CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 141Environmental Sustainability in BusinessOrganic Food and AgricultureConsumer behavior in food and health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exploring Influential Factors Including COVID-19 on Green Food Purchase Intentions and the Intention–Behaviour Gap: A Qualitative Study among Consumers in a Chinese Context

Open access
Qi, Xin, Yu, Huaming, Ploeger, Angelika·2020·International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
DOI 10.3390/ijerph17197106PMC PMC7579444
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study applied a qualitative approach to investigate the underlying influences on consumers’ green food consumption from the intention generation phase to intention execution phase in the perspectives of purchase intention and the intention–behaviour gap (IBG). Additionally, the impact of the “Coronavirus Disease 2019” (COVID-19) pandemic on consumers’ green food purchases was explored. Research data were derived from semi-structured in-depth interviews with 28 consumers and analyzed using grounded theory. The findings identified factors that influenced intentions and the IBG in the process of consumers’ green food purchases. Specifically, these findings reported that health consciousness, perceived attributes, environmental consciousness, social influence, family structure, and enjoyable shopping experiences were identified as major drivers for generating consumers’ green food purchase intentions. High prices of green food, unavailability issues, mistrust issues, and limited knowledge were factors triggering the gap between green food purchase intentions and behaviours. In addition, the results revealed that the COVID-19 crisis increased consumers’ green food purchase intentions, whereas the IBG widens as a result of issues of unavailability, price, and panic. These findings will help stakeholders build future policy and suitable strategies to better promote green food consumption in the Chinese context.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ijerph17197106

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 86 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People’s Republic of China (2019). China Food Industry in 2018, China Light Industry Press.
  2. Rubin, H.J., and Rubin, I.S. (2004). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, Sage Publications. [2nd ed.].
  3. Goulding, 2000, Grounded theory methodology and consumer behavior, procedures, practice and pitfalls, Adv. Consum. Res., 27, 261
  4. Zhang, 2009, Consumers’ cognition purchasing behaviour to safe food- a survey on fresh food in Shanghai City, Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull., 25, 50
  5. Zhang, 2010, Consumers’ purchasing behaviour to green food, Com. Res., 12, 118
  6. Zhang, 2009, Consumers’ willingness to pay for green agricultural products in Guangzhou City, J. Agric. Econ., 6, 62

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–141 of 141

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Qi, X., Yu, H., & Ploeger, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Kassel (DE)
  • Qingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
Qi, Xin
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-09-28
Volume
17
Issue
19
Pages
7106
ISSN
1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ijerph17197106
PMC
PMC7579444
OpenAlex
W3088101975
Cited by
141
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 1
FWCI
22.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (2016YFC1401800, 41930534)
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFC1401800., 41930534)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Consumer behavior in food and health
Keywords
green food, purchase intention, intention-behavior gap, COVID-19 pandemic, consumer behavior, health consciousness, environmental awareness, social influence, family structure, customer experience, green food consumption, Chinese consumers
MeSH terms
Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, China, Consumer Behavior, Humans, Pneumonia, Viral, Surveys and Questionnaires, Vegetables, Coronavirus Infections, Intention, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review