Influencing factors of consumer satisfaction evaluation on quality and safety of agricultural products: an illustration from Zhejiang Province

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2020.12.19

Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis ›› 2020, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (12): 2271-2281.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2020.12.19

• Agricultural Economy and Development • Previous Articles Next Articles

Influencing factors of consumer satisfaction evaluation on quality and safety of agricultural products: an illustration from Zhejiang Province

KE Fuyan¹(), XU Zhiyuan¹, ZHAN Jinrong²

1. Institute of Rural Development, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou 310021, China
2. Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou 310020, China

Received:2020-05-21 Online:2020-12-25 Published:2020-12-25

Abstract

Abstract:

Since the melamine incident in 2008, improving consumer satisfaction evaluation has become one of the important objectives of government in the administration of quality and safety of agricultural products. This paper established consumer satisfaction evaluation indicators for agricultural products’ quality and safety. Based on 1 910 interception questionnaires in 13 counties in Zhejiang Province of 2019, the main influencing factors were analyzed and compared through four measurement models. The results showed that: the consumer satisfaction evaluation of quality and safety of agricultural products in Zhejiang Province was at a relatively high level, county-level territorial management effectiveness had played a central role in improving consumer satisfaction evaluation of quality and safety of agricultural products, consumers’ own cognitive level and awareness also had a positive impact on the evaluation. Consumer satisfaction ratings from farmers’ markets were higher than those from supermarkets, and the longer the residence time of consumers, the higher the satisfaction rating of consumers. Consumers with higher age and higher education level were more cautious about their satisfaction evaluation. Therefore, the Chinese government should seize the opportunity of improving public opinion and further promote the local management of quality and safety of agricultural products, improve the level of consumer awareness, and focus on strengthening publicity for the elderly and foreign population.

Key words: quality and safety of agricultural products, satisfaction evaluation, government territory management, cognitive level, awareness

CLC Number:

F327

KE Fuyan, XU Zhiyuan, ZHAN Jinrong. Influencing factors of consumer satisfaction evaluation on quality and safety of agricultural products: an illustration from Zhejiang Province[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2020, 32(12): 2271-2281.

Figures/Tables 6

References 21

[1]	王建华, 刘茁, 李俏. 农产品安全风险治理中政府行为选择及其路径优化:以农产品生产过程中的农药施用为例[J]. 中国农村经济, 2015(11):54-62.
	WANG J H, LIU Z, LI Q. The choice of government behavior and the optimization of paths in the management of agricultural product safety risks: taking pesticide application as an example[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2015(11):54-62. (in Chinese)
[2]	韩杨, 曹斌, 陈建先, 等. 中国消费者对食品质量安全信息需求差异分析: 来自1 573个消费者的数据检验[J]. 中国软科学, 2014(2):32-45.
	HAN Y, CAO B, CHEN J X, et al. Variance analysis on China’s consumers’ demand for information of food quality and safety: empirical test of data from 1573 Chinese consumers[J]. China Soft Science, 2014(2):32-45.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[3]	王常伟, 顾海英. 消费者食品安全感知、监管满意度与支付意愿[J]. 华南农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2013,12(2):89-95.
	WANG C W, GU H Y. Food safety perception, supervision satisfaction and willingness to pay of consumers[J]. Journal of South China Agricultural University (Social Science Edition), 2013,12(2):89-95.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[4]	李酣. 中国政府质量安全责任的消费者评价及影响因素: 基于2012年全国调查问卷的实证研究[J]. 宏观质量研究, 2013,1(1):118-128.
	LI H. An evaluation of the government’s quality and safety responsibility[J]. Journal of Macro-Quality Research, 2013,1(1):118-128.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[5]	马俊. 基于城市居民视角的农产品质量满意度研究[D]. 武汉: 武汉理工大学, 2012.
	MA J. Research on customer satisfaction of the quality of agricultural products base on city residents[D]. Wuhan: Wuhan University of Technology, 2012.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[6]	王志刚, 李腾飞, 黄圣男. 消费者对食品安全的认知程度及其消费信心恢复研究:以“问题奶粉”事件为例[J]. 消费经济, 2013,29(4):42-47.
	WANG Z G, LI T F, HUANG S N. Research on consumers’ cognition of food safety and the resumption of consumer confidence: taking the “Problem Milk Powder” event as an example[J]. Consumer Economics, 2013,29(4):42-47.(in Chinese)
[7]	古川, 易钰杰. 获取披露信息能提高食品信任水平吗?: 基于湖南省长沙市生鲜品信息公示的调查数据[J]. 农业技术经济, 2020(1):68-79.
	GU C, YI Y J. Can disclosed information acquisition improve food trust?: based on survey data of fresh food in Changsha City[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2020(1):68-79.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[8]	石朝光, 王凯. 影响消费者生鲜农产品购买决策的产品特征因素分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2011,23(1):170-175.
	SHI C G, WANG K. Factor analysis of the products’characteristics that influencing the consumers’ purchase decision of fresh agricultural products[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2011,23(1):170-175.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	娄博杰, 张惠娜, 宋敏, 等. 农户农产品质量安全认知水平影响因素实证分析: 基于中国东部6省调研数据[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016,32(8):159-163.
	LOU B J, ZHANG H N, SONG M, et al. Factors influencing farmer’s cognitive level of quality and safety of agricultural products: based on data of six provinces in Eastern China[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2016,32(8):159-163.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	孔祥智, 方松海, 庞晓鹏, 等. 西部地区农户禀赋对农业技术采纳的影响分析[J]. 经济研究, 2004(12):85-95.
	KONG X Z, FANG S H, PANG X P, et al., Analysis of the effect of household endowments on the agricultural technology adoption decision in west China[J]. Economic Research Journal, 2004(12):85-95.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[11]	梁飞, 马恒运, 刘瑞峰. 消费者信任对可追溯食品偏好和支付意愿影响研究: 基于中国大中型城市可追溯富士苹果消费者的问卷调查[J]. 农业经济与管理, 2019(6):85-98.
	LIANG F, MA H Y, LIU R F. Impact of consumer trust on preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food: questionnaire survey on traceable Fuji apple consumers in large and medium-sized cities in China[J]. Agricultural Economics and Management, 2019(6):85-98.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[12]	程杰贤, 郑少锋. 政府规制对农户生产行为的影响: 基于区域品牌农产品质量安全视角[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(社会科学版), 2018,18(2):115-122.
	CHENG J X, ZHENG S F. Analysis of influence of government regulation on peasant households’ production behavior based on regional brand agricultural product quality and safety[J]. Journal of Northwest A&F University (Social Science Edition), 2018,18(2):115-122.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[13]	周小梅, 范鸿飞. 区域声誉可激励农产品质量安全水平提升吗?:基于浙江省丽水区域品牌案例的研究[J]. 农业经济问题, 2017,38(4):85-92.
	ZHOU X M, FAN H F. Can regional reputation stimulate for improving the quality and safety of agricultural products?: a study based on the case of Lishui regional brand of Zhejiang[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2017,38(4):85-92. (in Chinese)
[14]	王建华, 葛佳烨, 刘茁. 民众感知、政府行为及监管评价研究: 基于食品安全满意度的视角[J]. 软科学, 2016,30(1):36-40, 65.
	WANG J H, GE J Y, LIU Z. Public perception, government actions and regulatory evaluation: based on the perspective of food safety satisfaction[J]. Soft Science, 2016,30(1):36-40, 65.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[15]	纪杰. 食品安全满意度影响因素分析及监管路径选择: 基于重庆的问卷调查[J]. 中国行政管理, 2014(7):97-100.
	JI J. Research on the factors of food safety satisfaction and supervision path choice: based on questionnaires in Chongqing[J]. Chinese Public Administration, 2014(7):97-100.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[16]	DE JONGE J, VAN TRIJP H, JAN RENES R, et al. Understanding consumer confidence in the safety of food: its two-dimensional structure and determinants[J]. Risk Analysis, 2007,27(3):729-740. DOI URL PMID
[17]	仇焕广, 黄季焜, 杨军. 政府信任对消费者行为的影响研究[J]. 经济研究, 2007,42(6):65-74.
	QIU H G, HUANG J K, YANG J. Consumers’ trust in government and its impact on their acceptance toward genetically modified food[J]. Economic Research Journal, 2007,42(6):65-74.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[18]	HOSSAIN F, ONYANGO B. Product attributes and consumer acceptance of nutritionally enhanced genetically modified foods[J]. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 2004,28(3):255-267. DOI URL
[19]	CURTIS K R, WAHL T I, MCCLUSKEY J J. Consumer acceptance of genetically modified food products in the developing world[C]//AgBioForum, 2004-01-01.
[20]	LE A T, NGUYEN M T, VU H T T. et al. Consumers’ trust in food safety indicators and cues: the case of Vietnam[J]. Food Control, 2020,112:107162. DOI URL
[21]	周洁红. 消费者对蔬菜安全的态度、认知和购买行为分析: 基于浙江省城市和城镇消费者的调查统计[J]. 中国农村经济, 2004(11):44-52.
	ZHOU J H. Analysis on consumers’ attitudes and cognitions to vegetable safety and their behaviours of buying: based on a survey to consumers in cities and towns in Zhejiang Province[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2004(11):44-52.(in Chinese with English abstract)

序号 No.	具体指标 Indicator	正答样本数 Correct sample	错答样本数 Wrong sample	不清楚样本数 Not clear sample	正确回答率 Correct rate/%
1	X₂₁:农药残留合理范围的认知水平	781	1 061	68	40.9
	Cognitive level of a reasonable range of pesticide residues
2	X₂₂:畜禽产品强制上市条件的认知水平	1 680	187	43	88.0
	Cognitive level of compulsory listing conditions for livestock and poultry products
3	X₂₃:食品保鲜剂合理使用的认知水平	762	1 037	111	39.9
	Cognitive level of rational use of food preservation agents
4	X₂₄:农产品安全生长环境的认知水平	1 444	332	134	75.6
	cognitive level of security environment for the growth of agricultural products
5	X₂:农产品质量安全综合认知水平	4 667	2617	356	61.1
	Comprehensive cognitive level of agricultural products’ quality safety

序号 No.	具体指标 Indicator	正答样本数 Correct sample	错答样本数 Wrong sample	不清楚样本数 Not clear sample	正确回答率 Correct rate/%
1	X₂₁:农药残留合理范围的认知水平	781	1 061	68	40.9
	Cognitive level of a reasonable range of pesticide residues
2	X₂₂:畜禽产品强制上市条件的认知水平	1 680	187	43	88.0
	Cognitive level of compulsory listing conditions for livestock and poultry products
3	X₂₃:食品保鲜剂合理使用的认知水平	762	1 037	111	39.9
	Cognitive level of rational use of food preservation agents
4	X₂₄:农产品安全生长环境的认知水平	1 444	332	134	75.6
	cognitive level of security environment for the growth of agricultural products
5	X₂:农产品质量安全综合认知水平	4 667	2617	356	61.1
	Comprehensive cognitive level of agricultural products’ quality safety

序号 No.	具体指标 Indicator	知晓标准 Awareness standard	样本数 Sample	知晓率/%
1	X₃₁:属地产品“三品一标”知晓情况 Awareness of the “Three Products and One Standard” of territorial products	至少知道2种 At least 2 kinds	1 397	73.1
2	X₃₂:农产品质量安全检测结果知晓情况 Awareness of agricultural products’ quality and safety inspection results	看到过+听说过 Seen or heard of	1 728	90.5
3	X₃₃:快速检测室知晓情况 Awareness of the rapid testing room	检测过+看到过+听说过 Detected, seen or heard of	1 714	89.7
4	X₃₄:创建农产品质量安全放心县知晓情况 Awareness of constructing “Agricultural products’ quality and safety reliable county”	知道 Already known	1 725	90.3
5	X₃: 质量安全工作平均知晓程度 Average awareness of related work of agricultural products’ quality and safety	以上情况的综合 Total	6 564	85.9

序号 No.	具体指标 Indicator	知晓标准 Awareness standard	样本数 Sample	知晓率/%
1	X₃₁:属地产品“三品一标”知晓情况 Awareness of the “Three Products and One Standard” of territorial products	至少知道2种 At least 2 kinds	1 397	73.1
2	X₃₂:农产品质量安全检测结果知晓情况 Awareness of agricultural products’ quality and safety inspection results	看到过+听说过 Seen or heard of	1 728	90.5
3	X₃₃:快速检测室知晓情况 Awareness of the rapid testing room	检测过+看到过+听说过 Detected, seen or heard of	1 714	89.7
4	X₃₄:创建农产品质量安全放心县知晓情况 Awareness of constructing “Agricultural products’ quality and safety reliable county”	知道 Already known	1 725	90.3
5	X₃: 质量安全工作平均知晓程度 Average awareness of related work of agricultural products’ quality and safety	以上情况的综合 Total	6 564	85.9

序号 No.	具体指标 Indicator	特征值 Eigenvalues
1	X₄₁:性别(样本数、%) Gender (sample, %)	男 Male:882(46.2%)		女 Female:1028(53.8%)
2	X₄₂:年龄Age	平均Average	47.2	最大Maximum	85	最小Minimum	15
3	X₄₃:文化程度 Education	平均 Average	初中Junior high school	最高 Highest	硕士 Master	最低 lowest	没上过学 None
4	X₄₄:个人年收入(万元) Personal annual income (10 000 yuan)	平均 Average	5.42	最高 Highest	50	最低 lowest	0
5	X₄₅:家庭年收入(万元) Annual family income (10 000 yuan)	平均 Average	13.28	最高 Highest	100	最低 lowest	1
6	X₄₆:买菜频率(样本占比) Grocery shopping frequency (percent of the sample)	经常买 Often	1 027 (53.8%)	偶尔买 Occasionally	383 (20.1%)	从不买 Never	51 (2.67%)
7	X₄₇:在当地居住时间(样本占比) Local residence time (percent of the sample)	≥5年 ≥5 years	1 313 (68.7%)	1-5年 1-5 years	121 (6.33%)	≤1年 ≤1 year	28 (1.47%)
8	X₄₈:家庭人口数 Family population	平均 Average	3.71	最多 Maximum	8	最少 Minimum	1
9	X₄₉:家庭儿童数 Number of children in the family	平均 Average	0.64	最多 Maximum	4	最少 Minimum	0

Influencing factors of consumer satisfaction evaluation on quality and safety of agricultural products: an illustration from Zhejiang Province

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 6

References 21

Related Articles 1

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

变量	X₁	X₂	X₃	X₄₁	X₄₂	X₄₃	X₄₄	X₄₅	X₄₆	X₄₇	X₄₈	X₄₉
Variable
X₂	0.21^*** (-9.3)
X₃	0.33^*** (-15.3)	0.20^*** (-8.99)
X₄₁	0.04^** (-1.79)	0.11^*** (-4.87)	0 (-0.85)
X₄₂	-0.02 (-0.79)	-0.11^*** (-4.99)	0.04^* (-0.71)	-0.04^* (-1.83)
X₄₃	0.06^*** (-2.67)	0.20^*** (-9.05)	0.09^*** (-3.75)	0.14^*** (6.24)	-0.46^*** (-22.42)
X₄₄	0.10^*** (-4.52)	0.15^*** (-6.84)	0.07^*** (-3.08)	0.34^*** (15.96)	-0.22^*** (-10.06)	0.38^*** (-18.12)
X₄₅	0.05^** (-2.08)	0. 08^*** (-3.29)	-0.02 (-0.90)	0.42^*** (20.29)	-0.16^*** (-6.87)	0.17^*** (7.33)	0.71^*** (-44.39)
X₄₆	0.01 (-0.34)	-0.12^*** (-5.34)	0.02 (-1.07)	-0.09^*** (-3.93)	0.39^*** (18.67)	-0.30^*** (-13.98)	-0.13^*** (-5.77)	-0.06^*** (-2.83)
X₄₇	0.06^*** (-2.72)	0.01 (-0.32)	0.16^*** (7.27)	-0.02 (-1.01)	0.24^*** (11.15)	-0.05^** (-2.27)	-0.04^* (-1.69)	-0.06^** (-2.46)	0.14^*** (-6.09)
X₄₈	0.02 (-0.74)	-0.03 (-1.19)	-0.01 (-0.51)	0.01 (-0.63)	-0.04^* (-1.78)	-0.05^** (-2.08)	0 (-0.06)	0.14^*** (-5.95)	0 (-0.20)	0.05^** (-2.02)
X₄₉	0 (-0.19)	-0.01 (-0.63)	-0.03 (-1.47)	-0.03 (-1.21)	-0.19^*** (-8.58)	0.06^** (2.56)	0.08^*** (3.52)	0.11^*** (-4.61)	-0.03 (-1.17)	-0.02 (-0.75)	0.54^*** (27.68)
X₅₁	-0.10^*** (-4.46)	0.05^** (-2.33)	-0.03 (-1.46)	-0.04 (-1.58)	-0.18^*** (-8.11)	0.08^*** (3.67)	-0.06^*** (-2.65)	-0.08^*** (-3.54)	-0.12^*** (-5.31)	-0.11^*** (-4.81)	-0.04 (-1.55)	0.05^** (-1.97)

影响因素 Factors	A静态评价模型(因变量Y₁) Tatic evaluation model (dependent variable Y₁)		B动态评价模型(因变量Y₂) Dynamic evaluation model (dependent variable Y₂)
影响因素 Factors	线性模型Linear model	Logit模型Logit model	线性模型Linear model	Logit模型Logit model
X₁	0.55^*** (22.38)	1.90^*** (16.89)	0.66^*** (24.28)	2.75^*** (21.24)
X₂	0.13^*** (2.88)	0.38^* (1.79)	0.23^*** (4.71)	1.13^*** (4.64)
X₃	0.50^*** (8.96)	1.23^*** (4.31)	0.64^*** (10.42)	2.17^*** (7.14)
X₄₂	-0.02^* (-1.88)	-0.08 (-1.55)	-0.01 (-1.23)	-0.19^*** (-3.76)
X₄₃	-0.04^** (-2.58)	-0.16^** (-2.44)	—	—
X₄₄	0.01^** (2.37)	0.08^*** (2.64)	—	—
X₄₇	0.09^*** (2.85)	0.35^** (2.27)	0.11^*** (3.10)	0.52^*** (2.99)
X₄₉	0.03^* (1.87)	0.22^*** (2.90)	—	—
X₅₁	-0.03 (-1.42)	-0.38^*** (-3.48)	-0.04 (-1.39)	-0.21^* (-1.65)
C	3.56^*** (33.47)	-2.95^*** (-5.50)	3.22^*** (30.02)	-4.10^*** (-7.36)
	R²=0.33,Ad-R²=0.33, P<0.01, DW=1.86	McF-R²=0.19,P<0.01	R²=0.38,Ad-R²=0.38, P<0.01,DW=1.91	McF-R²=0.35,P<0.01