Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:26:32.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In search of a sustainable alternative for meat production: understanding the purchase intention of meat from transhumance origin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2023

Laura Martínez-Carrasco Martínez*
Affiliation:
Research group in Agro-Environmental and Rural Economy, Policy and Development. Instituto Universitario de Investigación e Innovación Agroalimentaria y Agroambiental (CIAGRO-UMH), Miguel Hernández University, Ctra. Beniel, km. 3,2 03312 Orihuela, Alicante, Spain
Margarita Brugarolas Mollá-Bauzá
Affiliation:
Research group in Agro-Environmental and Rural Economy, Policy and Development. Instituto Universitario de Investigación e Innovación Agroalimentaria y Agroambiental (CIAGRO-UMH), Miguel Hernández University, Ctra. Beniel, km. 3,2 03312 Orihuela, Alicante, Spain
José Antonio Sánchez-Zapata
Affiliation:
Research group in Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation. Instituto Universitario de Investigación e Innovación Agroalimentaria y Agroambiental (CIAGRO-UMH), Miguel Hernández University, Ctra. Beniel, km. 3,2 03312 Orihuela, Alicante, Spain
*
Author for correspondence: Laura Martínez-Carrasco Martínez, E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years, meat production and consumption has become a topic of intense debate for environmental, animal welfare and health reasons. Research on more sustainable alternatives to meat production has increased. Our goal is to gain insight into the purchase of meat from transhumance livestock and to explore the main factors driving this process. This type of meat is more respectful towards the environment and animal welfare, provides financial stability for many rural families and helps preserve an activity that is part of the cultural heritage in rural areas. From a methodological point of view, we have adopted the theoretical alphabet theory model proposed by Zepeda and Deal in 2009 to explain sustainable purchase behavior. For this purpose, we created two different models, one for lamb meat and one for beef meat. The data come from an online survey of Spanish meat consumers. We applied a structural equation modeling technique to test the suggested model and hypothesis. The results allow us to conclude that the alphabet theory is a suitable theory for our data. The level of knowledge on transhumance and contextual factors, such as the content of fat or the type of meat, impact the creation of attitudes towards this type of livestock farming, but demographic variables do not. In both models, buying meat with a designation of origin and buying meat at specialty retailers are habits that positively influence purchase intention. Our results are highly relevant to help meat of transhumant origin reach the markets and to differentiate it from other products.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Meat consumption and production has become a topic of intense debate among scientists, politicians and society as a whole; not only due to the livestock farming environmental impact, as it is a significant source of greenhouse gasses (Rojas-Downing et al., Reference Rojas-Downing, Nejadhashemi, Harrigan and Woznicki2017; FAO, 2021), or due to the high water consumption it entails (Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Crompton and Mills2010), but also because of the welfare conditions that the animals are raised in (Dawkins, Reference Dawkins2017).

Different solutions have been proposed to address these challenges. Some of them focused on decreasing the consumption of meat, such as vegetarian, flexitarian or reducetarian diets (Cheah et al., Reference Cheah, Sadat Shimul, Liang and Phau2020; Röös et al., Reference Röös, Carlsson, Ferawati, Hefni, Stephan, Tidåker and Witthöft2020; Verain et al., Reference Verain, Dagevos and Jaspers2022) or the development of non-meat analogues like the cultured meat (Mancini and Antonioli, Reference Mancini and Antonioli2019; Gere et al., Reference Gere, Harizi, Bellissimo, Roberts and Moskowitz2020). However, consumers are not always ready to adapt to these types of diets or to decrease meat consumption (Campbell-Arvai, Reference Campbell-Arvai2015; De Groeve and Bleys, Reference De Groeve and Bleys2017; Weingarten et al., Reference Weingarten, Meraner, Bach and Hartmann2022). Furthermore, it is probably not an option for many rural areas that depend on livestock farming. Livestock farming is essential for the sustainable development of agriculture (FAO, 2016), it provides financial stability for many families (Upton, Reference Upton2004; Alary et al., Reference Alary, Corniaux and Gautier2011), and also greatly contributes to settle population in rural areas. The latter is a deterrent for one of today's main social, economic, environmental and cultural issues: depopulation (Terres et al., Reference Terres, Scacchiafichi, Wania, Ambar, Anguiano, Buckwell, Coppola, Gocht, Källström, Pointereau, Strijker, Visek, Vranken and Zobena2015; Lasanta et al., Reference Lasanta, Arnáez, Pascual, Ruiz-Flaño, Errea and Lana-Renault2017).

Therefore, it is important to offer alternatives to meat producers and consumers that guarantee the sustainability of this important sector. One of these alternative methods is the pasture-based livestock production system, in which animals spend a majority of the growing season outside and foraging for significant portions of their diets (Conner et al., Reference Conner, Campbell-Arvai and Hamm2008a).

One step further in extensive farming, that is in line with sustainability and part of the cultural heritage of rural areas, is transhumance. Transhumance is a form of pastoralism which consists of the seasonal droving of livestock along migratory routes. Throughout Europe, more than 4 million hectares of agricultural land depend on transhumance (Bunce et al., Reference Bunce, Pérez-Soba, Jongman, Gómez Sal, Herzog and Austad2004). Many valuable cultural landscapes, rural communities, habitats and species are directly linked to transhumance and are vital for tourism in mountain regions. Moreover, transhumance plays a key role in maintaining biodiversity in mountain ecosystems through Europe. However, despite this practice being present in many European countries from Balkans to Scotland, it is a declining activity (Olea and Mateo-Tomás, Reference Olea and Mateo-Tomás2009). Social and economic changes are driving forces behind the decline of transhumance, which in turn has key implications for the sustainability of mountain ecosystems and threatens biodiversity (Carmona et al., Reference Carmona, Azcárate, Oteros-Rozas, González and Peco2013; Oteros-Rozas et al., Reference Oteros-Rozas, Ontillera-Sánchez, Sanosa, Gómez-Baggethun, Reyes-García and González2013). The tough requirements of this practice and its limited profitability hinder generational replacement, and therefore, its continuity. It is therefore essential to improve the profitability of products obtained from this activity in order to favor its preservation.

Our study focuses in Spain, that holds the largest grazing areas of high nature value farmlands in Europe (Paracchini et al., Reference Paracchini, Petersen, Hoogeveen, Bamps, Burfield and van Swaay2008; Kerven and Behnke, Reference Kerven and Behnke2011) including the last long distance (>100 km) transhumant drove roads still in use (Oteros-Rozas et al., Reference Oteros-Rozas, Ontillera-Sánchez, Sanosa, Gómez-Baggethun, Reyes-García and González2013).

Most of today's transhumant livestock in Spain consists of sheep and cows (Olea and Mateo-Tomás, Reference Olea and Mateo-Tomás2009) and one of the main products obtained from this livestock is meat (Aguilera-Alcalá et al., Reference Aguilera-Alcalá, Arrondo, Pascual-Rico, Morales-Reyes, Gil-Sánchez, Donázar, Moleón and Sánchez-Zapata2022). However, the lack of differentiation of pastoral systems in general and transhumance in particular makes difficult for consumers to find them in the market.

A broad body of research revealed the importance that consumers place on meat production that is respectful towards the environment and animal welfare (Bernués et al., Reference Bernués, Olaizola and Corcoran2003; Pohjolainen et al., Reference Pohjolainen, Tapio, Vinnari, Jokinen and Räsänen2016; Merlino et al., Reference Merlino, Borra, Girgenti, Dal Vecchio and Massaglia2018; Sonoda et al., Reference Sonoda, Oishi, Chomei and Hirooka2018; Armstrong Soule and Sekhon, Reference Armstrong Soule and Sekhon2019) or the origin (Gracia and De-Magistris, Reference Gracia and De-Magistris2013; Bernabéu et al., Reference Bernabéu, Rabadán, El Orche and Díaz2018; De Boer and Aiking, Reference de Boer and Aiking2022). Some studies reveal the convergence of all these requirements in the same consumer segment (Thilmany et al., Reference Thilmany, Umberger and Ziehl2006; Merlino et al., Reference Merlino, Borra, Verduna and Massaglia2017; Ellies-Oury et al., Reference Ellies-Oury, Lee, Jacob and Hocquette2019; Eldesouky et al., Reference Eldesouky, Mesias and Escribano2020).

There are different quality marks in the European Union that can be used to differentiate meat such as the protected geographic indication or the organic production label (Ruiz et al., Reference Ruiz, Grande, Nahed, Castel and Mena2021). However, there is no quality brand that identifies and differentiates products derived from transhumance.

According to Grunert et al. (Reference Grunert, Sonntag, Glanz-Chanos and Forum2018), the essential and achievable aspects for consumers in meat production are: not keeping animals locked up, limiting their transportation to under 4 h, achieving production with zero carbon footprint and using manure for fertilization. Meat from transhumance livestock meets the properties of being produced in a sustainable way, from an environmental and animal welfare point of view, as well as being closely linked to the origin.

However, there is still limited knowledge on the factors that could affect the intention to purchase meat from transhumance livestock farming, and thus favor an increased profitability for this activity in order to prevent its abandonment. To the best of our knowledge, no other study has investigated the consumer interest and purchase intention variables for meat from transhumance livestock.

The aim of this study is to gain insight into the purchase of meat from transhumance livestock by consumers and to explore the main factors driving this process. Furthermore, the study is an attempt to progress in the empirical research of the alphabet theory by Zepeda and Deal (Reference Zepeda and Deal2009). For this purpose, we created two different models, one for lamb and one for beef, two of the main livestock species that are still bred using transhumance in Spain. The consumer behavior pattern for both types of meats is different and depends on the appearance and sensory properties of the meat, the socio-demographic characteristics of consumers and psychological and marketing aspects (Font-i-Furnols and Guerrero, Reference Font-i-Furnols and Guerrero2014; Escriba-Perez et al., Reference Escriba-Perez, Baviera-Puig, Buitrago-Vera and Montero-Vicente2017).

Conceptual model: alphabet theory

The theoretical model this study is based on is the alphabet theory (Zepeda and Deal, Reference Zepeda and Deal2009), which is an attempt to explain pro-environmental behavior from a combination of the value-belief-norm (VBN) (Stern et al., Reference Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano and Kalof1999) and attitude-behavior-context (ABC) (Guagnano et al., Reference Guagnano, Stern and Dietz1995) theories in a single framework. Explicitly linking the VBN and ABC theories and introducing the elements of demographics (D), knowledge (K), information seeking (IS) and habit (H) into this theoretical framework results in the alphabet theory by Zepeda and Deal (Reference Zepeda and Deal2009).

Some researchers have successfully used the alphabet theory as a framework to analyze consumer behavior towards environmentally friendlier food (Feldmann and Hamm, Reference Feldmann and Hamm2015; Schäufele and Hamm, Reference Schäufele and Hamm2017; Rivaroli et al., Reference Rivaroli, Baldi and Spadoni2020; Stampa et al., Reference Stampa, Schipmann-Schwarze and Hamm2020; Hempel et al., Reference Hempel, Feucht and Zander2021; Rondoni and Grasso, Reference Rondoni and Grasso2021), but very little empirical research has been conducted to validate the theoretical model. As far as we know, only Manohar et al. (Reference Manohar, Rehman and Sivakumaran2021) have recently developed a model based on the alphabet theory in the field of new healthy foods, but it is only an approximation. So, to the best of our knowledge, our study is the first attempt to empirically apply the alphabet theory to a sustainable behavior like the intention to purchase meat from transhumance livestock.

The model is shown in Figure 1. The only difference with the original model is the absence of the ‘information seeking’ variable, which is treated in the literature as the tendency of consumers to check and read labels (Rondoni and Grasso, Reference Rondoni and Grasso2021). As identifying meat from transhumance livestock is not possible in markets, we have not measured this variable.

Fig. 1. Conceptual model to explain the intention to purchase meat from transhumance livestock.

Definition of variables

In the proposed model, there are three latent or unobservable variables (represented by ovals): attitudes, context and habits, which are shaped using observable variables or indicators measured in the survey. Next, we describe the theoretical framework on which the choice of variables is based.

Attitudes

Attitudes are relatively stable evaluative judgments about the aspects of a person's experience that range from negative to positive and are influenced by situational factors (Lindgren et al., Reference Lindgren, DiBello, Peterson and Neighbors2021).

Values, beliefs and norms shape consumer attitudes towards certain types of food and motivate or discourage consumers from buying them (Stern et al., Reference Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano and Kalof1999).

The most frequently named attitudes that result in local or organic food purchases are related to better quality and taste, as well as more altruistic attitudes like the demand for public benefits related to job and income generation in the community (Adams and Adams, Reference Adams and Adams2011; Gracia et al., Reference Gracia, De Magistris and Nayga2011; Feldmann and Hamm, Reference Feldmann and Hamm2015). In the case of meat, Wong and Aini (Reference Wong and Aini2017), using the theory of planned behavior, note that attitudes towards organic meat are an influential factor regarding the intention to purchase organic meat, although behind others. Based on this literature, we have considered as ‘attitudes’ different beliefs related to intrinsic characteristics of transhumance meat, and to external attributes like local origin or the promotion of employment. The measurement of these attitudes will be described in Section ‘Materials and methods’.

Context

Contextual factors are external conditions which mediate between attitudes and behavior, and may also change them (Schäufele and Hamm, Reference Schäufele and Hamm2017). The conditions that most influence consumers are price, origin, production system, store type, taste and availability, but so do promotion and advertising, packaging or time pressure. In our model, we suggest measuring context through nine observable indicators. We have specifically considered (1) price, that is commonly used in most meat consumer studies (Ellies-Oury et al., Reference Ellies-Oury, Lee, Jacob and Hocquette2019; Mandolesi et al., Reference Mandolesi, Naspetti, Arsenos, Caramelle-Holtz, Latvala, Martin-Collado, Orsini, Ozturk and Zanoli2020; Rabadán et al., Reference Rabadán, Díaz, Brugarolas and Bernabéu2020; Lanfranchi and Giannetto, Reference Lanfranchi and Giannetto2021). Regarding the production system, we considered the (2) organic/sustainable production (Bernués et al., Reference Bernués, Ripoll and Panea2012; Pohjolainen et al., Reference Pohjolainen, Tapio, Vinnari, Jokinen and Räsänen2016; Merlino et al., Reference Merlino, Borra, Girgenti, Dal Vecchio and Massaglia2018; Armstrong Soule and Sekhon, Reference Armstrong Soule and Sekhon2019), and two indicators related to convenience: (3) ease of cooking and (4) shelf life (Bernués et al., Reference Bernués, Ripoll and Panea2012; Grebitus et al., Reference Grebitus, Jensen and Roosen2013; Mandolesi et al., Reference Mandolesi, Naspetti, Arsenos, Caramelle-Holtz, Latvala, Martin-Collado, Orsini, Ozturk and Zanoli2020; Baviera-Puig et al., Reference Baviera-Puig, Montero-Vicente, Escribá-Pérez and Buitrago-Vera2021; Kantono et al., Reference Kantono, Hamid, Ma, Chadha and Oey2021). Among sensory attributes, actual taste appears to be the most important. However, in a real purchase situation it is not always possible to taste the product, so taste yields to appearance based on a visual cue such as marbling (Mandolesi et al., Reference Mandolesi, Naspetti, Arsenos, Caramelle-Holtz, Latvala, Martin-Collado, Orsini, Ozturk and Zanoli2020; Stampa et al., Reference Stampa, Schipmann-Schwarze and Hamm2020). Based on these indications we considered (5) taste, (6) fat, (7) appearance, (8) type of meat and (9) nutritional value (Evans et al., Reference Evans, D'Souza, Collins, Brown and Sperow2011; Morales et al., Reference Morales, Aguiar, Subiabre and Realini2013; Zanoli et al., Reference Zanoli, Scarpa, Napolitano, Piasentier, Naspetti and Bruschi2013; Wong and Aini, Reference Wong and Aini2017; Apostolidis and McLeay, Reference Apostolidis and McLeay2019; Alessandrini et al., Reference Alessandrini, Brown, Pombo-Rodrigues, Bhageerutty, He and Macgregor2021).

Habits

Habits are a repetitive behavior and play a key role in food purchasing decisions. Consumption frequency, responsibility for food purchases and place of purchase are the main habits that influence the likelihood to purchase and willingness to purchase pasture-raised products (Stampa et al., Reference Stampa, Schipmann-Schwarze and Hamm2020).

In line with these authors, in our study we considered meat consumption frequency, place of purchase and food purchasing responsibility as the main habits. We also considered being frequent organic and/or designation of origin meat purchasers as possible habits, as they are, as stated in the introduction, two attributes of great importance for a sustainable consumers' choice of purchase.

Usually, higher consumption frequency entails greater knowledge of the product, and thus increased purchase intention. However, regarding meat, there is an ambivalence between enjoying the meat and an aversion to harming the animal (Hartmann and Siegrist, Reference Hartmann and Siegrist2020; Khara et al., Reference Khara, Riedy and Ruby2021). For example, Verbeke and Vackier (Reference Verbeke and Vackier2004) found that concerned meat consumers noticeably lowered their meat consumption frequency. Also, noteworthy and in the same line is the study by Verain et al. (Reference Verain, Dagevos and Jaspers2022), which shows that consumers who have undertaken flexitarian diets are more concerned about animal welfare and the environment. Other studies show that consumers with a greater feeling of guilt choose to replace conventional meat with organic meat (Nguyen et al., Reference Nguyen, Nguyen, Nguyen and Greenland2021). However, Kim and Yoon (Reference Kim and Yoon2021) established that most consumers do not decrease their meat consumption because it is an essential element of a healthy diet.

The place of purchase has a long history of influencing consumer quality perception (Grunert, Reference Grunert2006; Merlino et al., Reference Merlino, Borra, Girgenti, Dal Vecchio and Massaglia2018). Verbeke and Vackier (Reference Verbeke and Vackier2004) segmented a sample of Belgian consumers based on their involvement with meat and found that those who were more concerned or cautious about meat were more likely to purchase meat from places other than supermarkets. Bozzo et al. (Reference Bozzo, Barrasso, Grimaldi, Tantillo and Roma2019), in their study on meat consumption in Italy, established that the place of purchase was the variable that most impacted purchase price. Czine et al. (Reference Czine, Török, Pető, Horváth and Balogh2020) considered the place of purchase to be among the most important variables for meat consumers.

Finally, according to Stampa et al. (Reference Stampa, Schipmann-Schwarze and Hamm2020), being in charge of purchasing the food is also a factor that impacts the likelihood to purchase and willingness to pay pasture-raised products. Thus, all these variables have been included in the survey (Table 1).

Table 1. Definition of the variables included in the survey

Knowledge

Consumer's knowledge of a product category holds a special position in consumer research and three categories have been defined: subjective, objective and experience. It is likely that, subjective knowledge, defined as what the consumer thinks he or she knows, is a more important motivation of the behavior surrounding product purchase and use than the other (Flynn and Goldsmith, Reference Flynn and Goldsmith1999).

A broader knowledge of a subject affects attitudes towards it through the formation of certain beliefs and prejudgments, as well as comparing whether the products align with personal and social values and norms. In turn, attitudes affect further information seeking or initiate it in the first place. Thus, greater knowledge about organic production practices, for example, results in a higher likelihood of purchasing organic food products (Zepeda and Deal, Reference Zepeda and Deal2009).

Although some authors consider that the supply of information has limited efficiency to change attitudes but does not affect intention or behavior (Balmford et al., Reference Balmford, Cole, Sandbrook and Fisher2017; De Groeve and Bleys, Reference De Groeve and Bleys2017; Weingarten et al., Reference Weingarten, Meraner, Bach and Hartmann2022), several studies highlight that the level of knowledge contributes towards positive attitudes and decisions to buy products grown organically (De Magistris and Gracia, Reference De Magistris and Gracia2008; Briz and Ward, Reference Briz and Ward2009; Pieniak et al., Reference Pieniak, Aertsens and Verbeke2010; Aertsens et al., Reference Aertsens, Mondelaers, Verbeke, Buysse and van Huylenbroeck2011; Nguyen et al., Reference Nguyen, Nguyen, Nguyen, Lobo and Vu2019), and even towards undertaking another type of diet (De Groeve and Bleys, Reference De Groeve and Bleys2017; Kemper, Reference Kemper2020; Grummon et al., Reference Grummon, Goodman, Jaacks, Taillie, Chauvenet, Salvia and Rimm2021).

Demographics

Alphabet theory states that demographics could influence consumer behavior indirectly through attitudes. Literature on the influence of demographics on sustainable attitudes and consumption are quite contradictory.

Some studies have found that younger people are more likely to develop pro-environmental behaviors (Zepeda and Li, Reference Zepeda and Li2007; Stoll-Kleemann and Schmidt, Reference Stoll-Kleemann and Schmidt2017; Kemper, Reference Kemper2020; Grummon et al., Reference Grummon, Goodman, Jaacks, Taillie, Chauvenet, Salvia and Rimm2021; Verain et al., Reference Verain, Dagevos and Jaspers2022). However, other studies revealed that older people are more devoted to making environmentally friendly purchases (Samdahl and Robertson, Reference Samdahl and Robertson1989; Vining and Ebreo, Reference Vining and Ebreo1990; Gilg et al., Reference Gilg, Barr and Ford2005; Zakowska-Biemans, Reference Zakowska-Biemans2011; Ghvanidze et al., Reference Ghvanidze, Velikova, Dodd and Oldewage-Theron2016; Wiernik et al., Reference Wiernik, Dilchert and Ones2016; Pfeiler and Egloff, Reference Pfeiler and Egloff2018) compared to younger individuals.

Regarding the level of education, many studies have found a positive connection to pro-environmental behaviors (Gilg et al., Reference Gilg, Barr and Ford2005; Zepeda and Li, Reference Zepeda and Li2007; Zakowska-Biemans, Reference Zakowska-Biemans2011; Ghvanidze et al., Reference Ghvanidze, Velikova, Dodd and Oldewage-Theron2016; Stoll-Kleemann and Schmidt, Reference Stoll-Kleemann and Schmidt2017; Pfeiler and Egloff, Reference Pfeiler and Egloff2018; Grummon et al., Reference Grummon, Goodman, Jaacks, Taillie, Chauvenet, Salvia and Rimm2021). On other occasions, the results have not been conclusive (Samdahl and Robertson, Reference Samdahl and Robertson1989; Verain et al., Reference Verain, Dagevos and Jaspers2022).

The connection between environmental behavior and the level of income has also been reported in numerous studies. Some found a positive connection (Gilg et al., Reference Gilg, Barr and Ford2005; Stoll-Kleemann and Schmidt, Reference Stoll-Kleemann and Schmidt2017; Grummon et al., Reference Grummon, Goodman, Jaacks, Taillie, Chauvenet, Salvia and Rimm2021), others a negative connection (Samdahl and Robertson, Reference Samdahl and Robertson1989), and some found no connection at all (Vining and Ebreo, Reference Vining and Ebreo1990; Zepeda and Li, Reference Zepeda and Li2007; Zakowska-Biemans, Reference Zakowska-Biemans2011; Ghvanidze et al., Reference Ghvanidze, Velikova, Dodd and Oldewage-Theron2016).

There seems to be greater consensus regarding gender, as most authors found that women take part in voluntary environmental protection activities more often and seem more interested in healthy and natural food than men (Conner et al., Reference Conner, Campbell-Arvai and Hamm2008a; Tobler et al., Reference Tobler, Visschers and Siegrist2011; De Groeve and Bleys, Reference De Groeve and Bleys2017; Pfeiler and Egloff, Reference Pfeiler and Egloff2018; Lanfranchi and Giannetto, Reference Lanfranchi and Giannetto2021; Verain et al., Reference Verain, Dagevos and Jaspers2022).

Regarding the type of habitat and its relationship with consumers' environmental behavior, several studies have focused on developing consumption models of consumer behavior in rural areas (Michaelidou and Hassan, Reference Michaelidou and Hassan2010; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Liu and Qi2014) and others have targeted on urban consumers (Cleveland et al., Reference Cleveland, Kalamas and Laroche2005; Asteria et al., Reference Asteria, Suyanti, Utari and Wisnu2014; Taufique and Vaithianathan, Reference Taufique and Vaithianathan2018). Some studies have found different environmental behaviors between rural and urban populations (Dean and Sharkey, Reference Dean and Sharkey2011; Qian et al., Reference Qian, Li, Zhao, Liu and Liu2022; Waldman et al., Reference Waldman, Giroux, Blekking, Nix, Fobi, Farmer and Todd2023), while in other works these differences have not been found (Schultz, Reference Schultz2016).

Based on prior studies, in our investigation we considered that gender, age, level of education, level of income and type of habitat could influence attitudes towards meat from transhumance livestock. However, and given the contradictory prior results regarding socio-demographic variables, our hypothesis will not specify the direction of these influences.

Hypothesis definition

According to the alphabet theory, attitudes are influenced by level of knowledge, demographics and context, and context also influences habits. These connections are formulated through the following hypotheses:

H1: The level of knowledge on transhumance positively influences consumer attitudes toward purchasing transhumance meat.

H2: Gender, age, level of education, income and type of habitat influence attitudes towards meat from transhumance livestock.

H3: Context positively influences attitudes toward the intention to purchase transhumance meat.

H4: Context positively influences habits toward the intention to purchase transhumance meat.

Lastly, attitudes positively influence habits, and the latter positively influence the intention to purchase meat from transhumance livestock, so:

H5: Attitudes positively influence habits in meat purchasing decisions.

H6: Habits positively influence the intention to purchase meat from transhumance livestock.

Materials and methods

Data were collected online via Google Forms using a convenience sample of Spanish grocery purchasers aged 18 and over in January 2021. Sampling followed a snowball technique by means of social media platforms. A screening question was included to identify meat-eating respondents. Convenience sampling suffers from selection bias, like other non-probabilistic sampling techniques. Still, it is a widely used technique in social research and can yield results comparable to their probability-sampled counterparts (Winton and Sabol, Reference Winton and Sabol2022). The questionnaire was approved by the ethics committee of the University Miguel Hernández (Spain) and the study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, taking specific care to protect personal information according to European General Data Protection Regulation No. 2016/679. Respondents received an explanation of the objective of the study, emphasizing that the information requested would be exclusively used for research and that confidentiality is absolutely guaranteed. Respondents were informed that their participation was voluntary.

The sample consisted of 383 respondents, 244 of whom consumed both types of meat, 122 only consumed beef and 17 only consumed lamb. Thus, for the beef model, there is a total sample of 366 consumers and for the lamb model, 261 consumers. In both cases, we met the sample size proposed by Hair et al. (Reference Hair, Black, Babin and Anderson2010) for this type of studies, which is 200 subjects. Our work is comparable to others in which structural equation modeling (SEM) is used to develop models of sustainable purchasing behavior (Manala and Aure, Reference Manala-O and Aure2019; Alam et al., Reference Alam, Ahmad, Ho, Omar and Lin2020; Cao et al., Reference Cao, Zheng, Liu, Yao and Chen2021; Betzler et al., Reference Betzler, Kempen and Mueller2022).

Table 1 shows the definition of the variables in the survey. The attitudes towards meat from transhumance were measured through a 5-point Likert scale that allow to know the level of agreement towards 6 statements that indicate beliefs about a hypothetical quality certification of transhumance meat and were based on the studies by Adams and Adams (Reference Adams and Adams2011), Feldmann and Hamm (Reference Feldmann and Hamm2015) and Gracia et al. (Reference Gracia, De Magistris and Nayga2011). All these variables were included as individual items in the model.

The subjective knowledge on transhumance was measured by adapting the scale of Flynn and Goldsmith (Reference Flynn and Goldsmith1999) that includes 4 statements measured in a 5-point Likert scale. Since it is an additive scale, the level of subjective knowledge was calculated by adding the scores of the 4 statements and the resultant variable ranges from a minimum value of 4 to a maximum value of 20. This additive variable was the one used in the model.

The context variables were also measured in a 5-point Likert scale (Table 1). The variables included in this scale were selected according to the theoretical framework developed in Section ‘Definition of variables’.

With respect to purchasing habits, we asked about the usual place of purchase of meat, the meat consumption frequency and food purchasing responsibility. We also consider being frequent organic and/or designation of origin meat purchasers. The socio-demographic variables considered were gender, age, level of education, level of family income and type of habitat. All these variables are categorical. The measurement of these variables is reported in Table 1.

Lastly, the dependent variable is the intention to purchase transhumance meat, which was measured on a 10-point scale from 1 (I would certainly not buy it) to 10 (I would certainly buy it).

We applied an SEM technique to test the suggested model and hypothesis. SEM techniques make it possible to form econometric structural equation models that explicitly incorporate the psychometric notion of unobservable variables (constructs) and measurement error (Fornell and Larcker, Reference Fornell and Larcker1981). Since SEM often assumes linear relationships, it is similar to common statistical techniques such as analysis of variance, multivariate analysis of variance and multiple regression; yet, where SEM departs from the aforementioned is in its capacity to estimate and test complex patterns of relationships at the construct level (Morrison et al., Reference Morrison, Morrison and McCutcheon2017). The basis of SEM techniques lies in the comparison of the variances and covariances matrix of the model specified by the researcher with the variances and covariances matrix of the sample. The more similar these two matrices are, the better the specified model is, since this means that the model reproduces the system of relationships existing in reality. Modeling follows a series of steps (Hair et al., Reference Hair, Black, Babin and Anderson2010) and in our case we start from a model based on the consumer behavior theory. This type of methodology is widely used in consumer behavior research, especially those that develop behavioral theory models (Muralidharan et al., Reference Muralidharan, Rejón-Guardia and Xue2016; Scalco et al., Reference Scalco, Noventa, Sartori and Ceschi2017; Stranieri et al., Reference Stranieri, Ricci, Stiletto and Trestini2023).

We have followed the two-stage procedure proposed by Anderson and Gerbing (Reference Anderson and Gerbing1988) that consists of verifying first the measurement model and then the structural model.

The absolute fit measures determine the degree to which the overall model predicts the observed covariance or correlation matrix (Hair et al., Reference Hair, Black, Babin and Anderson2010). We reported the CMIN/DF, which, according to McIver and Carmines (Reference McIver and Carmines1981), should be between 2 and 1 or 3 and 1, which are indicative of an acceptable fit between the hypothetical model and the sample data. In addition, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is reported. It is generally agreed that values below 0.05 indicate a close fit, while values of up to 0.08 are also acceptable (Browne and Cudeck, Reference Browne and Cudeck1993). Lastly, the comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) are also reported. It is generally agreed that values above 0.9 indicate a good fit. The model was estimated using Amos software; we operated the SEM by applying the maximum-likelihood estimator with a robust standard errors routine.

Results

Table 2 shows the sample description. The final sample of respondents was made of 44.9% of male respondents and 54.0% female respondents; 18.2% of the respondents were aged between 18 and 24 yr, 25.5% between 25 and 34, 22.6% between 35 and 49, 30.4% were 50 or over. In relation to the level of monthly income, the 4.4% of respondents declared to have a monthly income lower than €1000, 24.7% between €1000 and €1999, 29.6% between €2000 and €3499, 19.0% between €3500 and €4999 and 7.0% declared more than €5000. For what concerns the level of education: 0.8% of the respondents had completed only primary education, 11.7% had a high school diploma; 14.8% were university students and 69.6% had a university degree. According to the type of habitat, the sample is made up of 16.9% rural consumers and 83.1% urban consumers. With respect to the purchase habits, the 77.7% of the sample were the person responsible for purchasing at home and 49.0% buy meat in supermarkets. A 35.1% of the respondents purchase Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) meat and a 17.9% organic meat. The level of knowledge about transhumance is medium (10.67/20). With respect to contextual factors, taste (4.34/5) and appearance (4.21/5) are the most important attributes, with the organic production being the least important (2.67/5). In general, all the attitudes towards transhumant meat have a mean close to or above 4/5. When the sample of beef consumers and lamb consumers is considered separately, the descriptions are very similar.

Table 2. Socio-demographic data and purchasing habits of the samples

To proceed with the modeling, first, we perform a confirmatory factor analysis to verify the measurement quality of all latent constructs (attitudes, context and habits). Table 3 reports the standardized factor loadings of the single items for each unobserved variable, as well as the factor's Cronbach's α for the three constructs and for the knowledge level. Normally, factor loading over 0.70 is recommended, but researchers frequently obtain weaker outer loadings (<0.70) in social science studies (Vinzi et al., Reference Vinzi, Chin, Henseler and Wang2010). We decide to keep items with factor loadings over 0.40 for the structural model, that means that all the items except ‘responsible for purchasing’ were included. All constructs show a Cronbach's α above 0.70 that is indicated as a threshold to consider internal consistency as satisfactory (Nunnally and Bernstein, Reference Nunnally and Bernstein1994).

Table 3. Factor loadings and Cronbach's α of latent variables of the model and knowledge level

Figure 2 shows the structural model to explain the intention to purchase beef from transhumance livestock and Table 4 shows the estimates of the structural equation model. The fit indicators of the model indicate a good fit.

Fig. 2. Model for the intention to purchase beef from transhumance livestock.

Table 4. Estimates of the model for the intention to purchase beef from transhumance livestock

Estimates refer to the unstandardized solution.

Significance levels: ***P < 0.01; **0.01 ⩽ P < 0.05.

χ2 = 209.028; P < 0.001; PCMIN/DF = 1.672; CFI = 0.967; TLI = 0.959; RMSEA = 0.043.

According to the alphabet theory, three variables impact attitudes: demographic variables, context and level of knowledge. In our model, none of the demographic variables considered had an impact on attitudes. However, the context and level of knowledge did, with the contextual variables having the greatest influence on attitudes (0.632***). All the items that measure attitudes towards meat from transhumance livestock have a significant effect >0.9 (Table 4). Regarding the ‘context’, the variables that have a greater influence are fat content, type of meat, nutritional value and organic label. The price variable was finally excluded from the model because it was not significant. Regarding habits, only two of the initially proposed variables were significant: purchasing meat with a designation of origin and the place of purchase. On the one hand, those who buy meat with a designation of origin have a higher intention to purchase beef from transhumance livestock. Meanwhile, the positive sign of purchase place indicates that people who buy meat in butchers or specialty retailers have a higher purchase intention out of habit.

The R 2 related to purchasing intention in the structural equation model is 0.260. According to the literature which dealt with R 2 values for the endogenous constructs, they range from a low of 12% to a high of 64% (Joo and Sohn, Reference Joo and Sohn2008). The judgment of what R 2 level is high or weak depends on the specific research discipline and according to Hair et al. (Reference Hair, Ringle and Sarstedt2011), R 2 results of 0.20 are considered high in disciplines such as consumer behavior. So, habits have a positive and significant effect on purchase intention, suggesting that those consumers who are familiar with the food and meat shopping would be more prone to buy transhumance meat.

Figure 3 shows the model for the intention to purchase lamb from transhumance livestock and Table 5 shows the estimates of the structural equation model. The fit indicators of the model indicate a good fit. The model is very similar to the one for beef, with the slight difference that, in this case, besides price, neither easy to prepare nor shelf life have been found to be significant as contextual variables.

Fig. 3. Model for the intention to purchase lamb from transhumance livestock.

Table 5. Estimates of the model o for the intention to purchase lamb from transhumance livestock

Estimates refer to the unstandardized solution.

Significance levels: ***P < 0.01; **0.01 ⩽ P < 0.05.

χ2 = 159.436; P < 0.001; PCMIN/DF = 1.661; CFI = 0.963; TLI = 0.954; RMSEA = 0.050.

As with the prior model, none of the demographic variables considered has a significant effect on attitudes. Those that do are the context (0.56***) and the level of knowledge (0.047***), with the former having a greater impact.

All the indicators that measure attitudes towards meat from transhumance livestock have a significant and positive effect (Table 5). As with beef, the variables that best explain the context are fat content, type of meat, nutritional value and organic label. Regarding the habits, the same two observable variables were significant: purchasing meat with designation of origin and purchase place, so the same reading can be inferred.

The R 2 related to purchasing intention in the structural equation model is 0.36, that is, the predictors of intention to purchase explain 36.1% of its variance. As was the case in the lamb model, this value may be considered low in some disciplines, but it is valid in consumer research.

Discussion

In our model, the level of knowledge was significant in shaping attitudes towards this type of livestock farming, which confirms our first hypothesis. However, the effect is low and our sample has intermediate knowledge of transhumance. Clark et al. (Reference Clark, Panzone, Stewart, Kyriazakis, Niemi, Latvala, Tranter, Jones and Frewer2019) show that, in general, consumers have a low level of knowledge of animal production systems. Therefore, and in line with Stampa et al. (Reference Stampa, Schipmann-Schwarze and Hamm2020), we consider that greater awareness and knowledge of the impact of conventional and alternative methods of meat production on the environment and animal welfare proved to positively affect consumer attitudes and encourage the purchase of meat from transhumance livestock. As García-Gudiño et al. (Reference García-Gudiño, Blanco-Penedo, Gispert, Brun, Perea and Font-i-Furnols2021) say, knowledge must be increased to assign a greater value to the product and understand the higher price that these types of products may reach in markets.

Our study did not show any connection between demographics and attitudes. As we anticipated, the impact of demographic variables on explaining sustainable purchasing behavior is contradictory. In the review by Schäufele and Hamm (Reference Schäufele and Hamm2017), they found that some of the research papers did not find a significant connection between demographics and behavioral intentions, or could not find a correlation at least for age, education and income. Our second hypothesis is therefore rejected, as age, level of income, gender, level of education and type of habitat do not shape attitudes towards transhumance livestock farming.

Regarding the context, we can confirm the third hypothesis, as it has a strong impact on attitudes in both models. In both cases, the order of contribution of the indicators that comprise this construct is similar. The fat content is undoubtedly the most important aspect, even over taste or appearance. Realini et al. (Reference Realini, Kallas, Pérez-Juan, Gómez, Olleta, Beriain, Albertí and Sañudo2014) also found that the fat content is the most important purchase feature in beef, ahead of others such as price, color or origin. However, our result differs from that obtained by Bernués et al. (Reference Bernués, Ripoll and Panea2012), who found that fat content has a significant importance for lamb consumers, but lower than the appearance of freshness. Finally, we measured the importance of the fat attribute, but not the preference for higher or lower fat contents in meat whose results vary in different countries (Zenoli et al., Reference Zanoli, Scarpa, Napolitano, Piasentier, Naspetti and Bruschi2013; Cubero Dudinskaya et al., Reference Cubero Dudinskaya, Naspetti, Arsenos, Caramelle-Holtz, Latvala, Martin-Collado, Orsini, Ozturk and Zanoli2021).

Then there is the price, which was not significant in either of the two models. This factor, which was relevant for some authors (Merlino et al., Reference Merlino, Borra, Verduna and Massaglia2017; Ellies-Oury et al., Reference Ellies-Oury, Lee, Jacob and Hocquette2019; Nguyen et al., Reference Nguyen, Nguyen, Nguyen, Lobo and Vu2019; Lanfranchi and Giannetto, Reference Lanfranchi and Giannetto2021), was not important in our study. In this sense, our results coincide with those obtained by Conner et al. (Reference Conner, Campbell-Arvai and Hamm2008a), who concluded that less than half of respondents said that price is a barrier to an increased purchase of pasture-raised products. Furthermore, Mandolesi et al. (Reference Mandolesi, Naspetti, Arsenos, Caramelle-Holtz, Latvala, Martin-Collado, Orsini, Ozturk and Zanoli2020) also found it to be a secondary attribute for lamb and goat meat consumers, behind others including freshness, origin, production system and rearing conditions.

Hypothesis 4 has been rejected as the context does not impact habits in none of the models.

Attitudes have a positive and significant effect on habits, confirming H5. Regarding how these attitudes are shaped, all the items have a similar and significant influence. In the study by Bernués et al. (Reference Bernués, Olaizola and Corcoran2003), the origin is one of the key pieces of information that European consumers of lamb and beef meat most call to be on the product's label. In their research, they also obtained a similar result to ours regarding quality-related information only being relevant for beef consumers. Concern over a quality label for beef was also revealed in the study by Ellies-Oury et al. (Reference Ellies-Oury, Lee, Jacob and Hocquette2019). In a study on lamb and goat meat consumption by Mandolesi et al. (Reference Mandolesi, Naspetti, Arsenos, Caramelle-Holtz, Latvala, Martin-Collado, Orsini, Ozturk and Zanoli2020), the authors show the importance that the origin has for consumers, and its clear connection to the quality of the product. Pohjolainen et al. (Reference Pohjolainen, Tapio, Vinnari, Jokinen and Räsänen2016) also detect the importance of information on the origin for meat consumers.

Regarding the habits, in both models, being a purchaser of meat with a designation of origin has a significant influence on the purchase intention through these habits, which is why a quality certificate could help insert these products in the market. Although the importance of designations of origin in the purchase of meat has been highlighted in several studies (Gracia et al., Reference Gracia, De Magistris and Nayga2011; Bernabéu et al., Reference Bernabéu, Rabadán, El Orche and Díaz2018; Cubero Dudinskaya et al., Reference Cubero Dudinskaya, Naspetti, Arsenos, Caramelle-Holtz, Latvala, Martin-Collado, Orsini, Ozturk and Zanoli2021), in others this importance was more limited (Angón et al., Reference Angón, Requena, Caballero-Villalobos, Cantarero-Aparicio, Martínez-Marín and Perea2022). Meanwhile, in our results, being a purchaser of organic meat was not significant. This may be due to only 17.9% of the sample claiming to buy organic meat and to its low availability in Spain. Many studies (Zepeda and Deal, Reference Zepeda and Deal2009; Hjelmar, Reference Hjelmar2011; Janssen, Reference Janssen2018) view the latter as an obstacle for the consumption of organic products.

In both models, the place of purchase is a habit positively connected to the intention to purchase meat from transhumance livestock. Our results are in line with the study by Conner et al. (Reference Conner, Campbell-Arvai and Hamm2008b) that reports that consumers overwhelmingly prefer to obtain the information about pasture-raised meat at the point of purchase.

In any case, H6 is confirmed, as habits explain a significant part of the intention to purchase meat from transhumance livestock. This makes us believe that a certificate that guarantees the product's origin would help insert these products in the market and reach consumers through specialty retailers.

Conclusions

Meat of transhumant origin is a better option for consumers who seek more sustainable alternatives within meat consumption, as well as to ensure the survival of a livestock farming activity that is part of European cultural heritage. Learning the aspects of consumer behavior that can contribute to the intention to purchase this type of meat is essential. As the literature on the meat consumer makes clear, the profile and consumption patterns for beef and lamb are different, so it is essential to investigate separately the factors that influence the purchase intention for both types of meat.

According to our study, the alphabet theory is a suitable conceptual framework for explaining the purchasing behavior of lamb and beef from transhumance livestock through meat purchasing habits and the attitudes towards a transhumance certificate. Our study is also one of the first to empirically verify this theory.

Promoting knowledge on this practice could have a positive impact on the intention to purchase it. Messages should emphasize the quality and safety of this type of livestock farming, as well as its ties to the local community. Despite all this, factors linked to habits have great importance in the purchasing decision. Especially in the case of beef, where the person responsible for making the purchase may have enough knowledge of the product to make the right purchasing choice. In the purchase of lamb, the role of specialty retailers becomes even more important.

Limitations and future research

This study is exploratory and, as such, the results have to be interpreted. Furthermore, we used convenience sampling. This means that future studies should use probability sampling to extrapolate the results to the population. This study has not taken availability into account as a key contextual factor when purchasing food products. The effect of availability on consumer behavior regarding pasture-raised products has been assessed in few studies. It was reported to be difficult to measure because consumers thought they already consumed these products, whereas the real availability of these products in the stores was too low to make such statements feasible. However, it would be interesting to find a way to measure it, and to search for information on these products to convey the initial proposal of the alphabet theory in the best way possible.

As future lines of research, it would be interesting to analyze the importance that a transhumant livestock label could have on the choice to purchase meat products. This label would make it possible to differentiate this traditional livestock farming activity from others that are less sustainable and less rooted in rural areas.

Financial support

This work was supported by the Spanish State Agency for Research of the Ministry of Science and Innovation (RTI2018-099609-B-C21-TRASCAR).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare none.

References

Adams, D and Adams, A (2011) De-placing local at the farmers’ market: consumer conceptions of local foods. Journal of Rural Social Sciences 26, 74100.Google Scholar
Aertsens, J, Mondelaers, K, Verbeke, W, Buysse, J and van Huylenbroeck, G (2011) The influence of subjective and objective knowledge on attitude, motivations and consumption of organic food. British Food Journal 113, 13531378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguilera-Alcalá, N, Arrondo, E, Pascual-Rico, R, Morales-Reyes, Z, Gil-Sánchez, JM, Donázar, JA, Moleón, M and Sánchez-Zapata, JA (2022) The value of transhumance for biodiversity conservation: vulture foraging in relation to livestock movements. Ambio 51, 13301342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alam, SS, Ahmad, M, Ho, Y-H, Omar, NA and Lin, C-Y (2020) Applying an extended theory of planned behavior to sustainable food consumption. Sustainability 12, 8394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alary, V, Corniaux, C and Gautier, D (2011) Livestock's contribution to poverty alleviation: how to measure it? World Development 39, 16381648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alessandrini, R, Brown, MK, Pombo-Rodrigues, S, Bhageerutty, S, He, FJ and Macgregor, GA (2021) Nutritional quality of plant-based meat products available in the UK: a cross-sectional survey. Nutrients 13(12), 4225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, JC and Gerbing, DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103, 411.Google Scholar
Angón, E, Requena, F, Caballero-Villalobos, J, Cantarero-Aparicio, M, Martínez-Marín, AL and Perea, JM (2022) Beef from calves finished with a diet based on concentrate rich in agro-industrial by-products: acceptability and quality label preferences in Spanish meat consumers. Animals 12(1), 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apostolidis, C and McLeay, F (2019) To meat or not to meat? Comparing empowered meat consumers’ and anti-consumers’ preferences for sustainability labels. Food Quality and Preference 77, 109122.Google Scholar
Armstrong Soule, CA and Sekhon, T (2019) Preaching to the middle of the road: strategic differences in persuasive appeals for meat anti-consumption. British Food Journal 121, 157171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asteria, D, Suyanti, E, Utari, D and Wisnu, D (2014) Model of environmental communication with gender perspective in resolving environmental conflict in urban area (study on the role of women's activist in sustainable environmental conflict management). Procedia Environmental Sciences 20, 553562.Google Scholar
Balmford, A, Cole, L, Sandbrook, C and Fisher, B (2017) The environmental footprints of conservationists, economists and medics compared. Biological Conservation 214, 260269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baviera-Puig, A, Montero-Vicente, L, Escribá-Pérez, C and Buitrago-Vera, J (2021) Analysis of chicken and Turkey meat consumption by segmentation of Spanish consumers using food-related lifestyle. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 19(1), 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernabéu, R, Rabadán, A, El Orche, NE and Díaz, M (2018) Influence of quality labels on the formation of preferences of lamb meat consumers. A Spanish case study. Meat Science 135, 129133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernués, A, Olaizola, A and Corcoran, K (2003) Labelling information demanded by European consumers and relationships with purchasing motives, quality and safety of meat. Meat Science 65, 10951106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernués, A, Ripoll, G and Panea, B (2012) Consumer segmentation based on convenience orientation and attitudes towards quality attributes of lamb meat. Food Quality and Preference 26, 211220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betzler, S, Kempen, R and Mueller, K (2022) Predicting sustainable consumption behavior: knowledge-based, value-based, emotional and rational influences on mobile phone, food and fashion consumption. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 29, 125138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozzo, G, Barrasso, R, Grimaldi, CA, Tantillo, G and Roma, R (2019) Consumer attitudes towards animal welfare and their willingness to pay. Veterinaria Italiana 55, 289297.Google ScholarPubMed
Briz, T and Ward, RW (2009) Consumer awareness of organic products in Spain: an application of multinominal logit models. Food Policy 34, 295304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, MW and Cudeck, R (1993) Formas alternativas de evaluar el ajuste del modelo. Prueba de modelos de ecuaciones estructurales. Newbury Park, CA: Publicaciones sabias.Google Scholar
Bunce, RGH, Pérez-Soba, M, Jongman, RHG, Gómez Sal, A, Herzog, F and Austad, I (2004) Transhumance and Biodiversity in European Mountains. Report from the EU-FP5 Project Transhumount (EVK2-CT-2002–80017). Transhumance and Biodiversity in European Mountains. IALE publication series nr 1. The Netherlands: Wageningen, pp. 321.Google Scholar
Campbell-Arvai, V (2015) Food-related environmental beliefs and behaviors among university undergraduates a mixed-methods study. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 16, 279295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, D, Zheng, Y, Liu, C, Yao, X and Chen, S (2021) Consumption values, anxiety and organic food purchasing behaviour considering the moderating role of sustainable consumption attitude. British Food Journal 124, 35403562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmona, CP, Azcárate, FM, Oteros-Rozas, E, González, JA and Peco, B (2013) Assessing the effects of seasonal grazing on holm oak regeneration: implications for the conservation of Mediterranean dehesas. Biological Conservation 159, 240247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheah, I, Sadat Shimul, A, Liang, J and Phau, I (2020) Drivers and barriers toward reducing meat consumption. Appetite 149, 19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, B, Panzone, LA, Stewart, GB, Kyriazakis, I, Niemi, JK, Latvala, T, Tranter, R, Jones, P and Frewer, LJ (2019) Consumer attitudes towards production diseases in intensive production systems. PLoS ONE 14(1), e0210432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cleveland, M, Kalamas, M and Laroche, M (2005) Shades of green: linking environmental locus of control and pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Consumer Marketing 22, 198212.Google Scholar
Conner, D, Campbell-Arvai, V and Hamm, MW (2008 a) Consumer preferences for pasture-raised animal products: results from Michigan. Journal of Food Distribution Research 39, 1225.Google Scholar
Conner, DS, Campbell-Arvai, V and Hamm, MW (2008 b) Value in the values: pasture-raised livestock products offer opportunities for reconnecting producers and consumers. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23, 6269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cubero Dudinskaya, E, Naspetti, S, Arsenos, G, Caramelle-Holtz, E, Latvala, T, Martin-Collado, D, Orsini, S, Ozturk, E and Zanoli, R (2021) European consumers’ willingness to pay for red meat labelling attributes. Animals 11, 556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Czine, P, Török, Á, Pető, K, Horváth, P and Balogh, P (2020) The impact of the food labeling and other factors on consumer preferences using discrete choice modeling – the example of traditional pork sausage. Nutrients 12, 118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, MS (2017) Animal welfare and efficient farming: is conflict inevitable? Animal Production Science 57, 201208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, WR and Sharkey, JR (2011) Rural and urban differences in the associations between characteristics of the community food environment and fruit and vegetable intake. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 43, 426433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Boer, J and Aiking, H (2022) Do EU consumers think about meat reduction when considering to eat a healthy, sustainable diet and to have a role in food system change? Appetite 170(2022), 15880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groeve, B and Bleys, B (2017) Less meat initiatives at Ghent University: assessing the support among students and how to increase it. Sustainability (Switzerland) 9(9), 1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Magistris, T and Gracia, A (2008) The decision to buy organic food products in southern Italy. British Food Journal 110, 929947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldesouky, A, Mesias, FJ and Escribano, M (2020) Consumer assessment of sustainability traits in meat production. A choice experiment study in Spain. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12(10), 4093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellies-Oury, M-P, Lee, A, Jacob, H and Hocquette, J-F (2019) Meat consumption – what French consumers feel about the quality of beef? Italian Journal of Animal Science 18, 646656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escriba-Perez, C, Baviera-Puig, A, Buitrago-Vera, J and Montero-Vicente, L (2017) Consumer profile analysis for different types of meat in Spain. Meat Science 129, 120126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, JR, D'Souza, GE, Collins, A, Brown, C and Sperow, M (2011) Determining consumer perceptions of and willingness to pay for Appalachian grass-fed beef: an experimental economics approach. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 40, 233250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (2016) Sustainable livestock development. Available at https://www.fao.org/3/i6142e/i6142e.pdf.Google Scholar
FAO (2021) Emissions from Agriculture and Forest Land: Global, Regional and Country Trends 1990–2019. FAOSTAT Analytical Briefs, 25. FAO. Rome.Google Scholar
Feldmann, C and Hamm, U (2015) Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local food: a review. Food Quality and Preference 40, 152164.Google Scholar
Flynn, LR and Goldsmith, RE (1999) A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge. Journal of Business Research 46, 5766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Font-i-Furnols, M and Guerrero, L (2014) Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: an overview. Meat Science 98, 361371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fornell, C and Larcker, DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1), 3950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Gudiño, J, Blanco-Penedo, I, Gispert, M, Brun, A, Perea, J and Font-i-Furnols, M (2021) Understanding consumers’ perceptions towards Iberian pig production and animal welfare. Meat Science 172(2021), 108317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gere, A, Harizi, A, Bellissimo, N, Roberts, D and Moskowitz, H (2020) Creating a mind genomics wiki for non-meat analogs. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12(13), 5352.Google Scholar
Ghvanidze, S, Velikova, N, Dodd, TH and Oldewage-Theron, W (2016) Consumers’ environmental and ethical consciousness and the use of the related food products information: the role of perceived consumer effectiveness. Appetite 107, 311322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilg, A, Barr, S and Ford, N (2005) Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures 37, 481504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gracia, A and De-Magistris, T (2013) Preferences for lamb meat: a choice experiment for Spanish consumers. Meat Science 95, 396402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gracia, A, De Magistris, T and Nayga, RM Jr. (2011) Willingness to pay for a local lamb meat label in Spain. Paper prepared for Presentation at the EAAE 2011 congress.Google Scholar
Grebitus, C, Jensen, HH and Roosen, J (2013) US and German consumer preferences for ground beef packaged under a modified atmosphere – different regulations, different behavior? Food Policy 40, 109118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grummon, AH, Goodman, D, Jaacks, LM, Taillie, LS, Chauvenet, CA, Salvia, MG and Rimm, EB (2021) Awareness of and reactions to health and environmental harms of red meat among parents in the United States. Public Health Nutrition 25(4), 893–903.Google ScholarPubMed
Grunert, KG (2006) Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Science 74, 149160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grunert, KG, Sonntag, WI, Glanz-Chanos, V and Forum, S (2018) Consumer interest in environmental impact, safety, health and animal welfare aspects of modern pig production: results of a cross-national choice experiment. Meat Science 137, 123129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guagnano, GA, Stern, PC and Dietz, T (1995) Influences on attitude–behavior relationships: a natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior 27, 699718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hair, JF, Black, WC, Babin, BJ and Anderson, RE (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th Edn. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
Hair, JF, Ringle, CM and Sarstedt, M (2011) PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing theory and Practice 19(2), 139152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, C and Siegrist, M (2020) Our daily meat: justification, moral evaluation and willingness to substitute. Food Quality and Preference 80, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C, Feucht, Y and Zander, K (2021) Consumers’ contribution to a climate neutral EU: what influences the adoption of food-related mitigation options? System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks 2021, 2019–2021.Google Scholar
Hjelmar, U (2011) Consumers’ purchase of organic food products. A matter of convenience and reflexive practices. Appetite 56, 336344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janssen, M (2018) Determinants of organic food purchases: evidence from household panel data. Food Quality and Preference 68, 1928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joo, YG and Sohn, SY (2008) Structural equation model for effective CRM of digital content industry. Expert Systems with Applications 34, 6371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kantono, K, Hamid, N, Ma, Q, Chadha, D and Oey, I (2021) Consumers’ perception and purchase behavior of meat in China. Meat Science 179(2021), 108548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemper, JA (2020) Motivations, barriers, and strategies for meat reduction at different family lifecycle stages. Appetite 150(2020), 104644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerven, C and Behnke, R (2011) Policies and practices of pastoralism in Europe. Pastoralism: Research, Policy & Practices 1, 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khara, T, Riedy, C and Ruby, MB (2021) A cross cultural meat paradox: a qualitative study of Australia and India. Appetite 164(2021), 105227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, DJM and Yoon, S (2021) Guilt of the meat-eating consumer: when animal anthropomorphism leads to healthy meat dish choices. Journal of Consumer Psychology 31, 665683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanfranchi, M and Giannetto, C (2021) Meat consumption trend in Sicily (Italy): an analysis of consumer preferences. Quality – Access to Success 22, 136138.Google Scholar
Lasanta, T, Arnáez, J, Pascual, N, Ruiz-Flaño, P, Errea, MP and Lana-Renault, N (2017) Space–time process and drivers of land abandonment in Europe. Catena 149, 810823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, KP, DiBello, AM, Peterson, KP and Neighbors, C (2021) Chapter 21—Theory-driven interventions: How social cognition can help. In Frings D and Albery IP (eds), The Handbook of Alcohol Use. Cambridge, MA, USA: Academic Press, pp. 485510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manala-O, SD and Aure, PAH (2019) Food waste behavior of young fast-food consumers in the Philippines. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review 19, 7287.Google Scholar
Mancini, MC and Antonioli, F (2019) Exploring consumers’ attitude towards cultured meat in Italy. Meat Science 150, 101110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandolesi, S, Naspetti, S, Arsenos, G, Caramelle-Holtz, E, Latvala, T, Martin-Collado, D, Orsini, S, Ozturk, E and Zanoli, R (2020) Motivations and barriers for sheep and goat meat consumption in Europe: a means–end chain study. Animals 10, 116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manohar, S, Rehman, V and Sivakumaran, B (2021) Role of unfamiliarity and information on consumers’ willingness to try new healthy foods. Food Quality and Preference 87, 104037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIver, J and Carmines, EG (1981) Unidimensional scaling (Vol. 24). SAGE Publications, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merlino, VM, Borra, D, Verduna, T and Massaglia, S (2017) Household behavior with respect to meat consumption: differences between households with and without children. Veterinary Sciences 4(4), 53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merlino, VM, Borra, D, Girgenti, V, Dal Vecchio, A and Massaglia, S (2018) Beef meat preferences of consumers from northwest Italy: analysis of choice attributes. Meat Science 143, 119128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michaelidou, N and Hassan, LM (2010) Modeling the factors affecting rural consumers’ purchase of organic and free-range produce: a case study of consumers’ from the Island of Arran in Scotland, UK. Food Policy 35, 130139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales, R, Aguiar, APS, Subiabre, I and Realini, CE (2013) Beef acceptability and consumer expectations associated with production systems and marbling. Food Quality and Preference 29, 166173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, TG, Morrison, MA and McCutcheon, JM (2017) Best practice recommendations for using structural equation modelling in psychological research. Psychology (Savannah, GA) 8, 13261341.Google Scholar
Muralidharan, S, Rejón-Guardia, F and Xue, F (2016) Understanding the green buying behavior of younger Millennials from India and the United States: a structural equation modeling approach. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 28, 5472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, HV, Nguyen, N, Nguyen, BK, Lobo, A and Vu, PA (2019) Organic food purchases in an emerging market: the influence of consumers’ personal factors and green marketing practices of food stores. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16(6), 1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, HV, Nguyen, N, Nguyen, BK and Greenland, S (2021) Sustainable food consumption: investigating organic meat purchase intention by Vietnamese consumers. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13, 115.Google Scholar
Nunnally, JC and Bernstein, IH (1994) Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Olea, PP and Mateo-Tomás, P (2009) The role of traditional farming practices in ecosystem conservation: the case of transhumance and vultures. Biological Conservation 142, 18441853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oteros-Rozas, E, Ontillera-Sánchez, R, Sanosa, P, Gómez-Baggethun, E, Reyes-García, V and González, JA (2013) Traditional ecological knowledge among transhumant pastoralists in Mediterranean Spain. Ecology and Society 18(3), 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paracchini, ML, Petersen, J-E, Hoogeveen, Y, Bamps, C, Burfield, I and van Swaay, C (2008) High Nature Value Farmland in Europe: An Estimate of the Distribution Patterns on the Basis of Land Cover and Biodiversity Data. Report EUR 23480 EN for European Commission, Joint Research Centre and Institute for Environment and Sustainability. OPOCE; 2008. JRC47063. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Pfeiler, TM and Egloff, B (2018) Personality and attitudinal correlates of meat consumption: results of two representative German samples. Appetite 121, 294301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pieniak, Z, Aertsens, J and Verbeke, W (2010) Subjective and objective knowledge as determinants of organic vegetables consumption. Food Quality and Preference 21, 581588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohjolainen, P, Tapio, P, Vinnari, M, Jokinen, P and Räsänen, P (2016) Consumer consciousness on meat and the environment – exploring differences. Appetite 101, 3745.Google ScholarPubMed
Qian, L, Li, F, Zhao, X, Liu, H and Liu, X (2022) The Association between Religious Beliefs and Food Waste: Evidence from Chinese Rural Households. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148555Google Scholar
Rabadán, A, Díaz, M, Brugarolas, M and Bernabéu, R (2020) Why don't consumers buy organic lamb meat? A Spanish case study. Meat Science 162(2020), 108024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Realini, CE, Kallas, Z, Pérez-Juan, M, Gómez, I, Olleta, JL, Beriain, MJ, Albertí, P and Sañudo, C (2014) Relative importance of cues underlying Spanish consumers’ beef choice and segmentation, and consumer liking of beef enriched with n-3 and CLA fatty acids. Food Quality and Preference 33, 7485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, C, Crompton, L and Mills, J (2010) Livestock and climate change impacts in the developing world. Outlook on Agriculture 39, 245248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivaroli, S, Baldi, B and Spadoni, R (2020) Consumers’ perception of food product craftsmanship: a review of evidence. Food Quality and Preference 79, 103796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rojas-Downing, MM, Nejadhashemi, AP, Harrigan, T and Woznicki, SA (2017) Climate change and livestock: impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Climate Risk Management 16, 145163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rondoni, A and Grasso, S (2021) Consumers behavior towards carbon footprint labels on food: a review of the literature and discussion of industry implications. Journal of Cleaner Production 301, 127031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röös, E, Carlsson, G, Ferawati, F, Hefni, M, Stephan, A, Tidåker, P and Witthöft, C (2020) Less meat, more legumes: prospects and challenges in the transition toward sustainable diets in Sweden. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 35, 192205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz, FDA, Grande, D, Nahed, J, Castel, JM and Mena, Y (2021) Appraisal of the conversion possibilities of pastoral meat sheep systems to the organic production model. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 37, 7182.Google Scholar
Samdahl, DM and Robertson, R (1989) Social determinants of environmental concern: specification and test of the model. Environment and Behavior 21, 5781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scalco, A, Noventa, S, Sartori, R and Ceschi, A (2017) Predicting organic food consumption: a meta-analytic structural equation model based on the theory of planned behavior. Appetite 112, 235248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schäufele, I and Hamm, U (2017) Consumers’ perceptions, preferences and willingness-to-pay for wine with sustainability characteristics: a review. Journal of Cleaner Production 147, 379394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, S (2016) Investigating factors that influence an ecological attitude–behavior gap among Oregonians. Available at https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_projects/1z40kv527 (accessed 14 February 2023).Google Scholar
Sonoda, Y, Oishi, K, Chomei, Y and Hirooka, H (2018) How do human values influence the beef preferences of consumer segments regarding animal welfare and environmentally friendly production? Meat Science 146, 7586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stampa, E, Schipmann-Schwarze, C and Hamm, U (2020) Consumer perceptions, preferences, and behavior regarding pasture-raised livestock products: a review. Food Quality and Preference 82(2020), 103872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, PC, Dietz, T, Abel, T, Guagnano, GA and Kalof, L (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review 6, 8197.Google Scholar
Stoll-Kleemann, S and Schmidt, UJ (2017) Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: a review of influence factors. Regional Environmental Change 17, 12611277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stranieri, S, Ricci, E, Stiletto, A and Trestini, S (2023) How about choosing environmentally friendly beef? Exploring purchase intentions among Italian consumers. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 38, E2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taufique, KMR and Vaithianathan, S (2018) A fresh look at understanding Green consumer behavior among young urban Indian consumers through the lens of theory of planned behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production 183, 4655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terres, J-M, Scacchiafichi, LN, Wania, A, Ambar, M, Anguiano, E, Buckwell, A, Coppola, A, Gocht, A, Källström, HN, Pointereau, P, Strijker, D, Visek, L, Vranken, L and Zobena, A (2015) Farmland abandonment in Europe: identification of drivers and indicators, and development of a composite indicator of risk. Land Use Policy 49, 2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thilmany, D, Umberger, W and Ziehl, A (2006) Strategic market planning for value-added natural beef products: a cluster analysis of Colorado consumers. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 21, 192203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobler, C, Visschers, VHM and Siegrist, M (2011) Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite 57, 674682.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Upton, M (2004) The Role of Livestock in Economic Development and Poverty Reduction. A Living from Livestock. PPLPI Working Paper no. 10, FAO. Rome.Google Scholar
Verain, MCD, Dagevos, H and Jaspers, P (2022) Flexitarianism in the Netherlands in the 2010 decade: shifts, consumer segments and motives. Food Quality and Preference 96(2022), 104445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, W and Vackier, I (2004) Profile and effects of consumer involvement in fresh meat. Meat Science 67, 159168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vining, J and Ebreo, A (1990) What makes a recycler?: a comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers. Environment and Behavior 22, 5573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinzi, VE, Chin, WW, Henseler, J and Wang, H (2010) Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Vol. 201. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldman, KB, Giroux, S, Blekking, JP, Nix, E, Fobi, D, Farmer, J, and Todd, PM (2023) Eating sustainably: Conviction or convenience? Appetite 180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106335CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, P, Liu, Q and Qi, Y (2014) Factors influencing sustainable consumption behaviors: a survey of the rural residents in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 63, 152165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingarten, N, Meraner, M, Bach, L and Hartmann, M (2022) Can information influence meat consumption behavior? An experimental field study in the university canteen. Food Quality and Preference 97(2022), 104498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiernik, BM, Dilchert, S and Ones, DS (2016) Age and employee green behaviors: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology 7, 194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winton, BG and Sabol, MA (2022) A multi-group analysis of convenience samples: free, cheap, friendly, and fancy sources. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 25, 861876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, SS and Aini, MS (2017) Factors influencing purchase intention of organic meat among consumers in Klang Valley, Malaysia. International Food Research Journal 24, 767778.Google Scholar
Zakowska-Biemans, S (2011) Polish consumer food choices and beliefs about organic food. British Food Journal 113, 122137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanoli, R, Scarpa, R, Napolitano, F, Piasentier, E, Naspetti, S and Bruschi, V (2013) Organic label as an identifier of environmentally related quality: a consumer choice experiment on beef in Italy. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 28, 7079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zepeda, L and Deal, D (2009) Organic and local food consumer behavior: alphabet theory. International Journal of Consumer Studies 33, 697705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zepeda, L and Li, J (2007) Characteristics of organic food shoppers. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 39, 1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Conceptual model to explain the intention to purchase meat from transhumance livestock.

Figure 1

Table 1. Definition of the variables included in the survey

Figure 2

Table 2. Socio-demographic data and purchasing habits of the samples

Figure 3

Table 3. Factor loadings and Cronbach's α of latent variables of the model and knowledge level

Figure 4

Fig. 2. Model for the intention to purchase beef from transhumance livestock.

Figure 5

Table 4. Estimates of the model for the intention to purchase beef from transhumance livestock

Figure 6

Fig. 3. Model for the intention to purchase lamb from transhumance livestock.

Figure 7

Table 5. Estimates of the model o for the intention to purchase lamb from transhumance livestock