China," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 321-338, July.
    14. Fan, Xiaoli & Muringai, Violet, 2018. "Effect of Information on Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Potatoes in Canada," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274073, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Ashkan Pakseresht & Brandon R McFadden & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2017. "Consumer acceptance of food biotechnology based on policy context and upstream acceptance: evidence from an artefactual field experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(5), pages 757-780.
    16. Juliane Peters & Ana Simaens, 2020. "Integrating Sustainability into Corporate Strategy: A Case Study of the Textile and Clothing Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-35, July.
    17. Luo, Na & Olsen, Tava & Liu, Yanping & Zhang, Abraham, 2022. "Reducing food loss and waste in supply chain operations," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    18. Tomasz Trojanowski, 2021. "Sustainable Environmental Management in an Energy Company: A Case Study," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3), pages 89-101.
    19. Bernard, John C. & Gifford, Katie & Santora, Kristin & Bernard, Daria J., 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Foods with Varying Production Traits and Levels of Genetically Modified Content," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 40(2), pages 1-11, July.
    20. Moreno-Miranda, Carlos & Dries, Liesbeth, 2022. "Integrating coordination mechanisms in the sustainability assessment of agri-food chains: From a structured literature review to a comprehensive framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1281-:d:142477. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.