Next Article in Journal
Geochemical Behavior of Different Chemical Elements during Weathering of the Basalts in Changbai Mountain, Northeast China
Previous Article in Journal
A Macroeconomic Review of the Factors Influencing Fruit Consumption in Romania—The Road towards Sustainability
Previous Article in Special Issue
Tunisian Consumer Quality Perception and Preferences for Dairy Products: Do Health and Sustainability Matter?
Article

Intake of Animal-Based Foods and Consumer Behaviour towards Organic Food: The Case of Nepal

1
Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK
2
Department of Management, Xavier International College, Kathmandu 44601, Nepal
3
Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Manuela Vega-Zamora
Sustainability 2021, 13(22), 12795; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212795
Received: 1 October 2021 / Revised: 10 November 2021 / Accepted: 17 November 2021 / Published: 19 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Consumers’ Preferences and Food Products)

Abstract

This study aims to segment Nepalese consumers based on the frequency of animal-based food intake and thereby the determinants of organic food purchasing behaviour to suggest possible marketing strategies for organic food suppliers. A face-to-face survey was conducted among Nepalese consumers (n = 527), underpinned by the theoretical framework, ‘theory of planned behaviour (TPB)’, and extended to include: knowledge, environmental concerns, health-consciousness, and background factors (socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics). Three segments of consumer types were identified by employing k-means segmentation: All Low (n = 113), High Dairy (n = 246), and High Dairy and Meat (n = 168). A covariance-based structural equation modelling (CB-SEM) analysis indicated that perceived behavioural control (β = 0.438, p < 0.001) was the main predictor of organic food purchasing intention, followed by attitude (β = 0.302, p < 0.001), subjective norms (β = 0.300, p < 0.001), knowledge (β = 0.211, p < 0.001), and environmental concerns (β = 0.208, p < 0.001). Health-consciousness (β = −0.034, p = 0.374) showed no significant impact on organic food purchasing intention. Organic food purchasing intention had a strong positive impact on organic food purchasing behaviour. Socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics were found to impact behavioural intention indirectly by their effects on attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, knowledge, and environmental concern. Income also had a direct impact on organic food purchasing behaviour. Further, consumers with a low intake of animal-based foods held positive attitudes towards organic food and had higher environmental concerns. The findings can be used to inform organic food producers and targeted marketing campaigns towards promoting organic food purchasing behaviour in Nepal and similar countries.
Keywords: organic food consumerism; animal-based foods; theory of planned behaviour; knowledge; environmental concern; health-consciousness; background factors organic food consumerism; animal-based foods; theory of planned behaviour; knowledge; environmental concern; health-consciousness; background factors

1. Introduction

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Agenda—2030 implemented six programs to accelerate sustainable consumption and production in every nation, one of which is through food systems [1]. Researchers argue that organic food production may positively impact the overall food system by addressing the fundamental approaches of sustainable food systems through increased efficiency, consistency, and sufficiency [2,3]. Organic food production is one of the several approaches to sustainable food production that is considered ecologically safe, economically viable, and socially acceptable [4]. It is thus widely accepted as a holistic production management system to achieve sustainable food systems [5]. Furthermore, organic foods may serve as the transition to more sustainable food consumption [6,7] and as a fundamental factor of a more sustainable diet [2,8].
In recent years, the concept of sustainable food production and consumption is emerging in Nepal, mostly through the promotion and implementation of organic agriculture. At the governmental level, organic agriculture has drawn attention as a practical way for sustainable agriculture where development and production are given a vital role in political goals. For instance, a recently formulated policy-level guiding document for the next 20 years, ‘The Agricultural Development Strategy—2014’ from the Ministry of Agricultural and Livestock Development, Government of Nepal, has pointed to the fact that “organic farming enhances environmental sustainability and contribute to biodiversity” [9]. Thus, the government increased the budget by an additional 25% in 2014 for Village Development Committees, which promote organic agriculture [10]. This might be one of the reasons that organic agricultural production in Nepal has increased considerably [11], where land use for organic agriculture was increased per annum by 26.6% from 2017 to 2020 [12]. Currently, Nepal’s organic value-chain is comprised of 1622 producers (39 were certified producers and the rest with Participatory Guarantee System operational), six processors, and one exporter, producing a total of 210 metric tonnes of organic foods annually. Further, the demand for organic food is ever-growing, especially in the urban cities, Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur, Chitwan, and Pokhara, resulting in an increased number of shops favouring organic foods, mobile marketing of organically produced commodities, and outlets with organic foods [11,12,13]. The most commonly available organic foods in the Nepali market include vegetables, fruits, coffee, honey, tea, cereals, spices, and pulses [14]. It has been roughly estimated that around four million consumers residing in Kathmandu, Bhaktapur, and Lalitpur favour organically grown produce or other organic food products [12].
A recent study among 99 Nepalese consumers found that perception over taste, nutritional value, and environmental concern significantly influenced consumers’ willingness to pay a premium price for organic vegetables [15]. However, the literature concerning Nepalese consumer beliefs of and motivation to buy organic foods remains limited. Further, the socio-demographic characteristics and perception of Nepalese consumers especially from urban cities are expected to change drastically, as Nepal has set a goal to meet the criteria set by the United Nations to graduate to a developing country by 2022. As a result, the Nepalese society is experiencing unprecedented change, and the fast-growing Nepalese middle class is driving the demand for more animal-based foods. Annually, Nepal spends more than 40 million USD on animal-based products to meet the increasing demand [16]. Thus, applying alternative theoretical approaches, such as Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour (TPB), might be beneficial for organic food practitioners, especially small-scale farmers, marketers, and retailers, to identify the key determinants of buying organic foods among Nepalese consumers. The findings from this study might be crucial to developing marketing strategies needed to accelerate the consumption of organic food in Nepal. Further, understanding consumers’ attitudes and purchasing behaviour regarding organic food might also promote more sustainable food production and consumption in Nepal. Thus, this study aims to determine the determinants of organic food purchasing behaviour through employing the TPB framework, extended with knowledge, environmental concerns, health-consciousness, and background factors (socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics). In addition, consumer segmentation was conducted based on their intake of animal-based foods to investigate its relationship with attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, environmental concern, health-consciousness, and organic food purchasing behaviour.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Theory of Planned Behaviour

The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) [17,18] is a well-known and supported framework to explain and predict the consumption of organic food [19,20,21,22,23]. Several previous studies have indicated that the three core components of human behaviour proposed by the TPB framework, namely, attitude [24,25,26], subjective norms [24,27,28,29], and perceived behavioural control [30,31], altogether lead to the formation of organic food purchasing intention. Further, behavioural intention is an immediate antecedent and the most proximal predictor of organic food purchasing behaviour [27,29]. Using the TPB framework, this study hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Attitudes will positively influence purchasing intention towards organic food.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Subjective norms will positively influence purchasing intention towards organic food.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Perceived behavioural control will positively influence purchasing intention towards organic food.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Intention to purchase organic food will positively influence organic food purchasing behaviour.

2.2. Extension of the TPB Framework

Ajzen [18] suggests that the TPB framework can be modified and extended by additional constructs or adjusting the casual path of the constructs to deepen and broaden the framework. Researchers have also argued that the TPB model might not capture all the determining determinants of a more complex behaviour, such as food choices [30,32]. Therefore, several previous studies have extended the TPB with additional constructs to improve its descriptive and predictive power [29,33]. Hence, this study is based on previous attempts of the literature to include knowledge, environmental concern, health-consciousness, and background factors in the TPB framework in the pretext of consumption of organic food in Nepal.
According to the authors of [34], the knowledge of organic food is an important determinant and the only medium through which the consumers can distinguish between organic and non-organic foods. Previous studies have noted that consumers’ knowledge of organic food had a significant influence on their intention to buy organic food [34,35,36]. Therefore, this study intended to examine:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Consumer’s organic food knowledge significantly affects their intention to purchase organic food.
In recent years, the number of environmentally conscious consumers is expanding, and consumers are more inclined towards reducing environmental issues, thus giving them a sense of being a good role model [37,38]. Organic food is perceived to have a less environmental impact and are purchased by environmentally conscious consumers [39]. Further, previous studies have found that environmental concern was the leading driver for purchasing eco-friendly products [40,41] and a significant predictor for intention to purchase organic food [29,42,43]. Based on these findings, this study intended to examine:
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Environmental concerns among consumer positively and significantly affects their intention to purchase organic food.
The authors of [44] stated that health-consciousness is “the degree to which health concerns are integrated into a person’s daily activities”. Health-consciousness is considered one of the substantial determinants for purchasing organic food as consumers perceive organic food as healthier, nutritious, and safe [45]. Previous studies have shown that health-consciousness significantly affects organic food purchasing intention [29,43,46]. Therefore, this study intended to also examine:
Hypothesis 7 (H7).
Health-consciousness among consumers positively and significantly affects their intention to purchase organic food.
Background factors, such as socio-demographic characteristics or lifestyle variables, are expected to influence attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control to indirectly influence one’s intention to perform a certain behaviour [47]. A previous study found that age, education, income, and marital status significantly influence attitudes towards organic food, and also directly influence organic food purchasing behaviour [48]. Further, consumers’ level of knowledge towards organic food [49], environmental concern and health-consciousness [50,51] relies upon their background factors. In previous studies, socio-demographic characteristics—age, income, education, marital status, and place of residence [41,52,53,54]—were significantly associated with buying behaviour towards organic foods. On the contrary, studies have indicated that age [55], gender [41], income [56,57], and education [58] had no significant association with buying behaviour towards organic foods. Further, previous studies have indicated that the level of organic food consumption is influenced by food group intake [8,59,60]. For instance, organic food users were associated with a lower intake of meat. Therefore, consistent with the TPB framework and these findings, this study intended to examine the effect of background factors (socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics) on determinants of behavioural intention (i.e., attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, knowledge, environmental concerns, health-consciousness) as well as organic food purchasing behaviour through the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 8 (H8).
Age, gender, marital status, education, income, place of residence and intake of animal-based foods would significantly affect attitudes.
Hypothesis 9 (H9).
Age, gender, marital status, education, income, place of residence and intake of animal-based foods would significantly affect subjective norms.
Hypothesis 10 (H10).
Age, gender, marital status, education, income, place of residence and intake of animal-based foods would significantly affect perceived behavioural control.
Hypothesis 11 (H11).
Age, gender, marital status, education, income, place of residence and intake of animal-based foods would significantly affect knowledge.
Hypothesis 12 (H12).
Age, gender, marital status, education, income, place of residence and intake of animal-based foods would significantly affect environmental concerns.
Hypothesis 13 (H13).
Age, gender, marital status, education, income, place of residence and intake of animal-based foods would significantly affect health-consciousness.
Hypothesis 14 (H14).
Age, gender, marital status, education, income, place of residence and intake of animal-based foods would significantly affect behaviour towards purchasing organic food.
All in all, based on the above discussion, a proposed TPB-extended model (Figure 1) was developed.

3. Methods and Materials

3.1. Data Collection

A face-to-face survey was conducted by two trained interviewers among Nepalese consumers residing in three urban cities of Nepal, Kathmandu, Lalitpur, and Bhaktapur. To determine the appropriate sample size from the selected cities, G Power software [61] was used. A minimum sample size required for the intention to purchase organic food construct was 123 for a minimum power of 0.90 and effect size of 0.15. Thus, a systematic random sampling pattern was employed by approaching every third consumer coming to farmers’ markets, outlets, and supermarkets having an organic food section. Data were collected between January and March 2021 (one month in each city). The inclusion criteria for participation were the age range of 18–65 years old, having previously bought organic food, and being willing to participate. Participants younger than 18 years and older than 65 years, who had not previously bought organic food and were not willing to participate were excluded from the survey. In case the consumer did not fulfil the inclusion criteria, the next immediate consumer was approached. Participants were made aware of the time needed (approximately 8 to 10 min), and written informed consent was obtained before completing the survey. This study examined non-response bias by comparing early and late responders (i.e., by selecting the first and last 50 observations) by employing the Mann–Whitney U test. The results indicated no significant difference in the research variables between early and late responders (p-value ranged from 0.053 for knowledge to 0.955 for health-consciousness). Therefore, non-response bias does not contribute to bias in this study [62].

3.2. Questionnaire and Measurement of Variables

The questionnaire was developed in English and then translated into the Nepali language. The translation and cross-cultural adaptation process by the Ref. [63] was followed, except for the back-translation. The authors of the Ref. [64] suggested that back-translation can be avoided if it does not have added benefits compared with an expert committee review. Initially, two independent translators translated the English version into Nepali. An expert committee that included the initial translators, one expert in consumer research, one professor in marketing, and one consumer interested in organic food further reviewed the translated questionnaire and, after the consensus, a pre-final version was prepared. Finally, the pre-final version was pre-tested among 20 organic food consumers to check for consistency, layout, and understanding to produce the Nepali version of the questionnaire.
The questionnaire was organized into two sections. The first part consisted of questions about the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, including age (≤20 years, 21–30, 31–40, 41–50, ≥51), gender (male, female), marital status (single, partner, married with children, or others), education (school, intermediate, bachelor’s, masters and above, or others), and income (NPR 0–10,000, 10,001–40,000, 40,001–70,000, 70,001–100,000, ≥100,001, or no statement).
The second section consisted of questions about the respondent’s frequency of intake of meat, fish, dairy, and egg per week measured using a 9-point scale, ranging from 1 as never, to 9 as more than 6 times per day. Thereafter, respondents reported their degree of agreement with the items measuring constructs of the proposed TPB-extended model (attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, knowledge, environmental concerns, health-consciousness, and intention). Table 1 briefly presents the items measuring the constructs of the proposed TPB-extended model and their source of adoption. A five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 as “strongly disagree” to 5 as “strongly agree” was used to evaluate the items measuring the constructs of the proposed TPB-extended model. Behaviour (frequency of organic food purchases) was measured by the following item: “How often do you purchase organically grown produce or other organic food products?”, ranging from 1 as never, to 6 as all the time.

3.3. Data Analysis

Data were manually entered into the IBM SPSS software for statistical analysis. All reversed scales were recorded in the same direction. Data were screened for assumptions of outliers through Cook’s Distance, and Normality through the skewness and kurtosis index. Responses with Cook’s Distance Values above 1 were removed from the study [73]. Further, a value of skewness below ±3 and a kurtosis index below ±10 in the data was considered normal [74]. Furthermore, Harman’s one-factor test was employed to check for common method bias [75].
For descriptive statistics, proportions and percentages were used to describe categories data. Respondents were segmented based on their frequency of animal-based food (meat, fish, egg, and dairy) intake per week employing k-means segmentation. This procedure yielded three segments that were labelled All Low, High Dairy, and High Dairy and Meat. A comparison of socio-demographic characteristics between the segments was performed employing the chi-squares test for nominal data and the Kruskal–Wallis test for ordinal data. Further, logistic regression was employed to determine the likelihood of belonging to the segments by attitudinal characteristics. In the model, socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender, marital status, education, and income) were adjusted.
Exploratory factor analysis (using principal component analysis) was performed for the constructs of the proposed TPB-extended model. Eigenvalues greater than 1 and varimax with Kaiser Normalization were selected to generate the factor loadings. Further, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett’s tests of sphericity value were selected to check the suitability of data for factor analysis. Reliability, validity (both convergent and discriminant), and multicollinearity of the proposed TPB-extended model constructs were also determined. The fulfilment of all the criteria led to covariance-based structural equation modelling (CB-SEM) analysis. Previous studies have indicated that CB-SEM is suitable for confirmatory factor analysis of conceptually developed models and is a commonly applied form of SEM when analysing psychometric analysis, such as attitudes and behavioural intentions [76,77].
The CB-SEM analysis followed a two-step modelling approach, as proposed by the Ref. [78]. In the first step, confirmatory factor analysis of the measurement model was performed to further assess the adequacy of the measurement model. In the second step, structural analysis through model fit statistics was performed to assess the best-fitting model. Model fit statistics include chi-square (χ2), a ratio of chi-square and df (χ2/df), the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), incremental fit index (IFI), comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA). The CB-SEM analysis was performed in the IBM SPSS AMOS 27.0.0 software (Amos Development Corporation).

4. Results

4.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics

Table 2 presents the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. After removing 18 incomplete responses, as well as a further 8 responses considering extreme outliers, the final sample consisted of 527 Nepalese consumers, 57.7% of which were females. The majority of the respondents (43.6%) held bachelor’s degrees, with their marital status (56.5%) being married with children. Further, the socio-demographic characteristics of the segments (except for a place of residence) differed significantly between the three segments.

4.2. Segmentation

Table 3 shows the likelihood of belonging to each segment by attitudinal characteristics, and was adjusted for significant socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender, marital status, education, and income). Consumers in the All Low segment have positive attitudes towards organic food. Further, consumers who consider knowing organic food belong to the High Dairy segment, and consumers who exert greater perceived behavioural control towards organic food belong to the High Dairy and Meat segment.

4.3. Harman’s One-Factor Test, Exploratory Factor Analysis, Reliability, Validity, and Multicollinearity Tests

The results from Harman’s one-factor test indicated that the total variance of the first factor was 22.117% variance, which was less than 50%, indicating no presence of common method bias [75]. Further, exploratory factor analysis extracted seven factors (attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, knowledge, environmental concern, health-consciousness, and intention) that explained 68.838% of the variance in the data. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy equals 0.799, whereas Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant at <0.001, indicating appropriateness for further analysis [79]. The value of Cronbach’s alpha among items ranged from 0.681 for subjective norms to 0.865 for perceived behavioural control, indicating satisfactory reliability [80]. The value of composite reliability (CRC) that determined construct reliability ranged from 0.772 for intention to 0.894 for perceived behavioural control, indicating the value exceeded the threshold value of 0.7 [81]. The value of the average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct exceeded the minimum threshold of 0.50, establishing convergent validity. The value of the variance inflation factor (VIF) ranged from 1.003 for health-consciousness to 1.376 for attitudes, indicating no issue of multicollinearity among the constructs [82]. Table 4 shows the value of factor loadings, reliability, validity, and multicollinearity.
Table 5 shows the discriminant validity. The study by the Ref. [83] suggested that the inter-construct correlation coefficient <0.8 represents adequate discriminant validity. Further, the square root of the AVE of each construct was greater than the inter-construct correlation coefficient, establishing discriminant validity [84]. All in all, the proposed TPB-extended model represents adequate validity (convergent and discriminant), reliability, and multicollinearity.

4.4. Measurement Model and Structural Analysis

The results from confirmatory factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimation indicated the value of model fit indices of the measurement model representing an adequate model fit (χ2/df = 2.413, GFI = 0.927, IFI = 0.937, CFI = 0.936, SRMR = 0.041, RMSEA = 0.052) with factor-loading of each item >0.6 [81]. Further, the result from structural analysis shows that the value of the model fit indices of the proposed TPB-extended model represents a good model fit (χ2/df = 2.490, GFI = 0.898, IFI = 0.906, CFI = 0.904, SRMR = 0.053, RMSEA = 0.053). The original TPB model was also tested for model fit statistics (χ2/df = 3.887, GFI = 0.927, IFI = 0.935, CFI = 0.935, SRMR = 0.047, RMSEA = 0.074). The proposed TPB-extended model, original TPB model, and TPB model extended with knowledge, environmental concerns, and health concerns were compared for their predictive power. The results suggested that including knowledge, environmental concerns, health-consciousness, and background factors in the original TPB has better predictive power for behaviour (Adjusted R2 = 0.912) than the original TPB model (Adjusted R2 = 0.786) and the TPB-extended model without background factors (Adjusted R2 = 0.793). Further, the model fit statistics of the proposed TPB-extended model were satisfactory (χ2/df = 2.507, RMSEA = 0.053) when compared to the original TPB model (χ2/df = 3.887, RMSEA = 0.074) and the TPB-extended model without background factors (χ2/df = 2.432, RMSEA = 0.052). The result supported the inclusion of knowledge, environmental concern, health-consciousness, and background factors in the TPB framework in the case of organic food consumption among Nepalese consumers. The model fit statistics are shown in Table 6.

4.5. CB-SEM Analysis

The results from CB-SEM analysis (Table 7) indicated that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control were all significant predictors of the consumer’s intention to purchase organic food, therefore supporting hypotheses H1, H2, and H3, respectively. Perceived behavioural control was the main predictor of behavioural intention (β = 0.438, t = 7.371, p < 0.001), followed by attitudes (β = 0.302, t = 5.892, p < 0.001), and subjective norms (β = 0.300, t = 5.612, p < 0.001). Behavioural intention (β = 0.945, t = 10.121, p < 0.001) significantly affects organic food purchasing behaviour, thus supporting hypothesis H4. The additional constructs included in the original TPB, that is, knowledge (β = 0.211, t = 4.444, p < 0.001), and environmental concern (β = 0.208, t = 4.332, p < 0.001) had a positive and significant influence on the intention to purchase organic food; thus, hypotheses H5 and H6 were supported. However, the additional construct, that is, health-consciousness (β = −0.034, t = −0.861, p = 0.374), had no significant influence on the intention to purchase organic food, rejecting hypothesis H7.
Table 8 shows the results of the background factors (age, gender, marital status, education, income, place of residence, and intake of animal-based foods) that influenced the constructs (attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, knowledge, environmental concern, health-consciousness, and behaviour) of the proposed TPB-extended model [18]. Attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, knowledge, environmental concerns and behaviour were significantly influenced by several background factors. In particular, attitude is influenced by marital status (β = 0.129, p = 0.033), indicating that married consumers with children have a more positive attitude towards organic food, thus supporting Hypothesis H8c. More favourable attitudes were found for consumers with incomes higher than NPR 40,000 (β = 0.165, p = 0.002) and with a lower intake of animal-based foods (β = 0.116, p = 0.016), supporting Hypotheses H8e and H8g (respectively). Gender (β = 0.131, p = 0.010) was significantly influenced by subjective norms, supporting Hypothesis H9b, which indicates that female consumers perceived more pressure to purchase organic food. Perceived behavioural control was influenced by gender (β = 0.091, p = 0.049), and income (β = 0.216, p < 0.001), supporting Hypotheses H9b and H9e, respectively. This indicated that female consumers with higher income had a perceived ease of purchasing organic food. Knowledge was influenced by the consumer’s education (β = 0.156, p = 0.003), and place of residence (β = 0.173, p < 0.001), supporting Hypotheses H11d and H11f (respectively), which indicates that consumers with higher education and who were residing in the capital city of Kathmandu had higher levels of knowledge towards organic food. Gender (β = 0.145, p = 0.004), marital status (β = 0.157, p = 0.011), and segment (β = 0.097, p = 0.049) significantly influenced environmental concerns, supporting Hypotheses H12b, H12c, and H12g, respectively. This indicated that females, with their marital status being married with children and who consumed a lower intake of animal foods, had higher levels of environmental concerns. Health-consciousness was not influenced by any background factors considered in this study, thus rejecting hypotheses H13a–g. The organic food purchasing behaviour was influenced by consumers’ income (β = 0.096, p = 0.007), supporting Hypothesis H14e, which indicates that Nepalese consumers with higher incomes had a higher purchasing frequency of organic food.

5. Discussion and Implications

This study attempted to segment consumers based on their intake of animal-based foods and determine the determinants influencing organic food purchasing behaviour in one of the emerging economies. The findings of the study strongly confirm the adequacy of the TPB model in the pretext to determine organic food purchasing behaviour among Nepalese consumers. Knowledge of organic food, environmental concern, health-consciousness, and background factors increased the explained variance of purchasing behaviour towards organic food. Among the TPB framework constructs, perceived behavioural control has appeared as the most significant determinant (β = 0.415) of Nepalese consumers’ intention to buy organic food. These results were consistent with those yielded by the previous studies [30,87]. Nepalese consumers’ strong perceived behavioural control towards organic food advocates for the fact that organic food practitioners need to understand that consumers are more concerned about their inability to buy organic foods. They should make organic foods available at local stores at a reasonable price and train Nepalese consumers to judge the quality of organic foods, thus promoting purchasing experience and habits towards organic foods. A study by the Ref. [88] found that ‘consumers are pragmatic and will not go to several stores to buy organic foods’, thus, making organic foods available at several local stores is necessary to trigger people’s intention to purchase organic food. Moreover, increasing the availability of organic foods in local stores might also reduce the indirect search costs for organic food and help enhance the buying experience of organic foods among Nepalese consumers. Several previous studies have found that a higher price [89] and low availability [70,90] of organic food act as barriers to the consumption of organic food.
Findings from this study suggest that attitudes towards organic food positively and significantly influence the intention to buy organic food. These findings are consistent with findings from previous studies [25,26,41]. Thus, organic food practitioners could focus on promoting the benefits of consuming organic food in comparison to non-organic foods (e.g., being healthy, nutritious, higher quality, tasty, and safe) to enhance consumers’ purchasing intention towards organic food. For instance, media campaigns could be designed involving well-known influencers of food and drink as spokespersons to manifest good taste by consuming organic foods. Moreover, the results from this study show that knowledge of organic food is a significant predictor of Nepalese consumers’ purchasing intention towards organic food. This result is consistent with previous studies [41,68]. Previous studies have shown that knowledge of organic food can effectively reduce consumers’ uncertainty and create trust, thereby increasing attitudes and buying intention towards organic food [91,92]. Thus, organic food practitioners could focus on providing organic food knowledge and invest in educating consumers with credible information through various channels, including organic food fairs, farms, and farmers’ markets to precipitate purchasing intention towards organic food among Nepalese consumers. Further, it is recommended to use enough and reliable labelling information to help consumers determine the quality of their products, thus creating trust and positive attitudes towards organic food [57]. For instance, urban Nepalese consumers were paying premium prices for organic vegetables on the basis of ‘trust’ and they were further willing to pay 10–15 percent more if organic vegetables were labelled and certified [14].
Subjective norms significantly influence the intention to purchase organic food among Nepalese consumers. The findings are consistent with previous studies [26,28,29]. The outcome of subjective norms specifies marketers need to capitalise on the importance of social influence in the formation of intention through marketing strategies, such as word-of-mouth marketing [93]. Further, Al–Swidi et al. [65] argued that targeting opinion leaders who can deliver positive word-of-mouth about organic food might result in an increased level of interest and confidence towards the use of organic food among potential consumers.
Environmental concern was a significant determinant of intention to purchase organic food among Nepalese consumers. The finding aligns with the previous findings of the Refs. [26,94,95]. However, previous studies have found altruistic motives like environmental concern to be a less important determinant of organic food consumption than egoistic motives, like health concerns [30,96]. In contrast, the findings from this study indicated that purchasing intentions towards organic food was not significantly influenced by health-consciousness. These findings are consistent with a previous study among Malaysian consumers [97]. Therefore, a marketing campaign could be launched to make Nepalese consumers aware of the environmental benefits of consuming organic food, affecting behavioural intentions to finally promote organic food purchasing behaviour.
Background factors (gender, marital status, education, income, place of residence, and segment based on intake of animal-based foods) seem to indirectly influence behavioural intention by their effects on attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, knowledge, and environmental concerns, whereas income also seems to directly influence organic food purchasing behaviour. Females reported greater social pressure, perceived behavioural control, and environmental concern. Similarly, previous studies have found that subjective norms have an impact on females to choose organic foods [98,99] and females express slightly greater environmental concern than their male counterparts [100,101]. Further, it seems that married consumers with children have favourable attitudes towards organic food and greater environmental concerns. The findings support the legacy hypothesis—the increase in environmental concern after having children as parents consider their legacy left to their offspring with regards to environmental quality [102]. Further, Nepalese consumers with a lower intake of animal-based foods seem to have favourable attitudes towards organic food and greater environmental concerns. A recent study has found that among the considered motivating factors regarding food choice (environmental concern and health concerns), environmental concerns had a significant positive influence on the willingness to adopt a more plant-based diet among consumers from China and New Zealand [103]. The findings from this study also indicate that income seems to have a positive influence on attitudes, perceived behavioural control, and behaviour. The findings were consistent with the findings from a previous study [48]. However, the author of the Ref. [48] found that other background factors, such as age, education, and children in the household positively and significantly influenced organic food purchasing behaviour (but not income).

Limitations

There are several limitations associated with this study. Firstly, the cross-sectional design of the observation did not allow us to infer causality between the constructs of the proposed TPB-extended model. Secondly, consumers’ purchasing behaviour of organic food was determined using self-report measures, thus subjecting the study to a methodological limitation [104]. Further, although this study employed a validated questionnaire from previous studies, one of the items in the questionnaire, ‘My close friends and family members would appreciate if I buy organic foods’, might have resulted in a double-barrelled bias. Data were collected from three urban cities in Nepal, where findings will need to be validated in peri-urban or rural populations. Besides the TPB constructs, this study included three additional factors: knowledge, environmental concerns, and health-consciousness. Other relevant factors, such as trust, product quality, labels, and animal welfare might have strengthened the understanding of consumers’ decision-making processes regarding consumers’ organic food purchasing behaviour, and improved the predictive ability of the TPB framework. Further, this study utilized only subjective knowledge to analyse the consumers’ knowledge of organic food, whereas Aertsens et al. [68] suggested employing both subjective and objective knowledge for measuring organic food knowledge. Finally, this study employed a quantitative method of data collection and analysis that prevented us from gaining deeper insights into the consumers’ organic food purchasing decisions.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study segmented Nepalese consumers based on their intake of animal-based foods and applied the TPB framework extended by knowledge, environmental concern, health-consciousness, and background factors (socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics). Perceived behavioural control was the main predictor of organic food purchasing intentions, followed by attitude, subjective norms, knowledge, and environmental concerns. Health-consciousness showed no significant influence on organic food purchasing intentions. Gender, marital status, education, income, and segment based on intake of animal-based foods were the background factors that significantly affected attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, knowledge, and environmental concern. Income also had a direct influence on organic food purchasing behaviour. The findings suggest that efforts to increase organic food purchasing intentions through targeting perceived behavioural control, attitudes, subjective norms, knowledge, and environmental concern may have a significant effect on increasing organic food consumption among Nepalese consumers. The findings from this study can be used to inform organic food producers and targeted marketing campaigns towards promoting organic food consumption in Nepal’s urban populations. Future studies might employ a mixed-method research approach to investigate deeper insights into the determinants of organic food purchasing behaviour, as organic food consumption in Nepal is still a new phenomenon. Further, future studies might also collect national longitudinal data employing a psychographic segmentation approach to determine organic food purchasing behaviour among different consumer segments in Nepal.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.B. and S.P.; methodology, M.B.; software, M.B.; validation, S.P.; formal analysis, M.B.; resources, M.B.; data curation, M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B. and S.P.; writing—review and editing, M.B. and S.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to Kabin Shrestha for his administrative and technical support. We are also thankful to Mijash Humagain and Rabin Karki for data collection and to Alexandra Pounds for proofreading the final version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. United Nation Environmental Programme. One Planet Network. Available online: https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/resource-efficiency/what-we-do/one-planet-network (accessed on 7 April 2021).
  2. Strassner, C.; Cavoski, I.; Di Cagno, R.; Kahl, J.; Kesse-Guyot, E.; Lairon, D.; Lampkin, N.; Løes, A.-K.; Matt, D.; Niggli, U.; et al. How the Organic Food System Supports Sustainable Diets and Translates These into Practice. Front. Nutr. 2015, 2, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Nguyen, H.V.; Nguyen, N.; Nguyen, B.K.; Lobo, A.; Vu, P.A. Organic Food Purchases in an Emerging Market: The Influence of Consumers’ Personal Factors and Green Marketing Practices of Food Stores. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Organic Agriculture, Environment and Food Security; Scialabba, N.; Hattam, C.; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (Eds.) Environment and Natural Resources Series; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2002; ISBN 978-92-5-104819-1. [Google Scholar]
  5. Muller, A.; Schader, C.; Scialabba, N.E.-H.; Brüggemann, J.; Isensee, A.; Erb, K.-H.; Smith, P.; Klocke, P.; Leiber, F.; Stolze, M.; et al. Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Vittersø, G.; Tangeland, T. The role of consumers in transitions towards sustainable food consumption. The case of organic food in Norway. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 92, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Seyfang, G. Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining local organic food networks. J. Rural. Stud. 2006, 22, 383–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Baudry, J.; Allès, B.; Péneau, S.; Touvier, M.; Méjean, C.; Hercberg, M.D.P.G.; Galan, P.; Lairon, D.; Kesse-Guyot, E. Dietary intakes and diet quality according to levels of organic food consumption by French adults: Cross-sectional findings from the NutriNet-Santé Cohort Study. Public Health Nutr. 2017, 20, 638–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Government of Nepal Agriculture Development Strategy (ADS) 2014. Available online: http://www.nnfsp.gov.np/PortalContent.aspx?Doctype=Resources&ID=61 (accessed on 7 April 2021).
  10. Government of Nepal Estimates of Expenditure: Red Book FY 2014–2015. Available online: https://mof.gov.np/en/document/?c=30&t=&y= (accessed on 7 April 2021).
  11. Khanna, S.A. Organic Certification: A Case Study of Organic Valley, Nepal. Int. J. Appl. Agric. Sci. 2018, 4, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nandwani, D.; Jamarkattel, D.; Dahal, K.; Poudel, R.; Giri, S.; Joshi, T. Attitudes of Fruit and Vegetable Farmers towards Organic Farming in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Aryal, K.P.; Chaudhary, P.; Pandit, S.; Sharma, G. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic Products: A Case from Kathmandu Valley. J. Agric. Environ. 2009, 10, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Singh, M.; Maharjan, K.L. The Market for Local Organic Produce in Urban and Semi-Urban Areas of Nepal: A Case Study of Kathmandu Valley and Chitwan District. J. Contemp. India Stud. Space Soc. 2015, 5, 39–49. [Google Scholar]
  15. Sharma, M.; Pudasaini, A. What motivates producers and consumers towards organic vegetables? A case of Nepal. Org. Agric. 2021, 11, 477–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ministry of Finance, Government of Nepal. Economic Survey 2019/2020; Ministry of Finance, Government of Nepal: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2020.
  17. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behaviour. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychol. Health 2011, 26, 1113–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Scalco, A.; Noventa, S.; Sartori, R.; Ceschi, A. Predicting organic food consumption: A meta-analytic structural equation model based on the theory of planned behavior. Appetite 2017, 112, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Boobalan, K.; Nawaz, N.; Harindranath, R.M.; Gajenderan, V. Influence of Altruistic Motives on Organic Food Purchase: Theory of Planned Behavior. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pang, S.; Tan, B.; Lau, T. Antecedents of Consumers’ Purchase Intention towards Organic Food: Integration of Theory of Planned Behavior and Protection Motivation Theory. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lim, H.-R.; An, S. Intention to purchase wellbeing food among Korean consumers: An application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 88, 104101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Dorce, L.C.; da Silva, M.C.; Mauad, J.R.C.; Domingues, C.H.D.F.; Borges, J.A.R. Extending the theory of planned behavior to understand consumer purchase behavior for organic vegetables in Brazil: The role of perceived health benefits, perceived sustainability benefits and perceived price. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 91, 104191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sultan, P.; Tarafder, T.; Pearson, D.; Henryks, J. Intention-behaviour gap and perceived behavioural control-behaviour gap in theory of planned behaviour: Moderating roles of communication, satisfaction and trust in organic food consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 81, 103838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Voon, J.P.; Ngui, K.S.; Agrawal, A. Determinants of willingness to purchase organic food: An exploratory study using structural equation modeling. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2011, 14, 103–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Basha, M.B.; Lal, D. Indian consumers’ attitudes towards purchasing organically produced foods: An empirical study. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sadiq, M.A.; Rajeswari, B.; Ansari, L.; Kirmani, M.D. The role of food eating values and exploratory behaviour traits in predicting intention to consume organic foods: An extended planned behaviour approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 59, 102352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bai, L.; Wang, M.; Gong, S. Understanding the Antecedents of Organic Food Purchases: The Important Roles of Beliefs, Subjective Norms, and Identity Expressiveness. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Asif, M.; Xuhui, W.; Nasiri, A.; Ayyub, S. Determinant factors influencing organic food purchase intention and the moderating role of awareness: A comparative analysis. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 63, 144–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yadav, R.; Pathak, G.S. Intention to purchase organic food among young consumers: Evidences from a developing nation. Appetite 2016, 96, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Wang, X.; Pacho, F.; Liu, J.; Kajungiro, R. Factors Influencing Organic Food Purchase Intention in Developing Countries and the Moderating Role of Knowledge. Sustainability 2019, 11, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Paul, J.; Modi, A.; Patel, J. Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 29, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fleșeriu, C.; Cosma, S.A.; Bocăneț, V. Values and Planned Behaviour of the Romanian Organic Food Consumer. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gracia, A.; De Magistris, T. Organic food product purchase behaviour: A pilot study for urban consumers in the South of Italy. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2007, 5, 439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bagher, A.N.; Salati, F.; Ghaffari, M. Factors Affecting Intention to Purchase Organic Food Products Among Iranian Consumers. Acad. Mark. Stud. J. 2018, 22, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  36. Dangi, N.; Gupta, S.K.; Narula, S.A. Consumer buying behaviour and purchase intention of organic food: A conceptual framework. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2020, 31, 1515–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Moser, A.K. Consumers’ purchasing decisions regarding environmentally friendly products: An empirical analysis of German consumers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 31, 389–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. McCarty, J.A.; Shrum, L. The Influence of Individualism, Collectivism, and Locus of Control on Environmental Beliefs and Behavior. J. Public Policy Mark. 2001, 20, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, J.; Pham, T.L.; Dang, V.T. Environmental Consciousness and Organic Food Purchase Intention: A Moderated Mediation Model of Perceived Food Quality and Price Sensitivity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Pagiaslis, A.; Krontalis, A.K. Green Consumption Behavior Antecedents: Environmental Concern, Knowledge, and Beliefs: Antecedents of green consumer behavior. Psychol. Mark. 2014, 31, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Singh, A.; Verma, P. Factors influencing Indian consumers’ actual buying behaviour towards organic food products. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 473–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Saleki, R.; Quoquab, F.; Mohammad, J. What drives Malaysian consumers’ organic food purchase intention? The role of moral norm, self-identity, environmental concern and price consciousness. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2019, 9, 584–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kapuge, K. Determinants of Organic Food Buying Behavior: Special Reference to Organic Food Purchase Intention of Sri Lankan Customers. Procedia Food Sci. 2016, 6, 303–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jayanti, R.K.; Burns, A.C. The Antecedents of Preventive Health Care Behavior: An Empirical Study. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1998, 26, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yilmaz, B.S.; Ilter, B. Motives Underlying Organic Food Consumption in Turkey: Impact of Health, Environment, and Consumer Values on Purchase Intentions. Econ. World 2017, 5, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Akhondan, H.; Karen, J.-C.; Nancy, R. Health Consciousness and Organic Food Consumption. J. Fam. Consum. Sci. 2015, 107, 27–32. [Google Scholar]
  47. Glanz, K.; Rimer, B.K.; Viswanath, K. (Eds.) Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4th ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-0-7879-9614-7. [Google Scholar]
  48. Janssen, M. Determinants of organic food purchases: Evidence from household panel data. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 68, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Alcañiz, J.E.B. The Green Consumer: The Basis of a Model of Behavior. Esic Market 1997, 96, 29–43. [Google Scholar]
  50. GIL, J. Market segmentation and willingness to pay for organic products in Spain. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2000, 3, 207–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chen, M. Attitude toward organic foods among Taiwanese as related to health consciousness, environmental attitudes, and the mediating effects of a healthy lifestyle. Br. Food J. 2009, 111, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dimitri, C.; Dettmann, R.L. Organic food consumers: What do we really know about them? Br. Food J. 2012, 114, 1157–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wier, M.; Jensen, K.O.; Andersen, L.M.; Millock, K. The character of demand in mature organic food markets: Great Britain and Denmark compared. Food Policy 2008, 33, 406–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Squires, L.; Juric, B.; Cornwell, T.B. Level of market development and intensity of organic food consumption: Cross-cultural study of Danish and New Zealand consumers. J. Consum. Mark. 2001, 18, 392–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fotopoulos, C.; Krystallis, A. Purchasing motives and profile of the Greek organic consumer: A countrywide survey. Br. Food J. 2002, 104, 730–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Onyango, B.M.; Hallman, W.; Bellows, A.C. Purchasing organic food in US food systems: A Study of Attitudes and Practice. Br. Food J. 2007, 109, 399–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zepeda, L.; Li, J. Characteristics of Organic Food Shoppers. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2007, 39, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Krystallis, A.; Chryssohoidis, G. Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic food: Factors That Affect It and Variation per Organic Product Type. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 320–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Petersen, S.B.; Rasmussen, M.A.; Strøm, M.; Halldorsson, T.I.; Olsen, S.F. Sociodemographic characteristics and food habits of organic consumers—A study from the Danish National Birth Cohort. Public Health Nutr. 2013, 16, 1810–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Kesse-Guyot, E.; Péneau, S.; Méjean, C.; de Edelenyi, F.S.; Galan, P.; Hercberg, S.; Lairon, D. Profiles of Organic Food Consumers in a Large Sample of French Adults: Results from the Nutrinet-Santé Cohort Study. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e76998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Buchner, A.; Lang, A.-G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 2009, 41, 1149–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Armstrong, J.S.; Overton, T.S. Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys. J. Mark. Res. 1977, 14, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Beaton, D.E.; Bombardier, C.; Guillemin, F.; Ferraz, M.B. Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures. Spine 2000, 25, 3186–3191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Epstein, J.; Santo, R.; Guillemin, F. A review of guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2015, 68, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Al-Swidi, A.; Huque, S.M.R.; Hafeez, M.H.; Shariff, M.N.M. The role of subjective norms in theory of planned behavior in the context of organic food consumption. Br. Food J. 2014, 116, 1561–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Aitken, R.; Watkins, L.; Williams, J.; Kean, A. The positive role of labelling on consumers’ perceived behavioural control and intention to purchase organic food. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zagata, L. Consumers’ beliefs and behavioural intentions towards organic food. Evidence from the Czech Republic. Appetite 2012, 59, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Aertsens, J.; Mondelaers, K.; Verbeke, W.; Buysse, J.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. The influence of subjective and objective knowledge on attitude, motivations and consumption of organic food. Br. Food J. 2011, 113, 1353–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kilbourne, W.; Pickett, G. How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2008, 61, 885–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tarkiainen, A.; Sundqvist, S. Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 808–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yazdanpanah, M.; Forouzani, M. Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to predict Iranian students’ intention to purchase organic food. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 342–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rimal, A.P.; Moon, W.; Balasubramanian, S. Agro-biotechnology and organic food purchase in the United Kingdom. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Stevens, J. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 5th ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-0-8058-5901-0. [Google Scholar]
  74. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-1-4625-2335-1. [Google Scholar]
  75. Harman, H.H. Modern Factor Analysis, 3rd ed.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1976; ISBN 978-0-226-31652-9. [Google Scholar]
  76. Chin, W.W.; Peterson, R.A.; Brown, S.P. Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing: Some Practical Reminders. J. Mark. Theory Pr. 2008, 16, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Mena, J.A. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 414–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Malhotra, N.K. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 5th ed.; Pearson/Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-0-13-227946-8. [Google Scholar]
  80. Sekaran, U.; Bougie, R. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, 7th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-1-119-26684-6. [Google Scholar]
  81. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Corrigendum to “Editorial Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: Rigorous Applications, Better Results and Higher Acceptance” [LRP 46/1-2 (2013) 1–12]. Long Range Plan. 2014, 47, 392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Bowerman, B.L.; O’Connell, R.T. Linear Statistical Models: An Applied Approach, 2nd ed.; Duxburry Press: Pacific Grove CA, USA, 1994; ISBN 978-0-534-22985-6. [Google Scholar]
  83. Brown, T.A. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, 2nd ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2015; ISBN 978-1-4625-1779-4. [Google Scholar]
  84. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Lee, K.H.; Bonn, M.A.; Cho, M. Consumer motives for purchasing organic coffee: The Moderating Effects of Ethical Concern and Price Sensitivity. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 27, 1157–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hjelmar, U. Consumers’ purchase of organic food products. A matter of convenience and reflexive practices. Appetite 2011, 56, 336–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Gan, C.; Wee, H.Y.; Ozanne, L.; Kao, T.-H. Consumers’ Purchasing Behavior towards Green Products in New Zealand. Innov. Mark. 2008, 4, 93–102. [Google Scholar]
  90. Young, W.; Hwang, K.; McDonald, S.; Oates, C.J. Sustainable consumption: Green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 18, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Pieniak, Z.; Aertsens, J.; Verbeke, W. Subjective and objective knowledge as determinants of organic vegetables consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 581–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Chen, M.-F. Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic foods in Taiwan: Moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 1008–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Choo, H.; Chung, J.-E.; Pysarchik, D.T. Antecedents to new food product purchasing behavior among innovator groups in India. Eur. J. Mark. 2004, 38, 608–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ahmed, N.; Li, C.; Khan, A.; Qalati, S.A.; Naz, S.; Rana, F. Purchase intention toward organic food among young consumers using theory of planned behavior: Role of environmental concerns and environmetal awareness. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2021, 64, 796–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Çabuk, S.; Tanrikulu, C.; Gelibolu, L. Understanding organic food consumption: Attitude as a mediator. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014, 38, 337–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Magnusson, M.K.; Arvola, A.; Hursti, U.-K.K.; Åberg, L.; Sjödén, P.-O. Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour. Appetite 2003, 40, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Nathan, R.J.; Victor, V.; Popp, J.; Fekete-Farkas, M.; Oláh, J. Food Innovation Adoption and Organic Food Consumerism—A Cross National Study between Malaysia and Hungary. Foods 2021, 10, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Costa, S.; Zepeda, L.; Sirieix, L. Exploring the social value of organic food: A qualitative study in France. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014, 38, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Sangkumchaliang, P.; Huang, W.-C.; Sangkumchaliang, P.; Huang, W.-C. Consumers’ Perceptions and Attitudes of Organic Food Products in Northern Thailand. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2012, 15, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. McCright, A.M.; Xiao, C. Gender and Environmental Concern: Insights from Recent Work and for Future Research. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2014, 27, 1109–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Tindall, D.B.; Davies, S.; Mauboulès, C. Activism and Conservation Behavior in an Environmental Movement: The Contradictory Effects of Gender. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2003, 16, 909–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Thomas, G.O.; Fisher, R.; Whitmarsh, L.; Milfont, T.L.; Poortinga, W. The impact of parenthood on environmental attitudes and behaviour: A longitudinal investigation of the legacy hypothesis. Popul. Environ. 2017, 39, 261–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Wang, O.; Scrimgeour, F. Willingness to adopt a more plant-based diet in China and New Zealand: Applying the theories of planned behaviour, meat attachment and food choice motives. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 93, 104294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 40, 471–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. The proposed theory of planned behaviour (TPB) extended model for determining determinants of organic food purchasing behaviour.
Figure 1. The proposed theory of planned behaviour (TPB) extended model for determining determinants of organic food purchasing behaviour.
Sustainability 13 12795 g001
Table 1. Items measuring the constructs of the proposed TPB-extended model and their source of adoption.
Table 1. Items measuring the constructs of the proposed TPB-extended model and their source of adoption.
ConstructItemsSource of Adoption
AttitudeATT1: ‘I prefer organic food because it tastes better than non-organic food.’
ATT2: ‘I prefer organic food because it is more nutritious than non-organic food.’
ATT3: ‘Organic food products have higher quality than non-organic food.’
ATT4: ‘Organic food products are healthier than non-organic food.’
[41,65,66]
Subjective normsSN1: ‘The trend of buying organic foods among people surrounding me is increasing.’
SN2: ‘People around me generally believe that consuming organic food is better for health.’
SN3: ‘My close friends and family members would appreciate if I buy organic foods.’
[65]
Perceived behavioural controlPBC1: ‘Most organic foods are widely available.’
PBC2: ‘Most organic foods are expensive to buy.’
PBC3: ‘Most organic foods are convenient to find.’
PBC4: ‘I find it difficult to judge the quality of most organic foods.’
[66,67]
KnowledgeKN1: ‘In comparison with an average person I know a lot about organic foods.’
KN2: ‘I know the process of organic foods.’
KN3: ‘I know that organic foods are safer to eat.’
[41,68]
Environmental ConcernEC1: ‘I am very concerned about the environment.’
EC2: ‘I would be willing to reduce my consumption to help protect the environment.’
EC3: ‘Humans are severely abusing the environment.’
[3,69]
Health-consciousness HC1: ‘I choose food carefully to ensure good health.’
HC2: ‘I consider myself as a health-conscious consumer.’
HC3: ‘I often think about health-related issues.’
[30,31,70]
Intention INT1: ‘I am willing to consume organic foods if they are available for purchase.’
INT2: ‘I intend to consume organic foods if they are available for purchase.’
[71]
BehaviourBEH: ‘How often do you purchase organically grown produce or other organic food products?’[72]
Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of the three segments and the total sample % (n).
Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of the three segments and the total sample % (n).
%(n)All Low a
(n = 113)
High Dairy b
(n = 246)
High Dairy and Meat c
(n = 168)
Total Sample
(n = 527)
p-Value
Age (y) <0.001 ***d
20 or younger
21 to 30
31 to 40
41 to 50
51 and above
6.2(7)
35.4(40)
24.8(28)
23(26)
10.6(12)
5.7(14)
32.9(81)
24.8(61)
23.2(57)
13.4(33)
1.8(3)
17.9(30)
33.9(57)
31.5(53)
14.9(25)
4.6(24)
28.7(151)
27.7(146)
25.8(136)
13.3(70)
Gender <0.001 ***e
Male
Female
38.1(43)
61.9(70)
32.1(79)
67.9(167)
60.1(101)
39.9(67)
42.3(223)
57.7(304)
Marital status 0.006 **e
Single
Married
Married with children
Others
32.7(37)
17.7(20)
49.6(56)
-
30.9(76)
17.5(43)
51.2(126)
0.4(1)
16.7(28)
13.7(23)
69(116)
0.6(1)
26.8(141)
16.3(86)
56.5(298)
0.4(2)
Education 0.011 *d
School
Intermediate
Bachelor
Master and above
Others
13.1(15)
27.4(31)
49.6(56)
8.8(10)
0.9(1)
14.6(36)
31.3(77)
41.9(103)
11.4(28)
0.8(2)
10.7(18)
23.8(40)
42.3(71)
23.2(39)
-
13.1(69)
28.1(148)
43.6(230)
14.6(77)
0.6(3)
Income (NPR) <0.001 ***d
0–10,000
10,001–40,000
40,001–70,000
70,001–100,000
≥100,000
No statement
21.2(24)
38.9(44)
20.4(23)
10.6(12)
1.8(2)
7.1(8)
30.1(74)
41.5(102)
17.5(43)
3.3(8)
1.2(3)
6.5(16)
2.4(4)
26.2(44)
25.6(43)
30.4(51)
9.5(16)
6.0(10)
19.4(102)
36.1(190)
20.7(109)
13.5(71)
4(21)
6.5(34)
Place of residence 0.927 e
Kathmandu
Lalitpur
Bhaktapur
41.6(47)
22.1(25)
36.1(41)
38.2(94)
25.6(63)
36.2(89)
41.1(69)
22.6(38)
36.3(61)
39.8(210)
36.2(126)
23.9(191)
Note: a All Low = Low-frequency intake of meat, fish, dairy, and egg. b High Dairy = High-frequency intake of dairy and low-frequency intake of meat, fish, and egg. c High Dairy and Meat = High-frequency intake of dairy and meat and low-frequency intake of fish and egg. d Kruskal-Wallis test. e Chi-square test. Significant codes: *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05 (two-tailed).
Table 3. Likelihood of belonging to the segment by attitudinal characteristics.
Table 3. Likelihood of belonging to the segment by attitudinal characteristics.
(Total: n = 527)Segment 1
All Low
(n = 113)
Segment 2
High Dairy
(n = 246)
Segment 3
High Dairy and Meat (n = 168)
ORCIORCIORCI
Attitudes towards organic food1.613(1.083–2.401)0.887(0.628–1.254)0.775(0.523–1.148)
Subjective norms0.860(0.625–1.183)1.099(0.828–1.460)1.041(0.747–1.450)
Perceived behavioural control0.984(0.774–1.252)0.634(0.507–0.792)1.853(1.420–2.416)
Knowledge towards organic food0.889(0.662–1.195)1.429(1.096–1.864)0.695(0.513–0.942)
Environmental concern1.331(0.994–1.780)0.829(0.648–1.062)0.945(0.710–1.258)
Health-consciousness0.968(0.700–1.338)0.840(0.627–1.125)1.261(0.910–1.745)
Note: Odds ratios (OR) > 1 show a higher likelihood of being in the segment when agreeing with the statement per increment on the Likert scale. Confidence interval (CI) > 1 or <1 indicates that 95% of the time, one group will be more or less likely to belong to the segment per increment on the Likert scale. The bold numbers represent significance OR, according to logistic regression, being adjusted by age, gender, marital status, education and income. In the model, dependent variables were cluster memberships.
Table 4. Factor loadings, validity, reliability, and multicollinearity tests.
Table 4. Factor loadings, validity, reliability, and multicollinearity tests.
ConstructsItemsFactor LoadingsCronbach’s αAVECRCVIF
AttitudesATT1
ATT2
ATT3
ATT4
0.813
0.751
0.802
0.736
0.8190.6020.8581.376
Subjective normsSN1
SN2
SN3
0.792
0.724
0.700
0.6810.5470.7831.350
Perceived behavioural controlPBC1
PBC2
PBC3
PBC4
0.855
0.883
0.824
0.728
0.8650.6790.8941.220
KnowledgeKN1
KN2
KN3
0.753
0.829
0.736
0.7220.5980.8161.222
Environmental concernEC1
EC2
EC3
0.719
0.758
0.862
0.7350.6110.8241.237
Health-consciousnessHC1
HC2
HC3
0.879
0.857
0.781
0.7700.7050.8771.003
IntentionINT1
INT2
0.779
0.808
0.6850.6290.7721.336
Note: AVE = Average variance extracted, CRC = Composite reliability, VIF = Variance inflation factor.
Table 5. Correlation between the constructs and descriptive statistics.
Table 5. Correlation between the constructs and descriptive statistics.
ConstructsATTSNPBCKNECHCINTBEH
Attitude (ATT)0.77
Subjective norms (SN)0.37 **0.73
Perceived behavioural control (PBC)0.29 **0.27 **0.82
Knowledge (KN)0.38 **0.28 **0.20 **0.77
Environmental concern (EC)0.26 **0.35 **0.18 **0.15 **0.78
Health-consciousness (HC)−0.02−0.010.000.010.000.83
Intention (INT)0.31 **0.33 **0.36 **0.22 **0.34 **0.030.97
Behaviour (BEH)0.51 **0.46 **0.55 **0.39 **0.32 **−0.030.62 **1
Mean4.193.913.063.353.874.293.614.50
Standard deviation0.640.770.930.810.830.660.931.11
Note: Significant codes: ** = p < 0.01 (two-tailed) estimated through Pearson’s correlation test, the bold value represents the square root of average variance extracted (AVE).
Table 6. Model fit statistics and predictive power of the model.
Table 6. Model fit statistics and predictive power of the model.
Model Fit StatisticsMeasurement ModelOriginal TPB Model aTPB-Extended with EC, KN, and HCTPB-Extended Model with EC, KN, HC, and Background FactorsStandard Norms b
χ2448.744 ***272.104 ***510.742 ***824.914 ***≥0, p < 0.05
Scaled χ2/df2.4133.8872.4322.477>1 and <5
GFI0.9270.9270.9190.898≥0.90
IFI0.9370.9350.9360.905≥0.90
CFI0.9360.9350.9350.904≥0.90
SRMR0.0410.0470.0450.057<0.08
RMSEA (90% CI)0.052 (0.046–0.058)0.074 (0.065–0.083)0.052 (0.046–0.058) 0.053 (0.049–0.058)≤0.08
Adjusted R2 (Intention)-0.5360.5680.517
Adjusted R2 (Behaviour)-0.7860.7930.909
Note: a Original TPB model = Direct path from attitude, and subjective norms to intention and perceived behavioural control to both intention, and behaviour [17]. b Source: [85,86]. TPB = Theory of planned behaviour. EC = Environmental concern, KN = Knowledge, HC = Health-consciousness, GFI = Goodness of Fit index, IFI = Incremental Fit Index, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error Approximation, CI = Confidence Interval. Significant codes: *** = p < 0.001.
Table 7. Structural relationship between the constructs of the proposed TPB-extended model and their status.
Table 7. Structural relationship between the constructs of the proposed TPB-extended model and their status.
PathsStandardised EstimatesStandard Errort-Valuep-ValueHypothesis Status
ATT→INT0.3020.0465.892***H1: Supported
SN→INT0.3000.0435.612***H2: Supported
PBC→INT0.4380.0477.371***H3: Supported
INT→BEH0.9450.15810.121***H4: Supported
KN→INT0.2110.0434.444***H5: Supported
EC→INT0.2080.0384.332***H6: Supported
HC→INT−0.0340.039−0.8610.374H7: Rejected
Note: ATT = Attitude, SN = Subjective norms, PBC = Perceived behavioural control, KN = Knowledge, EC = Environmental concern, HC = Health-consciousness, INT = Intention, BEH = Behaviour. Significant codes: *** = p < 0.001.
Table 8. Structural relationship between background factors and constructs of the proposed TPB-extended model.
Table 8. Structural relationship between background factors and constructs of the proposed TPB-extended model.
Endogenous Variables
H8: ATTH9: SNH10: PBCH11: KNH12: ECH13: HCH14: BEH
R20.0560.0620.0500.0680.0840.0170.909
Background factorsCoeffpCoeffpCoeffpCoeffpCoeffpCoeffpCoeffp
(a) Age (≥41 = 1)0.116n.s.−0.057n.s.0.048n.s.0.073n.s.−0.094n.s.0.052n.s.0.063n.s
(b) Gender0.000n.s.0.1310.0100.0910.049−0.004n.s.0.1450.0040.086n.s.−0.029n.s
(c) Marital status (Married with children = 1)0.1290.0330.103n.s.0.019n.s.0.109n.s.0.1570.0110.071n.s.−0.058n.s
(d) Education
(≥Bachelor = 1)
0.055n.s.−0.006n.s.−0.020n.s.0.1560.0030.002n.s.−0.038n.s.−0.044n.s
(e) Income
(≥40,001 = 1)
0.1650.0020.097n.s.0.216***0.088n.s0.003n.s.0.028n.s.0.0960.007
(f) Place of residence (Kathmandu = 1)0.018n.s.0.077n.s.0.011n.s.0.173***0.058n.s.0.058n.s.−0.020n.s
(g) Segment a
(All Low = 1)
0.1160.0160.032n.s.0.022n.s.−0.010n.s.0.0970.049−0.011n.s.0.040n.s
Note: a Segment was based on the frequency of animal-based foods (meat, fish, egg, and dairy) intake per week. All Low = Low frequency intake of meat, fish, dairy, and egg. ATT = Attitudes, SN = Subjective norms, PBC = Perceived behavioural control, KN = knowledge, EC = Environmental concern, HC = Health-consciousness, BEH = Behaviour. Significant codes: *** = p < 0.001. n.s. = not significant.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Back to TopTop