Content uploaded by Elisabete Figueiredo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Elisabete Figueiredo on Feb 22, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Figueiredo, E.; Forte, T.;
Eusébio, C.; Silva, A.; Couto, J. Rural
Ties and Consumption of Rural
Provenance Food Products—
Evidence from the Customers of
Urban Specialty Stores in Portugal.
Foods 2022,11, 547. https://doi.org/
10.3390/foods11040547
Academic Editor: Maggie Geuens
Received: 11 January 2022
Accepted: 12 February 2022
Published: 15 February 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
foods
Article
Rural Ties and Consumption of Rural Provenance Food
Products—Evidence from the Customers of Urban Specialty
Stores in Portugal
Elisabete Figueiredo 1, * , Teresa Forte 2, Celeste Eusébio 3, Alexandre Silva 4and Joana Couto 2
1Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences & GOVCOPP—Research Unit on Governance,
Competitiveness and Public Policies, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
2Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal;
teresaforte@ua.pt (T.F.); joanascouto@ua.pt (J.C.)
3
Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism & GOVCOPP—Research Unit
on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal;
celeste.eusebio@ua.pt
4Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Professor Aníbal de Bettencourt, 9,
1600-189 Lisboa, Portugal; alexandre.silva@ics.ulisboa.pt
*Correspondence: elisa@ua.pt; Tel.: +351-234372492
Abstract:
Consumers’ food preferences increasingly meet concerns of authenticity, health, origin,
and sustainability, altogether attributes embodied in rural provenance food products. The dynamics
of production, commercialization, and availability of these products in urban centers are growing
stronger. This study aims to explore rural provenance food consumption and underlying motiva-
tions, the consumers’ images of products and provenance areas, and the influence of rural ties in
consumption. Data from a survey directed to 1554 consumers of 24 urban specialty stores located in
three Portuguese cities were analyzed. The analysis is based on the differences between frequent and
sporadic consumers of Portuguese rural provenance food products. The two groups significantly
differ in the reasons provided to acquire the products. Those who buy and consume these products
more frequently especially value sensorial features, convenience, national provenance, and the im-
pacts on rural development. Additionally, the motivations to choose rural provenance foods tend
to pair with positive images of those products and of their territories of origin. This is intrinsically
connected with familiarity, a nuclear notion that encompasses the symbolic images of the products
and their origins as actual connections (familiar and otherwise) to rural contexts.
Keywords:
consumers motivations; consumers’ images if rural contexts; consumers’ images of rural
products; rural provenance foodstuffs; rural ties; urban specialty stores
1. Introduction
The interest of both consumers and retailers in rural provenance food products has
increased in recent years [
1
,
2
]. According to Figueiredo [
3
], rural provenance foods may
be defined as all the products whose distinct qualities are anchored in their rural place
of production and are shaped by the respective biophysical conditions and food-related
cultural traditions. Therefore, the term applies to both officially certified and non-certified
products. Often described as local, regional, traditional, authentic, gourmet, or organic [
4
,
5
],
these products share this common denominator of being interwoven with specific places of
origin, production processes and/or cultural features, and traditions [3,4].
The growing number (mainly in the last decade) of specialty stores selling rural
provenance food in urban centers speaks favorably about new rural–urban connections
and fluxes of people, products, capital, and knowledge [
1
,
6
]. It is argued that this recent
phenomenon may influence the expansion and consolidation of agricultural production in
Foods 2022,11, 547. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11040547 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/foods
Foods 2022,11, 547 2 of 18
rural areas, thus contributing to rural development, larger economic diversification, and
the overall attractiveness of rural territories [3,7,8].
The interest of retailers and consumers [
9
,
10
] in provenance foods has been boosted
by several policies and strategies [
3
,
11
,
12
] and, as Bowen and Master [
13
] state, counter the
standardizing and industrializing paths of food globalization. Currently, consumers tend to
choose rural provenance food products motivated by their sensorial features or guided by
personal values or by a perception of those products as more authentic, trustworthy, and,
to a certain extent, familiar, which is especially true for national consumers. Familiarity,
understood as the knowledge of a product [
14
,
15
], may also be related to consumers’
ethnocentrism [
16
]. Furthermore, in Portugal, as in other southern European countries, as a
consequence of relatively recent de-ruralization processes, local networks of social relations
based on kinship and neighborhood are still quite visible and robust [
17
]. These complex
networks are strongly connected with small-scale agriculture and with the sociocultural
characteristics of given social categories that evince strong ties with rural ways of life and
sociability, even if the majority of the population is currently living in urban environments.
Although further research is needed, it appears that those connections tend to materialize
into food habits and access to agri-food products produced by relatives [
17
]. These may
also shape familiarity, knowledge, and preference for rural provenance food products.
The purpose of this study is to identify and explore the main reasons underlying the
valorization and preference for rural provenance foods, the images consumers associate
with products and provenance areas, and the influence of rural ties, also identifying the
products acquired more in urban specialty food shops. Data from a survey directed to
1554 consumers, which are also clients of 24 Portuguese urban specialty stores located in
three Portuguese cities, were analyzed considering the differences between frequent and
sporadic consumers of Portuguese rural provenance food products.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Urban Specialty Stores Selling Rural Provenance Foods
In the last decade, the number of specialty food stores selling rural provenance prod-
ucts has increased in urban centers. The different identities and roles played by these
stores in promoting rural provenance foods and rural development has only recently at-
tracted attention [
1
,
3
]. This is guided by the premise that as venues selling foodstuffs
with characteristics indissociable of their provenance, these stores may act as showcases of
the territories of origin, ways of production, and symbolic dimensions of local, regional,
and cultural identities [
3
]. The rural sociocultural universes of provenance portrayed by
these stores are more and more valued by urban consumers whose food preferences are
increasingly leaning toward rural provenance food products [
4
,
11
,
12
,
18
,
19
]. A case in
point is provided by a first attempt to typify urban specialty food stores [
1
] within the
Portuguese cultural context according to the type of rural provenance products sold. The
different rural provenance patterns and specialties, as well as overlapping features [
1
],
within and between the found clusters of shops, reveal the diversity of national provenance
(especially when addressing overseas customers) as well as their linkages to particular
products, specific regions, villages, and producers.
The manifold definitions of these products may shape different types of stores [
1
].
Overall, they contribute to fostering consumers’ interest in rural provenance food prod-
ucts by promoting closer communication with customers and creating a specific envi-
ronment [
20
]. In this vein, stores selling rural provenance food products coined as local
and regional, promote a common appeal to the origin, authenticity, cultural and regional
identity, and heritage [
3
]. In turn, stores selling rural provenance products as gourmet may
elevate the authenticity and provenance-distinctiveness of the products by emphasizing
their status, exclusivity, and uniqueness, portraying a kind of ‘elite authenticity’ [
21
]. The
differentiation of these stores’ identities and interconnection with the type and nature of
products is also shaped by what drives different segments of consumers of rural provenance
foodstuffs [22], as discussed in the following sections.
Foods 2022,11, 547 3 of 18
2.2. Rural Provenance Food Products’ Choice and Consumption
The theory of consumption values [
23
] is useful to understand rural provenance
food determinants of choice and consumption. These are influenced by functional, social,
conditional, epistemic, and emotional values and attributes, revealing extrinsic and intrinsic
aspects related both to the consumer and the products [
23
]. Functional attributes are related
to sensorial features (such as taste, flavor, appearance, nutritional content) referred to
as crucial motivations to choose traditional and organic foodstuffs [
24
]. The tangible
and material characteristics include appreciation for their flavor [
25
,
26
], taste [
27
,
28
], and
general appearance, including color and sensorial attractiveness. The acceptability of
sensorial qualities varies across regional and national contexts being modelled by habits,
familiarity, knowledge, beliefs, and culture [29,30].
Conditional aspects embody, among others, elements dependent on the product, per-
sonal situation, place, and context [
31
,
32
]. The research on convenience factors related to
the products and personal situation suggests that more than fostering the consumption
of rural provenance products, they may constitute barriers with prices being too high for
the available financial resources of the average consumer [
33
]. This aspect is particularly
evident regarding the consumption of organic products [
31
]. Conditional determinants
of place and context are, in turn, related to the selling venues and promotional strategies
employed that render these products available, reachable, and appealing. All are perceived
as influencing the choice of consumers, albeit with different valences. In this regard, avail-
ability was found systematically to be a limitative factor [
26
,
34
] speaking unfavorably about
the number of venues selling these products in different territories, the production volume,
and constancy and, also, of these foodstuffs’ supply chains. The issue of reachability and
availability may be mitigated by urban specialty stores’ efforts, also through the products’
promotion to different consumers’ segments, as observed in studies conducted with general
and niche retail [
35
,
36
]. These stores tend to foster closer relationships and communication
with the customer and create particular environments, for which, as concluded by Usi-
talo [
37
], stores’ size, personalized customer service, familiarity, and intimacy are perceived
as important attributes of convenience.
Health as a personal attribute may also operate as a conditional value, constituting
one of the major determining factors to choose food products [
31
] alongside well-being,
quality of life, and appearance concerns [
38
]. Birch et al. [
39
] operationalized consumers’
concerns for personal health, safety, and trust as a typical egoistic or self-interest-based
motivation. It was argued that this is driven by the perception of superior intrinsic elements
of rural foodstuffs, such as quality, freshness, nutritional value, appearance, trustworthiness,
natural, and free of chemical and artificial additives [
40
]. However, as Birch et al. [
39
] refer,
health concerns may triangulate with social and altruistic motivations, especially if related
to affective commitments to further develop the economy and production of one’s national
or local context [
41
]. This includes supporting local communities and producers, fostering
more job opportunities, and contributing to rural development and the preservation of
the socio-cultural ethos [
39
] as well as to the protection of the environment and food
sustainability in the long run [42].
The promotion of these products, attuned to the need of todays’ consumers to know
more about the food they buy and eat [
43
], uses multiple elements to foster the abovemen-
tioned aspects, as well as epistemic and emotional ones. For example, the use of social
media, keen on viral or word of mouth and expanding networks, sharing and live updates
as well as innovative, attractive, and user-friendly websites [
34
], may shorten the distance
between retailers and consumers. It may also elicit their interest and knowledge about
specific products. In fact, a tailored outreach may meet important epistemic factors of
choice such as the desire for novelty and knowledge (as well as some emotional drivers
such as the satisfaction, joy, pleasure, or happiness of the consumers) [
33
]. As suggested by
Lusk & Briggemen [
44
], although valuing the products’ attributes themselves, consumers
will choose food products if the real or perceived outcomes are in line with their personal
values and emotional arousal.
Foods 2022,11, 547 4 of 18
Among the several determinants underlying the values-based and emotional appeal
to consumers, provenance [
12
] is at the core of a wide set of factors. The more relevant
is the perception of authenticity [
21
,
45
], naturalness, safety, and trust [
40
], the superior
quality and status of the products [
46
], and nostalgia [
10
]. On a slightly different note
lies an ethics of care, embodied by concerns over animal welfare, food sustainability, and
ecological footprint [
47
]. This linkage to provenance is often enacted by consumers through
a national/regional ethnocentrism of choice [
16
]. The concept initially employed to depict
normative beliefs towards preferring national products (over imported ones), now also
encompasses preferences at a sub-national level. The ethnocentric trends target local,
regional, and traditional food products, the latter being perceived as distinct, since the
identification of a particular origin, although not sufficient, is a sine qua non condition to
qualify a product as traditional. The way these factors are understood, and thus the guiding
choices, may vary across cultures (as exemplified by Amilien et al. [48] comparing French
consumers’ perceptions and preference for local food quality with Norwegian ones) but
are often based on sensorial features alongside nostalgia. The differences at this level have
been recently tackled by a growing stream of research on consumer nationalism [
46
,
49
], a
concept that is evolving from describing efforts and enacting a political statement boycotting
anything foreign to being used as describing consumers’ positive attachment to national,
regional, and local food products.
2.3. Rural Ties as Explaining Consumers’ Food Choices
High-quality products, when produced in rural contexts, may elicit a sentimental
longing for the past [
50
] related to an emulation of authentic nostalgic values evoked by
rural-based individual and family history and identity, as well as local culture [
26
]. As
a determining factor of choice, the emotional dimension of national in-group belonging
may be strengthened by the coherence with a values-based choice, countering globalized
markets and unsustainable agri-food systems [
11
,
13
] through supporting local and more
sustainable productions and supply chains [
19
]. This seems to have gained further relevance
after supply chains’ failures during the COVID-19 pandemic, which could raise support for
food sovereignty and shorter supply chains.
The perception of rural provenance products as ambassadors of local, national, and
cultural heritage and identity [
51
] is shown to even surpass other important convenience
determinants of choice, such as its cost or hedonic nature, as is the sensorial appeal [
32
,
39
].
This is especially true for national consumers with rural (mainly family-based) ties who are
consequently more knowledgeable about rural provenance foods [15].
Food, as expressed by Bardone and Spalvena [
49
] (p. 43), is an important vehicle of
cultural identity, playing a relevant role in “authenticating an ethnic or national culture”.
Accordingly, rural provenance foods are often portrayed by consumers (as well as by
promotion strategies) as pre-industrial and pre-capitalist, related to peasant societies and
to particular territories and their festivities, habits, and culture [
3
]. These representations
follow the transformations of rural territories, especially in southern European countries
where rural areas are increasingly seen as multifunctional spaces [
3
,
52
]. As evidenced
by Bessière [
52
], Fonte [
4
], and Fonte and Papadopoulos [
11
], rural identity has been
redefined through those dynamics of change, especially those related to rural culture and
rural elements’ commodification processes. These match a growing interest in rurality
and foster new practices and social demands in which rural provenance food represent an
important part [
19
], given its role in reconnecting consumers to specific (rural) places of
production, inviting them to be part of an (often) already lost (or changed) rural culture
and identity [52].
To consume rural provenance food may thus be fostering the preservation of traditions,
habits, and cultural heritages [
3
], while at the same time contributing to rural development
and rural and agricultural sustainability [
13
]. These are also important values underlying
current consumers’ preferences regarding food products. If, on the one hand, the desire
to preserve traditional rural foods and rural territories of origin has been used to justify
Foods 2022,11, 547 5 of 18
political and policy choices and food labelling related decisions [
12
], on the other hand (and
perhaps related), it is linked to nostalgia, familiarity, and other positive feelings towards ru-
rality [
3
,
19
]. The contribution of these processes to the sustainable development of the rural
territories of provenance [
3
,
4
,
11
,
18
,
19
] seems particularly relevant in southern European
countries such as Portugal, characterized by persistent dynamics of rural marginaliza-
tion [
3
,
11
] following relatively recent de-ruralization paths. However, it is precisely this
recency that may explain the persistence of strong ties and complex social links with rural
territories, small-scale, and traditional agricultural productions mainly based on family
relationships [
17
] and, to a certain extent, the knowledge, experience, and familiarity [
15
]
underlying the choices for rural provenance food products.
Despite the timeliness of the topic, the literature connecting traditional food products
consumption choices and practices with rural family ties, as well as the role of food in
maintaining those ties, is not abundant [17].
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Data Collection
To identify and analyze the main reasons underlying the preference for Portuguese
rural provenance food products and unveil the differences between frequent and sporadic
consumers, a survey was conducted between October 2020 and June 2021 on 1554 clients
of 24 urban specialty food stores located in three Portuguese cities, Aveiro (n= 5), Porto
(n= 10), and Lisbon (n= 9).
The 24 stores were randomly selected (using a table of random numbers) based on
a hierarchical cluster analysis resulting from a previous survey targeting stores’ owners
(n= 113). Data of this survey were used to segment the stores according to the criteria of
selling rural provenance food from Portugal and being of small to medium size dimensions.
Three clusters were identified based on the main products sold by the stores: (i) ‘The Wine
Focused’, with stores selling wine and other beverages; (ii) ‘The Rural Provenance Focused’
with stores selling regional and rural food products and (iii) ‘The Generalist’, encompassing
several products from a wide variety of regions (see Silva et al. (2021) for a thorough
characterization of these clusters).
The questionnaire (see Appendix) was elaborated both in Portuguese and English and,
based on the literature review, addressed the consumption of traditional rural national-
based products [
5
,
16
,
23
], the products acquired at the store on the survey date [
3
], the
frequency of consumption, region of origin [
9
,
12
], the reasons to select Portuguese rural
provenance products [
18
,
39
,
46
], as well as the images of rural territories and traditional
food products [
51
,
53
]. A pilot test was carried out to customers from stores in Porto and
Aveiro (n= 10), whose inputs (mainly regarding language simplification and introduction
of some alternative responses in the open-ended questions) were included in the final script
of the questionnaire.
3.2. Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using the software SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences),
version 25 (IBM, USA). The sample was divided according to the responses to the dichoto-
mous question ‘Do you usually consume traditional food products of Portuguese rural origin?’,
resulting in a group with frequent consumers (n= 1175) and another group of sporadic
consumers (n= 369). Both frequent and sporadic consumers are clients of at least one of
the 24 stores considered. To compare these two groups, Chi-square tests were used for
qualitative variables, namely sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, marital status,
education level, economic status, nationality, monthly household income); familiarity with
rural areas, assessed by seven dichotomous items (e.g., relatives living in Portuguese rural
areas; visited rural areas in the last three years; visited rural areas to buy and/or consume
food products); the type of products bought in the date of the survey and their regions of
origin; image of rural territories and image of rural provenance food products. In addition,
to compare the two groups on the importance attributed to a set of motivations to prefer
Foods 2022,11, 547 6 of 18
and acquire Portuguese rural food products (assessed through the Likert Scale—from
1 = not important to 5 = very important), independent samples T-tests were used.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Sample Profile
The sample was analyzed considering the customers of the urban specialty stores that
frequently consume Portuguese rural provenance food products (76.1%) vis-à-vis those
who do not consume these products often (23.9%). As shown in Table 1, the proportion of
male participants buying rural provenance products at the stores, at the date of the survey,
is slightly higher than females, but no significant differences in this respect between the
two groups were found. Likewise, no significant differences were found regarding marital
status, education levels, monthly household income, and economic status. The majority of
respondents in both groups are married (60.4%), have completed higher education (50.6%),
are employed (62.7%), and have a monthly household income below 2200
€
(76.2%). The
lack of significant differences considering these variables suggests that, in the sample, the
socioeconomic condition per se is not influencing the frequent or sporadic consumption of
the respondents.
Table 1. Sample Profile.
Profile
Total Consumption of Traditional Food
Products of Portuguese Rural Origin * Chi-Square Test
n%
Consume
Frequently
Does not
Consume
Frequently Value p-Value
(n= 1175, 76.1%) (n= 369, 23.9%)
Gender
Male 756 49.1 50.2% 45.5% 2.420 0.120
Female 785 50.9 49.8% 54.5%
Age
Less than 25 101 6.5 5.6% 9.5%
[25–64] 1133 73.4 73.4% 73.4% 8.603 0.014
More than 64 310 20.1 21.0% 17.1%
Marital status
Single 428 27.9 27.7% 28.5%
Married/Cohabiting 927 60.4 60.1% 61.1% 1.567 0.667
Divorced 109 7.1 7.2% 6.8%
Widowed 72 4.7 5.1% 3.5%
Education level
Less than secondary education 425 27.7 27.8% 27.4%
Secondary education 332 21.7 20.9% 24.2% 1.899 0.387
Higher education 775 50.6 51.3% 48.4%
Economic status
Employed 965 62.7 62.5% 63.6%
Student 103 6.7 6.1% 8.7%
Retired 339 22.0 22.6% 20.1% 4.311 0.366
Unemployed 101 6.6 6.8% 5.7%
Other 30 2.0 2.0% 1.9%
Nationality
Portuguese 1166 75.8 78.5% 67.1% 19.680 0.000
Non-Portuguese 373 24.2 21.4% 32.9%
Monthly household income
Less than 1000 €445 40.6 39.1% 45.4%
[1001–2200 €]390 35.6 37.5% 29.8% 5.863 0.118
[2201–3000 €]97 8.9 9.0% 8.4%
More than 3000 €163 14.9 14.4% 16.4%
* Percentage in columns. Values in bold correspond to the highest values when statistically significant differences exist.
As shown in Table 1, the majority of respondents (73.4%) are between 25 and 64 years old.
Differences between cohorts show that older consumers acquire this type of product more
frequently than younger ones, particularly those younger than 25 years old. The particular
preference of older consumers for products anchored in Portuguese rural areas may also
reflect a higher knowledge, experience, and familiarity (in line with Seo et al. [
15
]) and,
therefore, an evocation of a sentimental longing and nostalgia (as also put forward by
Foods 2022,11, 547 7 of 18
Truninger [
10
] and Sedikides et al. [
50
]) further explored below regarding consumers’ im-
ages of rural territories and food products, as well as the reasons to acquire these products.
Even though the majority of respondents are Portuguese (75.8% of the sample), a
significant difference between these respondents and non-Portuguese customers is evident.
Portuguese respondents are more likely to belong to the group of those who acquire and
consume rural provenance food products more often, while the majority of non-Portuguese
customers do not. This difference may be explained by convenience-related factors, namely
proximity and availability (as stressed by Carolan [
35
] and Toften and Hammervoll [
36
]),
as well as by awareness and acquaintance with the products and the selling venues (as
explained also by Seo et al. [
15
] and Camillo and Di Pietro [
32
]). On the other hand,
the apparent higher valorization of national (instead of imported), regional, and local
food products by Portuguese consumers may result from a possible growing trend of
a national/regional ethnocentrism [
16
], usually reflecting consumers’ normative beliefs
about the better nature of these products allied to a positive attachment, in line with the
debate of Bardone and Spalvena [
49
]. As will be further explored, this attachment may spill
over and not circumscribe to products themselves but to their wider material and symbolic
relations with the places of origin.
4.2. Rural Provenance Food Products Acquired, Motivations and Images
4.2.1. Type of Products
Crossing with the analysis of products bought at the shop when surveyed (Table 2),
few significant differences were found. In fact, the respondents in the two groups mostly
acquire wine and other beverages, cheese, and other milk derivatives, and cured meat and
other animal-based products. These correspond to the food products generally identified
with Portugal and, therefore, as also stressed by Figueiredo [
3
], the main products both sold
by and bought in urban specialty food stores. Despite the homogeneity between the two
groups regarding the products acquired, a significant difference is found between those
who buy vegetables, fruits, and derivatives that tend to be more frequent consumers of
these products, and those who bought sweets and cosmetics and similar products. This
difference may be explained by the perishable character of the first type of products which
encourages more frequent purchases and consumption, as well as by the fact that these
food products of Portuguese rural origin are amongst the more typical ones.
Table 2. Type of products acquired and regions of provenance.
Products bought
Total Consumption of Traditional Food Products
of Portuguese Rural Origin * Chi-Square Test
n%
Consume
Frequently
Does not Consume
Frequently Value p-Value
(n= 1175, 76.1%) (n= 369, 23.9%)
Type of products **
Wine and other beverages 463 30.3 30.2% 30.7% 0.034 0.853
Cheese and other milk derivatives 335 21.9 23.0% 18.8% 2.878 0.090
Cured meat and other animal-based products 326 21.3 21.3% 21.5% 0.004 0.945
Vegetables, fruits, and derivates 300 19.6 20.9% 15.5% 5.277 0.022
Sweets 170 11.1 10.0% 14.7% 6.145 0.013
Bread and cereal products 157 10.3 10.4% 9.8% 0.131 0.718
Honey, jams, and preserves 104 6.8 6.6% 7.6% 0.486 0.486
Olive oil 100 6.5 7.1% 4.9% 2.176 0.140
Crafts and similar products 32 2.1 2.0% 2.4% 0.290 0.591
Hygiene, cosmetics, and similar products 26 1.7 1.2% 3.3% 7.033 0.008
Origin—Agricultural regions **
Trás-os-Montes 598 41.8 42.5% 39.6% 0.984 0.321
Beira Interior 398 27.8 26.6% 31.5% 3.204 0.073
Alentejo 235 16.4 17.0% 14.8% 0.961 0.327
Entre Douro e Minho 228 15.9 16.0% 15.6% 0.040 0.842
Beira Litoral 138 9.6 8.7% 12.5% 4.597 0.032
Ribatejo e Oeste 84 5.9 5.9% 5.8% 0.000 0.985
Algarve 10.00 0.70 0.01 0.01 (a)
* Percentage in columns. Values in bold correspond to the highest values when statistically significant differences exist.
** Only the values corresponding to “yes” are presented. (a) The assumption of the Chi-square test was not observed.
Foods 2022,11, 547 8 of 18
As for the geographical origin of the products, the only significant difference between
the two groups relates to the fact that products from Beira Litoral (center region of the
country) are more likely to be bought by consumers who do not regularly buy Portuguese
rural provenance foodstuffs. This may be related to the type of products bought and to
the fact that this region is not, especially when compared with the main provenances of
Trás-os-Montes (North region), Beira Interior (Centre region), and Alentejo (South region), as
important in the production of wine, cheese, or cured meat products.
4.2.2. Acquisition and Consumption Motivations
Independent samples T-tests were conducted to identify the reasons more associated
with acquiring more often and consuming rural provenance products (Table 3). Significant
differences were found concerning the motivations related to national provenance—‘That
they are produced in Portugal’ and ‘To be produced in Portuguese rural areas’—all presented by
customers who would more likely belong to the group of frequent buyers and consumers
of provenance food products. These motivations may also be aligned with consumers’ na-
tionalism (as pointed out by Bardone and Spalvena [
49
]) or ethnocentrism (as explained by
Fernández-Ferrín et al. [
16
]) and explained by the larger number of Portuguese consumers
amongst the respondents. Even though this preference for national rural food products
may enact a nostalgic longing for the past, often related to the referred patriotic feelings, it
may also be the expression of an affective commitment (as evinced by Memery et al. [
41
])
to further develop the economy and production of one’s national or local context and
help local communities and producers (also expressed in the item ‘To support Portuguese
agriculture and rural areas’). This could be objectively achieved through the creation of more
job opportunities, revitalization of mainland areas and contribution to rural development,
and the preservation of a sociocultural ethos [
48
]. Whereas the first draws on an emotional-
based appeal, the second, more future-oriented, combines protection for one’s own ingroup
with an ethics of care towards the environment (in line with DuPuis and Goodman [
42
]
and Amilien et al. [
48
]), rural areas, and their social capital much affected by the dynamics
of rural marginalization [3].
Table 3. Reasons to buy Portuguese rural provenance products.
Reasons to Buy Portuguese
Rural Food Products *
Total Consumption of Traditional Food Products
of Portuguese Rural Origin * T-Test
nMean
Consume
Frequently
Does not
Consume
Frequently Value p-Value
(n= 1175, 76.1%) (n= 369, 23.9%)
Mean Mean
That they are produced in
Portugal 1553 4.25 4.34 3.98 6.782 0.000
If they look good 1552 4.09 4.08 4.11 −0.503 0.615
That they are local 1475 4.12 4.14 4.07 1.353 0.176
Having a fair price 1553 4.19 4.23 4.07 2.895 0.004
If they taste better 1552 4.34 4.38 4.22 3.172 0.002
If they are fresh produce 1552 4.18 4.20 4.12 1.431 0.153
If they are officially certified (PDO, IGP, Organic . .. ) 1551 3.50 3.52 3.43 1.304 0.193
To know the producers 1551 3.47 3.51 3.32 2.831 0.005
To know the products’ brands 1550 3.50 3.52 3.44 1.254 0.210
To know the products already 1549 3.64 3.66 3.56 1.566 0.118
If they have been recommended by friends and/or family 1551 3.78 3.78 3.78 0.104 0.917
If they are small-scale produced 1549 3.83 3.87 3.75 1.865 0.062
To be produced in Portuguese rural areas 1550 3.96 4.02 3.80 3.532 0.000
The fact that I can buy the products in my residence area 1544 3.64 3.73 3.35 4.969 0.000
Being advertised on mass media/ social media 1550 3.18 3.13 3.38 −3.229 0.001
That they are healthier 1549 3.92 3.98 3.74 3.856 0.000
To trust in the store and in its specialized
costumer service 1549 4.02 4.10 3.79 5.106 0.000
To support Portuguese agriculture and rural areas 1551 4.11 4.16 3.94 3.631 0.000
Their nutritional information 1548 3.79 3.81 3.73 1.202 0.230
If their production carries a low environmental impact 1552 3.95 3.98 3.85 1.870 0.062
* Items classified in a five-point type Likert scale from 1, “ less important”, to 5, “more important”. Values in bold
correspond to the highest values when statistically significant differences exist.
Although less important, ‘To know the producers’ is also a motivation to buy rural
provenance foods amongst those frequent consumers. This may be related to a higher
Foods 2022,11, 547 9 of 18
familiarity with the products and to a greater knowledge of both products and producers,
as evinced by Castellóand Mihelj [46], Johnson and Russo [14], and Seo et al. [15].
The same pattern occurs in those frequent buyers and consumers who value the
sensorial features of the products, such as taste and their healthier nature, as fundamental
determinants of choice. These findings are in line with the studies of Castellini et al. [
27
]
and Von Meyer et al. [
28
] on the relevance of taste. These findings are also coherent with
Kushwah et al. [
31
] about the significance of health concerns and values as key determinants
of food choice and, as our evidence suggests, factors of differentiation between frequent
and non-frequent consumers.
As shown in Table 3, additional significant differences between the two groups relate
to the characteristics of the sale and not as much to the product or the producer. In fact,
aspects such as ‘having a fair price’, ‘to trust in the store and in its specialized customer service’,
together with ‘the fact that I can buy the products in my residency area’ are more valued by
frequent consumers. The relevance attributed to a fair price is in line with the usually
higher price of this type of product, as pointed out by Jansen [
33
] and, for the particular
case of organic foods, by Kushwah et al. [31].
Product availability near the consumers’ residency areas is also pointed out (for ex-
ample by Bryla [
26
] and Barska and Solis [
34
]) to be an important determinant of food
choice. By making available rural provenance products from different regions of origin
in city centers, urban specialty stores enable their acquisition and consumption, promot-
ing closer connections between the rural places of production and the (urban) places of
consumption [
1
,
3
]. These stores’ efforts regarding reachability and availability, are also
visible through the products’ promotion to different consumers’ categories, as observed by
Carolan [
31
] and Toften and Hammervoll [
36
], namely, as in our sample, to frequent and
non-frequent buyers. The latter, as shown in Table 3, tend to value more the fact that the
products are advertised on mass media and/or through social media networks very often
used by the specialty stores as a means of promotion. As stressed by Barska and Solis [
34
]
among others, social media may contribute to shortening the distance between retailers
and consumers and promote interest and knowledge about specific products, especially
for consumers less used to buying and consuming rural provenance foods. Therefore, this
result suggests that social media, with its potential in creating networks, may be actually
reaching more unaware consumers.
4.2.3. Images about Products and Rural Areas of Provenance
Consumers’ images of Portuguese rural areas were also analyzed to identify their
relevance and influence in the likability to consume food products of Portuguese rural
origin. Respondents in both groups characterize Portuguese rural areas through mainly
positive elements, such as ‘gaze, tranquility and well-being’, in line with the discussion
undertaken by Soares da Silva et al. [
53
] as well as with its identification with ‘environment
and natural elements’ (as suggested, among others, by Figueiredo [
54
]). However, as shown
in Table 4, significant differences were found between the two groups analyzed, regarding
the images of Portuguese rural areas, on the one hand, as abandoned, isolated, and ageing
and, on the other hand, as the places in which food products and their characteristics
are anchored. Consumers who characterize rural territories as abandoned, isolated, and
ageing are more likely to belong to the group that does not consume rural provenance
food products frequently. This suggests that a negative image of the areas of origin may
somehow make the products less attractive and impede their consumption. Conversely,
those who identify rural areas with the products themselves and their distinct qualities are
more likely to belong to the group that buys rural provenance foodstuffs frequently.
Foods 2022,11, 547 10 of 18
Table 4. Consumers’ images of Portuguese rural areas.
Image of Portuguese Rural Areas
Total
Consumption of Traditional Food
Products of Portuguese
Rural Origin *
Chi-Square Test
n%
Consume
Frequently
Does not
Consume
Frequently Value p-Value
(n= 1175, 76.1%) (n= 369, 23.9%)
Words related to rural
Areas **
Gaze, tranquility, and well-being 571 37.0 36.3% 39.3% 1.068 0.301
Environment and natural elements 461 29.9 29.3% 31.7% 0.759 0.384
Farming 270 17.5 18.2% 15.4% 1.429 0.232
Abandonment, isolation, and ageing 254 16.5 15.2% 20.6% 5.996 0.014
Roots and nostalgia 246 16.0 15.9% 16.3% 0.034 0.854
Authentic, traditional, and unique 233 15.1 15.7% 13.3% 1.268 0.260
Places, villages, and ways of life 206 13.4 13.2% 13.8% 0.089 0.765
Food products and
characteristics 184 11.9 13.0% 8.7% 4.907 0.027
Undeveloped and
problematic 83 5.4 5.0% 6.5% 1.198 0.274
Growth and diversity 50 3.2 3.6% 2.2% 1.785 0.182
* Percentage in column. Values in bold correspond to the highest values when statistically significant differences
exist. ** Only the values corresponding to “yes” are presented. (The categories presented in Table are the result
of the grouping of the words used spontaneously (see Question 2 of the Questionnaire in Appendix A) by the
respondents to describe Portuguese rural areas into 10 dichotomic variables).
Both results, in different ways, suggest that the valence and a given content of an
image of rural contexts are related to the interest and choice of rural foodstuffs, reinforcing
the degree to which these products are rooted in their provenance. The first images show
that a grim representation of rural provenance translates to a lack of interest in what comes
from it, either by ignorance of the existence of products or by a certain spillover of the
negative valence of the context itself. The second image suggests that rural provenance is
also perceived by many as interwoven with an idea of food production and of the distinct
qualities of place and food (in line with Guerrero et al. [
51
]) and in a not so simple way
since it refers to a wide range of food products and respective features. This may also be
related to the frequent consumers’ knowledge, experience, and familiarity of both rural
territories and food products (as referred also by Seo et al. [
15
]). The characterization of
rural areas as the places of provenance and distinction of food products also suggests
a kind of collective property grounded on given know-how and tradition. These are
responsible for the inherent quality of this type of product, forged across generations, each
reinterpreting its traditional value and typicity (as emphasized by Figueiredo [3]).
Considering all the results, even without statistical differences, the characterization
of rural areas as authentic, traditional, and unique is slightly higher by those who con-
sume these products frequently. This may suggest an overlap between these descrip-
tors and what is searched in the deriving foodstuffs. Authenticity features, one of the
most important determinants of rural provenance food consumption (as stressed by La-
coeuilhe and Lombart [
45
]), are often related to a concern with the unique qualities of
the food products shaped by the biophysical and cultural features of the places of pro-
duction. The search for products anchoring on a traditional provenance may again be
understood in the light of national/regional ethnocentrism in food choice (as highlighted
by
Fernández-Ferrín et al. [16]
) or consumer nationalism (as in Castellóand Mihelj [
46
])
once more strongly connected with familiarity and knowledge about foodstuffs and their
places of origin.
Interestingly, despite the differences already discussed, the images of rural provenance
products held by both groups are fairly homogeneous (Table 5). Apart from the fact that
not so frequent consumers are more likely to emphasize their ‘trustworthy’ character, which
is also a sign of a favorable widespread image, there is indeed a great consensus regarding
the characterization and description of those products, evincing is the absence of a clear
association between specific images and the frequency of acquisition and consumption.
Foods 2022,11, 547 11 of 18
Table 5. Consumers’ images of Portuguese rural provenance products.
Image of Portuguese Rural food Products
Total
Consumption of Traditional Food Products
of Portuguese Rural
Origin *
Chi-Square Test
n%
Consume
Frequently
Does not
Consume
Frequently Value p-Value
(n= 1175, 76.1%) (n= 369, 23.9%)
Words related to rural food products **
General quality 329 21.8 21.2% 23.8% 1.081 0.298
Sensorial features of products 312 20.7 19.9% 23.2% 1.892 0.169
Meat and animal-based products 297 19.7 19.3% 21.0% 0.551 0.458
Cheese and other milk derivates 252 16.7 16.9% 16.1% 0.121 0.728
Hand-made, traditional, experience and
know-how 180 11.9 11.2% 14.2% 2.372 0.142
Vegetables cereals and fruits 178 11.8 11.9% 11.5% 0.050 0.823
Distinction and authenticity 177 11.7 11.5% 12.6% 0.322 0.570
Nature/environment/sustainability 174 11.5 10.9% 13.4% 1.620 0.203
Wine 144 9.5 9.6% 9.3% 0.038 0.846
Farmers and farming 112 7.4 8.1% 5.2% 3.514 0.061
Honey, jams, and sweets 76 5.0 4.7% 6.0% 0.952 0.329
Family/nostalgia 74 4.9 5.4% 3.3% 2.747 0.097
Freshness 59 3.9 3.9% 3.8% 0.010 0.921
Organic 55 3.6 4.0% 2.5% 1.942 0.163
Selection/monotony 52 3.4 3.9% 1.9% 3.424 0.064
Regional, local, from specific places 47 3.1 3.6% 1.6% 3.493 0.062
Trustworthy 33 2.2 1.8% 3.6% 4.198 0.040
Gastronomy and cuisine 29 1.9 2.2% 1.1% 1.766 0.184
National character 22 1.5 1.6% 1.1% 0.450 0.502
Chemically free/healthy 21 4.7 4.9% 4.1% 0.401 0.527
Price 12 0.8 1.0% 0.3% (a)
* Percentage in column. Values in bold correspond to the highest values when statistically significant differences
exist. ** Only the values corresponding to “yes” are presented. (a) The assumption of the Chi-square test was not
observed. (The categories presented in Table are the result of the grouping of the words used spontaneously (see
Question 3 of the Questionnaire in the Appendix A) by the respondents to describe Portuguese rural provenance
food products into 20 dichotomic variables).
Both groups analyzed show specific images of Portuguese rural provenance food
products coherent with the known determinants of food choice. Their general quality is
a common image, revealing the relevance of the concomitant products’ features for the
consumers, as also concluded by Birch et al. [
39
] and Andersson [
40
]. This general image is
followed by the characterization of rural provenance food products based on their sensorial
features (evidenced in the use of words referring to taste, flavor, and appearance, among
others). These are amongst the main motivations to choose traditional foods and together
with health concerns, organic foodstuffs, as Sidali et al. [24] refer.
Respondents in both groups also associate rural provenance foodstuffs with specific
products, mainly within the categories of meat-related products, cheese, and vegetables
(Table 5), the first two corresponding to the most typical rural provenance foodstuffs in
Portugal. This may be related to the characterization of these products as traditional, hand-
made, with a production based on experience and know-how, which is another frequent
image held by both groups, and alongside ‘distinction and authenticity’, corresponding to
important determinants of rural provenance foodstuffs ([
21
,
45
]). In the same vein, the
characterization of these products as related to nature, environment, and sustainability
aspects meet both the altruistic motivations (as stressed by Birch et al. [
39
]) underlying
their acquisition, as health and safety concerns [
40
]. Interestingly, price is the least evoked
element in both groups’ images of the products.
4.2.4. Rural Ties as Determinants of Food Choice
Significant differences between the two groups were found in all the variables related
to familiarity and connections with rural areas, visiting habits, products, and activities
(Table 6)
. Overall, the results indicate that consumers who have an interest in and con-
nection with rural areas are more likely to belong to the group of frequent buyers and
consumers of rural provenance food products than those who do not. As shown in Table 6,
these rural ties vary in degree of socialization and connection, ranging from having relatives
living in rural contexts and visiting them to having visited these areas in the last three years.
These visits served specifically to buy and taste local gastronomy and food products, as
well as to participate in local traditional economic activities.
Foods 2022,11, 547 12 of 18
Table 6. Familiarity with rural areas.
Familiarity with Rural Areas
Total
Consumption of Traditional Food
Products of Portuguese Rural
Origin *
Chi-Square Test
n%
Consume
Frequently
Does not
Consume
Frequently Value p-Value
(n= 1175, 76.1%) (n= 369, 23.9%)
Relatives living in Portuguese rural areas
Yes 775 50.4 52.1% 44.7% 6.180 0.013
No 764 49.6 47.9% 55.3%
Visited rural areas in the last three years
Yes 936 60.7 63.7% 51.2% 18.278 0.000
No 606 39.3 36.3% 48.8%
Visited relatives in rural areas in the last
three years
Yes 396 25.6 28.0% 18.2% 14.266 0.000
No 1148 74.4 72.0% 81.8%
Visited rural areas to taste local
gastronomy and wines
Yes 767 49.7 51.8% 42.8% 9.122 0.003
No 777 50.3 48.2% 57.2%
Visited rural areas to buy food products
Yes 566 36.7 38.9% 29.5% 10.582 0.001
No 978 63.3 61.1% 70.5%
Visited rural areas to buy handicraft
Yes 501 32.4 32.3% 33.1% 0.083 0.773
No 1043 67.6 67.7% 66.9%
Visited rural areas to participate in local
traditional economic activities
Yes 228 14.8 16.0% 10.8% 5.940 0.015
No 1316 85.2 84.0% 89.2%
* Percentage in column. Values in bold correspond to the highest values when statistically significant differences exist.
Portugal may be characterized by a recent process of de-ruralization contributing to
still strong connections and linkages to rural territories, either through family relations [
17
]
or other personal networks. National consumers who nurture rural linkages (often family-
based, as shown in Table 6) are more prone to be knowledgeable about rural provenance
foods [
15
]. This knowledge is a key element of familiarity with the products and producers,
revealing that rural ties may model and impact the appeal, purchase, and consumption
of these products. Being socialized within a certain context, ranging from familiar habits
and beliefs to local, regional, or national culture is known to impact food preferences.
For instance, the cultural context of upbringing is known to influence consumers’ accept-
ability of sensory qualities of rural provenance foods [
29
] which often translates into a
higher valorization and appreciation of the more authentic and sensorial complex features
that characterize these products. It also appears to strengthen the persuasiveness of the
emotional appeal (of the products and to the consumers) of stability, permanence, and
trustworthiness communicated by known sources, places, and traditions [43,50].
To be physically and symbolically close to rural contexts and communities also brings
some awareness and empathy towards these realities’ dynamics and necessities [
39
,
42
].
One may argue that this engagement is more personal when the family roots are stronger,
becoming political, sometimes, especially when sustainable socio-economic development of
these areas is at stake. The emotional and values-based appeal of choosing these products
instead of those that result from massified agri-food systems [
4
,
11
,
13
] may be, in fact,
stronger when the support for local and more sustainable supply chains [
19
,
42
] is driven
by an actual and symbolic connection and ties with rural communities. These may be
powerful in evoking emotions of nostalgia and sentimental longing for the past (as stressed
by Sedikides et al. [
50
]) paired with an ethics of care. The usually soothing element of
familiarity, at a sub-conscious level, carries many socio-cultural meanings and roots that
activate sensorial acceptability and preferences, pleasant memories, and feelings (as stressed
by Bryla [26]), and in-group belonging and protection.
Foods 2022,11, 547 13 of 18
The evidence presented in Table 6also suggests that rural provenance foods are im-
portant reflections of a given culture and territory (in line with Bardone and Spalvena [
49
]),
therefore playing a significant part in local, regional, and national identities and connec-
tions. Rural provenance food products are also seen as related to cultural manifestations,
as specific festivities and habits [
3
] that contribute to forming and consolidating cultural
identities. These rural-based sociocultural elements, being important for every region and
country, seem to assume particular relevance in Portugal and other southern European
countries wherein long-lasting processes and dynamics of rural marginalization exist [
3
,
11
].
This endogenous focus reaches the highest ideological ground in national/regional/local
ethnocentrism (in line with Fernández-Ferrín et al. [
16
]) or consumer nationalism (as in
Castellóand Mihelj [
46
]) to which familiarity is key. Overall, these results indicate that
the preference for and acquisition and consumption of rural foodstuffs is associated with
proximity and connections with their territories of provenance, corroborating the power of
familiarity in forging taste, preferences, and dietary habits [30].
5. Conclusions
Despite the extensive literature on food consumption determinants, the preference for
rural provenance, traditional, nationally-produced food products is a relatively overlooked
topic, particularly when considering the differences between frequent and sporadic con-
sumers. This study aimed at contributing to understanding the interdependence of those
differences with the motivations in acquiring, consuming, and valuing rural provenance
food products, consumers’ images on both food products and territories of provenance,
and the existing ties with rural territories.
Taking as a starting point the customers of urban specialty stores selling rural prove-
nance food products and analyzing their frequent or sporadic consumption of those prod-
ucts, our results strongly suggest the nuclear role of those stores in promoting the products
and their territories of origin. This may have an important impact on the consumption of
rural provenance foods in (re)shaping rural–urban connections and in fostering sustainable
agriculture and rural development.
Specifically, our results highlight the overlap between the images of urban specialty
food stores’ customers regarding rural territories and rural food products and their moti-
vations and criteria of food choice. This corroborates the strong interconnection of these
products with their regions of provenance, up to an extent of symbolic spillover between
the characteristics of the products, the processes of production, and the territories of origin,
with features of one element being extensible to perceive the other. In fact, despite con-
sumers’ images of Portuguese rural territories being generally positive, there is a strong
association between negative images of rural areas (as abandoned, isolated, ageing) and a
lower frequency in the acquisition of rural provenance products. Conversely, more positive
images of rural areas, particularly as places of food provenance, are associated with a
higher acquisition of food products.
Rural provenance food products are generally characterized in a very positive manner
by both groups of consumers analyzed here. As shown, both groups possess images of rural
provenance foods that are aligned with the discussed determinants of food choice, namely
their trustworthy character, the emphasis on sensorial features, their authenticity and
distinction, and their general quality. These images seem to be strongly interconnected to
the motivations for the acquisition and consumption of rural provenance foods. Significant
associations were found regarding motivations related to the national provenance of the
food products and the higher frequency of acquisition. This is suggestive of ethnocentrism
and nationalism as powerful drivers and determinants of food choice and consumption.
The preference for national rural food products may also be the expression of an affective
commitment to contribute to the preservation and sustainable development of those pro-
ductions and their territories of origin. It is also found in the more common images of
rural areas and food products amongst frequent consumers, probably related to familiarity
with rural territories and to concerns of sustainable food production and consumption.
Foods 2022,11, 547 14 of 18
The latter seems to motivate the support to local communities and producers, more visible
amongst frequent consumers which are also concerned with environmental protection and
national agriculture and rural territories’ development. Even though these are increasingly
widespread food consumption-related concerns and motivations, they seem particularly
important in southern European countries such as Portugal, in which rural marginalization
dynamics have been persistent and difficult to overcome. Finally, different ties and degrees
of familiarity with Portuguese rural territories—from blood liaisons to knowledgeably
consuming the products or often visiting rural areas—emerged from our results as the
most important determinants of food choice. Notable differences were found, regarding
familiarity with Portuguese rural territories, with frequent consumers presenting closer and
stronger connections with those territories. Again, the strong ties with rural territories and
agricultural productions revealed by urban populations are still quite evident in Portugal,
as in other Southern European countries, as a result of relatively recent de-ruralization
dynamics, the persistence of local networks of social interactions based on kinship and
neighborhood relationships. These complex processes evinced stronger connections with
rural ways of life, habits, practices, and values in these countries, vis-à-vis nations that
experienced earlier urbanization processes. The stronger ties with rural territories also
relate to consumers’ ethnocentrism and nationalism regarding food consumption and
acquisition motivations and practices. They are also related to familiarity, knowledge, and
experience regarding rural provenance food products that motivate their consumption
and acquisition.
Showing that knowledge of products and regions are linked to buying frequency, our
results suggest that sellers can benefit from more knowledgeable buyers, thus presenting a
rationale for seller involvement in delivering this information to potential customers. Our
results also suggest that there could be a mutual reinforcement, both with positive and
negative directions, between how the rural is perceived and the demand for rural products
which could be further explored in future research. From a policy perspective, the support
and development of good practices in sustainable food production could be increased
through this link between demand and images of rural regions by helping producers and
regional stakeholders to develop closer associations between the promotion of territories
and sustainable production processes.
Notwithstanding its theoretical and practical contributions and the salience of the
topic, one limitation of this study is that it was conducted in just one country, making
it difficult to extrapolate results to different regions and countries. A more thorough
discussion could be developed by comparing contexts with contrasting degrees of rural
marginalization, histories of de-ruralization, and different degrees of urban-rural kinship
linkages. Furthermore, within Portugal, just a sample of urban specialty food stores from
only three cities was analyzed. Even though two of those cities (Porto and Lisbon) are the
country’s most populated and touristic, it is difficult to extend the results to other cities
and towns within the country with diverse characteristics. Therefore, similar research in
other countries and cities with different characteristics would be useful for comparative
studies and further analysis of the influence of diverse contexts regarding the preference
and choice of (local) rural provenance foods. Considering less urbanized contexts would
perhaps unveil other types of ties and connections between consumers, food, and territories
of provenance.
Further research would also benefit to explore familiarity variables in articulation
with other aspects of interest, namely political ideology and values in line with the new
stream of consumer nationalism and ethnocentrism that is gradually perceiving it in a less
segregationist and more empowering light.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, E.F.; T.F., C.E. and A.S.; methodology, C.E.; validation,
C.E., E.F., T.F., A.S. and J.C.; investigation, E.F., T.F. and J.C.; resources, E.F., C.E. and T.F.; data
curation, E.F.; writing—original draft preparation: T.F., E.F. and C.E., writing, review and editing,
E.F., T.F., C.E., A.S. and J.C.; project administration, E.F.; funding acquisition, E.F. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Foods 2022,11, 547 15 of 18
Funding:
This research was funded by national funds through the FCT/MCTES and the co-funding
by the FEDER, within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement and Compete 2020, for the research project
STRINGS—Selling The Rural IN (urban) Gourmet Stores –establishing new liaisons between town and
country through the sale and consumption of rural products (PTDC/GES-OUT/29281/2017/ POCI-01-
0145-FEDER-029281).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement:
Participants were informed about the aims of the research and invited
to give their informed consent before answering the questionnaire. This is in line with the General
Regulation for Data Protection in force in the University of Aveiro and in Portugal (Regulation (UE) n.
2016/679, 27 April 2016).
Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
QUESTIONNAIRE TO CONSUMERS OF SPECIALTY RURAL PROVENANCE FOOD STORES
(Aveiro, Lisboa e Porto)
I. Consumption of Traditional Food Products of Portuguese Rural Provenance
1. Do you usually consume traditional food products of Portuguese rural origin? Yes |_| No |_|
2. When you think about Portuguese rural areas, what are the first 2 words that occur to you?
2.1. ____________________________________________ 2.2. ___________________________________________________
3. And when you think about traditional food products of Portuguese rural origin, what are the first 2 words that occur
to you?
3.1. _________________________________________ 3.2. ____________________________________________________
4. What do you usually value when you buy traditional food products and beverages of Portuguese rural origin? (from
1—less important to 5—more important)
Features 1
Less important 2 3 4 5
More important
That they are produced in Portugal
If they look good
That they are local
Having a fair price
If they are fresh produce
If they are officially certified (PDO, IGP, Organic . . . )
To know the producers
To know the products’ brands
To know the products already
If they have been recommended by friends and/or family
If they are small-scale produced
To be produced in Portuguese rural areas
The fact that I can buy the products in my residency area
Being advertised on mass media/ social media
That they are healthier
To trust in the store and in its specialized costumer service
To support Portuguese agriculture and rural areas
Their nutritional information
If their production carries a low environmental impact
5. Please indicate 2 traditional food products from Portuguese rural origin that you have bought today at this store
5.1. ___________________________From which region? _________________
5.2. ___________________________From which region? _________________
6. Why did you buy those products?
6.1. Product 1: Usual purchase |_| Sporadic purchase |_| Gift |_|
6.2. Product 2: Usual purchase |_| Sporadic purchase |_| Gift |_|
7. Have you visited Portuguese rural areas in the last 3 years? Yes |_| No |_|
8. If your answer to the previous question was “Yes”, what did you do while visiting those areas:
Foods 2022,11, 547 16 of 18
8.1. Cultural visits (monuments, historical villages) |_|
8.2. Participate in cultural and/or religious events (festivals, traditional festivities, pilgrimages) |_|
8.3. Nature Tourism activities (local fauna and flora watching, visiting protected areas) |_|
8.4. Taste local gastronomy and wines, including thematic routes (wine, chestnut) |_|
8.5. Hunting and/ or fishing |_|
8.6. Buy food products locally produced |_|
8.7. Buy handicraft locally made |_|
8.8. Participate in local traditional economic activities (grape harvest, crop harvest) |_|
8.9. Visiting relatives |_|
8.10. Other |_| Which other?_____________________________________________________________________________
9. If you have visited rural areas to taste local wines and gastronomy and other locally produced products, have you tried
to buy those products in your residency area?
Yes |_|
No |_|
10. If you answered “Yes” to the previous question, was it easy to find those products in your residency area?
Yes |_|
No |_|
11. Have you ever visited Portuguese rural areas just to buy and/ or taste food and beverages locally produced?
Yes |_| What was the last product you bought?______________________ Where? _________________________
No |_|
12. Do you have relatives living in Portuguese rural areas?
Yes |_| In which region/regions? _______________________________________________________ ____________
No |_|
13. If you answered ‘Yes’ to the previous question, are those relatives involved in agricultural activities (farmers)?
Yes|_| No |_|
14. If you answered ‘Yes’ to the previous question, do you usually consume the products they produce?
Yes |_| Which ones? _________________________________________________________________________________
No |_|
15. Are you a regular costumer of this store?
Yes |_| For how long?_________________________ No |_|
16. If your answer to the previous question was “Yes”, do you participate in activities promoted by the store (wine tasting,
food tastings, meeting the producers, etc.)
Yes |_|What was the last activity in which you participated?________________________________ No |_|
II. Sociodemographic Characteristics
17. Sex: Male |_| Female |_|
18. Age: _________
19. Education
Primary School |_| Master Degree |_|
Secondary School |_| PhD |_|
Graduate |_|
20. Marital Status
Single |_| Divorced |_|
Married/ Cohabiting |_| Widowed |_|
21. Professional Status
Have a profession |_| Student |_|
Retired |_| Unemployed |_|
Other |_| Which other?________________ ____________________________
22. Profession: _____________________________________________________________________________________
23. Number of household members: _______________
24. Monthly income of the household:
Less than 600 €|_| 1801 to 2200 €|_|
24.2. 601 to 1000 €|_| 2201 to 2600 €|_|
1001 to 1400 €|_| 2601 to 3000 €|_|
1401 to 1800 €|_| More than 3001 €|_|
Foods 2022,11, 547 17 of 18
25. Nationality
Portuguese |_| Birth place (parish and municipality): ____________________________________________________
Foreigner |_| Country: ______________________________________________________________________________
26. In which store have you fill in this questionnaire: ____________________________________________________________
References
1.
Silva, A.; Figueiredo, E.; Truninger, M.; Eusébio, C.; Forte, T. A typology of urban specialty shops selling rural provenance food
products—A contribution from Portugal. Br. Food J. 2021,123, 3902–3917. [CrossRef]
2.
Bianchi, C. Exploring urban consumers’ attitudes and intentions to purchase local food in Chile. J. Food Prod. Mark.
2017
,23,
553–569. [CrossRef]
3.
Figueiredo, E. Rural Provenance Food as Cultural Heritage—A way of promoting rural attractiveness and development?
In Handbook of Research on Cultural Heritage and Its Impact on Territory Innovation and Development; Oliveira, L., Amaro, A.C.,
Melro, A., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 114–137.
4. Fonte, M. Knowledge, Food and Place. A Way of Producing, a Way of Knowing. Sociol. Rural. 2008,48, 200–222. [CrossRef]
5.
Kneafsey, M.; Venn, L.; Bos, E. Consuming Rural Connections: Tracing Leeks Back to Their Roots. In Transforming the Rural: Global
Processes and Local Futures (Research in Rural Sociology and Development); Miele, M., Higgins, V., Bjorkhaug, H., Truninger, M., Eds.;
Emerald: Bingley, UK, 2017; pp. 197–220.
6.
Mayer, H.; Habersetzer, A.; Meili, R. Rural-Urban Linkages and Unsustainable Regional Development: The Role of Entrepreneurs
in Linking Peripheries and Centres. Sustainability 2016,8, 745. [CrossRef]
7.
Bessière, J.; Tibère, L. Traditional food and tourism: French tourist experience and food heritage in rural spaces. J. Sci. Food Agric.
2013,93, 3420–3425. [CrossRef]
8.
Sims, R. Food, place and authenticity: Local food and the sustainable tourism experience. J. Sustain. Tour.
2009
,17, 321–336.
[CrossRef]
9.
Meah, A.; Watson, M. Cooking up consumer anxieties about ‘provenance’ and ‘ethics’. Food Cult. Soc.
2013
,16, 495–512. [CrossRef]
10. Truninger, M. O Campo vem àCidade? Agricultura Biológica, Mercado e Consumo Sustentável; Imprensa de Ciências Sociais: Lisbon,
Portugal, 2010.
11.
Fonte, M.; Papadopoulos, A.G. (Eds.) Naming Food after Places—Food Relocalisation and Knowledge Dynamics in Rural Development;
Ashgate: London, UK, 2010.
12.
Gangjee, D.S. Proving provenance? Geographical indications certification and its ambiguities. World Dev.
2017
,98, 12–24.
[CrossRef]
13.
Bowen, S.; Master, K. New rural livelihoods or museums of production. Quality food initiatives in practice. J. Rural. Stud.
2011
,
27, 73–82. [CrossRef]
14. Johnson, E.J.; Russo, J.E. Product familiarity and learning new information. J. Consum. Res. 1984,11, 542–550. [CrossRef]
15.
Seo, S.; Kim, O.; Sumin, O.; Yun, N. Influence of informational and experiential familiarity on image of local foods. Int. J. Hosp.
Manag. 2013,34, 295–308. [CrossRef]
16.
Fernández-Ferrín, P.; Calvo-Turrientes, A.; Bande, B.; Artaraz-Minón, M.; Galán-Ladero, 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. [CrossRef]
17.
Ribeiro, J.D.; Figueiredo, E.; Soares da Silva, D. Ligações familiares–o consumo de produtos agroalimentares locais em meio
urbano: O caso de Aveiro. AEEA (Orgs). In Proceedings of X CIER—Colóquio Ibérico de Estudios Rurales; Universidad de Palencia:
Palencia, Spain, 2014; pp. 79–84.
18.
Casini, L.; Contini, C.; Romano, C.; Scozzafava, G. New trends in food choice: What impact on sustainability of rural areas? Agric.
Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016,8, 141–147. [CrossRef]
19.
Reid, J.; Rout, M. Getting to know your food: The insights of indigenous thinking in food provenance. Agric. Hum. Values
2016
,
33, 427–438. [CrossRef]
20.
Tamagnini, V.; Tregear, A. An assessment of niche marketing opportunities in the delicatessen meat sector. Br. Food J.
1998
,100,
228–235. [CrossRef]
21.
Mapes, G. Marketing elite authenticity: Tradition and terroir in artisanal food discourse. Discouse Context Media
2020
,34, 100328.
[CrossRef]
22. Haugun, M.; Grande, J. The role of marketing in local food networks. Intr. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2017,81, 1–13.
23.
Sheth, J.N.; Newman, B.E.; Gross, B.L. Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. J. Bus. Res.
1991
,22, 159–170.
[CrossRef]
24.
Sidali, K.; Obermowe, T.; Filaretiva, O.; Spiller, A. Sensory marketing: Evidence from a cluster analysis of German consumers.
Rev. Eletrónica Em Gestão Educ. E Tecnol. Ambient. 2013,11, 2448–2461.
25.
Asioli, D.; Canavari, M.; Castellini, A.; Magistris, T.; Gottardi, F.; Lombardi, P.; Pignatti, E.; Spadoni, R. The role of sensory
attributes in marketing organic food: Findings from a qualitative study of Italian consumers. J. Food Distrib. Res.
2011
,42, 16–21.
26. Bryla, P. Organic food consumption in Poland: Motives and barriers. Appetite 2016,105, 737–746. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Foods 2022,11, 547 18 of 18
27.
Castellini, G.; Savarese, M.M.; Castiglioni, C.; Graffigna, G. Organic food consumption in Italy: The role of subjective relevance
of food as mediator between organic food choice motivation and frequency of organic food consumption. Sustainability
2020
,
12, 5367. [CrossRef]
28.
Von Meyer-Höfer, M.; Von der Wense, V.; Spiller, A. Characterising convinced sustainable food consumers. Br. Food J.
2015
,117,
1082–1104. [CrossRef]
29.
Yang, H.; Lee, S. Applying effective sensory marketing to sustainable coffee shop business management. Sustainability
2019
,
11, 6430.
30. Montanari, M. Food is Culture; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
31.
Kushwah, S.; Dhir, A.; Sagar, M.; Gupta, B. Determinants of organic food consumption. A systematic literature review on motives
and barriers. Appetite 2019,143, 104402. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32.
Camillo, A.; Di Pietro, L. Creating competitive advantage for calabrian-made products: The influences of culture and price
perception. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2015,21, 44–67. [CrossRef]
33.
Jansen, M. Determinants of organic food purchases: Evidence from household panel data. Food Qual. Prefer.
2018
,68, 19–28.
[CrossRef]
34.
Barska, A.; Solis, J.E. Consumers and local food products: A perspective for developing online shopping for local goods in Poland.
Sustainability 2020,12, 4958. [CrossRef]
35.
Carolan, M. Big data and food retail: Nudging out citizens by creating dependent consumers. Geoforum
2018
,90, 142–150.
[CrossRef]
36. Toften, K.; Hammervoll, T. Niche marketing research: Status and challenges. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2013,31, 272–285. [CrossRef]
37.
Uusitalo, O. Consumer perceptions of grocery retail formats and brands. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag.
2001
,29, 214–225. [CrossRef]
38.
Kim, K.; Cheong, Y.; Zheng, L. The current practices in food advertising: The usage and effectiveness of different advertising
claims. Int. J. Advert. Rev. Mark. Commun. 2009,28, 527–553. [CrossRef]
39.
Birch, D.; Memery, J.; Kanakaratne, M.S. The mindful consumer: Balancing egoistic and altruistic motivations to purchase local
food. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018,40, 221–228. [CrossRef]
40.
Andersson, H. Nature, nationalism and neoliberalism on food packaging: The case of Sweden. Discourse Context Media
2020
,34,
2–10. [CrossRef]
41.
Memery, J.; Angell, R.; Megicks, P.; Lindgreen, A. Unpicking motives to purchase locally produced food: Analysis of direct and
moderation effects. Eur. J. Mark. 2015,49 (7/8), 1207–1232. [CrossRef]
42.
DuPuis, E.; Goodman, D. Should we go home to eat? Toward a reflexive politics of localism. J. Rural. Stud.
2005
,21, 359–371.
[CrossRef]
43.
Bryla, P. The role of appeals to tradition in origin food marketing. A survey among Polish consumers. Appetite
2015
,91, 302–310.
[CrossRef]
44. Lusk, J.; Briggeman, B. Food values. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2009,91, 184–196. [CrossRef]
45.
Lacoeuilhe, J.; Louis, D.; Lombart, C. Impacts of product, store and retailer perceptions on consumers’ relationship to terroir store
brand. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017,39, 43–53. [CrossRef]
46.
Castelló, E.; Mihelj, S. Selling and consuming the nation: Understanding consumer nationalism. J. Consum. Cult.
2018
,18, 558–576.
[CrossRef]
47.
Hughner, R.S.; McDonagh, P.; Prothero, A.; Shultz, C.J.; Stanton, J. Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review
of why people purchase organic food. J. Consum. Behav. Int. Res. Rev. 2007,6, 94–110. [CrossRef]
48.
Amilien, V.; Fort, F.; Ferrás, N. Hyper-real territories and urban markets: Changing conventions for local food–case studies
from France and Norway. Anthropol. Food
2007
. Available online: https://aof.revues.org/446 (accessed on 21 December 2021).
[CrossRef]
49.
Bardone, E.; Spalvena, A. European Union food quality schemes and the transformation of traditional foods into European
products in Latvia and Estonia. Appetite 2019,132, 43–53. [CrossRef]
50.
Sedikides, C.; Wildschut, T.; Arndt, J.; Routlege, C. Nostalgia. Past, present, and future. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.
2008
,17, 304–307.
[CrossRef]
51.
Guerrero, L.; Guàrdia, M.D.; Xicola, J.; Verbeke, W.; Vanhonacker, F.; Zakowska-Biemans, S.; Sajdakowska, M.; Sulmont-Rossé, C.;
Issanchou, S.; Contel, M.; et al. Consumer-driven definition of traditional food products and innovative in traditional foods. A
qualitative cross-cultural study. Apettite 2009,52, 345–354. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52.
Bessière, J. Local development and heritage: Traditional food and cuisine as tourist attractions in rural areas. Sociol. Rural.
1998
,
38, 21–34. [CrossRef]
53.
Soares da Silva, D.; Figueiredo, E.; Eusébio, C.; Carneiro, M.J. The countryside is worth a thousand words—Portuguese
representations on rural areas. J. Rural. Stud. 2016,44, 77–88. [CrossRef]
54.
Figueiredo, E. Imagine There’s No Rural: The Transformation of Rural Spaces into Places of Nature Conservation in Portugal.
Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2008,15, 159–171. [CrossRef]
