[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Design and Testing of a Low-Speed, High-Frequency Straw Chopping and Returning Machine Using a Constant Breath Cam Mechanism
Next Article in Special Issue
Differences Between Prices of Organic and Conventional Food in Poland
Previous Article in Journal
Groundcovers Improve Soil Properties in Woody Crops Under Semiarid Climate
Previous Article in Special Issue
Competitive Position of Polish and Ukrainian Food Producers in the EU Market
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/agriculture14122292
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Understanding the Perceptions of Organic Products in Romania: Challenges and Opportunities for Market Growth in the Context of the European Green Deal

by
Iulia Sorina Dan
* and
Ionel Mugurel Jitea
Department of Economic Sciences, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2024, 14(12), 2292; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14122292
Submission received: 4 November 2024 / Revised: 9 December 2024 / Accepted: 12 December 2024 / Published: 13 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Agricultural Markets and Agrifood Supply Chains)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Reasons for consumption. Source: authors’ research results.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Frequency of purchase of different organically certified products. Source: authors’ research results.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>The place of purchase of organic products. Source: author’s projection.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>The importance of information in the purchasing process. Source: authors’ research results.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Consumer perception regarding organic products. Source: authors’ research results.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Barriers in the consumption of certified organic products. Source: authors’ research results.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Respondents’ willingness to purchase organic products if the price were to decrease. Source: authors’ research results.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The rising interest in organic products aligns with a global push for sustainable development, notably through initiatives like the European Green Deal introduced by the European Commission. In Romania, although organic farming and product consumption are increasing, they remain well below the EU averages. This study explores Romanian consumers’ and non-consumers’ perceptions and attitudes toward organic products in a contemporary context shaped by post-COVID-19 adjustments and geopolitical tensions. By developing consumer profiles, the study provides insights to help manufacturers and sellers diversify their strategies such as to meet the EU Green Deal targets. Data were collected from 833 respondents using an online survey and then analyzed with SPSS 23.0. The sample is more representative of young, well-educated, urban residents and, therefore, not fully representative of the entire Romanian population. Descriptive statistics revealed socio-demographic profiles and means for variables reflecting consumer attitudes toward organic products. Exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation identified core dimensions among variables and cluster analysis was used to identify different consumer groups. Findings show that typical organic product consumers are younger, well educated, and value quality, reflecting a commitment to sustainable choices. However, high prices are the main barrier to market growth, deterring many potential consumers. Additionally, there is considerable skepticism about organic foods, with doubts about their advantages over conventional products, and a lack of information limits consumer understanding of organic product benefits. These obstacles hinder broader adoption of organic foods in Romania. Future public policies should better support organic market chains to promote the positive externalities of such products such as to meet the ambitious EU Green Deal targets.

1. Introduction

In the 21st century, the role of environmental protection has become increasingly crucial [1]. Society and, hence, the agricultural stakeholders seek to develop more sustainable production and consumption practices. Organic farming, with its reduced consumption of chemical inputs and emphasis on natural fertilizers, is emerging as a significant contribution to environmental protection [2]. Consequently, an increasing trend of organic agriculture can be observed in recent years [3]. The area of certified organic farming increased from 11 million hectares in 1999 to nearly 74,9 million hectares in 2020, but it still accounts for only 1.6% of the total agricultural land area in the world [3]. In 2022, the European Union (EU) arrived at 16.9 million hectares converted into certified organic production. France emerged as the leader in terms of farmland under organic production, arriving at almost 2.8 million hectares. It was closely followed by Spain (2.6 million hectares), Italy (2.3 million hectares), and Germany (1.8 million hectares); hence, highlighting the substantial presence of organic farming across these prominent European countries [4]. The organic retail sales in the EU amounted to EUR 45.1 billion, which created the second-largest single market for organic products globally, following the United States. Germany, with retail sales reaching EUR 15.31 billion, is currently the largest market in Europe and the second-largest market on a global scale [4]. The ongoing surge in consumer interest is evident in the evolution of per capita consumption, particularly notable in 2020. Per capita consumption in Europe increased to EUR 63.3, while in the EU, it reached EUR 101.8, showcasing a significant upturn [3].
The surge in the consumption of organic products in recent times [3] can be attributed to a multitude of factors that have reshaped consumer preferences and behaviors. As consumer awareness of health and environmental concerns has grown in the last decades, individuals are actively seeking alternatives that align with their values [5]. In the EU, the protected term “organic” signifies products produced without synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and GMOs, relying on natural cultivation methods prioritizing soil health, biodiversity, and ecological balance [6]. Consumers are increasingly conscientious of the potential health risks associated with synthetic pesticides and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), prompting them to turn towards certified organic products [7,8]. This shift in consumer behavior reflects a deeper understanding of the interconnections between personal health, the environment, and consumption patterns [9].
The increasing trend in organic consumption is also determined by a global commitment to sustainable development, supported in particular by initiatives such as the EUGreen Deal [10]. The Green Deal aims to achieve the EU’s climate neutrality by 2050 [10]. The transformation pathways set by the Biodiversity and Farm to Fork strategies are highly important: extend protected Natura 2000 sites; develop an EU nature restoration plan for the first time; or increase the overall EU’s organic-certified agricultural land to 25%. Moreover, the EU organic action plan aims to support such environmentally friendly practices through three axes: stimulate demand and ensure consumer trust; stimulate conversion and reinforce the entire value chain; and improve the contribution of organic farming to environmental sustainability. Such initiatives and the overall media coverage have significantly influenced consumer perception on green products, leading to an increased demand for organic products [11]. Consumers are associating organic production with sustainable practices [9,12], recognizing the organic farming methods inherent in organic farming as a direct contribution to the Green Deal objectives.
Although there is a growing trend in Romania regarding organic agriculture and the consumption of organic products, the values are still far behind the EU averages [13]. While the area devoted to organic cultivation has consistently expanded over recent years, reaching 644,519.69 hectares in 2022 from 288,261.71 hectares in 2012 [14], the sales of organic products are still far behind other European markets [4]. The majority of Romania’s organic food products are exported [3], emphasizing the imperative to identify the factors influencing domestic organic food consumption. Although national consumption of organic products remains low, statistical data indicate a vibrant organic production sector [3]. However, it is crucial to understand the perceptions of both consumers and non-consumers regarding organic products in order to identify effective strategies to boost consumption. Therefore, this study aimed to delve into the intricate landscape of consumer perceptions and attitudes towards organic products in Romania. The overarching goal was not only to uncover the various factors influencing consumer choices but also to construct comprehensive profiles distinguishing between organic product consumers and non-consumers.

2. Literature Review

Contemporary research has meticulously identified various factors that influence consumer behavior regarding organic food consumption. Two essential components that shape these behaviors are perception and attitude towards organic products [15]. Perception refers to how consumers interpret and understand the attributes of organic products, often focusing on health benefits, environmental impact, and ethical considerations associated with organic farming [16,17]. Many consumers perceive organic products as healthier than conventional alternatives, mainly due to the absence of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers [18,19,20,21,22,23]. For instance, Baudry et al. [23] found that health-related reasons are one of the main drivers for purchasing organic food. Consumers often believe that organic products are safer and more nutritious [24].
In addition to health concerns, consumers are attracted to organic products because they perceive them as more environmentally friendly [25,26,27]. Research by Meixner et al. [28] highlights that consumers view organic farming as a sustainable practice, contributing to environmental protection and reducing pollution. Ethical production, including considerations of animal welfare and fair labor practices, also influences perceptions. Studies by Zanoli and Naspetti [29] reveal that consumers perceive organic products as being of superior quality, largely due to stricter production standards and ethical values. However, consumer perceptions can vary based on demographic factors such as education level and personal values. Aertsens et al. [30] suggest that individuals with higher environmental consciousness and awareness of food safety issues are more likely to have positive perceptions of organic products.
Attitudes reflect predispositions that shape how consumers feel about and react to organic products. These attitudes are influenced by prior perceptions and can range from positive to negative, depending on various factors [31]. Consumers who prioritize health and sustainability often exhibit positive attitudes for organic products [21,32]. Scalco et al. [33] highlight that personal attitude is the strongest predictor of a consumer’s intention to purchase organic food. Positive attitudes are frequently driven by the belief that organic products are healthier, safer, and of superior quality compared to conventional alternatives [32]. Conversely, negative attitudes are typically linked to the high price of organic products and doubts about their actual benefits [34]. Hjelmar [35] found that some consumers remain skeptical of organic products’ advantages over conventional ones, which can lead to ambivalence or outright rejection. Furthermore, attitudes towards organic products can be influenced by cultural context. For instance, Shafie and Rennie [36] noted that European consumers tend to have more favorable views due to greater environmental awareness, while in developing countries, price sensitivity plays a more significant role in shaping attitudes.
Behavioral intention refers to the likelihood of a consumer buying organic products based on their perceptions and attitudes. Scalco et al. [33] emphasize that personal attitude is the most influential factor driving the intention to purchase organic products. When consumers have a favorable attitude, they are more likely to translate this into actual purchasing behavior. Yadav and Pathak [34] highlighted the importance of subjective norms in shaping behavioral intentions. These norms are the perceived social pressures to engage in certain behaviors. If consumers believe that their peers or society in general favor organic products, they are more likely to buy organic.
Despite a relatively low level of consumption in Romania [4], the driving forces behind the purchasing behavior of organic products and health and environmental concerns were also previously identified for Romania [37,38,39,40]. While the overall consumption of organic goods may be modest in this context, the discernible emphasis on health-related motivations signifies a growing concern among Romanian consumers about the impact of their dietary choices on personal well-being. The parallel consideration of environmental factors suggests a nuanced consumer awareness that extends beyond individual health to broader ecological implications.
While there are various positive motivations driving the consumption of organic food and an evident surge in green trends [41], the relatively small share of the organic food market raises concerns. In the realm of organic food consumption, a cluster of barriers takes center stage, as identified in the literature [29]. Foremost among these obstacles is the premium price attached to organic products in contrast to their conventional counterparts [21,27,29,30,34]. This financial disparity remains an important concern for consumers, consistently emerging in various studies as a key impediment to embracing organic choices. Additionally, the limited availability and accessibility of organic products contribute to the challenges faced by consumers seeking to incorporate these items into their lifestyles [20,30,41,42,43]. The geographical and logistical constraints surrounding the availability of organic options further compound the difficulties consumers encounter in their pursuit of healthier and environmentally friendly food choices. Furthermore, the literature underlines the importance of addressing issues related to trust in certified products and their labels [20,44,45]. Consumer skepticism regarding the authenticity and credibility of organic certifications often acts as a significant barrier. Establishing and maintaining trust in the certification processes becomes pivotal in overcoming this barrier and fostering a more widespread acceptance of organic alternatives. Moreover, the lack of robust marketing campaigns dedicated to promoting organic products exacerbates the existing hurdles [46,47,48]. A strategic and comprehensive marketing approach could play a pivotal role in reshaping consumer perceptions, raising awareness, and ultimately mitigating the barriers for broader adoption of organic consumption.
While the factors mentioned are frequently perceived as significant obstacles to the consumption of organic food, Scalco et al. [33] noted that the primary driver behind the intention to purchase organic products is predominantly personal attitude. Subsequently, subjective norms play a substantial role, with perceived barriers ranking third in influencing consumers’ decisions to choose organic options [33].
According to the literature, it is difficult to establish a profile for the consumer of organic products because it is greatly influenced by the local cultural and historical conditions. In countries like France [49], Poland [21], Thailand [50], India [51], and South Africa [52], organic food consumers tend to be older and more educated. While in countries like Sweden [53], the United States of America [54], Denmark, and Great Britain [18], the consumers are young and especially women. While women exhibit a greater inclination to buy and consume organic food, men have a higher willingness to pay for premium organic products [46,55]. Researchers have shown that consumers of organic products have medium to high incomes, and those with low incomes do not tend to consume organic products [56,57]. In Romania, the demographic profile of organic food consumers reveals distinct patterns, where a prevalent trend is observed among the younger consumers, predominantly comprising individuals who are female and possess a university education [58,59]. The inclination of this demographic group towards organic consumption may be indicative of a growing awareness and interest in health-conscious and environmentally sustainable food practices [40].
Consumers’ perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions toward organic products are deeply interconnected. Positive perceptions of health, environmental benefits, and product quality foster positive attitudes, which in turn shape behavioral intentions to purchase. However, barriers such as high prices, availability, and skepticism about organic labeling can hinder the transition from intention to actual behavior.
Building on the recent literature, this study aims to explore the perceptions and attitudes of both Romanian consumers and non-consumers regarding organic products in a contemporary context shaped by post-COVID-19 adaptations and geopolitical international tensions that negatively shaped the end-user economic purchasing power. It also aims to bridge the gap in understanding the capacity of Romania, one of the top EU agricultural member states, to meet the highly ambitious EU Green Deal targets on organic agriculture. This paper directly contributes to one of the EU organic action plan axes—stimulating demand and ensuring consumer trust and distinct consumer and non-consumer profiles. This study, thus, provides valuable insights for producers and sellers, enabling them to diversify their business strategies. Ultimately, this study contributes to identifying actionable information that facilitates the development of the organic market in Romania, fostering increased consumer engagement and satisfaction.
Based on the previous discussion, the following hypotheses were developed to guide this study on the perceptions and attitudes of Romanian consumers and non-consumers regarding organic products:
H1. 
There are notable differences in how Romanian consumers and non-consumers perceive organic food products.
This hypothesis suggests that Romanian consumers and non-consumers will demonstrate varying perceptions of organic products, shaped by their experiences and beliefs. Prior research indicates that consumers typically hold a more positive view of organic products, attributing this to perceived health benefits and ethical factors [18,34]. Conversely, non-consumers may possess skepticism and misunderstandings regarding organic products, which could negatively influence their perceptions [60]. Recognizing these distinctions can offer valuable insights for developing future targeted marketing strategies for both groups.
H2. 
Socioeconomic factors influence the perception of organic food products among Romanian consumers.
This hypothesis acknowledges that socioeconomic factors, including income, education, and age, play a pivotal role in shaping how consumers view organic products. Studies have shown that individuals with higher income and education levels are more likely to have favorable attitudes toward organic food [30]. For example, those with advanced education are generally more informed about health and environmental issues, which contributes to a greater appreciation for organic products. This hypothesis seeks to investigate the interplay of these factors in influencing consumer perceptions within the Romanian context.
H3. 
The perceived barriers significantly influence non-consumers’ attitudes towards organic food products and their likelihood of purchasing them.
This hypothesis presumes that the attitudes of non-consumers regarding organic products are largely shaped by the perceived barriers, such as high prices, limited availability, and doubts about the actual benefits of organic options [34]. Research suggests that these obstacles can deter individuals from expressing a willingness to purchase organic products, indicating that addressing these concerns through focused marketing and educational efforts could improve purchase intentions among non-consumers [34]. By pinpointing specific barriers, marketers can formulate strategies to tackle these challenges and potentially convert non-consumers into purchasers of organic products.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Collection

An online survey was conducted using a questionnaire, a widely used tool in similar research [61]. The questionnaire aims to gather reliable, valid data efficiently [62], offering standardization for comparability and requiring fewer resources due to its online format. It also ensures confidentiality and allows respondents to answer at their convenience [63]. However, disadvantages include potential inaccuracy, inflexibility, respondent fatigue with lengthy forms, and accessibility challenges [64]. Questionnaires, widely used in value chain research [65,66,67], were employed to study consumer perceptions of organic products. The survey targeted both consumers to understand their motivations and non-consumers to identify barriers and factors influencing future consumption.
The survey comprised four sections. The initial section served as a filter, requiring respondents to identify the EU logo of certified organic products and indicate whether they consume organic products or not. This question served the purpose of categorizing respondents into two groups: consumers and non-consumers of organic products. In that section, it is possible to understand the overall capacity of the consumers to recognize or not recognize certified organic products. The second section is designed for consumers of organic products and contains 11 questions. Of these, three questions use a Likert scale from 1 to 5, where 1 represents total disagreement and 5 total agreement, to assess respondents’ attitudes toward organic products. Additionally, there are five semi-closed questions with multiple answers to gauge respondents’ perceptions and three closed questions with a single answer option to examine their behavior. These questions address topics such as the types of products consumed, sources of supply, motivations for consumption, and future perspectives on consumption.
The third section is created for non-consumers of organic products and contains three questions. These include a multiple-choice question seeking to understand why respondents do not consume organic products, as well as a Likert scale question (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) designed to capture non-consumers’ perceptions of organic products. The section concludes with a final question aimed at understanding whether non-consumers would consider purchasing green products if prices were reduced at different levels. The fourth section was used to identify the socio-demographic profile of the respondents through 9 questions regarding gender, age, place of residence, county of residence, level of education, occupation, number of persons in the household, number of children below 18 years old, and the household’s income.
The survey underwent testing with a sample of 12 individuals across diverse age groups and varying educational backgrounds. This testing phase meticulously assessed various factors, including the clarity of questions, ease of response, question structure and length, comprehensiveness, and efforts to minimize bias [37,68]. Based on the feedback received, several changes were made, such as simplifying complex questions and rewording certain items for greater clarity. In addition, we reviewed the response options to ensure they were both appropriate and comprehensive. The questionnaire was designed in the Google Forms application due to its versatility. Data collection was carried out through a self-administered online survey, in which participants were informed about the research objectives and voluntarily gave their consent to the processing of their personal data in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation of the EU. Participation was voluntary, and all data collected remained anonymous.
The targeted research population is represented by Romanian residents over 18 and up to 65 years of age. This limitation applies to individuals up to 65 years old, as the questionnaire is primarily distributed online. The questionnaire implementation period was September 2023–May 2024. The questionnaire was distributed online through social media platforms. A total of 833 surveys were successfully validated and analyzed in the study. To ensure sample size adequacy, post hoc power analysis was performed using GPower 3.1.9.7 [69]. The analysis was based on the age variable and assumed an effect size of 0.54, a significance level of 0.05, and a power of 99%. These parameters indicate a high probability that the sample size is sufficient to detect significant effects for consumers using the internet. Although this research includes a large sample, it is more representative of young, well-educated, urban residents and, therefore, not fully representative of the entire Romanian population, particularly those with lower levels of education. GPower software is commonly used in the behavioral and social sciences to calculate statistical power, providing robust sample size estimation in other similar studies [68,70,71].

3.2. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using the SPSS 23.0 software package. Descriptive statistics analysis was used to determine the socio-demographic profile of consumers and to indicate the means and standard deviations of each of the variables used to describe respondents’ perceptions of organic products. An exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation was performed to determine the underlying dimensions between the variables. Factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1 and factor loading greater than 0.4 were considered significant and included in the analysis [72]. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were examined to determine data fit. Values of 0.6 or greater in the KMO measures indicated that the data were suitable for PCA [73,74]. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was calculated for each factor to estimate the internal consistency of each scale [75,76].
This study began by assessing the socio-demographic profile and consumption frequency of the respondents through descriptive statistics. To gain deeper insights into consumption patterns shaped by individual preferences for organic product attributes, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was employed. PCA is a statistical data simplification technique that effectively reduces the complexity of a multivariate dataset to a set of latent variables, aiming to minimize information loss while enhancing the interpretability of the original data matrix [77]. This approach is widely utilized in similar previous market research and consumer studies. It provides a valuable tool for understanding preferences and attitudes by analyzing purchasing behavior and product characteristics [78,79]. The Chi-squared test was used to determine whether there were significant differences between socio-demographic groups, with a p value of less than 0.05 indicating statistical significance.
The factors identified through PCA were further used in a cluster analysis. Initially, a hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward’s algorithm was performed to identify distinct groups within the sample and analyze their shared characteristics. Hierarchical clustering, especially Ward’s method, groups data points by similarity while minimizing within-cluster variance. It begins with each data point as a separate cluster and progressively merges them to effectively identify well-defined clusters [80]. Hierarchical clustering is often applied in consumer segmentation to identify distinct groups based on behavioral or attitudinal patterns [71]. Following this, a non-hierarchical cluster analysis (K-means clustering) was conducted. Once the number of clusters is established through hierarchical methods, K-means clustering refines these clusters by assigning data points to minimize the distance to their cluster centroids. This technique is more efficient for larger datasets and enhances the clusters identified earlier [81]. K-means clustering is commonly used in marketing and consumer studies to segment the market into specific groups for targeted marketing [78,82].

4. Results

4.1. Respondents Profile

The socio-demographic profile of consumers and non-consumers is roughly similar. The primary demographic of organic product consumers consists predominantly of young women (62.87%), with the largest age group being between 18 and 25 years (28.81%). These consumers are typically urban dwellers (72.57%), reflecting a trend of organic product popularity in cities, where accessibility to such goods is higher. A significant majority hold higher education degrees (80.59%), indicating a correlation between educational attainment and preferences for organic products. Additionally, most are employed (61.02%) and financially stable, with nearly a third (29.12%) earning above the domestic median net household income of 7473 lei per household. Their households commonly consist of 3–4 members (52.08%) and often lack minor children (58.71%).
In contrast, non-consumers of organic products are primarily males (50.54%), with the majority falling into the 26–35 age range (35.87%). While most also reside in urban areas (65.76%) and hold higher education qualifications (82.61%), a notable difference is their income level, with a significant portion (28.26%) earning below the domestic median net household income. This financial limitation could be a key factor in their reduced consumption of organic products, which are often perceived as more expensive. Non-consumers are commonly employed (70.11%) and tend to live in smaller households, predominantly with only two members (38.04%), and without minor children (69.57%). These characteristics suggest that while they may be educated and working, budgetary constraints or differing priorities may influence their purchasing behavior. Statistically significant differences were found between consumers and non-consumers in terms of socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, age, number of people in the household (p < 0.01), occupation, and number of minor children (p < 0.05). The data in Table 1 highlight these demographic and socioeconomic divides, shedding light on the distinct profiles of organic product consumers and non-consumers.

4.2. Habits of Purchasing and Consuming Organically Certified Products

Of the respondents, 77.9% reported consuming organic products, primarily for health benefits (72.6%), absence of pesticides and chemicals (66.4%), lack of GMOs (54.1%), environmental benefits (44.7%), and taste reasons (38.5%) (Figure 1). Key motivations include perceptions of organic foods as safer and more nutritious, along with supporting eco-friendly practices like reduced pollution and biodiversity promotion.
A minority of 5.9% of respondents believe that these products are state-supported. Some view organic products as a standard dietary choice, reflecting a shift towards normalizing organic consumption for health and the environment. Regarding purchasing habits, 48.2% share this responsibility with family, while 10.6% solely consume organic products.
Figure 2 illustrates the purchase frequency of various organic product categories. Vegetables, fruits, dairy, eggs, and bread are the most frequently bought, while processed foods and drinks are purchased less often, typically several times per month. Notably, many respondents reported not buying processed organic products at all, highlighting a gap in green purchasing behavior for these items.
Results indicate that supermarkets are the most popular source for purchasing certified organic products (79.5%), followed by farmers’ markets (45.3%), and organic specialty stores (33.9%) (Figure 3). A small portion (2%) of respondents produce organic items at home. However, these are uncertified, reflecting a common misconception that small-scale, household-grown products are inherently organic.
Consumers report that the majority of their organic-certified purchases are of domestic origin (41.99%), with local products also being favored (36.41%), while imported options account for only 21.6%. Key factors influencing organic purchases include ingredient lists, production methods, origin, and nutritional value, whereas the farm’s background has a neutral effect on purchase motivation (Figure 4).
Consumer behavior towards organic products is highly price sensitive. A 10% price increase has minimal impact (92.3% maintain their habits), but a 15% increase leads to a marked drop in consumption (66.4%). With a 25% rise, 70.42% of consumers reduce or stop purchases, and a 50% increase causes 87.98% to abandon organic buying entirely.

4.3. Consumer Perception and Attitude Regarding Organic-Certified Products

Consumer perceptions reveal that organic products are largely recognized for being chemical-free (57%), environmentally friendly (38%), and animal-welfare oriented (28%) (Figure 5), indicating a solid understanding of organic qualities. However, some consumers incorrectly associate organic products with being traditional (20%) or local (14%), a confusion that can further hinder sector growth.
In order to better analyze the perception and attitude of consumers regarding organic-certified products, analysis of the main factors was used. Principal factor analysis was performed to assess the dimensionality of the 15 items. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (Chi-square = 4033.492, p < 0.000). The overall Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling was 0.868, indicating that the data are suitable for principal component analysis as it is above 0.5 [74]. Exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation of the 15 variables resulted in a four-factor solution explaining 65.729% of the total variance. All four factors had eigenvalues greater than one. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was calculated to assess the internal consistency of each component. The overall reliability of the 15 variables was 0.799. Of the four factors, three had reliability coefficients greater than or around 0.6, and the last factor (financial) had a reliability coefficient less than 0.6 and was not retained for further analysis.
Table 2 shows the four basic dimensions resulting from the principal components analysis. The first dimension, “Attributes and certification”, explained 36.305% of the total variance, with a reliability coefficient of 0.887. The relatively large proportion of the total variation could be attributed to the fact that consumers perceive organic products as more natural, healthy, and with a positive impact on the environment and health. The first factor was composed of eight attributes and had a mean of 4.050 (SD = 0.674 (Table 2)). This factor involves attributes that focus on the health and environmental benefits of organic products but also on the trust in this type of product. The most valued attribute in this factor is the one related to health concerns (mean = 4.55, SD = 0.781), while the least important is the one related to product labeling (mean = 3.76, SD = 0.990).
The second factor, “Marketing and Support”, contained three factors and had a mean of 2.413 (SD = 0.958) and a reliability coefficient of 0.752, explaining 14.608% of the total variance. This factor loaded attributes related to the promotion of organic products and their support from the authorities.
The following factor, “Price premium and purchasing behavior”, explained 8.0% of the total variance with a reliability coefficient of 0.595. The factor contained two items related to the fact that if there were more promotions, consumers would purchase such products that are considered premium.
The last factor, “Financial”, explained 6.715% of the total variance with a reliability coefficient of 0.395. Even though the financial component is an important pillar of sustainable development, it was decided to remove this factor from future data analysis due to the low consistency of the scale.
A two-step cluster analysis was performed using the three dimensions of the PCA, beginning with Ward’s hierarchical clustering and followed by K-means clustering for stabilization. This process identified three distinct clusters of organic product consumers (Table 3). Multivariate analysis revealed significant differences between the three clusters (p < 0.001). The Kruskal–Wallis test indicated that the clusters are highly homogeneous (p < 0.001) (Table 4).
Cross-tabulation and Pearson’s χ2 statistics were utilized to identify the socio-demographic profiles of each consumer group based on gender, age, education, place of residence, education level, occupation, household members, number of children, and monthly net household income (Table 5). The analysis revealed statistically significant differences between clusters in all analyzed socio-demographic characteristics.
The first cluster of consumers represents 10.32% of the sample. This cluster shows the highest average scores for “Attributes and certification” and “Price premium and purchasing behavior”. However, it has the lowest average score for the “Marketing and Support” factor (1.93), indicating that consumers in this group are less focused on the marketing of organic products and more concerned with health-related aspects and their personal perception of these products. The cluster is predominantly male (53.73%), with over 41.79% having a monthly net household income of less than 5000 lei. Additionally, this group is characterized by a high level of education and primarily resides in urban areas.
The second group of consumers constitutes 34.36% of the sample and is marked by a significant emphasis on product attributes, certification standards, and the willingness to pay a premium price, along with specific purchasing behaviors. This highlights how a substantial portion of consumers value not only the quality and certification of organic products but also their pricing, indicating a complex relationship between these factors and purchasing decisions. This cluster is predominantly female (63.23%), with 56.05% holding higher education degrees and 36.77% having a net monthly household income of less than 5000 lei. Additionally, approximately 60% of this group is under 25 years old, with 52.91% being students. Most members of this cluster live in rural areas (58.74%), typically in households with 3–4 members (58.74%) and no minor children (51.57%).
The third group is the largest group in the sample, representing 55.32%, is aware of the attributes of organic products, and is concerned with the certification of these products. In this cluster, 65.74% are women, with 96.38% holding a university degree and 36.77% earning an income of over 10,000 lei. It is unsurprising that this cluster includes a higher percentage of people living in urban areas (92.76%) and those aged between 36 and 50 years (34.54%), with the majority being employed (86.35%).
The findings showed that “Attributes and certification” consistently received the highest average score across all three consumer groups, highlighting its importance as a key priority for these groups. In contrast, “Marketing and Support” had the lowest average score in each group, indicating that consumers placed less emphasis on this factor when making decisions. This suggests a stronger focus on intrinsic values, such as health and environmental impact, than on external influences, such as marketing strategies.

4.4. Non-Consumer Perception and Attitude Regarding Organic-Certified Products

4.4.1. The Main Barriers in the Consumption of Organic Products

Among respondents, a significant portion (22.1%) reported not consuming organic products, primarily due to perceived barriers. The most cited barrier was high price, identified by 63.59% of non-consumers. This indicates a widespread perception that organic products are a luxury rather than an affordable option, discouraging potential buyers.
Another major factor was lack of trust (39.96%), suggesting skepticism about the authenticity of organic labeling or concerns about quality standards. In addition, 19.02% of non-consumers expressed doubts about the added value of organic products compared to conventional alternatives, highlighting the perception that the premium price may not justify the claimed benefits. Less frequently cited barriers also shed light on the challenges of increasing organic consumption. Limited promotion (17.39%) and inadequate education about the benefits of organic products (11.41%) reveal a lack of awareness and effective marketing, which can dampen consumer interest and understanding. Restricted access (9.78%) was another issue, particularly in areas where organic products are scarce or confined to niche markets. These challenges emphasize the importance of improving communication, education, and distribution networks to make organic products more appealing and accessible, addressing both financial and informational obstacles that currently hinder their adoption (Figure 6).
Price sensitivity is a key factor influencing respondents’ willingness to purchase organic products. The data reveal that a significant portion of potential consumers is deterred by current pricing, as interest in organic products only surges with substantial price reductions. Specifically, when prices are reduced by 25%, interest among respondents increases dramatically to 75%. This suggests that for many, the perceived value of organic products is closely tied to affordability. The steep price point of these products may currently limit their accessibility, relegating them to a niche market despite growing awareness and demand. Furthermore, the willingness to purchase organic products rises even further, reaching 80% when prices are halved. This illustrates that cost is a decisive factor for most consumers, outweighing other potential barriers such as availability or knowledge (Figure 7).

4.4.2. Non-Consumer Perception of Organic Products

In addition to the identified barriers, non-consumers’ perception of organic products plays an essential role as an obstacle in organic product consumption. To determine this perception, a principal factor analysis was performed to assess the dimensionality of the 13 items used in the analysis. All items that showed a factor loading of less than 0.40 were removed from the analysis, resulting in 12 items that were reanalyzed. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (Chi-square = 922.709, p < 0.000). The overall Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling was 0.765, indicating that the data are suitable for principal component analysis [74]. Exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation of the 12 variables resulted in a three-factor solution explaining 63.281% of the total variance. All three factors had eigenvalues greater than one. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was calculated to assess the internal consistency of each component. The overall reliability of the 12 variables was 0.804 (Table 6).
The first dimension, “Information and Marketing”, explained 32.296% of the total variance with a reliability coefficient of 0.837 (Table 6). This dimension was composed of six statements that refer to the fact that the respondents consider that organic agriculture is not sufficiently promoted and supported and also to the lack of information about this product category. Among the six statements, respondents agreed most strongly that agriculture is not adequately promoted and supported by authorities (mean = 3.77, SD = 1.238/1.197). They also indicated that having more information would be beneficial (mean = 3.48, SD = 1.219).
The second dimension, “Distrust”, explained 21.911% of the total variance and had a reliability coefficient of 0.834, comprising three factors. These factors refer to consumers’ lack of trust in the characteristics of organic products compared to conventional ones, such as health and environmental protection.
The third dimension labeled “Influence” explained 9.074% of the total variance, with a reliability coefficient of 0.613 and included three factors, one of them related to the perception of personal financial status and the other two related to personal image when consuming trendy or premium products.
A two-step cluster analysis was performed using the three dimensions of the PCA, beginning with Ward’s hierarchical clustering and followed by K-means clustering for stabilization. This process identified two distinct clusters of organic product non-consumers (Table 7). Multivariate analysis revealed significant differences between the two clusters (p < 0.001). The Mann–Whitney U test indicated that the clusters are highly homogeneous (p < 0.000) (Table 8).
Cross-tabulation and Pearson χ2 statistics were used to identify the socio-demographic profiles of each group of non-consumers according to the socio-demographic variables collected (Table 9). The analysis revealed statistically significant differences between clusters regarding the following socio-demographic variables analyzed: age, number of children in the household (<18 years), and income.
The first group of non-consumers constitutes 72.8% of the sample. This group presents the highest average scores for the factors “Information and Marketing” and “Mistrust”, reflecting a heightened sensitivity to the way organic products are presented and skepticism towards them. However, it registers the lowest average score for the factor “Influence” (2.5853), suggesting that non-consumers are minimally influenced by the premium positioning of organic products. Demographically, the group is predominantly male (53.0%), with the majority of members aged between 26 and 35 years. Their household incomes fall primarily in the range of 7501–10,000 lei per month. This group also stands out for its high level of education, with a significant portion living in urban areas, indicating a concentration of young, educated, city-dwelling individuals who remain unconvinced of the value of organic products.
The second group of non-consumers comprises 27.2% of the sample and is characterized by a strong focus on information and marketing, as well as distrust. This group gave the lowest score to the factor “Influence”, indicating that they are not very influenced by the positioning of organic products as premium. Demographically, this group is predominantly female (56%), with a notable 82% holding higher education degrees. A significant proportion (40%) report a net monthly household income below 5000 lei, being between the ages of 26 and 35, with 18% being students. Urban life is predominant, with 56% living in cities. Household composition further defines this group, with 30% living in 2-member households and 54% having no minor children. These attributes suggest a demographic profile of younger, educated, and urban-oriented individuals who, although financially constrained, show a potential openness towards organic products
The findings showed that “Information and Marketing” consistently received the highest average score across all two non-consumer groups, highlighting its importance as a key priority for these groups.

5. Discussion

The results clearly highlight contrasting perceptions of organic products between Romanian consumers and non-consumers. Consumers typically associate organic products with health benefits, particularly due to the absence of synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, and chemicals. This finding aligns with the global research showing that health-conscious individuals tend to prefer organic products, viewing them as safer and more nutritious alternatives [18,30]. Additionally, Romanian consumers recognize organic products as environmentally beneficial, linking organic farming to reduced pollution and sustainability, which enhances their trust in these products [78]. In contrast, non-consumers display a more skeptical attitude toward organic consumption. They often doubt the health and environmental advantages that organic products claim to provide when compared to conventional options [40,60]. This group is also likely to mistrust the certification process and may perceive organic products as overpriced for the value they offer [34]. Non-consumers are less driven by environmental or health concerns, and their skepticism towards organic labels reduces the perceived value of these goods. The confirmation of the first hypothesis, which posits significant differences in perceptions of organic products between consumers and non-consumers, is supported by the main findings. Consumers demonstrate a more favorable view of organic products, particularly regarding health benefits, environmental sustainability, and trust in certification, reflecting earlier research [18,21]. Non-consumers, on the other hand, show skepticism, questioning both the advantages and reliability certification for organic products, consistent with previous studies on the topic [34,60]. These findings offer valuable insights into developing more targeted marketing strategies to appeal to both consumers and non-consumers, ultimately fostering the growth of the organic market in Romania. Measures to improve the demand for organic products can contribute to the goals of the EU Green Deal by better motivating producers to certify and produce organic products (25% of the Romanian land certified in organic practices). The low demand for organic products has been identified in other previous studies as a significant barrier to change, thus affecting the entire value chain [84,85,86]. It has also been proven that pivotal changes can occur only in the medium and the long term (10 to 20 years) [87]. Therefore, one of the largest EU food producers—Romania—will likely not be able to meet the EU Green targets set for organic farming. The results indicate that consumers primarily purchase organic vegetables and fruits, followed by milk and dairy products, while displaying less interest in processed organic goods. This may be attributed to the additional costs associated with the processing of raw materials, which are reflected in higher prices. Supermarkets emerge as the preferred venues for purchasing organic products. Regarding product information, the most crucial factors for consumers are the ingredient list, production methods, and nutritional values. Price is also identified as a key factor influencing their decision to buy organic products, highlighting consumers’ financial sensitivity [38].
The findings demonstrate that socioeconomic factors, such as education level, income, gender, and place of residence, significantly shape the perceptions of organic products in Romania. Urban, higher-income consumers tend to prioritize health and environmental benefits [58], while younger, rural consumers place greater importance on price considerations [21]. Hypothesis H2, which suggests that socioeconomic factors influence the perception of organic products among Romanian consumers, is supported by the analysis. Three distinct consumer groups were identified, each shaped by specific socioeconomic factors. The first group, comprising 10.32% of the sample, includes predominantly highly educated, urban, middle-aged individuals. These consumers prioritize product attributes, such as certification, and are primarily motivated by the perceived health benefits of organic products, viewing them as trustworthy and valuable. However, they place less emphasis on marketing and promotional efforts. The second group, representing 34.36% of the sample, is younger and includes a notable percentage of students and individuals from rural areas. This group is also concerned with product attributes and certifications but is much more price-sensitive, likely due to lower household incomes. While they are interested in organic products, affordability is a critical factor in their purchasing decisions. The largest group, accounting for 55.32% of the sample, consists predominantly of well-educated, employed women with moderate to high incomes. This aligns with findings from previous research, which suggests that women tend to be more concerned about health and environmental issues than men [88,89]. These consumers are highly aware of the attributes and certifications of organic products and are willing to pay a premium for quality and environmental benefits. However, like the second group, they also display some sensitivity to pricing, which impacts their purchasing choices.
Regarding non-consumers of organic products, they encounter several significant obstacles that affect their purchasing choices. One of the main challenges is the high price of organic items compared to conventional products. Many individuals view organic products as too expensive, which discourages them from making purchases. Research has shown that price sensitivity is a crucial factor in consumer behavior within the organic market, particularly among those with limited disposable income [27,29,60]. Another key barrier is the lack of trust in organic products. Non-consumers often express skepticism regarding the validity of organic certifications and the claims made by producers. This distrust may stem from the relative novelty of organic products in the Romanian market compared to their more established presence in the European Union. Similar studies have identified this skepticism as a barrier to consumption in various countries, including India [90], China [27], and the UK [46]. The data reveal a notable trust gap in how organic products are perceived, with the majority of non-consumer respondents expressing skepticism about their claimed qualities. Notably, 19% of respondents believe that these products are no more beneficial than conventional ones, indicating that trust issues are both widespread and deep-rooted. This skepticism can arise from factors such as a lack of transparency in production processes, unclear labeling or certification practices, and limited knowledge of quality assurance measures.
These findings highlight the need for stronger communication strategies and independent verification systems to build trust among non-consumers. In addition to promoting the benefits of organic products, consumer education initiatives should focus on enhancing the credibility of claims through reliable evidence, including quality testing and third-party validation. Furthermore, there is a lack of information about the benefits of organic products. Many non-consumers are not adequately informed about the health and environmental advantages linked to organic farming practices, as observed in Figure 6, where 11.41% of non-consumers state that they do not know the benefits of organic products. This aspect is also highlighted in other studies [46,60]. Research indicates that education plays a vital role in shaping consumer perceptions and attitudes toward organic foods [15]. Finally, the insufficient promotion of organic products contributes to their low adoption rates among non-consumers. Marketing efforts may not effectively reach or resonate with this audience, resulting in reduced awareness of the availability and benefits of organic options. This finding reinforces previous research highlighting the significance of marketing for organic products [47,60]. Overall, these barriers underscore the necessity for targeted marketing and educational initiatives to bridge the gap between non-consumer awareness and the perceived value of organic products. By addressing issues related to pricing, trust, information dissemination, and promotion, stakeholders in the organic market can foster a more supportive environment for potential buyers. These findings support hypothesis H3: perceived barriers significantly affect non-consumers’ attitudes toward organic products and their likelihood of purchasing them.
The results show that both non-consumer groups consistently rated “Information and Marketing” as the most important component, underlining its crucial role in influencing perceptions of organic products. This suggests that effective communication methods regarding the production and benefits of organic products, as well as a well-structured marketing strategy, could be essential in transforming non-consumers into buyers. The majority of non-consumer respondents believe that organic products are not well promoted and supported in Romania and that they do not have sufficient information about them (Table 6).
The prominence of “Information and Marketing” in both categories, which are characterized by a higher degree of mistrust, indicates a possible way to alleviate their doubts. Customized advertising strategies that emphasize transparency, credibility, and the tangible benefits of organic products may help bridge the trust gap. These findings highlight the strategic importance of marketing and information in shaping attitudes and fostering interest in organic products.

6. Conclusions

This study’s findings indicate that consumers of organic products are typically younger, well-educated individuals, reflecting their openness to change and strong appreciation for the quality of organic products. This demographic’s preference for organic items is closely linked to their commitment to sustainable development, emphasizing the importance of educating consumers to make responsible and environmentally conscious choices. Romanian consumers prioritize the health and environmental benefits when choosing organic products, highlighting the significance of sustainable production methods. The health advantages, such as the absence of harmful chemicals and additives, are considered crucial, while the eco-friendly nature of organic farming, which reduces environmental impact and supports biodiversity, is also highly valued. This focus on health and environmental sustainability reflects a growing awareness and preference for products that positively contribute to personal well-being and the planet.
The primary obstacle to the growth of the organic food market in Romania is the high price of these products, which deters many potential consumers. This is also highlighted by the willingness of non-consumers to buy organic products if the price were to decrease (Figure 7). Price sensitivity is also evident among consumers, as 87.98% of respondents indicated that they would stop purchasing organic products if prices increased by 50%. Additionally, there is a significant lack of trust in the claimed benefits of organic foods, with skepticism about their superiority over conventional products. Compounding these challenges is the insufficient availability of information, leaving consumers uncertain about what constitutes organic products, their advantages, and how they differ from non-organic options. These factors together hinder the broader adoption of organic foods in the Romanian market.
This study’s results are crucial as they offer valuable insights into the preferences and behaviors of organic product consumers in Romania, information that decision-makers can leverage to shape their development strategies. For all actors in the value chain of organic products, understanding the profile and preferences of their consumer base is essential for tailoring and adapting their products to meet market demands effectively. By offering products that align with the specific needs and expectations of different consumer segments—balancing quality, pricing, and value—companies can enhance customer satisfaction. This, in turn, can drive increased consumer loyalty and significantly boost the economic efficiency and profitability of producers in the organic food sector.
The limitations of this research primarily stem from the methodology employed. This study relied on an online questionnaire, restricting participation to individuals with internet access and familiarity with the social media platform used for distribution. As a result, the researchers were unable to reach individuals without internet access or social media use, which affected the representativeness of the sample regarding the broader population. Due to the social media platform used to distribute the questionnaire, the sample was overrepresented by the group of young and well-educated people from urban areas, while groups from rural areas and those with secondary education were underrepresented. Another limitation is that this research relies on self-reported data from participants, which may lead to inaccuracies due to misperceptions, the desire to conform to social norms, or misunderstandings of the questions.
Based on the results of this research, several directions for future studies on the impact of sustainability on purchasing decisions can be identified. Future research could explore how different consumer groups perceive organic farming practices and the extent to which environmental concerns influence their purchasing behavior. Additionally, studies could examine the differences between urban and rural areas regarding access to organic products and investigate how the diversification of distribution channels affects consumer demand. Furthermore, future studies could extend this analysis to include cultural and regional differences within Romania, providing a more complete and accurate picture of the diversity of perceptions among the Romanian population. Expanding the sample size could also address some of the limitations identified in this study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.S.D. and I.M.J.; methodology I.S.D. and I.M.J.; validation, I.M.J.; formal analysis, I.S.D. and I.M.J.; investigation I.S.D.; data curation, I.S.D. and I.M.J.; writing—original draft preparation, I.S.D. and I.M.J.; writing—review and editing, I.S.D. and I.M.J.; visualization, I.S.D. and I.M.J.; supervision, I.M.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their sincere gratitude to the respondents for generously sharing their valuable insights and perspectives.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Gyarmati, G. Organic food consumption in a Central European region. Int. Multidiscip. Sci. GeoConference SGEM 2019, 19, 539–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Skinner, C.; Gattinger, A.; Krauss, M.; Krause, H.M.; Mayer, J.; Van Der Heijden, M.G.; Mäder, P. The impact of long-term organic farming on soil-derived greenhouse gas emissions. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Schmutzler, H.; Gernert, M.; Zintl, M.; Agbolosoo-Mensah, O.; Sauques, L.; Winkler, H.; Bauer, L.; Schmidt, S. Current statistics on organic agriculture worldwide: Area, operators and market. In The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends; The Research Institute of Organic Agriculture: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2024; pp. 171–216. Available online: https://www.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/1747-organic-world-2024_light.pdf (accessed on 6 March 2024).
  4. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. Organics Europa. 2024. Available online: https://www.ifoam-eu.org/en/organic-europe (accessed on 6 March 2024).
  5. Brata, A.M.; Chereji, A.I.; Brata, V.D.; Morna, A.A.; Tirpe, O.P.; Popa, A.; Arion, F.H.; Banszki, L.I.; Chereji, I.; Popa, D.; et al. Consumers’ perception towards organic products before and after the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study in bihor county, Romania. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. European Union. Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on Organic Production and Labelling of Organic Products and Repealing. Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Off. J. Eur. Union L 2007, 189, 50. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007R0834 (accessed on 6 March 2024).
  7. Dickson-Spillmann, M.; Siegrist, M.; Keller, C. Attitudes toward chemicals are associated with preference for natural food. Food Qual. Prefer 2011, 22, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hansmann, R.; Baur, I.; Binder, C.R. Increasing organic food consumption: An integrating model of drivers and barriers. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 123058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vega-Zamora, M.; Parras-Rosa, M.; Torres-Ruiz, F.J. You are what you eat: The relationship between values and organic food consumption. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. European Commission (EC). A European Green Deal. 2019. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (accessed on 6 March 2024).
  11. Lindström, H.; Lundberg, S.; Marklund, P.O. Green public procurement: An empirical analysis of the uptake of organic food policy. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2022, 28, 100752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gustavsen, G.W.; Hegnes, A.W. Individuals’ personality and consumption of organic food. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 245, 118772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dan, I.S.; Gliga, A.; Sandor, M.; Jitea, I.M. Trends in ecological agricultural production in Romania. Sci. Pap. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. 2022, 22, 249–256. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Dinamica Operatorilor și a Suprafețelor în Agricultura Ecologică 2010–2022. 2024. Available online: https://www.madr.ro/agricultura-ecologica/dinamica-operatorilor-si-a-suprafetelor-in-agricultura-ecologica.html (accessed on 6 March 2024).
  15. Fischer, A.R. Perception, attitudes, intentions, decisions and actual behavior. In Consumer Perception of Product Risks and Benefits; Springer: Cham, Switzerlands, 2017; pp. 303–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gundala, R.R.; Singh, A. What motivates consumers to buy organic foods? Results of an empirical study in the United States. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0257288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yilmaz, B. Factors influencing consumers’ behavior towards purchasing organic foods: A theoretical model. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wier, M.; O’Doherty Jensen, K.; Andersen, L.M.; Millock, K.; Rosenkvist, L. The character of demand in mature organic food markets: Great Britain and Denmark compared. Food Policy 2008, 33, 406–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zagata, L. Consumers’ beliefs and behavioural intentions towards organic food. Evidence from the Czech Republic. Appetite 2012, 59, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Biao, X.; Wang, L.; Yang, H.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, M. Consumer perceptions and attitudes of organic food products in Eastern China. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 1105–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bryla, P. Organic food consumption in Poland: Motives and barriers. Appetite 2016, 105, 737–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ueasangkomsate, P.; Santiteerakul, S. A study of consumers’ attitudes and intention to buy organic foods for sustainability. Proc. Environ. Sci. 2016, 34, 423–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Baudry, J.; Péneau, S.; Allès, B.; Touvier, M.; Hercberg, S.; Galan, P.; Amiot, M.J.; Lairon, D.; Méjean, C.; Kesse-Guyot, E. Food choice motives when purchasing in organic and conventional consumer clusters: Focus on sustainable concerns (The NutriNet-Santé Cohort Study). Nutrients 2017, 9, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wee, C.S.; Ariff, M.S.B.M.; Zakuan, N.; Tajudin, M.N.M.; Ismail, K.; Ishak, N.; Haji, L.T. Consumers Perception, Purchase Intention and Actual Purchase Behavior of Organic Food Products. Rev. Integr. Bus. Econ. Res. 2014, 3, 378–394. [Google Scholar]
  25. Honkanen, P.; Verplanken, B.; Olsen, S.O. Ethical values and motives driving organic food choice. J. Consum. Behav. 2006, 5, 420–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pearson, D.; Henryks, J.; Sultan, P.; Anisimova, T. Organic food: Exploring purchase frequency to explain consumer behaviour. J. Org. Syst. 2013, 8, 50–63. [Google Scholar]
  27. Irianto, H. Consumers’ attitude and intention towards organic food purchase: An extension of theory of planned behavior in gender perspective. Int. J. Manag. Econ. Soc. Sci. 2015, 4, 17–31. [Google Scholar]
  28. Meixner, O.; Haas, R.; Perevoshchikova, Y.; Canavari, M. Consumer attitudes, knowledge, and behavior in the Russian market for organic food. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2014, 5, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zanoli, R.; Naspetti, S. Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food: A means-end approach. Br. Food J. 2002, 104, 643–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Aertsens, J.; Verbeke, W.; Mondelaers, K.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. Personal determinants of organic food consumption: A review. Br. Food J. 2009, 111, 1140–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Miftari, I.; Imami, D.; Kaliji, S.A.; Canavari, M.; Gjokaj, E. Analyzing consumer perceptions about food safety by applying the food-related lifestyle approach. Ital. J. Food Saf. 2024, 13, 11315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kapuge, K.D.L.R. 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]
  33. 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]
  34. 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]
  35. Hjelmar, U. Consumers’ purchase of organic food products. A matter of convenience and reflexive practices. Appetite 2011, 56, 336–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Shafie, F.A.; Rennie, D. Consumer perceptions towards organic food. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 49, 360–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Petrescu, D.C.; Petrescu-Mag, R.M. Organic Food Perception: Fad, or Healthy and Environmentally Friendly?A Case on Romanian Consumers. Sustainability 2015, 7, 12017–12031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vietoris, V.; Kozelová, D.; Mellen, M.; Chreneková, M.; Potclan, J.E.; Fikselová, M.; Kopkáš, P.; Horská, E. Analysis of Consumer Preferences at Organic Food Purchase in Romania. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2016, 66, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dumea, A.C. Factors Influencing Consumption of Organic Food in Romania. Perception of Organic Food Consumption in Romania. USV Ann. Econ. Public Adm. 2017, 12, 107–113. [Google Scholar]
  40. Petrescu, A.G.; Oncioiu, I.; Petrescu, M. Perception of organic food consumption in Romania. Foods 2017, 6, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Tsakiridou, E.; Boutsouki, C.; Zotos, Y.; Mattas, K. Attitudes and behaviour towards organic products: An exploratory study. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2008, 36, 158–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lea, E.; Worsley, T. Australians’organic food beliefs, demographics and values. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 855–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Krystallis, A.; Chryssohoidis, G. Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic food: Factors that affect it and variation per organic product type. Br. Food J. 2015, 107, 320–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Basha, M.B.; Mason, C.; Shamsudin, M.F.; Hussain, H.I.; Salem, M.A. Consumers attitude towards organic food. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 31, 444–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. 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]
  46. Padel, S.; Foster, C. Exploring the gap between attitudes and behavior: Understanding why consumers buyor do not buy organic food. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 606–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hughner, R.S.; McDonagh, P.; Prothero, A.; Shultz, C.J., II; Stanton, J. Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. J. Consum. Behav. 2007, 6, 94–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Stolz, H.; Stolze, M.; Hamm, U.; Janssen, M.; Ruto, E. Consumer attitudes towards organic versus conventional food with specific quality attributes. J. Life Sci. 2011, 58, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kesse-Guyot, E.; Peneau, S.; Mejean, 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] [PubMed]
  50. 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]
  51. Ramesh, S.V.; Divya, M. A study on consumers’ awareness attitude and satisfaction towards select organic food products with reference to Coimbatore. Int. J. Interdiscipl. Multidiscip. Stud. 2015, 2, 81–84. [Google Scholar]
  52. Toit, L.; Crafford, S. Beliefs and purchasing practices of Cape Town consumers regarding organically produced food. J. Fam. Ecol. Consum. Sci. 2013, 31, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  53. Magnusson, M.K.; Arvola, A.; Hursti, U.K.K.; Åberg, L.; Sjödén, P.O. Attitudes towards organic foods among Swedish consumers. Br. Food J. 2001, 103, 209–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Riffkin, R. Forty-Five Percent of Americans Seek Out Organic Foods. Gallup.Com. 2014. Available online: https://news.gallup.com/poll/174524/forty-five-percent-americans-seek-organic-foods.aspx (accessed on 11 March 2024).
  55. Ureña, F.; Bernabéu, R.; Olmeda, M. Women, men and organic food: Differences in their attitudes and willingness to pay. A Spanish case study. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2008, 32, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Dibsdall, L.A.; Lambert, N.; Bobbin, R.F.; Frewer, L.J. Low-income consumers’ attitudes and behavior towards access, availability and motivation to eat fruit and vegetables. Public Health Nutr. 2002, 6, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Aygen, F.G. Attitudes and behavior of turkish consumers with respect to organic foods. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2012, 3, 262–273. [Google Scholar]
  58. Stoleru, V.; Munteanu, N.; Istrate, A. Perception towards organic vs. conventional products in Romania. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Fleșeriu, C.; Cosma, S.A.; Bocăneț, V. Values and planned behavior of the Romanian organic food consumer. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chiciudean, G.O.; Harun, R.; Ilea, M.; Chiciudean, D.I.; Arion, F.H.; Ilies, G.; Muresan, I.C. Organic food consumers and purchase intention: A case study in Romania. Agronomy 2019, 9, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Marshall, G. The purpose, design and administration of a questionnaire for data collection. Radiography 2005, 11, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Taherdoost, H. Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. How to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag. (IJARM) 2016, 5, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Patten, M.L. Questionnaire Research: A Practical Guide, 4th ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sahu, P.K. Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers in Agricultural Science, Social Science and Other Related Fields; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hellin, J.; Meijer, M. Guidelines for Value Chain Analysis; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  66. Emana, B.; Nigussie, M. Potato Value Chain Analysis and Development in Ethiopia; International Potato Center (CIP-Ethiopia): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  67. Pauwelyn, B.; Gellynck, X. Value Chain Analysis for Organic Milk in Flanders. Doctoral Dissertation, Master’s Thesis, Faculty of Economics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium, 2014. Available online: https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/164/884/RUG01-002164884_2014_0001_AC.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2024).
  68. Poruțiu, A.R.; Brata, A.M.; Dumitras, D.E.; Oros, O.P.; Muresan, I.C. Understanding Romanian Generational Preferences and Travel Decision-Making When Choosing a Rural Destination. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.G.; Buchner, A. G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Naspetti, S.; Mandolesi, S.; Buysse, J.; Latvala, T.; Nicholas, P.; Padel, S.; Van Loo, E.J.; Zanoli, R. Consumer perception of sustainable practices in dairy production. Agric. Food Econ. 2021, 9, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ende, L.; Reinhard, M.A.; Göritz, L. Detecting greenwashing! The influence of product colour and product price on consumers’ detection accuracy of faked bio-fashion. J. Consum. Policy 2023, 46, 155–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hair, J.; Black, B.B.; Babin, B.B.; Anderson, R.; Tatham, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Uppersaddle River, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  73. Kaiser, H.F. Index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 1974, 39, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ding, C.; He, X. K-means Clustering via Principal Component Analysis. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning, Banff, AB, Canada, 4–8 July 2004; pp. 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tabachinick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics, 2nd ed.; Harper Row: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  76. Burgess, S.M.; Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. Marketing renaissance: How to research in emerging markets advances marketing science and practice. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2006, 23, 337–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Asioli, D.; Næs, T.; Granli, B.S.; Almli, V.L. Consumer Preferences for Iced Coffee Determined by Conjoint Analysis: An Exploratory Study with Norwegian Consumers. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 49, 1565–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Oroian, C.F.; Safirescu, C.O.; Harun, R.; Chiciudean, G.O.; Arion, F.H.; Muresan, I.C.; Bordeanu, B.M. Consumers’ attitudes towards organic products and sustainable development: A case study of Romania. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Muziri, T.; Chaibva, P.; Chofamba, A.; Madanzi, T.; Mangeru, P.; Mudada, N.; Manhokwe, S.; Mugari, A.; Matsvange, D.; Murewi, C.T.F. Using Principal Component Analysis to Explore Consumers’ Perception toward Quinoa Health and Nutritional Claims in Gweru, Zimbabwe. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 9, 1025–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Everitt, B.S.; Landau, S.; Leese, M.; Stahl, D. Cluster Analysis; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  81. Jain, A.K. Data clustering 50 years beyond K-means. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2010, 31, 651–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Muresan, I.C.; Harun, R.; Arion, F.H.; Brata, A.M.; Chereches, I.A.; Chiciudean, G.O.; Tirpe, O.P. Consumers’ attitude towards sustainable food consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic in Romania. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. National Institute of Statistics. Resident Population on January 1 by Age Groups and Ages, Genders and Areas of Residence, Macroregions, Development Regions and Counties. 2024. Available online: http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table (accessed on 3 December 2024).
  84. Jensen, K.O.; Denver, S.; Zanoli, R. Actual and potential development of consumer demand on the organic food market in Europe. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2011, 58, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Eyinade, G.A.; Mushunje, A.; Yusuf, S.F.G. The willingness to consume organic food: A review. Food Agric. Immunol. 2021, 32, 78–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lodorfos, G.N.; Dennis, J. Consumers’ Intent: In the Organic Food Market. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2008, 14, 17–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Falguera, V.; Aliguer, N.; Falguera, M. An integrated approach to current trends in food consumption: Moving toward functional and organic products? Food Control 2008, 26, 274–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Laroche, M.; Bergeron, J.; Barbaro-Forleo, G. Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. J. Consum. Mark. 2001, 18, 503–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Lee, K. Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing behavior. J. Consum. Mark. 2009, 26, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Saba, A.; Messina, F. Attitudes towards organic foods and risk/benefit perception associated with pesticides. Food Qual. Prefer. 2003, 14, 637–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 14 02292 g001
Figure 1. Reasons for consumption. Source: authors’ research results.
Figure 1. Reasons for consumption. Source: authors’ research results.
Agriculture 14 02292 g001
Agriculture 14 02292 g002
Figure 2. Frequency of purchase of different organically certified products. Source: authors’ research results.
Figure 2. Frequency of purchase of different organically certified products. Source: authors’ research results.
Agriculture 14 02292 g002
Agriculture 14 02292 g003
Figure 3. The place of purchase of organic products. Source: author’s projection.
Figure 3. The place of purchase of organic products. Source: author’s projection.
Agriculture 14 02292 g003
Agriculture 14 02292 g004
Figure 4. The importance of information in the purchasing process. Source: authors’ research results.
Figure 4. The importance of information in the purchasing process. Source: authors’ research results.
Agriculture 14 02292 g004
Agriculture 14 02292 g005
Figure 5. Consumer perception regarding organic products. Source: authors’ research results.
Figure 5. Consumer perception regarding organic products. Source: authors’ research results.
Agriculture 14 02292 g005
Agriculture 14 02292 g006
Figure 6. Barriers in the consumption of certified organic products. Source: authors’ research results.
Figure 6. Barriers in the consumption of certified organic products. Source: authors’ research results.
Agriculture 14 02292 g006
Agriculture 14 02292 g007
Figure 7. Respondents’ willingness to purchase organic products if the price were to decrease. Source: authors’ research results.
Figure 7. Respondents’ willingness to purchase organic products if the price were to decrease. Source: authors’ research results.
Agriculture 14 02292 g007
Table 1. The socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents (N = 833).
Table 1. The socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents (N = 833).
CharacteristicsVariablesResearch Population [83] (%)Number of RespondentsPercent of RespondentsSignificance
Consumers (n = 649) Non-
Consumers (n = 184)		ConsumersNon-
Consumers		p-Value
GenderFemale51.354089162.8749.460.001 **
Male48.652419337.1350.54
Age categories18–25 years13.661873428.8118.480.008 **
26–35 years18.341766627.1235.87
36–50 years35.451664125.5822.28
51–65 years32.551204318.4923.37
Place of residencyUrban51.9247112172.5765.760.072
Rural48.081786327.4334.24
Education levelPrimary educationn/a410.620.540.774
Secondary educationn/a300.460.00
High-school studiesn/a1193118.3416.85
University studiesn/a52315280.5982.61
OccupationEntrepreneurn/a60189.249.78
Employedn/a39612961.0270.110.029 *
Self employedn/a2263.393.26
Unemployedn/a120.151.09
Retiredn/a1312.000.54
Studentn/a1572824.1915.22
Number of people in the household1 personn/a45356.9319.02
2 personsn/a1967030.2038.040.000 **
3–4 peoplen/a3386752.0836.41
More than 5 peoplen/a701210.796.52
Number of children in the household (<18 years)0 childrenn/a38112858.7169.57
1 childn/a1693226.0417.39
2 childrenn/a701710.799.240.041 *
3–4 childrenn/a2173.243.80
More than 5 childrenn/a801.230.00
Monthly net household income (LEI)Under 1900 lein/a2173.243.800.307
1900–2500 lein/a27114.165.98
2501–5000 lein/a1043616.0219.57
5001–7500 lein/a1595224.5028.26
7501–10,000 lein/a1493722.9620.11
Over 10,000 lein/a1894129.1222.28
* Significant at the 5% level; ** significant at the 1% level; n/a—data are not available. Source: authors’ research results.
Table 2. Principal component analysis (consumers, n = 649).
Table 2. Principal component analysis (consumers, n = 649).
EigenvalueVariance PercentFactorItemFactor LoadingCommunalitiesMean SD
544636.305Attributes and certification α = 0.887
Mean = 4.050
SD = 0.674		Eco-certified products are produced in an environmentally friendly way0.8190.6804.170.820
I like the principles of organic production0.8190.7014.110.831
I am concerned about my health and that of my family0.8080.6674.550.781
Organically certified products are tastier than conventional ones0.7160.5633.990.952
I trust the logo of ecologically certified products0.6870.5543.800.949
I believe that organically certified products are important for increasing the sustainability of food production0.6850.5263.940.906
Organically certified products are richer in vitamins/minerals/proteins than conventional ones0.6720.5083.950.987
I am interested in how the certified organic products are labeled0.6590.5203.760.990
219114.608Marketing and Support
α = 0.752
Mean = 2.431
SD = 0.958		The promotion of certified organic products in Romania is sufficient0.8640.7632.561.182
Organic agriculture is supported by the Romanian authorities0.8530.7442.611.178
I consume certified organic products because they are fashionable0.6180.7172.011.097
12158.100Price premium and purchasing behavior α = 0.595
Mean = 3.612
SD = 0.927		Organically certified products are premium products0.7640.6833.461.123
If there are more promotions in the supermarket, I will prioritize buying organically certified products0.5950.5933.811.055
10076.715Price premium effects
α = 0.395
Mean = 3.131
SD = 0.960		For financial reasons, I sometimes have to limit my food choices0.8590.8503.261.210
I have enough money for any food I want0.6860.7912.971.216
Total variance (%)65.729α = 0.799
Notes: SD—standard deviation, α = Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient.
Table 3. Final cluster centers.
Table 3. Final cluster centers.
FactorsCluster 1
(n = 67, 10.32%)		Cluster 2
(n = 223, 34.36%)		Cluster 3
(n = 359, 55.32%)		F ValueSignificance
Attributes and certification−1.826750.178870.22982202.4620.000 ***
Marketing and Support−0.520590.48527−0.2042849.1980.000 ***
Price premium and purchasing behavior−1.572700.183520.17952128.8620.000 ***
***—p < 0.001.
Table 4. Factors’ mean.
Table 4. Factors’ mean.
FactorsCluster 1Cluster 2Cluster 3Kruskal–Wallis
χ2 Statistic		p-Value
Attributes and certification2.8183 (0.967)4.1708 (0.483)4.2051 (0.434)135.4080.000 ***
Marketing and Support1.9317 (0.656)2.8957 (1.006)2.2348 (0.857)80.9130.000 ***
Price premium and purchasing behavior2.1540 (0.707)3.7817 (0.803)3.7780 (0.786)134.5410.000 ***
***—p < 0.001; ()—SD.
Table 5. Cluster socio-demographic profiles.
Table 5. Cluster socio-demographic profiles.
CharacteristicsCluster 1
(n = 67, 10.32%)		Cluster 2
(n = 223, 34.36%)		Cluster 3
(n = 359, 55.32%)		Chi-Square
DF		p-Value
Gender
Female31 (46.27%)141 (63.23%)236 (65.74%)χ2 = 9.187
df = 2		0.010 *
Male36 (53.73%)82 (36.77%)123 (34.26%)
Age
18–25 years25 (37.31%)133 (59.64%)29 (8.08%)χ2 = 212.035
df = 6		0.000 ***
26–35 years27 (40.30%)48 (21.52%)101 (28.13%)
36–50 years9 (13.43%)33 (14.80%)124 (34.54%)
51–65 years6 (8.96%)9 (4.04%)105 (29.25%)
Place of residency
Rural21 (31.34%)131 (58.74%)26 (7.24%)χ2 = 182.8810.000 ***
Urban46 (68.66%)92 (41.26%)333 (92.76%)df = 2
Education level
High-school studies and less15 (22.39%)98 (43.95%)13 (3.62%)χ2 = 143.392
df = 2		0.000 ***
University studies52 (77.61%)125 (56.05%)346 (96.38%)
Occupation
Employed21 (31.34%)64 (28.70%)310 (86.35%)χ2 = 248.366
df = 4		0.000 ***
Student24 (35.82%)118 (52.91%)15 (4.18%)
Other categories 22 (32.84%)41 (18.39%)34 (9.47%)
Number of people in the household
1 person13 (19.40%)2 (0.90%)30 (8.36%)χ2 = 110.893
df = 6		0.000 ***
2 persons24 (35.82%)36 (16.14%)136 (37.88%)
3–4 people27 (40.30%)131 (58.74%)180 (50.14%)
More than 5 people3 (4.48%)54 (24.22%)13 (3.62%)
Number of children in the household (<18 years)
0 children43 (64.18%)115 (51.57%)223 (62.12%)χ2 = 16.708
df = 8		0.033 *
1 child15 (22.39%)65 (29.15%)89 (24.79%)
2 children7 (10.45%)26 (11.66%)37 (10.31%)
3–4 children0 (0%)12 (5.38%)9 (2.51%)
More than 5 children2 (2.99)5 (2.24%)1 (0.28%)
Monthly net household income
1900–5000 lei28 (41.79%)82 (36.77%)42 (11.70%)χ2 = 69.557
df = 6		0.000 ***
5001–7500 lei10 (14.93%)53 (23.77%)96 (26.74%)
7501–10,000 lei12 (17.91%)48 (21.52%)89 (24.79%)
Over 10,000 lei17 (25.37%)40 (17.94%)132 (36.77%)
*—p < 0.05; ***—p < 0.001.
Table 6. Principal component analysis (non-consumers, n = 184).
Table 6. Principal component analysis (non-consumers, n = 184).
EigenvalueVariance PercentFactorItemFactor LoadingCommunalitiesMean SD
387532.296Information and marketing
α = 0.837
Media = 3.467
SD = 0.932		Organic agriculture is not supported by the Romanian authorities0.8430.7203.771.238
Promoting ecologically certified products in Romania is not enough0.8280.6953.771.197
I don’t have enough information about organically certified products0.7910.6843.481.219
If there are more promotions in the supermarket, I will buy organically certified products0.7220.5261.830.991
For financial reasons, I sometimes have to limit my food choices0.6680.6183.201.309
I don’t know the benefits of certified organic products0.5490.5773.131.281
262921.911Mistrust
α = 0.834
Media = 2.256
SD = 1.037		Organically certified products are not richer in vitamins/minerals/proteins than conventional ones0.8440.7852.461.227
Organically certified products are not important for increasing the sustainability of food production0.8430.7172.411.166
Organically certified products are not tastier than conventional products0.7830.6952.721.119
10899.074Influence
α = 0.613
Media = 2.228
SD = 0.867		I have enough money for any food I want0.7650.6252.611.288
I don’t consume organically certified products because they are not fashionable0.6430.521.830.991
Organically certified products are not premium products0.5030.4992.351.111
Total variance (%)63.281α = 0.804
Notes: SD—standard deviation, α = Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient.
Table 7. Final cluster centers.
Table 7. Final cluster centers.
FactorsCluster 1
(n = 134, 72.8%)		Cluster 2
(n = 50, 27.2%)		F ValueSignificance
Information and marketing0.330−0.88575.8110.00 ***
Mistrust0.362−0.972100.1950.000 ***
Influence0.349−0.93689.3070.000 ***
***—p < 0.001.
Table 8. Factors’ mean.
Table 8. Factors’ mean.
FactorsCluster 1Cluster 2Mann–Whitney Up-Value
Information and marketing3.7748 (0.592)2.642 (1.155)1509.000.000 ***
Mistrust2.9026 (0.923)1.517 (0.524)663.000.000 ***
Influence2.5853 (0.771)1.469 (0.519)698.500.000 ***
***—p < 0.001; ()—SD.
Table 9. Cluster socio-demographic profiles of non-consumers.
Table 9. Cluster socio-demographic profiles of non-consumers.
CharacteristicsCluster 1
(n = 134, 72.8%)		Cluster 2
(n = 50, 27.2%)		Chi-Square
DF		p-Value
Gender
Female63 (47.0%)28 (56.0%)χ2 = 1.176
df = 1		0.278
Male71 (53.0%)22 (44.0%)
Age
18–25 years22 (16.4%)12 (24.0%)χ2 = 8.220
df = 3		0.042 *
26–35 years48 (35.8%)18 (36.0%)
36–50 years26 (19.4%)15 (30.0%)
51–65 years38 (28.4%)5 (10.0%)
Place of residency
Rural93 (69.4%)28 (56.0%)χ2 = 2.905
df = 1		0.088
Urban41 (30.6%)22 (44.0%)
Education level
High-school studies and less23 (17.2%)9 (18.0%)χ2 = 0.018
df = 1		0.894
University studies111 (82.8%)41 (82.0%)
Occupation
Employed96 (71.6%)33 (66.0%)χ2 = 0.597
df = 2		0.742
Student19 (14.2%)9 (18.0%)
Other categories 19 (14.2%)8 (16.0%)
Number of people in the household
1 person25 (18.7%)10 (20%)χ2 = 7.093
df = 3		0.069
2 persons55 (41.0%)15 (30%)
3–4 people49 (36.6%)18 (36%)
More than 5 people5 (3.7%)7 (14%)
Number of children in the household (<18 years)
0 children101 (75.4%)27 (54.0%)χ2 = 13.786
df = 3		0.003 *
1 child18 (13.4%)14 (28.0%)
2 children13 (9.7%)4 (8.0%)
3–4 children2 (1.5%)5 (10.0%)
Monthly net household income
1900–5000 lei34 (25.4%)20 40.0%)χ2 = 9.663
df = 3		0.022 *
5001–7500 lei34 (25.4%)18 (36.0%)
7501–10,000 lei35 (26.1%)7 (14.0%)
Over 10,000 lei31 (23.1%)5 (10.0%)
*—p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dan, I.S.; Jitea, I.M. Understanding the Perceptions of Organic Products in Romania: Challenges and Opportunities for Market Growth in the Context of the European Green Deal. Agriculture 2024, 14, 2292. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14122292

AMA Style

Dan IS, Jitea IM. Understanding the Perceptions of Organic Products in Romania: Challenges and Opportunities for Market Growth in the Context of the European Green Deal. Agriculture. 2024; 14(12):2292. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14122292

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dan, Iulia Sorina, and Ionel Mugurel Jitea. 2024. "Understanding the Perceptions of Organic Products in Romania: Challenges and Opportunities for Market Growth in the Context of the European Green Deal" Agriculture 14, no. 12: 2292. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14122292

APA Style

Dan, I. S., & Jitea, I. M. (2024). Understanding the Perceptions of Organic Products in Romania: Challenges and Opportunities for Market Growth in the Context of the European Green Deal. Agriculture, 14(12), 2292. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14122292

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop