Traditional Varieties for Local Markets: A Sustainable Proposal for Agricultural SMEs

Abstract

Agricultural activity has changed significantly in recent years. There is a clear trend towards monoculture and the replacement of traditional crops for others which are more productive and achieve better economic results. These factors have two fundamental consequences: on the one hand, the abandonment of agricultural activity, with the subsequent loss of rurality; on the other hand, a negative effect on the maintenance of biodiversity, because traditional varieties disappear. In this context, this paper analyses the situation of consumers and farmers of a traditional crop in the southeast of Spain: the tomato. In order to understand the current situation and the forecasted future, a choice experiment was conducted on 217 tomato consumers. Furthermore, 40 tomato farmers of this area underwent an in-depth interview. On the one hand, analysis of the consumer study established a potential segment of the population that prefers traditional varieties due to their high organoleptic properties. Meanwhile, the farmer study revealed a segment of this population that is willing to produce these types of crops. Therefore, the possibility that a certain sector of producers cultivates traditional varieties is suggested, and for these varieties to be aimed at a market niche that values them positively, making the activity of Small and Medium Enterprises (agricultural SMEs) profitable. This would improve the sustainability of the rural territory and would strengthen the preservation of genetic heritage.

Full text


Sustainability2020,12,4517;doi:10.3390/su12114517www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Article
TraditionalVarietiesforLocalMarkets:
ASustainableProposalforAgriculturalSMEs
CristianPérez‐Caselles
1,2,
*,MargaritaBrugarolas
1
andLauraMartínez‐Carrasco
1

1
DepartmentofAgriculturalEconomics,UniversidadMiguelHernándezdeElche,03312Orihuela,Spain;
mbrugaro@umh.es(M.B.);lmartinez@umh.es(L.M.‐C.)
2
DepartmentofPlantBreeding,CEBAS‐CSIC,30100Murcia,Spain
*Correspondence:cristian.perez01@goumh.umh.esorcperez@cebas.csic.es
Received:7May2020;Accepted:28May2020;Published:2June2020
Abstract:Agriculturalactivityhaschangedsignificantlyinrecentyears.Thereisacleartrend
towardsmonocultureandthereplacementoftraditionalcropsforotherswhicharemoreproductive
andachievebettereconomicresults.Thesefactorshavetwofundamentalconsequences:ontheone
hand,theabandonmentofagriculturalactivity,withthesubsequentlossofrurality;ontheother
hand,anegativeeffectonthemaintenanceofbiodiversity,becausetraditionalvarietiesdisappear.
Inthiscontext,thispaperanalysesthesituationofconsumersandfarmersofatraditionalcropin
thesoutheastofSpain:thetomato.Inordertounderstandthecurrentsituationandtheforecasted
future,achoiceexperimentwasconductedon217tomatoconsumers.Furthermore,40tomato
farmersofthisareaunderwentanin‐depthinterview.Ontheonehand,analysisoftheconsumer
studyestablishedapotentialsegmentofthepopulationthatpreferstraditionalvarietiesduetotheir
highorganolepticproperties.Meanwhile,thefarmerstudyrevealedasegmentofthispopulation
thatiswillingtoproducethesetypesofcrops.Therefore,thepossibilitythatacertainsectorof
producerscultivatestraditionalvarietiesissuggested,andforthesevarietiestobeaimedatamarket
nichethatvaluesthempositively,makingtheactivityofSmallandMediumEnterprises
(agriculturalSMEs)profitable.Thiswouldimprovethesustainabilityoftheruralterritoryand
wouldstrengthenthepreservationofgeneticheritage.
Keywords:tomato;choiceexperiment;consumerbehavior;ruraldevelopment;Mediterranean
crops

1.Introduction
Thecrisisofmodernconventionalagricultureisglobal,affectingthemostadvancedeconomies
aswellasthosefromdevelopingcountries.Thecurrentagriculturalsystemappliescapitaland
technologyintensivelyinordertobehighlyproductiveandcompetitive,whichentailsaseriesof
economic,social,andenvironmentalissues[1].
Theeconomicissuesdirectlyaffectfarmers.Foodpriceshaveremainedstagnantforalong
periodoftime,whereasthecostsoftheproductsproducedhaveincreasedsignificantly[2].Thishas
preventedfarmerswithlessresourcesfromcompetinginthisnewmarket.InSpain,therehasbeena
verysignificantdecreaseinthenumberofagriculturalholdings,downfrom3,000,000in1962to
945,024in2016.However,agriculturallandhasnotdecreasedinthesameproportion,downfrom
44.6millionhectaresin1962to30.0in2016.Therefore,therehasbeenaconcentrationofagricultural
holdings,andthus,adecreaseinthenumberofsmallholdings[3].
Thesocialissuesarelinkedtothedepopulationofruralareas.Industrialisation,implementedin
the19thcentury,hasprogressivelydecreasedtheneedsforhumanlabourintheagriculturalsector,
aswellasthedurationofallagriculturalprocedures[4].Duetothishurdle,inSpain,likeintherest
oftheworld,therehasbeenamassruralexodusfromthecountrysidetourbanareas.In1960,43.4%

Sustainability2020,12,45172of19
oftheSpanishpopulationlivedintownswithlessthan10,000inhabitants(80%ofthenational
territory),afigurewhichhasfallento19.9%in2017[5].Today,theactivityoftheruralpopulation
tendstoceasebeingagriculturalandinsteaddiversifies,turningtheruraleconomyintoaservice
economy[6].
Lastly,conventionalagricultureentailsaseriesofenvironmentalissues,causingseriousdamage
totheecosystemssuchassoildegradation,waterpollution,orthelossofbiodiversity.Hybridvariety
cropshaveproliferatedaroundtheworldinrecentdecadeswiththeobjectiveofsolvingthe
productivityissuesoftraditionalagriculturalvarieties,whichlacktheorganolepticpropertiesthat
consumerswant.Thesehybridvarietieshavereplacedtraditionalones,whichhasentailedan
extraordinarylossofgeneticdiversityduetothedisuseoftraditionalvarieties[1,7].
TheseissuescanbeseeninSpanishagriculture,whicharegreatlyimpactedbyhorticultural
crops.Thetomatostandsoutamongthem,asitisthehorticulturalcropwiththemostextensive
surface(60,852cultivatedhectares)aswellastheonethatcontributesthemosttotheproduction
valueofSpanishhorticulturalcrops(almost25%ofthetotalhorticulturalcropvalue)[8].
Inthiscontext,itisofinteresttostudyalternativesthatpromotethesustainabilityoftheterritory
byincreasingtheeconomicactivityofruralareas,aswellaspreventingthesignificantlossof
biodiversityintheseareas.Thealternativeproposedinthispaperistoconsidererlocalandtraditional
speciesandvarieties,becausetheycoverawidegeneticdiversitythatcanhelpmitigatethecurrent
geneticerosionwithinagriculturaldiversity,inlinewithSDG15(SustainableDevelopmentGoals),
“Protect,restoreandpromotesustainableuseofterrestrialecosystems,sustainablymanageforests,
combatdesertification,andhaltandreverselanddegradationandhaltbiodiversityloss”[9,10].
Todoso,thisarticlesetstwomainobjectives:ontheonehand,todetectanddefinetheprofile
ofpotentialtraditionalvarietyconsumersegments;ontheotherhand,todeterminethelevelof
acceptancethattomatoproducersassigntoanewandgeneticallyimprovedtraditionalvariety,and
toanalysetheimportancethattheygivethevariouspropertiesofthisnewtraditionalvariety.
Inordertoachievetheseobjectives,consumersweresurveyedbywayofachoiceexperiment
andseveralquestionsthatmakeitpossibletofindandcharacterisesegments.Meanwhile,tomato
producerswereinterviewedinordertoassesstheacceptanceofthecultivationoftraditionalvarieties
improvedbywayofmarker‐assistedselectionandbackcrossing.
2.LiteratureReview
2.1.TomatoCultivationinSpainintheFrameworkofConventionalAgriculture
TomatoesareacropthatoriginatedinMexicoandwasbroughttoEuropebySpaniardsinthe
16thcentury.Currently,tomatoesareoneofthemostconsumedvegetablesintheworld,astheycan
beeatenfreshorfollowingawidevarietyofformsofprocessing[11].Infact,worldwidetomato
productionincreaseseveryyear,reaching182.3milliontonnesin2017(theeconomicdatainthis
sectionrefersto2017,thelastyearwithavailabledata).Chinaisthemainproducer,followedby
India,withbothaccountingfor44%oftheworldwideproduction.Spain,withaproductionof5.2
milliontonnes,rankseighthintheworld,andsecondonaEuropeanlevelbehindItaly[12].The
productionoffreshtomatoesinSpainisconcentratedinthesoutheastofthecountry,specificallyin
theprovincesofAlmeríaandMurcia,with1,008,867and228,780tonnes,respectively.Productionin
theCommunityofExtremaduraisalsonoteworthy,althoughamajorityofitsproduceisdestinedfor
thecanningindustry(Figure1)[8,13].

Sustainability2020,12,45173of19

Figure1.MapofSpaindepictingtomatoproductionin2017onaprovinciallevel.
Regardingcommerce,around16%ofalltomatoesproducedinSpain(around0.81million
tonnes)areexported,despitethestrongcompetitionoftomatoesfromthirdcountriessuchasMexico,
Morocco,orTurkey,whichcompetewithverylowprices(theaveragepriceofTurkishtomatoeson
theforeignmarketis€0.498perkilo,andMoroccantomatoescost€0.989perkilo,whereasSpanish
tomatoescost€1.280perkilo).ThisfacthascausedSpanishexportstodecreaseeveryyearsince2011
[12,14].However,theproduct’slowresistancetostorageandhandlingmakessomecountriesfrom
northernEuropecontinuetoimportSpanishtomatoes(Germany(0.22milliontonnes),France(0.11
milliontonnes),andtheUnitedKingdom(0.10milliontonnes)).Regardingtheinternalmarket,which
receives84%ofthetomatoproduction,therearealsoimports,mainlyfromTurkeyandMorocco,
whoitisdifficulttocompetewithinprice[15,16].
ThesefiguresclearlyshowthestrongcompetitionthattheSpanishtomatofacesinthemarkets,
makingitnecessarytoanalyseproductdifferentiationproposalsthatareappealingtothemarkets
andwhichcontributetodecreasingthecurrentissuesofconventionalagriculture.
2.2.MarketPossibilitiesforTraditionalVarietiesthatHaveBeenGeneticallyImproved.
Tomatovarietiescultivatedinatraditionalwayhavenotonlyadaptedtotheterritory,butthey
alsohaveheightenedorganolepticqualityandnutritionalvalue,attributesthatarehighlyregarded
byconsumers[17,18].Hence,theymayrepresentanappropriateoptionfordifferentiationwhichis
compatiblewiththepreservationofthetraditionalgeneticmaterial,astheyhavebeenobtained
followingalengthyprocessofselectionandimprovement,aswellashavingsignificantgenetic
diversityandgreatheterogeneitywithamajorityofagronomicandmorphologicaltraits.However,
thesevarietiessufferfromlowerproductivityandresistancetodiseasesthanthehybridtomatoes
thatarecurrentlycultivated.
TheMiguelHernándezUniversityhasconductedaprogrammetoimprovetraditionaltomato
varietieswithpublicfunding,themaingoalofwhichwastoinsertresistancegenesintotraditional
varieties,makingthemmoreproductiveandallowingthemtocompetewithcommercialhybrids.
Thebreedingprogrammewasconductedwithclassictechniques.Inotherwords,geneticengineering

Sustainability2020,12,45174of19
techniqueswerenotused.Theprocesswascarriedoutusingmarker‐assistedbackcrossingand
naturalselection,similarlyashasbeendonetraditionallybyfarmers[19].
Thisresearchfocusesonthespecificcaseof“DelaPera”tomatoes,avarietythathasexcellent
organolepticproperties,butlowresistancetovirusdiseases,despiteitsadaptationtothecultivation
area.Oncethevarietieshavebeenimproved,itisimportanttoascertainwhethertheywouldbe
acceptedinthemarkets,sothatfarmersfromruralareasmayconsidergrowingtraditionalvarieties
whilemakingaprofit[20–22].
Therearemanyfactorsthatinfluencedecisionstobuyfoodotherthantheprice,suchasthebest
organolepticpropertiesorattributeslinkedtosustainability,localorigin,ororganiccultivation.A
broadsectorofconsumers,mainlyfromdevelopedcountries,wouldbewillingtopayahigherprice
forthesameproductifitoffersaddedqualitiesthatimproveitsqualityoflife.Typesoffoodwiththe
highestquality(morenutritiveandwithbettersensoryproperties)areincreasinglydemandedby
marketconsumers.Theconsumptionoflocalproducts,withthesameoriginastheconsumer,
stimulatesregionaleconomy,andalsorepresentsashortcommercialisationchannel,meaningithas
alowcarbonfootprint.Organicproductionoffersfoodswhilehavinglessofanimpactonthe
environment[23–26].Inthecaseoftomatoes,theintrinsicattributes(colour,taste,smell)aregreatly
influentialontheconsumer,evenmorethanextrinsicfactors.However,organiclabelling(extrinsic
attribute)canpositivelyinfluencetheorganolepticperceptionofconsumers[27–29].Inthiscontext,
inthisprojectwehavefocusedonthelocalmarkettooffertheseimprovedvarietiesofabroadly
recognisedproductintheareaofcultivation.Theexteriormarketwasruledoutinitiallyasitismore
complex:competitionfromothercountriesandthepreferenceofconsumersfornativeproducts.This
localpreferencecanbeduetomanyfactors,chiefamongstthembeingtheconsumer’sethnocentrism
andthegrowingconcernoverpollutionduetotransportation[30,31].
Indevelopingtheresearch,wewanttoverifythefollowinghypotheses:
Hypothesis1(H1).Thereisatomatoconsumersegmentthatpreferstraditionalvarietiestohybrid
varieties.
Hypothesis2(H2).Thereisaproducersegmentwillingtocultivateanimprovedtraditional
variety.
Hypothesis3(H3).Cultivatingtraditionalvarietiesisasuitablealternativeforthesustainability
oftheterritory’sagriculturalactivity.
3.MaterialsandMethods
3.1.DeterminetheAcceptanceandtheMostInfluentialVariablesintheConsumer’sPurchasingDecisions.
TheresearchwasconductedatthefacilitiesoftheMiguelHernándezUniversityofthetownsof
OrihuelaandElche(Alicanteprovince)inJuly2017.Thestudywascarriedoutwith217people,
evenlydistributedin3differentsessions.Conveniencesamplingwasusedtoselectparticipants,
whichiswhytheresultscannotbegeneralisedforthewholepopulation[32].Thecharacteristicsare
showninTable1.
Table1.Technicalcardoftheexperimentalsurvey.
People217People,BuyersofSaladTomato
Gender60/40%F/M
Geographical
location2medium‐sizedtownsand1ruralvillageintheLevanteregionofSpain
Experiment
locationUniversidadMiguelHernándezfacilities
Recruitment
methodConvenience

Sustainability2020,12,45175of19
AnalysismethodChoiceexperiment(4attributes),oneofthemrelatedtotwolineswithinthe
specifictraditional“DelaPera”variety:“breeding”and“notbreeding”
DatacollectionQuestionnaire
Theinformationwasobtainedfromasurveywhichincludesachoiceexperiment.Thistechnique
isbasedontheideathatgoodsorservicescanbedescribedbytheattributesthattheyinclude,and
whichconsumersmakepurchasingdecisionsbasedon[33,34].Thepurposeofthechoiceexperiment
wastodeterminetherelativeimportanceofthedifferentattributesandtheirweightonthechoiceof
purchase.
Choiceexperimentsarosefromconjointanalyses,areconsistentwiththerandomutilitytheory,
andareusefulasamethodforelicitingpassiveusevalues[35].Thebasicassumptionoftherandom
utilitytheoryisbasedonthepremisethatindividualsactrationally,selectingthealternativethat
yieldsthehighestutility.Consequently,theprobabilityofselectingagivenalternativewillbehigher
iftheutilityprovidedbysuchalternativeisthehighestamongthedifferentchoices[36].
Choiceexperimentsarealsocalledstatedpreferencemethods,andtheyrefertosituationswhere
choicesareobservedinhypotheticalsituations.Thesetypesofmethodshavetheadvantagethatthey
canallowtheanalysttomodelthedemandfornewproductswithnewattributesforwhichthereis
norealpreferencehistory,aswithourcurrentresearch.Ourproductconsistsoftwotomato
“variants”:bredandnonbred.
Thestatedpreferencemethodsalwaysrequireanexperimentaldesign.Thedesignstartswith
theidentificationoftheattributesandtheirlevels,whichallowsustodefinetheproductsconsidering
theirmostimportantcharacteristicsanddimensionsfortheconsumersintheirdecision‐making
process[37,38].
Theattributesandlevelsofimportanceincludedinthisexperimentwerechoseninaccordance
withtheliteratureandthecriteriaoftheresearchers(Table2):typeoftomato(bred/notbred),origin
(local/foreign)[39,40],cultivationsystem(organic/conventional),andprice(low/medium/high)
[41,42].
Table2.Attributesandlevelsintheexperiment.
AttributesLevels
TypeBreedinglinesNon‐breedinglines
OriginLocalForeign
CultivationsystemConventionalOrganic
PriceLowMediumHigh
Afterthat,itwasnecessarytocarryoutthechoicesetdesign.Specifically,westartedby
generatingafullfactorialdesignforfourattributes,threeofthemwithtwolevelsandoneofthem,
theprice,withthreelevels(2×2×2×3).Asthesetofoptionstobeassessedbytheparticipantswas
excessive,wereducedthenumberofchoicesetswithafractionalfactorialdesign.Thedesignandthe
subsequentanalysiswereperformedwiththeJMPstatisticsprogram(SASInstitute,Cary,NC,USA).
Thefinalchoicedesignwasmadeupofeightchoicesetswithtwoalternativetomatoes(alternative
AandalternativeB)ofthe“DelaPera”varietyandathirdoptionrepresentingthenonbuyingoption
(Table3).
□Table3.Choicesetexample.
1
OPTIONA

OPTIONB
Noneofthem
Type:387Type:542
Origin:LocalOrigin:Nolocal
System:ConventionalSystem:Organic
Prize:3.50
€
Prize:3.00
€


Sustainability2020,12,45176of19
Aswellasthechoiceexperiment,thequestionnaireincludedaquestionwhereparticipantshad
torevealtheirpurchasepreferencesregardingaseriesoftomatoattributes.Thiswasconductedby
wayofasemanticdifferentialscale(Figure2).

Figure2.Scaleusedtomeasurethefreshtomatopurchasingpreferences.
Amongtheconsideredattributeswasthetypeofvariety,withthechoicesbeing“hybrid”and
“traditional.”Thisvariablewasusedtosegmentconsumersbetweenthosewhoprefertraditional
varietiesandthosewhopreferhybridvarieties.
Aclusteranalysisconsideringtomatovarietypreferences(hybridortraditional)asthegrouping
variablewasconductedinordertodeterminepotentialconsumersegments.Thesepreferenceswere
disclosedbytheconsumersinthequestiononvaluedattributes.Oncethesegmentswereidentified,
consumerswerecharacterisedusingtheremainingvariablestodetermineappropriatecommercial
strategies.
ThesurveyalsoincludedthescaleproposedbySteptoe[43]tomeasuretheunderlyingfood
selectionmotives:thefoodchoicequestionnaire,aswellasotherquestions,tocompilethesample
population’spurchasinghabitsandsociodemographicdata.
3.2.DeterminetheVariablesthatInfluencetheCultivationDecisionsofFarmersandtheSocioeconomic
ImpactonRuralAreas
AsthesoutheastofSpainisthemainregionregardingtheproductionoffreshtomatoesinthe
country,theresearchfocusedonthisarea.Toobtaintheinformation,interviewswereconductedwith
astructuredquestionnaireon40farmersofthearea(Table4).Probabilitysampleshaveawell‐
foundedtheoreticalbasis,buttherequirementspertainingtorandomselectionmustbemetinorder
toobtainthem,whichisnoteasy[44].Asthereisnotomatoproducercensus,aprobabilitysample
wasnotchosen,andthesampleisthereforenotrandom.Producercontactinformationwasobtained
fromadatabasethattheMiguelHernándezUniversityhas,aswellasfromothersourcessuchasthe

Sustainability2020,12,45177of19
CAERM(CommitteeofEcologicalAgricultureoftheMurciaRegion),somecompaniesofthesector,
andfromtheintervieweesthemselves.
ThedatawascompiledbetweenNovember2017andFebruary2018.Theinterviewswere
conductedtwodifferentways:inpersonandbytelephone.Theinterviewshadanapproximate
durationof15to25min.Mostquestionswereopen‐ended,buttheinterviewerhadoptionalanswers
tohelptheintervieweeifnecessary.Someofthequestionswerequitestraightforward,asthey
addressedthefarmerandtheirholding’ssocioeconomicdata.Theonesthattooklongerwerethe
onesthatinquiredabouttraditionalvarietyelectioncriteria.
Table4.Characteristicsoftheinterviewedproducers.
Lessthan5habetween5and
40ha
over40
haAverage
Frequency(%)67.520.012.5‐
Sizeoftheaverageholding(ha)1.6111.25295.6040.29
Averageareaofcultivatedtomatoes
(ha)0.343.85125.0016.62
Cultivationsystem(%)
Greenhouse29.650.020.032.5
Outdoors66.725.020.052.5
Greenhouseandoutdoors3.712.520.07.5
Greenhousewithmulch0.00.040.05.0
Outdoorswithmulch0.012.50.02.5
Cultivationmethod(%)
Ecological66.712.520.050.0
Integrated7.40.040.010.0
Conventional25.987.540.040.0
Withthemethodused,anin‐depthinterview,theinterviewercreatesanenvironmentwhere
intervieweescanexpressthemselvesfreely.Todoso,itisvitaltomakequestionsinawaythatmakes
itpossibletoobtainthemostrelevantinformationfortheinterestsoftheresearch,whilegettingto
knowtheproducersenoughtounderstandwhattheywanttosay[45,46].
Thequestionnaireusedtoconducttheinterviewswasproducedbyanalysingtheoneemployed
inarticle[47],adaptingittothespecificobjectivesoftheresearch,andconsultingexpertsincrop
productionandgeneticengineering.Thequestionnairehad30questionsandwasdividedintothree
mainblocks.Thefirstcomprisedaseriesofsimplequestionsonthedistributionofthesoil,the
cultivationandfarmingsystems,thenumberandtypeofworkersemployed,etc.,inorderto
characterisetheholding.Thesecondblockincludedquestionslinkedtothecultivationoftomatoes,
suchasthereasonsforcultivatingornotcultivatingtraditionalvarieties,orthelevelofacceptanceof
ahypotheticalnewvarietywithvariousimprovementsinitsattributes.Lastly,thethirdblockwas
basedonaseriesofsociodemographicquestionsaboutthefarmer,whicharenecessaryinorderto
segmenttheinterviewedpopulation.
Oncetheanswerswerecompiled,thevariablesincludedwereclassifiedandinterpreted,sothat
theanswersobtainedcouldbeclassifiedintocategories.Afterwards,theywereanalysedusingthe
IBMSPSSStatisticsv.25program(IBM,Armonk,NY,USA).





Sustainability2020,12,45178of19
4.ResultsandDiscussion
4.1.ExperimentswithConsumers
4.1.1.ConsumerCharacterisationandSegmentation
Thedataconfirmsthattomatoesareoneofthemostconsumedagriculturalproducts:46.9%of
thestudiedpopulationconsumetomatoesonadailybasis,andonly1%dosoonrareoccasions.
Thesefiguresaresimilartothoseobtainedinotherprojects.
Ourresultsshowthattheattributesthataremosthighlyvaluedbyconsumerswhenpurchasing
tomatoesare:flavour(tastyandintense),texture(meaty),origin(local),hardness(firm),colour(red),
sweetness(medium–high)andacidity(medium–low).Otherattributessuchastheprice,size,or
shapeofthetomatoesarelessimportantfortheconsumers.Someauthors[48–50]coincidewithour
results,astheyshowthatconsumersareveryawareoftheintrinsicparameterswhenpurchasing
tomatoes.Furthermore,consumersareinterestedintheoriginofthetomato(varietyorcultivation),
astheybelieveitisthemainfactorthatdeterminestheorganolepticpropertiesofthefruit,moreso
thanthecultivationmethodusedbytheproducer(ecologicalorconventional).However,other
authors[51,52]differfromtheaforementionedresults,astheystatethatconsumersgivemore
importancetotheprice,thecultivationmethod,orthesealsofquality,insteadoftheirorganoleptic
properties.
Inordertodetectpotentialconsumers,asegmentationofconsumerswasconductedaccording
totheirpreferredtypeoftomatovariety,establishingtwoclearlydifferentiatedsegments.Segment1
(hereinafter,S1)iscomprisedof57.3%oftheconsumers,whoprefertraditionalvarieties.Segment2
(hereinafter,S2)represents43.7%ofthestudiedpopulation,whochoosehybridvarieties.
Inordertoobtaintheprofileofbothsegments,significantdifferencesweresoughtbetweenthem
regardingtomatopurchasingattributesandtheirlevels,generalpurchasingattitudes,placesof
purchase,andsociodemographiccharacteristics.
Regardingpurchaseattributes,differenceswerefoundinthetaste,origin,sweetness,acidity,
andpriceattributes.Ontheonehand,S1standsoutoverS2forgivingmoreimportancetointrinsic
attributesofthefruitsuchasthetaste,sweetness,andacidity.Furthermore,S1alsogivesgreater
valuetotheoriginofthefruits.Ontheotherhand,S2onlygivesmoreimportancethanS1totheprice
oftheproducts(Figure3).

Figure3.Purchasingpreferencesregardingtomatoattributes.*Significantdifferencesbetween
segments.
S1.Consumerswhoprefertraditionaltomatoes
S2.Consumerswhopreferhybridtomatoes

Sustainability2020,12,45179of19
Regardingtheattributelevels,S1especiallyvaluesthattomatoesareofalocaloriginandtasty
(highsweetnessandlowacidity).Theoriginoftheproductisanappealingqualityforthissectorof
thepopulation,assupportingthelocaleconomybypurchasingproductsfromtheregionmakesthem
feelgood[53].Ontheotherhand,S2standsoutbecauseoftheimportanceitgivespricescompared
toS1(Figure4).

Figure4.Purchasingpreferencelevelsregardingtomatoattributes.*Significantdifferencesbetween
segments.
Regardingthepurchasingattributesoffood,thescaleproposedbySteptoeandhisgroup[43]
wasused,andafactorialanalysiswasconductedwiththeresultsobtainedinordertodecreasethe
initialnumberofvariables(18),summarisingthemin7mainfactors.Theexplainedvarianceofthese
factorsis62.2%,theKMOcoefficientis0.664andBarlett’stestofSphericityissignificant.Thevalue
ofthefactorsisshowninTable5.
Table5.Rotatedcomponentmatrixofpurchasingbehaviors.
F1F2F3F4F5F6F7
Goodtaste0.732−0.0160.0250.032−0.015−0.149−0.039
Pleasanttexture0.6840.124−0.053−0.0480.3010.1210.042
Looksnice0.650−0.103−0.1170.1370.0490.3770.158
Smellsnice0.6430.2320.0970.190−0.0480.1410.007
Clearlymarkedorigin0.1530.8310.0790.1490.0740.071−0.171
Friendlycountry−0.0940.720−0.123−0.0400.1740.1760.282
Environmentallyfriendlypackaging0.1660.7150.3560.116−0.039−0.1240.001
Nutrients−0.0030.0280.821−0.054−0.0420.061−0.006
Healthy0.0330.0180.7690.2000.182−0.056−0.124
Noartificialingredients−0.0560.3280.6280.0160.1320.0230.312
Feelgood0.1760.0840.0730.9070.038−0.018−0.020
Cheersmeup0.0460.0960.0490.8880.0490.1440.096
Usualmeal0.0390.015−0.0320.0530.835−0.0360.040
Childhoodmeal0.2300.2890.145−0.1080.6150.029−0.018

Sustainability2020,12,451710of19
Weightcontrol−0.078−0.0730.3620.3370.6070.2310.030
Easytoprepare−0.0250.1230.0130.2340.0450.840−0.138
Convenient0.2430.0060.038−0.0940.0310.7360.207
Cheap0.0800.0180.0240.0720.0230.0480.931
Explainedvariance(%)11.4711.2711.1010.819.098.806.62
Notes:F1:Sensoryappeal;F2:Ethicalconcern;F3:Healthandnaturalcontent;F4:Mood;F5:
Familiarityandweightcontrol;F6:Convenience;F7:Price.Thecellswithgreeninthebackground
indicatewhichvariableshavebeengroupedforeachFgroup.Figure5showsarepresentationofF
groups.
Theanalysisoftheresultsobtainedforthesefactorsinbothsegmentsshowsthatintwofactors
therearesignificantdifferencesamongsegments(Figure5).Ontheonehand,S1valuesmuchmore
positively“familiarity,”whereastheydisregard“convenience.”InSpain,theconsumptionof
traditionalfoodsisdrivenbyfamiliarity,naturalness,andthegeneralattitudetowardsthosetypes
offoods[54].Ontheotherhand,S2givesgreatimportanceto“convenience”andnegativelyqualify
the“familiarity”factor.

Figure5.Assessmentofthepurchasingattributesofconsumers.*Significantdifferencesbetween
segments.
ThepurchasingspotsfrequentedbyS1aregreengrocers,open‐airmarkets,andsupermarkets
andhypermarkets.However,S2onlyusesdepartmentstoresand,onsomeoccasions,retailsellers
thatofferdiscounts.Ontheonehand,atgreengrocersandopen‐airmarkets,onecaneasilyfind
productsoflocaloriginwhichalsohavebetterorganolepticproperties.Ontheotherhand,
departmentstoresofferconsumersgreatervarietyandflexibility,astheycandoalltheirshoppingin
asingleplace.Furthermore,productscanbefoundatbetterprices,eveniftheirsensoryproperties
arelessappealing[55–57].
Regardingthesocioeconomiccharacteristics(Table6),figuresshowthattherearenosignificant
differencesbetweensegmentsasregardsgender,thenumberofhouseholdmembers,thepresenceof
childreninthehousehold,andthelevelofeducation.However,itisnoteworthythatS1hasalower
percentageofyouthsthanS2,aswellasahigherpercentageofconsumerswithchildrenyounger
than12.Regardingthelevelofincome,S1ischaracterisedbyhavingahigherlevelthanS2.
Table6.Socioeconomiccharacteristicsofconsumers.
Segment1Segment2 Total
Gender(%)
Male37.341.138.9
Female62.758.961.1
Age*(%)

Sustainability2020,12,451711of19
From18to24yearsold9.215.612.0
From25to34yearsold13.423.317.7
From35to49yearsold51.335.644.5
From50to64yearsold26.125.625.8
Householdmembers(%)
1member8.410.09.1
2members20.223.321.5
3members20.225.622.5
4members41.233.337.8
Presenceofchildrenathome*(%)53.037.846.4
Presenceofunder‐12sathome*(%)77.468.674.2
Presenceofteensathome*(%)33.954.341.2
Presenceofyouths(%)9.75.78.2
Levelofstudies(%)
Primaryschool3.41.12.4
Secondaryschool16.811.114.4
University79.887.883.3
Householdincome**(%)
<€10005.012.58.2
€1000–€199923.525.024.2
€
2000–
€
349927.722.725.6
€3500–€499916.812.515.0
€5000–€69991.79.14.8
Morethan
€
70007.63.45.8
Idon’tknow5.96.86.3
Idon’twanttoanswer11.88.010.1
Notes:*and**indicatesignificanceatthe5and10%levels,respectively.
4.1.2.ResultsoftheChoiceExperiments
TheresultsofthechoiceexperimentsareshownbysegmentinTable7.S1mainlyvaluesthe
typeoftomatotheyeat,withthepriceandoriginoftheproductalsobeingimportantvariablesfor
thissegment.S2believesthepriceisthemostimportantattribute.Inbothcases,thetypeofcultivation
(ecological/conventional)istheleastimportantattribute.
Table7.Modelestimatesofthetomatoattributes.
AttributelevelsSegment1Segment2
LogWorth*p‐valueLogWorth*p‐value
Price10.420.000012.1290.0000
Origin9.0860.00005.5490.0000
Typeoftomato12.6280.00003.1150.0008
Cultivationmethod3.5850.00002.2640.0055
Notes:*LogWorthisdefinedas‐log10(p‐value).Thistransformationadjustsp‐valuestoprovidean
appropriatescaleforgraphing.Avaluethatexceeds2issignificantatthe0.01level.
Regardingthelevelsoftheattributes,theresultsshowthat,inbothsegments,improvedvarieties
(flavour),ecologicalcultivation,andlowerpricesarethehighestvalued.Themaindifferencesliein
theimportanceoftheselevels.S1assignsgreatervaluetotheimprovedvarieties,andslightlymore
tothelocalorigin,thanS2.ThevaluegiventoecologicalcultivationisalsoslightlygreaterinS1.
Lastly,lowerpricesarevaluedbybothsegments,butmorebyS2,whereasmediumpriceshavea
negativeeffectforbothsegments(Table8).


Sustainability2020,12,451712of19
Table8.Parameterestimatesofthelevelsofthetomatoattributes.
AttributeLevelsSegment1Segment2
EstimationStandardErrorEstimationStandardError
Improved0.26320.0368**0.14570.0439**
Localorigin0.22150.0368**0.20210.0440**
Conventionalcultivationmethod−0.13320.0369**−0.12160.0443**
Lowprice0.33490.0592*0.42860.0697*
Mediumprice−0.05860.0722*−0.06370.0834*
Notes:*Significantattributeswithstandarderror<0.05,**Significantattributeswithstandarderror<0.10.
Insummary,wehavedetectedapotentialsegmentofconsumersatwhomtheimproved
traditionalvarietiescanbeaimed.Thissegment(S1)givesgreaterimportancetoanintenseflavour,
localorigin,sweetness,andlowacidityintomatoes.However,andeventhoughtheypreferlow
prices,theygivethislevellessimportance,meaningthattheywouldbemorewillingtopaymorefor
atomato.Theyshowahigherfrequencyofpurchaseingreengrocershopsandopenmarkets,which
suggestsagreatersearchforlocalproductsordirectcontactwiththeproducer.Ingeneral,theyhave
higherincomeandalargerpercentageofmembersofthisgrouparemiddle‐agedpeople(35–49years
ofage).Havingagreaterpercentageofpeoplewithhigherincomewouldexplainthelesser
importanceoftheprice.
Theresultsofthechoiceexperimentareconsistentwiththepreviousresults.S1givesmore
importancetotheimprovedvarietyandlocalorigin,andlesstolowprices.
4.2.SurveyedProducers
4.2.1.CharacterisationoftheHoldings
TheresultsshowafairlycomprehensiveimageoftomatoproducersinsoutheastSpain,asthe
samplingwasconductedconsideringalltypesoffarmers:small(<5ha),medium(5–40ha)andmajor
(>40ha).
Thereare24.3%offarmerswhoexclusivelycultivatetomatoesintheirfields.Thisfactis
exacerbatedinsmallandmediumfarmers,whereasthisisnotthecaseinmajorproducers.Therest
alsohaveplantationsoffruitsandothervegetables.Ingeneral,smallfarmerscombinevegetable
crops,whereasthosewithlargerfieldshaveplantationsoffruittrees(Table9).
Table9.Distributionofholdingsbycrops(%).
Crops*Lessthan5
ha
between5and40
ha
over40
haTotal
Onlytomatoes25.933.30.024.3
Tomatoesandothervegetables44.416.725.037.8
Tomatoesandfruittrees3.80.050.08.2
Tomatoes,othervegetables,andfruit
trees25.950.025.029.7
*Significantdifferencesbetweensegments.
Themainreasonsthatpushproducerstocultivatetomatoesare:profitability(28.9%),tradition
(26.3%),andthefactthatitisalocalcrop(26.3%).Firstly,tomatoesareatraditionalcropinsoutheast
Spain.Amajorityoffarmersknowaboutorarespecialisedinthistypeofcultivatedproduct,which
makesiteasierforthemtomanage.Furthermore,inbeingatraditionalcrop,therearevarietiesthat
adapttothearea’sweatherandsoilconditions[58].Secondly,tomatoesturnouttobeaprofitable
productforallthearea’sfarmers.However,therearemajordifferencesregardingthebenefits
declareddependingonthetypeoffarmer:smallonesobtain€1128/hacomparedtothe€15,064/ha
thatmajorfarmersmake.

Sustainability2020,12,451713of19
TheMediterraneanclimateenablesthecultivationoftomatoesallyearroundindifferent
cultivationsystems.InsoutheastSpain,theharvestingperiodsoftomatoescultivatedundernetting
aresupplementaltotheharvestingperiodsoftomatoesingreenhouses(short,double,orlongcycle)
[59,60].Therefore,therearefarmersspecialisedinonetypeofharvestingandotherswhocombine
severalharvestingperiodseveryyear.Asmanyas60.0%ofinterviewedtomatoproducerscultivate
theminagreenhouse,whereas25.0%dosooutdoors.Thetendencytocultivateoutdoorsisfostered
bysmallandmediumfarmers,asagreenhouseisaninfrastructurethatrequiresalargeinitial
investmentandrequiressignificantbenefitsyearafteryearinordertopayitbackandturnaprofit,
whichisunpredictabletakingintoaccountthattomatoproducersoperateinaglobalcompetitive
market[61,62].Anotheraspectthatseparatesfarmersisthemethodusedforagriculturalproduction.
Ecologicalcultivationisamethodthatisusedbyfarmersmoreandmoreeveryyear,thusincreasing
bothitscultivationareaanditsproductioninSpain.Infact,42.1%ofinterviewedtomatoproducers
dosofollowingecologicalregulation,and15.8%conductintegratedproduction.However,thetrend
ofecologicalproductionismainlydrivenbysmallfarmers(57.1%),asamajorityoffarmerswith
largerfieldsprefertocontinueusingtheconventionalmethodand,insomecases,integratedcontrol
[63].
Theaverageageofproducerswas45.95,andtheyhadanaverageexperienceof21.80yearsas
farmers.InsoutheastSpain,agriculturehassurvivedasatradition,butthenewgenerationshave
abandonedthefieldsforothersectorsthatarebetterpaid,causingthesectortoage.Agricultural
companieschosetorecruitmigrantlabour,whotookthejobsthatthenativepopulationrejected[64].
Majorproducersdevotetheirentireworkdaytoagriculture.Inotherwords,agricultureistheir
profession,andamajorityofthemareownersoftheholdingstheyworkon.Furthermore,theysaid
that100%oftheirincomecomesfromagriculture.However,21.1%ofsmallandmediumproducers
haveitasapart‐timecommitment,34.2%arelessees,andonly57.3%oftheirincomecomesfrom
agriculture.Smallholdingisanaspectlinkedtopart‐timeagricultureand,therefore,tothede‐
professionalisationofthesector.Theleasingofholdingsisareflectionoftryingtoreachthesize
necessarytotakeadvantageoftheeconomiesofscale,butaprofessionalproducerwhoisfully
dedicatedtotheactivityisalsonecessary[65,66].Inanycase,86.5%offarmerssaidtheywillcontinue
withtheirworkinthefield,majorandmediumproducersduetoeconomicreasons(becausethey
carryoutaprofitableactivity),andsmallfarmersforpersonalreasons(mainlytokeepupthe
tradition).
4.2.2.AcceptanceofTraditionalVarieties
Theselectionofthetypeofvarietyisoneofthefundamentaldilemmasthataproducermust
address,andafundamentalobjectiveofthisprojectistoanalysethelevelofuseandlikelihoodof
acceptanceofcultivatingtraditionalvarietiesoftomatoes.
Asmanyas50%ofthesmallandmediumfarmersinterviewedonlyusetraditionalvarieties.
Theychoosethemforthefollowingreasons:consumerspreferthem(45.8%),theyareefficient
(37.5%),andtheycontributetowardscreatingbiodiversity(20.8%).Theimpoverishmentofthe
organolepticqualityofthenewtomatovarieties,duetotheobjectivessetforthecurrentimproved
varieties,haspositionedtraditionalvarietiesinamarketnichethatseekstorecovertheorganoleptic
qualityandexternalappearanceoftraditionaltomatoes[18,67].However,75.0%ofmajorfarmers
onlycultivatehybridvarieties,and25.0%combinetraditionalandhybridvarieties.Theyallagree
thattraditionalvarietieshavelowefficiencyandlowresistancetodiseases.Thetraditionalvariety
mostchosenbyfarmersis“Muchamiel”(40%).Furthermore,the“DelaPera,”“FlordeBaladre,”and
“Valenciano”varietiesarealsoused.Meanwhile,themostusedhybridvarietyis“Cherry”(20%).
Othercommercialhybridsusedare:“Raf,”“Anairis,”“Boludo,”“Canario,”“Dumas,”and“Cordeil,”
amongothers.Itisworthnotingthatfromanin‐depthanalysisoftheiranswersonecansurmisethat,
inmanycases,producersdonotknowthedifferencebetweentraditionalvarietiesandcommercial
hybrids.
Atthispoint,farmerswereaskedtovaluethelevelofimportanceofaseriesofpropertiesthata
newandimprovedvarietysimilarto“DelaPera”/”Muchamiel”wouldhave,obtainedthrougha

Sustainability2020,12,451714of19
processofnaturalselection(Table10).Thisvarietywouldhaveheightenedresistancetocertainissues
suchasvirusdiseasesorsplitting,althoughitwouldentailcertainhandicapssuchasalessintense
flavourthantheoriginaltraditionalvarietyortheimpossibilityofpreservingseedsfromoneyearto
thenext.
Table10.Importancegiventothepropertiesofanewandimprovedvarietyandlevelofacceptance.
Lessthan5habetween5and40haover40haTotal
Resistancetovirus8.409.7110.008.76
Absenceofsplitting8.409.2910.008.71
Goodpost‐harvestpreservation7.568.578.507.82
Evenfruitsetting7.008.149.337.43
Goodpreservationintheplant7.328.145.007.29
Goodsize6.768.867.337.23
Productionbetween3and5kg/plant7.485.716.677.06
Lessintenseflavourthantheoriginal6.927.716.007.00
Nonpreservationofseeds6.566.433.336.26
Lessresemblancetothetraditionalshape6.045.293.335.66
Levelofacceptance7.247.294.677.03
Ingeneral,farmershighlightthefollowingproperties:resistancetovirus,absenceofsplitting,
goodpost‐harvestpreservation,andevenfruit‐setting.Alltheseattributesareaspectsthatimprove
themanagementofthecrop;inotherwords,ithighlightsthatfarmerswouldrathercultivateavariety
thatismoremanageableratherthanavarietythatisveryproductivebutsuffersfromdiseases,
preservationissues,andfruitdamage,suchassplitting.
Thedifferencescanbeseeninpropertiessuchas,forexample,the“goodpreservationofthe
plant.”Thispropertyismoreimportantforsmallfarmersthanmajorfarmers,possiblyduetothe
formerusuallymakinguseofecologicalcultivationfortheircropsand,inbeingabletousealimited
amountofchemicalproducts,thepreservationofthefruitsintheplantisanessentialqualityfor
them.
Itisimportanttostressthedifferenceinimportancegivenbymajorandsmallfarmerstothe
possibilityofpreservingseedsfromoneyeartothenext.Whereasthispropertylacksimportancefor
theformer,smallandmediumproducersvaluethispointsignificantly,asforthem,thepreservation
andexchangeofseedscanrepresentaninterestingsourceofproducts.
The“traditional”shapeisalsomoreimportantforsmallproducersthanformajorproducers
(beingofintermediateimportanceformediumproducers).Thisisduetosmallproducersbeingmore
accustomedtoworkingwithtraditionalvarieties,andtheyvaluethisattribute,whereasmajor
producersselectrounderandmorehomogeneousshapes.
Lastly,theywereaskedtostatethelevelofgeneralacceptanceofsaidvarietyonascaleof1to
10.Thevarietywasaccepted(>7points)bysmallandmediumfarmers.Thesesaidthattheabsence
ofthemainvirusdiseasesinthevarietywouldfacilitatethedevelopmentofthecropand,asitwould
havesimilarorganolepticpropertiesasthementionedtraditionalvarieties,therewouldbeamarket
nichetoapproach.However,majorproducersdidnotacceptthehypotheticalvariety(<5points).
Theysaidthattheefficiencyofthevarietywasverylow,andthatitwouldnotachieveanacceptable
productionthatwouldallowtheholdingtobeprofitable.
5.Conclusions
Thecurrentsituationofagriculturalproducersisstronglyconditionedbytheprofitsoftheir
activity.Ontheonehand,thissituationleadstotheabandonmentofagriculture,becausepeoplelook
formorelucrativeactivities.Ontheotherhand,thisinvolvesachangetowardsproductsthatmake
itpossibletoobtaingreaterprofits[68,69].IntheMediterraneanarea,majorandhighlyspecialised
holdingswithspecificcrops(cucumbers,tomatoes,peppers…)areproliferating,whereassmalland
mediumonesseekcropsthatallowthemtosurvive,suchastablegrapesorbroccoli[70,71].Allof

Sustainability2020,12,451715of19
thisrepresentstheabandonmentofthecultivationoftraditionalvarieties,whosepreservationis
essentialtoslowdownthelossofbiodiversityandpreservephylogeneticresources[72].
Withthisinitialsituation,thestudyofconsumershasidentifiedtwoclearlydifferentiated
marketsegments:consumersoftraditionaltomatoes(S1),andthosewhoprefercommercialhybrids
(S2).Therefore,wecanconfirmH1:thereisatomatoconsumersegmentthatpreferstraditional
varietiesratherthanhybridvarieties.Thissectorischaracterisedbygivinggreaterimportancetothe
organolepticpropertiesofatomatothantoitsprice,meaningthattheyaremorewillingtopaya
higherpriceforthistypeofproduct.Likewise,thissegmentalsovaluespositivelythelocaloriginof
theproductionandbuysmorefrequentlyingreengrocershopsandopenmarkets.
Meanwhile,researchontomatoproducershasidentifiedthreetypesofholdingsaccordingto
theirsize:small(<5ha),medium(5–40ha)andmajor(>40ha).Theobjectivesofthemajorholdings
focusonobtainingfinancialprofitsand,followinggeneralcriteria,high‐qualityfruit(evennessand
post‐harvestpreservation).However,ownersofsmallandmediumholdingsaremoreconcerned
abouttheresistanceofcrops,thefruit’sorganolepticproperties,andthepositiveassessmentofthe
consumer.Likewise,obtainingthesesegmentsallowsustoacceptH2:thereisaproducersegment
willingtocultivateanimprovedtraditionalvariety.Smallandmediumfarmersapprovecultivating
thisproduct,whichwouldpreservetheexcellentorganolepticpropertiesofatomato,anattribute
thatishighlyregardedbyS1ofconsumers,whilemakingiteasierforthemtocarryouttheiractivity
(plantswithresistancetoviruses).
Therefore,itseemsappropriatetoproposethecultivationofimprovedtraditionalvarietiesto
smallandmediumfarmers,astheywouldfindinthelocalmarketasegmentofconsumerswhovalue
thempositively(S1).Regardingthemarketingstrategy,agoodplacetostartwouldbetoprovide
informationatlocalpointsofsale,astheyarethepreferredplaceofpurchaseofthetargetsegment.
Thisinformationcouldmaterialiseasprintedadvertisingorassalespromotionsaimedatboththe
endconsumerandthedistributor.Likewise,newsitemsortechnicalreportscouldbegeneratedand
disseminatedthroughdifferentdigitalmarketingtoolsonwebsitesthatspecialiseinlocalproducts.
Thiswouldmakeitsothattheworkofsmallandmediumfarmersisprofitable,preventingan
abandonmentofthisactivityandimprovingtheterritorialandeconomicalsustainabilityoftherural
world.Therefore,H3isaccepted:thecultivationoftraditionalvarietiesisasuitablealternativefor
thesustainabilityoftheterritory’sagriculturalactivity.
Meanwhile,majorfarmersareencouragedtocultivateveryproductivehybridvarieties,andto
basetheircompetitivestrategyontheprice,asthereisanS2segmentofconsumerswhopreferhybrid
varietiesandassignsparticularimportancetolowprices.
Furthermore,thecultivationofthesetraditionalvarietiesaimedatlocalmarketswouldmakeit
possibletoachieveatripleobjective:contributetothesustainabilityofruralcommunities,satisfythe
demandsofconsumersregardingtheprotectionofflavourandtheenvironment,andhelpthehealth
authoritiesfindwaystopromotetheconsumptionoffruitandvegetables.
However,thisstudyhassomemethodologicallimitations.Ontheonehand,theconsumerstudy
wasconductedfollowingaconveniencesamplingmethod,whichimpliesthattheresultscannotbe
generalisedforthewholepopulation.Furthermore,theproducerstudycouldnotbeconductedwith
arandomsampling,asthereisnotomatoproducercensusfromwheretoselectparticipants,and
eventhoughallsegmentswerewellrepresented,theobtainedsamplewasnotexhaustive.These
limitationsentailthatthisisanexploratorystudy.However,thisresearchhasshownthatthereisa
marketnicheforthetraditionaltomatovarieties,whicharehighlyregardedbyacertainsegmentof
thepopulation.Thissuggeststhatworkcancontinuetobedoneinthislineofresearchinorderto
consolidatetheobtainedresults.Furthermore,fewpapersofthistypehavebeenpublishedand,given
thattheresultsobtainedinthisstudyareoptimalforthesustainabilityoftheterritoryandthe
preservationofgeneticheritage,weproposeconductingnewresearchontraditionalvarietiesofother
productsspreadacrossdifferentgeographicalareas.
AuthorContributions:Allauthorshavecontributedsimilarlyinallpartsofthispaper.Allauthorshaveread
andagreedtothepublishedversionofthemanuscript.

Sustainability2020,12,451716of19
Funding:ThisstudyhasbeencarriedoutwiththefinancialsupportoftheEuropeanUnion’sHorizon2020
ResearchandInnovationProgram(No.634561).
ConflictsofInterest:Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictofinterest.
References
1. Rosset,P.M.;Altieri,M.A.Agroecologyversusinputsubstitution:Afundamentalcontradictionof
sustainableagriculture.Soc.Nat.Resour.1997,10,283–295.
2. Climent,V.C.;Ávila,R.C.Elpapeldelascooperativasenlacrisisagraria.Estudioempíricoaplicadoala
agriculturamediterráneaespañola.Cuad.Desarro.Rural2012,9,175–194.
3. InstitutoNacionaldeEstadística(INE).Availableonline:
https://www.ine.es/dyngs/INEbase/es/categoria.htm?c=Estadistica_P&cid=1254735570567(accessedon18
September2019).
4. Martin,J.PeacefulSurrender:TheDepopulationofSpaininthetwentiethcentury.Agric.Hist.2013,87,
256–258.
5. WorldBankGroup.Indicadores.Availableonline:https://datos.bancomundial.org/indicador(accessedon
9September2019).
6. OECD.TheNewRuralParadigm:PoliciesandGovernance;OECDPublishing:Paris,France,2006;pp.57–78.
7. Brugarolas,M.;Martínez‐Carrasco,L.;Martínez‐Poveda,A.;Ruíz,J.J.Acompetitivestrategyforvegetable
products:Traditionalvarietiesoftomatointhelocalmarket.Span.J.Agric.Res.2009,7,294–304.
8. MinisteriodeAgricultura,PescayAlimentación(MAPA).Availableonline:
https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas‐agrarias/agricultura/avances‐superficies‐
producciones‐agricolas/(accessedon19September2019).
9. Muñoz‐Falcón,J.E.;Prohens,J.;Rodríguez‐Burruezo,A.;Nuez,F.Potentialoflocalvarietiesandtheir
hybridsfortheimprovementofeggplantproductionintheopenfieldandgreenhousecultivation.J.Food
Agric.Environ.2008,6,83–88.
10. SustainableDevelopmentGoals.Availableonline:https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300
(accessedon25May2020).
11. Costa,J.M.;Heuvelink,E.Introduction:TheTomatoCropandIndustry.InTomatoes,1sted.;Heuvelink,E.,
Ed.;CABI:Wallingford,UK,2005;pp.1–20.
12. FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations(FAO).Faostat.Availableonline:
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home(accessedon18September2019).
13. Valero,C.;Diezma,B.;Navas,L.M.;Ruiz,G.;Llerena,J.L.;Andújar,D.Laagriculturadeprecisiónylas
TIGsenlarecolecciónmecanizadadetomate.VidaRural2010,312,44–48.
14. Hortoinfo.EspañaLlevaOchoCampañasConsecutivasReduciendolaCantidadqueExportadeTomate.
Availableonline:http://www.hortoinfo.es/index.php/8726‐exportacion‐tomate‐espana‐marruecos‐201119
(accessedon2December2019).
15. UnitedNationsCommodityTrade(UNCOMTRADE).Availableonline:https://comtrade.un.org/data
(accessedon18September2019).
16. Nuez,F.ElCultivodelTomate,2nded.;EdicionesMundi‐Prensa:Bilbao,Spain,1995;pp.19–25.
17. Harlan,J.R.CropsandMan,2nded.;AmericanSocietyofAgronomyandCropScienceSocietyofAmerica:
Madison,WI,USA,1975.
18. Martínez‐Carrasco,L.;Brugarolas,M.;Martínez,A.;Ruíz,J.J.;García,S.Aceptacióndevariedades
tradicionalesdetomateenmercadoslocales.Unestudiodevaloracióncontingente.ITEA2015,111,56–72.
19. Carbonell,P.;Alonso,A.;Grau,A.;Salinas,J.F.;García‐Martínez,S.;Ruíz,J.J.Twentyyearsoftomato
breedingatEPSO‐UMH:Transferresistancefromwildtypestolocallandraces‐fromthefirstmolecular
markerstogenotypingbysequencing(GBS).Diversity2018,10,12.
20. Ruiz,J.J.Recuperaciónyconservacióndecultivarestradicionalesvalencianos:Eltomate“Delapera”dela
VegaBajadelSegura.AgrícolaVergel1999,214,669–675.
21. Martínez‐Carrasco,L.;Brugarolas,M.;Martínez,A.;Ros,M.D.M.;Ruiz,J.J.Factoresdeterminantesdel
preciodelostomatesdevariedadestradicionales:Unanálisisdeprecioshedónicos.Econ.Agrar.Recursos
Naturales2014,14,81–95.
22. García,S.;García,M.;Grau,A.;Alonso,A.;Valero,M.;Ferrández,A.;Ruiz,J.J.Resultadosdeunprograma
demejoragenéticaparalaincorporaciónderesistenciaavirosisenvariedadestradicionalesdetomate.
AgrícolaVergel2008,318,272–277.

Sustainability2020,12,451717of19
23. Ritson,C.;Petrovici,D.Theeconomicsoffoodchoice:Ispriceimportant?InFood,PeopleandSociety,1sted.;
Frewer,L.J.,Risvik,E.,Schifferstein,H.,Eds.;Springer:NewYork,NY,USA,2001;pp.339–363.
24. Grunert,K.G.Foodqualityandsafety:Consumerperceptionanddemand.Eur.Rev.Agric.Econ.2005,32,
369–391.
25. McIntyre,L.;Rondeau,K.Individualconsumerfoodlocalism:AreviewanchoredinCanadian
farmwomen’sreflections.J.RuralStud.2011,27,116–124.
26. Hempel,C.;Hamm,U.Howimportantislocalfoodtoorganic‐mindedconsumers?Appetite2016,96,70–
84.
27. Frez,L.;Fogliano,V.;Steenbekkers,B.L.Consumerpercepcionsandsensorypreferencesoftomatoand
tomatoproducts.InTomatoChemistry,IndustrialProcessingandProductoDevelopment,1sted.;Porretta,S.,
Ed.;RoyelSocietyofChemistry:London,UK,2019;pp.70–84.
28. Fernqvist,F.;Ekelund‐Axelson,L.Consumerattitudestowardsoriginandorganic—Theroleofcredence
labelsonconsumers’likingoftomatoes.Eur.J.Hortic.Sci.2013,78,184–190.
29. Becker,N.;Tavor,T.;Friedler,L.;Bar,P.Consumers’preferencestowardorganictomatoes:Acombined
two‐phaserevealed‐statedapproach.J.Int.FoodAgribus.Mark.2016,28,1–17.
30. Verlegh,P.W.;Steenkamp,J.B.E.Areviewandmeta‐analysisofcountry‐of‐originresearch.J.Econ.Psychol.
1999,20,521–546.
31. Pretty,J.N.;Ball,A.S.;Lang,T.;Morison,J.I.Farmcostsandfoodmiles:Anassessmentofthefullcostof
theUKweeklyfoodbasket.FoodPolicy2005,30,1–19.
32. Etikan,I.;Musa,S.A.;Alkassim,R.S.Comparisonofconveniencesamplingandpurposivesampling.Am.
J.Theor.Appl.Stat.2016,5,1–4.
33. Lancaster,K.Anewapproachtoconsumertheory.J.Polit.Econ.1966,74,217–231.
34. Steenkamp,J.B.E.Conjointmeasurementinhamqualityevaluation.J.Agric.Econ.1987,38,473–480.
35. Adamowick,W.;Boxall,P.;Williams,M.;Louviere,J.Statedpreferenceapproachesformeasuringpassive
usevalues:Choiceexperimentsandcontingentvaluation.Am.J.Agric.Econ.1998,80,64–75.
36. Loureiro,M.L.;Umberger,W.J.Achoiceexperimentmodelforbeef:WhatUSconsumerresponsestellus
aboutrelativepreferencesforfoodsafety,country‐of‐originlabelingandtraceability.FoodPolicy2007,32,
496–514.
37. Chrea,C.;Melo,D.L.;Evans,G.;Forde,C.;Delahunty,C.;Cox,D.N.Aninvestigationusingthree
approachestounderstandtheinfluenceofextrinsicproductcuesonconsumerbehaviour:Anexampleof
Australianwines.J.Sens.Stud.2011,26,13–24.
38. Almli,V.L.;Verbeke,W.;Vanhonacker,F.;Næs,T.;Hersleth,M.Generalimageandattributeperceptions
oftraditionalfoodinsixEuropeancountries.Food.Qual.Prefer.2011,22,129–138.
39. Tsourgiannis,L.;Loizou,E.;Karasavoglou,A.;Tsourgiannis,C.A.;Valsamidis,S.Consumers’buying
behaviourtowardslocalfoodingreeceduringeconomicdepressionperiod.Int.J.Strateg.Innov.Mark.2015,
2,32–48.
40. Fernández‐Ferrín,P.;Calvo‐Turrientes,A.;Bande,B.;Artaraz‐Miñón,M.;Galán‐Ladero,M.M.The
valuationandpurchaseoffoodproductsthatcombinelocal,regionalandtraditionalfeatures:The
influenceofconsumerethnocentrism.Food.Qual.Prefer.2018,64,138–147.
41. Dowd,K.;Burke,K.J.Theinfluenceofethicalvaluesandfoodchoicemotivationsonintentionstopurchase
sustainablysourcedfoods.Appetite2013,69,137–144.
42. Magnusson,M.K.;Arvola,A.;Hursti,U.K.K.;Åberg,L.;Sjödén,P.O.Choiceoforganicfoodsisrelatedto
perceivedconsequencesforhumanhealthandtoenvironmentallyfriendlybehaviour.Appetite2003,40,
109–117.
43. Steptoe,A.;Pollard,T.M.;Wardle,J.Developmentofameasureofthemotivesunderlyingtheselectionof
food:Thefoodchoicequestionnaire.Appetite1995,25,267–284.
44. Binda,N.U.;Balbastre‐Benavent,F.Investigacióncuantitativaeinvestigacióncualitativa:Buscandolas
ventajasdelasdiferentesmetodologíasdeinvestigación.Rev.Cienc.Econ.2013,31,179–187.
45. Taylor,S.J.;Bogdan,R.IntroducciónaLosMétodosCualitativosdeInvestigación,3rded.;EdicionesPaidós:
Barcelona,Spain,2000;pp.100–132.
46. Robles,B.Laentrevistaenprofundidad:Unatécnicaútildentrodelcampoantropofísico.Cuicuilco2011,
18,39–49.

Sustainability2020,12,451718of19
47. Gil,J.M.;Soler,F.;Díez,I.;Sánchez,M.;Sanjuán,A.I.;Ben,M.;Gracia,A.PotencialdeMercadodelosProductos
EcológicosenAragón(II).SectorProductoryDetallista;ServiciodeInvestigaciónAgroalimentaria:Zaragoza,<