Analysis of Factors Affecting Agricultural Organic Products Diffusion Among Consumers: Perception of Extension Workers pdf

World Applied Sciences Journal 6 (3): 331-338, 2009
ISSN 1818-4952
© IDOSI Publications, 2009
Corresponding Author: Seyyed Mahmoud Hashemi, Department of Agricultural Extension and Education,
College of Agricultural Economics and Development, University of Tehran, Iran
331
Analysis of Factors Affecting Agricultural Organic Products Diffusion Among
Consumers: Perception of Extension Workers
Ali Asadi, Morteza Akbari, Aboulghasem Sharifzadeh and Seyyed Mahmoud Hashemi
1 1 2 1
Department of Agricultural Extension and Education,
1
College of Agricultural Economics and Development, University of Tehran, Iran
Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Iran
2
Abstract: Decades ago, agrochemicals were introduced aiming at enhancing crop yields and at protecting crops
from pests. Due to adaptation and resistance developed by pests to chemicals, every year higher amounts and
new chemical compounds are used to protect crops, causing undesired side effects and raising the costs of
food production. The main purpose of this study was to explore factors affecting agricultural organic products
(AOP) diffusion among Iranian consumers. A survey of 289 extension workers was conducted in Iran. To collect
data, a questionnaire was designed. The study found that TV & radio were the most important AOP information
delivery methods. Also results of exploratory factor analysis revealed that four factors determined about
59 percent of variations in diffusion of AOP: institutional (22.36 percent), cultural (16.28 percent), economic
(10.24 percent) and production (9.81percent).
Key words: Agricultural Organic Products (AOP) % Extension Workers % Perception % Diffusion % Iran
INTRODUCTIN Stobbelaar et al., [16] organic products is food produced
Agriculture is an important economic sector in containing artificial coloring, flavoring or aromatic
developing countries such as Iran [1]. In the past substances, preservatives, or genetically modified
two decades, growing environmental awareness in ingredients.
combination with concerns about safer foods have led Consumer actions regarding organic products stem
people to question modern agricultural practices [2]. In from attitudes that in turn linked to a complex set of ideas,

response to concerns about conventional agricultural motivations and experiences [17]. Most of previous
practices, food safety, human health concerns, [3-5] studies concluded that consumers purchase organic
and environmental safety [6-9] interests in organically products because of a perception that such products are
produced foods is increasing throughout the world. safer, healthier and more environmental friendly than
These concerns along with observed organic consumer conventionally produced alternatives [18].
behavior has led to emergence of various groups of Those studies designate how consumers perceive the
organic consumers, namely environmentalists, food organic concept, examining issues related to the demand
phobic's, healthy eaters, humanists, welfare enthusiasts for organic products, consumer attitudes and the factors
and hedonists [10]. that facilitate or hinder the acceptance of these
The most common definitions of an organically products. The organic purchasing motives should be
produced food emphasize product practices and attribute to some environmental, ethical, quality, health
principles used and the ‘organic philosophy’ [11-13] consciousness and exploratory products buying
Thus, while some definitions highlight dimensions such behavior, as well as to specific products attributes such
as ‘bio- fair’ or ‘natural product systems’ [13] and ‘green’ as nutrition, value, taste and price [6, 7, 10, 19-21].
or ‘environmental friendliness’ [14], others emphasize the Other consumer surveys demonstrate that, the major
limited use of artificial chemicals in organic products motive for buying organic products seems to be health-
[12], or its general philosophy [15]. According to related [5,7,22-36]. Environmental concerns are apparently
without artificial fertilizer or chemical pesticides, nor
World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009
332
not as strong a motive as health [5, 7, 32, 33]. German whereas old consumers were more influenced by
consumers, for example, were very concerned about considerations for their own health [8]. Previous research
health and food safety [37]. Brunsoe [38] and Brunsoe shows that women tend to be more interested in organic
and Bredahl [39] compare consumer segments in various products than men [8, 33] and that people with higher
European countries and show that German consumers are education seem to be more willing to pay more for organic
more interested in organic food than Danish consumers. products [8, 31].
Several studies evaluated consumers' willingness to The result of Zhou and Chen [49] showed that
pay, most often based on interviews. For a review, 56 percent of the consumers had heard about organic
Thompson [40] or Wier and Calverley [41], Based on products from TV, 47 percent learned about organic
consumers' own statements [22, 42-45] and Jolly [31] point products from magazines, 23 percent through internet,

to high price premiums to be one of the most important 16 percent obtain the information from supermarket,
reasons for not buying organic foods. Jolly [31], found 10 percent had the knowledge from friends and 5 percent
that consumers were willingness to pay a 37% price obtain the organic food information from other channels.
premium for organic products in the USA. By comparison, Because most of previous researches in organic attitude
Goldman and Glancy [46] reported that a third of rely upon consumers not on extension workers [50-52],
respondents in a New York survey were willingness to hence this study was aimed to provide some important
pay a 100% price premium for a residue free product. information and implication for policy making through
Ekelund [47] found that about 55% of respondents in analysis of extension workers' perception of AOP and
Sweden were willingness to pay 25% above a regular, some other related topics which are crucial to adopt these
conventionally grown product price, with another 26% products by consumers.
of organic buyers’ willingness to pay 50% more.
Overall, most consumers are not willingness to pay a Purpose and Objectives: The main purpose of this
price premium higher than 10-20 percent. Yet, analysis study was to explore factors affecting AOP diffusion
of specific organic products markets across countries among consumers.
suggests substantially higher actual price mark-ups.
Turco [48], for example, reported organic price premiums Of Interest Were To:
ranging from 10% to as high as 100% depending on the
country. C Describe extension workers' perception of AOP,
Demographic variables such as age, marital status, C Identify important methods and places to supply
number and age of children and educational attainment AOP
might be important variables in explaining and predicting
consumer demand for organic products. Estimates of habit MATERIALS AND METHODS
persistence linked to age and household composition
might also be important for measuring the potential Selection of Sample: The statistical population of the
growth of organic foods and income [40]. Income seems study consisted of all the Iranian agricultural extension
to be the most influential factor to demand for organic workers (N = 2000). Applying stratified random sampling
products, although there were significant exceptions from technique, 289 extension workers from five provinces were
households of certain types of individuals that have selected. (This value was derived through computing
strong personal ideologies enforcing commitments to Cochran's formula).
organic products [40]. All of these studies make it difficult

to draw a concrete image of the individuals that demand Instrument: To collect data on extension workers'
organic products. While it was obvious that the variables attitudes of AOP, a questionnaire was designed.
such as income, age, gender, marital status, education, The questionnaire contained three sections: section 1
household size and store preference play roles in the pertained to general demographic and professional
demand for organic products, it is unknown exactly how variables of the respondents like age, experience, gender
large of a role they play and how they interact with one and educational level. section 2 was designed to identify
another. Wandel and Bugge [8] have demonstrated age the most important AOP information delivery methods to
differences with respect to purchase motives. Young diffuse AOP using 7 items and section 3 was designed to
consumers appear to base their choice of organic describe extension workers' perceptions of AOP diffusion
products more on considerations for the environment, using 18 items which are rated on a five point continuum
World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009
333
ranging ‘‘strongly disagree, disagree, No opinion, agree,
strongly agree. and several independent items to collect
data on respondents' perceptions and knowledge of AOP,
their knowledge of AOP attributes,the most important
places and delivery methods for AOP marketing and at the
end of the questionnaire space was left for subjects’ extra
thoughts.
The questionnaire was found to have content and
face validity by a panel of experts consisting of
faculty members of Tehran University Departments of
Agricultural Extension and Education and food science.
The initial questionnaire was pilot tested among extension
workers out of the study sampling framework (in Tehran
by 30 respondents) to analyze the reliability of each item.
Questionnaire reliability was tested using Cronbach
alpha which is derived from the average correlations
of all the items on the scale (Rodeghier, 1996). The results
indicated that the reliability coefficient was acceptable

(alpha = 0.92).
Data Analysis: Data was analyzed using descriptive
and inferential statistics including frequencies,
percentage, mean score, median, factor analysis and
T-test and so forth.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Characteristics of Respondents: As shown in Table 1
the sample used in the present study were 185 men
(64percent) and 90 women (31.1percent). The mean age
was about 27 years. The vast majority of respondents had
bachelor degrees (83.7 percent) and about 16 percent hold
master or PhD degrees.
Extension Workers' Knowledge of Chemical Products
and AOP: Table 3 presents the extension workers'
knowledge of chemical products. The vast majority of
respondents rated their knowledge level as "intermediate
or higher levels"(90.6 percent) and only 27 respondents
(9.3 percent) rated their knowledge level as below
intermediate level.
In the term of knowledge of AOP, 42 percent of
respondents rated their knowledge level as "intermediate"
and knowledge of about 20 and 38 percent of respondents
was below and above intermediate level, respectively
(Table 4).
Extension Workers' Perceptions Towards AOP Types:
To describe Extension workers' perceptions towards the
importance of different types of organic products in Iran
Table 1: Total respondents by province
Province Frequency Percentage
Tehran 39 13.5

Fars 75 26.0
East Azerbaijan 82 28.4
Esfahan 53 18.3
Mazandaran 40 13.8
Total 289 100.0
Table 2: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Variables Frequency Percentage
Age
21-30 161 55.7
31-40 72 24.9
41-50 22 7.6
51 and above 34 11.8
Total Mean=27 289 100.0
Table 3: Extension workers' knowledge of chemical products
Knowledge Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage
Very low 9 3.1 3.1
Low 18 6.2 9.3
Intermediate 77 26.6 36.0
High 120 41.5 77.5
Very high 60 22.5 100
Table 4: Extension workers' knowledge of AOP
Awareness level Frequency Percent Cumulative percent
Very low 16 5.6 5.6
Low 21 14.2 19.8
Intermediate 121 42.00 61.8
High 94 32.6 94.4
Very high 17 5.6 100
(in near future), respondents were requested to
assess the importance of these products using a five
point Likert-type scale from 1 to 5 ranging from very

low(1) to very high(2). As shown in Table 5, the most
important AOP types were organic fruits followed by
organic animal products, cereal, vegetable and fishery
products.
Types of AOP Information Delivery Methods: Results
showed that 34.16 percent of respondents (who were
aware of AOP) used TV and radio for obtaining AOP
information and contribution of magazines, web-based
information, colleagues and friends, books and other
types of information delivery was 17.24, 17.2, 17.92 and
13.48 percent of total used information delivery methods,
respectively.
World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009
334
Table 5: Importance of different types of organic products in Iran as Table 7: Ranking AOP attributes
perceived by the respondents
AOP types F Mean S.D C.V Rank
Fruits 279 3.81 1.55 0.357 1 Safety 96.5 3.5
Animal products 2825 3.68 1.26 0.391 2 Availability 85.1 14.9
Cereal 280 3.48 1.43 0.407 3 Appearance 71.8 28.2
vegetable 271 3.46 1.35 0.410 4 Color 71.7 28.2
Fishery products 258 2.50 1.89 0.753 5 Price 65.6 34.4
Table 6: Ranking Preferred information delivery methods for promoting
AOP consumption in society
Information
Delivery methods Frequency Mean S.D C.V Rank Method Frequency Mean S.D C.V
TV and radio 275 4.86 0.45 0.093 1 Special labels 259 4.46 0.78 0.17
Internal contact 273 3.86 0.93 0.240 2 Special packages 282 4.17 0.86 0.21
Poster and tracts 278 3.91 0.97 0.248 3
Workshop 275 3.54 1.02 0.289 4

Magazine 274 3.45 1.02 0.297 5
web-based information 275 3.45 1.06 0.308 6
Newspaper 278 3.95 1.87 0.475 7
Preferred AOP Information Delivery Methods: The
respondents were asked to express their views on the
importance of different information delivery methods to
use for making awareness of AOP among potential
consumers. Table 7 shows TV and radio was considered
as the most important AOP delivery method. Meanwhile,
web-based information and newspaper were determined
as the least important AOP delivery method
Extension Workers' Perception of AOP Attributes: To
determine the most important attributes of organic
products, respondents asked to indicate important
attributes of AOP (Table 9). It was found that flavor
was mentioned as the most important factor, followed
by safety, availability and appearance and so on (Table 9).
AOP Supply: The respondents were asked to express
their views on the importance of different AOP delivery
methods. Table 8 shows using special labels and
packages for AOP were selected as the most important
AOP delivery methods. On the other hand, Identified
Special markets and Selling AOP at the same place
compared to conventional products were determined as
the most important AOP delivery places.
Factors Affecting the AOP Diffusion: A series of
exploratory factor analyses (SPSS ) were conducted
11.5
using the 18 variables with Varimax as a rotation method
and Eigen values greater than 1 as a cut-off point for the

Attribute Important Unimportant
Flavor 97.2 2.8
Package quality 56.3 43.7
Size 48.8 51.2
Table 8: Ranking different AOP delivery methods as reported by respondents
Place
Identified Special markets 283 4.00 0.98 0.24
Selling AOP at the same place
compared to conventional products 279 3.64 1.09 0.30
Farmers markets 275 3.64 1.13 0.31
Roadside stand (local mass supply) 277 2.94 1.20 0.41
Chain supermarkets 280 4.33 3.19 0.74
Table 9: Extracted Factors, Eigen value, variance percentage and
Cumulative percentage of Effective Factors in AOP diffusion
Factor Eigen value Percentage Cumulative percentage
1 4.70 22.36 22.36
2 3.41 16.26 38.62
3 2.25 10.74 49.35
4 2.06 9.81 59.17
number of factors extracted. The analyses eventually
resulted in the selection of a four-factor solution based on
17 out of the 18 initial variables. These factors accounted
for a total of 59.17 percent of the total variance explained
by the model. Items in this four-factor solution loaded
higher than 0.60 on each factor (except three – 0.50, 0.53
and 0.56). Cronbach’s alpha reliability tests also showed
increased reliability, with values.0.92. KMO value was
0.91 and Bartlet statistic was significant at 1% level,
which implies appropriateness of extracted variables for
factor analysis. Extracted factors, Eigen value, variance

percentage and Cumulative percentage have shown in
Table 11.
The Four Factors, Which Extracted, Are as Follows
Factor 1: 22.36 percent of the total variance explained,
comprising the following 6 variables as important AOP
diffusion criteria: legally formulating and approving
national food safety standards with special consideration


AOP diffusion 59.17

Institutional
dimension
22.36

Cultural
dimension
16.28

Production
dimension
9.81

Economical
dimension
10.74

World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009
335
of AOP production and consumption; establishing

national organization of AOP producers and consumers;
building national polices for developing AOP chains
including production, processing, marketing and
consumption; legally limit and control chemical and non-
natural inputs in agricultural production chains;
establishing appropriate mechanisms for marketing of
AOP through an AOP supply supermarkets, networks;
and coordinating governmental bodies (different
ministries, such as Agriculture, Health and Medical
Education, Commerce, etc) and other stakeholders in
process of production, marketing, trade. This factor is
named "Institutional arrangements/ Institutional
dimension ". Loadings ranged from 0.50 to 0.83.
Factor 2: 16.28 percent of the total variance explained,
comprising the following six variables: to publish and to
deliver extension materials on AOP to families; Integrating
specific syllabus related to food safety and importance of
AOP production and consumption in related curriculum of
formal and informal education institutions; Appropriate
Public advertisement of AOP through public media such
as Seda _va_ Sima (National Iranian TV and Radio
Organization) and public newspapers; Organize a national
information movement (based on information and
communication and information technologies) aimed at
increasing public awareness about usefulness of AOP;
Training and persuading opinion leaders and social actors
(teachers, extension workers, workers, NGOs members,
etc.) to promote culture of AOP consumption in society;
and Allocating one day or week per year to AOP or safe
food based on AOP consumption as a symbolic cultural

affair. This factor is named "Pro –APO awareness and
cultural building / Cultural dimension". Loadings ranged
from 0.56 to 0.75.
Factor 3: 10.74 percent of the total variance explained,
comprising the following three variables: Allocating
subsidies and other incentives to production of AOP,
Facilitating private sector entrepreneurial investment
in production and market chains of AOP and
Appropriate pricing of AOP with coordination of
producers, consumers and other stakeholders or their
representatives. This factor is named “Economics
affairs and financial facilitating / Economics dimension”.
Loadings range from 0.61 to 0.74.
Factor 4: 9.81 percent of the total variance explained,
comprising the following two variables: Developing
awareness of agricultural producers about pesticides
Fig. 1: AOP extension process as a multidimensional
process
effect on public health and national food safety and
food healthy and Promoting suitable technologies
and facilities for AOP production and processing in
line with sustainable (low-external input or organic)
agriculture. This factor is named “Production
enhancement/ Production dimension”. Loadings ranged
from 0.55 to 0.75.
CONCLUSION
It seems developing organic products is an effective
mechanism to achieve food safety and public health. In
addition, organic products are along with sustainable
agricultural development. Organic products are produced

without the use of conventional pesticides and artificial
fertilizers. Facilitating AOP diffusion is a multidimensional
process which consisted of several components, such as
production, processing, marketing and so on.
Indeed, different stakeholders plays effective role
during diffusion of AOP in society. Among involved
stakeholders, extension workers as multi-disciplinary
professionals can provide important information about
effective factors in AOP diffusion in society. Almost all
extension workers involved in this research had heard
about organic food. Although their Knowledge is about
disadvantages of pesticides and fertilizers are high, but
their knowledge of AOP was at the intermediate level.
There is more information need on the hazard
identification and characterization as well as on the intake
of food processing and food packaging chemicals with a
special attention to recycled materials (paper, cardboard)
that used preferentially in the AOP system. In this order,
publishing extension materials about AOP and delivering
them to families could be effective mechanism for
increasing public knowledge of AOP usefulness.
Mass media such as radio and particularly TV, with
offering these programs, help to presentation of these
products to people [49]. Thus, as this research finding
World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009
336
explains, organizing a national information movement, 2. Akbari, M. and A. Asadi, 2008. A comparative
based on information and communication and information
technologies, seems as an appropriate mechanism to
increase public knowledge of AOP usefulness.

The results of factor analysis showed that, the first
and the major effective factor in AOP diffusion is
Institutional factors. Therefore, planners and policy
makers must make facilities such as a long term preset. In
addition, they must indicate distinct places for selling of
these products and correspondingly prepare themselves
for citizen’s education in this way.
It is important for the consumers, to be well informed
on the actual content in residues for these various
products methods. This holds not only for nitrates and
pesticides (being synthetic or natural) but also for other
relevant toxicants such as bio toxins and environmental
contaminants. It also recommends collecting more
information on the occurrence and toxicity of pesticides,
herbicides and other natural toxicants that could be
relevant to the consumer’s health and adapt the
monitoring programs.
Finally, these research findings indicate diffusion
of AOP is being as an important mechanism to
enhance food safety in society. The extension of
AOP is a multi-dimensional process that includes
different components, such as production, marketing,
social awareness building, monitoring, institutional
supporting, etc. Definitely, any planning aimed at
promoting AOP production and consumption require
considering different mentioned dimensions of AOP
extension based on collaboration and coordination of
stakeholders.
ACKNOWLEDGEMNT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the scientific

board members of the Department of Agricultural
Extension and Education, Tehran University for their
valuable insights and guidance for carrying out this study
and compiling the questionnaire of the study.
REFERENCES
1. Nooripoor, M. M. Shahvali and K. Zarafshani,
2008. Integration of Communication Media For
Horticultural Sustainability:The Application of
Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM),
American-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci.,
3(1): 137-147.
study of Iranian consumers’ versus Extension
Experts’ attitudes towards Agricultural organic
products (AOP). American J. Agricul. Biological Sci.,
3(3): 551-558.
3. Gregory, N.G., 2000. Consumer concerns about food.
Outlook on Agriculture, 29(4): 251-257.
4. Grossman, M., 1972. On the concept of health
capital and the demand for health. Journal of Political
Economy, 80(2): 223-255.
5. Schifferstein, H.N.J. and P.A.M. Oude Ophuis,
1998. Health-related determinants of organic food
consumption in the Netherlands. Food Quality and
Preference, 9(3): 119-133.
6. Grunert, S.C. and H.J. Juhl, 1995. Values,
environmental attitudes and buying of organic foods.
J. Economic Psychology, 16(1): 63-72.
7. Tregear, A., J.B. Dent and M.J. McGregor, 1994. The
demand for organically grown produce. British Food
J., 96(4): 21-25.

8. Wandel, M. and A. Bugge, 1997. Environmental
concerns in consumer evaluation of food quality.
Food Quality and Preferences, 8(1): 19-26.
9. Wilkins, J.L. and V.N. Hillers, 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,
26(1): 26-33.
10. Davies, A., A.J. Tittering ton and C. Cochrane, 1995.
Who buys organic food? A profile of the purchasers
of organic in Northern Ireland. British Food Journal.
97(10): 7-23.
11. Bourn, D. and J. Prescott, 2002. A comparison of the
nutritional value, sensory qualities and food safety
of organically and conventionally produced foods.
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition,
42(1): 1-34.
12. Food and Agricultural Organization, 1999. Organic
Agriculture. unfao/bodies/
COAG/ COAG15/X0075E.htm.
13. Klonsky, K. and L. Tourte, 1998. Organic
agricultural production in the United States: Debates
and directions. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 80(5): 1119-1124.
14. Goldman, M.C. and W. Hylton, 1972. The Basic Book
of Organically Grown Foods. Erasmus, Pennsylvania,
Rodale Press.
World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009
337

15. Torjusen, Nyberg and Wandel, 1999. Organic 27. Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte, 1992. Going organic -
Food; Consumers’ Perceptions and Dietary Choices.
SIFO-Report No. 5-1999. www.sifo. No/ English /
publications /environment.
16. Stobbelaar, D.J., G. Casimir, J. Orghuis, I. Marks,
L. Meijer and S. Zebeda, 2006. Adolescents’ attitudes
towards organic food: a survey of 15- to 16-year old
school children. International Journal of Consumer
Studies ISSN 1470-6431. Journal compilation © 2006
Blackwell Publishing Ltd, International Journal of
Consumer Studies.
17. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen, 1975. Belief, Attitude,
Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory
and Research. J. Wiley and Sons: New York, USA.
18. Krissoff, B., 1998. Emergence of U.S. organic
agriculture - can we compete? American Journal of
Agricultural Economics. 80(5): 1130-1133.
19. Roddy, G., C. Cowan and G. Hutchinson, 1996.
Consumer attitudes and behavior to Organic foods in
Ireland. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing. 9(2): 1-19.
20. Zotos, Y., P. Ziamou and E. Tsakiridou, 1999.
"Marketing organically produced food products
in Greece", Greener Management International,
25: 91-104.
21. Browne, A.W., P.J.C. Harris, A.H. Hofny-Collins,
N. Pasiecznic and R.R. Wallace, 2000. "Organic
production and ethical trade: definition, practice and
links", Food Policy, 25: 69-89.
22. CMA. 1996. Einstellungen und Marktschatzungen

aus Verbrauchersicht zu “alternativen
Nahrungsmitteln/ Biokost/ Ökoprodukten”
insbesondere zu Obst und Gemüse. MAFO-Briefe.
Bestell-Nr. K 621, Centrale Marketing-Gesellschaft
der deutschen Agrarwirtschaft, Bonn.
23. Meier-Ploeger, A., W. Merkle, I. Mey and F. Wörner,
1996. Stärkung des Verbrauchs ökologischer
Lebensmittel. Hessisches Ministerium des Innern
und für Landwirtschaft, Forsten und Naturschutz,
Wiesbaden.
24. Sylvander, B., 1995. Conventions on Quality in the
Fruit and Vegetables Sector: Results on the Organic
Sector, Acta Horticulture, 340: 241-246.
25. Infood, 1998. Kvalitativ analyse af forbrugernes
holdninger til økologiske fødevarer,
web/infood/.
26. Land, B., 1998. Consumers´ Dietary Patterns and
Desires for Change, MAPP Working paper, No.31,
Roskilde University, Roskilde.
The Future for Organic Food and Drink Products in
the UK, Birmingham, UK.
28. Byrne, P.J., J.R. Bacon and U.C. Toensmeyer, 1994.
“Pesticide Residue Concerns and Shopping Location
Likelihood”, Agribusiness, 10: 491-501.
29. Huang, C.L., 1996. Consumer preferences and
attitudes towards organically grown produce.
European Rev. Agricul. Econom., 23(3-4): 331-342.
30. Huang, C.L., S. Misra and S.L. Ott, 1990. Modeling
Consumer Risk Perception and Choice Behavior: The
Case of Chemical Residues in Fresh Produce”, in

Mayer, R.N (ed.), Enhancing Consumer Choice,
Proceedings of the Second International Conference
on Research in the Consumer Interest, Snowbird,
Utah, USA, August, 1990, American Council on
Consumer Interests, Columbia, Missouri, USA.
31. Jolly, D., 1991. `Differences between buyers and
no buyers of organic produce and willingness
to pay organic price premiums, J. Agribusiness,
9(1): 97-111.
32. Von Alvensleben, R., 1998. ``Eco fair aspects of food
demand: the case of organic food in Germany, AIR-
CAT 4th Plenary Meeting: Health, Ecofair and Safety
Aspects in Food Choice, 4(1): 68-79.
33. Mathisson, K. and A. Schollin, 1994.
Konsumentaspekter pae ekologiskt odlade groe
nsaker ± enjaÈ mfoÈrande studied (Consumer
aspects on organic vegetables ± a comparative
study), Report No. 18, Department of Crop
Production Sciences, Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences.
34. Carboni, R., M. Vassallo, P. Conforti and
A. D’Amicis, 2000. Indagine sulle attitudinal di
consume, la disponibilita` a pagare e la certificazione
dei prodotti biologici: spunti di riflessione e
commento dei risultati scaturiti. La Rivista Italiana di
Scienza dell’Alimentazione, 29(3): 12-21.
35. Rodríguez, E., 2005. The domestic and foreing
markets of organic products in Argentina. Executive
Summary presented to the International Workshop
“How can the poor benefit from the growing markets

for high value agricultural products?” CIAT, Cali,
Colombia, October 2005.
36. Rodríguez, E., 2006. El Mercado de alimentos
orgánicos. Producción y consumo de los principales
productos argentinos. Elsa M. Rodríguez (Comp.).
Prólogo. En: Editorial Universitaria de Mar del Plata
(EUDEM). Serie Tramas. ISBN-10: 987-544-195-3
ISBN-13: 978-987-544-195-3.
World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009
338
37. Kafka, C. and R. Von Alvensleben, 1998. 46. Goldman, B.J. and K.L. Clancy, 1991. A survey of
Consumer Perceptions of Food-Related Hazards organic produce purchases and related attitudes of
and the Problem of Risk Communication, food cooperative shoppers. American Journal of
http:// www. Unkiel. De:8080/ Agraroekonomie/ Alternative Agriculture, 6(2): 89-96.
Abteilungen/ agrarmarketing. 47. Ekelund, L., 1990. Vegetable consumption and
38. Brunsoe, K., 1996. Fodevarerelaterede livsstil - consumer attitudes towards organically grown
udvikling af et male instrument til marked vegetables – the case of Sweden. Acta Horticulture.
sovervagning af forbruger for fodevareindustrien. 259: 163-172.
PhD dissertation, MAPP center, Aarhus School of 48. Turco, G., 2002. Organic Food-An Opportunity, at
Business, Aarhus. Who’s Expense? Industry Note. Food and
39. Brunsoe, K. and L. Bredahl, 1997. Agribusiness Research, Rabobank International,
”Fødevarerelaterede livsstil i forskellige europæiske Sydney. www.rabobank.com/ attachments/ in 043
kulturer”, Dansk Sociologi, 8: 23-35. 2002.
40. Thompson, G.D., 1998. Consumer demand for organic 49. Zhou, L. and T. Chen, 2007. Consumer Perception of
foods: What we know and what we need to know. Organic Food in Urumqi. Contributed Paper prepared
American J. Agricul. Econom., 80(5): 1113-1118. for presentation at the 5th Seminar ‘International
41. Wier, M. and C. Calverley, 2002. Market potential for Marketing and International Trade of Quality Food
organic foods in Europe, British Food Journal, Products’ Bologna, Italy, March 8-10, 2007.
104(1): 45-62. 50. Hutchins, R.K. and L.A. Greenhalgh, 1997. Organic
42. Fricke, A. and R. Von Alvensleben, 1997. “Consumer Confusion: Sustaining Competitive Advantage,

Attitudes towards Organic Food and an Application British Food Journal, 99(9): 336-338.
of Cohort Analysis - 1984 - 1989 – 1994”. Working 51. Fotopoulos, C. and A. Krystallis, 2001. Defining the
Paper No. 1, Lehrstuhl für Agrarmarketing, Christian- organic consumer and his willingness to pay for
Albrechts University, Kiel. selected food products in Greece, paper presented at
43. Kramer, A., B. Harting and S. Stadtfeld, 1998. the 51st International Atlantic Economic Society
Siegeszug der “Bio-Lebensmittel” im Handel? Conference, Athens and March, pp: 13-20.
52. Fotopoulos, C., A. Krystallis and M. Ness, 2003.
44. Haest, C., 1990. “From Farmer to Shelf: Trade of "Wine produced by organic grapes in Greece: using
Organically Grown Products”, Ecology and Farming, means-end chains analysis to reveal organic buyers'
1: 9-11. purchasing motives in comparison with the non-
45. Hack, M.D., 1995. “Organically Grown Products: buyers", Food Quality and Preference, 14(7): 549-66.
Perception, Preferences and Motives of Dutch
Consumers”, Acta Horticulture, 340: 247-253.