Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities (EJPAU) founded by all Polish Agriculture Universities presents original papers and review articles relevant to all aspects of agricultural sciences. It is target for persons working both in science and industry,regulatory agencies or teaching in agricultural sector. Covered by IFIS Publishing (Food Science and Technology Abstracts), ELSEVIER Science - Food Science and Technology Program, CAS USA (Chemical Abstracts), CABI Publishing UK and ALPSP (Association of Learned and Professional Society Publisher - full membership). Presented in the Master List of Thomson ISI.
2004
Volume 7
Issue 2
Topic:
Economics
ELECTRONIC
JOURNAL OF
POLISH
AGRICULTURAL
UNIVERSITIES
Multu S. , Berk A. 2004. HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION PREFERENCES AND PURCHASING BEHAVIOURS ON DAIRY PRODUCTS IN URBAN AREA OF ADANA, EJPAU 7(2), #01.
Available Online: http://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume7/issue2/economics/art-01.html

HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION PREFERENCES AND PURCHASING BEHAVIOURS ON DAIRY PRODUCTS IN URBAN AREA OF ADANA

Seval Multu, Ali Berk

 

ABSTRACT

Dairy products have an important role in a sufficient and balanced nutrition. In this study, to examine the consumers’ behaviour on purchasing and consumption, a survey was carried out by using face-to-face interviewing method with the households in Adana city of Turkey. A factor analysis was realized to determine the highlights of consumers on purchasing dairy products. According to the analysis results, branded products, quality, hygiene and health, availableness, and finally price range were determined as important factors affecting the purchasing tendency. The results of factor analysis processed to cluster analysis and created two clusters. The consumers in the first cluster pay more attention to the factors that were branded products, quality, hygiene and health and availableness. The consumers in the second cluster were more sensitive to the price range and the other factors have less effect in purchasing behaviour. Additionally it was determined that the most important reason led th

Key words: milk consumption, dairy products, multivariate data analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Milk and other dairy products are highly nutritious and can play an important role in human diets for both children and adults [8]. Milk is one of the main foodstuffs for human nutrition because of its protein, carbohydrate, vitamins and mineral contents. Lack of milk and milk products consumption are regarded as the main reason of calcium deficiency.

In the milk consumption report (2003), it was reported that about 10 million tons of milk was consumed yearly in Turkey, and it was stated that 42 percent of this number was delivered as raw to the consumers. Among EU countries, in Greece 75%; in Spain 78%; in Denmark and Netherlands 96% and in Ireland 98% of the produced milk was assembled by cooperatives or similar organizations, and was sent to the plants in order to process via the cold chain under hygienic conditions. Considering the quantity of raw milk consumption in Turkey, it would not be right to state that an important majority of the consumers are awake of consuming safe and qualified milk. Turkey, which is in the process of adaptation to EU, can compete in milk and milk products sector internationally just by promoting its food safety and quality.

In addition to food safety problem, another important issue is lack of milk consumption. The average milk consumption in Turkey is 146 litters per year. This number is 292 litters in US and 342.5 litters in EU [6]. For a balanced nutrition in Turkey, it is necessary to accomplish a two-fold increase in milk consumption (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, 2002). Taking into account all these, it is highly important to examine the dairy products consumption structure and purchasing behaviour in Turkey. Especially the reasons of leading the consumers to buy raw milk should be determined.

It was selected to examine intensive consuming types of dairy products of Turkish households in this study. Consequently, the dairy products are classified non-packaged milk (raw milk), packaged milk (pasteurised milk), yoghurt (Turkish yoghurt), yoghurt with fruit, kashar (flat cheese, cheddar-type), white cheese, tulum (type of white cheese made in a skin-bag), cokelek (skim-milk cheese), and butter.

Kashar, tulum and cokelek are traditional dairy products in Turkey. They are consume d generally at breakfast and preparing baked products.

Kashar cheese. This type of cheese is widely known throughout Turkey. It is made from sheep or cow milk. The process resembles the one of cheddar cheese. Functional properties like as mozzeralla (Italian type) cheese. Kashar is also similar to "Kaskaval" in Bulgaria, "Kassari" in Grecee, "Kachkawaj" in Yugoslavia. Rennet curdles the milk, then it is strained and the curd is boiled in salt water. After boiling cheese, the curd becomes like dough due to the heat. It is placed in round moulds and cooled. After being shaped, it is removed from the mould. Kashar cheese made from sheep's milk is produced as large wheels and during the ageing process the outer part is allowed to dry which then forms a crust. Some of the cheeses which are produced from cow's milk have a crust but most are vacuum-packed. Both types are eaten at breakfast, however the fresh cheese is also consumed in toasted sandwiches or on baked foods in the same way as mozzarella cheese.

Tulum cheese. It is originated from the western part of Turkey. Tulum cheese is type of white cheese made in a sheep skin-bag. By removing the water of the curd, a crumbly texture is obtained. The crumbled curd is salted and packed firmly in sheep's skins and aged for 3 to 6 months. During this period it becomes tasty.

Cokelek cheese. The cheese culture is so widespread in Turkey that even in making many of our desserts cheese is used. After boiling the whey, which is strained from the curd, the remaining protein is curdled. It is used in baked products, served for breakfast or as an appetizer after mixing it with various spices.

In this study, the consumption of milk and milk products, purchasing and using habits, the reasons for consuming raw milk, the problems facing the consumers while purchasing raw milk, the factors affecting consumers’ decisions over purchasing, and various consumer profiles according to milk consumption features were examined among different income groups.

DATA AND METHODS

Primary data resource of the study is the survey carried out among the selected households of the central Adana in order to determine consumers’ habit on dairy products consumption. Adana situated in the south and the fourth largest city of Turkey. Adana is at the centre of the rich agricultural region and a thriving textile industry.

The surveys were firstly tested in a pilot area and then necessary adjustments were completed. Relevant studies and statistical data were also benefited. To determine the sample number “One Stage Simple Random Sampling Learning against Population Rates” [3] method was used, and it was decided that 328 households could represent the urban area of Adana. The survey study was carried out in June 2002 and 328 households were interviewed.

Households were examined by income reports. Income reports are ranked in ascending order, according to the level of total income of households. The ranking is divided into five groups. The households having 215$ or less monthly income was the first group, 216-360$ was as second group, 361-645$ was as third group, 646-1360$ was as fourth group, and 1361$ over was as fifth group.

In this study, to determine which features of the products have an effect on consumers’ purchasing behaviour, factor analysis was applied. This analysis is a statistical technique used to determine the relation between the original variables with minimum data lost [5]. It was asked to the consumers what kind of features they are looking for while buying dairy products. They were asked to give some points (from 1 to 5) for each feature (1: very ineffective, 5: very effective).

Bartlett’s test result for factor analysis was found significant for 5% level. KM0 (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy) was found close to 1, so data are correlated. From screen plot diagram, appropriate factor number was determined as 5.

At the following stage, factor scores obtained from factor analysis were processed by cluster analysis. As a result, 2 clusters were created. Cluster analysis is a multivariate statistical technique aiming to gather the similar objects or individuals into the same groups or clusters related to their similarity or distance values [5].

RESEARCH FINDINGS

Descriptive statistics of households by income groups were presented at table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of sample by income groups

Variables

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Whole sample

Number of household

53

87

94

71

20

325

Household size (mean)

4.2
(1.4)

4.1
(1.3)

4.3
(1.3)

4.1
(1.2)

4.3
(1.2)

4.1
(1.3)

Number of children (mean)

2.3
(1.4)

2.4
(1.2)

2.3
(1.2)

2.2
(1.2)

2.3
(1.2)

2.3
(1.2)

Non-homeowner (%)**

26.4

18.4

24.5

25.7

0.0

21.9

Permanent urban area resident (%)

23.2

29.9

27.2

37.7

50.0

30

Men, university graduated (%)***

9.4

31.0

37.9

57.7

55.0

36.8

Women, university graduated (%)***

3.8

10.3

15.8

38.0

25.0

17.8

Working women (%)*

26.4

34.5

37.9

47.9

50.0

38.0

*** significant at 1%, ** significant at 5%, * significant at 10%.
Source: Authors’ research.

Most important part of the households residing in the research area took place in the third income group that was known as the medium income group. Average household size is 4.1 persons. Average children number is 2.3 and second group has the more children.

The ratio of non-homeowner households is 21.9%. Within the lowest income group, this rate is highest level (26.4%). Within the highest income group, there is no household living on rent.

The ratio of the households living permanently in the urban area is found as 30%. In addition, as the income get bigger, there seems an increase in this rate. Within the highest income group, the ratio of the households living permanently in city is 50% and this rate was found 23.2% within the less income group.

Looking at the education situation of the parents, the number of university graduation rate is 36.8% for household head in all groups. As the income gets bigger, there seems an increase in this number. This rate is 9.4% in less income group and 56% in upper income group. The ratio of male graduated from university is 17.8%. This rate has less level (3.8%) within the first income group. Moreover, the same ratio is 38% within the fourth group.

The ratio of the woman working in the study area is 38%. As the income gets bigger, the rate of the woman working gets increased. This rate is less 26.4% within the first group, and 50% within the fifth group.

In the urban area of Adana city the monthly average amount of consumption per capita of the milk and dairy products: non-packaged milk 4.32kg, packaged milk 1.60kg, yoghurt 3.35kg, yoghurt with fruit 0.08kg, white cheese 1.42kg, kashar 0.53kg, tulum 0.35kg, butter 0.28kg and cokelek 0.27kg (Table 2).

Examining consumption of the milk and milk products per capita, the highest monthly consumption per capita (5.06kg) took place in the second group. As the income level increases, the consumption of the non-packaged milk decreases. There is a significant relationship at the 5% significance level between income groups and milk consumption.

Table 2. Monthly consumption of the milk and milk products per capita for different income levels in Adana urban area (kg)

Products

1. %20

2.%20

3.%20

4.%20

5.%20

The average of all groups

Non-packaged Milk (Raw) **

4.69
(3.73)

5.06
(6.6789)

4.68
(4.1588)

3.11
(3.0638)

2.78
(3.0252)

4.32
(4.7189)

Packaged (Pasteurised) ***

0.76
(1.09)

0.811
(1.4797)

1.49
(1.9983)

2.94
(2.5283)

3.02
(2.1436)

1.60
(2.0905)

Yoghurt

2.85
(2.29)

3.60
(4.144)

3.34
(2.337)

3.45
(1.9402)

3.48
(1.6338)

3.35
(2.8267)

Yoghurt with fruit**

0.01
(0.07)

0.05
(0.23)

0.09
(0.25)

0.12
(0.28)

0.19
(0.47)

0.08
(0.26)

White Cheese **

1.25
(1.2295)

1.17
(1.1138)

1.41
(1.1796)

1.68
(1.7727)

2.03
(1.7859)

1.42
(1.3769)

Kashar***

0.13
(0.2360)

0.29
(0.5103)

0.62
(0.9319)

0.84
(0.9620)

1.15
(1.1985)

0.53
(0.8367)

Tulum***

0.17
(0.3706)

0.19
(0.4454)

0.41
(0.7532)

0.50
(0.8515)

0.63
(0.7855)

0.35
(0.6735)

Tereyagı***

0.17
(0.2889)

0.21
(0.3936)

0.32
(0.4199)

0.33
(0.4493)

0.58
(0.5690)

0.28
(0.4212)

Cokelek*

0.45
(0.8876)

0.29
(0.5792)

0.19
(0.3468)

0.23
(0.4266)

0.28
(0.5836)

0.27
(0.5628)

*** significant at 1%, ** significant at 5%, * significant at 10%.
Source: Authors’ research.

In this urban area, there exist important differences in the consumption of the packaged milk for per capita by income groups. As the income increases, the consumption of the packaged milk per capita increases also. The lowest consumption rate (0.76 kg) takes place in the first group. The highest rate (3.02kg) is in the highest income group. There is a significant relationship between the income groups and consumption rate of the packaged milk.

According to the income groups, the lowest rate of the monthly consumption of yoghurt per capita take place in the first group. As the income rate increases, the consumption of yoghurt increases, too.

The lowest share (0.01kg) in the consumption of the yoghurt with fruit was determined in the first group. As the income rate increases, there seems an increase in the rate of the consumption of yoghurt with fruit.

The fifth group has the highest degree (2.03kg) over the consumption of the white cheese per capita in the study area. There seem some similar changes at the average consumption rate per capita of the kashar, tulum and butter. For all these three products, the consumption rate of the households in the highest income group is more than others.

Maximum consumption of the cokelek (0.45kg) per capita took place in the first group. As the income rises, the consumption amount of this product decreases.

In the urban area of Adana, the expenditure of the milk and milk products for per capita is 1.09$ regarding in 2003. Most important spending products within this group is respectively white cheese 0.28$, kashar 0.18$ and yoghurt 0.15$.

Table 3. The responsible for milk purchasing decision in the household by income levels (%)

Persons

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Means

Women

80.4

74.1

83.1

83.6

94.7

83.2

Men

13.7

22.4

13.5

11.9

5.3

13.4

Children

5.9

3.5

3.4

4.5

0.0

3.5

Source: Authors’ research.

Personal factors significantly impact the consumer purchasing process. Also, it is important to determine who buys the product and who is actually going to be the end user. In this study, it was determined that woman was the responsible for milk purchasing decision in the household with 83.2 per cent. In the highest income group, mother is the only person in charge of purchasing milk and milk products.

In the urban areas of Adana, examining the frequency of purchasing on milk and milk products, it was observed that some households have zero consumption of dairy products. The zero consumption problems are particularly severe for yoghurt with fruit, cokelek or tulum cheese, that zero observations are above half of urban households (Table 4). The purchasing frequency of raw milk and yoghurt is upper than the other products.

Table 4. The frequency of milk and milk products purchasing of households (%)

Products

Daily

2-3 times
a week

Weekly

Fortnightly

Monthly

Yearly

Never

Total

Raw milk

12.8

36.0

31.1

1.8

0.0

0.3

18.0

100.0

Pasteurised milk

6.4

18.3

19.2

12.2

6.7

0.6

36.6

100.0

Yoghurt

10.1

32.9

32.6

5.8

1.8

0.0

16.8

100.0

Yoghurt with fruit

2.1

3.0

4.3

3.4

2.4

0.9

83.8

100.0

White cheese

2.1

4.6

32.0

16.5

24.7

9.8

10.4

100.0

Kashar cheese

0.0

1.2

21.3

15.2

22.9

0.9

38.4

100.0

Tulum cheese

0.0

0.6

13.4

10.7

13.1

3.4

58.8

100.0

Butter

0.6

0.0

6.4

12.8

30.2

3.0

47.0

100.0

Cokelek cheese

0.9

0.9

6.1

11.3

17.1

3.7

60.1

100.0

Source: Authors’ research

An important share of the households (36.7%) purchase the liquid milk just for drinking, besides, the rest of households consume after some processes, that is, making yoghurt, dessert or cake (figure 1).

In addition, it was found that liquid milk consumption increases in winter months (figure 2).

Figure 1. Ways of consuming liquid milk in urban area
Source: Authors’ research.

Figure 2. Milk consumption by seasons
Source: Authors’ research.

Concerning from which retail store the households provide milk and milk products, it was determined that raw milk was bought mostly from street sellers; packaged milk, yoghurt, white cheese and tulum were bought from traditional stores; fruit yoghurt, kashar and butter were bought from supermarkets, cokelek was taken from villages and street markets. In general, supermarkets and local stores are playing a crucial role in purchasing milk and milk products (Table 5).

Table 5. Consumer preferences for retailer selection (%)

Products

Street seller

Traditional
store

Supermarket

Village

Local store

Raw milk

61.3

18.6

0.0

20.1

0.0

Pasteurised milk

0.0

59.2

39.0

1.9

0.0

Yoghurt

12.4

48.9

22.9

15.8

0.0

Yoghurt with fruit

0.0

40.0

56.4

3.6

0.0

White cheese

4.4

39.9

34.9

16.1

4.7

Kashar

0.0

43.1

55.4

0.0

1.5

Tulum

3.6

46.0

41.7

7.9

0.7

Butter

1.1

33.1

38.1

22.1

5.5

Cokelek

6.0

21.8

15.0

27.1

30.1

Source: Authors’ research.

In the urban areas of Adana 81.6% of the households use raw milk and 61.3% of those buy raw milk from street sellers, 20.1% brought from villages, and the rest buys from stores or other retailers. As observed from these percentages, non-packaged milk usage under non-controlled hygienic conditions is common.

Table 6. Usage of non-packaged and packaged milk by income level (%)
 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Total

Raw milk (non-packaged)

84.9

85.1

81.1

77.5

75.0

81.6

Packaged milk (pasteurised)

50.9

51.7

65.3

87.3

85.0

65.3

Source: Authors’ research.

At the table 6, the proportion of milk consumption regarding households’ income was given. According to the table, non-packaged (raw) milk consumption is higher in the lowest income group, on the other hand, in the upper income groups, this rate gets lower nevertheless, this rate is quite high.

As given in figure 3, the reason of the households chosen to purchase raw milk from a street seller is that it is serviced to houses (34%). This reason is more important than low priced (24%). The most important complaint made by the raw milk consumers is that this kind of milk releases more water as making yoghurt (Figure 4).

Figure 3. Preference reasons of purchasing milk from street sellers
Source: Authors’ research.

Figure 4. The important complaints about raw milk purchased from street seller
Source: Authors’ research.

Table 7. Component Matrix of Factor Analysis

Variables

Factors

Community-h2

1

2

3

4

5

Freshness

0.062

-0.015

0.689

0.004

0.031

0.480

Price

-0.165

0.005

-0.144

0.028

0.834

0.745

Variety

325

0.051

0.477

0.153

0.538

0.649

Hygiene

-0.100

0.458

0.598

-0.139

0.006

596

Having in stock

220

-0.009

0.125

0.720

0.022

584

Brand

0.745

0.51

0.238

-0.120

-0.146

651

Quality

0.229

0.606

0.332

0.115

-0.115

557

Exterior appearance

0.247

0.751

-0.031

0.039

0.021

628

Origin

0.008

0.524

0.225

0.337

0.102

0.450

Ready

0.754

-0.030

0-0.065

0.260

0.055

645

Point of sale

-0.032

0.207

-0.034

0.805

0.048

696

Packaging

0.688

0.459

0.116

0.094

-0.026

0.707

Packing

0.726

0.452

-0.018

0.042

0.017

0.734

Endurance

0.016

0.273

0.561

0.291

-0.271

547

Pasteurised product

0.438

0.146

0.524

0.172

-0.087

526

Eigenvalue

4.204

1.561

1.392

1.030

1.007

Variance

28.026

10.405

9.283

6.866

6.710

Cumulative variance

28.026

38.431

47.714

54.580

61.291

Source: Authors’ research.

As a result of the factor analysis, 5 factors were determined. These were defined as; 1. Branded and packaged products, 2. Quality, 3. Hygiene and health, 4. Easiness to buy, 5. Economical factors. Then, factor scores obtained by factor analysis were processed to cluster analysis and 2 clusters were created.

Table 8. Final cluster centres
 

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Factor 1

.01

-.05

Factor 2

.10

-.72

Factor 3

.26

-1.90

Factor 4

.02

-.12

Factor 5

-.08

.59

Source: Authors’ research.
Examining the final cluster centres; it was observed that factor 5 was less effective in first group. This factor is related to economical situations of household. Due to cluster centres, the consumer profiles were created as Table 9.

Table 9. Consumer profiles by cluster centres

Cluster 1

Little sensitive to price,
Sensitive to branded and ready products, quality, hygiene and healthiness, easiness to buy,
Expenditure of milk per household (2002): 2.46 $ per month

Cluster 2

Sensitive to price,
Less sensitive to branded and ready products, quality, hygiene and healthiness, easiness to buy,
Expenditure of milk per household (2002): 2.04 $ per month

Source: Authors’ research.

Table 10. Cluster profiles of household by significance scales

Features

Clusters

Means

Sig.

1

2

Freshness

4.97

4.34

4.89

0.000

Price

3.73

4.46

3.81

0.000

Variety

3.89

3.15

3.80

0.001

Hygiene

4.83

3.72

4.70

0.000

Having in stock

3.56

3.28

3.53

0.172

Brand

3.51

2.81

3.42

0.003

Quality

4.40

3.28

4.26

0.000

Exterior appearance

3.81

2.16

3.74

0.002

Origin

3.84

3.06

3.75

0.001

Ready

3.25

3.28

3.25

0.894

Point of sale

3.73

3.41

3.70

0.099

Packaging

3.43

2.44

3.31

0.000

Packing

3.19

2.63

3.12

0.016

Stability

4.61

3.09

4.43

0.000

Pasteurised product

4.03

2.41

3.84

0.000

Source: Authors’ research.

Considering the consumer profiles of households by significance scale, freshness, variety, hygiene, brand, quality, exterior appearance, origin, point of sale, packaging, packing, stability, pasteurised product are important features for higher expenditure group, that is the first cluster which the price was not important. On the other hand, for the second group, making the decision to purchase, the most important feature is determined as price. The freshness of product is also an important feature for this group.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

In this study, the consumption of dairy products, the habits of purchasing and consuming milk, the factors effecting the consumers’ decisions as buying milk and the different consumer profiles were aimed to introduce.

An important finding of this study was determined as the reason why an important part of the households in urban area of Adana prefer to purchase raw milk was home delivery. Broadening the service area oriented towards consumers in order to increase the packaged milk consumption would be a good marketing strategy. The “convenience” benefit of consumers was supported in this study. Improving direct marketing methods for this sector would facilitate to market these products. Direct marketing is clearly a convenience to time-constrained contemporary consumer. Marketers can improve the interaction with their consumers if they allow for a greater shift of control over this interaction to the consumer [4].

Examining the consumer profiles, the classifying criterion for the consumers was determined as price. On the other hand, assessing the relationship between the dairy products consumption and income groups, it could be observed that the consumption gets increase in higher income groups. So the consumers are very sensitive about the price of these products. Because of that, the politics have to make an effort to reduce the price of milk that is very important in human nutrition. Consumption tax (VAT, value-added tax) for milk and dairy products is higher than the tax level of other basic foods in Turkey [2]. For these products, VAT should be applied equal level as other basic food.

Besides, brand, quality, hygiene and convenience to buy are important factors for purchasing decision of consumers. Regarding these factors, the arrangements providing food safety and hygiene in these products should be applied during the process of producing dairy products. Along the process of Turkey’s integration with the European Union, it is necessary to own suitable technology and hygiene in the dairy sector.

REFERENCES

  1. Anonymous, 2003. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Beslenme Ve Diyetetik Bölümü Güvenli Süt Tüketimi Raporu. Güvenli Süt Ve Sağlık Sempozyumu. Ankara.

  2. Benli E., 2003. Globalleºen Dünyada Türkiye Et Ve Süt Sanayii, Küreselleºme Sürecinde Tarım Paneli.

  3. Collins M., 1986. Sampling. Consumer Market Research Handbook. Elsevier Science, Inc.

  4. Evans M. ve ark., 2001. The Direct Marketing- Direct Consumer Gap: Quantitative Insights. Qualitative Market Research.

  5. Ness M., 2000. Multivariate Data Analysis Courses Notes. IAMZ. Spain.

  6. SETBİR, 2002. Türkiye’de Süt Tüketimi. Türkiye Et, Süt Ve Gıda Üreticileri Derneği.

  7. Tarım ve Köy ݺleri Bakanlığı, 2002. Hayvansal Gıda Tüketiminin Artırılması. Http://www.tbyayin.gov.tr/Basili/Gap_Brosur/Sosyo_Kultur_II/Hayvansal_Gida.Htm

  8. Latham M.C., 1997. Human Nutrition In The Developing World. FAO. Rome.


Seval Multu, Ali Berk
Department of Agricultural Economics
Agriculture Faculty
University of Cukurova
01330 Balcalı / Adana, Turkey
E-mail: berkali@cu.edu.tr
smutlu@cu.edu.tr

Responses to this article, comments are invited and should be submitted within three months of the publication of the article. If accepted for publication, they will be published in the chapter headed ‘Discussions’ in each series and hyperlinked to the article.


[BACK] [MAIN] [HOW TO SUBMIT] [SUBSCRIPTION] [ISSUES] [SEARCH]