See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282491860

Fruit and Vegetable Consumers’ Behavior: Implications for

Organized Retailers in Emerging Markets

Article in Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing · July 2015

DOI: 10.1080/08974438.2014.940118

CITATIONS READS

20 4,189

2 authors:

Sanjeev Kapoor Niraj Kumar

Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow School of Rural Management- XIM University Bhubaneswar
13 PUBLICATIONS 691 CITATIONS 31 PUBLICATIONS 527 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Niraj Kumar on 09 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB]
On: 07 July 2015, At: 22:47
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Journal of International Food &

Agribusiness Marketing
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wifa20

Fruit and Vegetable Consumers’

Behavior: Implications for Organized
Retailers in Emerging Markets
a b
Sanjeev Kapoor & Niraj Kumar
a
Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow, India
b
Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar, India
Published online: 06 Jul 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Sanjeev Kapoor & Niraj Kumar (2015): Fruit and Vegetable Consumers’ Behavior:
Implications for Organized Retailers in Emerging Markets, Journal of International Food & Agribusiness
Marketing, DOI: 10.1080/08974438.2014.940118

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2014.940118

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015
 Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 0:1–25, 2015
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0897-4438 print/1528-6983 online
DOI: 10.1080/08974438.2014.940118

Fruit and Vegetable Consumers’ Behavior:

Implications for Organized Retailers in
Emerging Markets

SANJEEV KAPOOR
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow, India

NIRAJ KUMAR
Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar, India

The authors attempt to understand selected behaviors of fruit and

vegetable consumers of mid-sized cities of a developing economy,
which are important for any retailer to appreciate. The study
was carried out in two mid-sized cities of the Orissa state of India
with 100 respondents by using the specially developed question-
naire. Statistical tools were used to analyze the data. The study
revealed that vegetables are consumed in greater quantity and
purchased more frequently than fruits. Consumers attached more
importance to credence attributes than to search and experience
attributes while making their purchase decisions. Family income
and consumers’ education were found to have significant
influence on the consumers’ willingness to pay for graded and
packaged products. Organized retailers can take cues from the
findings of the study to decide about location, nature and quality
of assortment, and their marketing strategies.

KEYWORDS agribusiness, consumer behavior, fruits and

vegetables, organized retailing, product attributes, willingness to pay

INTRODUCTION

During the past three decades, there have been dramatic changes in the
agri-food marketing system. It has become more organized and customer-
centric, and it is facilitating the growth of organized food retailing (Chen,

Address correspondence to Sanjeev Kapoor, Indian Institute of Management, Centre for

Food and Agribusiness Management, Prabandh Nagar, Off Sitapur Road, Lucknow 226013,
India. E-mail: sanjeev@iiml.ac.in

1
 2 S. Kapoor and N. Kumar

Shepherd, & Silva, 2005). Modern retailing in developing countries, which

took off during the third phase of retail growth (Reardon & Berdegué,
2007), has transformed food retailing in large Asian economies like China
and India Timmer, 2005). Studies by Kearny (2011), McKinsey & Company
(2007), Mukherjee, Satija, Goyal, Mantrala, and Zou (2010), and NABARD
(2011) have predicted that modern retailing will continue to witness
double-digit growth in India. The share of organized retail, which was 7%
in the overall retail market in India, is likely to increase to 20% by 2020
(Kearney, 2010, 2011). Food and grocery constitutes the bulk of Indian
retailing, with its share of around 50%. However, only around 1% of it passes
through organized retails (Images Group, 2009). It has been predicted that
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

the share of organized retailing in the food and grocery segment could grow
to 15% to 20% (Reardon & Gulati, 2008).
A change in dietary preferences, sociodemographic factors, increased
awareness about the health benefits of fruits and vegetables, the food indus-
try’s marketing policies, and trade liberalization over the past two decades
have been driving the fruits and vegetables market in India (Sharma & Jain,
2011). However, it has also been reported that in supermarkets, the growth in
sales of fresh fruits and vegetables tends to lag behind the growth in sales of
processed food products, as most of the household members continue to buy
fruits and vegetables from traditional retailers even though they may shop at
supermarkets for other products (Chen et al., 2005). According to a study in
India, unorganized retail outlets for fruits and vegetables were preferred by
80% of customers in bigger cities1 and by 94% of the customers in mid-sized
and small cities (NABARD, 2011). In a study in one mid-sized city in India, it
was found that most of the consumers purchased fruits and vegetable from
unorganized roadside shops (Ali, Kapoor, & Moorthy, 2010).
Because of the huge potential in general and food retailing in particular,
India has been ranked fourth in global food retail index and second in terms
of global foreign direct investment (FDI) confidence index (Kearney, 2011).
Although fresh fruits, vegetables, and grocery retail have been considered as
very low margin businesses, the market potential has attracted Indian
business houses, and they are making their forays through different retail
formats (Sengupta, 2008). Indian-owned retail outlets are already active
and aggressive in the fruit and vegetable sector of food market (Mamgain,
2011; Sruthijith & Chakravarty, 2010; Vaish, 2007. After a lot of debate,
the government of India has allowed FDI in multibrand retail, which will
open the doors for many international players (Economic Times, 2012) like
Wal-Mart and Tesco, which with low margins and low prices, would cater
to the mass market (Mukherjee et al., 2011).
In India, although metropolitan areas and larger cities continue to sustain
retail growth, the buzz has now shifted from to lesser known, smaller cities.
Because spending power is no longer limited to the larger cities, the retail
business in smaller cities will increase by 50% to 60% due to available and
 Fruit and Vegetable Consumers’ Behavior 3

inexpensive land and demand among consumers (Damodaran, 2009; Rastogi,

2010). To capture the opportunities of growing organized retail, big corpor-
ate organizations are foraying in this segment and investing huge sums of
money in these emerging markets (Ali et al., 2010). The entry of more and
more corporate houses into the organized retail of food products is expected
to further kick up competition and put pressure on margins (Daftari, 2007).
The introduction of larger and diverse retail formats is providing new experi-
ences and option for shoppers, which have led to very high footfalls into
stores but low conversion in terms of actual purchases (Sinha, Banerjee, &
Uniyal, 2002). Indian consumers are known to be price sensitive, and retailers
have to manage with razor-thin margins (Goswami & Mishra, 2009). Further,
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

to bring hitherto uninterested food customers to organized retail outlets for

the purchase of fruits and vegetables, it is necessary to understand customers
and their purchase behavior, which varies for the consumers in larger cities
from that of consumers in mid-sized and smaller cities (NABARD, 2011).
Realizing the immense potential, many organized retail corporations are
aggressively venturing into the market and targeting mid-sized and smaller
cities, which have immense potential but have been untapped until now.
Accordingly, there is a growing need to evaluate and understand the true dri-
vers of the shopping behavior of Indian customers as they get fairly involved
in store choice decision (Sinha et al., 2002). Simultaneously, it is important for
store managers to understand consumers’ behavior so as to develop market-
ing strategy (Sinha, 2003). A store is chosen based on the self-confidence that
the customer has regarding the store about the nature and quality of product
and services he or she will receive (Dash, Schiffman, & Berenson, 1976). In
the case of fruits and vegetables, which are directly related to the health of
the customers and are usually not branded, the importance of store increases.
Hisrich, Dornoff, and Kernan (1972) reported that perceived risk attached to
the products, particularly those that do not have strong brand association
with them, is also transferred to the store.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Applying a market-oriented approach to fruits and vegetables market may be

a useful competitive strategy, which is necessary in most of today’s consumer
goods market (Dimech, Caputo, & Canavari, 2011). Better knowledge of the
consumer is the presumption for preparing the efficacious selling concept
(Kovacic, Radman, & Kolega, 2002). So far, retailers who have focused on
developing supply-side efficiencies need to think about demand-side effec-
tiveness as well to optimize business performance (Sanghvi, 2007). In recent
decades, efforts to understand consumers’ attitudes or overall buying beha-
vior and the relative importance of various attributes in purchasing food have
been widely explored (Kiesel & Villas-Boas, 2007) but have mostly remained
 4 S. Kapoor and N. Kumar

limited to larger cities, where retail businesses have already been established.
It is, therefore, important to understand the consumers’ purchase behavior,
major factors affecting their retail outlet choice decisions, the important pro-
duct attributes, and their willingness to pay for the better-quality products by
the consumers of mid-sized cities, which are being considered emerging mar-
kets and are the focus of organized retailers. The present research attempts to
understand the buying behavior of consumers in terms of their choices for
various product and market attributes for fruits and vegetables in emerging
mid-sized markets in India. The study tries to provide the strategic inputs
to food retail industry to customize their marketing strategies as per the
customers’ preferences and requirements. The Search, Experience, and
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

Credence (SEC) product attribute framework has been used to study

consumers’ preferences and choices. The study of relative importance of vari-
ous attributes will help in understanding the consumers’ purchase decision
criteria for fruits and vegetables.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Consumers’ Behavior
Purchase and consumption behaviors of food consumers have undergone
considerable change in past few years (Akpinar, Aykin, Sayin, & Ozkan,
2009; Ali et al., 2010; Damodaran & Kulkarni, 2012; NABARD, 2011). Studies
have indicated that food Consumers’ buying behavior has been influenced by
combination of social, economic, cultural, and psychological factors (Al
Gahaifi & Svetlik, 2011; Deshingkar, Kulkarni, Rao, & Rao, 2003; Goyal and
Singh, 2007; Intercooperation & Shen, 2010; KPMG, 2005; Kuhar & Juvancic,
2010; Leibtag & Kaufman, 2003). It has been reported that besides exogenous
factors like culture, reference group, family, and socioeconomic situations,
endogenous factors such as needs and motives, learning, self-concept, per-
sonalities, and attitudes affected consumers’ buying behavior (Crawford,
1997). In a developing economy like Malaysia with rising per-capita income,
there have been changes in the consumer demand for food attributes such as
safety, freshness, appearance, and texture (Hadi, Selamat, Shamsudin, &
Radam, 2010).
Across the food categories, price has been traditionally one of the most
important factors influencing consumers’ purchasing decisions (Matanda,
Mavondo, & Schroder, 2000, Maxwell, 2001; Sodurlund, 1998). Studies have
indicated that sociodemographic and sociocultural factors such as product
quality, price, place of sale, ambience, and market convenience affect pur-
chase decisions of food consumers (Akpinar et al., 2009; Arnold & Luthra,
2000; Fox, Montgomery, & Lodish, 2004; Gupta, 2009; Sinha & Banerjee,
2004; Van Waterschoot, Sinha, Van Kenhove, & De Wulf, 2008).
 Fruit and Vegetable Consumers’ Behavior 5

For the poultry meat market in European countries, known chicken meat
origin has been found to play a key role in consumers’ purchase decision
process (Vukasovič, 2009, 2010, 2011). A study conducted in Slovenia
revealed that meat origin information significantly affected the perceived
value of the selected properties of Slovenian chicken meat (Strašek, 2010).
The author also found that the country of origin (COO) had a statistically
significant influence on the perceived brand name value of the product
compared with the selected marketing mix elements of the product (Strašek,
2011).
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

Buying Behavior
Most people exhibit certain habits when they make their main trip to the
supermarket and have a particular day and time to shop (East, Lomax,
Wilson, & Harris, 1994; Singh & Powell, 2002 as cited in Goswami & Mishra,
2009). About 50% of consumers bought less-perishable vegetables (e.g.,
potatoes) on a weekly basis and more-perishable vegetables (e.g., cabbage)
twice a week, and perishable vegetables were bought in greater quantity dur-
ing a given period of time (Mahaliyanaarachchi, 2007). Ninety-three percent
of consumers in Croatia bought fruits and vegetables in the city markets, 60%
visited just one market, and 63% of consumers visited city markets more than
once a week (Kovacic et al., 2002). Indian consumers buy food products on a
regular basis (Mukherjee et al., 2011). Young and middle-aged customers
(younger than 40 years) in one of the mid-sized cities in India preferred
frequent purchases of vegetables compared with consumers who are of an
older age; males spent more on the vegetables and females were more
inclined to purchasing vendor-packaged vegetables (Ali et al., 2010).

Store Choice
Convenience and merchandise were the two most important reasons why
people in India bought fruits and vegetables from a particular store; and
proximity was the most important driver of loyalty to a grocery store,
whereas ambience was not a very important factor for the shopper in this
product category (Sinha et al., 2002). Appreciation of factors such as price,
smell and taste, nutritional content, packaged presentation, and shopping
environment varied significantly among the customers of varied income
groups (Akpinar et al., 2009). For Sri Lankan vegetable consumers, quality,
freshness, and low prices were the major considerations in deciding about
the place of purchase of vegetables (Mahaliyanaarachchi, 2007). A study in
Vietnam on the factors affecting consumers’ preference for traditional mar-
kets versus supermarkets revealed that freshness, price, and convenience
were important in shaping the choice by consumers for traditional outlets
for fresh foods (Maruyama & Trung, 2007). The purchase of grocery, fruits,
 6 S. Kapoor and N. Kumar

and vegetables is distance sensitive, and most of the respondents prefer

availability of these products within a 1-km radius (Ali et al., 2010). In a
nationwide survey in India, it was found that neighborhood kiranas or
traditional retailers were preferred when shopping for more frequently pur-
chased products such as fresh fruits and vegetable (Mukherjee et al., 2011). It
has been reported that factors affecting choice of retail outlets varied across
genders; while men gave more prominence to proximity, women empha-
sized the merchandise offered by stores (Sinha, 2003). For fresh fruits and
vegetables, nonbranded products are preferred and are bought from tra-
ditional retailers, street vendors, and hawkers. Consumers also perceive
branded products as more expensive compared with the nonbranded
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

products (Mukherjee et al., 2011).

Product Attributes
Contemporary research literature in food choices considers product attributes
as one of the perspectives to increase understanding of consumers (Assael,
1998). Consumers during a complex, cognitive process form beliefs and
develop attitudes and intentions (Kuhar & Juvancic, 2010). Food as goods
can be classified into search, experience, and credence goods according to
the level of quality that can be discovered by the consumers at different
stages (Darby & Karni, 1973; Nelson, 1970). According to Ford, Smith, and
Swasy (1988), search qualities can be verified by actual inspection of the
goods; experience qualities are those that can only be verified after purchase
and consumption of the product; and credence qualities are those that cannot
be verified even after purchase and consumption. In recent decades, efforts
to understand the relative importance of various attributes in purchasing food
have been widely explored (Kiesel & Villas-Boas, 2007). Product particulari-
ties make up most critical factors determining the consumer’s purchase
decision. Outcomes of some studies have shown that the important criteria
considered in buying fresh fruits and vegetables are quality and price,
respectively (Akpinar et al., 2009).
Studies have concluded that credence attributes have a positive impact
on consumers’ attitude toward a product and consequently influence consu-
mers’ buying intentions (Dentoni, Tonsor, Calantone, & Peterson, 2009; Gao,
Schroeder, & Yu, 2010; Wirth, Stanton, & Wiley, 2011). Visual, smell, and
aroma components were often top rated among attributes listed, which is
logical because they represent the basic components of eating pleasures
(Ernst, Batte, Darby, & Worley, 2006; Zanoli et al., 2003, cited in Moser,
Raffaeli, & Thilmany-McFadden, 2011). Most consumers make buying
decision regarding fruits and vegetables based on an analysis of cognitive
and emotional elements and are not much influenced by advertising or other
campaigns (Nicolae & Corina, 2011). Sri Lankan vegetable customers
valued freshness, appearance, and price more than other characteristics
 Fruit and Vegetable Consumers’ Behavior 7

(Mahaliyanaarachchi, 2007). Gunden et al. (2008; as cited in Akpinar et al.,

2009) concluded that consumers attach considerable importance to food
safety rather than external appearance of the fruit and vegetables, and
Dimech et al. (2011) found that most Maltese consumers considered safety
as the most important quality aspect in fruit and vegetables, a credence attri-
bute that cannot be checked by consumers. It is evident that the perception
or attitude toward food attributes such as taste, nutritional qualities, and
convenience are the key determinants of food choices, and these attitudes
and perceptions are, in turn, influenced by a number of personal character-
istics such as education, socio economic status, age, and gender (Fearne &
Lavelle, 1996).
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

Willingness to Pay
Willingness to pay premium price is justified by the “true” value of the
product (Rao & Burgen, 1992 as cited in Vlosky, Ozanna, & Fontenot,
1999). The value the customers place on the product attribute (Kuhar &
Juvancic, 2010) may be an indicator of consumers’ demand for that product
(Tse, 2001). Henson (1996) claimed that willingness to pay was the theoreti-
cally valid measure of the value that consumers attach to improvements of
food safety.
Several studies have concluded that consumers’ of fruits and vegetables
are willing to pay premium price for quality products (Boccaletti & Nardella,
2000; Caputo, Nayaga, & Canavari, 2010; Govindasamy & Italia, 1999; Hadi
et al., 2010; Moser et al., 2011). Willingness to pay premium price is perhaps
one of the strong indicators of consumers’ preference for quality products.
However, consumers have been fragmented in term of their readiness to
pay and the quantity of premium they are willing to pay for the quality pro-
ducts (Blend & Ravenswaay, 1999; Sriram & Forman, 1993; Teils, Roe, &
Levy, 1999). The proportion of consumers willing to pay a premium for a
high-quality food product varied (Skuras & Vakrou, 1999), and the food
under study affected the premium amount. Gil, Gracia, and Sanchez (2000)
reported that organic vegetables and fruits receive higher premium values
than do meat products. In Sri Lanka, the majority of respondents confirmed
their willingness to pay higher prices for high-quality vegetable products
(Mahaliyanaarachchi, 2007). Based on the findings of the study, Dimech
et al. (2011) reported that willingness to pay for fruits and vegetables was
influenced by product attributes related to visual, smell and taste qualities,
health benefits, environment, origin, and farmers’ support. Demographic
characteristics such as gender, age, income, and education affected
consumers’ willingness to pay for the high-quality product (Ali et al., 2010;
Govindasamy & Italia, 1999; Mahaliyanaarachchi, 2007). On the other side,
researchers have found that only income is the key factor in explaining con-
sumers’ willingness to pay a premium price (Angulo, Gil, & Tamburo, 2003).
 8 S. Kapoor and N. Kumar

Similarly, the importance of price as a barrier to purchase fruits and

vegetables from a nonconventional production system is confirmed by an
increasing amount of research that assesses the consumers’ willingness to
pay a premium price for organic and safe products (Batte, Hooker, Haab,
& Beaverson, 2007; Canavari, Nocella, & Scarpa, 2005).

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

The specific hypotheses tested in this study are as follows:

Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

H1: Consumers’ buying behavior in terms of frequency and volume of

purchase, form of purchase, and preferred marketplace is same for
fruits and vegetables.

Most of the studies have considered fruits and vegetables together;

however, these are two different food product categories and are of varying
importance for the consumers in India. While vegetables are one of the reg-
ular and essential constituents of regular food, fruits are mostly considered as
additional supplement to the regular food by the average consumer. An
understanding of the buying pattern is important in planning and organizing
other marketing activities (Mahaliyanaarachchi, 2007). Regarding fresh and
perishable products, it is important to understand consumers’ purchase
behavior of the two categories of products separately, so that not only fresh
products are made available to customers, but also wastage and inventory
costs for the retailers are minimized.

H2: Price is a major factor for the selection of retail outlets for fruits and
vegetables.

Researchers have found that price has traditionally been a major con-
sideration for consumers of fruits and vegetables. Ali et al. (2010) reported
that Indian consumers are still price conservative and adopt cheap and best
while purchasing quality food products. In addition to price, other factors,
such as convenience, ambience, market services, choice of product, and
quality of product, have been found to be important for the customers pre-
ferring organized retail. It is important to know how other factors influence
customers’ preference for the retail outlet for the purchase for fruits and
vegetables.

H3: Search attributes of fruits and vegetables have more influence on

consumers’ buying behavior.

It is established that consumers’ perception of quality is influenced by the

product characteristics that customers are able to see, feel, experience,
 Fruit and Vegetable Consumers’ Behavior 9

perceive, or attribute to the products. It has been found that besides

characteristics related to visuals; aroma, and smell, characteristics that may
be perceived to give better health value are given importance while purchas-
ing fruits and vegetables. Product attributes, as perceived by consumers, are
critical factors in the food choice process and are considered to be major
determinant for the success of many product marketing strategies (Batra &
Sinha, 2000; Kupiec & Revell, 2001).

H4: The sociodemographic profile of consumers affects their willingness

to pay a premium price for high-quality packaged food.
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

A review of the literature indicates that consumers are willing to pay

differential prices for a quality product. However, there exists variation in
willingness to pay a premium price in terms of strength and amount. These
variations are dependent on product attributes and on the sociodemographic
characteristics of consumers. It is important to understand the factors affect-
ing the willingness to pay among the consumers in mid-sized and smaller cit-
ies who differ in their sociodemographic characteristics and the purchase
behavior compared with their counterparts in larger cities.

DATA AND METHODOLOGY

Data Collection and Sample

The data for this research were collected through personally administered
questionnaire surveys conducted during 2011. The survey was done in two
major cities of the state of Odisha: Bhubaneswar and Rourkela. These two
cities are developing very fast and represent typical mid-sized cities of the
country. To study the future of retailing in India, National Bank for
Agriculture and Rural Development considered and classified Bhubaneswar
as the B1 city (i.e., nonmetropolitan mid-sized city; NABARD, 2011). A total
of 100 households from an economically developed area with diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds were interviewed personally in both the cities
to elicit their response on buying behavior for fruits and vegetables. The sam-
ple households were selected that had sufficient purchasing power required
for organized retail shopping.

Data Collection Instrument

The survey questionnaire developed for the study had questions represent-
ing three different components of the study: socioeconomic profile of consu-
mers, their buying behavior of fruits and vegetables, and the various products
and market attributes. The first component included questions related to
socioeconomic information of the respondents such as gender, age, monthly
 10 S. Kapoor and N. Kumar

family income, and education level. The second component related to

buying behavior of consumers consisted of questions related to consumers’
purchase frequency, quantity of fruits and vegetables purchased in one trans-
action, form of purchase, and preferred marketplace. To understand the pro-
duct and market attributes (the third component of the study), questions
were asked related to various market attributes like convenience, availability
of ensured quality, market ambience, and market services. To analyze the
relative importance of these market attributes, the consumers’ perception
on these attributes was determined with use of a Likert scale (1 ¼ not at all
important, 2 ¼ somewhat important, 3 ¼ important, 4 ¼ very important, and
5 ¼ extremely important). Data were also collected on consumers’ percep-
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

tions of various product attributes (search, credence, and experience) such

as nutrition, freshness, variety, size, color, and taste. To get a feeling for
the future of organized retailing, the questionnaire also included the consu-
mers’ willingness to pay a premium price to get off-season/packaged fruits
and vegetables.

Data Analysis
A simple statistical analysis with the help of frequency distribution and cross-
tabulation was conducted to assess the buying behavior of the consumers.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to test whether socioeconomic
factors of consumers are important in explaining the buying behavior for
consumers of fruits and vegetables. Factor analysis was performed to identify
the importance of different sets of product and market attributes. For this
purpose, principal component analysis was conducted using Varimax
rotation with Kaiser normalization. To identify factors affecting the willing-
ness to pay for graded and packaged fruit and vegetable items, logistic
regression was carried out. The independent variables considered in the
analysis were gender, age, education, occupation, residential area, spouse
occupation, family structure, city type, presence of children in family, family
income, and food habits, while willingness to pay for fruits/vegetables was a
dependent variable.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Consumers’ Profile
The socioeconomic profile of the consumer households surveyed for the
present study is presented in Table 1. Of the 100 respondents, 52% were
male. Age composition of the sample respondents indicate that about 70%
of them belong to the age group of 30 to 50 years. Regarding education,
95% are graduate level or above. Although households with a monthly
income of Rs 20,000 to 40,000 (considered to be middle class) dominated
 Fruit and Vegetable Consumers’ Behavior 11

TABLE 1 Socioeconomic Profile of Respondents (N ¼ 100)

Characteristics Percent of Respondents

Gender
Male 52
Female 48
Age (yr)
<30 22
31–40 42
41–50 27
>50 9
Education
Intermediate 5
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

Graduate 49
Postgraduate 46
Family monthly income (Rs.)
10,000–20,000 5
20,000–40,000 54
40,000–75,000 39
>75,000 2

the sample with a share of 54%, the upper middle class with a monthly
income of Rs. 40,000 to 75,000 represented 39%. This indicates the appropri-
ateness of sample to infer Consumers’ response on buying decisions on fruits
and vegetables.

Consumers’ Buying Behavior for Fruits and Vegetables

The purchase behavior of the consumers was assessed based on frequency of
purchase, volume of transaction, preferred marketplace, and form of pur-
chase (Table 2). The results indicate that vegetables are purchased more fre-
quently than fruits, as about 62% of respondents purchase vegetables either
daily or twice or thrice a week. On the other hand, 48.5% of respondents like
to purchase fruits on a weekly basis. Being the necessary constituent of daily
food, transaction of vegetable was more than that of fruits. While 75% of
consumers purchase an average of 2 to 5 kg of vegetables, the majority of
consumers purchase less than 2 kg of fruit in one transaction. These results
are similar to those of Mahaliyanarachchi (2007). The findings clearly indicate
that a majority of consumers prefer a distant wholesale market to buy fruits
and vegetables rather than nearby markets or shops. Although supermarkets
have an edge with respect to convenient purchasing and offer a variety of
products, they still have a negligible share of respondents (only 1.1%) who
indicated that supermarkets are their preferred market place for fruits and
vegetables. About 98% of consumers showed their response toward buying
vegetables in unpackaged form so they can select the products. Surprisingly,
the survey could not find any significant response toward the purchase of
branded packaged fruits and vegetables.
 12 S. Kapoor and N. Kumar

TABLE 2 Consumers’ Purchase Behavior for Fruits and Vegetables

Percent of Respondents

Purchase Behavior Vegetables Fruits

Frequency of Purchase
Daily 17.1 0
Twice a week 45.5 29.9
Thrice a week 32.3 13.4
Weekly 5.1 48.5
Fortnightly 0 8.2
Total 100.0 100.0
Volume of transaction (kg)
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

<2 24 52.0
2–5 75 48.0
5–10 1 0
Total 100.0 100.0
Preferred marketplace
Neighborhood shop 33.3 22.0
Nearby marketplace 22.6 30.7
Distant wholesale market 43.0 47.3
Supermarket 1.1 0
Total 100.0 100.0
Form of purchase
Loose 98.0 89.9
Vendor packaged 2.0 10.1
Branded (packaged) 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0

Hypothesis 1 can be partially accepted as consumers’ buying behavior

remains the same for both fruits and vegetables only in terms of preferred mar-
ketplace and form of purchase. Consumers do not give a similar emphasis to
frequency and volume of purchase when purchasing fruits and vegetables.
ANOVA was conducted to determine differences in response for the four
aspects of purchase behavior among the different groups of consumers
defined by their socioeconomic profile. The results, as summarized in
Table 3, indicate that among the various purchase decisions, the responses
of males and females differ significantly on the preferred market outlet for
vegetables and form of purchase for fruits. A majority of males liked to pur-
chase from wholesale markets because they can travel to far places, whereas
female respondents showed their liking for neighborhood shops. Regarding
the form of purchase of fruits, females purchase only in loose form, while
males have shown their inclination toward both loose and packaged forms.
The purchase behavior for fruits and vegetables was also found to vary in
terms of frequency and the amount spent between the consumers stratified
by gender and age group (Ali et al., 2010).
Consumers belonging to age group of 35 years and older prefer a more
frequent purchase of fruits and vegetables compared with their younger
 Fruit and Vegetable Consumers’ Behavior 13

TABLE 3 Analysis of Variance Between Consumers’ Purchase Behavior and Their

Demographic Characteristics
Purchase Decision Product Gender Age Monthly Income

Vegetables 1.73 9.84** 22.74***

Frequency of purchase Fruits 2.04 7.29* 21.27***
Vegetables 0.96 4.76* 10.43
Volume of transaction Fruits 0.034 1.84 5.52
Vegetables 7.83** 2.59 14.56
Preferred market place Fruits 4.19 1.79 9.61
Vegetables 0.003 3.33* 0.212
Form of purchase Fruits 3.61** 0.76 4.58
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

Note. Significant at *10% level, **5% level, and ***1% level.

counterparts. These consumers also like to buy fruits in loose form, whereas
the young consumers are willing to buy the fruit in both loose and packaged
forms. Higher-income consumers buy both fruits and vegetables more fre-
quently. The effect of consumers’ income level on other purchase decisions
was not found to be significant.

Consumers’ Buying Behavior: Role of Product and Market Attributes

SIGNIFICANCE OF PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES
Product attributes play a major role in purchase choices of the buyers and are
crucial determinants of success/failure of product and its marketing strategies.
The product can be defined in terms of its different attributes like search,
experience, and credence. The buying decisions for different products mainly
depend on a combination of these attributes. The mean value of consumers’
response on various product attributes indicates that consumers attach more
importance to credence attributes (e.g., freshness, nutrition, medicinal value)
over the search (size, color, and variety) and experience attributes (e.g., taste
and odor). The results do not support H3–that search attributes of fruits and
vegetables have more influence on consumers’ buying behavior. The impor-
tance of credence attributes has also been highlighted in the study conducted
by Dimech et al. (2011) for the Maltese consumers of fruits and vegetables.
Consumers’ responses on 11 product attributes were grouped to three
sets of related attributes through principal component analysis. Using factor
analysis, these three attributes explain 66.38% of variance (Table 4). The
variance indicated by credence attributes is 30.83%, and it loads high on
nutrition, hybrid variety, and organically cultivation practices. Search attri-
butes explain 19.25% variation and are loaded on grading/sorting, variety,
and size. The variance shown by experience attributes turned out to be
16.30%, and taste and odor have been loaded high.
Several researchers have concluded that COO plays a very important role
in influencing the buying behavior of consumers for poultry meat in
 14 S. Kapoor and N. Kumar

TABLE 4 Importance of Various Product Attributes

Credence Search Experience
Mean* Attributes Attributes Attributes

Nutrition 4.8 0.841 0.121 0.007

Hybrid/Desi variety 4.5 0.808 0.162 0.017
Organically grown 3.9 0.772 0.074 0.042
Medicinal value 4.6 0.643 0.276 0.068
Freshness 4.9 0.629 0.211 0.302
Grading/sorting 4.2 0.043 0.856 0.000
Variety 4.5 0.356 0.678 0.018
Size 4.3 0.448 0.655 0.087
Color 4.2 0.442 0.495 0.371
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

Taste 4.5 0.152 0.223 0.896

Odor 4.2 0.284 0.188 0.863
Total variance explained (%) 30.83 19.25 16.30
Cumulative variance
explained (%) 30.83 50.08 66.38
Note. *1 ¼ not at all important, 5 ¼ most important.
Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization.

European countries (Strašek, 2010, 2011; Vukasovič, 2009, 2010, 2011).

However, COO can be taken as search attribute for poultry meat. This is in
contrast to our findings where credence attributes play a major role in
influencing consumers’ behavior for fruits and vegetables.

Importance of Market Attributes

The preferences of consumers for different market attributes indicate that for
vegetables, market convenience and availability of quality products with
choices are the preferred attributes (in order of importance) (Table 5). On the
other hand, consumers attach high importance to the availability of fresh and
high-quality products, besides market convenience, while selecting the outlet
for fruits. Surprisingly, price did not emerge as a preferred attribute for both
fruits and vegetables. This rejects the general feeling that Indian consumers
are price sensitive and resort to cheap product strategy while purchasing fruits
and vegetables. To the contrary, consumers have started attaching importance
to other hitherto-neglected market features like hours of operation, market
cleanness, and its ambience. Thus, our second hypothesis, H2, is rejected.
Three different market outlets (i.e., neighborhood shop, nearby vegetable/
fruit market, and wholesale/supermarket) were assessed based on different
attributes and facilities. Mode rank analysis of consumers’ responses for these
three outlets has been presented in Table 6. The results show that wholesale
market/supermarket was ranked low only in case of market convenience,
whereas it was preferred on most other counts. Neighborhood shop ranked
vary high in terms of its convenience but least in terms of availability of
variety/choices, fair price, market cleanliness, and its ambience.
 Fruit and Vegetable Consumers’ Behavior 15

TABLE 5 Consumers’ Response on Importance of Market Attributes

Mean*

Attributes Vegetables Fruits

Availability of fresh products 3.48 3.9

Market cleanliness 2.84 3.0
Market ambience 3.00 3.1
Market convenience 4.36 3.9
Market services 2.84 3.0
Availability of quality products 3.68 3.9
Availability of variety/choices 3.60 3.5
Bargaining power 3.04 3.1
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

Hours of market operation 3.20 3.3

Price 3.08 3.1
Note. *1 ¼ not at all important, 5 ¼ most important.

Consumers’ response on these 11 market attributes were grouped to four

set of factors using principal component analysis. These results for consu-
mers’ response for markets of vegetables are given in Table 7. The first factor
is called physical appearance of market (M1), and it includes attributes like
market cleanliness and its ambience. This factor turned out to be the most
important factor because it explains a total of 26.82% variation and loads high
on market cleanliness. The second factor is market convenience and services
(M2), which is related to market convenience, services, and its hours of
operation and explains 21.73% variation. This factor loads very high for hours
of market operation. It signifies that consumers need the market to remain
open for a long time so that they can make purchases according to their
availability of time. Availability of fresh and quality products with choices
can be defined as the third factor (M3), and it shows 16.74% variation. This
factor counts high for availability of fresh products. Consumer bargaining
power constitutes the fourth factor (M4) but explains only 12.68% variation.

TABLE 6 Importance of Various Market Attributes–Mode Rank Analysis

Nearby Vegetable/ Wholesale

Neighborhood Fruit Market/
Shop Marketplace Supermarket

Market convenience Most Average Not at all

Availability of variety/choices Least Lower Highest
Price Least Lower Very high
Bargaining power Average Not at all Very high
Availability of quality products Least Average Best
Availability of fresh products Average Not at all Highest
Market ambience Not at all Average Highest
Market cleanliness Not at all Average Highest
Market services Not at all Average Highest
Hours of market operation Average Not at all Very high
 16 S. Kapoor and N. Kumar

TABLE 7 Factor Analysis–Rotated Component Matrix for Market Attributes: Vegetables

Factors

Physical Market Availability of Consumer

Appearance of Convenience and Quality Bargaining
Attributes Market (M1) Services (M2) Products (M3) Power (M4)

Market cleanliness 0.791 0.364 0.219 0.078

Market ambience 0.550 0.227 0.555 0.238
Market convenience 0.205 0.839 0.195 0.148
Market services 0.174 0.825 0.014 0.009
Hours of market operation 0.076 0.933 0.208 0.144
Availability of fresh
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

products 0.040 0.091 0.864 0.082

Availability of quality
products 0.540 0.205 0.751 0.052
Availability of
variety/choices 0.288 0.386 0.758 0.062
Bargaining power 0.169 0.249 0.186 0.684
Price 0.371 0.038 0.544 0.611
Total variance
explained (%) 26.82 21.73 16.74 12.68
Cumulative variance
explained (%) 26.82 48.55 65.29 77.97
Note. Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization.

The consumers’ responses for markets of fruits have been analyzed using
the same factors as defined here earlier, for which the results are given in
Table 8. In the case of fruits, consumers bargaining power (M4) explains
maximum variance of 23.22%, whereas the market convenience and services
(M2) turned out to be least important factor, explaining only 15.60% of vari-
ation. The other two factors (M1 and M3) are of approximately the same
importance, explaining about 21% of variation.

Consumers’ Willingness to Pay Premium Price to Get Off-Season/

Packaged Fruits and Vegetables
To identify the factors affecting the willingness to pay for graded and
packaged fruits and vegetable items, logistic regression was carried out.
The independent variables considered in the analysis were gender, age, edu-
cation, occupation, residential area, spouse occupation, family structure, city
type, presence of children in family, family income, and food habits, while
willingness to pay for fruits/vegetables was a dependent variable.
The result of logit regression analysis for fruits is exhibited in Table 9. The
model is a reasonably good fit as indicated by the summary statistics. The v2
statistic for the model is 23.16, which is significant at the 1% level (p < .01),
and the Cox and Snell R2 (R²CS ¼ 0.254) and Nagelkerke R2 (R²N ¼ 0.341)
values indicate an adequately goodness of fit. The estimated logit model
 Fruit and Vegetable Consumers’ Behavior 17

TABLE 8 Factor Analysis–Rotated Component Matrix for Market Attributes: Fruits

Factors

Consumer Physical Availability of Market

Bargaining Appearance of Quality Convenience and
Attributes Power (M4) Market (M1) Products (M3) Services (M2)

Bargaining power 0.861 0.146 0.060 0.144

Price 0.812 0.116 0.364 0.187
Market ambience 0.018 0.905 0.070 0.039
Market cleanliness 0.101 0.844 0.347 0.144
Availability of variety/choices 0.201 0.405 0.763 0.064
Availability of quality products 0.240 0.128 0.858 0.145
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

Availability of fresh products 0.301 0.175 0.834 0.009

Hours of market operation 0.146 0.427 0.330 0.715
Market convenience 0.095 0.460 0.302 0.695
Market services 0.388 0.267 0.170 0.679
Total variance explained (%) 23.22 21.18 20.86 15.60
Cumulative variance
explained (%) 23.22 44.40 65.26 80.86
Note. Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser
normalization.

correctly predicted 72% of respondents’ views. The result indicates that the
consumers’ willingness to pay for graded and packaged fruit items was
positively affected by education, occupation, residential area, and presence
of children in family. Importantly, family income was found to be a signifi-
cant factor that positively influenced the willingness to pay for graded and
packaged fruit items.

TABLE 9 Factors Affecting Willingness to Pay for Graded and Packaged Fruit Items
B SE Wald Sig. Exp(B)

Gender (1 if male, 0 otherwise) 1.079 0.926 1.357 .244 0.340

Age (1 if < 35 years, 0 otherwise) 0.029 0.624 0.002 .963 0.972
Education (1 if postgraduate, 0 otherwise) 0.843 0.650 1.681 .195 2.323
Occupation (1 if service, 0 otherwise) 1.191 0.837 2.025 .155 3.289
Residential area (1 if high profile, 0 otherwise) 0.694 0.665 1.091 .296 2.002
Spouse occupation (1 if service, 0 otherwise) 0.807 0.801 1.015 .314 2.242
Family structure (1 if nuclear, 0 otherwise) 0.824 0.811 1.030 .310 0.439
City type (1 Bhubaneswar, 0 otherwise) 0.103 0.579 0.032 .859 0.902
Children in family (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) 0.819 0.816 1.009 .315 2.269
Income (1 if > Rs. 40,000 pm, 0 otherwise) 1.424 0.644 4.881 .027 4.153
Food habit (1 if vegetarian, 0 otherwise) 0.992 0.750 1.749 .186 0.371
Constant 0.982 1.421 0.478 .489 0.374
2 Log likelihood 84.812
Cox and Snell R2 0.254
Nagelkerke R2 0.341
v2 23.168*
Correct prediction (%) 72.0
Note. Significant at *1% level.
 18 S. Kapoor and N. Kumar

TABLE 10 Factors Affecting Willingness to Pay for Graded and Packaged Vegetable Items
B SE Wald Sig. Exp(B)

Gender (1 if male, 0 otherwise) 0.075 0.863 0.007 0.931 1.077

Age (1 if < 35 years, 0 otherwise) 0.760 0.686 1.225 0.268 2.137
Education (1 if postgraduate, 0 otherwise) 1.195 0.703 2.893 0.089 3.305
Occupation (1 if service, 0 otherwise) 0.489 0.852 0.329 0.566 1.630
Residential area (1 if high profile, 0 otherwise) 0.553 0.761 0.528 0.467 1.739
Spouse occupation (1 if service, 0 otherwise) 0.988 0.883 1.252 0.263 2.686
Family structure (1 if nuclear, 0 otherwise) 0.832 0.798 1.086 0.297 0.435
City type (1 Bhubaneswar, 0 otherwise) 1.930 0.683 7.993 0.005 6.889
Children in family (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) 0.204 0.923 0.049 0.825 1.226
Income (1 if > Rs. 40,000 pm, 0 otherwise) 0.007 0.695 0.000 0.991 0.993
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

Food habit (1 if vegetarian, 0 otherwise) 0.236 0.870 0.074 0.786 1.267

Constant 3.391 1.988 2.910 0.088 0.034
2 Log likelihood 74.045
Cox and Snell R2 0.252
Nagelkerke R2 0.357
v2 22.975*
Correct prediction (%) 78.48
Note. Significant at *1% level.

The result of logit regression analysis for vegetables is exhibited in Table 10.
The model is a reasonably good fit as indicated by the summary statistics. The
v2 statistic for the model is 22.97, which is significant at the 1% level (p < .01),
and the Cox and Snell R2 (R²CS ¼ 0.252) and Nagelkerke R2 (R²N ¼ 0.357) values
indicate an adequately goodness of fit. The estimated logit model correctly pre-
dicted 78% of respondents’ views. The result indicates that the consumers’ will-
ingness to pay for graded and packaged vegetable items was positively affected
to the extent by gender, age, occupation, residential area, spouse occupation,
presence of children in family, and food habit. Importantly, only education and
city type were found to be significant factors that positively influenced the
willingness to pay for graded and packaged vegetable items.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the sociodemographic profile of consu-
mers affects their willingness to pay the premium price of high-quality and
packaged food (H4) is accepted. Our results support the findings of the
studies conducted by Govindasamy and Italia (1999), Mahaliyanaarachchi
(2007), and Ali et al. (2010).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Under the current retail environment of fruit and vegetable marketing in

India, the present study provides valuable features of consumers’ buying
behavior in terms of their choices for various products’ and markets’
attributes. The results indicate that, being necessary products, vegetables
are purchased more frequently than fruits and the consumption of vegetables
is more evident from average volumes of transactions. The mean value of
 Fruit and Vegetable Consumers’ Behavior 19

consumers’ responses on various product attributes indicates that consumers

attach more importance to credence attributes (e.g., freshness, nutrition,
medicinal value) over the search (size, color, and variety) and experience
attributes (e.g., taste and odor). The preferences of consumers for different
market attributes indicate that for vegetables, market convenience and avail-
ability of quality products with choices are the preferred attributes (in order
of importance). On the other hand, consumers attach high importance to the
availability of fresh and high-quality products, in addition to market con-
venience while selecting the outlet for fruits. Surprisingly, price did not
emerge as a preferred attribute in both fruit and vegetable purchases. Apart
from this, the study also addresses the consumers’ willingness to pay for
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

graded and packaged fruit items. Results of logit analysis reveal that family
income and consumers’ education were found to be significant factors that
positively influenced the willingness to pay for graded and packaged fruit
and vegetables, respectively.
In the emerging organized retailing of fruits and vegetables, companies
would be paying great attention to market and consumer research to ensure
success for their products. The study argues that because consumers are
looking for market convenience and availability of quality products in their
purchases of fruits and vegetables, designing the store location and nature
and quality of assortment would be the key instruments for the retail indus-
try. These results can be used as strategic input by the retail industry to cus-
tomize fruit and vegetable retailing according to consumers’ preferences and
requirements. Being necessary products, the availability of adequate quanti-
ties of fruits and vegetables at the retail store would be the key to success in
fruit and vegetable retailing. For this purpose, companies would have to
design a robust supply chain system to ensure the availability of fruits and
vegetables of proper quality at the store, on the one hand, and to minimize
wastage and inventory cost, on the other hand. The study reveals that the
strong economic growth with increased purchasing power in med-sized cit-
ies has brought with it a new set of consumers, demanding processed and
packaged fruit and vegetable products at premium prices. To reap this
opportunity, the retail outlets would have to sell sorted/graded and packaged
fruit items in a hygienic environment and with own labeled brands. Because
credence attributes have been found to be more important in explaining the
consumers’ buying behavior, consumers’ education and awareness can be
increased through required information on food labels attached to packaged
fruits and vegetables. Although demand for packaged fruits and vegetables is
in its infant stage at the current time in India, the organized retailers have to
create their own brand image in this arena to succeed in the long run, Like
the FMCG, the brand of the company may turn out to be a significant variable
influencing the consumers’ buying behavior of fruits and vegetables. We
perceive that the information would play an important role in changing
consumers’ behavior in favor of packaged and graded fruits and vegetables.
 20 S. Kapoor and N. Kumar

NOTE

1. Cities that have a population of more than 5 million are referred to as metropolitan cities, whereas
cities with a population of more than 1 million are considered to be larger cities.

REFERENCES

Akpinar, M. G., Aykin, S. M., Sayin, C., & Ozkan, B. (2009). The role of demographic
variables in purchasing decisions on fresh fruit and vegetables. Journal of Food
Agriculture & Environment, 7(3–4), 106–110.
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

Al-Gahaifi, T. H., & Svetlik, J. (2011). Factors influencing consumer behavior in

market vegetable in Yemen. Acta Universitatis Agriculture et Silviculturae
Mendelianae, 59(7), 17–27.
Ali, J., Kapoor, S., & Moorthy, J. (2010). Buying behavior of consumers for food
products in an emerging economy. British Food Journal, 112(2), 109–124.
Angulo, A. M., Gil, J. M., & Tamburo, L. (2003, September). Food safety and consu-
mers’ willingness to pay for labelled beef in Spain. Paper presented at the 83rd
EAAE Seminar, Chania, Greece. Retrieved from http://www.maich/eaae.gr
Arnold, S. J., & Luthra, N. M. (2000). Market entry effects of large format retailers:
A stakeholder analysis. International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, 28(4–5), 139–154.
Assael, H. (1998). Consumer behavior and marketing action (6th ed.). Cincinnati,
OH: International Thompson.
Batra, R., & Sinha, I. (2000). Consumer-level factors moderating the success of private
label brands. Journal of Retailing, 72(2), 175–191.
Batte, M. T., Hooker, N. H., Haab, T. C., & Beaverson, J. (2007). Putting their
money where their mouths are: Consumer willingness to pay for multi-
ingredient, processed organic foods. Food Policy, 32(2), 145–159.
Blend, J. R., & van Ravenswaay, E. O. (1999). Consumer demand for eco-labeled
apples: Results from econometric estimation. American Journal Agriculture
Economics, 81, 1072–1077.
Boccaletti, S., & Nardella, M. (2000). Consumer willingness to pay for pesticide-free
fresh fruit and vegetables in Italy. The International Food and Agribusiness
Management Review, 3(3), 297–310.
Canavari, M., Nocella, G., & Scarpa, R. (2005). Stated willingness-to-pay for organic
fruit and pesticide ban: An evaluation using both web-based and face to face
interviewing. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 11(3), 107–134.
Caputo, V., Nayaga, R. M., Jr., & Canavari, M. (2010, June–July). Organic consumers’
valuation for food miles labels. Presented at the 119th EAAE Seminar on
Sustainability in the Food Sector, Capri, Italy.
Chen, K., Shepherd, A. W., & Silva, C. D. (2005). Changes in food retailing in Asia:
Implications of supermarket procurement practices for farmers and traditional
marketing systems. Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance Occa-
sional Paper No. 8. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation.
Crawford, M. (1997). Agriculture and food management. Marketing and Agribusi-
ness Text No. 2. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation.
 Fruit and Vegetable Consumers’ Behavior 21

Daftari, I. (2007). Reliance Fresh may add groceries products: An empirical study.
Area, 16(1), 32–34.
Damodaran, H., & Kulkarni, V. (2012). How vegetarian are we really? The Hindu
Business Line. Retrieved from http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/
columns/harish-damodaran/article2769196.ece?homepage=true
Damodaran, S. (2009). Retail in India: The past, present and future. eQuestIndia.
Retrieved from http://www.equestindia.com/eq/article_3.asp
Darby, M. R., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud.
Journal of law and Economics, 16(1), 67–88.
Dash, J. F., Schiffman, L. G., & Berenson, C. (1976). Information search and store
choice. Journal of Advertising Research, 16(3), 35–40.
Dentoni, D., Tonsor, G. T., Calantone, R. J., & Peterson, H. C. (2009). The direct and
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

indirect effects of ‘locally grown’ on consumers’ attitude towards agri-food

products. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 38(3), 384–396.
Deshingkar, P., Kulkarni, U., Rao, L., & Rao, S. (2003). Changing food system in
India: response-sharing and marketing arrangements for vegetable production
in Andhra Pradesh. Development Policy Review, 21(5–6), 627–639.
Dimech, M., Caputo, V., & Canavari, M. (2011). Attitudes of Maltese consumers
towards quality in fruit and vegetables in relation to their food-related lifestyles.
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 14(4), 21–35.
East, R., Lomax, W., Wilson, G., & Harris, P. (1994). Decision-making and habit in
shopping times. European Journal of Marketing, 28(4), 56–71.
Economic Times. (2012, September 14). FDI in multi-brand retail: Full text
of government policy approval. Retrieved from http://articles.economictimes.
indiatimes.com/2012-09-14/news/33844307_1_multi-brand-retail-stocks-foreign-
direct-investment
Ernst, S., Batte, M. T., Darby, K., & Worley, T. (2006). What matters in consumer
berry preferences: Price? Source? Quality? Journal of Food Distribution Research,
37(1), 68–71.
Fearne, A., & Lavelle, D. (1996). Segmenting the UK egg market: results of a survey of
consumer attitudes and perception. British Food Journal, 98(1), 7–12.
Ford, G. T., Smith, D. B., & Swasy, J. L. (1988). An empirical test of the search, experi-
ence and credence attributes framework. Advances in Consumer Research, 15,
239–244.
Fox, E. J., Montgomery, A., & Lodish, L. M. (2004). Consumer shopping and spending
across retail formats. The Journal of Business, 77(2), 25–60.
Gao, Z., Schroeder, T. C., & Yu, X. (2010). Consumer willingness to pay for cue attri-
bute: The value beyond its own. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness
Marketing, 22(1), 108–124.
Gil, J. M., Gracia, A., & Sanchez, M. (2000). Market segmentation and willingness
to pay for organic products in Spain. International Food and Agribusiness
Management Review, 3(2), 207–226.
Goswami, P., & Mishra, M. S. (2009). Would Indian consumers move from kirana
stores to organized retailers when shopping for groceries? Asia Pacific Journal
of Marketing and Logistics, 21(1), 127–141.
Govindasamy, R., & Italia, J. (1999). Predicting willingness-to-pay a premium for organi-
cally grown fresh produce. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 30(2), 44–53.
 22 S. Kapoor and N. Kumar

Goyal, A., & Singh, N. P. (2007). Consumer perception about fast food in India: an
exploratory study. British Food Journal, 109(2), 182–195.
Gupta, K. B. (2009, June). Consumer behaviour for food products in India. Paper
presented at the 19th Annual World Symposium of International Food &
Agribusiness Management Association, Budapest, Hungary. Retrieved from https://
www.ifama.org/events/conferences/2009/cmsdocs/1063_paper.pdf
Hadi, A. H. I. A., Selamat, J., Shamsudin, M. N., & Radam, A. (2010). Demand for food
safety attributes for vegetables in Malaysia. Environment Asia, 3, 160–167.
Retrieved from http://www.tshe.org/ea/pdf/vol3s%20p160-167.pdf
Henson, S. (1996). Consumer willingness to pay for reductions in the risk of food
poisoning in the UK. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 47(1–4), 403–420.
Hisrich, R. D., Dornoff, R. J., & Kernan, J. B. (1972). Perceived risk in store selection.
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

Journal of Marketing Research, 9, 435–439.

Images Group. (2009). India retail report 2009. New Delhi, India: Author.
Intercooperation and Shen. (2010). Markets for Meghri, upgrading markets of
sub-tropical fruits in Meghri, Southern Armenia. Retrieved from http://www.
shen.am/PDF/Upgrading%20Markets%20of%20Sub-Tropical%20Fruits%20in%
20Meghri.pdf
Kearney, A. T. (2010). Expanding opportunities for global retailers–2010 global retail
development index. Retrieved from http://www.atkearney.com/images/global/
pdf/2010_Global_Retail_Development_Index.pdf
Kearney, A. T. (2011). Retail global expansion: A portfolio of opportunities–2011
global retail index. Retrieved from http://www.atkearney.com/images/global/
pdf/Global_Retail_Expansion-GRDI_2011.pdf
Kiesel, K., & Villas-Boas, S. B. (2007). Got organic milk? Consumer valuations of
milk labels after the implementation of the USDA Organic Seal. Journal of
Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 5(1), article 4.
Kovacic, D., Radman, M., & Kolega, A. (2002, July). Behavior of fruit and vegetable
buyers on the city market in the Croatia. Paper presented at 13th International
Farm Management Congress, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
KPMG International. (2005). Consumer markets in India: The next big things.
Publication No. 213–405. Mumbai, India: Author.
Kuhar, A., & Juvancic, L. (2010). Determinants of purchasing behaviour for organic
and integrated fruits and vegetables in Slovenia. Agricultural Economic Review,
11(2), 70–83.
Kupiec, B., & Revell, B. (2001). Measuring consumer quality judgements. British
Food Journal, 103(1), 7–22.
Leibtag, E. S., & Kaufman, R. (2003, June). Exploring food purchase behavior of low-
income households: How do they economize? Current Issues in Economics of
Food Markets. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture.
Mahaliyanaarachchi, R. P. (2007). The impact of the behavioural patterns of vegetable
consumers on marketing activities. The Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 3(1), 63–74.
Mamgain, P. (2011, January 7). Food retail chains sell vegetables & fruits up to 40%
cheaper than local vendors. Economic Times. Retrieved from http://articles.
economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-01-07/news/28427023_1_vegetable-prices-
safal-price-rise
 Fruit and Vegetable Consumers’ Behavior 23

Maruyama, M., & Trung, L. V. (2007). Traditional bazaar or supermarkets: a probit

analysis of affluent consumer perception in Hanoi. The International Review
of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 17(3), 233–252.
Matanda, M., Mavondo, F., & Schroder, B. (2000, June). The dynamics of customer
satisfaction in fresh produce market: An empirical example from a developing
economy. Presented at the International Food and Agri-business Management
Association Congress, Chicago, IL.
Maxwell, S. (2001). An expanded price/brand effect model: A demonstration of
heterogeneity in global consumption. International Marketing Review, 18(3),
325–343.
McKinsey & Company. (2007). The bird of gold: The rise of India’s consumer market.
Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/reports/pdfs/india_consumer_
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

market/MGI_india_full_report.pdf
Moser, R., Raffaeli, R., & Thilmany-McFadden, D. (2011). Consumer preferences for
fruit and vegetables with credence based attributes: A review. International
Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 14(2), 121–141.
Mukherjee, A., Satija, D., Goyal, T. M., Mantrala, M. K., & Zou, A. (2011, August).
Impact of the retail FDI policy on Indian consumers and the way forward.
ICRIER Policy Series No. 5. Mumbai, India: Indian Council for Research on
International Economic Relations.
NABARD. (2011). Current scenario of Indian food retail industry and future outlook
of development of organised food retail. In Organised agri-food retailing in
India (pp. 26–46). Mumbai, India: Author.
Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy,
78(2), 311–329.
Nicolae, I., & Corina, P. (2011). Consumer behavior on the fruits and vegetable
market. Annals of the University of Oradea: Economic Science, 1(2), 749–754.
Rastogi, A. (2010). Rural and small towns: The next big opportunity for Indian
retail? Retrieved from http://trak.in/tags/business/2010/09/24/rural-india-retail-
opportunity/
Reardon, T., & Berdegué, J. A. (2008). The retail-led transformation of agrifood
systems and its implications for development policies. Washington, DC:
World Bank. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/
10986/9233
Reardon, T., & Gulati, A. (2008, February). The rise of supermarkets and their
development implications: International experience relevant for India. IFPRI
Discussion Paper 007. Washington, DC: IFPRI.
Sanghvi, N. (2007, May 1). I have seen the future and it works. The Economic Times,
Kolkata Edition, p. 4.
Sengupta, A. (2008). Emergence of modern retail: An historical perspective.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(9), 689–700.
Sharma, V. P., & Jain, D. (2011, July). High value agriculture in India: Past trends
and future prospects. Working Paper No. 2011–07-02. Ahmedabad, India: Indian
Institute of Management.
Singh, S., & Powell, J. (2002, May 9). Shopping from dusk till dawn. Marketing Week.
Sinha, P. K. (2003). Shopping orientation in the evolving Indian market. Vikalpa,
28(2), 13–22.
 24 S. Kapoor and N. Kumar

Sinha, P. K., & Banerjee, A. (2004). Store choice behavior in an evolving market.
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 32(10), 482–494.
Sinha, P. K., Banerjee, A., & Uniyal, D. P. (2002). Deciding where to buy: Store choice
behavior of Indian shoppers. Vikalpa, 27(2), 13–28.
Skuras, D., & Vakrou, A. (1999). Willingness to pay for origin-labelled products: A
case study of Greek wine consumers. Presented at the 67th EAAE Seminar
Proceedings, Le Mans, October 28–30.
Sodurlund, M. (1998) Customer satisfaction and its consequences: Customer beha-
vior revisited. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(2),
169–171.
Sriram, V., & Forman, A. M. (1993). The relative importance of products’ environ-
mental attributes: a cross-cultural comparison. International Marketing Review,
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

10(3), 51–70.
Sruthijith, K. K., & Chakravarty, C. (2010, February 13). New future for fruit &
vegetables. Economic Times. Retrieved from http://articles.economictimes.
indiatimes.com/2010-02-13/news/27624098_1_vegetables-fruits-retail-trade
Strašek, R. (2010). Empirical testing of correlations between the effects of country-
of-origin and consumer perceptions. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 66(1),
39–51.
Strašek, R. (2011). The structural model of relations between country of origin
and the perceived brand name value. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 67(1),
59–71.
Teils, M. F., Roe, B., & Levy, A. S. (1999). Ecocertification: Why it may not be a ‘field
of dreams.’ American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81(5), 1066–1071.
Timmer, C. P. (2005). Agriculture and pro-poor growth: An Asian perspective. CGD
Working Paper No. 63. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.
Tse, A. C. B. (2001). How much more are consumers willing to pay for a higher level
of service? A preliminary survey. Journal of Services Marketing, 15, 1–17.
Vaish, N. (2007) Retail vegetable market boom with reliance, future group entry.
India Today. Retrieved from http://indiatoday.indiatoday.in/story/sabzi-madis-
enhanced-grading/1/155962.html
Van Waterschoot, W., Sinha, P. K., Van Kenhove, P., & De Wulf, K. (2008). Consumer
learning and its impact on store format selection. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 15(3), 194–210.
Vlosky, R. P., Ozanna, L. K., & Fontenot, R. J. (1999). A conceptual model of US
consumer willingness-to-pay for environmentally certified wood products.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(2), 122–136.
Vukasovič, T. (2009). Consumer perception of poultry meat and the importance
of country of origin in a purchase making process. World’s Poultry Science
Journal, 65(1), 65–74.
Vukasovič, T. (2010). Buying decision-making process for poultry meat. British Food
Journal, 112(2), 125–139.
Vukasovič, T. (2011). The importance of national chicken meat origin in Central and
South-Eastern Europe. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 67(2), 237–242.
Wirth, F. F., Stanton, J. L., & Wiley, J. B. (2011). The relative importance of search
versus credence product attributes: Organic and locally grown. Agricultural
and Resource Economics Review, 41(1), 48–62.
 Fruit and Vegetable Consumers’ Behavior 25

CONTRIBUTORS
Sanjeev Kapoor holds a PhD in rural banking and agriculture
economics and currently is a faculty member at the Indian Institute of
Management, Lucknow (India). His current research areas are agriculture
marketing and rural finance.
Niraj Kumar is a faculty member in Rural Management at the Xavier
Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar (India). Holding a doctorate in exten-
sion education, he teaches subjects related to agri-business management and
rural marketing communication.
Downloaded by [Xavier Institute of Management - XIMB] at 22:47 07 July 2015

View publication stats