FP7 KBBE 2007 1 2 GA 212579

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme (2007-2013) Dissemination Level PU Public PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission

Services) x RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 2/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 3 GA 212579

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 5

1. QUALITATIVE STUDY ...... 6 1.1. Methodology ...... 6 1.1.1. Brief methodology reminder ...... 6 1.1.2. Presentation of the focus groups ...... 6 1.1.3. Presentation of samples ...... 7 1.1.4. General comments about the organization of the two focus groups ...... 7 1.2. Perception of traditional food ...... 8 1.2.1. Purchasing and cooking habits ...... 8 1.2.2. Traditional food quoted ...... 8 1.2.3. Definition of traditional food ...... 10 1.2.4. Perception of traditional food ...... 12 1.3. Traditional food consumption and purchasing behaviour ...... 14 1.3.1. Purchase location ...... 14 1.3.2. Last consumption moment ...... 15 1.3.3. Types of traditional food eaten and consumption moment ...... 16 1.4. Image of traditional food ...... 17 1.4.1. Healthy products ...... 17 1.4.2. Natural products ...... 18 1.4.3. Quality products ...... 18 1.4.4. Origin labels ...... 19 1.5. Synthesis of focus group results ...... 19

2. QUANTITATIVE STUDY ...... 22 2.1. Implementation ...... 22 2.1.1. Presentation of the method ...... 22 2.1.2. Feasibility of quantitative study ...... 24 2.2. Sample description ...... 24 2.3. Balkan consumers and traditional food ...... 28 2.3.1. Purchasing behaviour ...... 28 2.3.2. Consumption behaviour ...... 31 2.3.3. Consumers preferences ...... 35 2.3.4. Attention given to food origin and hygiene practices ...... 39 2.3.5. Perception of products with Geographical Indication (GI) ...... 41 2.4. Consumers segmentation ...... 43 2.4.1. Methodology ...... 43 2.4.2. Characterization of segments ...... 46 2.5. Synthesis of quantitative results ...... 50

3. SYNTHESIS PER COUNTRY ...... 53 3.1. Descriptive statistics on cards ranking ...... 53

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 3/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 4 GA 212579

3.2. Relative importance of attributes per country ...... 54 3.3. Summary of consumers segmentation per country ...... 54

4. DISCUSSION ...... 73

A. Appendix 1: focus group guidelines ...... 82

B. Appendix 2: profile of participants per country ...... 86

C. Appendix 3: Food presented during focus groups per country...... 87

D. Appendix 4: Traditional food listed by focus group participants ...... 91

E. Appendix 5: Number of participants who selected each product as being traditional in each focus group ...... 96

F. Appendix 6: cards Presentation ...... 98

G. Appendix 7: Conjoint analysis questionnaire ...... 99

H. Appendix 8: characterization of clusters (SPAD outputs) ...... 103

I. Appendix 9: IMportance utilities AND characterization per cluster and country ...... 109

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 4/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 5 GA 212579

INTRODUCTION

This study investigates the perception and behaviour of Balkan consumers towards traditional food.

Balkan countries have a strong heritage of culinary tradition; the consumption of traditional food is strongly connected with their cultural habits. In some Western Balkan countries, many products are already registered and protected in a legal frame. However, the field of traditional food is certainly larger than the registered products, under a legal framework. A “consumer-driven” definition of traditional food has been proposed in the frame of European project TRUEFOOD: “A traditional food product is [...] a product frequently consumed or associated with specific celebrations and/or seasons, normally transmitted from one generation to another, made with care in a specific way according to the gastronomic heritage, with little or no processing/manipulation, that is distinguished and known because of its sensory properties and associated to a certain local area, region or country” (Guerrero, 2009). It is also interesting to have an overview of Balkan consumers’ perception toward traditional food because Balkan countries are very heterogeneous in terms of geography, culture, food and history. These different points may influence the nature of traditional food in each country.

In the scope of the project Focus Balkans, the objective of WP8 is to better understand consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviour toward traditional and local food. Six Balkan countries have been selected for this project: Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Croatia. WP8 aims to:

- Measure the attitudes towards traditional and local food products expressed by Balkan consumers, - Assess the purchasing behaviour of WBC consumers for traditional and local food products, - Identify specific segments of consumers sensitive to traditional and local food products.

In order to achieve these objectives, different activities have been planned for WP8. They are the following:

- Focus group discussion

This stage could be considered as an exploratory stage. It sought to better understand what traditional food is for Balkan consumers: how do they conceptualize these products? What are their consumption habits? What are the main attributes related to these products? Although this activity provided interesting results by itself, it also helped to define the conjoint analysis protocol.

- Conjoint analysis

This activity is the core activity of the WP. The conjoint analysis measured consumers’ trade-off between attributes of traditional food. This provides a detailed understanding of the importance of traditional food according to consumers in Western Balkan countries.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 5/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 6 GA 212579

- Analysis with a special focus on clusters

Based on the results of the conjoint analysis, a classification method has been used in order to identify specific segments of consumers sensitive to traditional food.

We will summarize hereafter results of the study led in the scope of WP8 according to the following parts: - Qualitative study - Quantitative study - Synthesis per country - Discussion

1. QUALITATIVE STUDY

The qualitative study consisted of two focus groups per Balkan country in order to explore, perceptions of traditional food in the Balkans.

1.1. Methodology

1.1.1. Brief methodology reminder

The focus groups, as an explorative stage, generated an idea of Balkan consumers’ definition and perception of traditional food, to better understand their behaviours and habits. First results of this qualitative stage can already be of interest by themselves but it was also a first preliminary step to generate hypothesis and to design the protocol of the subsequent quantitative stage (conjoint analysis). A focus group is a small group of people which is gathered to engage in controlled discussions and interviews in order to elicit opinions about particular products or services. The detailed methodology has been described in the DL 4.2 of Focus-Balkans project,and the guidelines are shown in appendix 1.

1.1.2. Presentation of the focus groups

Focus Date Number of Country Town groups participants I 25/05/2010 8 Montenegro Podgorica (capital) II 01/06/2010 8 Montenegro Kolašin (town) I 27/05/2010 8 Macedonia Skopje (capital) II 28/05/2010 8 Macedonia Strumica (major town) I 20/04/2010 8 Croatia Zagreb (capital) II 1/05/2010 8 Croatia Klek (small village) I 24/03/2010 10 Serbia Belgrade (capital) II 10/04/2010 8 Serbia Zajecar (rural region) I 20/05/2010 9 Slovenia Domžale (town) II 24/05/2010 9 Slovenia Škofja loka (town) I 29/04/2010 10 Bosnia & Herzegovina Trebinje (major town) II 5/05/2010 10 Bosnia & Herzegovina Banja Luka (major town)

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 6/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 7 GA 212579

Twelve focus groups were held, two per Balkan country, each with eight to ten participants. First, the idea was to organize the two focus groups in two locations: in the capital of the country and in a smaller town, relatively far from the capital. Upon reflection and having discussed the matter with partners, organizing a focus group in a very small town would have proved difficult. In Balkan countries, the link between urban and rural areas is still strong, so the final assignment was for each partner to organize one focus group in the capital city and one in a major town, but relatively far from the capital. Of course, according to the country, the choice of towns may lead to a distinction between rural and urban. For example, in Serbia, the first focus group was carried out in the capital and comprised only urban participants and the second was in a rural town with only rural participants. Generally, partners chose the capital city and another, much smaller town in terms of inhabitants. The duration of the focus groups was between half an hour and two hours. The discussion of traditional food was appealing to participants. All participants took part without difficulties, except maybe in Slovenia where it was rather hard to keep a balanced participation between participants and to focus some of them on the subject, especially in the first focus group held. Guidelines were very helpful for moderators and facilitated answers on all subjects. Profile of participants The procedure for sampling was the same for all focus groups to reinforce results. It was expected to have “general population group”. Conditions have been specified in order to have a good age balance and a good gender balance. The appendix 2 shows the different profiles of participants according to the country. Globally, the quotas were respected. There is a good balance between gender and age. The major part of participant is urban, due to the fact that focus group discussions were held in towns and not in very small villages. Most of people are in charge of food shopping. Some participants never do shopping but they were interested in the discussion and could speak about traditional food. There are no strong differences between countries, except maybe for the income, which is lower in some countries.

1.1.3. Presentation of samples

During focus groups, the moderator physically showed food to the consumers, including several traditional products or dishes. Amongst these products, there should also be food that consumers do not a priori consider as traditional, in order to provoke discussion and critical points of views on the products. Instructions were to have eight different products or dishes: 3 “traditional” products of the region or the country, 1 traditional dish, 3 “industrial” products and 1 “industrial” dish, tinned, not “traditional”. Different samples shown to consumers are described per country in the appendix 3. These products and dishes chosen by partners are different according to the countries. The aim to show physically products is to facilitate expression, especially because there is no official definition of traditional food.

1.1.4. General comments about the organization of the two focus groups

There were no difficulties in organizing the focus groups. Participants were fully involved in the discussion. There was no problem for moderator in starting or managing the discussion and guidelines were very helpful to obtain results. However some little problems appeared in some countries.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 7/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 8 GA 212579

In Macedonia, the second focus group was a little bit more difficult to organize than the first one, since the process was left on the recruiters from the region of the city of Strumica, in the south-east part of Macedonia: this required coordination from the partners. In Serbia, the guidelines were clear and easy to follow, except for the part covering the labels of origin which was not really understandable by participants in the two focus groups. Additionally, consumers found sometimes difficult to distinguish between traditional products and traditional dishes. Bosnia and Herzegovina had the same problem in its second focus group. During the discussion, it was difficult for participants to define traditional products and dishes, which did not happen with the first group. Slovene partner considered, especially for the first focus group, that guidelines were not precise enough to moderate the discussion on traditional food and they had some difficulties with the translation of words “food”, “dish” and “product” into Slovene words. Despite these minor difficulties, focus groups analysis showed interesting results about traditional food perception and will be very helpful to implement the quantitative survey.

1.2. Perception of traditional food

1.2.1. Purchasing and cooking habits

The majority of Balkan consumers eat at home and like cooking. Some of them eat out for the lunch often due to their work. Few people eat at restaurant, generally due to a lack of money and for some of them due to a lack of habits. When they eat out, it may be due to a festive situation like birthday for example. We also noticed that consumers living in rural area never or rarely eat at restaurant. In all countries, most participants are involved in the preparation of the meal and like eating. The women are often more involved in preparing food than men. In Bosnia and Serbia, the dimension Health appears at the beginning of the discussion. Bosnian consumers want to cook themselves in order to check the quality of their food. In Serbia, consumers practice or try to practice a healthy diet. This perception of healthy food seems to be mainly related to home made food rather than fast food, processed food or cold meals like sandwiches as well as eating meals at particular times of the day, together with other members of the family. Some participants of focus groups have their own garden, so they grow fruits and vegetables. A few of them breed also animals for milk or meat. The purchasing places for food are supermarkets, mini markets, green markets and less often specialized shops as butchers or directly to farmers. In Slovenia, some who buy at farmers market consider that prices are too high.

1.2.2. Traditional food quoted

Traditional food listed by consumers is described in appendix 4. It was important to ask consumers to quote spontaneously traditional food. These identified products or dishes will complete the first examples already given by partners (see DL 4.2). Participants were asked to write on a sheet five examples of traditional food that came to their mind. There was no discussion afterwards, not to influence following questions.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 8/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 9 GA 212579

Per country According to results, differences are noticed: - In Croatia, food spontaneously quoted is often Sarma and beans. - In Macedonia, the most quoted food is beans, Ajvar, paprika and Shirden. - In Bosnia and Herzegovina, participants from both focus groups quote much more traditional dishes than traditional products. Concerning traditional dishes, both groups mentioned Sarma, beans, potato, pies, corn mash and fish. The two focus groups were divided into a rural focus group and an urban focus group. Some results are different according to the focus group. The rural group knows much more traditional products and the urban group thinks more about traditional dishes. The urban group members talk about delicatessen in general while the rural group specifies some of these products (ham, sausage) and also honey, wine, dried fig, cabbage and milk. - In Montenegro, participants of the first focus group spontaneously mention more often as traditional food corn made dish (kacamac), beans, Raštan, various kinds of pie, gruel, potato dishes and the participants of the second focus groups notice polenta, prosciutto, cheese, beans, priganice and pies. In both focus groups, they selected mainly traditional dishes and products that are widely represented in the entire territory of Montenegro. In the focus group II, consumers mentioned a traditional cheese puff of partially skimmed milk, which is characteristic for that area and prepared in a special way. - In Serbia, the most frequently spontaneously evoked food items considered traditional are beans, sarma, cabbage, green beans, peas and potatoes. Corn flower made dishes (kačamac and proja) are mentioned by rural and urban participants. Some food is more quoted by rural participants as cheese and kajmac and by urban participants as pies and cheese pies. It is also interesting to mention that ajvar usually considered as typical Serbian dish and Belmuz typical traditional product of the region are rarely mentioned. - In Slovenia, consumers of both focus groups first think about dishes and not products. The majority quotes as traditional the food they eat very frequently. Mentioned dishes refer to a typical Sunday dinner as beef soup, fried potato, roasted pork meat and lettuce salad. On the other hand, they quote dishes associated to festive moment as “koline”. To finish, they thought about dishes which belong to the family of different stews. In addition, some other types of stews were mentioned (tripe, vegetable stew, veal stew) and also some which are hardly considered to be a Slovene origin like goulash soup or special beans soup named “pasulj”. Participants often mentioned the specific cake “potica”. They mentioned also very untypical dishes of Slovenia like Lasagna, steak, pasta, tortellini, apple pie and some general items like potatoes, milk and compote. Synthesis To conclude globally for all countries, some are found in several countries: - Sarma: BiH, Croatia, Mt, Serbia - Pies: BiH, Mt, Serbia - Soups and stews (vegetable, beef, veal, chicken, lamb): BiH, Cr, Mk, Se, Sl - Beans: BiH, Croatia, Mk, Mt, Serbia - Gruels with water or milk (buckwheat in Slovenia, corn in BiH, Mt and Serbia (kačamak) - Ajvar: Mk, Serbia - Cabbage – special type: BiH, Croatia, Mt, Serbia - Cheese – special types: BiH, Croatia, Mk, Mt, Serbia

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 9/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 10 GA 212579

- Dry ham, sausage: BiH, Mt, Slovenia This list is of course not exhaustive but mentions the most frequent quotations. Some traditional food is also country-specific such as ričet (Sl), shirden, pastrmajlija, crushed paprika… (Mk) According to the results, there are no obvious differences in names of types of food between both focus groups in each country. In all Balkan countries, consumers mention more traditional dishes than traditional products. There are also some surprises as some respondents quoted food that we did not a priori consider as being traditional and some foods that are assumed to be traditional or local are rarely spontaneously mentioned by consumers. We also notice that there are geographical differences, for example Slovenia at one end and Macedonia at the other. There are also Mediterranean vs. Continental differences observed inside and between countries, depending on the location of the focus groups. This was particularly strong in Croatia for example. Finally, the table below shows a comparison between spontaneous answers of consumers and partners ‘answers.

Product Listed by partners Listed by focus group participants Cheese (special types, sheep, BiH, Cr, Mk, Mt, Se, Sl BiH, Cr, Mk, Mt, Se goat…) Ham (dry, sometimes smoked) BiH, Cr, Mt, Se, Sl BiH, Cr, Mt Sausages (dry, smoked) Cr, Se, Sl Cr Beans Mk BiH, Cr, Mk, Mt, Se, Sl Soups and stews Mk BiH, Cr, Mk, Se, Sl Gruels BiH, Mt, Se, Sl Honey BiH, Mk, Mt, Se, Sl BiH, Mk Olive oil Cr, Mt, Sl Gibanica Sl Se, Sl Ajvar Se, Mk Se, Mk Table 1 Countries in which the most common traditional foods were listed by partners or focus group participants

Each Balkan partner gave a short list beforehand. We asked mostly for products but consumers thought of dishes, home-made food, and everyday food. All the results show that there is no common dish or product quoted in all countries according to the point of view of experts and consumers.

1.2.3. Definition of traditional food

In focus group guidelines, questions were not technical and were easy to understand. The only difficulty was to know how consumers perceive traditional food as there is no legal definition of traditional food. It is why we chose to show them a variety of food, including traditional products and dishes in order to help them to express themselves about traditional food. This concrete exercise was useful to highlight the attributes and dishes associated to traditional food.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 10/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 11 GA 212579

- Per country See Appendix 5 for the list of products and number of participants who selected each product as being traditional in each focus group. In Croatia, there are no problems in identifying traditional products and dishes. However, some traditional products and dishes are not quoted by all consumers. We can notice that the choice made by consumers depends on different attributes. A majority of participants considered food as traditional due to the history and the link with the childhood of the food. They chose more homemade products and dishes, natural products or produced more naturally and they often quoted the link with the family. The most selected food is cheese, olive oil, pršut (traditional smoked ham) and olives. They also made an opposition with industrial products like Pizza and Vegeta for example. In Macedonia, consumers chose food which was considered traditional by experts. There were very rare examples of choice where participant quoted a product that was not considered traditional by the partners. It was made by persons who do not have Macedonian ethnical origin. The most selected food is Tavche Gravche, Ajvar and Shirden. In Bosnia, the choice of consumers was also easy. It is clear for the groups that traditional products are sheep milk cheese, ham and honey and that Zdenka cheese (spread cheese) and chocolate bananas cannot be considered as traditional. There are divergent opinions about some products like kebab which may be considered not traditional because served in restaurants and traditional because it has existed for a long time. Same opposition exists for the Sarma which is considered traditional by urban group but not by rural group partly because it is made of a type of cabbage which is produced industrially and partly because in that region it was not traditional to use cabbage leaves for this dish. Some attributes influenced the choice of consumers. A food will not be considered traditional if it has an industrial way of production, if the origin of the product or of the ingredients are not known, or if it is packed or with a too long “best before” date. It is interesting to notice that some young female participants referred to chocolate bananas as traditional because they have been eating them since childhood and they believe they have good quality and are difficult to find elsewhere. In Slovenia, there is a common agreement to say that some products are traditional like ričet and sausages. There was a long discussion about the fact that traditional food has to be home cooked or not. In this country, there really are difficulties to make a difference between a product and a dish. Participants for example may consider ričet as a dish if it is homemade and as a product if it is canned. According to them, industrial products cannot be traditional. Traditional food is linked to food with no additives, a recipe which has existed for a long time, a specific region of origin, tourism (food sold only in a touristic place), food that has been produced for many years in a country… Consumers often considered that a traditional product/dish must be prepared at home or in a restaurant. There is an exception for example with milk which is “per se” a traditional product. The most surprising fact is that some young participants listed soft drink Cocta as traditional product because it has been on the market for a long time. Protected products are very often considered as traditional. In Montenegro, the most selected products are Njeguška pršut, cheese from Pljevlja, Njeguška sausages and Priganice. The attributes linked to traditional are presence on the market for a long time, well-known method of production and distinctive taste. Concerning Priganice, they associate it to childhood, pleasant memories, represented in a large extent in the table and easily prepared. They also associated some traditional food to celebrations as Pršuta, sausages and homemade cheese. In this country, no participants mentioned industrial products/dishes as traditional. In Serbia, cheese, Kajmak, Čvarci and Slatko are the most frequently recognized cheese as traditional in both focus groups. In addition, kebab and peas are also perceived as traditional by several respondents.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 11/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 12 GA 212579

As in other countries, two participants recognized Bananica as a traditional product while it is a pure industrial product but which has existed for many decades in Serbia. Consumers consider food as traditional if it is homemade, prepared and consumed by many different generations, locally produced/grown, exclusively produced and consumed in Serbia and food evocating emotions (food made in childhood, in villages of grandparents, consumed in family and connected with social events). - Synthesis According to consumers, traditional food includes a wide variety of foods: - dishes (some had been listed as traditional), - cheeses, hams, sausages, - home-made, made by farmers, made by large industries, - strong brands on the market for a long time, - sweets and savouries, - presented either on a plate, or ready-made and packed. There is a frequent discussion between food “per se” and food industrially produced, packed, with a brand name, sold in a supermarket. This exercise provoked discussion and good linkages with the rest of the FG discussion. Some products which were not spontaneously listed were often selected as traditional: - some cheeses or other special dairy products - honey - in specific countries: Slatko, čvarci, kransjska klobasa, olives… Participants have diverging opinions on which foods are traditional, in particular for some industrial products or food that comes from other regions. We find also regional differences in Croatia and Bosnia but not in Serbia, Montenegro or Macedonia. In smaller towns, rural areas, industrially-made dishes are not perceived as traditional as in capitals (e.g. sarma in Bosnia, vampi and ričet in Slovenia). Young participants tend to consider brands related to their childhood as traditional (Bananica in Serbia and BiH, Cocta in Slovenia). Brands that have been on the market for a long time can be considered traditional only if they have an emotional value (e.g. Jošt cheese vs. Cocta in Slovenia).

1.2.4. Perception of traditional food

Participants of focus groups were asked for spontaneous associations, trying then to identify different categories of attributes of traditional food. After that, a specific exercise concerning first the positive points and then the negative ones was done in order to specify the image of traditional food. Generally, consumers have a clear perception of traditional food. The attributes quoted per country are very similar. The different attributes associated to traditional food are the following: - Eaten during festive occasions

Traditional food is perceived as festive food, especially consumed during holidays or for celebrations as Christmas or Easter. In Montenegro, the period of year is also a significant factor for the consumption of different types of traditional food, especially in the period winter when dairy and animal products are more consumed, which is related to the procedure of processing and production.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 12/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 13 GA 212579

- Some traditional foods are staple foods that are eaten on a daily basis by some consumers.

- Home-made, especially by family

According to Balkan consumers, traditional food is not made industrially. Consumers like cooking traditional dishes for them and for their family. A same product may be considered as traditional if homemade and not traditional if it is made by an industry. - Specific recipe

Traditional food has to be prepared according to a specific recipe, which has often been used for many years. - Linked to childhood, presence for many generations

Generally, traditional food was made by grandparents. Consumers speak about heritage of family, childhood. - Local food or specific of a place

The region in which the product is produced must be specific. The product or dish is made in a certain part of the country and has to be made out of products which are specific for this region. According to consumers, traditional food must be domestic. - Long time presence in the market

Traditional food must not be recent. They trust in traditional food because the product or dish has been present for many years and have a good reputation. - Limited production

It is correlated with the fact that traditional food is not considered industrial. According to consumers, it is necessary that traditional food must not be produced in big quantities. - Sold by reliable farmers or sellers

Consumers often refer to reliable relations with farmers or sellers of traditional food. They often buy traditional food directly at producers. - Good taste

Traditional food should be tastier than other food. The taste should be recognized and specific. - Natural and healthy environment

It must be a condition for the production of traditional food. It may be a specific climate where the products are made and grown, reliable ingredients used in the process of production or the usage of old sorts of fruit and vegetables. The environment is perceived as natural, without additives and preservatives. Traditional food has to be made out of raw materials which has been grown in this region and should not be imported. - Healthier

There is a paradox about the perception of traditional food as healthy. Traditional food is considered healthy due to natural ingredients, healthy environment, homemade but it may be considered unhealthy due to the presence of too much salt and fat. For example in Serbia, traditional food is perceived to be of high caloric value, containing too much fat as a particularly unhealthy nutrient and not very much diversified due to limited number of traditional dishes consumed on regular basis. Health aspects may be a barrier to the consumption of traditional food.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 13/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 14 GA 212579

1.3. Traditional food consumption and purchasing behaviour

1.3.1. Purchase location

Consumers buy traditional food in different purchase locations. - Farmers’ market is a common location for specific traditional products, especially for rural participants. The advantage often quoted is that consumers know the sellers and the products they sold. In Macedonia, they buy here meat to prepare traditional dishes or products. In Slovenia and Montenegro, people from capital buy traditional food at the market place from known suppliers. In Montenegro for example, they prefer buying at green market because the products seem fresher and better, especially dairy products. The purchases in green market are often done the week-end, so people have more time to choose their food. In Serbia, people of two focus groups like to buy in green markets due to the freshness, the quality and the regional origin of the products they proposed. They prefer to make their purchases there during summer months, when some fruits and vegetables are available. The relationship they have with the seller is very important for them. Conversely, in Bosnia, some participants said that they do not trust the products sold in green market, so they do not often buy here. They prefer to go directly to producers. It is also the case in Montenegro for participants of focus group II who are suspicious regarding hygienic conditions because they believe that the goods of poor quality are sold in the green market. They buy in green market only if they are not able to obtain them directly from producers. - Supermarkets

Traditional food is often bought in supermarkets in all countries, and more often by urban people, except Bosnian consumers who rarely buy traditional food in supermarkets. Urban people buy traditional food in supermarket once a week during their regular shopping. In Serbia, urban consumers mentioned that supermarkets and hypermarkets have a good offer and are cheaper than green market and of course are near to their home. This type of shop is chosen for its convenience. They also noticed that hypermarkets recently included some traditional cooked meals which are considered very convenient for lunch. - Special shops

Some consumers also buy in local stores but the supply of traditional food is less large. For example they like to buy meat in butcher’s shops where the quality is better than in supermarkets. - From the family, friends

It is especially the case for young consumers who receive traditional food by their family or who get it when they visit family. - Garden at home

Consumers from rural places usually grow the fruits and vegetables needed to prepare traditional dishes. Some of them even grow wheat (especially in Macedonia) and produce bread at home. Those who have a garden must just buy meat and milk to cook traditional food if they do not have animals at home. In Montenegro, a third of respondents, especially rural people, grow their fruits and vegetables and they use it to cook traditional dishes.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 14/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 15 GA 212579

- From farmers

Some consumers buy directly traditional food from farmers. For example, it is especially the case for rural participants in Croatia and in Bosnia. In Montenegro, there is a strong difference between the two focus groups. Consumers from the rural group (focus group II) mainly buy traditional products from trusted producers who produce these products in small quantity (honey, milk products, and meat products). They insist on the reliable relation they have with farmers when buying traditional food. Consumers from the urban group (focus group I) are mostly buying products in green markets and supermarkets and rarely directly from producers. At restaurant Few participants eat at restaurant, especially those who live in rural area who eat rarely out. However, in Slovenia, the group interviewed in the capital eats traditional food at restaurant, more frequently than rural group. It is generally a restaurant with “domestic” character. In Macedonia, consumers think that traditional dishes are hard to prepare and eating them at restaurant is more convenient for them.

1.3.2. Last consumption moment

A - Context of consumption Some participants, especially in Macedonia and in Bosnia for the rural group have some difficulties to remember the last consumption moment of traditional food. In Macedonia, the consumption is more linked to consumption at restaurant and more refers to a dish. In the case of consumption at restaurant, it is with family or friends. Generally, the last consumption moment is recent: today, yesterday. However, it may be more distant, especially when it refers to a special occasion. Lot of consumers remembers a consumption moment with family where it was the occasion to prepare traditional dishes. Other participants speak about consumption in festive occasions like Easter. Generally, during holidays, consumers cook more traditional dishes which need more preparation. We can notice that rural participants refer more to an everyday consumption while urban participants speak about a weekly consumption (for Sunday for example) or a consumption in the context of gathering (family, friends), as well as for special events, celebration. In Montenegro, traditional food is more often consumed in the colder period of the year, which coincides with the natural cycle of processing of some traditional products, as well as with the time of religious holidays. Finally the context of consumption of traditional food depends on consumers, on the area of living (rural/urban) and on the country. B - Traditional food eaten It is not easy to have a unique quotation of traditional food for each participant. For example, in Bosnia, the participants mention various foods that they have already consumed. It is interesting to notice that in this country, male members usually talk about products whereas female members talk about dishes. Moreover, products are more frequently served for breakfast and dishes for lunch. Cheese and honey are quoted by Bosnian consumers for an everyday consumption. Beans are cooked and eaten by Macedonian during the week-end. In Slovenia, some of the dishes are more “ordinary” daily foods like vegetable stew, mushroom stew, beef soup, cooked beef meat, green lettuce salad, some are dishes which are indeed not typical for Slovenia like “pasulj”. The most frequently mentioned dish is ricet. In Montenegro, traditional dishes that are quick and ready to prepare such as Priganice, corn bread, are consumed more often, usually in combination with pršuta or cheese.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 15/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 16 GA 212579

Participants in Serbia listed beans, moussaka, sarma, stuffed peppers, polenta, roasted chicken and potatoes, domestic bread and pršut. In other countries, no specific food is mentioned, the elicitations of consumers are various and large.

1.3.3. Types of traditional food eaten and consumption moment

A – Traditional food eaten In Croatia, a large variety of products and dishes have been quoted. In Macedonia, the most common traditional dish consumed is beans (turlitava was also listed) and the most common traditional product is ajvar. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, several products and dishes were elicited. The common dishes between the two focus groups were čicvara, pie, beans with cabbage and ribs and sarma. The urban group also quoted doughnuts, bread and cabbage stew while the rural group quoted mash, Kačamak cheese, cabbage and cabbage with meat. Concerning traditional products, consumers suggested cheese and honey, plus paprika sausage for urban group and cabbage and ham for rural group. In Slovenia, the dishes were very large, from ričet to beef soup for the two major citations. Others quoted milk, soups with different ingredients, stew… The two major products were cheese, potica (cake) and milk. In Montenegro, consumers spoke about various dishes. The most often quoted are Priganice and kačamak and with less importance pies and corn bread. For products, cheese is very often listed by participants, followed by pršut and with less importance kajmak. Other products are just quoted once or twice. In Serbia, the most quoted traditional dishes are beans and sarma and with less importance moussaka and roasted potatoes. The most traditional products quoted are ajvar, cheese and projara. B – Context of consumption In Macedonia, they often eat the traditional dishes quoted during holidays according to the Macedonian tradition. This refers to the dishes which require a long preparation time and also skills to prepare them. Otherwise they eat them at traditional restaurants, especially when they want to show guests traditional Macedonian cuisine. Beans which are easier to prepare are eaten more frequently. Rural people cook traditional dishes more often than urban group. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, traditional dishes are mostly consumed within family meals. Rural group eat traditional dishes more often, almost every day or on some special occasions and holidays. Traditional products are also consumed within family or friends. Traditional products are consumed more often than traditional dishes. Members of the rural group say that these products are a part of their everyday diet, whereas urban group members eat them mostly for breakfast or with tea. In Slovenia, traditional dishes are generally consumed at home with family. In this case, they are often eaten once a week. They are homemade, often by the wife. Products refer more to an everyday consumption, even if some of them are eaten in a festive moment (grilled piglet at local festival, potica for husbands’ birthday and other for Whitsun).

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 16/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 17 GA 212579

In Montenegro, traditional products and dishes are mainly consumed with the family and friends. Participants also considered these products and dishes of high quality. They like to prepare them for their children and some meals may have an emotional connotation arising memories of childhood. For focus group II participants, the context of consumption of traditional products is more an everyday context whereas participants of focus group I prepare them mostly of the time during family gatherings (especially week-ends). Serbian consumers agree upon the fact that they eat traditional dishes with their family. They do not need any special occasion to prepare and eat traditional food because they often eat it daily. Traditional dishes are mostly eaten for lunch. Ajvar and cheese are often eaten for breakfast or dinner and sometimes for lunch. As dishes, they like to eat them with family.

1.4. Image of traditional food

The questions about traditional food as healthy, natural, with high quality and about origin labels aimed to precise the perception of traditional food and to obtain information on the image of traditional food.

1.4.1. Healthy products

The dimension health of traditional food appears early in the discussion (before the question) related to the perception of positive and negative aspects of traditional food. There are two oppositions about the dimension health of traditional food. First traditional food is considered as healthy because consumers think that it does not contain additives, pesticides and artificial components. The process of production does not presume any chemical additives. In some cases, especially in rural area, buyers are well familiar with the whole process of traditional production. Lot of consumers in several countries considers that they are in an unpolluted region. Quality of water, air, soil is important to obtain good environmental conditions. Bosnian mentioned also that for traditional products, the animals are kept and fed in a traditional and natural way. A strong answer is that traditional food is healthy because it is not made industrially. In Serbia, consumers show that the best indicator that traditional food is healthy is that elderly people in the rural areas are even healthier and live longer than people in the cities, overwhelmed with stress and lifestyle. Consumers associated also the origin of traditional products with health. Since the traditional products are made in a natural way on a certain territory over the year, it guarantees the quality of production and so the health sides of the products. Moreover, some participants grow traditional products or make themselves traditional dishes, so they are able to control the quality of the food they eat. Serbian consumers argued that cooked food is healthier than roasted or fried food. In this case, the role of preparation in perception of the food healthiness was emphasized mostly by women. Paradoxically, traditional products or dishes are considered unhealthy due to their content of salt and fat. The nutritive values of this food, e.g. salt, cholesterol or sugar appeared unhealthy. This perception is more present among the participants living in urban settlements. Notice that in Macedonia, traditional products that include varieties of fruits and vegetables are described healthy and the ones with lot of meat and fat are considered unhealthy. According to Western Balkan consumers, a moderate consumption of this type of food is a solution to avoid negative aspects on the health.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 17/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 18 GA 212579

For example for Slovenian consumers, the problem is that people are not very physically active and consume too much of such food. So today traditional food is prepared with less fat, the recipes are adapted to the modern way of living. In Montenegro, consumers are conscious that traditional highly caloric dishes are not suitable for everyday use or for certain periods of the year like summer months.

1.4.2. Natural products

The perception of traditional food as natural is strongly correlated with health concerns. Consumers in Western Balkans consider traditional food as natural, especially when the food is homemade. For example in Macedonia, some participants explained that almost all of the dishes that they prepare are natural since they also use the meat from animals they breed at home and are sure what kind of food they give to those animals. More generally, consumers think that the production is performed in a traditional and natural way so there are no additives or chemicals to spoil the products. However, the opinion whether the traditional food is natural or not varied among the participants starting from positive perception to negative one. We can notice that in focus group I of Macedonia, participants stated that they are not sure how natural are the traditional dishes they eat since they cannot trace the origin of the products (especially meat products) that they put in when preparing traditional dish. Some Slovenian consumers are also skeptical about whether environment is at all natural nowadays. In Serbia, they considered that chemical ingredients are the inevitable part of the modern agricultural production process. There is also a correlation with the seasonality of the products. If the product comes from a greenhouse out of season, some participants perceive it as non natural, artificial food. These products even if traditional per se are perceived as full of chemicals and not natural.

1.4.3. Quality products

No definition of the term quality was given to participants in order not to orientate their answers. The perception of traditional food as a product with high quality is not systematic due to different reasons. Consumers wonder about what the quality of food really is. In Slovenia, they are confused about the meaning of the word quality. In Macedonia, some participants think that quality refers to the taste and others that it refers to the safety and preparation of the product and dish. They conclude saying that quality of traditional food is a combination of many factors but the most important is safety and taste. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the rural group says that the origin of ingredients influences the quality of the final product. They have a doubt for example on the quality of imported ingredients. The Slovenians also agree that ingredients and raw materials used to prepare such food influence the quality. The shift in the production process due to modern technology might influence the quality of traditional food as the usage of pesticides for example. The quality of package is also important in Serbia. Traditional food is perceived of good quality and even with a high quality when it is prepared by consumers themselves. According to them, traditional homemade food has better quality than industrially prepared food. In Bosnia, there are two opposite perceptions of quality of traditional food. The rural group believes that these products are of a high quality and good taste. They are also certain that the process of production guarantees the quality as well as the fact that people have been buying these products for many years. The urban group believes that the limited production of a product reflects its quality. Montenegro consumers consider traditional food as high quality food because products are made in a special way, in small quantities, taking care of hygiene and quality.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 18/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 19 GA 212579

For them the quality is recognized by a distinctive taste, smell and other properties and characteristics of these products which are far ahead by the same attributes in relation to manufactured industrial products. Also in Serbia, the perception of quality of this food is different. Rural participants mostly addressed their discussion to the old products, produced by traditional, old-fashion method in the rural area (villages). According to urban participants, the product quality equals trust in the origin. However, even if these products are currently prepared in an old-fashion manner in the rural area, the significant importance of both the production control system and input selection is emphasized. They argue that the control system influences on the final result - quality of traditional food. Rural participants are united in the belief that an important element of the quality is taste of the traditional products, opposite to urban participants who have not agreed on this topic. Finally, urban participants in Serbia introduced the question of price as an indicator of the quality of the traditional food.

1.4.4. Origin labels

Some consumers are not able to say whether there are protected traditional products in their country. Even in Slovenia where protection by origin labels is more present, the participants have a very limited knowledge about labels. They have difficulties to speak about them but they are sure that protecting the origin of food is important. In Macedonia, participants do not have information related to introducing labels showing the origin of the product but think that Macedonian traditional food should be protected by national or international legal regulation. In Bosnia, they spontaneously refer to the label present on the bottles of wine, as for the Vukoje wine for example. Protecting traditional food is important for consumers to guarantee the origin of the product and the authenticity of it. Consumers also agree that label of origin may be important for the promotion of the product. According to Bosnian consumers, these products are easier to sell and they get a better price on the market. A protection would develop a good image of traditional food. They are finally conscious that consumers should become more familiar with labels and their meaning. In Montenegro, consumers consider that traditional products should have a label in order to help the economy to protect and improve production, but at the same time to preserve qualities of traditional products and to avoid the commercialization and industrialization of these products. In Serbia, labels of origin are very important for consumers. They are often associated to products quality. Rural participants do not know clearly what labels of origin mean. They insist on the legal possibility for the protection of origin in order to prevent the traditional products from Serbia being claimed by other countries.

1.5. Synthesis of focus group results

Traditional food is a very frequent topic of discussion among Balkan population in general. The focus group discussions confirm it. Consumers do not have a precise view of what traditional food is. They perceive it as a large array of products and dishes. Spontaneous evocation of traditional food includes typical dishes and food products frequently consumed at home. Generally, basic reasons not to consider some products as traditional are the way of production (industrial), the product content (not known to them), the packaging and the best before date.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 19/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 20 GA 212579

Several distinct concepts of traditional food have been recognized and include as follows: traditional food as homemade food, opposite to industrial products/dishes, traditional food as food prepared and consumed by many generations, traditional food as locally produced/grown food, traditional food as food exclusively produced and consumed in the country, traditional food as food bringing up emotions (food made in our childhood, food made in villages by our grandparents, food consumed in a family and food connected with social events). Most of the perceptions of traditional food were positive. For example traditional food is natural, domestic, healthy, and tasty. Some negative perceptions about traditional food were related to their impact of health when consumed due to its fattiness and high caloric values.

Figure 1 Perception of traditional food

Participants are often more familiar with traditional dishes than traditional products. Participants living in urban area often purchase traditional food as they purchase the food they eat every day once a week in supermarkets and green markets. Consumers living in rural areas usually grow the fruits and vegetables needed to prepare traditional dishes; some even grow wheat and produce bread at home. Some of them breed animals and have meat. In Balkan countries, consumers may receive traditional products or dishes also by their family. Traditional food is effectively usually acquired privately by informal channels with the known producers: friends, family and also directly at producer as a result of many years relation producer-buyer. The time of the year (season) is an important factor in the choice of market place and some traditional products and dishes are considered seasonal. The consumption of traditional food gathers family, sometimes with friends and rarely individually. Traditional food is consumed at special occasions (religious holidays, celebrations) or when special guests or friends are coming. Traditional dishes are prepared mostly on week-ends when the whole family is together. Traditional is also consumed in every day meals but it is more widespread in rural than in urban areas. It was not easy for consumers to remember the last consumption moment of traditional food. Some of them refer to a short period: today, yesterday, each week, others speak about a special moment as celebrations, meal with family… and others think about a meal at restaurant. Awareness of the importance of the intake of healthy food is high. Healthy food is related to home-made rather than purchased and processed food. Consumers think this food is made without pesticides, additives and artificial components. Consumers, especially in rural areas, have a clear idea about the quality of traditional food. They consider such products as healthy regarding the way of production, raw materials used and the conditions of production. At the same time they are aware that the process may be perfectible, especially in terms of hygiene. They are also aware that this type of food is not suitable for people with health problems due to the content of fat and salt.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 20/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 21 GA 212579

Consumers think that traditional products should have a label of origin, although what these labels really mean and how they would be implemented remains unclear for them. It would help the economy protecting and improving production and at the same time it would preserve qualities of traditional products and avoid the industrialization of these products. Finally, results of focus groups validate or not the previous hypotheses which will be of course confirmed or not by quantitative survey.  Consumers living in rural areas and small cities eat traditional food products more often. – It depends on the country  Consumers often identify traditional food at the opposite side of industrial and strong branded food. – confirmed except when strong brands recall childhood  Consumers buy traditional products especially in direct distribution channels on local markets. – and via family or friends – it depends on urban/rural lifestyle.  Traditional products are processed products based on ancient cuisine and old recipes rather than raw foodstuffs. - Both are true.  Consumers consume some traditional products in “festive consumption” moments. Confirmed.  Consumers consume some traditional products in everyday life. Confirmed.  For consumers, traditional characteristics are more important for some categories of products than for other products – Not really measured.  Consumers consider traditional products as “healthy food”: without preservatives, without artificial colouring, or other additives – except fat and salt content.  Consumers perceive products with origin labels such as PDOs as traditional products. Not confirmed.  Analysis of results generated new hypotheses:  Health concerns may influence negatively consumption of traditional foods that contain a lot of fat and salt.  Women might perceive traditional food quality not as high as men.  Consumers living in the rural areas eat more often local, available and recognizable traditional food.  Consumers living in the urban areas eat well-known and recognizable traditional food with export possibilities.  Consumers care about the quality of meat more than the quality of other types of traditional food.  Traditional food is associated with a family concept equally by men and women.  Consumers consider traditional food as more natural.  Consumers consider traditional food as more often homemade.  Consumers consider traditional food as of higher quality.  Consumers consider traditional food as safer.  Consumers consider traditional food less healthy with regard to salt and fat content.  Traditional food is a promoter of its region  The understanding of traditional food changes in different part of the country.  The understanding of traditional food changes from generation to generation.  Consumers think that traditional food should be protected.  The quantitative survey will enable us to confirm or not these hypotheses and to identify the attributes linked to traditional food in the mind of consumers.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 21/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 22 GA 212579

2. QUANTITATIVE STUDY

A quantitative survey has been held in each Balkan country during December 2010 and January 2011. This activity resulted in a measurement of consumers’ trade-offs between preferred attributes of traditional food and in a marketing questionnaire.

2.1. Implementation

2.1.1. Presentation of the method

A ranking-based conjoint analysis (under the shape of illustrated cards to rank) has been carried out in the six Western Balkan countries. Traditional conjoint analysis method is based on preferences stated by consumers interviewed. Conjoint analysis aims at deciphering “the composition rules used by decision makers to combine information into overall judgments” (Raghavarao and al, 2011, p.3). It enables to study the trade-offs consumers are ready to make between attributes of a product and the relative importance and attractiveness of these attributes. The goal is also to know which features of traditional food are perceived by consumers. Moreover, the additional questionnaire will identify how the characteristics and attitudes of consumers are related to their preferences. The sample was constituted of 1200 respondents (200 respondents in each country). In each country, the sample was split in two: 100 respondents interviewed in a rural area and 100 respondents in an urban area were interviewed. Interviewees were recruited via a filter question (“Do you consume fresh cow cheese?”) in order to select only fresh cow cheese consumers in the study. Focus groups previously held were a starting point for conjoint analysis. They gave clues on product choice and attributes that could be used. It was agreed to work on a common product for the 6 Balkan countries so that there were enough consumers in the sample and so that results could be compared between all countries. It was also decided to put respondents in a purchase situation for cards ranking in order to measure purchase preferences and not the perception of traditional food. The focus groups have explored the meaning of “traditional” and have shown that a food product in itself can be traditional, but that it depends to a large extent on processing, packaging, context of purchase or consumption, etc... Some products can be considered as traditional or as non traditional depending on how they are packaged for instance. Therefore, if we consider respondents’ preferences for a given product that is usually considered as traditional per se, we are not necessarily measuring their preferences solely amongst traditional products. If the design includes attributes with some levels that are perceived as more traditional, then we are measuring preferences between traditional characteristics and non-traditional characteristics. Concretely, during focus groups, different kinds of cheese were quoted as traditional products in each country. The protocol has been validated after several discussions with fresh cow cheese (Mladi Sir) as a common final choice. We measure a preference for a traditional product without writing traditional on the cards as there are individual differences in the definition of traditional. We use attributes with levels which we know are considered to be more or less traditional. In this case, we will see which traditional characteristics of the product are important for consumers.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 22/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 23 GA 212579

On the other hand, the problem is that we do not know if consumers considerer this product as traditional. It is why we asked in the additional questionnaire if fresh cow cheese is perceived as traditional or not. The choice of four independent attributes qualifying the fresh cow cheese was accepted: geographical origin, mean of production, price and packaging. According to focus groups, geographical origin is important for traditional food which is more associated to local origin. Moreover, we chose the mean of production due to the opposition between industrial production and traditional products. Participants of focus groups also differentiated prepacked food and traditional food. The price did not seem to be an important attribute of traditional food, but as we measure a preference in purchase context, we decided to keep the price attribute. These four attributes and their respective levels are described hereafter:

- The geographical origin 3 levels: Localized in the region, localized in the country and no origin specified. - The mean of production 3 levels: On-farm production, Small dairy production, Industrial production. - The price 3 levels equally spaced: lowest price, medium price, highest price of the market adapted to each country. - The packaging 2 levels: sold loose (on desired weight) and prepacked (already sealed in a plastic bag or box).

Between 54 possible profiles (3x3x3x2), an orthogonal design of experiments was obtained thanks to SPSS software and generated 9 profiles. In order to assess the predictive quality of the model, 2 holdouts were added to the orthogonal design. These “holdouts” cards are presented to the respondent in the same way and at the same time as the other cards. Their rank is recorded in the results but not used to calculate utilities. The characteristics of the 11 profiles are described in the following table:

CARD GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN PACKAGING PRICE PRODUCTION

1 A Localized in the country Sold loose High Industrial production 2 B Localized in the country Prepacked Medium Small dairy production

3 C No geographical origin specified Prepacked Low Industrial production

4 D Local Sold loose Low Small dairy production

5 E Localized in the country Sold loose Low On-farm production

6 F No geographical origin specified Sold loose Medium On-farm production

7 G Local Prepacked High On-farm production

8 H Local Sold loose Medium Industrial production

9 I No geographical origin specified Sold loose High Small dairy production

10a J No geographical origin specified Prepacked High On-farm production

11a K Local Sold loose Low Industrial production

a. Holdouts Table 2 Description of the eleven profiles kept for the cards design

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 23/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 24 GA 212579

To make the exercise more realistic, it was required to have a picture of fresh cow cheese (Mladi Sir) on each card, the same in each country. An example of each card is shown appendix 6. Respondents were asked to rank the 11 cards from the most preferred one to the least preferred. During implementation, all respondents had at their disposal the same information presented in the same way to avoid any bias. To make it more comfortable, material with repositionable plasticized cards had been created. After this ranking stage, respondents were invited to answer to an additional questionnaire. The aim of this questionnaire was not to be a survey in itself on food habits, purchase habits or attitudes toward food in general; its first objective was to provide explanations and complementary information on the results of conjoint analysis task. Budget was allocated to reward the participation of consumers by vouchers or gifts, this facilitated their recruitment. (See appendix 7: Conjoint analysis questionnaire)

2.1.2. Feasibility of quantitative study

Concerning the practical implementation of the survey, returns from the Balkan countries were quite positive with generally not much trouble encountered with recruitment of willing respondents thanks to the vouchers/gifts system. Conjoint analysis task has been found attractive and sometimes playful. Furthermore, material at their disposal has been really appreciated, described as a clear protocol and friendly database designed for easier entering of data and mistakes avoidance. The few criticisms were focused on additional questionnaire length and the lack of a precise definition for “traditional product” in this questionnaire. Indeed, we should keep in mind that this definition can slightly differ between countries. However, there were some particular cases. In Slovenia for instance, it was harder to recruit respondents (people being already used to surveys) and fresh cow cheese seems less suitable for this country as a traditional product. Slovenian respondents were also quite reluctant to give their income range, so the income was generally not as relevant or exploitable as we want it to be. Partners from Bosnia and Herzegovina were rather creative on this task providing gifts including the logo “Focus Balkans” to respondents.

2.2. Sample description

The additional questionnaire administered at the end of conjoint analysis task permitted to gather the socio-demographic data from the 1200 respondents interviewed. The sample is equally divided into Slovenia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Croatia and Bosnia.

 Origin of consumers

A first question about the country of origin confirms that all respondents come from the country where they had been interviewed.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 24/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 25 GA 212579

Did you grow up in a rural area? 57% of respondents grew up in a rural area and among « yes » answers, 60% 100% were respondents interviewed in the 80% rural place and 40% in the urban place. 60% Some distinctions according to the 40% country considered can be noticed on Yes the opposite graph. 20% No Nearly 90% of respondents from Slovenia 0% grew up in a rural area whereas less than 40% do in Serbia.

Figure 2 Growth in a rural area: Distribution (per country)

 Gender

Gender The distribution noticed is 59% of 100% females and 41% of males. 80% However some disparities are observed 60% according to the country considered. BiH and Croatia show a major 40% Male proportion of women whereas the 4 20% other countries are well-balanced. Female

0%

Figure 3 Gender distribution detailed per country

 Age

Repartition per age cluster The mean age of participants is 39 years old. 30% With a mean age of 44 years old, 25% Macedonian respondents are 20% significantly older than average sample, 15% whereas Montenegrin respondents interviewed are significantly younger 10% than average with a mean age of 36 5% years old.

0%

25 and 26‐35 36‐45 46‐55 56+

less

Figure 4: Sample distribution per age cluster

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 25/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 26 GA 212579

 Household size

The question about the size of the interviewees’ households shows that households of a single person are nearly unimportant and households constituted of couples are also quite rare. As a matter of fact, the great majority of respondents (84%) belong to households composed of 3 or more members. The sample is therefore made up of respondents from quite large households.

 Educational level

Repartition by educational level

8.00% 58.83% 13.42% 19.08%

Unfinished elementary school Finished elementary school Finished secondary school Finished college Finished faculty missing

Figure 5: Sample distribution according to the educational level

At least 91% of respondents have finished secondary school, 32% have finished college, 19% have finished faculty.

 Current occupation

Current occupation % of sample Employee, intermediate profession 28,1% Student/Trainee 14,7% Unemployed 11,9% Unskilled and skilled worker 11,3% Pensioner 11,0% Other 8,8% Storekeeper/Trader/Craftsman 6,6% Manager/Executive 5,3% Farmer/Fishman 2,3% Total 100,0%

Table 3 Sample distribution according to current occupation

Significant differences between countries are observed. Bosnia presents significantly more unskilled and skilled workers (44.0%) than average, and fewer employees (7.0%), students (4.5%) or pensioners (6.5%). Croatia sample is made up of a bit more students (22.0%) than average.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 26/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 27 GA 212579

Macedonian sample presents more traders (15.5%), farmers (7.5%) and pensioners (17.0%) and fewer employees (16.5%). Montenegro sample is mainly composed of employees (68.0% instead of 28.1% in total sample). The proportions of unemployed (19.0%) and students (22%) are higher than average in Serbia with fewer employees (18.0%) and workers (5.5%) as a compensation. And finally Slovenia sample is composed of slightly more students (20.5%) and fewer unemployed people (4.0%) and workers (2.0%).

 Income range

74% of respondents’ households declare to win less than the average income for a household (79% of rural and 68% of urban). Moreover, we must remember that the great majority of respondents are from households of 2 adults or more. 12% refuse to give their income range. A significant difference is noticed between rural and urban areas: in rural area there is a slightly higher proportion of respondents with incomes below the minimum and a lower proportion above average monthly household income whereas the tendency is reversed for the urban area. Furthermore, Bosnian and Montenegrin samples present a higher proportion than average of respondents whose incomes are under minimum household monthly income and a lower proportion of respondents from the category above average income. Serbian and Croatian samples differ from the average by a higher proportion of respondents from the category above average household monthly income and fewer from the minimum categories. In Macedonia, fewer refusals are noticed, and more respondents belong to a medium-low category of income (but above minimum household income). In Slovenia, fewer respondents than average are from the lowest categories of income but there is a significantly higher proportion of refusals here.

 Position towards shopping and cooking tasks

Are you the main shopper? Are you the main cook? 100% 100%

80% 80%

60% Yes 60% Yes

40% We share 40% We share No No 20% 20%

0% 0% Female Male ALL Female Male ALL

Figure 6 Distribution of respondents according to whether they are the main shopper, main cook or not

Less than 20% of males interviewed are the main cooks or are sharing this task in their household. Although women are more often main shoppers of their household, the shopping task is more often shared than the cooking one. If we do cross-tabulation, we see that cooking and shopping tasks are linked1.

1 Khi‐2 = 367.98 / 4 degrees of freedom / 0 theoretical numbers below 5 / Proba (Khi‐2 > 367.98) = 0.000 / V.TEST = 99.99.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 27/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 28 GA 212579

2.3. Balkan consumers and traditional food

2.3.1. Purchasing behaviour

 Frequency of purchase

A quarter of Balkan respondents purchase fresh cow cheese more than once a week and nearly 50% purchase it one to four times a month.

Repartition by frequency of Frequency of purchase (per country) purchase SLOVENIA 75% SERBIA 49% 50% MONTENEGRO 25% MACEDONIA 25% 19% CROATIA 7% BIH 0% More 1 to 4 Less than Never 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% than times a once a More than once a week 1 to 4 times a month once a month month week Less than once a month Never

Figure 7 Distribution according to the purchase frequency

Bosnia shows a higher proportion of respondents who buys fresh cow cheese more than once a week (1/3). It is even more stressed with Montenegro with more than 42% of Montenegrin respondents buying it more than once a week. Macedonia is characterized by fewer respondents who do not buy fresh cow cheese at all and more buying it from 1 to 4 times a month. In Serbia, we have fewer respondents purchasing it very frequently but more who buy it 1 to 4 times a month. And finally, Slovenia is characterized by fewer respondents in the more frequent categories and more in the less frequent ones (nearly 50%/50%). Croatia is in the range of average Balkan consumers interviewed.

 Place of purchase Usual places of purchase for fresh cow cheese 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Supermarket Open Market Farm Restaurant Friends or Other familiy

Figure 8 Number of respondents per usual place of purchase chosen for fresh cow cheese

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 28/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 29 GA 212579

Bosnia Croatia Macedonia Montenegro Serbia Slovenia All Supermarket 54% 59% 57% 46% 50% 56% 53% Open Market 20% 45% 41% 43% 51% 19% 36% Farm 7% 6% 9% 23% 19% 29% 15% Restaurant 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% Friends / familiy 40% 24% 18% 16% 18% 11% 21% Other 2% 3% 0% 1% 1% 2% 1%

Table 4 Distribution of usual places of purchase quoted for fresh cow cheese detailed per country

There are not any associations of places of purchase significantly positively linked. However, some present a slight significant negative correlation such as Supermarket-Farm, Supermarket-Friends/Family, Market-Friends/Family, Supermarket-Market, Market-Farm. The most quoted place of purchase for fresh cow cheese is the supermarket, followed by open markets, then friends or family, after that the farm and finally other (like small shops, but nearly linked with supermarkets). Restaurants are not a place of purchase for fresh cow cheese. Rural respondents more often buy fresh cow cheese from friends or family and less to markets and supermarkets than average, and tendency is reversed for urban consumers. In Bosnia, there are more purchases at friends or family homes but fewer purchases at farms or on open markets. There are fewer respondents purchasing fresh cow cheese at farms in Macedonia and more of them in Montenegro. In Croatia, we find more purchases on markets than average and less at farms. Serbian also declare more than average to buy their fresh cow cheese on open markets whereas Slovenian less often buy it on markets but more often than average at farms. When analyzing answers of usual places of purchase for cheese in general, it appears the tendency is similar to the answers given on usual places of purchase for fresh cow cheese in particular. Cheese is more often bought in supermarkets.

 Own production of fresh cow cheese

Frequency of own production Frequency of own production amongst respondents amongst respondents (per country) 80% SLOVENIA SERBIA 60% MONTENEGRO MACEDONIA 40% CROATIA 20% BIH 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% Always Sometimes Never Always Sometimes Never

Figure 9 Distribution of respondents according to the frequency of own-production (global and per country)

The majority of respondents never make themselves their fresh cow cheese. Only less than a quarter of respondents make sometimes their own fresh cow cheese. Moreover there is a significant expected difference between rural and urban areas, with more own-production in rural area (32.2% sometimes or frequently) and less in urban area (16.7%).

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 29/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 30 GA 212579

There are not a lot of differences between countries, except that there are fewer respondents who never make their own fresh cow cheese in Macedonia whereas there are more of them in Slovenia. The proportion of Montenegrin respondents making very frequently their own fresh cow cheese is higher than average.  Friends or family production

Friends or family Friends or family production (per country) production SLOVENIA 60% SERBIA 50% MONTENEGRO 40% MACEDONIA 30% CROATIA 20% BIH 10% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% No Yes No Yes

Figure 10 Proportion of respondents receiving free fresh cow cheese from friends or family (global and per country)

About home-made fresh cow cheese given by friends or family, the YES and NO answers are well-balanced. There is once again an expected difference between rural and urban area, with donation of fresh cow cheese from friends or family more common in rural area (60.0%) than in urban (42.7%). The tendency of friends or family home-production is more common than average in Bosnia and less than average in Montenegro and Slovenia.

 Type of packaging

Most usual packaging Repartition of most usual packaging (per country) 40%

35% SLOVENIA 30% SERBIA 25% MONTENEGRO 20% MACEDONIA CROATIA 15% BIH 10% 5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% Already sealed in a plastic bag Already Already On Other Already sealed in a plastic box sealed in sealed in desired a plastic a plastic weight On desired weight bag box Other

Figure 11 : Part1: Number of respondents per most usual packaging chosen / Part2: Distribution detailed per country

The most quoted packaging for usual fresh cow cheese purchases is the one on desired weight (sold loose); then we find cheese already sealed in a plastic box and cheese already sealed in a plastic bag. Nevertheless, as only one response was possible, we can sum the two types of packaging that mean prepacked cheese and see that it overtakes by far the cheese sold loose.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 30/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 31 GA 212579

Bosnian and Croatian respondents less often buy fresh cow cheese on desired weight but more often prepacked (usually in a plastic box for Bosnians and bag for Croatians). In Macedonia the choice “on desired weight” is more often ticked than on average, but they also often choose cheese prepacked in a plastic bag. In Serbia they rarely buy it already sealed in a plastic bag but it is more common to buy it sealed in a plastic box than average.

Supermarket Market Farm Restau Friends family Others Already sealed in a plastic bag 199 130 39 4 63 7 Already sealed in a plastic box 279 95 50 3 66 2 On desired weight 151 202 79 113 2 Other 12 7 14 8 2

Table 5 Usual packaging according to quoted places of purchase

If we see the link between place of purchase and type of packaging, there is a significant influence between them (Khi-2 tests between packaging and the variables Supermarket, Market, Farm, Friends or family are highly significant). Consumers who buy fresh cow cheese at supermarkets buy it more often in box or plastic bag and those who buy it at open markets or farms have a percentage of quotation for “on desired weight” significantly higher than average.

2.3.2. Consumption behaviour

 Consumption frequency

Consumption frequency Consumption frequency (per country) 60%

50% SLOVENIA SERBIA 40% MONTENEGRO 30% MACEDONIA 20% CROATIA BIH 10% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% More 1 to 4 Less than More than once a week than times a once a 1 to 4 times a month once a month month week Less than once a month

Figure 12 Distribution of respondents according to consumption frequency of fresh cow cheese (global and per country)

More than half of our sample consumes fresh cow cheese more than once a week and more than 80% consume it once a month or more often. There are no significant differences between rural and urban areas. Fresh cow cheese consumption is more frequent in Macedonia and Montenegro and less in Slovenia.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 31/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 32 GA 212579

Would you like to consume Would you like to consume it more often? it more often? (detailed per country) 50% SLOVENIA

40% SERBIA

30% MONTENEGRO MACEDONIA 20% CROATIA

10% BIH

0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No I do not know Yes No I do not know Missing value

Figure 13 Distribution according to respondents’ desire to consume fresh cow cheese more often (global and per country)

Concerning the question of the willingness to consume it more often, opinion is shared (38% yes, 47% no and 15% do not know). Globally, nearly a half of respondents are satisfied by their current consumption. The link between consumption frequency and the desire to consume it more often is significant. Those who already present a big consumption of fresh cow cheese prefer not to increase it and conversely, the less important the frequency of consumption is, the more important the desire of a more frequent consumption is. In proportion, there are more Bosnians and Croatians to aspire to a more frequent consumption whereas Montenegrins and Macedonians are more numerous to declare that they would not like to consume it more often (which is logical as their consumption is already quite high). Slovenians are more numerous to be indecisive on the topic and less to aspire to a more frequent consumption.

If yes, what are the main barriers to its consumption? 200 160 120 80 40 0 Too Hard to find Too fat prefer other Other* I do not Not tasty Not expensive cheeses know convenient

Figure 14 Number of respondents according to quoted barriers to fresh cow cheese more often consumption

The main barriers to fresh cow cheese consumption quoted are first high prices, then the difficulty to find it and finally the reason of fatness or the preference for other cheese. In particular Slovenians willing to consume it more often say that it is hard to find. The few Macedonians concerned mostly call upon the reason of price. Bosnians generally call upon the barrier of fat drawbacks and for Croatia the reason of preference for other cheese is often suggested.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 32/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 33 GA 212579

 Perception of fresh cow cheese

“In your opinion, is fresh cow cheese a traditional product?”

BiH Croatia Macedonia Montenegro Serbia Slovenia Total YES 94,5% 82,0% 86,0% 92,5% 78,0% 66,5% 83,3% NO 2,0% 2,5% 8,5% 2,0% 6,0% 17,0% 6,3% Do not know 3,5% 15,5% 5,5% 5,5% 16,0% 16,5% 10,4% TOTAL 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Table 6 Proportion of respondents according to whether or not they think fresh cow cheese is a traditional product (detailed per country)

We chose to apply conjoint analysis to fresh cow cheese as it was perceived traditional by experts and focus groups participants. However it was important to check this assumption by mean of a quantitative survey. Regarding the answers given to the question “In your opinion, is fresh cow cheese a traditional product?”, it seems that fresh cow cheese has been a really good choice as a relevant example of traditional food in the 6 western Balkan countries studied, especially for Bosnia and Montenegro rather unanimous where only 2% of respondents replied in the negative and very few remained indecisive. Macedonia, Croatia and Serbia do not come far with an also high agreement. Only Slovenians are not as systematically convinced as the rest of the countries and more numerous in proportion to think that it is not traditional. This can be linked to the fact that Slovenians may find fresh cow cheese from various foreign origins on sale and therefore are less systematically convinced that it is a representative traditional product from their own country. The following results about the reasons quoted to justify non-tradition may help to better understand their point of view. However Slovenian respondents are still more than 66% to agree with the fact that it is a traditional product. In conclusion, fresh cow cheese may be considered as a traditional product. For the few respondents who answered that it is not a traditional product, the quoted reasons are presented on the graph below:

If not, why not traditional?

40

20

0 Industrial Additives Not local Found Other I do not know everywhere

Figure 15Number of respondents per quoted reason of not considering fresh cow cheese as a traditional product

The main reason for the minority of consumers who do not find fresh cow cheese traditional is that fresh cow cheese can be found everywhere. It means that for these consumers, traditional food is strongly linked to a locality and should not be exported or produced in other countries or maybe regions.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 33/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 34 GA 212579

 Link to childhood

Did you consume it when you Did you consume it when you were a were a child? child? (per country) 100% SLOVENIA 80% SERBIA

60% MONTENEGRO MACEDONIA 40% CROATIA 20% BIH

0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No I cannot remember Yes No I cannot remember

Figure 16 : Distribution of respondents according to whether or not they consumed fresh cow cheese during childhood and same distribution detailed per country

Nearly 90% of respondents did consume fresh cow cheese when they were children. The link to childhood is confirmed here. There is a strong importance of culinary heritage from family in fresh cow cheese consumption. In Bosnia, Macedonia and Montenegro, there are more respondents than average who consumed it when they were children. In Croatia, compared to average in the sample, there is a higher proportion of respondents who cannot remember it but fewer to say they did not at all. More Slovenians declare that they did not consume any fresh cow cheese when they were children, that confirms the tendency of a product considered a bit less traditional in that country than in the others.

Do you consume it with your Do you consume it with your family on family on festive occasions? festive occasions? (detailed per country) 60% 50% SLOVENIA 40% SERBIA 30% MONTENEGRO 20% MACEDONIA 10% CROATIA 0% BIH

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Always Sometimes Never

Figure 17 : Distribution of respondents according to the frequency of festive consumption of fresh cow cheese with family (global and per country)

Those who never consume fresh cow cheese with family on festive occasions are very rare. This festive consumption is even more common in rural areas. However, this does not mean that fresh cow cheese is only a festive product. We saw that there is an ordinary consumption of fresh cow cheese.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 34/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 35 GA 212579

Festive consumption with family? Total Always Sometimes Never Consumption frequency More than once a week 411 226 17 654

1 to 4 times a month 92 229 25 346

Less than once a month 29 116 49 194

Total 532 571 91 1194 (KHI2 = 267.5 - 4 df - 0 theoretical numbers below 5 - PROBA (KHI2 > 267.5) = 0.000) Table 7 Cross-tabulation of frequencies for global consumption and frequencies for consumption on festive occasions

According to cross tabulation and Khi-2 test, there is a significant link between general frequency of consumption and of consumption for festive occasions. It is more frequent that the big consumers always consume fresh cow cheese during festive occasions and that the low consumers sometimes eat it for festive occasions. We can suppose that a frequent experience of consumers with the product increases their positive attitudes towards this product which will be more purchased during specific occasions. Once again, BiH, Montenegro and Macedonia stand out with a more systematical consumption with family on festive occasions than average, whereas Croatia has a more occasional consumption in this framework. Slovenia frequency is under the average with more respondents who never consume it on that kind of occasions.

2.3.3. Consumers preferences

 Ranking done by consumers

A first summary of data gathered during conjoint analysis ranking task is obtained by calculating frequencies for each card according to the rank considered. We can also calculate cumulative frequencies for ranks 1st + 2nd and 10th + 11th to better summarize information. It gives a first general but still interesting glimpse on data, deciphering which card had been most/least preferred for example.

Table 8 First descriptive statistics about cards ranking

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 35/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 36 GA 212579

Mean ranks permits to identify most preferred and least preferred cards, and frequencies at ranks 1 (and 2) or 11 (and 10) permit to determine which cards are most/least often preferred or ranked last. Most often preferred card (most often 1st) G Card most often ranked 1st or 2nd G Most preferred card (min mean rank) B Least often in the last rank B Least often at the 10th or 11th rank B Least often preferred card (least often 1st) K Least often ranked 1st or 2nd K Least preferred card (max mean rank) K Most often in the last rank A Card most often in the 10th or 11th rank C

Table 9 Preferences toward cards

Figure 18 Pictures of corresponding cards

When referring to cumulative frequencies (rank 1st + 2nd and 10th + 11th), the most often preferred card is card G. Its combination of levels is a local origin, an on-farm production, a high price and a prepacked presentation. On the other hand, the card most often ranked 10th or 11th is card C which presents a fresh cow cheese sold without origin specified, produced industrially, sold at a low price but still prepacked. The reasons standing behind preferences of cards are not clearly identified at this stage as the impact and importance of each attribute is not calculated yet. As a matter of fact, respondents had to make trade-offs as their ideal combination of levels was not necessarily available amongst the cards displayed. Some attributes were therefore considered as more essential than others. In the following paragraph and still working at an aggregate level, the importance in decision-making of each attribute will be calculated to determine the different degrees of influence, so as the utilities of levels to compare which are the most preferred or rejected ones. However, we will have to keep in mind that it is dangerous to assert too much information at the aggregate level unless the population is a homogenous one. That is why, even if these descriptive and aggregate statistics were presented and even if mean importance and utilities will be displayed afterward to better understand which the real playing factors are, no real conclusions could be drawn too quickly before creating more homogenous segments. As a matter of fact, before getting to the individual level, we are talking about the behaviour of the “average consumer” but we know that the reality is generally more complex than a common behaviour. A segmentation that will be done afterwards will describe the different types of behaviours and characterize the consumers from each cluster identified.

But first the aggregate results of conjoint analysis are analyzed in depth.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 36/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 37 GA 212579

 Consumers preferences

Results were obtained thanks to SPSS CONJOINT procedure allowing to analyze data gathered as sequences about cards preferences. To avoid any mistake, conjoint procedure has also been checked on data converted into ranks instead of sequences, the results are the same as expected. The following results arise of SPSS conjoint analysis outputs.

Averaged Factors Modalities Utilities importance On-farm 0,37 Production Small dairy 31,8% 0,19 Industrial -0,55 Low 0,11 Price Medium 28,7% 0,12 High -0,23 Local 0,24 Origin Country 25,4% 0,19 No origin -0,43 Sold loose -0,21 Packaging 14,1% Prepacked 0,21 Table 10 Importance of each attribute and utilities of their levels

Utilities are only comparable when from the same attribute. A positive utility conveys that a level is more appreciated whereas a negative utility conveys that it is less appreciated. In our case, a stressed aversion for some levels such as no origin and industrial is highlighted. The level of production is the most important attribute as purchase criteria, followed by the price and the geographical origin. Type of packaging seems not to be relevant for consumers. The ideal combination (ideal card) for the average Balkan consumer would be fresh cow cheese:

‐ produced on-farm ‐ Sold at a medium price ‐ With a local origin specified ‐ Sold prepacked

Whereas the most rejected combination would be:

‐ Produced industrially ‐ Sold at a high price ‐ Without any geographical origin specified ‐ Sold loose

Globally, there is a preference for small production of fresh cow cheese with a specific localization suggested by a locality or the country. The consumers would not buy fresh cow cheese with a high price and there is a slight preference for prepacked cheese instead of sold loose. On the opposite page, a graphical visualization of these results is displayed.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 37/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 38 GA 212579

Importances 35 31.8 28.7 30 25.4 25 20 14.1 15 10 5 0 ORIGIN PACKAGING PRICE PRODUCTION

Utilities Utilities Attribute : Production Attribute : Price 0.6 0.2 0.37 0.11 0.12 0.4 0.19 0.2 0 0 LOW MEDIUM HIGH SMALL DAIRY ON‐FARM INDUSTRIAL ‐0.2 ‐0.2 ‐0.4 ‐0.23 ‐0.6 ‐0.55 ‐0.8 ‐0.4

Utilities Utilities Attribute : Origin Attribute : Packaging 0.4 0.4 0.24 0.19 0.2 0.21 0.2

0 LOCAL NO ORIGIN COUNTRY 0 ‐0.2 SOLD LOOSE PREPACKED

‐0.2 ‐0.4 ‐0.21 ‐0.43 ‐0.6 ‐0.4

Figure 19 Conjoint analysis: Importance of attributes and utilities of levels

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 38/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 39 GA 212579

 General fit of the model

Corrélations

Valeur Sig. Pearson’s R ,998 ,000 Kendall’s Tau 1,000 ,000 Kendall’s Tau for holdouts 1,000 .

Table 11 Correlations between observed preferences and estimated preferences

A predictive validity can be estimated by calculating a utility for each card for each respondent and by calculating the correlation between those results and the actual ranks given. This correlation is given by Pearson’s R or Kendall’s Tau in the table above. The results can then be cross-validated by estimating the model using only some cards (the 9 cards constituting the orthogonal design) and predicting the rank of the rest of the cards (the 2 holdouts2) and finally calculating the correlation with the rank actually given by the respondents to those last cards. This correlation is given by Kendall’s Tau for holdouts in the table above. All the correlation coefficients being very close to 1, correlations are therefore very significant, that means the model has a good predictive quality. Moreover, even if a prediction on cards which created the design is generally overconfident, the cross validation making prediction for holdouts from the model created from the design of 9 cards confirms the model quality.

2.3.4. Attention given to food origin and hygiene practices

The question is here to analyze the respondents’ degree of agreement towards the 9 statements of the table below.

L0 Food sold on the open market should be produced and processed with higher hygiene standards L1 Home-production is unhygienic L2 Farmers need to be trained regarding good hygiene practices L3 There should be more health controls in food production L4 Specific hygiene conditions should apply to on-farm / small scale processing units L5 I like to know which region the food I buy comes from L6 I do not care who produced the food I buy L7 The taste of food depends on its region of production L8 The country of origin is important for me L9 I like to support producers from my region

Table 12 Statements from additional questionnaire agreement scale

2 Holdout cards were presented to the respondents in the same way and at the same time as the other cards, their rank is recorded in the results, but they are not used to calculate the utilities. Their rank is predicted by the model and compared to the ranks given by the respondents in order to assess the predictive quality of the model.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 39/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 40 GA 212579

L0 to L4 show the importance of hygiene in food production and process. L5 to L9 try to measure the importance of origin as purchase criteria. The consumers showed their degree of agreement with each sentence ticking among the different possibilities on the scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “totally agree” with an added possibility “do not know”. It is acceptable to treat the degree of agreement (scale) as numerical variables (“do not know” answers excluded). The results are summarized on the graph below.

Figure 20 Respondents’ agreement towards the 9 statements

Consumers are more sensitive to hygiene rules for producers and farmers and in general for food production. On the other hand, they think that home production is enough hygienic. These results confirm those obtained from focus groups where the consumers are more confident in home-made food than in on-farm or industrial food. The importance of the region is also highlighted. Consumers want to know the region of origin of the products they buy, with a preference for the local region. Country of origin seems to be less important here. Moreover, the name of producer or of the firm who process the food is very important and may be a competitive advantage. Even if differences are quite faint, some significant distinctions stand out amongst countries with regards to average in the sample: Bosnia presents significant higher agreement on statements about hygiene (except for home- production) but also for statements about the origin of food. Croatia presents significantly higher concern for origin and lower for hygiene consideration (on markets, farm and home-production) than on average in the sample. Macedonia on the other hand presents higher concern for hygiene considerations and lower concern for the importance of origin for food. Montenegro presents higher agreements with the importance of the region of origin. Serbia presents higher agreement with statements about health control and hygiene condition on farm, but also with the fact that the taste depends on the region. They have lower agreement with the willingness to support local producers. Slovenia presents lower agreements with statements about hygiene (on-farm/in food production/ home-production/open markets) but also with statements about the importance of the region of origin (about knowing it and supporting local producers).

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 40/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 41 GA 212579

2.3.5. Perception of products with Geographical Indication (GI)

Three questions about respondents’ perception of food with Geographical Indication were asked to respondents in order to measure their perception of these products. A GI was defined as “an official name or sign used on certain food products which corresponds to a specific geographical location or origin (e.g. a town, region or country) and may act as a certification that the food possesses certain qualities or enjoys a certain reputation, due to its local origin”.

 Purchase of food with GI

First objective was to know if consumers have ever bought food with Geographical Indication. The graphs below show the distribution of answers:

Have you ever bought food with Have you ever bought food with GI? GI? (detailed per country) 100% SLOVENIA 80% SERBIA 60% MONTENEGRO MACEDONIA 40% CROATIA 20% BIH 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No I do not know Yes No I do not know

Figure 21Sample distribution according to whether or not respondents have ever bought food with GI (global and per country)

Nearly 80% of Balkan consumers interviewed say that they have bought food with a geographical indication. This is really different from outcomes of the focus groups reports when speaking about the GI knowledge. Moreover it is really paradoxical with the fact that GI does not yet exist in some of these countries. However a definition was given in the questionnaire. Maybe there is confusion between geographical indication and origin mentioned on the packaging of the product without presence of a protected name. When studying answers per country, Bosnia and Croatia present a higher proportion of positive answers than average and Macedonia and Slovenia a slightly lower one with more ‘do not know’ answers.

 Traditional food and Geographical Indication

The second question measured the perception of the food with GI as traditional food in respondents’ mind.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 41/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 42 GA 212579

Do you consider food with GI as Do you consider food with GI as traditional food? traditional food? (detailed per country) 60%

SLOVENIA SERBIA 40% MONTENEGRO MACEDONIA CROATIA BIH 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes 0% No Yes No It I do not depends know It depends on the food on the food I do not know

Figure 22 Sample distribution according to whether or not respondents consider food with GI as traditional (global and per country)

More than 55% of respondents associated food with GI and traditional food. For nearly 30%, it depends on the food, 10% have no idea and a minority does not consider food with GI as traditional food. There are significant differences between countries with regards to global Balkan behaviour on average. In Croatia, a fewer percentage than average considered GI as traditional food but a higher one says that it depends on the food. Whereas in Macedonia and Montenegro there is a higher proportion of respondents thinking that food with GI is traditional food, in Slovenia, slightly fewer people considered it as traditional but they did not have an opinion instead.

 Protection of traditional food

The last question on this subject was about the potential need to protect traditional food by geographical indication.

Do you consider that traditional food should be protected by a GI? (per country)

SLOVENIA

SERBIA Yes MONTENEGRO No MACEDONIA It depends on the food CROATIA I do not know BIH

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 23 Distribution of respondents according to whether or not they consider that traditional food should be protected by a GI, per country.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 42/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 43 GA 212579

All Balkan countries mainly agree that traditional food should be protected by geographical indication (more than 80% of respondents). This agreement is even significantly more stressed in Montenegro and Macedonia with fewer consumers moderating their opinion by choosing the “it depends on the food” answer. The results also show that there is a potential for food with GI, especially if we refer to previous results, where origin indication (mainly the region) was an important purchase criteria. According to consumers, it is important to protect food by GI, especially traditional food.

2.4. Consumers segmentation

2.4.1. Methodology

The analysis at the aggregate level of conjoint analysis results is not sufficient to really comprehend consumers’ behaviour. It needs to be studied at an individual level and separated into segments as it is likely that there is not a single behaviour but several distinct behaviours. The good point in ranking-based conjoint analysis is that the information provided by respondents is sufficient to be able to estimate parameters at the individual level. We can then apply a clustering algorithm to partworth estimates in order to identify different segments of consumers (post hoc segmentation). Respondents from a same cluster (or segment) present similar preferences for the different product attribute levels. Some of these segments may be interesting to analyze in depth due to their size or the sensitivity of their members towards a concept. We can study which kind of product, which combination of attribute levels would be attractive for a particular segment and try to match consumers’ desires. It is necessary to analyze results according to homogenous groups of respondents. These clusters will be built from the table containing for each respondent the utilities of each attribute levels. Then, the segments will be characterized and explained by supplementary data from additional questionnaire. The classification method applied to our data (individual utilities for each level) is an ascendant hierarchical classification (AHC) using Ward algorithm. Ascendant hierarchical cluster analysis (or agglomerative) starts by treating each respondent as a separate cluster and then group them into bigger and bigger clusters. Ward criteria call upon a variance method (clusters are generated to minimize the within-cluster variance). The software used in order to apply the classification is SPAD V7.0, this is possible after a prerequisite PCA on the individual utilities.

According to the dendrogram of AHC displayed, 4 clusters were kept. Then SPAD also added an algorithm of consolidation to bring a maximal homogeneity of these clusters (this consolidation is based on a sequence of iterations using mobile centers algorithm and beginning from the partition created with Ward algorithm). The final stable clusters obtained after 5 iterations are described as followed (first description based on utilities, variables that permitted to create them). Importances help us to identify which attributes are playing the main role for each cluster. Four clusters have been selected.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 43/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 44 GA 212579

CLUSTER --> Cl. 1 Cl. 2 Cl. 3 Cl. 4 Total Local 1.92 -0.11 0.02 -0.23 0,24 Geographical No origin -2.18 0.00 -0.19 -0.01 -0,43 origin Country 0.26 0.12 0.17 0.24 0,19 Sold loose -0.11 0.05 -0.25 -0.47 -0,21 Packaging Prepacked 0.11 -0.05 0.25 0.47 0,21 Low price 0.06 0.10 1.98 -1.01 0,11

UTILITIES UTILITIES Price Medium price 0.04 0.12 0.40 -0.01 0,12 High price -0.10 -0.22 -2.38 1.02 -0,23 Small-dairy production -0.02 0.60 0.17 -0.09 0,19 Production On-farm production 0.37 1.72 -0.05 -0.66 0,37 Industrial production -0.35 -2.32 -0.12 0.74 -0,55

GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN 49,07 20.24 16.87 22.28 25.41 PACKAGING 10,93 13.21 13.70 16.99 14.10 IMPORTANCES PRICE 18,66 17.72 49.91 31.68 28.72 PRODUCTION 21,34 48.82 19.53 29.05 31.77

Table 13 Importance and utility values detailed per cluster

Thanks to the previous table and its graphical representation (Figure 25), a description of behaviour of the 4 clusters is given according to the hierarchy of importance and the preferences between levels. Once described, it is also interesting to note differences of preferences with regards to the average preferences. For each segment, the ideal combination of levels and the most rejected one will be presented. Finally each cluster will be characterized by categorical and numerical variables from the additional questionnaire if significance exists.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 44/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 45 GA 212579

Factor importance by cluster 60

50

40 Cluster 1 30 Cluster 2 20 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 10

0 GEOGRAPHICAL PACKAGING PRICE PRODUCTION ORIGIN

Origin : Partial utilities by Packaging: Partial utilities by cluster cluster 3 0.6 2 0.4 1 0.2 0 0

Utilities ‐1 Local No origin Country Utilities ‐0.2 Sold loose Prepacked ‐2 ‐0.4 ‐3 ‐0.6

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

Price: Partial utilities by Production : Partial utilities by cluster cluster 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 Small dairy On-farm Industrial ‐1 Utilities ‐1 Low Medium High Utilities ‐2 ‐2 ‐3 ‐3

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

Figure 24 Attribute importance and part-worth utilities by segment

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 45/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 46 GA 212579

2.4.2. Characterization of segments

All figures of clusters characterization by importance and utility values are available in appendix 8. Furthermore, characterization of clusters by supplementary variables is also available in appendix 8.

 Cluster1 : Importance of origin (Rejection of products without any geographical origin specified) – 216 respondents (18% of total sample)

Cluster 1 constitutes a segment of consumers for whom geographical origin of fresh cow cheese is a main concern. They clearly prefer local fresh cow cheese and strongly reject this product when no origin is specified at all. After having taken into account the origin of the product, their attention goes to the mean of production. They still prefer on-farm production and reject industrial production. However this rejection toward industrial products is not as strongly stressed as seen on average in the total sample; that is not what makes the distinction of this segment. Price and packaging have little importance and no really specific behaviour appears considering these attributes.

Ideal fresh cow cheese: Local – On-farm – Low price – Prepacked Anti-ideal fresh cow cheese: No origin – industrial – high price – sold loose

The figures of mean importance and utilities measured for this cluster (See appendix 8) confirm that in this class, importance of attribute ‘origin’ is significantly upper than average (twice upper actually). Rejection to products with no origin and attraction for local products are consequently really stressed. (Rejection is 5 times more important than average rejection and attraction 8 times upper). All the other attributes have significantly less importance than average in the sample. In this cluster, no country is significantly over-represented. However Macedonia is underrepresented (10.65% against 16.67% in the sample), this may be linked to the fact that fresh cow cheese is apparently not as often locally made than in the other countries (a bit less traditional). Characterization by additional questionnaire: Cluster 1 is characterized by the fact that there are slightly more consumers declaring that they never consume fresh cow cheese with family on festive occasions (12.0% instead of 7,6% in average) and more consumers declaring they did not consume it when they were a child or cannot remember it. Households from cluster 1 are a bit larger than average.

 Cluster2 : Importance of mean of production, rejection of industrial products – 364 respondents (30% of total sample)

Cluster 2 constitutes a segment of consumers who place the mean of production as their main concern for fresh cow cheese purchases. They clearly prefer on-farm production, they also like fresh cow cheese from small dairies and they strongly reject this product when produced industrially. By decreasing importance in decision-making, we find far behind geographical origin, then price and finally packaging, all of them with no particular stressed preferences from this segment.

Ideal fresh cow cheese: On-farm – From country – Medium price – Sold loose Anti-ideal fresh cow cheese: Industrial – Local – high price – Prepacked

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 46/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 47 GA 212579

In this cluster, attention given to production is significantly upper than average. On the other hand, importance of origin and price are lower than average importance. This is a segment of consumers who significantly prefer fresh cow cheese produced on-farm (nearly 5 times more preferred than average utility in sample) or by small dairies (more than 3 times more preferred than average). They consequently very strongly reject fresh cow cheese produced industrially. In this segment, products with no origin specified or product sold loose are less rejected than average (they are indeed neither preferred nor rejected with a mean utility near 0). This is linked to the fact that importance of attribute Origin is significantly lower than average. In this cluster, Croatia (26.92% in cluster 2 against 16.67% in sample) and Slovenia (21.43% in cluster 2 against 16.67% in sample) are significantly overrepresented whereas Macedonia is strongly underrepresented (2.75% instead of 16.67% in sample). Characterization by additional questionnaire: In cluster 2, interviewees are less keen on supermarkets for fresh cow cheese purchases than average of global sample, and favour friends, family, on-farm or own production. This last point confirms the conjoint analysis results previously described for this cluster. There are fewer respondents in proportion to think that food with GI is traditional. Moreover consideration about higher hygiene necessity is slightly less important than average, whereas the country of origin is a bit more important for them than average.

 Cluster3 Rejection of high prices – 238 respondents (20% of total sample)

In this third cluster, the main concern of consumers is the price of fresh cow cheese. We find indeed a linear relation for this attribute, with strong rejection of high prices, weak acceptance of medium prices and clear preference for low prices. All other criteria seem to not have any weight in decision making for these consumers.

Ideal fresh cow cheese: Low price – Small-dairy production – From country – Prepacked Anti-ideal fresh cow cheese: High price – Industrial – No origin – Sold loose

The figures (See appendix 8) confirm what has been seen previously. Price importance is significantly upper than average. Attributes like geographical origin and mean of production are considered as significantly less important compared to mean importance of total sample. Utility of low price level is nearly 18 times upper than average, and rejection for high price 10 times stronger. Other criteria seem less important and we see that rejections for industrial products or products with no origin are not so strong. It means that these consumers may favour price even if it can mean a lack of quality. In this cluster, Montenegro (26.47% against 16.67%), BiH (22.69% against 16.67%) and Serbia (22.69% against 16.67%) are overrepresented whereas Macedonia (5.04% against 16.67%) and Croatia (6.30% against 16.67%) are underrepresented. Characterization by additional questionnaire: Consumers from cluster 3 buy their fresh cow cheese and cheese more often on markets than the tendency of all consumers. It seems to convey that fresh cow cheese is more affordable on open markets. They are more often the main cooks of their household (48%). They or their family/friends circle more rarely make their own fresh cow cheese and they more rarely received some home-made one from friends or family than average. High price is more often given as reason of no willingness to increase consumption and a lower percentage than average has finished faculty. There is a slightly higher agreement on statement about link between taste of food and the region of origin than average. Households are a bit smaller than average size.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 47/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 48 GA 212579

 Cluster4: Preference for industrial, prepacked products with high prices – 382 respondents (32% of total sample)

This cluster is an unexpected one. Consumers of this segment gave main importance to two attributes which are the price first and then the mean of production. What is strange is that they favour fresh cow cheese when sold at a high price (rejection of low prices) but also when sold industrially (rejection of on-farm production). The third attribute considered is origin and finally the packaging which is more important here than in other clusters.

Ideal fresh cow cheese: High price – Industrial – From country – Prepacked Anti-ideal fresh cox cheese: Low price – On-farm – Local – Sold loose

For this cluster, importance of price and packaging are significantly higher than average importances whereas importances of mean of production and geographical origin are lower than average. Analysis of figures (See appendix 8) shows that these consumers significantly prefer high prices and industrial production (positive utilities quite high) and reject consequently low prices and on-farm production. Products with no origin specified are less rejected than average (they are neither rejected nor preferred, mean utility around 0) and prepacked fresh cow cheese is twice preferred than average value in the sample. In this cluster, Macedonia is overrepresented (40.58% against 16.67% in sample) whereas BiH (9.16% against 16.67%), Slovenia (9.42% against 16.67%) and Croatia (11.26% against 16.67%) are underrepresented. This cluster is mainly composed by Macedonian consumers. Characterization by additional questionnaire: The consumers of cluster 4 are less often the main shoppers and cooks of their households with regards to average proportion. The consumption as child and during festive occasions is more important. We noticed that they prefer industrial fresh cow cheese with high price. This is coherent with the fact that they buy less frequently at farms or from friends and family. They buy fresh cow cheese more often in supermarkets than average and own production is more common in this cluster for cheese and fresh cow cheese in particular. The desire to consume fresh cow cheese more often is inferior compared to other clusters. We also studied the income for this segment because of their willingness to pay for higher prices and we just notice a proportion more important of respondents who does not quote the income of the household. They consider more often GI food as traditional and significant characterization show they give more importance to hygiene consideration (stricter about market/ farmer and more confident toward own production) than average but, even if still high, have less consideration than average for geographical origin of food. Maybe they buy industrial fresh cow cheese in order to meet their requirements on hygiene and so are willing to pay more for this attribute.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 48/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 49 GA 212579

This table summarizes the description of each cluster. Segment 1: 216 respondents (18%) Segment 2: 364 respondents (30%) Priority to the origin of food Priority to the means of production Rejection of products with no origin specified Industrial products unattractive

Description: Description: ‐ High importance of geographical origin ‐ Big importance of production factor ‐ Strong rejection of products without origin ‐ Strong rejection of industrial products specified (preference for local products) (preference for on-farm production) ‐ Still slightly reject industrial production ‐ Origin has less importance (preference for on-farm production) Characterization: ‐ Urban respondents overrepresented (55%) ‐ Croatia & Slovenia overrepresented Characterization: ‐ Macedonia underrepresented ‐ Macedonia under-represented ‐ GI less often considered as traditional ‐ Less often festive consumption ‐ Consumers less keen on supermarkets ‐ Less consumed as a child ‐ Preference for on-farm, friends, family or ‐ Roughly larger households own productions ‐ Less strict on hygiene considerations ‐ Higher agreement on consideration about origin

Segment 3: 238 respondents (20%) Segment 4: 382 respondents (32%) Priority given to prices Priority to price & means of production Seekers of affordable prices The confident in high prices & industrial prod.

Description: Description: ‐ High importance of price ‐ 2 attributes are of importance: Price and ‐ Other attributes are far less important means of production ‐ Rejection of high prices ‐ Price & packaging of higher importance (preference of low  linear) ‐ Production & origin lower importance ‐ Preference for high price (rejection of low) ‐ Preference for industrial products (rejection of on-farm production)

Characterization: Characterization: ‐ Montenegro, BiH&Serbia overrepresented ‐ Macedonia overrepresented (~40% of ‐ Macedonia & Croatia underrepresented Macedonians are in cluster 4) ‐ Use to buy the product on markets more ‐ BiH, Slovenia & Croatia underrepresented ‐ Main cooks overrepresented ‐ Main cooks & shoppers underrepresented ‐ Own or friend/family production rarer ‐ More purchase of fresh cow cheese in ‐ Expensive justification about consumption supermarkets frequency ‐ More own production of fresh cow cheese ‐ Lower proportion of finished faculty and cheese in general ‐ Higher agreement on existence of a link ‐ Give higher agreement to necessity of between taste of food and its origin good hygiene practices ‐ Sensibly smaller households ‐ Give less consideration about origin ‐ Consider more often food with GI as traditional

Table 14 Summary of global clustering

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 49/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 50 GA 212579

2.5. Synthesis of quantitative results

Fresh cow cheese is perceived as traditional by the majority of Balkan consumers. The choice of this product for conjoint analysis implementation enabled us to see which characteristics of traditional food in general are important. According to quantitative results, few consumers do not buy fresh cow cheese (7%). So we have a sample who buys fresh cow cheese, this result is important for the validity of conjoint analysis task which put the consumer in a purchase situation. This traditional product is often bought in supermarket and with less importance in open markets. However, a low part of consumers buys it directly at farm or at friends or family home. The direct sale remains attractive for fresh cow cheese despite the increase of the offer by supermarkets. Moreover, 50% of respondents receive fresh cow cheese from family and friends, even if they buy it sometimes. Fresh cow cheese is also made at home but by few consumers. So, especially in rural areas, there is a tradition to make its own fresh cow cheese which perpetuates. Generally, fresh cow cheese is more usually bought already sealed in a plastic bag or box; this is due to the majority of purchases which are done in supermarkets. About consumption of fresh cow cheese, it is consumed both in rural and urban areas and in all Balkan countries. The main barrier quoted not to consume more fresh cow cheese is the expensive price of this product. Consumption of fresh cow cheese is linked to the strong family heritage. More than 80% of respondents consumed it when they were a child. Moreover, fresh cow cheese is both a festive product eaten during celebrations and a usual product well-known and appreciated by consumers. This consideration is typical of traditional food which is largely appreciated and then used both for daily meals and festive meals. The preferences of consumers in a purchase situation are globally focused on traditional attributes with a preference for small level of production and specified origin, mainly local origin. The price remains important in a context of purchase and of course the preference is focused on low and medium prices. Packaging is not a very important attribute but surprisingly, prepacked fresh cow cheese is preferred by consumers. This may be explained by the fact that they use to buy it at supermarkets and maybe because this packaging is more convenient. The preferences also show that when buying a traditional product, there is a strong aversion toward industrial process and no specification of origin. It is interesting to see that traditional attributes are important for Balkan consumers but the preference for prepacked product and purchases in supermarkets may inverse the tendency in the future. The food industry is looking for answering the demand for more convenience-oriented food products. It was also important to measure the attention given to food origin and hygiene practices as it was highlighted by focus groups. It is noticed that there is high requirements from consumers about hygiene practices during food production or process, even for on farm and small firms. Only home production is an exception because considered as sufficiently hygienic. There is a lack of confidence on hygiene practices of producers and processors. About origin, the results confirm those obtained with conjoint analysis showing that origin specification is very important for consumers. They need this information when they buy food but they do not link taste of the product to its origin. Traceability of food is important, even for traditional products. The responses on food protection by Geographical Indication move along the same line. Consumers are numerous to consider that traditional food should be protected by a GI, this may be related to the importance of geographical origin as purchase criteria of traditional food. They also consider food with GI as traditional food. The analysis then focused on a segmentation of consumers in order to identify specific behaviours toward the traditional product chosen. The interest here is to analyze groups of consumers who have some similarities in cognition and behaviour.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 50/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 51 GA 212579

It helps to better understand the complexities of consumer behaviour. Four clusters have been identified with specific behaviours:

‐ A cluster more focused on local origin. ‐ A cluster more demanding on means of production (on farm and small dairy) ‐ A cluster which presents a strong rejection of high prices despite the quality of the product. ‐ A cluster preferring high prices and industrial process.

The graphs on the opposite page synthetize the different behaviours identified for fresh cow cheese. The factorial map of the PCA applied on individual utilities is displayed and the global localization of the 4 clusters has been added. All coordinates were kept to build the clusters, so the first two axes are not sufficient to see distinction between all clusters. That is why two graphs are available (axis1 x axis 2 and axis1 x axis3) instead of one in order to dispose of more information for this summary. The direction of variables (correlation circles) is also represented stacked on graphs, even if the scale is not the same. The colinearity is kept and therefore the global direction is useful for interpretation and information summary. We see indeed that the particularity of cluster 1 is its attraction to the local origin of fresh cow cheese (opposed to “no origin” on axis 3). Cluster 2 is more linked to the preference of on farm production. Cluster 3 is characterized by the research of low prices. Cluster 4 is linked to preference for levels such as industrial production and high prices. On both graphs, having projected the country as an illustrative variable, we identify a distinct general behaviour for Macedonia with regards to general behaviours of the other countries because Macedonia mainly contributes of cluster 4 construction. Slight over representation of some countries previously identified in cluster characterization can be noticed by their position on the graph. The table below shows the figures according to the country and cluster. Respondents Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Total from: Bosnia 46 (23.0%) 65 (32.5%) 54 (27.0%) 35 (17.5%) 200 (100 %) Croatia 44 (22.0%) 98 (49.0%) 15 (7.5%) 43 (21.5%) 200 (100 %) Macedonia 23 (11.5%) 10 (5.0%) 12 (6.0%) 155 (77.5%) 200 (100 %) Montenegro 27 (13.5%) 57 (28.5%) 63 (31.5%) 53 (26.5%) 200 (100 %) Serbia 30 (15.0%) 56 (28.0%) 54 (27.0%) 60 (30.0%) 200 (100 %) Slovenia 46 (23.0%) 78 (39.0%) 40 (20.0%) 36 (18.0%) 200 (100 %)

Total 216 (18%) 364 (30%) 238 (20%) 382 (32%) 1200 (100 %) Table Number of respondents per cluster according to the country

These clusters highlight the behaviour of some consumers belonging to a specific country but an analysis per country is necessary to go into results in depth. Each country results have been analyzed and different behaviours towards traditional food appear. This will be the scope of next paragraph.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 51/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 52 GA 212579

Figure 25 PCA factorial maps with clusters, projection of country and superimposition of correlation circles

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 52/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 53 GA 212579

3. SYNTHESIS PER COUNTRY

In this part, an overview of conjoint analysis results detailed per country is given. Consequently, throughout paragraph 3, one must bear in mind that the sample is changed: each country subsample of 200 respondents is studied. This overview includes some general descriptive statistics on cards ranking, importance and utility figures at an aggregate level for each country and a summary of classification applied on each 6 samples to go down the individual level and decipher some behaviours that can be specific to a country.

3.1. Descriptive statistics on cards ranking

Global BiH Croatia Mac. Mont. Serbia Slov. Most often preferred card G G E G G B E (most often 1st)

Card most often ranked 1st or 2nd G B E G D B E

Most preferred card B B E G D B E (min mean rank)

Least often in the last rank B B D A B E B

Least often at the 10th or 11th rank B B G B B B B

Least often preferred card K K H E A I K (least often 1st)

Least often ranked 1st or 2nd K A/I I F/K J I J

Least preferred card K I C K J I C (max mean rank)

Most often in the last rank A A C K C K A

Card most often in the 10th or 11th C A C K A J C rank

Table 15 Cards preferences detailed per country (resulting of general descriptive statistics of cards ranking results)

‐ Cards on the top in terms of preferences of Balkan consumers: G, B, E, D. ‐ Cards on the bottom in terms of preferences of Balkan consumers: C, A, K, J, I. Balkan consumers seem to present (at the aggregate and descriptive level) globally the same preferences and repulsions as preferred and less preferred cards are mainly separate with redundancy between countries and global sample. There is therefore no need to go deeper in this description as we have already done it for global sample. Let us then study the respective impact of attributes and levels in decision-making for each country thanks to conjoint analysis results.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 53/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 54 GA 212579

3.2. Relative importance of attributes per country

Importance of each attribute detailed per country and per area (rural/urban) is presented in the table below. Significant differences between countries or region according to importance given to each attribute are colored (orange when below average and green when above).

Importance Importance Importance Importance COUNTRY of Production of Price of Origin of Packaging BiH 27,12 28,13 24,82 19,92 100,00 Croatia 44,37 17,87 24,54 13,23 100,00 Macedonia 24,73 34,73 24,97 15,57 100,00 Montenegro 31,26 35,11 22,83 10,81 100,00 Serbia 29,57 28,05 27,45 14,93 100,00 Slovenia 33,58 28,41 27,86 10,15 100,00 TOTAL 31,77 28,72 25,41 14,10 100,00 REGION

Rural 32,27 29,09 24,30 14,34 100,00 Urban 31,27 28,35 26,52 13,86 100,00 TOTAL 31,77 28,72 25,41 14,10 100,00

Table 16 Importance of each attribute according to the country or region considered

Croatia shows a significantly higher importance for production than average, whereas Bosnia and Macedonia present a lower one. (Thresholds below 1%) Macedonia and Montenegro have higher importance for price whereas Croatia has a lower one than average. (Thresholds below 1%) Slovenia has a higher importance than average given to geographical origin of fresh cow cheese whereas importance given by Montenegro is lower than average. (Thresholds below 2%) Importance given by Bosnia to packaging is significantly higher than average, Montenegro and Slovenia presenting significantly lower ones (Thresholds below 1%). No significant differences stand out from average for rural and urban areas.

3.3. Summary of consumers segmentation per country

As just seen, importance values has been calculated per country. In the following paragraphs, graphs of importance and utilities per attribute are displayed for each country. Then, as a clustering algorithm has also been applied on each one of the 6 countries subsets of global sample, main results and description of segments conveying the existence of different consumers’ behaviours inside each country are presented (table of importance and utilities detailed per cluster for each country in appendix 9).

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 54/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 55 GA 212579

 BiH

Importances (BiH) 27.1 30 28.1 24.8 25 19.9 20 15 10 5 0 ORIGIN PACKAGING PRICE PRODUCTION

Utilities (BiH) Utilities (BiH) Attribute : Price Attribute : Production 0.6 0.6 0.48 0.45 0.32 0.4 0.4 0.20 0.2 0.2 0 0 SMALL DAIRY ON‐FARM INDUSTRIAL LOW MEDIUM HIGH ‐0.2 ‐0.2 ‐0.4 ‐0.4 ‐0.6 ‐0.6 ‐0.8 ‐0.80 ‐0.8 ‐0.65 ‐1

Utilities (BiH) Utilities (BiH) Attribute : Origin Attribute : Packaging 0.8 0.8 0.70 0.58 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.05 0.2 0 0 ‐0.2 LOCAL NO ORIGIN COUNTRY ‐0.2 SOLD LOOSE PREPACKED ‐0.4 ‐0.4 ‐0.6 ‐0.6 ‐0.63 ‐0.8 ‐0.8 ‐0.70

Figure 26 Bosnia and Herzegovina – Importance and utilities

In the ideal case, the fresh cow cheese which is preferred by the average Bosnian consumer is: - Sold at a medium price – Produced on-farm – With local geographical origin specified – and prepacked.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 55/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 56 GA 212579

Three clusters have been identified:

BiH – Cluster 1 BiH – Cluster 2 BiH – Cluster 3 80 resp. (40.0%) 69 resp. (34.5%) 51 resp. (25.5%)

Priority to production & origin Priority to packaging Priority to price Anti industrial / Anti no origin “Pre-packed” cheese lovers People rejecting high prices

Description: Description: Description:

‐ Rejection of industrial level ‐ Preference for prepacked ‐ High prices rejected (Preference for on-farm) fresh cow cheese. (Low prices preferred)

‐ Rejection of level “no ‐ Low prices slightly rejected, ‐ No discrimination between origin” (Preference for slight rejection of “no origin” levels of other attributes local products) & “industrial” levels (slight rejection of products without origin ‐ Medium price and specified, country level prepacked products being preferred) slightly preferred

Characterization: Characterization: Characterization:

‐ Higher % of own ‐ Higher % of consumers from ‐ Lower % of choice of on- production for fresh cow age cluster [26-35] farm production for fresh cheese ‐ Lower % of choice sold cow cheese purchases ‐ Lower % of cheese loose for packaging of fresh ‐ Lower % of consumers purchased on markets cow cheese usually bought having finished faculty ‐ Higher agreement with ‐ Fewer consumers with very ‐ Higher % of choice of L5 (Importance of region), low incomes, more with markets for fresh cow L3 (more health controls medium-low. cheese purchases. needed) ‐ Nearly no own production and L0 (need to upgrade ‐ Higher agreement with L1 hygiene standard for (Home production is markets) unhygienic) ‐ Lower agreement with L1 (Home production is unhygienic)

Table 17 Summary table for Bosnia and Herzegovina cluster analysis

First interpretation of clusters: These 3 clusters and their characterization seem quite coherent and interpretable. Cluster1 (80 resp. – 40.0%) – With 40% of Bosnian respondents gathered, this is the largest cluster resulting of BiH consumers clustering. It is constituted of respondents who give a lot of importance to the mean of production and to the geographical origin of fresh cow cheese. Price and packaging are less considered in decision-making process. They prefer local production 2.4 times more than average (while rejecting unknown geographical origin) and also prefer fresh cow cheese produced on farm or by small dairies twice more than average (strongly rejecting industrial production). An important proportion of own production is noticed and this is confirmed by a lower agreement with L1 statement which says home production is unhygienic.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 56/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 57 GA 212579

The preference for local fresh cow cheese is confirmed by a higher agreement with statement L5 conveying the importance of the region where the food comes from. There is a lower proportion of purchases on markets, this can be linked with the higher agreement noticed with statements L0 conveying a need to upgrade hygiene standards for markets and L3 saying that more health controls in food production are needed. Cluster2 (69 resp. – 34.5%) – What is really striking for this cluster is that the main concern of these respondents when they purchase fresh cow cheese is the way it is packed. The second purchase criterion is the price. Consideration for production and origin comes after. This is a segment of consumers who prefer to buy fresh cow cheese when sold prepacked (x2 with regards to average) and at higher prices than average preference. They reject on contrary products sold loose and at a low price. Even if behaviours towards other attributes are not really stressed, we see that these consumers may also be slightly looking for a kind of quality as we notice a rejection of levels such as low prices, no origin specified or industrial production. BiH is the only country which shows a cluster based on packaging importance. Packaging being of poor importance and consequently a mute attribute in the majority of countries, it is interesting to see that it plays here the main role. A segment of BiH consumers, with a good representation of young people (from 26 to 35 years old), and not too deprived are very sensitive to this factor when purchasing fresh cow cheese. Their attraction for prepacked products is confirmed by their declaration in additional questionnaire showing that there is a lower proportion buying fresh cow cheese on desired weight. Moreover with 34.5% of Bosnian consumers, the size of this cluster is far from being unimportant. Cluster3 (51 resp. – 25.5%) – The third cluster, gathering a quarter of BiH respondents, is a segment frequently identified in the clustering applied in each Balkan country. For this cluster, the factor of decision is unmistakably the price with a value of importance neighboring 46%. Consumers strongly reject high prices, preferring the lower prices whatever it means for other attributes possibilities (all other levels seem quite less important with a lot of utilities near 0 for industrial, sold loose, local, on-farm, prepacked and the others with the same direction of total sample on average). These customers are looking for low prices and it may be to the detriment of the quality. Indeed, one focus group showed that Bosnians rarely trust in traditional food sold on green markets and generally prefer to buy it directly to producers. When crossing this cluster with answers to the additional questionnaire, the first significant distinction from the BiH average behaviour is the place of purchase with fewer purchases at farms than average sample and more on markets. Fresh cow cheese found on markets is generally cheaper than the one bought at farms. Another distinction from average is that this cluster presents a lower proportion of consumers having finished faculty, this can explain that their means are weak. What is strange is that they are less turned to own production than average and it is verified by a higher agreement than average with assertion L1 stating that home-production is unhygienic even if it remains a low agreement. This is a bit surprising as we may suppose that own production is a cheaper way to consume fresh cow cheese but home-production may be decreasing due to several factors such as population migration, less people in rural areas or lack of livestock… Furthermore, we must keep in mind that both urban and rural respondents belong to this cluster with no over or under representation of one kind.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 57/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 58 GA 212579

 CROATIA

Importances (Croatia) 50 44.4

40

30 24.5 17.9 20 13.2 10

0 ORIGIN PACKAGING PRICE PRODUCTION

Utilities (Croatia) Utilities (Croatia) Attribute : Production Attribute : Origin 1.5 0.6 0.43 0.98 1 0.4 0.18 0.2 0.5 0 0 LOCAL NO ORIGIN COUNTRY SMALL DAIRY ON‐FARM INDUSTRIAL ‐0.2 ‐0.5 ‐0.02 ‐0.4 ‐1 ‐0.6 ‐0.95 ‐0.61 ‐1.5 ‐0.8

Utilities (Croatia) Utilities (Croatia) Attribute : Price Attribute : Packaging

0.2 0.16 0.04 0.15 0.1 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.01 0 0 ‐0.05 LOW MEDIUM HIGH SOLD LOOSE PREPACKED ‐0.1 ‐0.01 ‐0.15 ‐0.02 ‐0.2 ‐0.25 ‐0.20 ‐0.04

Figure 27 Croatia – Importance and utilities In the ideal case, the fresh cow cheese which is preferred by the average Croatian consumer is: - Produced on-farm – Specified to come from the country – Sold at low price – Prepacked.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 58/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 59 GA 212579

Three clusters of consumers have been selected.

Croatia – Cluster 1 Croatia – Cluster 2 Croatia – Cluster 3 41 resp. (20.5%) 44 resp. (22.0%) 115 resp. (57.5%) Priority to geographical origin Priority to production Priority to production People rejecting products without People rejecting industrial Industrial production lovers origin specified production Description: Description: Description:

‐ Strong preference for ‐ Strong rejection of level “No ‐ Strong rejection of industrial industrial cheese origin” fresh cow cheese (Rejection of on-farm (Preference for on-farm level) ‐ Rejection of industrial level) cheese ‐ Low prices slightly (Preference for on-farm) ‐ Slight rejection of high preferred prices ‐ No highlighted behaviour ‐ Level prepacked toward price or packaging. ‐ Slight preference for fresh preferred cow cheese from Croatia

‐ Slight preference for packaging level ‘sold loose’

Characterization: Characterization: Characterization:

‐ Higher % of consumers ‐ Lower frequencies of fresh ‐ Lower % of consumers purchasing cheese (fresh cow cheese buying it in supermarkets cow cheese in particular) purchases,consumption ‐ Higher % of people from low at supermarkets and own production income range ‐ Higher % of consumers ‐ Lower % of consumers ‐ Higher agreement with above 56 years old buying it sold loose statements: ‐ Higher % of consumers acquiring their cheese and ‐ Higher proportion of those L4 (Specific hygiene conditions fresh cow cheese from who never consume it on should apply to on-farm / small family or friends festive occasion scale processing units) ‐ Higher % of consumers always eating it on festive ‐ Lower % who acquire it L3 (There should be more health occasions from friends or family controls in food production) ‐ Lower % of consumers that buy it sealed in a box ‐ Lower proportion of older And L2 (Farmers need to be trained ‐ Higher agreement with L9 people (over 56) regarding good hygiene (support local producers) practices). ‐ Lower agreement with statements: L3 (There should be more health controls in food production) And L4 (Specific hygiene conditions should apply to on-farm / small scale processing units).

Table 18 Summary table for Croatia cluster analysis

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 59/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 60 GA 212579

First interpretation of clusters: After analysis of these 3 clusters, three different behaviours from Croatian respondents sample are well-identified. The third cluster nearly gathers 60% of Croatian respondents, the 2 other clusters are rather minority behaviours. Cluster1 (41 resp. – 20.5%) – The first identified segment is a minority one. It is constituted of Croatian consumers preferring by far industrial production (production being their main concern) while rejecting on-farm production. Nothing really stressed appears from other criteria, price has a slight role but origin and packaging have really little weight in the end. A slight rejection for high prices and preference for prepacked fresh cow cheese seem nearly a consequence. Significant distinctions standing out from additional questionnaire have been found. As expected, a higher proportion of consumers declaring to choose “supermarket” as usual place of purchase for cheese in general and fresh cow cheese in particular is noticed. Furthermore, there is a lower percentage of consumers buying it sold loose. This cluster seems also to show fewer traditional characteristics speaking about fresh cow cheese compared to the rest of the sample. As a matter of fact, there are slightly more consumers who do not consume it on festive occasions than noticed in the sample, slightly more that do not acquired any fresh cow cheese from family or friends production, and people over 56 are underrepresented. Cluster2 (44 resp. – 22.0%) – This second minority segment is constituted of Croatian respondents who give a lot of importance to geographical origin when buying fresh cow cheese. With an importance over 51%, geographical origin is clearly the factor playing the main role. All other criteria have nearly the same weight under 20%, quite far from the first influent factor. So this segment of Croatian consumers rejects fresh cow cheese when sold without specification of geographical origin. They prefer indeed when it comes from Croatia (3 times more than average) and secondly when it comes from a local place (6 times more than average Croatian). This segment does not reject high prices. Industrial production is rejected but twice less than average Croatian rejection strength and on-farm production is thrice less preferred than average. When crossing with answers from the additional questionnaire, it appears that there is a higher proportion of respondents who more rarely buy, consume or make fresh cow cheese than in total Croatian sample. Moreover, they present a higher agreement with statements about health controls and hygiene practices need, particularly when applying to on-farm production. This is surprising as they prefer on- farm mean of production among the three levels whereas they present a higher agreement with assertions stating that higher hygiene practices should apply to on-farm production. As a matter of fact, we said that production was not a really decision-making attribute for this cluster. Cluster3 (115 resp. – 57.5%) – The priority preference for this segment is fresh cow cheese produced on-farm (twice more preferred than average Croatian consumer). They strongly reject industrial production. This cluster, including nearly 60% of Croatian respondents, best testifies of the average Croatian behaviour. The main importance is once again given to the mean of production (53% of total importance). However, this time we are facing the opposite behaviour from cluster 1 as consumers from this segment are really rejecting industrial production. They show therefore a preference for on-farm production. Behaviours toward other attributes are neither stressed nor important, but they slightly reject high prices and slightly prefer cheese coming from Croatia and sold loose. Significant differences from average sample in questionnaire declarations confirm the behaviours of this cluster. We find fewer purchases in supermarkets, fresh cow cheese is less often bought sealed in a box and acquirements from family or friends are more common. There are slightly more consumers from the upper age cluster than noticed in the sample and more from the lower income cluster. They have a higher agreement with the willingness to support producers from their region, and that seems coherent with their highlighted preference for on-farm production. Their agreement with statements about hygiene practices and health controls need are lower than average.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 60/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 61 GA 212579

 MACEDONIA

Importances (Macedonia) 40 34.7 35 30 25.0 24.7 25 20 15.6 15 10 5 0 ORIGIN PACKAGING PRICE PRODUCTION

Utilities (Macedonia) Utilities (Macedonia) Attribute : Price Attribute : Origin 1.5 0.3 1.02 0.20 1 0.2 0.09 0.1 0.5 0 0 LOCAL NO ORIGIN COUNTRY LOW MEDIUM‐0.03 HIGH ‐0.1 ‐0.5 ‐0.2 ‐1 ‐0.99 ‐0.3 ‐0.29 ‐1.5 ‐0.4

Utilities (Macedonia) Utilities (Macedonia) Attribute : Production Attribute : Packaging 0.46 0.5 0.6 0.47 0.40 0.4 0.4

0.3 0.2

0.2 0 SOLD LOOSE PREPACKED 0.1 ‐0.2

0 ‐0.4 SMALL DAIRY ON‐FARM INDUSTRIAL ‐0.1 ‐0.05 ‐0.6 ‐0.47

Figure 28 Macedonia – Importance and utilities In the ideal case, the fresh cow cheese which is preferred by the average Macedonian consumer is: - Sold at a high price – With local geographical origin specified – Industrially produced – Prepacked.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 61/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 62 GA 212579

Three clusters are described below.

Macedonia – Cluster 1 Macedonia – Cluster 2 Macedonia – Cluster 3 61 resp. (30.5%) 64 resp. (32.0%) 75 resp. (37.5%) Priority to Production & Origin Priority to production, origin & price Priority to Price People showing dislike towards Rejection of small dairies & no High prices lovers levels on-farm & local origin levels Description: Description: Description:

‐ Strong rejection of on-farm ‐ Rejection of small dairies ‐ Preference for high prices level (industrial preferred) production, tolerance for (Rejection of low prices) on-farm, preference for ‐ Strong rejection of local industrial ‐ Preference for local level level (no origin preferred) (Rejection of no origin) ‐ Strong rejection of the no ‐ Still reject low prices origin specified level ‐ Slight preference for small (prefer medium) (Preference for local dairy production cheese) ‐ Prepacked cheese slightly ‐ Slight preference for preferred ‐ Price is not stressed, prepacked cheese medium prices slightly rejected

‐ Prepacked products are preferred Characterization: Characterization: Characterization:

‐ 80% of rural respondents ‐ More unanimous than ‐ 66.7% of urban ‐ 80% who grew up in rural average about the fact respondents area that fresh cow cheese is a ‐ Less consumers acquiring ‐ High % of own production traditional product cheese from friends/family or acquirement from ‐ Higher % of consumers friends and family for having finished faculty cheese in general ‐ Higher % of consumers ‐ Lower agreement with L1 who never make their own (Home-production is fresh cow cheese unhygienic), L2 (Farmers ‐ Lower % of unemployed need to be trained ‐ Lower % of very low regarding good hygiene incomes, more in medium practices) and L0 (Food and upper clusters sold on the open market ‐ Lower % of consumers who should be produced and grew up in a rural area processed with higher ‐ Higher agreement with L1 hygiene standards) stating home-production is unhygienic

Table 19 Summary table for Macedonia cluster analysis

First interpretation of clusters: For Macedonia, the applied clustering resulted in three well-balanced clusters. However, their interpretation seems quite difficult. In the majority of other clustering, a cluster which gathered consumers with small means, looking for low prices in priority when purchasing fresh cow cheese stands out.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 62/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 63 GA 212579

In Macedonia we do not find that, high prices are never really rejected. Apparently the prices available on the market are all acceptable and affordable for Macedonian consumers. The highest prices for fresh cow cheese in Macedonia are maybe not to be considered as expensive. Another consideration to take into account is that brucellosis has been a long time concern that could explain a willingness to pay for safe fresh cow cheese in this country. In this case, price could be considered as predictor of higher quality. Let us analyze the 3 resulting clusters: Cluster1 (61 resp. – 30.5%) – This cluster favours two attributes in terms of decision-making when purchasing fresh cow cheese, first is the mean of production and secondly the geographical origin. Then, we find the price which is significantly considered less important by this cluster than on average in the sample and finally the packaging but its importance in the cluster is higher than on average. Mainly constituted of respondents from rural area (80.3%), we are facing a segment of consumers who totally reject on-farm production and local level, preferring industrial fresh cow cheese and without origin specification. That seems really unexpected for rural respondents. However, we notice that there are a higher proportion of home-production for cheese in general and also a higher proportion of acquirement of cheese from family and friends. (Maybe that is why they are not interested in on-farm products on sale). This tendency is confirmed by a lower agreement with assertion stating that home-production is unhygienic. This cluster also shows a lower agreement with other statements about higher hygiene standards needed for on-farm or market production. There are less afraid of small scale hygiene practices than average Macedonian respondents. Cluster2 (64 resp. – 32.0%) – The most important attributes in decision-making are first production and geographical origin. Then we find price (lower than average) and eventually packaging (upper than average importance). Once again, the preference in terms of mean of production goes to industrial production. However, on-farm production is neither rejected nor preferred, the rejection being towards small dairy production. Moreover, they prefer fresh cow cheese when locally made (5 times more than average) whereas they reject products without origin specified. They prefer when it is sold prepacked, and no behaviour really stands out toward consideration of factor Price (even if they still slightly prefer high prices, they are not as fond of them as the rest of the sample). This behaviour described may be explained by a lack of confidence in terms of quality of production in small dairy production from Macedonian respondents. As a matter of fact, the big dairy factories hold the biggest share of the market and the offer of their products at the market is overwhelming. The only significant characterization for this segment is that they are more unanimous with the fact that fresh cow cheese is a traditional product (at 95.3%). Cluster3 (75 resp. – 37.5%) – This segment is the majority one with 37.5% of Macedonian respondents gathered. With nearly 51% of importance, priority is clearly given to price. What is striking is that they are looking for high prices when purchasing fresh cow cheese. As a linear relation is noticed, low prices are therefore rejected. However, if we analyze current state in Macedonia, this fact can be understandable as fresh cow cheese offer in Macedonia is very big on the market and the average prices are acceptable for the largest part of consumers. As average Macedonian, even if other attributes have little importance here, they still slightly prefer fresh cow cheese locally made and sold prepacked. A distinction from the average Macedonian consumer is that they slightly prefer small dairy production. It stands also out that a majority lives in an urban area (66.7%). There are fewer consumers acquiring their cheese from friends or family (can be a consequence of the fact that they do not live in a rural area) and fewer who make their own fresh cow cheese (confirmed by a higher agreement than average with assertion L1 stating that home-production is unhygienic). It seems that there are fewer consumers from the lower classes because a higher proportion of consumers having finished faculty is noticed so as a lower proportion of unemployed and a lower proportion of people declaring earning very low incomes (more in medium and upper income categories). All of this goes along with the means to buy fresh cow cheese at higher prices. A lower proportion of consumers declaring they grew up in a rural area is observed, it is quite logical with the fact that urban people are overrepresented in this cluster.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 63/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 64 GA 212579

 MONTENEGRO

Importances (Montenegro) 40 35.1 31.3 35 30 25 22.8 20 15 10.8 10 5 0 ORIGIN PACKAGING PRICE PRODUCTION

Utilities (Montenegro) Utilities (Montenegro) Attribute : Price Attribute : Production 0.6 0.6 0.39 0.38 0.4 0.4 0.29 0.22 0.2 0.2 0 0 LOW MEDIUM HIGH SMALL DAIRY ON‐FARM INDUSTRIAL ‐0.2 ‐0.2 ‐0.4 ‐0.4 ‐0.6 ‐0.6 ‐0.61 ‐0.8 ‐0.8 ‐0.67

Utilities (Montenegro) Utilities (Montenegro) Attribute : Origin Attribute : Packaging 0.3 0.05 0.20 0.2 0.12 0.02 0.1 0.025 0 LOCAL NO ORIGIN COUNTRY 0 ‐0.1 SOLD LOOSE PREPACKED ‐0.2 ‐0.025 ‐0.02 ‐0.3 ‐0.32 ‐0.4 ‐0.05

Figure 29 Montenegro – Importance and utilities In the ideal case, the fresh cow cheese which is preferred by the average Montenegrin consumer is: - Sold at low price – produced by small dairies – With local geographical origin – Sold loose.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 64/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 65 GA 212579

Three clusters have been identified:

Montenegro – Cluster 1 Montenegro – Cluster 2 Montenegro – Cluster 3 61 resp. (30.5%) 74 resp. (37.0%) 65 resp. (32.5%) Priority to Price and Production Priority to Production (&origin) Priority to Price People rejecting industrial People rejecting low prices & on- People rejecting high prices production farm production Description: Description: Description:

‐ Rejection of low prices ‐ Strong rejection of industrial ‐ Strong rejection of high (Preference for high products prices prices) (preference for on-farm & preference for low – linear level) ‐ Other attributes are of little ‐ Rejection of on-farm importance, only a small production (preference for ‐ Rejection of products rejection of industrial industrial products) without origin specified production is noticed (preference when locally ‐ Rejection of products made) when no origin is specified (preference when said to ‐ Slight preference for come from Montenegro) medium prices and cheese sold loose rather than ‐ Level prepacked slightly prepacked preferred

Characterization: Characterization: Characterization:

‐ Higher % of consumers ‐ Higher % of consumers ‐ Still consumed on festive buying it sealed in a always consuming fresh occasion but less plastic box and less sold cow cheese on festive systematically loose occasions with family ‐ Higher proportion of ‐ Fewer purchases of consumers purchasing fresh cheese and fresh cow ‐ Less purchases of cheese in cow cheese and other cheese at-farms general and fresh cow cheese on markets cheese on markets or in ‐ Higher proportion of ‐ Higher proportion of supermarkets consumers who do not consumers who are not know if they have ever the main shopper. ‐ More purchases of cheese bought a product with GI in general at farms ‐ No purchases at restaurant ‐ Fresh cow cheese acquired ‐ Even if still strongly ‐ Higher % of consumers from family or friends and agreeing, lower acquiring fresh cow cheese own production very rare agreement with L9 (I like to from friends of family ‐ More often sold loose than support producers from average in global sample my region) than average. ‐ More consumers with low ‐ Less consumers having incomes finished faculty ‐ More refusal for income range ‐ Higher agreement with L9 (I like to support producers from my region)

Table 20 Summary table for Montenegro cluster analysis

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 65/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 66 GA 212579

First interpretation of clusters: Cluster1 (61 resp. – 30.5%) – For this first segment of Montenegrin consumers, several attributes are taken into account to take the decision of purchasing fresh cow cheese. The most important one is the price which follows a linear relation: low prices are rejected whereas high prices are preferred for fresh cow cheese. Then, the mean of production has nearly as much importance and these consumers reject on-farm production, favouring industrial products. The geographical origin concern is also important with a rejection of cheese sold without origin specified and a preference when it is said to come from Montenegro (not sensitive to local attribute). Packaging has little importance, prepacked cheese being slightly preferred to the one sold loose. This behaviour is confirmed by some declarations that significantly stand out from this cluster, with fewer purchases of cheese and fresh cow cheese in particular at farms and a higher proportion of consumers buying fresh cow cheese more usually sealed in plastic box rather than sold loose. This cluster gathers a higher percentage of consumers who are not main shoppers of their households. Even if still strongly agreeing, a slightly lower agreement with L9 (I like to support producers from my region) than average is noticed. Cluster2 (74 resp. – 37.0%) – The second and majority cluster identified is one that gives main importance to the mean of production (41% of importance). We find after geographical origin, then price and packaging after. These consumers are characterized by their hatred towards industrial production. They prefer cheese produced on-farm and locally made rejecting those without origin specified on it. As a matter of fact, Montenegrin consumers from rural area (64.9%) are slightly overrepresented in this cluster. They show a slight preference for fresh cow cheese sold loose significantly higher than average Montenegrin respondent. High prices are not so rejected as on average with a slight preference for medium prices. Their preferences are confirmed by some significant declarations from additional questionnaire, with fewer purchases on markets and supermarkets declared but more at farms or acquired from friends or family. There are also a higher percentage of consumers consuming fresh cow cheese very systematically on festive occasion with family. A higher proportion of consumers from the lower income category is observed. Cluster3 (65 resp. – 32.5%) – This third segment is a one that almost appears in all other Balkan countries classifications. It gathers consumers placing the price as their main factor of decision (52% of importance) and who are particularly opposed to high prices. Price following a linear relation, they are attracted by low prices for fresh cow cheese. Other attributes are then of small importance for them, still a slight rejection for industrial production may be noticed. Even if they still consume fresh cow cheese on festive occasion, it is a little less systematically than average Montenegrin behaviour. They are more numerous to choose markets as the usual place of purchase for fresh cow cheese and cheese in general. They never buy it at restaurants, and own production or purchases to friends and family are very rare. This last consideration can be linked with the fact that consumers from urban area (63.1%) are a bit overrepresented in this last cluster. A higher proportion of people who do not know if they have ever bought a product with GI is observed. Consumers from this cluster are less numerous than average in proportion to have finished faculty and a higher proportion refuses to give the income range. A higher agreement with L9 (I like to support producers from my region) is noticed but it was not highlighted by conjoint analysis behaviour at all.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 66/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 67 GA 212579

 SERBIA

Importances (Serbia) 35 29.6 30 27.5 28.1 25 20 14.9 15 10 5 0 ORIGIN PACKAGING PRICE PRODUCTION

Utilities (Serbia) Utilities (Serbia) Attribute : Production Attribute : Price 0.4 0.6 0.27 0.4 0.38 0.2 0.12 0.20 0.2 0 SMALL DAIRY ON‐FARM INDUSTRIAL 2E‐15 ‐0.2 LOW MEDIUM HIGH ‐0.2

‐0.4 ‐0.4 ‐0.39 ‐0.6 ‐0.6 ‐0.58 Utilities (Serbia) Utilities (Serbia) Attribute : Origin Attribute : Packaging 0.6 0.4 0.44 0.3 0.4 0.18 0.2 0.2 0.1 0 0 LOCAL NO ORIGIN COUNTRY ‐0.1 SOLD LOOSE PREPACKED ‐0.2 ‐0.06 ‐0.2 ‐0.4 ‐0.18 ‐0.38 ‐0.3 ‐0.6 ‐0.4

Figure 30 Serbia – Importance and utilities In the ideal case, the fresh cow cheese which is preferred by the average Serbian consumer is: - Produced by small dairies – Sold at low price – Specified to come from the country – Prepacked.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 67/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 68 GA 212579

Three clusters have been identified:

Serbia – Cluster 1 Serbia – Cluster 2 Serbia – Cluster 3 64 resp. (32.0%) 57 resp. (28.5%) 79 resp. (39.5%) Priority to Production then Origin Priority to Production then Origin Priority to Price Industrial level preferred, People showing dislike towards People rejecting high prices Rejection of local level industrial and no origin levels Description: Description: Description:

‐ Preference for industrial ‐ Strong rejection of high ‐ Strong rejection of industrial production (rejection of prices (linear relation) production (the 2 other the 2 other means) means of production ‐ Other attributes have little equally liked) ‐ Rejection of local importance. Slight production preference for fresh cow ‐ Strong rejection of products (preference when it cheese from Serbia, without origin specified comes from Serbia) produced by small dairies (liked when local or from and prepacked Serbia) ‐ Rejection for low prices (High prices preferred) ‐ Other attributes are not very important, slight rejection of ‐ Product preferred when high prices, no preference prepacked for packaging.

Characterization: Characterization: Characterization:

‐ Higher % of consumers ‐ Higher % of people usually ‐ Higher % of consumers who that usually buy fresh cow buying fresh cow cheese on do not want to consume cheese sealed in a box markets fresh cow cheese more often ‐ Lower % of consumers ‐ Higher % of respondents buying cheese and fresh from age cluster “Over 56” ‐ Lower % of consumers cow cheese on markets purchasing fresh cow ‐ Fresh cow cheese more cheese at the supermarket ‐ Higher % of purchases at often bought sealed in a supermarkets for fresh cow bag, less often sealed in a cheese box

‐ Age slightly higher and ‐ Higher % of pensioners or households slightly smaller from category “other” than average sample ‐ Higher % of consumers in the lower income category

‐ Higher % of main cooks

‐ Slightly smaller households

Table 21 Summary table for Serbia cluster analysis

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 68/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 69 GA 212579

First interpretation of clusters: The clustering applied on Serbian sample resulted in the creation of three clusters. Cluster1 (64 resp. – 32%) – This first segment is constituted of consumers whose main concerns are first production (importance of 29.8%), origin (26.6%), price (23.9%) and packaging (19.7%). They are industrial production lovers, they strongly prefer this mean of production amongst all. Speaking about the origin factor, they are strangely opposed to local production while preferring products said to come from Serbia. Their behaviour toward prices is linear with a rejection of low prices and therefore preference for high prices. They prefer to buy fresh cow cheese when prepacked rather than sold loose. Some of these elements are confirmed by significant points from additional questionnaire, such as a higher proportion of consumers generally buying their fresh cow cheese prepacked particularly sealed in a plastic box. Fewer purchases on markets and more at supermarkets are also observed, that confirmed the tendency to choose industrial production. Cluster2 (57 resp. – 28.5%) – The second segment is one that appears in almost each Balkan country. It gathers consumers who place the price as their main priority (49.2% of importance) when buying fresh cow cheese. They are totally repulsed by high prices preferring fresh cow cheese when sold at low prices. All other attributes are not very considered, we find origin and production (~18% of importance) and finally packaging influence. They seem to choose price maybe to the detriment of the quality. We may identify a slight preference for fresh cow cheese from Serbia, produced by small dairies and prepacked. As generally observed for this kind of cluster, a higher proportion of consumers buying their fresh cow cheese on markets is noticed and a higher proportion belong to the lower income category. Consumers of this segment are slightly older than average Serbian sample with a higher proportion of pensioners than on average in the sample, with slightly smaller households and they are more often the main cooks. According to Serbian partner, this cluster was expected to have more weight and be more preponderant in Serbian segmentation, but it is certainly underestimated due to the implementation (respondents were interviewed outside supermarkets and not in open markets or outside discount stores). Cluster3 (79 resp. – 39.5%) – The third and last cluster identified is a segment of consumers who give main importance to two predominant attributes which are production (37.4% of importance) and geographical origin (34.3%) but their behaviour is totally opposed to the behaviour of consumers from cluster 1. As a matter of fact, they present a strong rejection for industrial production while equally appreciating on-farm and small-dairy production. They also strongly reject fresh cow cheese with no geographical origin specified.They like cheese said to come from Serbia or from their region (with a slight preference for local level between the two). Price and packaging far behind are not very important attributes for these consumers. They slightly reject high prices and they do not mind how it is packed. There is few characteristics that stand out to explain this segment, more than half of this cluster does not want to consume fresh cow cheese more often, and less than average in the sample declare to buy fresh cow cheese at supermarkets, not a lot to say.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 69/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 70 GA 212579

 SLOVENIA

Importances (Slovenia) 40 33.6 35 27.9 28.4 30 25 20 15 10.2 10 5 0 ORIGIN PACKAGING PRICE PRODUCTION

Utilities (Slovenia) Utilities (Slovenia) Attribute : Production Attribute : Price 1.2 0.8 0.76 0.54 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.21

0 0 SMALL DAIRY ON‐FARM INDUSTRIAL LOW MEDIUM HIGH ‐0.4 ‐0.4 ‐0.17 ‐0.8 ‐0.36

‐1.2 ‐0.98 ‐0.8

Utilities (Slovenia) Utilities (Slovenia) Attribute : Origin Attribute : Packaging 0.4 0.35 0.2

0.2 0.10 0.1 0.03 0 LOCAL NO ORIGIN COUNTRY 0 ‐0.2 SOLD LOOSE PREPACKED

‐0.1 ‐0.4 ‐0.38 ‐0.10

‐0.6 ‐0.2

Figure 31 Slovenia – Importance and utilities In the ideal case, the fresh cow cheese which is preferred by the average Slovenian consumer is: - Produced on-farm – Sold at low price – With a local geographical origin specified – Sold loose.Four segments have been identified:

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 70/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 71 GA 212579

Slovenia – Cluster 1 Slovenia – Cluster 2 31 resp. (15.5%) 50 resp. (25.0%) Priority to Price Priority to Origin then Price & Production Anti high prices Anti local and pro industrial Description: Description: ‐ Strong rejection of high prices (linear ‐ Strong rejection of products locally made relation) (preference when no origin specified) ‐ Other attributes not individually very ‐ Medium prices not appreciated, low important, slight rejection of industrial prices slightly preferred, relation not linear products and preference for local cheese, ‐ Industrial production preferred no influence of packaging. ‐ Almost no impact of packaging

Characterization: Characterization: ‐ Consumers from rural area slightly ‐ Lower % of consumers who do not buy overrepresented their fresh cow cheese at supermarkets ‐ 98% of them grew up in a rural area ‐ Lower agreement with L0 (higher hygiene ‐ Higher % of consumers buying fresh cow standards need for open markets) cheese more than once a week ‐ Higher % of consumers who do not acquire cheese or fresh cow cheese from friends or family ‐ No consumer from the highest income category (above average HH income) ‐ Higher agreement with statement about hygiene need on farm and on markets ‐ Higher agreement with importance of region and country for the food Slovenia – Cluster 3 Slovenia – Cluster 4 46 resp. (23.0%) 73 resp. (36.5%) Priority to Origin Priority to Production Local cheese lovers People rejecting industrial production Description: Description: ‐ Product strongly rejected when no origin ‐ Very strong rejection of industrial specified (Preference for local cheese) production ‐ Low prices preferred (Preference for on-farm) ‐ Industrial production rejected (on-farm ‐ Other attributes have little importance, preferred) slight preference for high prices and ‐ No impact of packaging cheese sold loose.

Characterization: Characterization: ‐ Rural respondents overrepresented (80.4%) ‐ Urban respondents overrepresented ‐ Higher % of consumers who never (80.8%) consume fresh cow cheese on festive ‐ Higher % of consumers who buy or receive occasions with family their cheese or fresh cow cheese from ‐ Higher % of consumers with a rare friends or family consumption and fewer who want to ‐ Fresh cow cheese consumption frequency increase it. a bit higher ‐ Higher % of consumer under 25 ‐ Slightly higher % of consumers from ‐ Lower % of consumers who buy fresh cow occupation category of “farmer/fishman” cheese at farms ‐ Higher % of consumers who generally do ‐ Slightly larger households not buy their fresh cow cheese in supermarkets.

Table 22 Summary table for Slovenia cluster analysis

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 71/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 72 GA 212579

First interpretation of clusters: Cluster1 (31 resp. – 15.5%) – The first segment is one almost identified in each other Balkan country. This cluster gathers consumers whose main priority in terms of fresh cow cheese purchases is price (importance of 58.0%), and they are strongly opposed to high prices. All other attributes have not much importance, even if they still slightly reject industrial production and prefer local products, the price goes first. Moreover the packaging has no influence. What is strange is that there is little significant information to characterize this cluster. In other country, this segment is generally characterized by more purchases on markets and lower means in terms of income or lower educational level. That is not the case here except for a lower agreement with a need of higher hygiene standards on markets, which may convey a slight preference for open markets. Cluster2 (50 resp. – 25.0%) – The second segment of Slovenian consumers shares total importance between the 3 main attributes. It may be hard for them to make trade-offs. They give first priority to geographical origin rejecting strongly fresh cow cheese from their region and preferring when no origin is specified at all. Price and production have equal importance, behaviour towards price is not really clear but they slightly prefer low prices. Concerning production, they choose industrial products. Packaging has nearly no impact. In this cluster it is strange to find a majority of rural consumers (64.0%) although they reject local level for attribute Origin. The proportion of frequent buyers of fresh cow cheese is higher than on average in the sample. There are fewer consumers acquiring their fresh cow cheese from friends or family than on average in Slovenian sample. No consumer from this cluster is from the highest income category. Concerning the agreement scale on statement, a higher agreement with statement about hygiene need on farm and on markets is observed but also a higher agreement with the importance of region and country as purchase criteria. Cluster3 (46 resp. – 23.0%) – This segment is characterized by the importance accorded to geographical origin of fresh cow cheese (48% of importance). These consumers strongly reject products without origin specified and are local cheese lovers. Studying the other attributes, we find, by decreasing importance, price and production and finally the packaging with a low importance. These consumers have a preference for low prices and they reject industrial production. Packaging has no influence in their choice. Rural respondents are overrepresented (80%). These consumers eat fresh cow cheese more rarely than on average in Slovenian sample. The category of consumers under 25 is over- represented and has a lower proportion of consumers buying fresh cow cheese at farms. Cluster4 (73 resp. – 36.5%) – The last segment is the major one with nearly 40% of Slovenian respondents gathered with an overrepresentation of urban people (80.8% instead of 50.0%). Their priority when buying fresh cow cheese is the mean of production (53% of importance). They are strongly opposed to industrial production preferring cheese produced on-farm. All other attributes have not much importance at all but they slightly prefer high prices and cheese sold loose. This cluster is characterized by a higher proportion of consumers acquiring or receiving their fresh cow cheese from friends and family, their consumption of fresh cow cheese is a bit higher than in global Slovenian sample. There is a slight interesting overrepresentation of the “farmer/fishman” occupation category (8.2%). A higher proportion of consumers who generally does not buy their fresh cow cheese in supermarkets is also observed so as lower agreements with statements on hygiene practices. All of this is quite coherent with their behaviour described above. We also notice lower agreements with statements on importance of food origin than on average in the sample and it may be linked to the lack of importance accorded to geographical origin attribute.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 72/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 73 GA 212579

4. DISCUSSION

The first concern in conducting a quantitative study about traditional food was not being able to obtain concrete answers about traditional food. This difficulty comes from the fact that there is not an official definition of traditional food. Of course traditional food may be protected, for instance food with geographical indication but this definition is too restrictive. According to consumers, the definition of traditional food is wider, from natural product grown in the garden, to meals cooked that have been cooked in the home for many decades. It may also be a typical meal of the region sold at a restaurant, or even a local prepacked cheese sold in supermarkets. The results of the study show that traditional products and dishes are eaten throughout the year or at certain times of the year. They may also be connected with various celebrations and special occasions. Traditional meals are prepared and cooked according to old recipes that are passed down from one generation to another, and they are prepared with care - in a manner consistent with national heritage. Traditional food is prepared from natural ingredients and is typical for specific places, regions or a country. It is also often cooked or prepared either at home or in the home of family members and friends, or in a restaurant. According to the results of focus groups, it was decided to choose a common traditional product for all countries in order to facilitate the implementation of conjoint analysis. Due to these considerations, the final choice was fresh cow cheese. Then conjoint analysis and additional questionnaire focused on fresh cow cheese. It was a good choice because 93% of Balkan consumers eat it and very few consumers do not consider it as traditional. This conclusion is important for the validity of conjoint analysis results. At the beginning of the project and according to the literature review, some hypotheses about consumer behaviour and perception towards traditional food have been suggested. These hypotheses progressed during the project, first with focus groups and finally they have been supported or dismissed by quantitative study. Fresh cow cheese is not a dish but closer to a transformed raw dairy foodstuff. Nevertheless according to the results, about 80% of Balkan respondents interviewed assert that fresh cow cheese is traditional in their opinion. This confirms what has been seen in focus groups, traditional foodstuffs are not only dishes and raw products can be considered as traditional products. The hypothesis, that consumers buy traditional products especially in direct distribution channels, is not directly supported by the quantitativeresults. Supermarkets remain the main place where respondents use to buy their fresh cow cheese. However, an interesting significant difference between urban and rural lifestyle has been highlighted. As expected, rural respondents are more used to acquire their fresh cow cheese from friends or family and less on markets and supermarkets with regards to the average. This tendency being reversed in the case of urban respondents who are more turned to supermarkets and markets and less toward farms for their purchase. The hypothesis stating that consumers eat some traditional products during “festive consumption” occasions is also reinforced by the fact that according to quantitative results, less than 8% of respondents declare that they never consume fresh cow cheese with family on festive occasions. It confirms the first conclusion of focus groups which highlighted that Balkan consumers consume traditional products on festive occasions, and that was especially the case for dairy products in winter. Regarding consumption frequencies of fresh cow cheese (which is considered traditional at 80%), more than half of the sample consumed it more than once a week.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 73/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 74 GA 212579

The consumption is more frequent in countries like Macedonia and Montenegro, whereas it is less frequent in Slovenia. There is not any significant difference depending on the area (urban/rural) regarding consumption frequency of fresh cow cheese. One hypothesis tested through the focus groups was that consumers living in rural areas and small cities eat traditional food products more frequently; it is therefore not confirmed by quantitative measurements. This hypothesis was only partly confirmed by focus groups. The conclusions drawn from focus groups indicate that it depends on the country. However, the quantitative results do not confirm any significant difference urban/rural for consumption frequency even when studying the difference urban/rural in each country separately. Maybe the scale was not this detailed to detect so little divergence. As regards to food with Geographical Indication (GI), it was quite unexpected to find such a high proportion of declared knowledge about this concept. Some hypotheses have been confirmed by the quantitative study. Very few respondents answered negatively to the question “do you consider food with GI as traditional food?”, more than half sample consider it as traditional and nearly 30% balance their opinion declaring that it depends the food but do not refute the statement. Moreover one of the last hypotheses generated by focus groups is highly confirmed by Balkan respondents’ massive acquiescence to the question “Do you consider that traditional food should be protected by a GI?” (More than 80% answered Yes).

Some behaviours highlighted during focus groups are also supported through the quantitative analysis. For instance consumption of fresh cow cheese in restaurants was found to be limited. It was also noted that women are more involved in the cooking task than men. If we tend to explain consumers’ behaviour towards traditional food, we can say that there are different types of consumers giving more or less importance to components considered as traditional. Four types of behaviours have been identified:

‐ Consumers with sensitivity toward some levels identified as rather traditional.

Generally the levels, identified as traditional before that, are now standing out as main criteria in decision-making as for instance the mean of production and the geographical origin with a rejection of levels such as industrial production and lack of geographical origin specification. However depending on the country, these two notions are either coupled or dissociated. In Bosnia and Herzegovina for example, the 1st segment identified gathering 40% of BiH respondents presents preferences that were assumed to be traditional according to focus groups. They are indeed opposed to industrial production and to products sold without origin specified. What is really interesting is that we identify a behaviour similar to what was expected by focus groups. This behaviour is defined by a preference for on-farm level (rejecting industrial) speaking about production and a preference for local level confirmed by a higher agreement with statement on importance of the region of origin for food. This behaviour is also characterized by a higher proportion of own-production and fewer purchases from markets than the average. Now it is the confirmation of focus groups conclusions which highlighted that in BiH people do not really trust in open markets and prefer to buy traditional products at farms and rarely buy it at supermarkets. The higher proportion of own production is likely to be linked with the fact pointed out in focus groups that Bosnians like to cook in order to control quality and healthiness of the food. Furthermore, the explanation subjected during focus groups for this markets dislike was linked to doubts about hygiene practices. The characterization of this cluster pointed out a higher agreement for a need of more health controls in food production, and an upgrade of hygiene standard for markets precisely. This segment appeared then quite coherent with Bosnian perception of quality for traditional food, a sensitive segment toward traditional products which implies to focus on traditional levels of mean of production and origin of food before all.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 74/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 75 GA 212579

In Serbia, we also find such a cluster combining the importance of origin (preference for local food) and production (opposition to industrial). In other classifications, as we said the two considerations are separated: o Those who are more against industrial products For instance, in the classification done on the global Balkan sample, a segment of consumers placing greatest importance on production (rejecting industrial, preferring on-farm) was identified. It was made up of consumers less keen on supermarkets with preferences for other places of purchases such as on-farm, friends, family or even home production. They were thus less strict on hygiene practices than average for several of these productions. And even if it does not show through in conjoint analysis ranking, the characterization of this cluster highlighted a declarative agreement that the country of origin is important to them. Another segment of 57.5% of Croatian respondents who are characterized by a strong rejection of industrial production is very interesting according to its sensitivity toward traditional aspects. With a preference for on-farm production, products from Croatia and products sold loose, there is a higher proportion of people over 56 than observed in the sample and their declarations go along well with their choices in conjoint analysis. They agree with the importance to support local producers and are less strict on hygiene practices than on average. A preponderant part of Croatians consumers are sensitive towards traditional products. It is the same conclusion for cluster 2 of Montenegrin consumers (on-farm, local, sold loose) and cluster 4 of Slovenian sample. Family concept is present in these clusters with a bigger tendency to aquire fresh cow cheese from family or friends instead of buying it in supermarkets, and this family concept is reinforced by higher frequency of consumption in festive occasions with family. For these consumers, fresh cow cheese is a vector of share and conviviality linked to tradition and heritage. o Those who are more against products sold without origin One cluster of global sample gives high importance to geographical origin, preferring local food, with still a slight rejection of industrial products (and thus a behaviour that seems traditional). Unexpectedly, those consumers are not characterized by a declared traditional behaviour with less systematic consumption on festive occasions and as a child. A segment stands out with 22.0% of Croatian respondents gathered those who are mainly interested in the geographical origin of the product. However, once again, their behaviour seems less traditional (lower frequency of fresh cow cheese consumption and purchases) and higher agreement with the need to improve hygiene practices in particular on farm (even if they slightly prefer this mean of production). The same is observed in Slovenia with on the one hand a stressed preference for local fresh cow cheese pointed out by conjoint analysis and on the other a declared behaviour of being less traditional in orientation (less often festive consumption, rarer consumption, young people under 25 overrepresented and fewer purchases at farms). In conclusion, the dimension of small-scale production (in particular on-farm) seems more important than origin in a context of traditional food purchase even if there are often combined.

‐ Consumers looking for convenient purchase

The second segment identified for BiH was really linked to packaging consideration. This segment is strongly attracted by prepacked food. However, they are not totally insensitive to traditional food, as they are slightly attracted by traditional levels of origin and production just as cluster 1 of BiH. However, the packaging issue is the main purchase criteria. This segment is therefore slightly sensitive to traditional products but favours convenience of the packaging.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 75/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 76 GA 212579

The characterization of this cluster can explain this behaviour as it includes more young people in proportion (from 26 to 35 years old) which are not too deprived, so their lifestyle may lead them to behave so, choosing convenience and easiness over other attributes.

‐ Behaviour that conveys mostly a situation of poverty

The last segment for BiH which gathers ¼ of Bosnian respondents is strongly linked to price with a strong rejection of high prices. We have seen that all other attributes have nearly no impact in decision-making for this segment. This is sadly a segment who acts like this due to a lack of money. They less often purchase cheese at farms although it is the preferred place for Bosnians according to focus groups results. This segment seems to look for the lowest price and maybe prepared to compromise on quality. Limited interest in traditional food was identified, and this may simply be because they are not able to afford it. This segment based on choice of low prices and described for Bosnia is also found in Slovenia (15.5% of Slovenian respondents), in Serbia (28.5% of Serbian respondents) and in Montenegro (37.0% of Montenegrin respondents). In BiH, Serbia and Montenegro, this segment is characterized by a higher proportion of purchases on markets than measured on average. Especially in Serbia, usually fresh cow cheese bought on markets can be cheaper than the same category bought in supermarkets. Moreover, customers can bargain with the sellers on markets. This behaviour is found in several country classifications. Consequently when segmentation was done on the global sample, a segment of consumers looking for low prices before all was also highlighted. As a matter of fact, it gathers 20% of Balkan consumers interviewed. Some characterization conveys the lack of money such as fewer respondents having finished university than average and those who do not want to consume it more often call upon the reason of price. Moreover a higher proportion of respondents who use to buy it on markets as we said and a higher proportion of cooks are observed but not a lot of own production on the other side. In Serbia, qualitative stage informs us that rural respondents prefer to buy products in green markets and freeze them in order to eat them even when they are not available fresh. They find it cheaper. They like to buy large quantities and then follow a traditional processing and storage at home and continuous consumption. As food sold on markets is generally considered healthy, not-chemically treated, traditional, this search for the low prices is therefore not systematically opposed to traditional consumption or quality.

‐ Behaviours more opposed to traditional levels

A segment of consumers which do not convey any interest in traditional food was also identified. It is characterised by a preference for industrial products which can be due to convenience and confidence (not trusting in hygiene practices of small scales food processing). Confidence is also generally linked with a preference for high prices. We find this type of behaviour also in the global sample. This segment constituted of people preferring industrial production and high prices is characterized by high agreement in the necessity of good hygiene practices, especially toward on-farm and own-production. They seem to clearly trust in industrial production more and are prepared to pay higher prices for the additional confidence such production affords them. On the other hand, the segment which appears as non-traditional in Croatia presents indeed a stressed preference for industrial products and slight preference for levels of other attributes which go along with the image of supermarkets (low prices, prepacked). It is confirmed by declarations of consumers about their fresh cow cheese purchases (more in supermarkets, less sold loose, less acquire from friends and family) and a behaviour far away from tradition concept (less consumed on festive occasion, older people underrepresented). Here it conveys a behaviour privileging industrial fresh cow cheese, a behaviour from people who do not present a traditional lifestyle.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 76/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 77 GA 212579

A cluster of Montenegro which favours high prices and industrial production conveys also a search for convenience and quality. They also reject products without origin specification, preferring products from their country but not especially local. Similar behaviour is found in Serbia. This means that there is a marketing potential for industrial cheese, even for cheese perceived as traditional.

Convenience of the packaging; 5,8% Rejection of industrial mean of production; 21,8%

Opposed to characteristics assumed as Rejection of traditional; products 29,3% without any geographical origin specified; 12,8%

Rejection of products industrially produced and of products with Search for low no origin prices; 17,0% specification; 13,3%

Figure 32 Summary pie of relative weight for each kind of behaviour identified through all segmentations.

The study gives also some interesting results on the interest to protect traditional food by a Geographical Indication. Geographical indication is widespread in European countries, especially for traditional food. In Balkan countries, there is a long tradition of protecting geographical indications but only Slovenia has already many products registered as PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) and PGI (Protected Geographical Indication). These labels are less well-known by consumers and not used by producers, except in Slovenia. However, there is a strong potential for this regulation on geographical indication. The research demonstrates that geographical indication is a purchase criterion for traditional food. This converges with the fact that traditional food is often associated to a specific place, especially a locality or a region of a country. Protecting traditional food by a label will increase the confidence of consumers, especially when we see that consumers do not have a strong confidence in hygiene practices of on farm and small producers/processors. A label involves stricter specification on hygiene rules, production and will make the product more attractive for consumers. Those labels guarantee that the concerned product is produced and processed and packed into its region of provenance (PGI) or region of origin (PDO). Of course, the price is also an important purchase criterion and a protection of the geographical indication must not increase the cost of the product in important proportions. This consideration is important to increase the notoriety of traditional food outside the region of origin or the country because, generally, traditional food is less consumed out of its region of origin.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 77/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 78 GA 212579

When the image of the region of origin is strong, and a label of protection may help to reinforce it, the geographical indication might work as a brand name, minimizing the cognitive effort of consumers during their decision-making process. Protecting traditional food with such labels can enable producers to become known and differentiate their products on the market. Thus, it can be interesting for small-scale producers particularly but not only. With knowledge about consumers’ preferences towards attributes of traditional products, there are marketing opportunities by putting emphasis on preferred characteristics. This study really put emphasis on the need to protect Balkans culinary heritage as much as possible, for tourists but also especially for domestic population. The protection of traditional products can also be interesting for countries entering EU. In conclusion, this survey about consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food is innovative in the Balkans and highlights some interesting results but it has some limits. The results are applied on fresh cow cheese and not traditional food in general, even if this product is traditional in all Balkan countries. This may highlight a specific behaviour towards cheese, so it will be interesting to conduct the survey on another category of product as meat for example. Moreover, even if a lot of similarities exist through the 6 western Balkan countries studied, differences in the concept of “traditional product” have been highlighted between countries. However, the results could be strengthened by WP9 quantitative survey which measures notably attitudes towards food in general, the consumption and purchase behaviour towards traditional dishes, perception of geographical indication, general living conditions. We could also compare results with those obtained in the European project TRUEFOOD focused on traditional food perception in European countries. This will be done in further scientific publications.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 78/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 79 GA 212579

TABLE OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Tables:

Table 1 Countries in which the most common traditional foods were listed by partners or focus group participants ... 10 Table 2 Description of the eleven profiles kept for the cards design ...... 23 Table 3 Sample distribution according to current occupation ...... 26 Table 4 Distribution of usual places of purchase quoted for fresh cow cheese detailed per country ...... 29 Table 5 Usual packaging according to quoted places of purchase ...... 31 Table 6 Proportion of respondents according to whether or not they think fresh cow cheese is a traditional product (detailed per country) ...... 33 Table 7 Cross-tabulation of frequencies for global consumption and frequencies for consumption on festive occasions ...... 35 Table 8 First descriptive statistics about cards ranking ...... 35 Table 9 Preferences toward cards ...... 36 Table 10 Importance of each attribute and utilities of their levels ...... 37 Table 11 Correlations between observed preferences and estimated preferences ...... 39 Table 12 Statements from additional questionnaire agreement scale ...... 39 Table 13 Importance and utility values detailed per cluster ...... 44 Table 14 Summary of global clustering ...... 49 Table 15 Cards preferences detailed per country (resulting of general descriptive statistics of cards ranking results) .. 53 Table 16 Importance of each attribute according to the country or region considered ...... 54 Table 17 Summary table for Bosnia and Herzegovina cluster analysis ...... 56 Table 18 Summary table for Croatia cluster analysis ...... 59 Table 19 Summary table for Macedonia cluster analysis ...... 62 Table 20 Summary table for Montenegro cluster analysis ...... 65 Table 21 Summary table for Serbia cluster analysis ...... 68 Table 22 Summary table for Slovenia cluster analysis...... 71

Figure:

Figure 1 Perception of traditional food ...... 20 Figure 2 Growth in a rural area: Distribution (per country) ...... 25 Figure 3 Gender distribution detailed per country ...... 25 Figure 4: Sample distribution per age cluster ...... 25 Figure 5: Sample distribution according to the educational level ...... 26 Figure 6 Distribution of respondents according to whether they are the main shopper, main cook or not ...... 27 Figure 7 Distribution according to the purchase frequency ...... 28 Figure 8 Number of respondents per usual place of purchase chosen for fresh cow cheese ...... 28 Figure 9 Distribution of respondents according to the frequency of own-production (global and per country) ...... 29 Figure 10 Proportion of respondents receiving free fresh cow cheese from friends or family (global and per country) 30 Figure 11 : Part1: Number of respondents per most usual packaging chosen / Part2: Distribution detailed per country ...... 30 Figure 12 Distribution of respondents according to consumption frequency of fresh cow cheese (global and per country) ...... 31 Figure 13 Distribution according to respondents’ desire to consume fresh cow cheese more often (global and per country) ...... 32 Figure 14 Number of respondents according to quoted barriers to fresh cow cheese more often consumption ...... 32 Figure 15Number of respondents per quoted reason of not considering fresh cow cheese as a traditional product... 33 Figure 16 : Distribution of respondents according to whether or not they consumed fresh cow cheese during childhood and same distribution detailed per country ...... 34 Figure 17 : Distribution of respondents according to the frequency of festive consumption of fresh cow cheese with family (global and per country) ...... 34 Figure 18 Pictures of corresponding cards ...... 36 Figure 19 Conjoint analysis: Importance of attributes and utilities of levels ...... 38 Figure 20 Respondents’ agreement towards the 9 statements ...... 40 Figure 21Sample distribution according to whether or not respondents have ever bought food with GI (global and per country) ...... 41 Figure 22 Sample distribution according to whether or not respondents consider food with GI as traditional (global and per country) ...... 42 Figure 23 Distribution of respondents according to whether or not they consider that traditional food should be protected by a GI, per country...... 42 Figure 24 Attribute importance and part-worth utilities by segment ...... 45 Figure 25 PCA factorial maps with clusters, projection of country and superimposition of correlation circles ...... 52 Figure 26 Bosnia and Herzegovina – Importance and utilities ...... 55

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 79/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 80 GA 212579

Figure 27 Croatia – Importance and utilities ...... 58 Figure 28 Macedonia – Importance and utilities ...... 61 Figure 29 Montenegro – Importance and utilities ...... 64 Figure 30 Serbia – Importance and utilities...... 67 Figure 31 Slovenia – Importance and utilities ...... 70 Figure 32 Summary pie of relative weight for each kind of behaviour identified through all segmentations...... 77

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 80/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 81 GA 212579

REFERENCES

Dussaix A.M., Saporta G., and al. (1998) L'analyse conjointe, la statistique et le produit idéal, CISIA

Giraud G., Amblard C., (2002), Viande bovine tracée et labellisée, quelle perception par le consommateur, Editions ENITA Clermont-Ferrand.

Gustafsson A., Herrmann A., and Huber F. (2003). Conjoint measurement - Methods and application. 3rd Ed., Springer.Liquet, J.-C. (2001) Cas d'analyse conjointe, Editions TEC & DOC

Pieniak Z., Verbeke W., Vanhonacker F., Guerrero L. and Hersleth M. (2009). Association between traditional food consumption and motives for food choice in six European countries. Appetite 53, 101–108.

Raghavarao D., Wiley J. B., Chitturi P. (2011) Choice-based conjoint analysis: Models and Designs, CRC Press

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 81/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 82 GA 212579

APPENDIXES

A. APPENDIX 1: FOCUS GROUP GUIDELINES

Target group: Two focus groups with the same population to reinforce results. The participants must be over 18 and the approximate distribution must be: 33% less than 35 years old, 33% between 35 and 55 and 33% over 55. The proportion of men and women must be balanced.

From 8 to 10 participants per focus group: One focus group should be in the capital, the other focus group should be in a major town, but relatively far from the capital.

Fill a sheet for each participant with name, gender, age, occupation, number of persons in the household, person in charge of purchase, rural/urban and the region of origin (these data will be known through the recruitment questionnaire).

GENERAL GUIDELINE: The discussion is about traditional food, dishes and products. The idea is to let participants express themselves on dishes and products, but we do not want a long discussion about participants’ cooking habits and recipes. Of course the processing is a key issue in many products, but if the discussion turns to domestic cooking, please bring it back to the products they can buy.

1 – WARM UP (go round the table) (The idea is to get the conversation going and have just an idea of the participants’ purchasing and cooking habits)

Ask each participant to give shortly the following indications: - First name - Occupation - Number of persons eating generally at home - Few words on food purchase habits (type of main outlet, frequency, eating out in restaurants, etc.) - If the household is used to cooking and if the participant likes cooking

2 - TRADITIONAL FOOD CONCEPT 2.1. – TRADITIONAL FOOD SPONTANEOUSLY EVOKED (To better know traditional food in WBC)

Write on sheet 5 examples of traditional food that come to your mind No discussion afterwards, not to influence following questions.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 82/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 83 GA 212579

2.2. - PRESENTATION OF PRODUCTS 8 different products: - 3 “traditional” products of the region or the country from the list each partner gave (1 cheese, 1 meat product (dried ham or dried sausage), if relevant olive oil, honey or another product) one of which with PGI-like label if possible, - 1 traditional dish, - 3 “industrial” products (1 cheese or meat product not traditional, 1 Vegeta, 1 strong brand yogurt like Dukat), - 1 “industrial” dish, tinned, not “traditional” Same products for the two focus groups. For the “traditional”-type foods, please use the list of products made by all partners to decide on which products you use, it may give you more ideas. Also the list is not closed; you can have products that you had not listed previously, if relevant. Favour regional products, and for the larger countries, also try to have products that can be found all over the country. The products chosen must be available on markets, in shops, supermarkets etc., not exclusively home-made for personal consumption. The products do not all need to have PGI/PDO/STG labels; they do not have to come from a group of producers.

Please, make a list of the products you consider as traditional (individual exercise)

The chosen products are written on a sheet and then discussed by the group:

Why did you consider these products as traditional? What are their differences comparing with products you did not choose?

2.3. – DESCRIPTION OF TRADITIONAL FOOD Collective discussion

Describe what is for you traditional food? List all words, ideas, associations evoked. Try to do a mapping with different categories of attributes of traditional food

2.4. – PRO-CONS

Praise traditional products expressing all positive points (give all that comes to mind, which is positive) and then express all criticisms and negative points, exaggerating your opinion.

3. TRADITIONAL FOOD CONSUMPTION AND PURCHASING BEHAVIOUR 3.1. - PURCHASE LOCATION

WHERE do you buy your traditional food? - Type of outlets - Frequency of visit - Motivations - Which differences with your usual purchasing habits?

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 83/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 84 GA 212579

3.2. - LAST CONSUMPTION MOMENT (To get an idea of a context of consumption, without declarative bias)

Please try to remember the last time you eat traditional food: What occasion? What kind of food? With whom? Why?

3.3. – TYPES OF TRADITIONAL FOOD EATEN AND CONSUMPTION MOMENT

This is not asked individually, but participants can answer individually, they do not have to all agree on one dish or product.

Could you quote? - One of the traditional dishes you usually eat? - One of the traditional products you usually eat?

Dish WHEN and with whom do you consume this traditional dish? HOW OFTEN do you consume this dish? For which occasions? How do you feel when you consume this dish?

Product WHEN and with whom do you consume this traditional product? HOW OFTEN do you consume this dish? For which occasions? How do you feel when you consume this dish?

4. IMAGE OF TRADITIONAL FOOD (The four following questions aimed to precise the perception of traditional products: the themes may overlap, but we will have globally a good overview of the perception)

4.1. – HEALTHY PRODUCTS? (To explore also what health means for consumer (not industrial or without fat…), if traditional products are considered as healthy because they are not made “industrially”, or unhealthy because they are fatty…)

Do you consider that traditional food products are “healthy products”? Why or why not?

4.2. - NATURAL PRODUCTS? (To explore also what natural means for consumer (low processing, or environmentally-friendly)

Do you consider that traditional products are natural products? Why and why not?

4.3. - QUALITY PRODUCTS? (To explore also what quality means for consumer (sensory properties, On-farm vs industrial processing, home-made, safety…)

Do you consider that traditional food products are “high quality products”? Why or why not?

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 84/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 85 GA 212579

4.4. - ORIGIN LABELS? • Do you know any labels of origin? What do they mean for you? Are they important for you?

• Do you consider that traditional products have to be protected by an official label of origin?

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 85/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 86 GA 212579

B. APPENDIX 2: PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS PER COUNTRY

Slovenia Montenegro Bosnia Serbia Macedonia Croatia Total

Number of 18 16 20 18 16 16 104 participants Gender Male 6 8 8 9 6 9 46 Female 12 8 12 9 10 7 58 Age 18-34 5 5 6 7 4 6 33 35-55 3 6 9 7 10 4 39 More than 55 9 5 5 4 2 6 31 Number of persons in the household 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 1 7 3 4 3 3 8 28 2 6 9 14 11 13 6 59 3-4 3 4 2 2 0 2 13 More than 4 Occupation Active 7 13 11 10 16 12 69 Inactive 0 0 5 3 0 1 9 Retired 8 3 4 1 0 1 17 Student 2 0 0 4 0 2 8 Household monthly income 3 12 16 3 5 11 50 <1000 € 9 4 4 9 6 4 36 1000-2000 € 2 0 - 3 4 1 10 2001-3000 € 2 0 - 3 1 0 6 > 3000 € Living area Rural 4 1 2 8 4 8 27 Urban 13 15 18 10 12 8 76 In charge of food shopping Always 9 5 0 9 12 8 43 Very often 3 4 15 9 - 1 32 Sometimes 2 5 5 0 - 4 16 Rarely 2 2 0 0 - 1 5 Never 1 0 0 0 4 2 7

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 86/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 87 GA 212579

C. APPENDIX 3: FOOD PRESENTED DURING FOCUS GROUPS PER COUNTRY

A – Food chosen in Slovenia Ričet Type of barley porridge cooked with beans which we consider to be a typical traditional dish – Home-made dish. Ričet Canned product made by local food industry – Canned dish. Ready meal with Chicken fillet in creamy sauce with potato dumplings prepared by chicken industry – Modern dish. Ready meal Tripe Tripe prepared by industry. Kranjska Klobasa PGI sausage. Chicken salami Poli Chicken salami under brand name Poli which is considered to be the most sold salami on the market and also being on market for long time. Nanoški sir PDO cheese produced by certified local dairy. Jošt The known brand of cheese being on market for long time and produced by major Slovene cheese producing factory. Alpsko mleko Milk with a market leading brand introduced to Slovene market some 40 years ago. Cocta soft drink which has been on market for almost 60 years and is promoted as “drinks of ours and yours youth. Cake Prekmurska Cake which is protected as traditional product. gibanica Cake Type of cake which is typically consumed when visiting Bled lake. It has been for many years renown for the taste; therefore it could be perceived as a product traditional for this touristic place.

B – Food chosen in Montenegro Kulen Mesopromet” Bijelo Polje – meat product produced by one of the largest domestic meat producers. Pljevaljski sir Traditional cheese from the north of Montenegro, which apart from Njeguski, Kucki, Kolasinski is one of the most known and wide spread consumed products from this category in Montenegro. Domestic mixed honey Made by traditional receipt, by individual producer. Industrial honey Industrial honey from Serbian producer present at Montenegrin market. Nika cheese Industrial hard cheese (producer Nika milk industry), cheese with 45% of fat, with the label “Goods from Montenegro”. Njeguška sausages Producer "Martex Cetinje". Traditional Montenegrim drying sausages prepared with traditional methods. Priganice Traditional Montenegrin food in the category of pastry which is consumed alone or with other food. Industrial meal Hamburger steak with rise. Producer Carnex which is for long time present at the market and it has leading position in production of such meals. Njeguški pršut “Martex” Cetinje (pršut vacuum package). Ham produced by producer which has been present on the market for a long period. Nika yogurt 1.6% Famous Montenegrin producer of dairy products that cover whole territory of Montenegro. Oil “Vital” Producer A.D. Vrbas- Brand that has been present for a long time on the market. Olive oil Barsko zlato Producer Olioprom Bar – received by using traditional technology.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 87/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 88 GA 212579

C – Food chosen in Bosnia Vlasiski cheese Traditional product - Vlasicki cheese, named after a famous Vlasic mountain, is one of the best white cheeses in the brine. Solid sheep milk cheese. Zdenka cheese Industrial product - Spread cheese - Although it is a Croatian product, is it a well-known brand in BiH and the region. Prsut - Herzegovinian Traditional product - Fresh pork ham is shaped and salted, it is ham further on dried under the specific climate conditions that are a constant switch from strong to slow wind and it slowly ferments. For the traditional Herzegovinian ham to be ready it sometimes takes more than a year. Fermented dry- Industrial product - Carnex offers a variety of different flavours in this sausages product group, both traditional and innovative, and reflects various national regions. They are produced from top quality raw materials, with the addition of spices and additives. They are not heat processed, but undergo cold smoking, while the maturing process is long and slow. Specific aroma, taste and color of the products are created during the maturing process. This kind of production process and low water content enable the long shelf life of fermented dry sausages. Herzegovinian honey Traditional product - It is well-known in the Balkans mostly for its quality due to clean pastries where the bees collect their nectar. Throughout history it has been popular in the neighboring countries, especially Serbia and Montenegro. Meadow honey cannot be standardized due to the habits of the farmers and the time of the year when it is made. Chocolate bananas Industrial product - There are many Serbian brands on BiH market, Pionir offering this type of dessert. The Pionir company still takes the central spot among them (coming from Subotica, Serbia). Kebab Traditional dish - It is a dish made from minced meat, shaped into small rolls and baked on a grill. It occurs in all parts of the Balkans, especially the former Yugoslavia, which was ruled by the Turks. The types of meat vary from place to place, and often depending on the religion. Sarma Industrial dish - Carnex - Many nations claim sarma to be their national dish. A mixture of juicy minced meat, rice and spices rolled in slices of sour cabbage is sold in a modern package. It takes a long time to make this dish but it can be consumed only a few minutes after the preparation

D – Food chosen in Serbia Slatko Traditional - Means “sweet” in Serbian is a thin fruit preserve made of fruit. Almost any kind of fruit can be used. The most usual types of slatko are those made of whole strawberries, slightly unriped skinned plums, or sour cherries. Traditionally, honored guests in a Serbian home are greeted with a spoonful of “slatko”. Kraljevacki kajmac Traditional - Dairy product which requires the milk from domestic spotted cattle - Simmental type, which significantly improves the protection of domestic races in the region of Kraljevo (West Serbia). Kajmak is almost always produced in the traditional way, in private households and can be bought in green markets. Reacently, it can be found in the supermarkets in large cities produced by cooperatives. However, commercial production is low. The best

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 88/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 89 GA 212579

varieties come from mountain cattle farms. It is usually enjoyed as an appetizer, but also as a condiment Duvan Čvarci Traditional - Produced in Šumadija region of central Serbia, especially around the town of Valjevo. In case of duvan čvarci process of slow fat frying/cooking is prolonged until completely all fat is extracted. The remainder is a mass of delicate fibers which resembles finely chopped tobacco Ćevapčići Traditional - Dish made of grilled meat. Serbian ćevapčići from Leskovac are made of beef (usually of three mixed types of cuts) and served on a plate with a lepinja. In other parts of Serbia ćevapčići are often made of both pork and beef. Sweet Bananica Industrial - Sweet that is present at Serbian market. It is produced by The Confectionary Industry Soko-Stark, Belgrade owned by Droga- Kolinska. Behind the “bananica” brand lays a long tradition. It is a "brand of love" designated for youngsters, though adults also love it. Mladi sir Industrial - Fresh, soft, white cheese with delicate, smooth flavour, with high nutritive values and low salt and fat content. It is produced firstly at the Serbian market by the Farmacom Concern, Dairy Industry Sabac (West Serbia). Afterwards is offered by other companies present at the domestic market, e.g. The Dairy Industry Imlek, Belgrade and the Dairy Industry Subotica, both are owned by Danube Foods. Cajna Kobasica Industrial - Smoked sausage industrially produced - The Meat Industry Carnex, Serbia. It is usually served as the appetizer. Ready meal - Peas Industrial - Peas with pork are the fast ready meal industrially with pork produced. Producer is the Meat Industry Carnex, Serbia. It is usually served for lunch.

E – Food chosen in Macedonia Tavche Gravche Beaken bearns. Pastrmajlija Macedonian Piza topped with meat and sometimes eggs. Ajvar Popular appetizer or side dish made of roasted paprika, ripe tomatoes. Ajvar is a seasonal dish in Macedonia, always made in late summer and early autumn, just after the paprika harvest, when many households also can or bottle their own ajvar for use throughout the winter season. Ajvar The second Ajvar was presented as “industrial”, not made at home. Shirden Mixture of 3 types of meat with rice in. White Cheese Yogurt Kulen (pepperoni)

F – Food chosen in Croatia Kulenova seka Croatian traditional sausage, made in continental, eastern part of Croatia. Pag cheese Croatian traditional cheese, made in middle Adriatic coast, specific taste. Olive oil from island Made traditionally on island Brač in southern Adriatic coast. Brač Cheese -Gauda, Sirela Industrial made cheese, famous Croatian cheese industry Sirela. Yoghurt Industrial yoghurt, milk industry Dukat Vegeta Stock Powder,supplement for meals, unique croatian product – mix of vegetables, herbs and spices Štrukle Croatian traditional meal, baked, made of puff pastry filled with a

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 89/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 90 GA 212579

mixture of fresh cottage cheese and eggs and covered with fresh cream Pizza Oven-baked, pastry usually topped with tomato sauce and cheese, originated from Italy Homemade donuts Traditionally homemade, sweet taste, usually eaten like snack Pršut Traditional smoked ham Olives Major agricultural importance in Mediterranean region Honey home made Brudet Fish stew Cheese Wine

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 90/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 91 GA 212579

D. APPENDIX 4: TRADITIONAL FOOD LISTED BY FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS

Country Location Participant Food 1 Food 2 Food 3 Food 4 Food 5 BiH Trebinje I1 ham cheese sarma cabbage and meat pies BiH Trebinje I2 cicvara sarma roast veal lamb cream soup pies BiH Trebinje I3 cabbage and meat sarma soup pies fish BiH Trebinje I4 cabbage and meat fish broccoli pies integralne žitarice BiH Trebinje I5 ham cheese roast veal cicvara sarma BiH Trebinje I6 ham, sausage cabbage sarma bean roast veal BiH Trebinje I7 corn flour and milk ham potato roast lamb wine BiH Trebinje I8 raštan sarma roast pig bean potato BiH Trebinje I9 wine from hercegovina raštan cheese (special kind) corn flour and milk cheese (special kind) BiH Trebinje I10 honey dried fig raštan corn flour and milk homemade bread BiH Banja Luka II1 cheese boiling vegetable sausages chicken fish BiH Banja Luka II2 bean potato cabbage bean soup BiH Banja Luka II3 bean bean sauerkraut corn flour and milk kajmak BiH Banja Luka II4 cheese bean corn meals BiH Banja Luka II5 soup pies traditional pasta potato chicken BiH Banja Luka II6 pies bean corn flour and milk moussaka traditional pasta BiH Banja Luka II7 cream soup with pies bean goulash traditional pasta vegetable BiH Banja Luka II8 bean bean corn flour and milk pancakes potato BiH Banja Luka II9 bean corn flour and milk pies sauerkraut bean BiH Banja Luka II10 homemade bread soups sarma bosnian pot plum jam Croatia Zagreb I1 sarma pepper štrukle beans beans čobanac Croatia Zagreb I2 štrukle lički lonac kulenova seka cheese from island sarma pag Croatia Zagreb I3 beans sarma pita leek french beans Croatia Zagreb I4 kulen pršut sarma home-made cheese beans Croatia Zagreb I5 sarma musaka blood sausages grah noodles with cabbage Croatia Zagreb I6 sarma turkey-hen with štrukli from zagorje cheese from island pršut noodles pag Croatia Zagreb I7 beans roast fish pork vegetables Croatia Zagreb I8 sarma beans pita (potato, mangel) soup (boiled meat) goulash Croatia Klek II1 wild cabbage beans uštipci veal paprikash mixed vegetables with meat Croatia Klek II2 uštipci polenta brudet fish cabbage Croatia Klek II3 beans sarma brudet (frogs, eel) kulen pršut Croatia Klek II4 beans rice polenta cabbage goulash Croatia Klek II5 turkey-hen with noodles pršut cabbage brudet (frogs, eels) pasta

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 91/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 92 GA 212579

Croatia Klek II6 sarma cheese and uštipci fish and mangel beans pršut Croatia Klek II7 sarma japrak wild cabbage beans roasted veal with potatoes Croatia Klek II8 sarma mixed vegetables with rice with fish beans čobanac fish paprikash meat Macedonia Skopje I1 beans traditional bread paprika and cheese honey Macedonia Skopje I2 shirden fasting dish mariovo cheese musaka janija Macedonia Skopje I3 pastrmajlija ajvar veal soup beans turli tava Macedonia Skopje I4 macedonian red wine ajvar shirden lutenica Macedonia Skopje I5 shirden zelnik sarma turlitava beans Macedonia Skopje I6 elbasan tava beans with meat pacha janija grashalnik Macedonia Skopje I7 lekja (type of beans) makalo smashed paprika stuffed paprika Macedonia Skopje I8 selsko meso sarma ajvar lutenica garlic soup Macedonia Strumica II1 cheese from berovo pastrmajlija from shtip ajvar traditional beans Macedonia Strumica II2 yellow cheese from shara smashed paprika with ajvar beans turlitava garlic and nuts Macedonia Strumica II3 shirden from prilep ajvar beans zelnik Macedonia Strumica II4 paprika with oil chicken soup traditional bread hard yellow cheese beans (bieno sirenje) Macedonia Strumica II5 lamb meat with spinach ajvar lutenica janija Macedonia Strumica II6 turlitava smashed paprika wheat with honey makalo Macedonia Strumica II7 selsko meso shirden turlitava ajvar burek Macedonia Strumica II8 smashed paprika with potato dish beans shirden taratur garlic and nuts Montenegro Podgorica I1 kačamak priganice mixed vegetable meat with vegetable bean na više načina Montenegro Podgorica I2 kačamak squash pies bean kuvana jagnjetina Montenegro Podgorica I3 hoecake pita bean unpealed potato kačamak with meat Montenegro Podgorica I4 njeguški pršut sarma raštan kačamak pita zeljanica Montenegro Podgorica I5 kačamak bean rolled steak barbecue mat with cicvara, gotovac potato Montenegro Podgorica I6 raštan cicvara rolled steak kačamak bean Montenegro Podgorica I7 potato raštan pies and pizza bean sarma Montenegro Podgorica I8 corn bread hoecake kačamak barbicue lamb kupus, rastan (kuvani sa svinjskim rebrima) Montenegro Kolašin II1 all cooked meals pite sa cheeseom i macaroni with kačamak, cicvara priganice zeljem cheeseom Montenegro Kolašin II2 kačamak bean potato pršuta cheese Montenegro Kolašin II3 cheese pršut hoecake kačamak kajmak Montenegro Kolašin II4 kačamak pršuta cheese (in sheets cabagge pies bean kolašinski) Montenegro Kolašin II5 kačamak bean podvarak pumpkin-pie sarma Montenegro Kolašin II6 bean kačamak priganice sarma podvarak Montenegro Kolašin II7 kačamak cicvara bacon squash pita savijaca

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 92/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 93 GA 212579

Montenegro Kolašin II8 kačamak lisnati cheese ham kaymak priganice Serbia Belgrade I1 soup sarma milk traditional bread cakes Serbia Belgrade I2 broth beans pies paprikas kacamak Serbia Belgrade I3 sarma beans pies baklava peas Serbia Belgrade I4 proja sarma podvarak ajvar rakija (traditional spirit) Serbia Belgrade I5 soup meat potato sarma beans Serbia Belgrade I6 sarma proja kacamak beans roast (pork, lamb, veal…) Serbia Belgrade I7 sarma gibanica beans podvarak roast (pork, lamb, veal…) Serbia Belgrade I8 proja sarma podvarak cabbage roast (pork, lamb, veal…) Serbia Belgrade I9 beans sarma gibanica proja roast (pork, lamb, veal…) Serbia Belgrade I10 soup sarma djuvec pilav beans Serbia Zajecar II1 beans sarma kajmak ajvar cheese Serbia Zajecar II2 potato beans cheese traditional bread kacamak Serbia Zajecar II3 beans zelje (vegetables, spinach traditional bread sarma similar to winter greens and spinach) Serbia Zajecar II4 cheese beans cabbage potato green beans Serbia Zajecar II5 chesse kacamak beans smoked meat proja Serbia Zajecar II6 cabbage potato beans spinach green beans Serbia Zajecar II7 beans potato cabbage peas green beans Serbia Zajecar II8 sarma beans musaka ajvar belmuz Slovenia Ljubljana* I1 prekmurska gibanica kranjska klobasa blejska kremšnita jota blood sausage Slovenia Ljubljana I2 beef soup roast pork fried potato blood sausage potica Slovenia Ljubljana I3 ričet sausage macaroni cheese tortelini with cheese vampi and vegetables Slovenia Ljubljana I4 hard-boiled corn mush veal stew potica jota sausage Slovenia Ljubljana I5 blood sausage hard-boiled corn mush potice štrudel gulash Slovenia Ljubljana I6 dishes made from potato dishes made from dishes made from milk corn mash Slovenia Ljubljana I7 hard-boiled corn mush small balls from dough gulash bean soup beef soup Slovenia Ljubljana I8 ričet rolled cake filled with bean soup belokranjska sour cabbage and turnip crashed walnuts pogača Slovenia Skofja Loka II1 vegetables soups stew with mixed fried potato soup made from compote ingredients fried wheat meal Slovenia Skofja Loka II2 vegetables soups dumplings made from green lettuce thin sauce made lasagna potato from cooked wheat Slovenia Skofja Loka II3 beef soup fish fried potato hard boiled buck braised beef stake weed meal Slovenia Skofja Loka II4 ješpren thin sauce made from potica godla hard-boiled corn mush cooked wheat Slovenia Skofja Loka II5 beef soup +”fried” potato ješperen-fižol gulash ričet juha+por +beef cooked in soup + (barley&beans) green lettuce Slovenia Skofja Loka II6 beef soup fried potato vegetable cooked jota

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 93/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 94 GA 212579

dishes Slovenia Skofja Loka II7 ričet hard-boiled corn mush milk beef potato Slovenia Skofja Loka II8 ješpren gulash hard-boiled corn mush naturally soured milk jota (vegetable stew) Slovenia Skofja Loka II9 polenta hard boiled buck ješpren varied dishes of weed meal potato

Glossary BiH: cicvara/gruel: kajmac with flour raštan: traditional cabbage

Croatia: Struckle: pastry with filling –desert Grah: bean soup Uštipci: doughnuts Licki Ionac: stew of fresh cabbage, potatoes, root vegetables, and meat

Macedonia: Pacha: soup with chicken meat and garlic Zelnik: pie Lutenica: like Ajvar ?, Elbasan Tava: lamb baked with yogurt and eggs.. Makalo: tomato gravy Turlitava: baked meat and vegetables Burek: phyllo pie Selsko meso: baked dish with meat, meatballs, smoked meat Taratur: cucumber and yogurt

Montenegro Pita: pie Zeljanica: vegetable Kuvana jagnjetina: boiled lamb Priganice: doughnuts

Serbia: Kacamak : traditional meal made of corn flower, similar to gruel or porridge Sarma: stuffed picked cabbage rolls

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 94/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 95 GA 212579

Proja: Traditional dish made of corn flower and cheese, baked in oven Traditional bread: similar to scone, however eaten with salt Podvarak: Traditional dish made of picked cabbage Ajvar: Traditional dish made of baked peppers Gibanica: Traditional cheese pie Musaka: dish made of potato and ground meat, baked with milk in oven Belmuz: Traditional dish in south east Serbia, made of cheese and corn flower, not well known in other parts of the country Kajmak: Traditional creamy spread made of full fat milk Pilav: dish made of rice, vegetables and chicken meat Baklava: Turkish and Greek specialty, cake with sugar and nuts Paprikas: traditional meal with pepper, potato and dried meat

Slovenia: * participants were recruited in Ljubljana and focus group took place in Domzale Jota: a tipical vegetable stew made out of cabbage, beans and potatoes, sometimes pork dried meat or sausage is cooked with vegetables to give a specific taste Potica: a special rolled cake filled with different fillers Štrudel: (apple) pie Belokranjska pogača: flat cake from Beal krajina (a SE part of Slovenia) – a protected product Godla: when blood sausage is prepared at home they have to be cooked before roasting, during cooking some decayed so that content float in the water in which sausages were coked; this “soup” is called godla Ješpren-fižol: barley&beans - ješpren means barley, so for the dish made from cooked barley with added beans, potato and carrots sometimes is used just this word but usually word ričet is used; one participant’s explanation’s was that ješprenj is a ričet with less ingredients (therefore a poor ričet) Polenta: hard boiled corn mesh which is not teared up into small pieces; if it is teared up into small pieces it is called žganci

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 95/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 96 GA 212579

E. APPENDIX 5: NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS WHO SELECTED EACH PRODUCT AS BEING TRADITIONAL IN EACH FOCUS GROUP

Country Product Number of Number of participants participants (larger town) (smaller town) BiH Banja Luka (10) Trebinje (10) Solid sheep milk cheese – Vlasicki cheese 10 10 Spread cheese - Zdenka cheese 0 0 Prsut (Herzegovinian ham) 10 10 Fermented dry sausages - Carnex 3 2 Honey – "Herzegovinian honey" 10 9 Chocolate bananas – Pionir 0 0 Kebab sausage 3 5 Sarma – Carnex 0 9 Croatia Zagreb (8) Klek (8) “Kulenova seka”- sausage made in continental, eastern part of 7 0 Croatia Pag cheese - made in middle Adriatic coast, specific taste 3 0 Olive oil - from island Brač, southern Adriatic coast 4 4 Cheese -Gauda, Sirela- famous Croatian cheese industry 1 0 Yoghurt- industrial yoghurt, milk industry Dukat 1 0 Vegeta -Stock powder,supplement for meals, unique croatian 2 0 product Štrukle – Croatian traditional meal, baked, made of puff pastry filled 5 0 with a mixture of fresh cottage cheese and eggs and covered with fresh cream Pizza- oven-baked, originated from Italy 0 0 Homemade donuts- sweet taste, usually eaten like snack 1 5 Traditional smoked ham „Pršut“ 1 7 Olives- major agricultural importance in Mediterranean region 1 7 Honey home made 4 2 Brudet –fish stew 1 4 Cheese (crumbly cottage cheese ?) 3 8 Wine 1 2 Macedonia Skopje (8) Strumica (8) Tavche Gravche- Baked bearns 6 8 Pastrmajlija- nowadays called Macedonian Piza topped with meat 3 5 and sometimes eggs Ajvar: appetizer or side dish made of roasted paprika, ripe tomatoes. 6 6 Ajvar, “industrial”, not made at home. 1 0 Shirden - mixture of 3 types of meat with rice in 7 4 White Cheese 2 0 Yogurt 0 0 Kulen (pepperoni) 0 0 Montenegro Podgorica (8) Kolašin (8) Kulen (”Mesopromet” Bijelo Polje –produced by one of the largest 0 0 domestic meat producers). Pljevaljski sir (cheese from the north of Montenegro). 6 (if home- 7 made) Domestic mixed honey 0 3 Industrial honey from Serbian producer present at Montenegrin 0 0 market Industrial hard cheese „Nika” (with the label „Goods from 0 0 Montenegro”) Njeguška sausages (producer "Martex Cetinje" Montenegrin with 4 2 traditional methods) Priganice (Montenegrin pastry consumed alone or with other food) 8 7 Industrial meal - hamburger steak with rice (Carnex- producer which 0 0

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 96/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 97 GA 212579

is for long time present at the market and has leading position in such meals) Njeguški pršut “Martex” Cetinje (vacuum package) which has been 6 6 present on the market for a long period Nika yogurt 1.6% (famous Montenegrin producer of dairy) 1 0 Oil “Vital” (A.D. Vrbas- brand, present for a long time on the market) 3 1 Serbia Belgrade (10) Zajecar (8) Slatko a thin fruit preserve made of fruit. 7 7 Bananica: Sweet, Confectionary Industry Soko-Stark 1 1 Kraljevacki kajmak is a dairy product made from Simmental cattle 9 7 milk Mladi sir (Fresh Soft Cheese) 6 5 Duvan Čvarci (Šumadija region of central Serbia), slow fat 9 8 frying/cooking is prolonged until all fat is extracted. Cajna Kobasica - Smoked sausage industrially produced - Carnex 2 0 Ćevapčići is a dish made of grilled meat 4 2 Peas with pork – Carnex 4 3 Slovenia Ljulbjana (9) Skofja Loka (9) ričet: type of barley porridge cooked with beans 9 8 ričet (local food industry) 9 1 ričet (local food industry) 9 1 industrial ready meal: chicken fillet in creamy sauce with potato 0 0 dumplings, ready meal prepared by industry: “tripe”(vampi), 3 3 (if home- made) PGI sausage “kranjska klobasa” Arvaj 9 9 PGI sausage “kranjska klobasa” different certified producer 9 5 chicken salami under brand name Poli, most sold salami on the 0 0 market, on market for long time. PDO cheese “Nanoški sir” produced by certified local dairy 4 6 known brand of cheese being on market for long time “Jošt” 1 0 produced by major Slovene cheese producing factory. “Alpsko mleko”, a market leading brand introduced to Slovene 2 3 market some 40 years ago soft drink Cocta, which has been on market for almost 60 years and is 3 0 promoted as “drinks of ours and yours youth” cake named “prekmurska gibanica” TSG, 8 2 type of cake typically consumed when visiting Bled lake (krem snita). 4 4

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 97/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 98 GA 212579

F. APPENDIX 6: CARDS PRESENTATION

11 cards had been submitted to the ranking task:

‐ 9 from the orthogonal design ‐ 2 holdouts

An orthogonal design means constraints on the cards that are presented, they may not present all the combinations wanted but it is a guarantee of more rigorous results (no confusions between variables).

Below stand the eleven cards as presented to respondents (after translation and adaptation of levels):

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 98/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 99 GA 212579

G. APPENDIX 7: CONJOINT ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTIONNAIRE WP8 Consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food

Name of interviewer: Place of interview (country and town): Date: _ _ /_ _ / _ _ Number of questionnaire:

We are working on a European research project about consumers’ food habits. Would you be willing to answer some questions? It will take approximately around 20mn. Your responses will provide important information in order to improve knowledge on Food Consumer Science in the Western Balkan countries. Please understand that this questionnaire is completely anonymous & confidential.

Do you consume fresh cow cheese? 1. Yes 2. No STOP the interview

CARDS RANKING: In the table below, interviewer must report the sequence of identification letters of cards (letter on the lower right corner of cards) according to the ranking of the respondent: Here are eleven labels showing eleven different combinations describing fresh cow cheese. Supposing you want to purchase fresh cow cheese, I ask you to rank them according to what you see on the cards (Rank 1 is the most preferred label, rank 11 is the least preferred). There is no correct answer; we are only interested in your opinion.

Rank Rk 1 Rk 2 Rk 3 Rk 4 Rk 5 Rk 6 Rk 7 Rk 8 Rk 9 Rk 10 Rk 11 given

Card ID

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE: Introduction to additional questionnaire

Now, please we want you to answer to an additional questionnaire. First, I’m going to ask you a few questions on your consumption and purchase habits about fresh cow cheese:

Q1 How often do you buy fresh cow cheese? 1. More than once a week 2. 1 to 4 times a month 3. Less than once a month 4. Never (→ Q4) Q2 Where do you buy this product? 1. At the supermarket - Several responses possible - 2. On open market 3. At a farm 4. At a restaurant

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 99/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 100 GA 212579

5. At friends or family 6. Other: …...... Q3 How is packed the fresh cow cheese you 1. Already sealed in a plastic box usually buy? 2. Already sealed in a plastic bag - One response possible - 3. On desired weight 4. Other: …...... 5. I do not buy it Q4 Do you (personally or somebody in your 1. Always household) make your own fresh cow 2. Sometimes cheese? 3. Never Q5 Does a friend or some family give you fresh 1. Yes home-made cow cheese? 2. No Q6 How often do you consume fresh cow 1. More than once a week cheese? 2. 1 to 4 times a month 3. Less than once a month Q7 Would you like to consume it more often? 1. Yes 2. No (→ Q9) 3. I do not know (→ Q9) Q8 If yes, what are the main barriers to its 1. Too expensive consumption? (coded open answer) 2. Too fat - Several responses possible - 3. Not tasty 4. Not convenient 5. Not very easy to find 6. Preference for other cheese 7. Other: ...... ……...... ……………………………………… … 8. I do not know Q9 In your opinion, is fresh cow cheese a 1. Yes (→ Q11) traditional product? 2. No 3. I do not know (→ Q11) Q10 If not traditional, why? (Coded open 1. Industrially made answer) 2. Contains additives and - Several responses possible - conservators 3. Not locally made 4. Found everywhere 5. Other: .……...... ……………..……………………… ………………………………………… …………… 6. I do not know Q11 Did you consume it when you were a 1. Yes child? 2. No 3. I cannot remember Q12 Do you consume it during festive 1. Always occasions with your family or friends? 2. Sometimes 3. Never Q13 Where do you usually buy or acquire 1. At the supermarket cheese in general (sheep’s cheese, cow 2. On open market cheese…)? 3. At a farm - Several responses possible - 4. At a restaurant 5. Given or sold by friends or family 6. Own production

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 100/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 101 GA 212579

7. Other: ………………………………

Here interviewer has to enounce the written definition of Geographical Indication and then ask the 3 following questions to the respondent.

Now, we are going to talk about Geographical Indication (GI), I give you a definition of GI and then you will have to answer 3 questions related to that concept.

I A Geographical Indication is an official name or sign used on certain food products which corresponds to a specific geographical location or origin (e.g. a town, region or country) and may act as a certification that the food possesses certain qualities or enjoys a certain reputation, due to its local origin. I1 Have you ever bought food with geographical 1. Yes indication? 2. No 3. I do not know I2 Do you consider food with geographical indication 1. Yes as traditional food? 2. It depends on the food 3. No 4. I do not know I3 Do you consider that traditional food should be 1. Yes protected by a geographical indication? 2. It depends on the food 3. No 4. I do not know

Now, the interviewer should give the printed scale as a support document for the respondent. As the interviewer enounces the statements, the respondent can refer to his sheet to show his degree of agreement.

Then, I ask you to please give your opinion about the following statements I’m going to enounce, by choosing on the scale designed on this plastic card which is your degree of agreement:

Do Strongly Totally Disagree Neutral Agree not disagree agree know 1 2 3 4 5 0 L0 Food sold on the open market should be produced and

processed with higher hygiene standards L1 Home-production is unhygienic L2 Farmers need to be trained regarding good hygiene practices L3 There should be more health

controls in food production L4 Specific hygiene conditions should apply to on-farm / small scale processing units L5 I like to know which region the

food I buy comes from L6 I do not care who produced

the food I buy L7 The taste of food depends on

its region of production

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 101/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 102 GA 212579

L8 The country of origin is

important for me L9 I like to support producers from

my region

The final step of this questionnaire consists in a few socio-demographic questions that interviewer should ask after having specify that data are strictly confidential.

To conclude, here I need to ask you a few more questions about personal data (for statistics purpose only):

D1 Where do you live? (town + country) Town:...... Country:...... D2 Did you grow up in a rural area? 1. Yes 2. No D3 Are you the main shopper in your 1. Yes household? 2. No 3. We share D4 Are you the main cook in your 1. Yes household? 2. No 3. We share D5 Gender: 1. Male 2. Female D6 Year of birth: D7 Education level: 1. Unfinished elementary school 2. Finished elementary school 3. Finished secondary school 4. Finished college 5. Finished faculty D8 Current occupation 1. Unemployed (currently) 2. Student / Trainee 3. Pensioner 4. Unskilled and skilled worker 5. Farmer/Fishman 6. Storekeeper/Trader/Craftsman 7. Employee, intermediate profession 8. Manager / Executive 9. Other: ...... D9 Household net Income in the last 1. No income month: 2. Below minimum income for a person (adapted and specific to each 3. From min 1 pers to min HH income country) 4. From min to average HH income 5. Above average HH income 6. Refusal D10 Number of household members (including you): D11 Number of children under 18 in the household:

This is the end of this interview. Thank you very much for your involvement. The results of this project will be available on http://www.focus-balkans.org/ Focus Balkans website.

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 102/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 103 GA 212579

H. APPENDIX 8: CHARACTERIZATION OF CLUSTERS (SPAD OUTPUTS)

 GLOBAL ‐ Characterization of clusters by distinction in importance and utility values

Cluster 1 (216 ind.) Mean value Standard Standard Mean value Test VARIABLES in total deviation deviation Proba in cluster Value sample (cluster) (global) ORIGIN_IMP 49.073 25.412 14.414 17.232 22.28 0.000 origin1 (Local) 1.924 0.241 0.952 1.297 21.06 0.000 Production3 (Industrial) -0.347 -0.554 0.979 1.608 2.09 0.018

Production1 (Small dairy) -0.019 0.185 0.945 1.143 -2.89 0.002 PACK_IMP 10.928 14.100 10.402 12.803 -4.02 0.000 PRICE_IMP 18.659 28.717 10.679 19.184 -8.51 0.000 PROD_IMP 21.339 31.771 11.900 19.571 -8.65 0.000 origin2 (No origin) -2.184 -0.434 0.851 1.221 -23.26 0.000

Cluster 2 (364 ind. ) Mean Mean Standard Standard value in Test VARIABLES value in deviation deviation Proba total Value cluster (cluster) (global) sample Production2 (On-farm) 1.720 0.369 1.020 1.441 21.42 0.000 PROD_IMP 48.824 31.771 16.707 19.571 19.91 0.000 Production1 (Small dairy) 0.603 0.185 1.204 1.143 8.36 0.000 origin2 (No origin) -0.005 -0.434 0.920 1.221 8.04 0.000 packaging1 (Sold loose) 0.047 -0.205 0.895 0.912 6.33 0.000 origin1 (Local) -0.114 0.241 1.010 1.297 -6.24 0.000 packaging2 (Prepacked) -0.047 0.205 0.895 0.912 -6.33 0.000 ORIGIN_IMP 20.243 25.412 13.639 17.232 -6.85 0.000 PRICE_IMP 17.722 28.717 9.804 19.184 -13.09 0.000 Production3 (Industrial) -2.323 -0.554 0.856 1.608 -25.13 0.000

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 103/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 104 GA 212579

Cluster 3 (238 ind.) Mean Mean Standard Standard value in Test VARIABLES value in deviation deviation Proba total Value cluster (cluster) (global) sample price1 (Low) 1.983 0.113 0.946 1.463 22.02 0.000 PRICE_IMP 49.909 28.717 15.639 19.184 19.03 0.000 price2 (Medium) 0.398 0.117 0.975 0.956 5.06 0.000 Production3 (Industrial) -0.120 -0.554 0.972 1.608 4.65 0.000 origin2 (No origin) -0.189 -0.434 0.807 1.221 3.45 0.000 origin1 (Local) 0.017 0.241 0.805 1.297 -2.97 0.001 Production2 (On-farm) -0.046 0.369 0.940 1.441 -4.97 0.000 ORIGIN_IMP 16.866 25.412 10.765 17.232 -8.54 0.000 PROD_IMP 19.527 31.771 10.942 19.571 -10.77 0.000 price3 (High) -2.381 -0.230 0.740 1.547 -23.95 0.000

Cluster 4 (382 ind.) Mean Mean Standard Standard value in Test VARIABLES value in deviation deviation Proba total Value cluster (cluster) (global) sample price3 (High) 1.024 -0.230 1.220 1.547 19.19 0.000 Production3 (Industrial) 0.743 -0.554 1.220 1.608 19.10 0.000 origin2 (No origin) -0.006 -0.434 0.965 1.221 8.29 0.000 packaging2 (Prepacked) 0.469 0.205 0.959 0.912 6.86 0.000 PACK_IMP 16.991 14.100 13.436 12.803 5.34 0.000 PRICE_IMP 31.677 28.717 19.665 19.184 3.65 0.000 price2 (Medium) -0.015 0.117 1.098 0.956 -3.25 0.001 PROD_IMP 29.050 31.771 18.526 19.571 -3.29 0.001 ORIGIN_IMP 22.282 25.412 12.981 17.232 -4.30 0.000 Production1 (Small dairy) -0.086 0.185 1.241 1.143 -5.62 0.000 packaging1 (Sold loose) -0.469 -0.205 0.959 0.912 -6.86 0.000 origin1 (Local) -0.234 0.241 1.191 1.297 -8.66 0.000 Production2 (On-farm) -0.657 0.369 1.259 1.441 -16.86 0.000 price1 (Low) -1.010 0.113 1.280 1.463 -18.17 0.000

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 104/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 105 GA 212579

‐ Characterization of clusters by categorical supplementary variables

Cluster: 1 (216 respondents - 18.00%) % of % of % of Characteristic Test- Variables modality modality in cluster in Proba Weight modalities Value in cluster sample modality Q12_With_family Never 12.04 7.58 28.57 2.47 0.007 91 Q11_As_child No 8.33 5.17 29.03 2.06 0.020 62 Q11_As_child I cannot remember 12.50 8.75 25.71 1.96 0.025 105

Q8_7Other No 27.78 34.83 14.35 -2.35 0.009 418 Q11_As_child Yes 79.17 86.00 16.57 -2.97 0.001 1032

Cluster: 2 (364 respondents - 30.33%)

% of % of % of Characteristic Test- Variables modality modality in cluster in Proba Weight modalities Value in cluster sample modality

Q2_5FriendsFamily Yes 29.95 20.92 43.43 4.89 0.000 251 Q8_5Hard_to_find Yes 15.66 10.67 44.53 3.50 0.000 128 I2_GItradi No 9.62 6.33 46.05 2.87 0.002 76 Q13_5GFriends_fa Yes 33.52 27.75 36.64 2.85 0.002 333 mily It depends on the I2_GItradi 34.62 28.83 36.42 2.83 0.002 346 food Q2_1Supermarket No 45.88 39.75 35.01 2.79 0.003 477 Q2_3Farm Yes 19.51 15.17 39.01 2.64 0.004 182 Q5_Friends Yes 57.14 51.33 33.77 2.60 0.005 616 Q4_Own_prod Always 8.79 6.50 41.03 1.96 0.025 78 Q8_6OtherCheese Yes 7.14 5.08 42.62 1.96 0.025 61

Q8_6OtherCheese No 92.86 94.92 29.68 -1.96 0.025 1139 D3_Mainshopper No 32.14 36.75 26.53 -2.13 0.017 441 Q7_more_often No 41.76 46.67 27.14 -2.19 0.014 560 Q5_Friends No 42.86 48.67 26.71 -2.60 0.005 584 Q13_5GFriends_fa No 66.48 72.25 27.91 -2.85 0.002 867 mily Q2_3Farm No 71.98 78.00 27.99 -3.20 0.001 936 from min HH to D9_Income 25.27 32.25 23.77 -3.38 0.000 387 average HH Q8_5Hard_to_find No 84.34 89.33 28.64 -3.50 0.000 1072 Q2_1Supermarket Yes 45.60 53.42 25.90 -3.52 0.000 641 I2_GItradi Yes 46.70 55.92 25.34 -4.17 0.000 671 Q2_5FriendsFamily No 61.54 72.25 25.84 -5.31 0.000 867 Q13_7Gother No 34.34 48.67 21.40 -6.53 0.000 584

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 105/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 106 GA 212579

Cluster 3 (238 respondents - 19.83%)

% of % of % of Characteristic modality cluster Test- Variables modality in Proba Weight modalities in in Value sample cluster modality

Q2_2Market Yes 48.74 36.17 26.73 4.38 0.000 434 Q13_2GMarket Yes 48.32 37.08 25.84 3.89 0.000 445 Q13_6GOwnProd No 97.48 94.08 20.55 2.50 0.006 1129 D4_Maincook Yes 44.12 37.50 23.33 2.27 0.012 450 Q2_5FriendsFamily No 78.15 72.25 21.45 2.22 0.013 867 Q4_Own_prod Never 81.09 75.58 21.28 2.16 0.015 907 D8_Occup Other 12.61 8.83 28.30 2.10 0.018 106 Q8_1Expensive Yes 19.75 15.25 25.68 2.02 0.022 183

D8_Occup Student/Trainee 10.50 14.67 14.20 -1.97 0.024 176 Q8_1Expensive No 80.25 84.75 18.78 -2.02 0.022 1017 Q1_Pfreq Never 3.78 6.83 10.98 -2.03 0.021 82 Q13_6GOwnProd Yes 2.52 5.92 8.45 -2.50 0.006 71 Finished D7_Educ 12.61 19.08 13.10 -2.84 0.002 229 faculty Q2_2Market No 47.48 57.00 16.52 -3.23 0.001 684 Q13_2GMarket No 51.68 62.92 16.29 -3.89 0.000 755 Q4_Own_prod Always 0.84 6.50 2.56 -4.47 0.000 78

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 106/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 107 GA 212579

Cluster 4 (382 respondents - 31.83%)

% of % of % of Characteristic modality cluster Test- Variables modality Proba Weight modalities in in Value in sample cluster modality

I2_GItradi Yes 63.35 55.92 36.07 3.50 0.000 671 D3_Mainshopper No 43.98 36.75 38.10 3.47 0.000 441 I3_Proctect I do not know 7.85 4.83 51.72 3.09 0.001 58 Q13_6GOwnProd Yes 9.16 5.92 49.30 3.04 0.001 71 Q11_As_child Yes 90.31 86.00 33.43 2.92 0.002 1032 Q2_1Supermarket Yes 59.42 53.42 35.41 2.79 0.003 641 Q2_5FriendsFamily No 77.49 72.25 34.14 2.73 0.003 867 D4_Maincook No 50.00 44.42 35.83 2.59 0.005 533 Q7_more_often No 52.09 46.67 35.54 2.51 0.006 560 Q12_With_family Always 49.48 44.58 35.33 2.27 0.012 535 D8_Occup Farmer/Fishman 3.93 2.33 53.57 2.23 0.013 28 Q2_3Farm No 81.94 78.00 33.44 2.20 0.014 936 D9_Income from min hh to avera 36.65 32.25 36.18 2.15 0.016 387 Q4_Own_prod Always 8.90 6.50 43.59 2.14 0.016 78 D8_Occup Storekeeper/Trader/C 8.90 6.58 43.04 2.05 0.020 79

D4_Maincook Yes 33.25 37.50 28.22 -2.02 0.022 450 Q11_As_child I cannot remember 5.76 8.75 20.95 -2.46 0.007 105 Q4_Own_prod Never 70.68 75.58 29.77 -2.61 0.005 907 D3_Mainshopper We share 19.90 25.00 25.33 -2.75 0.003 300 Q2_3Farm Yes 10.73 15.17 22.53 -2.90 0.002 182 D9_Income Refusal 7.85 11.92 20.98 -2.96 0.002 143 Q13_6GOwnProd No 90.84 94.08 30.74 -3.04 0.001 1129 Q7_more_often I do not know 9.95 14.58 21.71 -3.10 0.001 175 Q2_1Supermarket No 33.25 39.75 26.62 -3.10 0.001 477 Q2_5FriendsFamily Yes 15.18 20.92 23.11 -3.33 0.000 251 I2_GItradi It depends on the foo 20.42 28.83 22.54 -4.41 0.000 346

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 107/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 108 GA 212579

‐ Characterization of clusters by numerical supplementary variables

There are significant statistical differences in answers to L0, L1, L2, L3, L4, L7, L8 scales according to the segment of consumers considered.

Cluster 1 (216 respondents) Standard Standard Mean in Mean in total Test Characteristic variables deviation deviation in Proba cluster sample Value in cluster total sample D10_Household 4.116 3.918 1.549 1.458 2.20 0.014

Cluster 2 (364 respondents) Standard Standard Mean in Mean in total Test Characteristic variables deviation deviation in Proba cluster sample Value in cluster total sample L8 4.039 3.932 0.966 0.944 2.58 0.005

L3 4.162 4.242 0.812 0.773 -2.37 0.009 L2 4.146 4.241 0.816 0.783 -2.76 0.003 L0 3.961 4.162 1.023 0.914 -4.99 0.000 L4 3.881 4.085 0.970 0.855 -5.36 0.000 L1 2.233 2.556 0.875 1.110 -6.46 0.000

Cluster 3 (238 respondents) Standard Standard Mean in Mean in total Test Characteristic variables deviation deviation in Proba cluster sample Value in cluster total sample L7 3.563 3.410 0.985 1.108 2.30 0.011

D10_Household 3.689 3.918 1.298 1.458 -2.71 0.003

Cluster 4 (382 respondents) Standard Standard Mean in Mean in total Test Characteristic variables deviation deviation in Proba cluster sample Value in cluster total sample L1 2.910 2.556 1.233 1.110 7.40 0.000 L0 4.382 4.162 0.737 0.914 5.65 0.000 L4 4.267 4.085 0.744 0.855 4.98 0.000

L8 3.826 3.932 0.944 0.944 -2.59 0.005 D11_Nchildren 0.654 0.771 0.891 0.932 -2.89 0.002 L7 3.253 3.410 1.175 1.108 -3.29 0.000

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 108/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 109 GA 212579

I. APPENDIX 9: IMPORTANCE UTILITIES AND CHARACTERIZATION PER

CLUSTER AND COUNTRY

 BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

CLUSTER --> 1 2 3 Total Local 1.40 0.11 -0.07 0.58 Geographical No origin -1.29 -0.14 -0.24 -0.63 origin Country -0.11 0.03 0.31 0.05 Sold loose -0.28 -1.61 -0.13 -0.70 Packaging Prepacked 0.28 1.61 0.13 0.70 Low price -0.03 -0.44 1.42 0.20 Price Medium price 0.35 0.20 0.94 0.45 UTILITIES High price -0.33 0.24 -2.36 -0.65 Small-dairy production 0.69 0.06 0.10 0.32 Production On-farm production 1.18 0.11 -0.12 0.48 Industrial production -1.86 -0.17 0.02 -0.80

GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN 34.67 19.09 17.14 24.82 PACKAGING 9.93 33.71 16.92 19.92 IMPORTANCES PRICE 18.82 25.78 45.93 28.13 PRODUCTION 36.58 21.42 20.01 27.12

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 109/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 110 GA 212579

‐ Characterization by categorical variables

Cluster 1 (80 resp. - 40.00%)

% of % of % of Characteristic modality cluster Test- Variables modality Proba Weight modalities in in Value in cluster sample modality

Q4_Own_prod Always 16.25 9.00 72.22 2.65 0.004 18 Q13_2GMarket No 91.25 83.50 43.71 2.27 0.012 167 Q8_3NotTasty No 100.00 96.00 41.67 2.16 0.015 192

Q8_3NotTasty Yes 0.00 4.00 0.00 -2.16 0.015 8 Q13_2GMarket Yes 8.75 16.50 21.21 -2.27 0.012 33

Cluster 2 (69 resp. - 34.50%)

% of % of % of Characteristic modality cluster Test- Variables modality Proba Weight modalities in in Value in cluster sample modality

Age_cluster 26-35 42.03 31.00 46.77 2.27 0.012 62 from min HH to D9_Income 39.13 28.50 47.37 2.23 0.013 57 average HH D8_Occup Other 27.54 19.00 50.00 2.02 0.022 38

Q11_As_child Yes 84.06 91.00 31.87 -2.18 0.015 182 from min 1 pers D9_Income 27.54 39.50 24.05 -2.38 0.009 79 to min HH On desired Q3_Package 7.25 22.00 11.36 -3.69 0.000 44 weight

Cluster 3 (51 resp. - 25.50%)

% of % of % of Characteristic modality cluster Test- Variables modality Proba Weight modalities in in Value in cluster sample modality

Q2_3Farm No 96.08 86.00 28.49 2.33 0.010 172 Q2_2Market Yes 31.37 19.50 41.03 2.21 0.013 39 Q4_Own_prod Never 88.24 76.50 29.41 2.18 0.015 153 It depends on the I2_GItradi 43.14 30.00 36.67 2.16 0.015 60 food

D7_Educ Finished faculty 7.84 19.50 10.26 -2.35 0.009 39 Q4_Own_prod Always 0.00 9.00 0.00 -2.67 0.004 18

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 110/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 111 GA 212579

‐ Characterization by numerical variables

Cluster 1 (80 respondents) Standard Mean in Standard Mean in deviation Test Characteristic variables total deviation Proba cluster in total Value sample in cluster sample L5recod 4.525 4.390 0.524 0.684 2.27 0.012 L3recod 4.638 4.510 0.481 0.648 2.27 0.012 L0recod 4.620 4.500 0.622 0.696 1.98 0.024

L1recod 2.153 2.410 0.952 1.073 -2.63 0.004

Cluster 3 (51 respondents) Standard Mean in Standard Mean in deviation Test Characteristic variables total deviation Proba cluster in total Value sample in cluster sample L1recod 2.851 2.410 1.167 1.073 3.27 0.001

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 111/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 112 GA 212579

 CROATIA

CLUSTER --> 1 2 3 Total Local 0.08 1.10 -0.14 0.18 Geographical No origin -0.02 -2.48 -0.10 -0.61 origin Country -0.07 1.39 0.24 0.43 Sold loose -0.56 0.05 0.17 -0.01 Packaging Prepacked 0.56 -0.05 -0.17 0.01 Low price 0.24 -0.05 0.21 0.16 Price Medium price 0.01 -0.11 0.12 0.04 UTILITIES High price -0.24 0.16 -0.32 -0.20 Small-dairy production -0.37 0.11 0.05 -0.02 Production On-farm production -1.32 0.31 2.05 0.98 Industrial production 1.69 -0.42 -2.10 -0.95

GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN 16.31 51.53 17.15 24.54 PACKAGING 15.92 12.97 12.36 13.22 IMPORTANCES PRICE 21.19 16.56 17.18 17.87 PRODUCTION 46.57 18.94 53.30 44.37

‐ Characterization by categorial variables

Cluster 1 (41 resp. - 20.50%)

% of % of % of Characteristic cluster Test- Variables modality modality Proba Weight modalities in Value in cluster in sample modality

Q2_1Supermarket Yes 92.68 58.50 32.48 5.19 0.000 117 Q13_1GSupermarket Yes 97.56 73.50 27.21 4.22 0.000 147 I2_GItradi I do not know 17.07 7.00 50.00 2.31 0.010 14 I3_Proctect I do not know 14.63 5.50 54.55 2.29 0.011 11 Q2_5FriendsFamily No 85.37 71.00 24.65 2.16 0.015 142 Q12_With_family Never 21.95 11.00 40.91 2.12 0.017 22

Unskilled and D8_Occup 0.00 8.00 0.00 -2.02 0.022 16 skille Q2_5FriendsFamily Yes 9.76 24.00 8.33 -2.31 0.011 48 Age_cluster 56+ 2.44 14.00 3.57 -2.36 0.009 28 On desired Q3_Package 2.44 18.50 2.70 -3.09 0.001 37 weight Q13_1GSupermarket No 2.44 26.50 1.89 -4.22 0.000 53 Q2_1Supermarket No 2.44 36.50 1.37 -5.53 0.000 73

Cluster 2 (44 resp. - 22.00%)

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 112/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 113 GA 212579

% of % of % of Characteristic cluster Test- Variables modality modality Proba Weight modalities in Value in cluster in sample modality

Less than once a Q1_Pfreq 31.82 15.50 45.16 2.98 0.001 31 month Less than once a Q6_Cfreq 29.55 16.00 40.63 2.43 0.007 32 month Q4_Own_prod Never 86.36 74.00 25.68 1.99 0.023 148

Cluster 3 (115 resp. - 57.50%)

% of % of % of Characteristic cluster Test- Variables modality modality Proba Weight modalities in Value in cluster in sample modality

Q2_1Supermarket No 46.09 36.50 72.60 3.16 0.001 73 from min 1 pers D9_Income 24.35 17.50 80.00 2.86 0.002 35 to m Age_cluster 56+ 20.00 14.00 82.14 2.73 0.003 28 Q5_Friends Yes 65.22 57.50 65.22 2.42 0.008 115 Q12_With_family Always 27.83 21.50 74.42 2.40 0.008 43 Q13_5GFriends_family Yes 29.57 24.00 70.83 2.00 0.023 48 Q8_5Hard_to_find Yes 19.13 14.50 75.86 2.00 0.023 29 Q13_1GSupermarket No 32.17 26.50 69.81 1.97 0.024 53

Q13_1GSupermarket Yes 67.83 73.50 53.06 -1.97 0.024 147 Q8_5Hard_to_find No 80.87 85.50 54.39 -2.00 0.023 171 Q13_5GFriends_family No 70.43 76.00 53.29 -2.00 0.023 152 Q5_Friends No 34.78 42.50 47.06 -2.42 0.008 85 D9_Income Refusal 11.30 17.50 37.14 -2.48 0.007 35 Already sealed in Q3_Package 26.96 35.00 44.29 -2.62 0.004 70 a Q2_1Supermarket Yes 48.70 58.50 47.86 -3.15 0.001 117

‐ Characterization by numerical variables

Cluster 2 (44 respondents) Standard Mean in Standard Mean in deviation Test Characteristic variables total deviation in Proba cluster in total Value sample cluster sample L4recod 4.256 3.898 0.718 0.907 2.92 0.002 L3recod 4.512 4.204 0.660 0.795 2.86 0.002 L2recod 4.244 3.943 0.790 0.915 2.36 0.009

L9recod 4.091 4.318 1.124 0.844 -2.02 0.022

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 113/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 114 GA 212579

Cluster 3 (115 respondents) Standard Mean in Standard Mean in deviation Test Characteristic variables total deviation in Proba cluster in total Value sample cluster sample L9recod 4.469 4.318 0.666 0.844 2.89 0.002

L3recod 4.071 4.204 0.842 0.795 -2.69 0.004 L4recod 3.743 3.898 0.939 0.907 -2.78 0.003  MACEDONIA

CLUSTER --> 1 2 3 Total Local -1.15 1.03 0.59 0.20 Geographical No origin 0.69 -1.10 -0.40 -0.29 origin Country 0.45 0.07 -0.18 0.09 Sold loose -0.32 -0.85 -0.26 -0.47 Packaging Prepacked 0.32 0.85 0.26 0.47 Low price -0.68 0.07 -2.14 -0.99 Price Medium price 0.40 -0.25 -0.20 -0.03 UTILITIES High price 0.28 0.18 2.34 1.02 Small-dairy production 0.34 -0.94 0.38 -0.05 Production On-farm production -1.07 0.10 -0.29 -0.40 Industrial production 0.73 0.83 -0.09 0.46

GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN 26.66 27.49 21.43 24.97 PACKAGING 18.98 18.23 10.53 15.57 IMPORTANCES PRICE 23.65 26.31 50.93 34.73 PRODUCTION 30.71 27.97 17.11 24.73

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 114/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 115 GA 212579

‐ Characterization by categorical variables

Cluster 1 (61 resp. - 30.50%) % of % of % of Characteristic modality modality cluster Test- Variables Proba Weight modalities in in in Value cluster sample modality

REGION RURAL 80.33 50.00 49.00 5.66 0.000 100 D2_Rural Yes 80.33 60.50 40.50 3.74 0.000 121 Q13_5GFriends_family Yes 45.90 30.50 45.90 2.93 0.002 61 Q13_6GOwnProd Yes 27.87 15.50 54.84 2.89 0.002 31 Finished 2ndary D7_Educ 72.13 58.50 37.61 2.46 0.007 117 school I1_GIbought No 13.11 6.00 66.67 2.38 0.009 12 Q9_Tradi No 16.39 8.50 58.82 2.29 0.011 17 Q13_2GMarket No 72.13 60.00 36.67 2.19 0.014 120 Q2_5FriendsFamily Yes 27.87 18.00 47.22 2.16 0.015 36 Q11_As_child Yes 100.00 94.50 32.28 2.14 0.016 189

I1_GIbought Yes 59.02 70.00 25.71 -2.06 0.020 140 Q2_3Farm No 80.33 88.50 27.68 -2.10 0.018 177 Q11_As_child I cannot remember 0.00 5.50 0.00 -2.14 0.016 11 Q9_Tradi Yes 77.05 86.00 27.33 -2.14 0.016 172 Q13_2GMarket Yes 27.87 40.00 21.25 -2.19 0.014 80 Q2_5FriendsFamily No 67.21 79.00 25.95 -2.47 0.007 158 Q13_6GOwnProd No 72.13 84.50 26.04 -2.89 0.002 169 Q13_5GFriends_family No 54.10 69.50 23.74 -2.93 0.002 139 D2_Rural No 19.67 39.50 15.19 -3.74 0.000 79 REGION URBAN 19.67 50.00 12.00 -5.66 0.000 100

Cluster 2 (64 respondents - 32.00%)

% of % of % of Characteristic modality modality cluster Test- Variables Proba Weight modalities in in in Value cluster sample modality

Q9_Tradi Yes 95.31 86.00 35.47 2.53 0.006 172 Q8_2Fat No 100.00 94.50 33.86 2.24 0.013 189

Q8_2Fat Yes 0.00 5.50 0.00 -2.24 0.013 11 Q9_Tradi No 1.56 8.50 5.88 -2.32 0.010 17

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 115/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 116 GA 212579

Cluster 3 (75 respondents - 37.50%) % of % of % of Characteristic modality modality cluster Test- Variables Proba Weight modalities in in in Value cluster sample modality REGION URBAN 66.67 50.00 50.00 3.53 0.000 100 Q13_5GFriends_family No 81.33 69.50 43.88 2.71 0.003 139 D7_Educ Finished faculty 24.00 15.50 58.06 2.34 0.010 31 Q4_Own_prod Never 76.00 66.00 43.18 2.18 0.015 132 D9_Income Above average hh 21.33 14.00 57.14 2.08 0.019 28 from min HH to D9_Income 49.33 39.50 46.84 2.05 0.020 79 average HH D2_Rural No 49.33 39.50 46.84 2.05 0.020 79

D2_Rural Yes 50.67 60.50 31.41 -2.05 0.020 121 from min 1 pers to min D9_Income 22.67 32.00 26.56 -2.06 0.020 64 HH Finished 2ndary D7_Educ 48.00 58.50 30.77 -2.18 0.015 117 school Q13_5GFriends_family Yes 18.67 30.50 22.95 -2.71 0.003 61 D8_Occup Unemployed 5.33 15.00 13.33 -2.91 0.002 30 REGION RURAL 33.33 50.00 25.00 -3.53 0.000 100

‐ Characterization by numerical variables

Cluster 1 (61 respondents) Standard Mean in Standard deviation Mean in total deviation in total Test Characteristic variables cluster sample in cluster sample Value Proba

D6m_Age 40.230 43.965 15.255 16.948 -2.06 0.020 L3recod 4.267 4.407 0.655 0.618 -2.10 0.018 L0recod 4.492 4.618 0.532 0.496 -2.38 0.009 L2recod 4.328 4.515 0.469 0.500 -3.50 0.000 L1recod 2.967 3.490 1.342 1.315 -3.73 0.000

Cluster 3 (75 respondents) Standard Mean in Standard deviation Mean in total deviation in total Test Characteristic variables cluster sample in cluster sample Value Proba L1recod 3.904 3.490 1.195 1.315 3.39 0.000

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 116/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 117 GA 212579

 MONTENEGRO

CLUSTER --> 1 2 3 Total Local 0.08 0.45 0.03 0.20 Geographical No origin -0.50 -0.60 0.17 -0.32 origin Country 0.42 0.15 -0.19 0.12 Sold loose -0.31 0.21 0.11 0.02 Packaging Prepacked 0.31 -0.21 -0.11 -0.02 Low price -0.79 -0.26 2.24 0.39 Price Medium price 0.02 0.35 0.25 0.22 UTILITIES High price 0.77 -0.09 -2.49 -0.61 Small-dairy production 0.21 0.63 0.26 0.38 Production On-farm production -0.89 1.42 0.09 0.29 Industrial production 0.68 -2.05 -0.34 -0.67

GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN 26.21 25.41 16.73 22.83 PACKAGING 12.22 11.31 8.90 10.81 IMPORTANCES PRICE 31.71 22.61 52.52 35.10 PRODUCTION 29.86 40.67 21.85 31.26

‐ Characterization by categorical variables

Cluster 1 (61 resp. - 30.50%)

% of % of % of Characteristic cluster Test- Variables modality modality Proba Weight modalities in Value in cluster in sample modality

Q13_3GFarm No 95.08 84.50 34.32 2.70 0.003 169 Q8_5Hard_to_find Yes 13.11 6.00 66.67 2.38 0.009 12 Already sealed in a Q3_Package 40.98 29.50 42.37 2.17 0.015 59 box D3_Mainshopper No 47.54 36.50 39.73 1.98 0.024 73

Q2_3Farm Yes 13.11 22.50 17.78 -1.97 0.024 45 1 to 4 times a Q1_Pfreq 31.15 43.00 22.09 -2.10 0.018 86 month Q2_1Supermarket No 32.79 45.00 22.22 -2.16 0.015 90 Q8_5Hard_to_find No 86.89 94.00 28.19 -2.38 0.009 188 Q3_Package On desired weight 21.31 35.50 18.31 -2.67 0.004 71 Q13_3GFarm Yes 4.92 15.50 9.68 -2.70 0.003 31

Cluster 2 (74 resp. - 37.00%)

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 117/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 118 GA 212579

% of % of % of Characteristic cluster Test- Variables modality modality Proba Weight modalities in Value in cluster in sample modality

Q13_2GMarket No 72.97 51.50 52.43 4.57 0.000 103 Q12_With_family Always 85.14 67.50 46.67 4.06 0.000 135 Q13_3GFarm Yes 27.03 15.50 64.52 3.20 0.001 31 REGION RURAL 64.86 50.00 48.00 3.09 0.001 100 Q13_1GSupermarket No 64.86 52.00 46.15 2.66 0.004 104 Q2_5FriendsFamily Yes 24.32 15.50 58.06 2.40 0.008 31 from min 1 pers to D9_Income 58.11 47.50 45.26 2.16 0.015 95 min HH

Q2_1Supermarket Yes 33.78 46.00 27.17 -2.52 0.006 92 Q2_3Farm No 56.76 68.50 30.66 -2.56 0.005 137 I1_GIbought I do not know 5.41 14.00 14.29 -2.59 0.005 28 D3_Mainshopper No 24.32 36.50 24.66 -2.62 0.004 73 Q13_1GSupermarket Yes 35.14 48.00 27.08 -2.66 0.004 96 Q2_2Market Yes 28.38 42.50 24.71 -2.98 0.001 85 REGION URBAN 35.14 50.00 26.00 -3.09 0.001 100 Q2_5FriendsFamily No 62.16 75.50 30.46 -3.15 0.001 151 Q13_3GFarm No 72.97 84.50 31.95 -3.20 0.001 169 Q12_With_family Sometimes 14.86 31.00 17.74 -3.74 0.000 62 Q13_2GMarket Yes 27.03 48.50 20.62 -4.57 0.000 97

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 118/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 119 GA 212579

Cluster 3 (65 resp. - 32.50%)

% of % of % of Characteristic cluster Test- Variables modality modality Proba Weight modalities in Value in cluster in sample modality

Q12_With_family Sometimes 53.85 31.00 56.45 4.61 0.000 62 Q13_2GMarket Yes 70.77 48.50 47.42 4.26 0.000 97 I1_GIbought I do not know 29.23 14.00 67.86 3.96 0.000 28 Q2_6Other No 100.00 90.50 35.91 3.38 0.000 181 Q2_2Market Yes 60.00 42.50 45.88 3.32 0.000 85 Q2_4Restau No 100.00 91.00 35.71 3.25 0.001 182 Q13_6GOwnProd No 100.00 91.00 35.71 3.25 0.001 182 D9_Income Refusal 15.38 6.50 76.92 3.12 0.001 13 Q2_5FriendsFamily No 89.23 75.50 38.41 3.09 0.001 151 REGION URBAN 63.08 50.00 41.00 2.42 0.008 100 Q3_Package On desired weight 47.69 35.50 43.66 2.33 0.010 71 1 to 4 times a Q1_Pfreq 55.38 43.00 41.86 2.30 0.011 86 month Q4_Own_prod Never 86.15 76.00 36.84 2.21 0.013 152

I1_GIbought Yes 67.69 77.50 28.39 -2.10 0.018 155 REGION RURAL 36.92 50.00 24.00 -2.42 0.008 100 D7_Educ Finished faculty 9.23 21.00 14.29 -2.77 0.003 42 Q4_Own_prod Always 1.54 11.00 4.55 -3.01 0.001 22 Q1_Pfreq Never 0.00 9.00 0.00 -3.25 0.001 18 Q13_6GOwnProd Yes 0.00 9.00 0.00 -3.25 0.001 18 Q12_With_family Always 46.15 67.50 22.22 -4.26 0.000 135 Q13_2GMarket No 29.23 51.50 18.45 -4.26 0.000 103

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 119/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 120 GA 212579

‐ Characterization by numerical variables

Cluster 1 (61 respondents) Standard Mean in Standard Mean in deviation Test Characteristic variables total deviation Proba cluster in total Value sample in cluster sample

L9recod 4.459 4.621 0.560 0.515 -2.95 0.002

Cluster 3 (65 respondents) Standard Mean in Standard Mean in deviation Test Characteristic variables total deviation Proba cluster in total Value sample in cluster sample L9recod 4.815 4.621 0.388 0.515 3.70 0.000

L8recod 3.839 4.010 0.652 0.767 -2.13 0.017

 SERBIA

CLUSTER --> 1 2 3 Total Local -0.71 -0.16 0.54 -0.06 Geographical No origin 0.16 -0.18 -0.97 -0.38 origin Country 0.55 0.33 0.43 0.44 Sold loose -0.41 -0.25 0.07 -0.18 Packaging Prepacked 0.41 0.25 -0.07 0.18 Low price -0.79 2.11 0.08 0.38 Price Medium price 0.18 0.26 0.16 0.20 UTILITIES High price 0.60 -2.37 -0.25 -0.58 Small-dairy production -0.47 0.27 0.87 0.27 Production On-farm production -0.53 -0.24 0.90 0.12 Industrial production 1.00 -0.04 -1.77 -0.39

GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN 26.59 18.89 34.34 27.45 PACKAGING 19.71 13.48 12.10 14.93 IMPORTANCES PRICE 23.91 49.18 16.16 28.05 PRODUCTION 29.79 18.45 37.41 29.57

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 120/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 121 GA 212579

‐ Characterization by categorical variables

Cluster 1 (64 resp. - 32.00%)

% of % of % of Characteristic modality cluster Test- Variables modality Proba Weight modalities in in Value in cluster sample modality

Q3_Package Already sealed in a 59.38 41.50 45.78 3.36 0.000 83 Q2_2Market No 59.38 44.00 43.18 2.85 0.002 88 Q2_1Supermarket Yes 64.06 49.50 41.41 2.68 0.004 99 Q13_2GMarket No 57.81 46.50 39.78 2.05 0.020 93

Q13_2GMarket Yes 42.19 53.50 25.23 -2.05 0.020 107 Q2_1Supermarket No 31.25 45.00 22.22 -2.55 0.005 90 Q2_2Market Yes 35.94 50.50 22.77 -2.68 0.004 101 Finished D7_Educ 0.00 7.00 0.00 -2.69 0.004 14 elementary school Q3_Package On desired weight 23.44 38.00 19.74 -2.80 0.003 76

Cluster 2 (57 resp. - 28.50%)

% of % of % of Characteristic modality cluster Test- Variables modality Proba Weight modalities in in Value in cluster sample modality

Q2_2Market Yes 68.42 50.50 38.61 3.07 0.001 101 Age_cluster 56+ 28.07 16.00 50.00 2.64 0.004 32 Already sealed in a Q3_Package 22.81 12.00 54.17 2.62 0.004 24 box D4_Maincook Yes 50.88 37.00 39.19 2.38 0.009 74 D8_Occup Pensioner 22.81 13.00 50.00 2.30 0.011 26 D8_Occup Other 17.54 9.50 52.63 2.11 0.018 19 Finished D7_Educ 14.04 7.00 57.14 2.07 0.019 14 elementary from min 1 pers to D9_Income 31.58 21.50 41.86 1.97 0.025 43 min HH

Q2_2Market No 29.82 44.00 19.32 -2.42 0.008 88 Already sealed in a Q3_Package 26.32 41.50 18.07 -2.63 0.004 83 bag D4_Maincook No 28.07 46.50 17.20 -3.18 0.001 93

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 121/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 122 GA 212579

Cluster 3 (79 resp. - 39.50%)

% of % of % of Characteristic modality cluster Test- Variables modality Proba Weight modalities in in Value in cluster sample modality

Q7_more_often No 53.16 42.50 49.41 2.32 0.010 85

D9_Income Above average hh 13.92 21.50 25.58 -1.96 0.025 43 D8_Occup Other 3.80 9.50 15.79 -2.05 0.020 19 Q2_3Farm No 67.09 75.50 35.10 -2.05 0.020 151 Q2_1Supermarket Yes 39.24 49.50 31.31 -2.20 0.014 99 Q2_5FriendsFamily No 67.09 77.00 34.42 -2.50 0.006 154

‐ Characterization by numerical variables

Cluster 2 (57 respondents) Standard Mean in Standard Mean in deviation Test Characteristic variables total deviation Proba cluster in total Value sample in cluster sample D6m_Age 45.211 39.695 16.552 15.260 3.22 0.001

D10_Household 3.228 3.590 1.214 1.110 -2.90 0.002

 SLOVENIA

CLUSTER --> 1 2 3 4 Total Local 0.53 -1.00 1.97 0.18 0.35 Geographical No origin -0.37 0.75 -2.38 0.10 -0.38 origin Country -0.16 0.25 0.41 -0.28 0.03 Sold loose 0.09 -0.13 0.05 0.30 0.10 Packaging Prepacked -0.09 0.13 -0.05 -0.30 -0.10 Low price 2.46 0.43 0.48 -0.17 0.54 Price Medium price 0.20 -0.59 -0.08 -0.11 -0.17 UTILITIES High price -2.67 0.16 -0.40 0.28 -0.36 Small-dairy production 0.17 -0.15 0.19 0.50 0.21 Production On-farm production 0.26 -0.29 0.25 2.02 0.76 Industrial production -0.43 0.45 -0.44 -2.52 -0.98

GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN 17.89 31.08 48.49 16.88 27.86 PACKAGING 6.74 12.40 8.50 11.09 10.15 IMPORTANCES PRICE 57.97 28.44 22.78 19.39 28.41 PRODUCTION 17.40 28.09 20.23 52.63 33.58

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 122/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 123 GA 212579

‐ Characterization by categorical variables

Cluster 1 (31 resp. - 15.50%)

% of % of % of Characteristic Test- Variables modality modality cluster in Proba Weight modalities Value in cluster in sample modality

Q2_1Supermarket No 16.13 33.00 7.58 -2.03 0.021 66

Cluster 2 (50 resp. - 25.00%)

% of % of % of Characteristic Test- Variables modality modality cluster in Proba Weight modalities Value in cluster in sample modality

D8_Occup Other 24.00 11.00 54.55 2.95 0.002 22 D2_Rural Yes 98.00 86.50 28.32 2.79 0.003 173 I2_GItradi No 14.00 5.00 70.00 2.78 0.003 10 More than once Q1_Pfreq 26.00 14.00 46.43 2.48 0.007 28 a week Q13_5GFriends_family No 96.00 85.50 28.07 2.37 0.009 171 Q2_5FriendsFamily No 90.00 78.50 28.66 2.18 0.015 157 REGION RURAL 64.00 50.00 32.00 2.13 0.017 100

D8_Occup Student/Trainee 10.00 20.50 12.20 -2.00 0.023 41 REGION URBAN 36.00 50.00 18.00 -2.13 0.017 100 Q2_5FriendsFamily Yes 2.00 10.50 4.76 -2.18 0.015 21 Q13_5GFriends_family Yes 4.00 14.50 6.90 -2.37 0.009 29 Q7_more_often I do not know 16.00 31.00 12.90 -2.56 0.005 62 D2_Rural No 2.00 13.50 3.70 -2.79 0.003 27 Above average D9_Income 0.00 15.00 0.00 -3.78 0.000 30 HH

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 123/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 124 GA 212579

Cluster 3 (46 resp. - 23.00%)

% of % of % of Characteristic Test- Variables modality modality cluster in Proba Weight modalities Value in cluster in sample modality

REGION RURAL 80.43 50.00 37.00 4.65 0.000 100 Q12_With_family Never 43.48 24.00 41.67 3.21 0.001 48 Less than once Q6_Cfreq 58.70 43.00 31.40 2.27 0.012 86 a mon Age_cluster 25 and less 39.13 26.50 33.96 1.99 0.024 53

1 to 4 times a Q1_Pfreq 21.74 35.50 14.08 -2.09 0.018 71 month Q7_more_often Yes 15.22 28.50 12.28 -2.16 0.015 57 Q12_With_family Sometimes 47.83 63.00 17.46 -2.23 0.013 126 Q2_3Farm Yes 15.22 29.00 12.07 -2.24 0.013 58 REGION URBAN 19.57 50.00 9.00 -4.65 0.000 100

Cluster 4 (73 resp. - 36.50%)

% of % of % of Characteristic Test- Variables modality modality cluster in Proba Weight modalities Value in cluster in sample modality

REGION URBAN 80.82 50.00 59.00 6.63 0.000 100 Q2_5FriendsFamily Yes 20.55 10.50 71.43 3.21 0.001 21 1 to 4 times a Q1_Pfreq 47.95 35.50 49.30 2.62 0.004 71 month Q13_5GFriends_family Yes 23.29 14.50 58.62 2.43 0.008 29 Farmer/Fishma D8_Occup 8.22 3.50 85.71 2.32 0.010 7 n Q5_Friends Yes 46.58 36.50 46.58 2.08 0.019 73 Q2_1Supermarket No 42.47 33.00 46.97 1.99 0.023 66

Less than once Q6_Cfreq 32.88 43.00 27.91 -2.05 0.020 86 a month Q5_Friends No 53.42 63.50 30.71 -2.08 0.019 127 Q12_With_family Never 15.07 24.00 22.92 -2.11 0.017 48 Q7_more_often No 30.14 40.50 27.16 -2.13 0.017 81 Q11_As_child No 10.96 20.50 19.51 -2.42 0.008 41 Q13_5GFriends_family No 76.71 85.50 32.75 -2.43 0.008 171 D8_Occup Other 2.74 11.00 9.09 -2.78 0.003 22 REGION RURAL 19.18 50.00 14.00 -6.63 0.000 100

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 124/125 FP7 KBBE 2007 1 125 GA 212579

‐ Characterization by numerical variables

Cluster 1 (31 respondents) Standard Mean in Standard deviation Mean in total deviation in total Test Characteristic variables cluster sample in cluster sample Value Proba

L0recod 3.241 3.617 1.164 1.105 -1.98 0.024

Cluster 2 (50 respondents) Standard Mean in Standard deviation Mean in total deviation in total Test Characteristic variables cluster sample in cluster sample Value Proba L4recod 4.020 3.450 0.905 1.091 4.30 0.000 L5recod 4.396 3.995 0.530 0.921 3.46 0.000 L7recod 3.837 3.401 1.037 1.076 3.28 0.001 L8recod 4.292 3.903 0.676 1.028 3.01 0.001 L0recod 3.918 3.617 0.853 1.105 2.21 0.014 D6m_Age 42.620 38.660 18.078 16.132 2.00 0.023

Cluster 3 (46 respondents) Standard Mean in Standard deviation Mean in total deviation in total Test Characteristic variables cluster sample in cluster sample Value Proba D10_Household 4.674 4.215 1.504 1.526 2.32 0.010

Cluster 4 (73 respondents) Standard Mean in Standard deviation Mean in total deviation in total Test Characteristic variables cluster sample in cluster sample Value Proba

L0recod 3.377 3.617 1.181 1.105 -2.24 0.012 L8recod 3.681 3.903 1.141 1.028 -2.30 0.011 L7recod 3.147 3.401 1.047 1.076 -2.42 0.008 L5recod 3.736 3.995 1.014 0.921 -2.99 0.001 L4recod 3.121 3.450 1.108 1.091 -3.03 0.001

DL8.1: Study report on consumers’ attitudes, expectations and behaviours towards traditional food 125/125