Consumers’ Risk Perception C ’ Ri kP i and Attitude on the Safety of Street Foods in Davao City

Pamela Yparraguirre

Dr Sylvia Concepcion Dr.

School of Management - University of the Philippines Mindanao

Street foods • Foods and beverages prepared and/or sold by vendors in streets and d other th public bli places l ffor immediate consumption or consumption at a later time without further processing or preparation. • Includes meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, and beverages (WHO, 1996)

Street foods • A number of food safety problems and issues with regards to street foods. – Food contamination from infected handlers and unclean equipments – Unsanitary conditions and inadequate access to potable water supply and proper garbage disposal – Food-borne pathogens. High levels of microbiological contamination – Improper use of additives or colors, mycotoxins heavy metals and other mycotoxins, contaminants

Statement of the Problem • The safety of street foods is considered an important aspect in the field of health and nutrition nutrition. • Consumers’ response to food safety i issues iis d dependent d t on th the perception ti of consumers towards risk. • Little is known about the consumers’ risk perceptions and attitudes with respect to diseases acquired from street foods.

Definition Risk perception • characterize a person’s views about the risk present in a particular situation.

Risk attitude • refer to how willing a person is to accept risk in food safety, for example example.

Objectives j of the Studyy • Determine the risk perception and risk attitude of consumers towards street food y; safety; • Distinguish possible socio-demographic and socio socio-economic economic factors that can affect consumers’ perception and attitude toward safety of street foods; and • Determine the consumer’s willingness to pay towards improvements in street food safety.

Conceptual p Framework Socio-economic S i i and demographic attributes Personality characteristics Product knowledge

Risk perception of street foods

Risk attitude on street foods

Consumer’s Confidence in street food safety

Food safety information

Adapted from Costa-Font, 2009; de Jonge, 2008

Empirical p Framework The model for the risk perception is:

E(RP*i) = β1Gn + β2Ag + β3YL + β4SES + β5Fr + β6Expr p + β7FSI For the risk attitude,, the model used:

E(RA*i) = β1Gn + β2Ag + β3YL + β4SES + E(RA β5Fr + β6Expr + β7FSI + β8RP

Empirical p Framework Table 1. Independent Variables with Corresponding Values Independent Variables

Gender Age of Respondent Year Level

Socio-economic Status

Frequency of Street Food Consumption

Corresponding Values 0 = Male 1 = Female Number of years 1 = 4th year high school 2 = 1st year college 3 = 2nd year college 4 = 3rd year college 5 = 4th year college 1 = Class E 2 = Class D 3 = Class C2 4 = Class C1 5 = Class AB 1 = Never 2 = Once a month or less 3 = 2-3 times a month 4 = Once per week 5 = 2 or more times per week

Experience of Illness from Street Food

0 = None 1 = Yes

Food Safety Information

Number of known food safety hazards in street food

Results and Discussion Dirt/dust Insects E. coli

1 - Very Low Risk 2 - Low Risk

Cholera

3 - Moderate Risk

S Salmonella

4 - High Risk

Detergent

5 - Very High Risk

Antibiotics Kerosene Shards of glass Pieces of wood 0

1

2

3

4

5

Fi Figure 2. 2 Risk Ri k P Perception ti off Respondents R d t on Street St t Foods F d

Results and Discussion E. coli Cholera

1 - Definitely Eat Again

Salmonella

2 - Probably Eat Again

Detergent

3 - Possibly Eat Again Kerosene

4 - Probably Not Eat Again

Antibiotics

5 - Most Probably Not Eat Again

Dirt/dust Insects Shards of glass Pieces of wood

0

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 3. Risk Attitude of Respondents on the Safety Hazards Present in Street Foods

Results and Discussion Serious Illness 1 - Definitely Eat Again 2 - Probably Eat Again

Major Illness

3 - Possibly Eat Again 4 - Probably Not Eat Again 5 - Most Probably Not Eat Again

Moderate Illness

Minor Illness

0

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 4. Risk Attitude of Respondents on the Likely H lth Impacts Health I t from f Eating E ti Street St t Foods F d

Results and Discussion 6

5

4

3

Risk Perception

2

Mean of Risk Attitude

1

0 0

1

2

3

4

Figure 5. Comparison of Means between Risk Perception and Risk Attitude of Respondents

Results and Discussion Table 2. Ordered Probit Analysis on the Respondents Respondents’ Risk Perception Independent Variable Gender Age Year Level Socio-economic Status Frequency of Street Food Consumption

Coefficient 0 164119 0.164119 -0.070321 0.0692834 0.27102 -0.0954962

P-value 0 21841 0.21841 0.13768 0.24442 0.00008 0.05533

Experience of Illness from Eating Street Foods

0.0265223

0.86783

Food Safety Information

0.131977

0.00003

*** *

***

Results and Discussion Table 3. Ordered Probit Analysis on the Respondents Respondents’ Risk Attitude

Independent Variable Gender Age Year Level Socio-economic Status Frequency of Street Food Consumption Experience of Illness from Eating Street Foods Food Safety Information Risk Perception p

Coefficient 0.0373736 - 0.112489 0 112489 0.121143 0.00833963 - 0.21295 0 21295

P-value 0.80517 0 03332 0.03332 0.07101 0.91550 0 00030 0.00030

0.183515

0.32653

0.0339872 - 0.171533

0.35883 0.01974

** * ***

**

Results and Discussion 21%

NO YES

79% Figure 6. Willingness to Pay for Safer Street Foods

Results and Discussion 80 71 70

69

60 50 42 40 31 30

23

20 10 0 Less than 1 peso

1 01 2 pesos 1.01-2

2 01 3 pesos 2.01-3

3 01 5 pesos 3.01-5

more than 5 pesos

Figure 7. Amount of Pesos Respondents are Willing to Pay for f S Safer f S Street Foods

Conclusion • Consumers feel that there is only moderate risk involved when eating ti street t t foods. f d • Given that hazards are p present in street foods, the consumers would most likely y not eat street foods again. • When the risk perception of the consumer would increase, his/ her risk attitude would decrease. decrease

Conclusion • Significant factors affecting risk perception formation: – Consumers’ Consumers socio-economic status (+) – frequency of street food consumption (-) – food safety information (+)

• Significant factors affecting risk attitude formation: – – – –

Age (-) Ed Educational ti lb background k d ((+)) Frequency of street food consumption (-) Risk perception (-)

Conclusion • Consumers who are more informed about food safety have higher risk perception which makes them more confident of the safety of street foods. As a result, result they are more willing to take risks. • Consumers C were willing illi tto pay more for safer street foods