Nguyen Thanh Huong. Safe Vegetable. ISBMBUS1.2010

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY
International School of Business

------------------------------
Nguyen Thanh Huong
KEY FACTORS AFFECTING

CONSUMER PURCHASE INTENTION
A STUDY OF SAFE VEGETABLE IN
HO CHI MINH CITY, VIETNAM
ID: 60340102
MASTER OF BUSINESS (Honours)

SUPERVISOR: Dr. Dinh Cong Khai
Ho Chi Minh City Year 2012
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First, I would like to express my gratitude and deepest appreciation to my research
supervisor, Dr. Dinh Cong Khai for his intensive support, valuable suggestions, guidance and
encouragement during the course of my dissertation.
Second, it is my very much gratitude to Prof. Nguyen Dinh Tho who exerts every effort in
guiding me as well as ISB students to implement research.
Third, I would like to thank all the participants as well as my colleagues, my friends who did
contribute to this research.
Last but not least, my sincere thanks are also to all the members of ISB School who are
always trying to create the best convenience for me as well as ISB students during the course.
Ho Chi Minh City, January 2nd 2012
Nguyen Thanh Huong
Abstract
The food hygiene and safeness is a very serious problem in Vietnam currently. Many cases of
food poising throughout years, especially from vegetable with high content of pesticides and
prohibited toxics, make consumers really worried. The overusing pesticides and prohibited
toxics in vegetable production is extremely worrying consumers. Understanding the problem
as well as the potential of safe vegetable market, many investors are trying to bring safe
vegetable product to consumers. However, reality shows that consumers are not really
passionate with this product despite of they are really demanding for safe vegetable sources.
This research is to find out the key factors affecting consumer purchase intention for safe
vegetable product and result shows that the reason is because of safe vegetables price and
consumers trust for this product. Consumers perceive safe vegetable as high price product as
well as they dont fully trust in safe vegetable product and that lower their purchase intention
for this product.
Keywords: Safe vegetable, purchase intention, trust, price perception, Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Research model............................................................................................. 14
Figure 2. Research process........................................................................................... 16
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Hypothesis summary ...................................................................................... 15
Table 2. Masurement scales for trust ............................................................................ 16
Table 3. Measurement scales for price perception ....................................................... 17
Table 4. Measurement scales for appearance ............................................................... 17
Table 5. Measurement scales for purchase intention.................................................... 18
Table 6. Sample specification....................................................................................... 21
Table 7. Data coding..................................................................................................... 22
Table 8. Cronbachs alpha result .................................................................................. 24
Table 9. EFA result of independent variables .............................................................. 25
Table 10. EFA result of dependent variables ............................................................... 26
Table 11. Regression analysis for gender, Income and purchase intention ................. 27
Table 12. Compare mean of purchase intention for income ........................................ 28
Table 13. Compare mean of purchase intention for gender ......................................... 29
Table 14. Test the impact of demographic factors ....................................................... 29
Table 15. Correlation among factors ............................................................................ 29
Table 16. Regression analysis for Trust, Price, Appearance & Purchase intention ..... 30
Table 17. Regression analysis for Trust, Price and Purchase intention ....................... 31
Table 18. Appearance and Purchase intention ............................................................. 33
Table 19. Correlation of Purchase intention and Price. ................................................ 35
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. NTRODUCTION .............................................................. 1
1.1
RESEARCH BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 1
1.2
PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ......................... 2
1.3
BENIFIT OF RESEARCH ............................................................................... 3
1.4
RESEARCH METHOD AND STRUCTURE ................................................. 3
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH MODEL 5

2.1
FUNDAMENTAL BEHAVIOUR THEORIES ............................................... 5
2.2
PREVIOUS RESEARCHES REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES........................ 8
2.2.1
Trust .............................................................................................. 9
2.2.2
Price perception............................................................................. 11
2.2.3
Safe vegetable appearance and consumers gender, income ................ 12
2.3
RESEARCH MODEL .................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODLOGY ..................................... 16

3.1
RESEARCH PROCESS ................................................................................. 16
3.2
DEFINING MEASUREMENT SCALES ...................................................... 17
3.2.1
Measurement scale for consumers trust on safe vegetable ................. 17
3.2.2
Measurement scale for consumers price perception of safe vegetable . 17
3.2.3
Measurement scale for safe vegetables appearance ........................... 18
3.2.4
Measurement scale for consumers income and consumers gender ..... 18
3.2.5
Measurement scale for consumer purchase intention for safe vegetable 18
3.3
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ........................................................................ 19
3.4
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH ..................................................................... 19
3.4.1
Sample for research ....................................................................... 20
3.4.2
Data collection .............................................................................. 20
3.4.3
Data analysis ................................................................................. 21
CHAPTER 4. RESEACH RESULT AND FINDING DISCUSSION . 22

4.1 SAMPLE SPECIFICATION .............................................................................. 22
4.2 DATA CODING ................................................................................................. 23
4.3 EVALUATION OF MEASUREMENT SCALES ............................................. 24
4.3.1 Reliability evaluation Cronbachs alpha............................................. 24
4.3.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) ...................................................... 25
4.3.2.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis for measurement scales of independent
factors (trust, price perception, appearance) ............................................... 26
4.3.2.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis for measurement scales of dependent
factor (purchase intention) ....................................................................... 27
4.4. REGRESSION ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 28
4.4.1. Testing the impact of demographic factors (gender, income).................. 28
4.4.2. Testing relationship of trust, price, appearance and purchasing intention . 30
4.4.4. Regression analysis results ................................................................. 33
4.5
FINDING DISCUSSION................................................................................ 33
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, LIMITATION AND

FUTURE RESEARCH ........................................................................... 36
5.1. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 36
5.2. IMPLICATION .................................................................................................. 36
5.3. LIMITATION .................................................................................................... 37
5.4. FUTURE RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 38
APPENDIX 1: DETAILS OF INTERVIEWED CONSUMERS ........ 45

APPENDIX 2: CRONBACHS ALPHA RESULT .............................. 46
APPENDIX 3: EFA RESULT OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES ... 49
APPENDIX 4: EFA RESULT OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES ........ 51

APPENDIX 5: IMPACTION OF DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS....... 52
APPENDIX 6: REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULT ......................... 55
APPENDIX 7: QUESTIONAIRE FORM ............................................. 57
Student: Nguyen Thanh Huong
Supervisor: Dr. Dinh Cong Khai
CHAPTER 1. NTRODUCTION
1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND
In the recent years, rarely the word safe vegetable appears in the guidance of
agricultural production as well as there is never a moment in Vietnam the demand of
food safety and hygiene that extremely attracting consumers attention as today. The
increasingly use and abuse of pesticides in vegetable production in Vietnam is really
worrying the Vietnamese government as well as the local consumers.
Polluted environment, unsafe agricultural products and human health under threat are
the result of the overuse of pesticides for weeding and it becomes a very serious
problem in Vietnam currently (Khanh, as cited in Takuro et al., 2009, p.286). It was
reported in The Baomoi (Safe vegetable problem) that according to an authority
department, up to 80% of vegetable in the market does not meet food safety and
hygiene standards. A major concern today is the very popular abusing of pesticides in
Vietnam causing environment pollution, poisoned farm. The farmers due to lacking of
knowledge or for their own interest overuse pesticides or non-origin pesticides. A
study reported that Mekong Delta farmers do not only overuse pesticides but also
abuse several banned or restricted products in their vegetable weeding (Nguyen and
Tran, as cited in Luke and Steffanie, 2007, p.1).
Food safety issue becomes more and more serious. Reported by Samira (2012) that
there were 51 death cases from 175 food poisoning cases in Vietnam in 2010 in which
33,2% is from micro organization, 25,2% is from toxin, 10.4% is from chemical and
31.2% is unknown. It is also advised by a hospital in Ho Chi Minh city that 30%
35% of the hospitals cancer victims is from food poisoning.
The large numbers of food poisoning cases throughout years in Vietnam together with
the citizens increasing standard of living as well as the more concern about their
health, quality and safety of the food they eat create a strong demand of safe vegetable
product. That the demand for safe vegetable is growing rapidly over years creates
huge market opportunities for safe vegetable.
Page 1
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

Understanding the huge opportunities of safe vegetable market; many investors have
begun their investment to this market, however, a surprising reality shows that
investors are facing much difficulty in finding the output for this market, especially in
the context of safe vegetable supply has not met the demand. About supply and
demand of safe vegetable, The Fruit and Vegetable Research Institute reports that
despite the high demand for safe vegetable, there is only small portion of safe
vegetable production compared with ordinary vegetable. In 2009, safe vegetable
production area only accounted for 8.5% of the total area under vegetable production
in Viet Nam which absolutely could not meet consumers demand. Added in The
Vietnamplus (high demand but still low consumption) that the current productivity
of safe vegetable can only meet 20% of consumers demand, however, consumption is
very unstable and especially with low speed in profuse harvest. In the context of
supply has not met demand, there should have been no issue for the product output.
However, the reality of safe vegetable market is totally different that make us
confused if consumers dont care about their health though keep complaining of the
safety of vegetable, or if there are factors which strongly impact and restrain their
purchasing for this product. If those factors are really existing then we worry what
they are. Therefore, the aim of this research is to find out the key factors affecting
consumer purchase intention for safe vegetable. The research questions are following:
What are the key factors affecting consumer purchase intention for safe
vegetable in Ho Chi Minh?
And how do they impact on consumer purchase intention?
The object of the research will be consumers of vegetable market in Ho Chi Minh
City.
Page 2
1.3 BENIFIT OF RESEARCH

With the consumers in this alarming period of food safety and hygiene, they are more
and more starving for safe vegetable product. With the Vietnamese government, food
safety issue related to vegetable is currently a headache to them and the Government
has strived to increase the production area as well as productivity of safe vegetable to
bring this product to the citizen as much as possible. With investors in safe vegetable
market, finding ways to solve the problem of their product output is their first priority
to recover their balance in this market. Hence, if the factors impacting and restraining
consumer purchase intention for safe vegetable can be discovered and among them, if
there are some that the government as well as investors can solve then it would in
some aspects benefit the society as well as investors. Consumers will have more
chance of approaching safe vegetable; vegetable related food safety issue become less
headache to government; investors can solve problem of their product output as well
as expand their business and market for safe vegetable. Hence, it is really necessary
that investors as well as the government should understand those factors for their
problem solving.
1.4 RESEARCH METHOD AND STRUCTURE
This research employs a combined method comprising 5 steps:
Step 1: Review the literatures on determinants of consumer purchase intention
with special attention to those conducted in the context of safe vegetable in
Vietnam. From this, define a list of possible determinants as well as hypotheses
and research model.
Step 2: Define measurement scales for the research concepts.
Step 3: Perform qualitative research to evaluate measurement scales
Step 4: Perform official quantitative research.
Step 5: Code and analyze data
Page 3
Corresponding to this process below structure is proposed for this research:

Chapter 1: Introduction to introduce research background, research problem,
research objective, research question as well as benefit of the research.
Chapter 2: Literature review. This chapter reviews theories and selects the
researchs factors as well as formulates the research hypotheses and model.
Chapter 3: Research methodology. This chapter provides general idea how the
research is designed and implemented.
Chapter 4: Data analysis, result and finding discussion. This chapter translates
data collected from survey, analyses data as well as discusses the result finding
in connection with theory.
Chapter 5: Conclusion, implication, limitation and future research. This
Chapter concludes the research finding, provides implication, further
suggestion as well as research limitation.
Page 4
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH MODEL

2.1 FUNDAMENTAL BEHAVIOUR THEORIES
In order to understand why consumers purchase safe vegetable, we will firstly look at
the two very basic behaviour theories called Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB).
The TRA is developed by Ajzen and Fishbein in 1980, and after that the TPB is
developed by Ajzen in 1991. Both the two theories explain how a person leads to
certain behaviour. The central factor in the theories is the individuals intention to
perform a given behaviour.
According to Ajzen (1991, p.181) intentions are assumed to capture the motivational
factors that influence a behaviour, they are indications of how hard people are willing
to try, of how much of an effort they are planning to exert, in order to perform the
behaviour. And he makes further emphasis that when people have the stronger
intention to engage in the behaviour, they will more likely to perform the behaviour
(Ajzen, 1991, p.181). Added by Samin et al. (2012, p.206) that intention is the
persons motivation in the sense of his or her intention to perform behaviour. Further
definition for purchase intention is what we think we will buy (Park, as cited in
Samin et al., 2012, p.206). Purchase intention can also be defined as the decision to
act or physiological action that shows an individuals behaviour according to the
product (Wang & Yang, as cited in Samin et al., 2012, p.206). Dodds et al. (1991)
suggested that purchase intention represents the possibility for consumers to buy a
product (as cited in Long and Ching, 2010, p.20). Long and Ching also conclude
purchase intention stands for what we would like to buy in future (Long and Ching,
2010, p.20).
According to the TRA, a persons behavioural intention is determined by the two basis
components which are attitude toward behaviour and subjective norm. These two
factors will directly affect an individuals behavioural intention and then consequently
affect his or her behaviour (Sudin, Geoffrey and Hanudin, 2009, p.68)
Page 5
Ajzen (1991, p.188) defines attitude toward the behaviour as the degree to which a
person has a favourable or unfavourable evaluation or appraisal of the behaviour in
question. A person will hold a favourable attitude toward performing the behaviour if
he or she believes that positive outcomes will be mostly achieved if performing a
given behaviour and vice versa (Sudin et al., 2009, p.68). The more favourable
attitude toward performing a behaviour a person is holding, the stronger intention he
or she will make to perform the behaviour (Ajzen, 1991, p.181 ). Sudin et al. (2009,
p.68) terms the beliefs that underlie a persons attitude toward the behaviour are
behavioural beliefs.
Ajzen also refers subjective norm as the perceived social pressure to perform or not
to perform the behaviour (Ajzen, 1991, p.188). Teresa, Bonnie and Yingjiao (2005,
p.407) makes more explanation for subjective norm as a function of an individuals
beliefs that specific individuals or groups think he/she should or should not perform
the behaviour. Added by Sudin et al. (2009, p.68) that a person who believes that
most referents with whom he is motivated to comply think he should perform the
behaviour will receive social pressure to do so.
In another way, the TRA says that the more favourable attitude a person is holding
toward performing behaviour, the higher intention he or she will perform it. Or the
more a person perceives social pressure to perform behaviour, the more likely his or
her intention to perform it will increase.
However, the TRA also has its limitation to explain why in some case, a person holds
a very favourable attitude toward performing behaviour as well as perceives a very
strong social pressure to perform the behaviour; he or she still does not have intention
or holds a very low intention to perform the behaviour.
To solve the TRAs limitation, Ajzen develops another theory called Theory of
Planned Behaviour. Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) is an extension of the
theory of reasoned action (TRA) made necessary by the original models limitations in
dealing with behaviours over which people have incomplete volitional control
(Ajzen, 1991, p.181). The TPB is developed by adding one more component which is
Page 6
called perceived behavioural control to the TRA. Then in the TPB model, an
individuals behavioural intention is a function of three basis components which are
attitude toward the behaviour, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control.
Ajzen (1991, p.188) refers perceived behavioural control in the TPB model as people
perception of the ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour of interest. The
importance of actual behaviour control is self evident: the resources and opportunities
available to a person must to some extent dictate the likelihood of behavioural
achievement.
The TPB solves the limitation of the TRA by its ability to explain why in some
scenarios, people hold a great favourable attitude toward performing behaviour as well
as perceive strong social pressure to perform the behaviour but they still dont perform
the behaviour. Those scenarios are explained by the TPB that because people perceive
obstacles or difficulty in performing the behaviour. Or the perception of having low
capacity to perform the behaviour also lowers a persons behavioural intention and
consequently makes him or her not performing the behaviour. Those TPB calls
perceived behavioural control.
The TRA and TPB have been applied extensively in food studies as well as in other
industries as service, banking...They have also been used by many researchers to
predict consumer purchase intention for a specific product. For example, Teresa et al.
(2006) uses TRA and TPB to predict purchase intention of a controversial luxury
apparel product, Syed (2011) uses TPB to study consumer purchase behaviour for
halal food, Anssi and Sanna (2005) also uses them to study consumers organic food
buying behaviour... According to Anssi and Sanna (2005, p.809), in the past studies
on organic food buying behaviour the role of subjective norms, which refers to the
perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behaviour, has often been
neglected or not included in the research model. This could be because of its low
impact on consumers organic food purchasing behaviour. Same in this research for
consumer purchase intention of safe vegetable, we also neglect subjective norm in our
research model.
Page 7
2.2 PREVIOUS RESEARCHES REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

In Hsiang-tai, Stephanie and Alan (2000)s study about factors that influence the
purchasing decision for fresh potatoes of consumer in the New England market, the
researchers proposes a model of eight key factors affecting consumer purchase
decision for fresh potatoes which are: (1)Appearance of the potatoes, (2)Price, (3)Size
of the potatoes, (4)Region where the potatoes were grown, (5)Type of potatoes,
(6)Product inspection certification on the bag, (7)Prior experience with the product,
(8)A money back guarantee if not satisfying. Besides that, demographic factors as
consumers age, sex, income and household size are also included in his model.
In
general, the research results confirm that product appearance is the most influential
characteristic, then types of potatoes and size receive high important rating. Price is
moderately important but less crucial than appearance, size and type However, the
importance rate of those most influential factors is different among respondents
gender, age, income (Hsiang-tai et al., 2000, p.51-52). Other researches proposes more
factors as degree of knowledge of product, purchase place, degree of trust in product
certification, price perception, trust in product, product information, package
information, brand awareness...that could affect purchase intention for a specific
product.
In Andrew (2006)s research about quality and safety in the traditional horticultural
marketing chains of Asia, he concludes appearance is one of the most important
factors affecting consumer purchase (Andrew, 2006, p.21). A small survey for
consumers in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam also conducted by Andrew says that
consumers do have intention to purchase safe vegetable; however, consumption of
safe vegetable is only 5% of consumers total vegetable consumption regardless of
past fatalities from consuming conventional vegetables. The reasons declared by
consumers are there is a lack of conviction that such vegetables were indeed safer
and safe vegetable has high price (Andrew, 2006, p.22)
Therefore, in our research model, we will only focus on some major factors that could
most impact on consumer purchase intention for safe vegetable in Ho Chi Minh city,
Page 8
Vietnam. They are trust, price perception, safe vegetable appearance, and
demographic factors as consumers age and income. More review for those selected
factors will be following.
2.2.1 Trust
As cited in Carmina and Carlos (2011, p.283):
Moorman et al. (1993) defined trust as a willingness to rely on an exchange
partner in whom one has confidence, proposing, additionally, trust as a belief,
confidence, or expectation about an exchange partners trustworthiness that
results from the partners expertise, reliability, or intentionality.
Carmina and Carlos (2011, p.283) also states in the context of food products, trust is
closely linked to other basic concepts of marketing, like safety and perceived risk, and
others such as nutrition and health.
Mapping trust to TPB framework, we can say that trust is a belief underlying
consumers attitude toward their purchase behaviour and therefore, trust can
potentially be considered as an important factor that affects consumer purchasing
intention. Carmina and Carlos (2011)s research result about consequences of
consumer trust in PDO food products says that trust affects consumers satisfaction
and consequently affects consumer purchase intention for PDO food products.
In general, we can make assumption that trust plays an impact on consumer purchase
intention.
Back to Vietnam market, vegetable can be considered as indispensable food product
to every Vietnamese familys meal and consumers can not stop consuming vegetable.
However, in Vietnam the food safety issue is extremely alerting consumers currently
that causes a strong demand for safe vegetable. Many cases of food poisoning caused
by insecticide inside vegetable or high concentrate of existing growth stimulating
substances in vegetable. According to Young, Miri & Junghoon (2008, p.168) that
after facing serious food safety incidents, consumers have become increasingly
Page 9
concerned with quality and safety of foods they eat, they will try to look for
sufficient information before making food purchase decision. Consumers will look at
purchasing branded, quality insurance...for their risk reducing strategies in their
purchasing. However, resource of information of safe vegetable in Vietnam is
currently so limited that makes consumers very confused when purchasing this
product. Most of safe vegetable products do not have any certification that causes
losing consumers trust.
Currently, only 20% of safe vegetable is sold in
supermarkets and safe vegetable shops, the majority is sold in traditional markets in a
jumble with ordinary vegetable. There is no special figure to distinguish between safe
vegetable and ordinary vegetable except that safe vegetable is well packed in nylon
pack and labelled with name of production companies. There is no figure other than
that to convince consumers about safe vegetable is really safe and that make them
really worried when purchasing this product. Stated by Ms. Nguyen Thanh Tam, a
consumer in Ho Chi Minh city, that I usually buy food, vegetable in a traditional
market nearby my house, there they are also selling vegetable called safe vegetable
packed in nylon pack with label and producer name but I still do worry if they are
really safe vegetable. I still buy this product only by placing my confidence in the
sellers honest. From this review, we may assume that consumers are holding an
unfavourable attitude for safe vegetable product, they dont really trust in safe
vegetable product and that lowers their purchase intention for this product.
From literature review together with the current status of safe vegetable in Viet Nam,
we hypothesize that consumer purchase intention for safe vegetable is positively
affected by trust. The more consumers trust in safe vegetable, the more likely they will
increase their purchase intention for this product. So our first hypothesis is defined as
following:
H1. There is a positive relationship of consumers trust in safe vegetable and their safe
vegetable purchase intention.
Page 10
2.2.2
Price perception
As defined by Ajzen (1991, p.188) in his TPB model, perceived behavioural control
refers to people perception of the ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour of
interest. He makes more explanation for perceived behavioural control as the
customers personal view of his or her capability to carry out certain behaviour
(Ajzen, as cited in Zeinab and Seyedeh, 2012, p.100) and can account for
considerable variance in behavioural intention and action (Ajzen, as cited in Anssi
and Sanna, 2005, p.810). In the studies of consumer purchase behaviour for organic
product, Tregear (1994) concludes that price does high affect in consumer purchase
for this product, that the products relative higher price has been practically most
important for not buying organic product (Tregear, as cited in Anssi and Sanna,
2005, p.811). Price is an obstacle to consumer purchase for organic product; high
price will lower consumers capacity of purchasing for the product, especially low
income consumers, and it makes consumers perceive the impossibility to purchase
organic food product, makes them feel uneasy or difficult in performing their purchase
decision for the product (Anssi and Sanna, 2005, p.811). In the study of Zeinab and
Seyedeh (2012) about main factors influencing purchasing behaviour of organic
product in Malaysia, he views price as one of the elements of perceived behavioural
control for its ability to limit the purchases of consumers, he also says numerous
consumers place their purchases
mainly base on price (Zienab and Seyedeh, 2012,
p.106). Therefore, we can assume that price highly impacts on consumer purchase
intention for a product.
According to Bich Diep (2012), average income of Vietnamese is 1300 USD/year in
2011 that can be considered low. And with the saving habit of the Vietnamese, it is
easily to understand that the majority of Vietnamese tend to pay much consideration
in their spending. And that safe vegetable price is always high, especially much more
expensive than conventional vegetable can make it really sensitive to consumers and it
could be rated as one of the major obstacle to their purchase intention for this product.
Andrew (2006, p.22) also reports in his study of consumers in Ho Chi Minh city,
Page 11
Vietnam that one of the reasons declared by consumers of not buying safe vegetable
product is because of its high price.
However, consumers have their different price perception (Ehrenberg, as cited in
Terasa et al., 2005, p.408). This could be understood in the way that some consumers
when they have limited financial resources, price is their first priority and they may
tend to consider safe vegetable as expensive, therefore, that would lower their
purchase intention for safe vegetable. However, others may think that the
expensiveness of safe vegetable is worthy in return for its quality and consequently,
they dont perceive safe vegetable is expensive product.
In general assumption for Vietnam, safe vegetables high price can be an obstacle to
consumer purchase intention. However, it is incorrect to mean that consumers
perceive safe vegetable as expensive product. Every consumer has his or her
individual price perception for safe vegetable. This leads to assumption that if
consumers perceive safe vegetable as expensive product, they will lower their
purchase intention for it and vice versa. With this assumption, we propose hypothesis
as following:
H2. There is a positive relationship of consumers price perception for safe vegetable
and consumer purchase intention. The positive relationship is defined in the way that
the more inexpensive consumers think safe vegetable is, the more likely they will
increase their purchase intention for safe vegetable.
2.2.3
Safe vegetable appearance and consumers gender, income
Over years, there were many studies on factors affecting consumer purchase intention
for foods consumption. The factors as well as their importance may be different from
countries to countries, periods to periods...However, over the years in food
consumption, product appearance and price are considered as the two most influence
factors (Vance Publications, as cited in Hsiang-tai et al., 2000, p.47). Said by Robert
Shewfelt, professor of food science at the University of Georgia's Center for Food
Safety and Quality Enhancement, most consumers aren't willing even to consider
Page 12
buying something that does not have a pleasant appearance (Pratt, 1993). Andrew
(2006, p.21) also concludes that appearance is one of the most important factors
affecting consumer purchase for fruit and vegetable in Asian markets. Therefore, in
this research, we propose hypothesis as following:
H3: There is a positive relationship of safe vegetables appearance and consumer
purchase intention
According to Ajzen (1991) says about his TPB model, attitude toward behaviour,
subjective norm and perceived behavioural control are considered to be central for
predicting the understanding human behaviour. However, he also proposes some
other factors which he calls external variables that may affect people behaviour. The
suggested external variables are personality traits, demographic factors ... (Ajzen, as
cited Teresa et al., 2005, p.408). Hence, in this research, we will consider
demographic factors (consumers income and gender) as control variables.
Page 13
2.3 RESEARCH MODEL

From the literature review and research hypotheses, the model is as follows:
Trust
H1 (+)
H2 (+)
Price perception
Purchase intention
H3 (+)
Appearance
Demographic variables:
Consumers gender
Consumers income
Figure 1. Research model

In which:
Trust: consumers trust for safe vegetable
Price perception: consumers price perception for safe vegetable whether safe
vegetable is inexpensive or not.
Appearance: safe vegetable appearance according to consumers perception.
Income: consumers income
Gender: consumers gender
Purchase intention: consumer purchase intention for safe vegetable.
Page 14
Table 1
Hypothesis summary
Hypothesis Statement
H1
There is a positive relationship of consumers trust in safe vegetable and

their safe vegetable purchase intention. The more consumers trust in safe
vegetable, the more likely they will increase their purchase intention for
this product
H2
There is a positive relationship of consumers price perception for safe

vegetable and consumer purchase intention. The positive relationship is
defined in the way that the more inexpensive consumers think safe
vegetable is, the more likely they will increase their purchase intention
for safe vegetable
H3
There is a positive relationship of safe vegetables appearance and

consumer purchase intention
Page 15
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODLOGY

Chapter 2 reviewed literature and proposes hypotheses and research model. Chapter 3
will present how the research was implemented. This chapter composes of three main
steps: step (1) defining measurement scales, step (2) performing qualitative research
and step (3) implementing quantitative research.
3.1 RESEARCH PROCESS
This study is conducted with process is as follows:
Problem
definition
Literature
review
Hypotheses
& Model
Measurement scale
in English
Measurement scale
in Vietnamese
Qualitative research
(to validate
measurement scale
in Vietnamese)
Final measurement
scale in Vietnamese
Questionnaire
forming
Sampling
Data collection
Data analysis
Managerial
implications
Figure 2. Research process
Page 16
3.2 DEFINING MEASUREMENT SCALES

Measurement scales were defined from research hypotheses and model. There are five
research concepts in this research which are trust, price perception, appearance,
consumers gender and income.
The measurement scales used to measure the concepts are the existing measurement
scales in the world. These measurement scales were used in many previous qualified
researches which are published in reputed international magazines.
3.2.1 Measurement scale for consumers trust on safe vegetable
Consumers trust on safe vegetable (briefly called trust) was measured by overall
evaluating consumers about their trust toward safe vegetable product. The
measurement scales were adapted from Carmina and Carlos (2011) and Mei-Fang
(2009).
Table 2
Measurement scales for trust
1. I think safe vegetable is trustworthy
2. The quality of the safe vegetable is trustworthy
3. I trust safe vegetable have no harmful effects
3.2.2 Measurement scale for consumers price perception of safe vegetable

Consumers price perception of safe vegetable (briefly called price perception)
measures how consumers perceive price of safe vegetable; whether they think safe
vegetable is expensive or not expensive. The measurement scales for this concept
were adapted from Mei-Fang (2009).
Page 17
Table 3
Measurement scales for price perception
1. Safe vegetable is not expensive
2. Safe vegetable is cheap
3.2.3 Measurement scale for safe vegetables appearance

Safe vegetables appearance (briefly called appearance) measures how consumers
think about appearance of safe vegetable in the market. The measurement scales were
adapted from Efthimia, Christina, Yorgos and Kostantinos (2008) and also measured
by 7 Likert point.
Table 4
Measurement scales for appearance
1. Safe vegetable does not have spots/marks
2. Safe vegetable has nice shape
3.2.4 Measurement scale for consumers income and consumers gender

Consumers income and consumers gender are directly measured by asking
consumers on their gender and income.
3.2.5 Measurement scale for consumer purchase intention for safe vegetable
Consumer purchase intention (briefly called purchase intention) was measured by 7
Likert point. The measurement scales were adapted from Young et al. (2008) which
measure how consumers intention to purchase a specific product.
Table 5
Measurement scales for purchase intention
1. I plan to continue purchasing safe vegetable
2. I intend to increase the size of safe vegetable purchases
3. I intend to increase the frequency of purchasing for safe vegetable product

Page 18
3.3 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Since the measurement scales are originally in English and translated to Vietnamese
so the purpose of this qualitative research is to ensure the meaning of the measurement
scales. This qualitative research is to evaluate the use of terminology in questionnaire
as well as to adjust the terminology to be suitable, to keep the meaning of
measurement scales unchanged when being translated from English to Vietnamese
before the official quantitative research is conducted.
The qualitative research was implemented in middle of October 2012 and was done by
deep interviewing 10 consumers in Ho Chi Minh City. Detail of interviewed
consumers is shown in Appendix 1.
The interviews were done by asking consumers (1) how they understood about the
measurement scales, (2) what the meaning of measurement scales were according to
them and (3) what they meant in every point (1 to 7) they gave to each measurement
scale.
Base on the result of interviewing with 10 consumers, the measurement scales as well
as the questionnaire were then modified a little in wording before implementing
quantitative research. After modifying the questionnaire in Vietnamese, we again
interviewed 2 more consumers to consider again if any pending issue with the
measurement scales and their meaning.
These 2 consumers were asked the same
questions as we did in previous interviews with 10 consumers. The result showed that
their understanding for measurement scales was matched with what we expected. The
questionnaire was concluded as being clear; consumers understood the content and the
meaning of measurement scales questions. Therefore, these measurement scales in
Vietnamese were then used in quantitative research.
3.4 QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
The official quantitative research was then followed with the final questionnaire
delivered to consumers.
Page 19
3.4.1 Sample for research

After conducting qualitative research, the survey via questionnaire in Vietnamese is
completed. This study includes 10 variables, in which 7 variables are independent and
3 dependent variables. According to Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010), a
general rule, the sample size should be 100 or greater and the minimum sample should
have a desired ratio of 5 observations per variable.
n > 100 samples and n=5k (where k=the number of variables).
Therefore, the minimum sample size is n = 5*10 = 50.
For standard multiple regression analysis, Tabachnick and Fidell (1991) proposed that
the desired level is:
n > 50 + 8m (where m= number of independent variables)
Hence, the required sample is:
n > 50 + 8*3 = 74.
Thus, the minimum sample size is 100.
3.4.2 Data collection
The survey in the form of questionnaire was delivered to the consumers by both
electronic survey and handout survey by end of October 2012.
A link of electronic survey was established in Google and sent out to participants
(colleagues and friends who are buying vegetable product) via mail. Participants
clicked on the link that led them to the electronic questionnaire and filled in their
answers.
In the meantime, handout survey was also distributed to consumers in super markets,
traditional markets, and safe vegetable speciality shops. Consumers filled in their
answers to the questionnaire form and returned to surveyors.
Page 20
Electronic survey contributed 220 samples and 250 samples were collected from
handout survey. However, 68 samples from handout survey were rejected for missing
many answers (more than 30% of the total answers). The total number of samples was
collected and used for data analysis is 412 samples.
3.4.3 Data analysis
Collected data was then analysed with SPSS software. The process of data analysis is
as follows:
Step 1: Data coding and entering to SPSS software
Step 2: Test reliability of measurement scales with Cronbachs alpha analysis.
Step 3: Test relationship among factors with Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Step 4: Regression analysis to see the impact of independent variables to dependent
variables. Result of data analysis is shown in Chapter 4.
Page 21
CHAPTER 4. RESEACH RESULT AND FINDING DISCUSSION

4.1 SAMPLE SPECIFICATION
The sample size used for data analysis is 412 samples in which 27,4% is male and
72,6% is female.
Sample is fairly distributed among groups of income. The majority of participants is
from group of consumers having income from 3-6 million VND/month (28,2% of
sample size). Group of consumers having income above 20 million VND/month has
lowest number of participants ( 8,5% of sample size) . More detail on sample figure is
shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Sample specification
Income
Gender
Male
< 3 Mil VND

3-6 Mil VND
6-10 Mil VND
10-15 Mil VND
15-20 Mil VND
>20 Mil VND
Total
Total
Female
16
36
52
3,9%
8,7%
12,6%
27
6,6%
22
5,3%
89
21,6%
64
15,5%
116
28,2%
86
20,9%
24
5,8%
14
3,4%
41
10,0%
44
10,7%
65
15,8%
58
14,1%
10
2,4%
113
25
6,1%
299
35
8,5%
412
27,4%
72,6%
100,0%
Page 22
4.2 DATA CODING

Data coded as shown Table 7.
Table 7
Data coding
Name
Measurement scale
Coding
Trust_1
I think safe vegetable is trustworthy
1 to 7
Trust_2
The quality of the safe vegetable is trustworthy
1 to 7
Trust_3
I trust safe vegetable have no harmful effects
1 to 7
Price_1
Safe vegetable is not expensive
1 to 7
Price_2
Safe vegetable is cheap
1 to 7
Appr_1
Safe vegetable does not have spots/marks
1 to 7
Appr_2
Safe vegetable has nice shape
1 to 7
PurInt_1
I plan to continue purchasing safe vegetable
1 to 7
PurInt_2
I intend to increase the size of safe vegetable purchases
1 to 7
PurInt_3
I intend to increase the frequency of purchasing for safe vegetable

product
1 to 7
(1. Strongly disagree; 2. Disagree; 3. Disagree somewhat; 4. Neutral; 5. Agree

somewhat; 6. Agree; 7. Strongly agree)
Control variables are coded as follows:
Name
Measurement scale
Coding
Income
Income per month
1: < 3M VND
2: 3-6M VND
3: 6-10M VND
4: 10-15M VND
5: 15-20M VND
6: > 20M VND
Income_1
Income < 3Mil VND
Recode Income
(1=1, 2=0, 3=0,
Page 23
4=0, 5=0, 6=0)

Income_2
Income = 3-6Mil VND
Recode Income
(1=0, 2=1, 3=0,
4=0, 5=0, 6=0)
Income_3
Income = 6-10 Mil VND
Recode Income
(1=0, 2=0, 3=1,
4=0, 5=0, 6=0)
Income_4
Recode Income
(1=0, 2=0, 3=0,
4=1, 5=0, 6=0)
Income_5
Recode Income
(1=0, 2=0, 3=0,
4=0, 5=1, 6=0)
Gender
Gender group
Male = 1
Female = 0
4.3 EVALUATION OF MEASUREMENT SCALES

In this research, Cronbachs alpha and EFA are used to evaluated the measurement
scale
4.3.1 Reliability evaluation Cronbachs alpha
Cronbachs alpha is first used to evaluate the reliability of measurement scales. This is
to eliminate garbage items.
According to Lynne (2011, p.45) that Cronbachs alpha measures the internal
consistency of an instrument or scale, and it measures the correlation between items.
The higher Cronbachs alpha is, the higher the items correlate with each other. Lynne
also mentions Cronbachs alpha which is above 0.95 indicates a high degree of
consistency between items and low measurement error, Cronbachs alpha which is
from 0.70 to 0.80 is regarded as satisfactory (Lynne, 2011, p.45)
Page 24
Cronbachs alpha is only used when research concepts have from 2 measurement
scales. Hence in this research, only trust and purchase intention are measured with
Cronbachs alpha. Result shows that the items of each concept have internal
consistency and reliability (Cronbachs alpha > 0,7 ).
Table 8
Cronbachs alpha result
Trust: = .868
Scale Mean Scale Variance
if Item
if Item Deleted
Deleted
Trust_1
Trust_2
Trust_3
9,9806
10,0850
10,0607
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
5,649
5,771
6,602
,819
,828
,612
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
,780
,783
,375
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
,748
,742
,936
Purchase intention: = .872

Scale Mean if Scale Variance
Item Deleted if Item Deleted
PurInt_1
PurInt_2
PurInt_3
10,6553
10,7184
10,9757
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
5,764
5,122
5,167
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
,707
,834
,731
,539
,695
,581
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
,862
,747
,844
See Appendix 2 for more information on Cronbachs alpha results.

4.3.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
After Cronbachs alpha analysis, the measurement scales were continued to be
evaluated by EFA. This is to explore the possible underlying factor structure of a set
of observed factors without imposing a preconceived structure on the outcome. By
performing EFA, the underlying factor structure will be identified.
Acording to Urbano and Pere (2006, p.88), EFA composes of four main steps which
are (1) to estimate or extract the factors, (2) to decide how many factors to retain, (3)
Page 25
to rotate factors to an interpretable orientation and (4) to obtain individual factor

scores
In this research, we performed EFA using principal axis factoring with rotation
promax and stop point of extracting factor at factor having eigenvalue equals 1.
4.3.2.1Exploratory Factor Analysis for measurement scales of independent
factors (trust, price perception, appearance)
Result of EFA shown in Table 9. KMO = .618 (>0,5) and the total factors extracted
are 3 factors. All the measurement scales are accepted. However, measurement scale
of Appr_1 was rejected due to low loading factor (<0,3).
See Appendix 3 for more information on EFA results
Table 9
EFA result of independent variables
KMO = 0,618, Sig = 0,000
Pattern Matrixa
Factor
2
1
Trust_2
Trust_1
Trust_3
Price_1
Price_2
Appr_2
Appr_1
,951
,928
,627
,875
,842
,600
Page 26
Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Factor
Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Total
1
2,548
36,396
36,396
2
1,644
23,489
59,885
3
1,097
15,666
75,551
4
,845
12,076
87,627
5
,494
7,051
94,679
6
,254
3,623
98,302
7
,119
1,698
100,000
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
% of
Variance
2,200
1,481
,431
Cumulative %
31,430
21,160
6,160
31,430
52,590
58,750
4.3.2.2Exploratory Factor Analysis for measurement scales of dependent factor

(purchase intention)
The result of EFA for measurement scales of variable purchase intention shown in
table 10.
Result shows that all the measurement scale for this variable are accepted. KMO >
0,5, total extracted variance > 50%, the loading factors are significant high and above
0.6.
See Appendix 4 for more information on EFA results
Table 10
EFA result of dependent variables
KMO = 0,698, Sig = 0,000
Initial Eigenvalues
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Factor
Total
1
2
2,395
,402
% of
Variance
79,843
13,399
Cumulative
%
79,843
93,242
Total
2,125
% of
Variance
70,822
Cumulative
%
70,822
Page 27
3
,203
6,758
100,000
Factor Matrixa
Factor
1
PurInt_2
PurInt_3
PurInt_1
,961
,790
,760
After Cronbachs alpha and EFA analysis, we can conclude that all the measurement
scales are accepted, except measurement scale Appr 1 is rejected and removed from
this research.
4.4. REGRESSION ANALYSIS
4.4.1. Testing the impact of demographic factors (gender, income)
The result shown in table 4.6 with R square = 0,023 (<0.1) and Sig = 0,158 (>0,05)
says that there is no relationship between demographic factors (income, gender) and
purchase intention.
Table 11
Regression analysis for gender, Income and purchase intention
R Square = 0,023, Adjusted R Square = 0,028, Sig = 0,158
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
(Constant)
5,350
,209
Gender
-,010
,124
,061
,244
Income_1
Sig.
Beta
25,656
,000
-,004
-,083
,934
,018
,249
,804
Page 28
Income_2
,287
,215
,115
1,332
,184
Income_3
-,184
,224
-,067
-,820
,413
Income_4
-,016
,234
-,005
-,066
,947
Income_5
,008
,239
,003
,034
,973
To understand more why gender and income dont have any impact to purchase
intention, we shall look at Table 12 and 13 for more statistical information on those
factors.
Table 12 shows that purchase intention does not have much difference among the
groups of income. With gender shown in Table 13, purchase intention is seemly not
different between male and female.
With the result of regression analysis together with the statistical number of
demographic factors and purchase intention, we can firmly conclude that demographic
factors dont play any impact on consumer purchase intention for safe vegetable.
Table 12
Compare mean of purchase intention for income
Purchase intention
Income
< 3 Mil VND
3-6 Mil VND
6-10 Mil VND
10-15 Mil VND
15-20 Mil VND
>20 Mil VND
Total
Mean
5,4038
5,6293
5,1589
5,3282
5,3506
5,3429
5,3916
Std. Deviation
52
116
86
65
58
35
412
1,07524
1,03445
1,18236
1,18364
1,16716
1,04314
1,12137
Page 29
Table 13
Compare mean of purchase intention for gender
Purchase intention
Gender
Mean (Pur_Int)
Male
Female
Total
5,3894
5,3924
5,3916
Std. Deviation
113
299
412
1,05963
1,14556
1,12137
We also tested if there is an impact of demographic factors (consumers income and

gender) on the relationship of trust, price perception, appearance and purchase
intention. The result in Table 14 shows the impact is not exiting. More detail is
shown in Appendix 5.
Table 14
Test the impact of demographic factors
Mod
el
R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
,988a
,976
,975
,988b
,976
,975
Std. Error
of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
F
df1
df2
Change Change
5421,2
,17607
,976
3
408
31
,17587
,000 1,152
6
402
Sig. F
Change
a. Predictors: (Constant), Appearance, Price, Trust

b. Predictors: (Constant), Appearance, Price, Trust, Income_5, Gender, Income_1, Income_4,
Income_3, Income_2
4.4.2. Testing relationship of trust, price, appearance and purchasing intention

Before running regression step, we tested how the variables correlate with each other.
Table 15 describes the correlation among variable
Page 30
,000
,331
Table 15
Correlation among factors
Correlations
Trust
Pearson Correlation
Price
1
Pur_Int
**
Appearance
**
,061
,002
,000
,213
,152
,486
Trust
Sig. (2-tailed)
,152**
,002
Price
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
,924**
,000
,051
,297
,486**
,000
,924**
,000
Pur_Int
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
,069
,159
Pearson Correlation
,061
,051
,069
Sig. (2-tailed)
,213
,297
,159
Appearance
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 15 shows that most of variables have low correlation among themselves, except
Price and Pur_Int have high correlation with each other ( Pearson correlation = 0,924).
We looked back the content of measurement scales for these two variables and could
see that they are measuring two different concepts. So the high correlation between
them could be explained as Price does high impact on Purchase intention.
The next step we ran regression analysis for those variables. The result is shown in
Table 16.
Page 31
Table 16
Regression analysis for Trust, Price, Appearance & Purchase intention
R Square = 0.976, Adjusted R Square = 0.976, Sig = 0.000
Unstandardized Coefficients
B
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
(Constant)
,042
,085
Trust
,334
,007
Price
,836
Appearance
,005
a. Dependent Variable: Pur_Int
,008
,013
Sig.
Beta
,486
,627
,354
45,124
,000
,870
,003
110,897
,381
,000
,703
Table 16 shows trust and price have significant impact on purchase intention (with Sig
= 0 and B(trust) = 0.334, B(price) = 0.836 whereas appearance does seemly not play
any impact on purchasing intention (sig = 0.703 > 0,05, and B = 0,005).
So we rejected variable Appearance and the next step we ran regression analysis for
all the accepted independent factors (trust and price perception) and dependent factor
(purchase intention) to see how the impaction. The results are shown in Table 17.
Table 17
Regression analysis for Trust, Price and Purchase intention
R Square = 0.976, Adjusted R Square = 0.975, Sig = 0.000
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
,069
Trust
,335
Price
,836
,046
,007
,008
,354
,870
1,483
45,259
111,131
Sig.
,139
,000
,000
Page 32
We tested histogram and normal probability plot, and they satisfy the regression (see
Appendix 6).
4.4.4. Regression analysis results
The result of regression analysis can be translated as following:
Consumer purchase intention is not affected by gender and income
Appearance does not have any impact on consumer purchase intention
Consumers perceived price for safe vegetable does strongly impact on their
purchase intention for this product
Consumers trust on safe vegetable does also highly impact on their purchase
intention but is less crucial than price perception.
4.5 FINDING DISCUSSION
With the result of data analysis from 412 participants in Ho Chi Minh city, we can
make conclusion for our hypotheses as follows:
H1 accepted (with Sig = 0, beta = 0,335): Trust plays positive impact on
purchasing intention. The more consumers trust on safe vegetable, the more
they will intend to buy safe vegetable.
H2 accepted (with Sig = 0, beta = 0,836): same as trust, price perception plays
a significantly positive impact on consumers safe vegetable purchase
intention. The more inexpensive consumers think safe vegetable is, the more
likely they will increase their purchase intention for safe vegetable. Though
both trust and price perception do positively affect purchase intention, price
perception plays much stronger impact on consumer purchase intention
compared to trust.
H3 rejected (with Sig = 0,713, beta = 0,005): appearance does not play impact
on purchase intention.
Page 33
Finally, there is no impact of consumers income, gender on their purchase

intention for safe vegetable.
From the result of data analysis, we can make explanation why safe vegetable product
is slowly consumed currently in Ho Chi Minh City. That safe vegetable is slowly
consumed in Ho Chi Minh City regardless of supply has not met demand can be
translated to consumers have low purchase intention for this product. So the reasons
could be as follows:
The first main reason is consumers dont perceive safe vegetable as
inexpensive or cheap product. In another way we can say they are considering
safe vegetable as expensive product and that mostly obstruct their purchasing.
The second main reason is consumers do not fully trust in quality of safe
vegetable product which also play a significant impact on their purchasing.
With the result of data analysis for appearance toward consumer purchase intention,
we first find a bit strange why there is not any relationship between safe vegetables
appearance and consumer purchase intention, we question if consumers really dont
care about safe vegetables appearance. However, when we look at the reality of safe
vegetable sold in the market together with the result of data analysis shown in Table
17 then we could understand the reason.
Table 18
Appearance and Purchase intention
Purchase intention
Appearance (mean)
5,00
5,67
6,25
6,20
5,56
5,77
5,6
Table 18 shows that in the view of most of consumers, they do agree on nice
appearance of safe vegetable. Therefore, safe vegetables appearance does already
satisfy their expectation, it does always meet their requirement regardless of they have
Page 34
low or high purchase intention for this product. Hence, appearance becomes unimpacted factor in their purchase intention for this scenario and consumers place their
purchase intention based on other factors else (price, trust) in which price is the most
considerable factors in their purchasing.
Page 35
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, LIMITATION AND

FUTURE RESEARCH
5.1. CONCLUSION
Many cases of food poisoning throughout years as well as complications caused by
pesticide inside vegetable make cconsumers really worried about the safeness of
vegetable they are consuming every day. Therefore, safe vegetable is extremely
demanded by consumers nowadays. However, despite of high demand for safe
vegetable as well as its supply not met consumers demand yet; consumption of safe
vegetable is still very low.
The aim of this research is therefore to find out the key factors affecting consumer
purchase intention for safe vegetable in Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam. In so doing, we
can know some key factors which affect consumer purchase intention for this product.
The research makes conclusion that consumer purchase intention for safe vegetable is
highly affected by its price as well as consumers trust for this product.
5.2. IMPLICATION
From the research data analysis and result, we can conclude a little bit why safe
vegetable is consuming very slowly in market.
As the research result shows, trust and price are the two most important factors that
affect consumer purchase intention for safe vegetable product. Research result
concludes that the more consumers perceive safe vegetable is not expensive or the
more consumer trust on safe vegetable, the more they will increase their purchase
intention for this product. However, collected data for Ho Chi Minh City shows that
many consumers are viewing safe vegetable as expensive product which is
significantly an obstacle on their purchase intention for this product. Furthermore,
and they do not fully trust on this product. Consumers can not see clearly the
difference between safe vegetable product and conventional one and that creates
Page 36
lacking of conviction of product called safe vegetable is really safe in consumers

perception. Therefore, in conclusion we can say:
Consumers currently perceive safe vegetable is expensive product.
They dont fully trust on safe vegetable.
Those are partially the reasons why safe vegetable is slowly consumed in market
regardless of supply has not met demand. Therefore, to increase consumers purchase
intention for safe vegetable, investors should:
Find ways to improve consumers trust for this product.
Have a better pricing strategy for this product, or find ways to increase
consumers price perception for this product, to make consumers perceive that
safe vegetable is not expensive.
5.3. LIMITATION
As any other previous research, this research also has much limitation.
First, due to resource limitation, we just could perform the research with limited
factors. Beside all the selected variables used in this research, there could be other
major factors which could place high impact on consumer purchase intention such as
store, origin of safe vegetable, price premium of safe vegetable compared to
conventional vegetable, brand.... Therefore, the next research should consider those
factors in the research model.
Again with the resource limitation, sample collected is not equally distributed for each
group of consumers and this could affect the research result. For example, more than
60% consumers participated in this research is female and less than 40% is male, this
could make conclusion on relationship of gender and purchase intention is not
appropriate...
The result of data analysis shows that there is high correlation between purchase
intention and price as shown in Table 19. It could be understood that measurement
Page 37
scales which measure purchase intention and price are similar. However, when we
look at the meaning and content of measurement scales for these two variables, we
can see they are measuring two different concepts so we rejected this assumption. So
we finally assumed that because price does high impact on purchase intention, it
highly correlates with purchase intention.
Table 19
Correlation of Purchase intention and Price.
Correlations
Price
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Pur_Int Sig. (2-tailed)
,924**
,000
Price
Pur_Int
,924**
,000
1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Finally, in this research, some concepts are only measured by 2 items (as price
perception and appearance), especially one of the items measuring appearance concept
was deleted after running EFA. This figure, therefore, could affect the research result.
5.4. FUTURE RESEARCH
The research result shows trust and price are the major factors that impact on
consumer purchase intention for safe vegetable in which price plays a significantly
important role. However, when talking about price, an element that we cannot forget
is price premium of safe vegetable compared to conventional vegetable. Price
premium defined as the sum consumers are willing to pay for a product, compared to
other relevant products, and can be either positive or negative (Aeker, as cited in
Young et al, 2008, p.172). According to Francisco & Jose (2002, p.674), consumers
will always refer to original product for reference price before making their
purchasing decision for any product. Consumers will always be able to find out
information of reference price which is always available to them and that will
Page 38
significantly affect their willing to pay of the product (Ehrenberg, cited in Teresa et
al., 2005, p.408). Ehrenberg also adds consumers will buy products that are priced
within their portfolios of prices that they are willing to pay for products (cited in
Teresa et al., 2005). Come back to the case of safe vegetable, we can make a strong
assumption that consumers do always refer to conventional vegetables price in their
purchase intention for safe vegetable product.
With the research result and the above assumption, we would like to suggest the
following future researches which we think that it would bring more valuable
information to investors:
Factors affecting consumers trust for safe vegetable. This would help investors
to know which are the key factors affecting consumers trust for safe vegetable
product. If investors have this information in hand, they will be able to find
solution to increase consumers trust for safe vegetable product and hence
increase their purchase intention.
Consumers attitude toward price premium of safe vegetable compared to
conventional vegetable. This would help investors to see if conventional
vegetables price does significant impact on consumer purchase intention for
safe vegetable? If yes, how significant it is? How is the price premium portfolio
consumers accept for safe vegetable compared to conventional vegetable? If
investors can know those information, they could make an appropriate pricing
strategy for safe vegetable product and hence can increase consumer purchase
intention for this product.
Page 39
REFERENCE
Anna, B., Konstantinos, P., Efthimia, T. & Konstantinos, M. (2006). The role of food
quality certification on consumers food choices. Bristish Food Journal, 108
(2),77-90.
Anssi, T., & Sanna, S. (2005). Subjective norm, attitudes and intentions of Finish
consumers in buying organic food. Bristish Food Journal, 107(11), 808-822.
Andrew, W.S. (2006). Quality and safety in the traditional horticultural marketing
chains of Asia. Agriculture management, marketing and finance occasional
paper.
Retrieved
from
httpwww.fao.orgfileadmintemplatesinphodocumentsY7064E.pdf
Ajzen I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational behaviour and
human decision processes, 50, 179-211.
BichDiep (2012), Viet Nam and GDP, retrieved from http://dantri.com.vn/c76/s76560201/viet-nam-can-cai-cach-de-vuot-bay-thu-nhap-trung-binh.htm
Carmina, F. H., Carlos, F. B. Consequences of consumer trust in PDO food products:
The role of familiarity. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(4), 282296.
Choong, L. H. (1998). The theory of reasoned action applied to brand loyalty. Journal
of Product & Brand Management, 7(1), 51-61.
Ethimia, T., Christina, B., Yorgos, Z. & Kostantinos, M. (2008). Attitudes and
behaviour towards organic products: An exploratory study. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(2), 158-175.
Francisco, S. & Jose, M. G. (2002). Consumers acceptability of organic food in
Spain: Result from an experimental auction market. British Food Journal,
104(8), 670-687.
Page 40
Gianni, C., Teresa, D. G. & Riccardo, S. (2002). Consumers perception of quality in

organic food: A random utility model under preference heterogeneity and
choice correlation from rank-orderings. British Food Journal, 104(3/4/5), 200213. doi:10.1108/00070700210425660
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., BaBin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E (7th ed.) (2010). Multivariate
Data Analysis. London: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Hsiang-tai, C., Stephanie, P. & Alan, S. K. (2008). An analysis of factors that
influence the purchase decision for fresh potatoes: A study of consumers in a
New England market. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 8(1), 46-54.
High demand but still low consumption, The Vietnamplus, retrieved from
http://www.vietnamplus.vn/Home/Rau-an-toan-Ha-Noi--Nhu-cau-lon-tieu-thuvan-kho/20119/104408.vnplus
Janneke, D. J., Lynn, F., Hans., V. T. , Reint, J. R., Willem, D. W. & Joke, T. (2004).
Monitoring consumer confidence in food safety: An exploratory study. British
Food Journal, 106(10/11), 837-849.
Keith, E. T., Nikolaos, H. & Panagiotis, J. A. Attitudes and Food Choice Behaviour.
British Food Journal, 96(11), 9-13
Kontogeorgos, A. & Semos, A. (2008). Marketing aspects of quality assurance
systems: The organic food sector case. Bristish Food Journal, 110(8), 829
839. Doi: 10.1108/00070700810893359
Long, Y. L. & Ching, Y. L. (2010). The influence of corporate image, relationship
marketing, and trust on purchase intention: the moderating effects of word-ofmouth.
Emerald
Group
Publishing
Limited,
65(3),
16-34.
Doi:
10.1108/16605371011083503
Page 41
Luke, S. & Steffanie, S. (2010). Organic agriculture and safe vegetables in Vietnam:
Implications
for
agro-food
system
sustainability.
Retrieved
from
http://oacc.info/Docs/Guelph2008SocialSciences/Simmons%20and%20Scott%
20(2008).pdf
Lynne, M. C. (2011). Cronbachs alpha. Medsurg Nursing, 20(1),44-45.
Mei-Fang, C. (2009). Attitude toward organic foods among Taiwanese as related to
health consciousness, environmental attitudes, and the mediating effects of a
healthy lifestyle. Bristish Food Journal, 111(2), 165-178.
Pratt, S. (1993). At what price perfection? Glamorous on the shelf, American produce
can be flavorless on the palate. When it comes to consumers' buying decisions,
the most important attributes are appearance, aroma and squeezability. Tribune
Publishing
Company.
Retrieved
from
http://search.proquest.com/pqcentral/docview/283550684/13875C49B575B20F
BC3/1?accountid=63189
Roseman, M. G. (2007). Food safety perceptions and behaviors of participants in
congregate-meal and home-delivered-meal programs. Journal of Environment
Health, 70(2), 13-21.
Ruth, Y., Wallace, Y., & Joe Morris. (2010). The effects of risk-reducing strategies on
consumer perceived risk and on purchase likelihood: A modelling approach.
British Food Journal, 112(3), 306-322.
Robert, T. D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
Retrieved from
http://home.kku.ac.th/sompong/guest_speaker/KrejcieandMorgan_article.pdf
Samin, R., Goodarz, J. D., Muhammad, S. R., Firoozeh, F., Mahsa, H. & Sanaz, E.
(2012). A Conceptual Study on the Country of Origin Effect on Consumer
Purchase Intention. Canadian Center of Science and Education, 8(12), 205
215.
Page 42
Samira, S. (2012). Current situation of food safety in Vietnam. Retrieved from

http://www.foodseg.net/symposium/vietnam.pdf
Suddin, L., Geoffrey, H. T., & Hanudin, A. (2009). Predicting intention to choose
halal products using theory of reasoned action. Journal of Islamic and Middle
Eastern Finance and Management, 2(1) , 66 76.
Safe vegetable problem. The Baomoi. Retrieved from http://www.baomoi.com/Baitoan-rau-sach/45/6230978.epi
Syed, S. A. & Nazura, M. S. Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) in halal
food purchasing. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 21(1),
8-20. doi: 10.1108/10569211111111676
Takuro, N., Chu, N. K., Nguyen, V. N., Ha, M. N., Chul, S. K., & Sota, T. K. I.
(2009). Pesticide residues in soils, sediments, and vegetables in the Red River
Delta, northern Vietnam. Springer Science and Business Media, 169, 285-297.
doi: 10.1007/s10661-009-1170-8
Tabachnick, B.G., and Fidell, L.S. (3rd ed.) (1991). Using Multivariate Statistics. New
York: Harper Collin.
Teresa, A. S., Bonnie, D. B., & Yingjiao, X. (2006). Predicting purchase intention of a
controversial luxury apparel product. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 10(4), 405 419.
Urbano, L. S. & Pere, J.F. (2006). Factor: a computer program to fit the exploratory
factor analysis model. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 88-91.
Young, C. C, Joowon, P., Miri, C., & Junghoon, M. (2008). Effect of food traceability
system for building trust: price premium and buying behaviour. Spring Science
and Business Media, 11, 167-179. doi: 10.1007/s10796-008-9134-z
Page 43
Zeinab, S. S., & Seyedeh, M. S. S. (2012). The main factors influencing purchase
behavioural of organic products in Malaysia. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, 4(1), 98-116.
The Fruit and Vegetable Research Institute. Vegetable market research in Vietnam.
Retrieved
from
http://www.standardsfacility.org/files/Project_documents/Project_Grants/STDF
_PG_259_VegMarketResearch_Jul-10.pdf
Page 44
APPENDIX 1: DETAILS OF INTERVIEWED CONSUMERS
Name
Gender
Income/month
Occupation
Female
6 million VND
Staff
Male
8,5 million VND
Supervisor
3. Nguyen Ngoc Lan Chi
Female
6 million VND
Accountant
4. Le Dang
Female
15 million VND
Staff
5. Nguyen Lam Thanh Vu
Male
10 million VND
Staff
6. Nguyen Thi Ngoc Diep
Female
7 million VND
Team leader
7. Ngo Kim Dung
Female
20 million VND
HR leader
8. Bui Thanh Binh
Male
3,5 million VND
Worker
9. Le Thi Mai
Female
3,5 million VND
Worker
10. To Kim Hue
Female
10 million VND
Staff
1. Nguyen Thi Bach Hue

2. Nguyen Thanh Binh
Page 45
APPENDIX 2: CRONBACHS ALPHA RESULT

1. Trust
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based on

Standardized Items
,868
,869
Item Statistics
Std. Deviation
Mean
Trust_1
Trust_2
Trust_3
N of Items
5,0825
4,9782
5,0024
1,34290
1,30766
1,35176
412
412
412
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

Trust_1
Trust_1
Trust_2
Trust_3
Trust_2
1,000
,879
,590
Trust_3
,879
1,000
,597
,590
,597
1,000
Inter-Item Covariance Matrix

Trust_1
Trust_1
Trust_2
Trust_3
1,803
1,544
1,070
Mean
Item
Means
Trust_3
1,544
1,710
1,056
Summary Item Statistics

Minimu Maximu
Range
Maximum /
m
m
Minimum
5,021
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Trust_1
Trust_2
Trust_2
9,9806
10,0850
4,978
5,083
,104
Variance
1,021
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Variance
Corrected
if Item Deleted
Item-Total
Correlation
5,649
5,771
1,070
1,056
1,827
,819
,828
N of
Items
,003
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
,780
,783
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
,748
,742
Page 46
Trust_3
10,0607
Mean
6,602
Variance
15,0631
,612
,375
Scale Statistics
Std. Deviation
12,682
,936
N of Items
3,56120
2. Purchase intention
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Standardized Items
Cronbach's Alpha
,872
N of Items
,873
Item Statistics
Std. Deviation
Mean
PurInt_1
5,5194
1,20708
412
PurInt_2
5,4563
1,23633
412
PurInt_3
5,1990
1,32327
412
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

PurInt_1
PurInt_2
PurInt_3
PurInt_1
1,000
,731
,599
PurInt_2
,731
1,000
,759
PurInt_3
,599
,759
1,000
Inter-Item Covariance Matrix

PurInt_1
PurInt_1
PurInt_2
PurInt_3
PurInt_2
1,457
1,091
,957
PurInt_3
1,091
1,529
1,242
,957
1,242
1,751
Page 47
Summary Item Statistics

Mean
Item Means
Minimu
m
5,392
Maximu
m
5,199
5,519
Range
Maximum /
Minimum
,320
1,062
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Variance Corrected Itemif Item Deleted
Total
Correlation
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Variance
N of
Items
,029
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
PurInt_1
10,6553
5,764
,707
,539
,862
PurInt_2
10,7184
5,122
,834
,695
,747
PurInt_3
10,9757
5,167
,731
,581
,844
Scale Statistics
Mean
16,1748
Variance
11,317
Std. Deviation
N of Items
3,36412
Page 48
APPENDIX 3: EFA RESULT OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Trust_1
Correlation
Correlation Matrixa
Trust_2 Trust_3 Appr_1
Appr_2
Price_1
Price_2
Trust_1
1,000
,879
,590
-,165
,041
,196
,074
Trust_2
,879
1,000
,597
-,175
,072
,160
,060
Trust_3
Appr_1
Appr_2
Price_1
,590
-,165
,041
,196
,597
-,175
,072
,160
1,000
-,114
,052
,146
-,114
1,000
,118
,017
,052
,118
1,000
-,015
,146
,017
-,015
1,000
,095
,043
,120
,724
,074
,060
,095
,043
,120
,724
1,000
Price_2
a. Determinant = ,058
KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Approx. Chi-Square
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Df
Sig.
,618
1162,720
21
,000
Communalities
Initial
Trust_1
Trust_2
Trust_3
Appr_1
Appr_2
Price_1
Price_2
,784
,785
,378
,051
,062
,556
,548
Page 49

Pattern Matrixa
Factor
1
Trust_2
Trust_1
Trust_3
Price_1
Price_2
Appr_2
Appr_1
,951
,928
,627
,875
,842
,600

Initial Eigenvalues
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Factor
Total
% of
Cumulative
Variance
%
1
2,548
36,396
36,396
2
1,644
23,489
59,885
3
1,097
15,666
75,551
4
,845
12,076
87,627
5
,494
7,051
94,679
6
,254
3,623
98,302
7
,119
1,698
100,000
Total
2,200
1,481
,431
% of
Cumulative %
Variance
31,430
31,430
21,160
52,590
6,160
58,750
Page 50
APPENDIX 4: EFA RESULT OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Correlation Matrixa
PurInt_1
Correlation
PurInt_2
PurInt_3
PurInt_1
1,000
,731
,599
PurInt_2
PurInt_3
,731
,599
1,000
,759
,759
1,000
a. Determinant = ,195
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Approx. Chi-Square
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
df
,698
668,460
3
,000
Sig.
Communalities
Initial
PurInt_1
PurInt_2
PurInt_3
Extraction
,539
,695
,581
,578
,923
,624

Factor
Initial Eigenvalues
Total
1
2
3
2,395
,402
,203
% of
Variance
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Cumulative %
79,843
13,399
6,758
79,843
93,242
100,000
Total
2,125
% of
Variance
70,822
Cumulative %
70,822

Factor Matrixa
Factor
1
PurInt_2
,961
PurInt_3
,790
PurInt_1
,760
Page 51
APPENDIX 5: IMPACTION OF DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS
Model Summary
Mod
R
R
Adjusted Std. Error
Change Statistics
el
Square R Square
of the
R Square
F
df1
df2
Sig. F
Estimate
Change Change
Change
5421,2
1
,988a
,976
,975
,17607
,976
3
408
,000
31
2
,988b
,976
,975
,17587
,000 1,152
6
402
,331
a. Predictors: (Constant), Appearance, Price, Trust
b. Predictors: (Constant), Appearance, Price, Trust, Income_5, Gender, Income_1, Income_4,
Income_3, Income_2
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of
Squares
Regression
df
Mean
Square
504,176
12,648
408
Total
516,824
411
Regression
504,390
12,434
402
516,824
411
Residual
Residual
Total
168,059 5421,231
Sig.
,000b
,031
56,043 1811,893
,000c
,031

b. Predictors: (Constant), Appearance, Price, Trust
c. Predictors: (Constant), Appearance, Price, Trust, Income_5, Gender,
Income_1, Income_4, Income_3, Income_2
Page 52
Model
(Constant)
Trust
1
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
,042
,085
,334
,007
,354
Sig.
,486
45,124
,627
,000
Price
Appearanc
e
(Constant)
,836
,008
,870 110,897
,000
,005
,013
,003
,381
,703
,043
,091
,470
,639
Trust
Price
Appearanc
e
,334
,837
,008
,008
,354 43,314
,871 110,173
,000
,000
,009
,013
,006
,707
,480
Gender
Income_1
Income_2
Income_3
-,044
-,003
-,002
,019
,020
,039
,035
,036
-,017
-,001
-,001
,007
-2,232
-,079
-,056
,529
,026
,937
,955
,597
Income_4
-,022
Income_5
,017
,037
,038
-,007
,005
-,591
,435
,555
,664
Excluded Variablesa
Beta In
t
Sig.
Model
Partial
Correlation
Gender
Income_1
-,016b
-,001b
-2,118
-,123
,035
,902
Collinearity
Statistics
Tolerance
-,104
,990
-,006
,981
Income_2
Income_3
Income_4
Income_5
-,003b
,007b
-,008b
,005b
-,423
,928
-,972
,604
,672
,354
,332
,546
-,021
,046
-,048
,030
,951
,980
,989
,994

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Appearance, Price, Trust
Page 53
Factor
1
2
3
Factor Correlation Matrix

1
2
1,000
,153
,153
1,000
,032
,108
3
,032
,108
1,000

Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.
Page 54
APPENDIX 6: REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULT
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
B
(Constant)
,042
Trust
,334
Price
,836
Appearance
,005
Std. Error
,085
,007
,008
,013
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
,354
,870
,003
Coefficientsa
t
Sig.
Correlations
Zero-order
,486
45,124
110,897
,381
,627
,000
,000
,703
,486
,924
,069
Partial
,913
,984
,019
Collinearity Statistics
Part
,349
,859
,003
Tolerance
,974
,975
,994
VIF
1,027
1,025
1,006
Page 56
APPENDIX 7: QUESTIONAIRE FORM

My name is Nguyen Thanh Huong, a student of UEHs International School of Business
(ISB). I am conducting a study on factors affecting on consumer purchase intention for safe
vegetable in Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam. I would take it appreciated if you can spend a few
minutes to filling in this questionnaire.
Definition: The so called Safe vegetable in this survey is vegetable product called Safe
vegetable with name of producer such as Green Choice, Huong Canh, Tan Duc sold in
market.
General information:
Do you know any brand of Safe Vegetable product sold in market?
Yes
No
Main information:
With the following statements, please check cross (X) the number that most fits your opinion
(Anchored by: 1. Strongly disagree; 2. Disagree; 3. Disagree somewhat; 4. Neutral; 5. Agree
somewhat; 6. Agree; 7. Strongly agree)
Rating scale
Items
1. I think safe vegetable is trustworthy
2. The quality of the safe vegetable is trustworthy
3. I believe safe vegetable have no harmful effects
4. Safe vegetable is not expensive
5. Safe vegetable is cheap
6. Safe vegetable does not have spots/marks
7. Safe vegetable has nice shape
8. I plan to continue purchasing safe vegetable
9. I intend to increase the size of safe vegetable purchases
Page 57
10. I intend to increase the frequency of purchasing for safe

vegetable product
Personal information
My gender:
Male
Female
My income:
< 3M VND
3 6M VND
6 10M VND
10 15M VND
15 20M VND
> 20M VND
(M VND: Million Vietnamdong)
Page 58
QUESTIONAIRE FORM (Vietnamese)

Ti tn Nguyn Thanh Hng, mt sinh vin ca Vin o To Quc T, Trng i Hc
Kinh T TP HCM. Ti ang lm mt nghin cu v cc yu t nh hng n d nh mua
rau an ton ca ngi tiu dng ti Tp. H Ch Minh. Ti s rt cm kch nu Anh/Ch c th
dnh vi pht tr li bng cu hi ny.
nh ngha: Thut ng Rau an ton trong nghin cu ny l m ch cc sn phm rau gi l
Rau An Ton ca cc nh sn xut rau an ton nh Green Choice, Hng Cnh, Tn
cang c bn trn th trng.
Thng tin chung:
Bn c bit bt k sn phm rau sch no ang bn trn th trng?
Khng
Thng tin c bn:

Vi cc pht biu di y, hy nh cho (X) cho cu tr li bn thy ng nht.
Mc : 1. Hon ton khng ng ; 2. Khng ng ; 3. Hi khng ng ; 4. Trung lp
(khng c kin); 5. Hi ng ; 6. ng ; 7. Hon ton ng )
Rating scale
Items
1. Ti ngh Rau An Ton l ng tin cy
2. Ti ngh cht lng Rau An Ton l ng tin cy
3. Ti tin rng Rau An Ton khng gy hi cho sc kho
4. Rau An Ton th khng mc
5. Rau An Ton th r
6. Rau An Ton khng c vt m, bt ca su bnh
7. Rau An Ton c hnh dng b ngoi p
8. Ti d nh tip tc mua Rau An Ton
9. Ti d nh mua Rau An Ton nhiu hn
Page 59
10. Ti d nh tng tn sut mua Rau An Ton (s ln mua

Rau An Ton / thng)
Thng tin c nhn:

Gii tnh ca ti:
Male
Female
Thu nhp ca ti:
< 3T VND
3 6T VND
6 10T VND
10 15T VND
15 20T VND
> 20T VND
(T VND: Triu Vit Nam ng)
Page 60

Nguyen Thanh Huong. Safe Vegetable. ISBMBUS1.2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nguyen Thanh Huong. Safe Vegetable. ISBMBUS1.2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY

International School of Business

Nguyen Thanh Huong

KEY FACTORS AFFECTING

MASTER OF BUSINESS (Honours)

Ho Chi Minh City Year 2012

Ho Chi Minh City, January 2nd 2012

Nguyen Thanh Huong

RESEARCH BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 1

PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ......................... 2

BENIFIT OF RESEARCH ............................................................................... 3

RESEARCH METHOD AND STRUCTURE ................................................. 3

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH MODEL 5

FUNDAMENTAL BEHAVIOUR THEORIES ............................................... 5

PREVIOUS RESEARCHES REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES........................ 8

Safe vegetable appearance and consumers gender, income ................ 12

RESEARCH MODEL .................................................................................... 14

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODLOGY ..................................... 16

RESEARCH PROCESS ................................................................................. 16

DEFINING MEASUREMENT SCALES ...................................................... 17

Measurement scale for consumers trust on safe vegetable ................. 17

Measurement scale for consumers price perception of safe vegetable . 17

Measurement scale for safe vegetables appearance ........................... 18

Measurement scale for consumers income and consumers gender ..... 18

Measurement scale for consumer purchase intention for safe vegetable 18

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ........................................................................ 19

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH ..................................................................... 19

Sample for research ....................................................................... 20

Data collection .............................................................................. 20

Data analysis ................................................................................. 21

CHAPTER 4. RESEACH RESULT AND FINDING DISCUSSION . 22

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, LIMITATION AND

APPENDIX 1: DETAILS OF INTERVIEWED CONSUMERS ........ 45

APPENDIX 4: EFA RESULT OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES ........ 51

Student: Nguyen Thanh Huong

Supervisor: Dr. Dinh Cong Khai

Student: Nguyen Thanh Huong

Supervisor: Dr. Dinh Cong Khai

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

Student: Nguyen Thanh Huong

Supervisor: Dr. Dinh Cong Khai

1.3 BENIFIT OF RESEARCH

Student: Nguyen Thanh Huong

Supervisor: Dr. Dinh Cong Khai

Corresponding to this process below structure is proposed for this research:

Student: Nguyen Thanh Huong

Supervisor: Dr. Dinh Cong Khai

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH MODEL

Student: Nguyen Thanh Huong

Supervisor: Dr. Dinh Cong Khai

Student: Nguyen Thanh Huong

Supervisor: Dr. Dinh Cong Khai

Student: Nguyen Thanh Huong

Supervisor: Dr. Dinh Cong Khai

2.2 PREVIOUS RESEARCHES REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

Student: Nguyen Thanh Huong

Supervisor: Dr. Dinh Cong Khai

Student: Nguyen Thanh Huong

Supervisor: Dr. Dinh Cong Khai

Currently, only 20% of safe vegetable is sold in

Student: Nguyen Thanh Huong

Supervisor: Dr. Dinh Cong Khai

mainly base on price (Zienab and Seyedeh, 2012,

Student: Nguyen Thanh Huong