Generation Z's Knowledge and Purchasing Behavior Toward Products with Geographical Identification Spyridon Mamalis 1, Irene (Eirini) Kamenidou 1, Stavros Pavlidis 1 and Athina Eytixidou 1 1 International Hellenic University, Kavala Campus, Greece Abstract This paper presents research concerning the Greek Generation Z cohort's (N=544) behavior towards certified products with geographical identification with emphasis on local traditional food products, via an online questionnaire applying a nonprobability sampling frame. Questions referred to knowledge of certified and local products and purchasing behavior. Descriptive analysis and market segmentation based on reasons for purchase were applied. Segmentation is built on the reasons for purchasing products with geographical identification and specifically, local traditional products. Segmentation with cluster analysis revealed two distinct groups of consumers. Marketing directions are provided in order to raise the consumption of local traditional food products. Keywords 1 Local traditional food products, Generation Z, Marketing, Greece 1. Introduction Cayot [1] asserts that the term “traditional products” (TP) denotes products made from certain raw materials and/or in accordance with a long-established recipe and/or process. Trichopoulou et al. [2] point out that TP has unique characteristics that distinguish them from others that are similar and/or fall into the same category of using the traditional ingredient, traditional composition, and method of production and/or processing. The same researchers state that these products are "passed down from generation to generation", they are ready-made in a particular way that is in line with the gastronomic heritage of the region and are characterized by their particular organoleptic properties [2]. There is no single definition of traditional products, while plenty may be found in academic literature [3]. The European Union and EC Regulation 509/2006 for traditional products states: “Traditional, means, proven usage in the community market for a time period showing transmission between generations; this time period should be the one generally ascribed as one human generation, at least 25 years” [4]. Local traditional products (LTP) are considered crucial components of each region and may be utilized as symbols of it [5] since they are produced only in particular areas of the European Union, are protected by law [6] and so are "attached" to these areas or regions. Consumer characteristics and even more specifically the generational cohort that a consumer belongs in, impact his/her food choices [7,8]. Therefore, this research is focused on the youngest adult generational cohort, i.e., Generation Z, and explores knowledge and behavior towards local traditional food products (LTFP) and groups participants according to their behavior (specifical reasons for purchase LTFP). 2. Materials and Methods The targeted population was adult members of the Generation Z cohort being 18-25 years old [9] the year that the research was implemented. Specifically, the research took place during the months of Proceedings of HAICTA 2022, September 22–25, 2022, Athens, Greece EMAIL: mamalis@mst.ihu.gr (A. 1); rkam@mst.ihu.gr (A. 2); stavrospavlides@yahoo.gr (A. 3); athina.eytixidou@yandex.com (A. 4) ORCID: 0000-0003-3035-6385 (A. 1); 0000-0002-8213-5843 (A. 2); 0000-0002-2595-8341 (A. 3) ©️ 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org) 332 February and March 2021. The data was collected exclusively online, and, in this manner, 544 valid questionnaires were gathered. The online questionnaire which was utilized for this survey was adopted from Mamalis et al. [10]. Questions were related to knowledge of Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), protected geographical indication (PGI) products, and Local products (LP). They were also asked if they can recognize (in general) the different certified product warranties, and how often they check food labels for geographical indication certifications before purchasing. Additionally, the frequency of consuming locally certified products was explored, as well as the point of purchase. Lastly, the reasons for choosing local products over non-local are explored (employing a 5-point attitudinal Likert Scale) and based on these reasons, segmentation analysis is realized through K-Means Cluster Analysis. 3. Results 3.1. Demographic Profile of the Subjects Thirty-three-point one percent (33.1%) were men while 66.9% were women. No member of the Gen Zers was married or had a child. Concerning education, 68.8% had compulsory education (Lyceum), 26.1% had a university degree, and 5.1% had a post-graduate degree. As to profession, 66.9% were university students, 19.9% were private employees, 3.7% were businessmen, and 9.6% were unemployed. The majority of the sample (80.5%) had a personal net monthly income of up to 500,00€, and the rest 19.5% over 500.00€ per month. 3.2. Knowledge of Certified Food Products Participants were asked if they knew what PDO and PGI products were, and if they could recognize certification product warranties (Table 1). As Table 1 presents, Gen Zers have knowledge mainly of what a local product is, while they lack knowledge of what PDO, PGI, and overall, they also lack the ability to recognize the different certified product warranties. As to how often participants checked the food geographical indication certifications, 27.9% stated always or often, 29.8% stated occasionally, and 42.3% stated rarely or never. Table 1 Knowledge and recognition of food product warranties (%) Knowledge and recognition of food product warranties No Not sure Yes Knowledge of what a PDO product is 24.3 42.6 33.1 Knowledge of what a PGI product is 47.8 44.9 7.4 Knowledge of what a LP product is 3.2 12.2 84.6 Recognition of the certified product warranties 32.7 43.0 24.3 3.3. Consumption and Purchasing Behavior of LTFP Fifty-two-point four percent (52.4%) purchase LTFP at least once per week, 29.0% purchase LTFP rarely (several times per year), and 18.6% purchase LTFP occasionally (2-4 times per month). The most purchased LTFP was honey (64.7%), feta cheese (61.0%), and olive oil (60.3%). As to the point of purchase of locally certified products, 17.6% answered from a shop that sells local food products, 63.6% from the supermarket, and 18.8% directly from the producers. The main reasons for purchasing LTFP are presented in Table 2. 333 Table 2 Reasons for purchasing LTFP LTFP are 1 2 3 4 5 MS Median 1. Healthy 4.8 0.4 27.8 41.7 25.4 3.83 4.00 2. Safe 4.8 6.4 28.3 41.2 19.3 3.64 4.00 3. Nutritional 1.5 1.8 19.1 48.5 29.0 4.02 4.00 4. Delicious 1.5 9.2 17.6 37.9 33.8 3.93 4.00 5. Authentic 1.5 5.1 20.6 30.1 42.6 4.07 4.00 products 6. Promoting their 3.3 1.8 13.6 32.4 48.9 4.22 4.00 area of origin 7. Supporting local 1.5 0.0 17.6 19.5 61.4 4.39 5.00 producers 3.4. Segmentation K-Means Cluster Analysis was implemented for segmentation of Generation Z members based on reasons of purchase. K-Means Cluster Analysis was implemented to all seven items since factor analysis offered with one dimension (reliability of scale α= 0.925). K-Means Cluster Analysis delivered two clusters, whereas ANOVA tests revealed that the two clusters differ in all items. Table 3 provides with the two clusters, their final cluster centers (FCC), and ANOVA results. Table 3 Groups of Generation Z consumers based on purchasing of LTFP 1 2 LTFP are F Sig. N=444 N=100 1. Healthy 4.17 2.56 372.802 .000 2. Safe 3.98 2.32 353.543 .000 3. Nutritional 4.27 2.90 376.577 .000 4. Delicious 4.26 2.50 458.548 .000 5. Authentic products 4.40 2.64 499.378 .000 6. Promoting their area of origin 4.52 2.86 420.438 .000 7. Supporting local producers 4.64 3.32 276.561 .000 Cluster 1: The "LTFP buyers." This group incorporates 444 consumers, which have positive attitudes towards all reasons for purchasing and consuming local traditional food (FCC>3.95). The main reason for purchasing LTFP is to support local producers and simultaneously promote the area of origin. Cluster 2: The "Indifferent consumers". This group has 100 participants with 2.003.51. Two reasons could justify their behavior. First that they "just purchase them" because they are sold where they live, without paying attention for other reasons, and so could be sold at lower prices 334 than similar products due to low distribution costs, or there are other variables that are not incorporated in these study that affect them. 4. Conclusions The present study had its aim to delve into the Generation Z cohort's knowledge of geographical indications as well as their behavior towards LTFP. More than 65% and 90% do not know for sure what a PDO and a PGI product are respectively, while they do have knowledge of what an LP is. Additionally, more than 70% do not recognize geographical identification labels. This indicates the need for educating these young adults on the national and European geographical identification labels. Moreover, more than 40% stated that they rarely or never check the food geographical indication certifications, indicating that it is crucial to educate this segment on the importance of geographical indication certifications. The primary reasons for purchasing local LTP are to support the local producers and to promote their region of origin, while segmentation analysis promoted two consumer segments, the "LTFP buyers", and the "indifferent consumers". The segments of this study are similar to the segments that Mamalis et al. [10] found, who segmented consumers (N=400) aged 18-55 based on motives of purchasing LTFP and found two segments the "Local traditional buyers." and the "Indifferent occasional purchasers". From a marketing perspective, highlighting the place of origin to better promote local products and educating consumers on the importance of geographical identification labels is crucial. 5. Research Limitations and Future Research The central restriction of the survey is the sample, place, and size of research, i.e., 544 Greek Generation Z members. Additionally, it employed a nonprobability sampling method via the internet, which required internet access at the time of the research. Lastly, other elements for reasons of purchase could be incorporated, such as access to other products and price as a motive for purchase. These limitations can be drivers of further research. 6. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the members of the Greek Generation Z cohort who participated in the study. 7. References [1] Cayot, Nathalie. “Sensory Quality of Traditional Foods.” Food Chemistry 101.1 (2007): 154–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.01.012. [2] Trichopoulou, A., S. Soukara, and E. Vasilopoulou. “Traditional Foods: A Science and Society Perspective.” Trends in Food Science & Technology 18.8 (2007): 420–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2007.03.007. [3] Bonadonna, Alessandro, Liuba Macar, Giovanni Peira, and Chiara Giachino. “The Dark Side of the European Quality Schemes: The Ambiguous Life of the Traditional Specialities Guaranteed.” Calitatea 18.156 (2017): 102. [4] EU. “Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs as Traditional Specialties Guaranteed.” Official Journal of the European Union, (2006): L 93/1. [5] Kohsaka, Ryo, and Yuta Uchiyama. “Geographical Indications and Regional Trade Agreements: Facilitating International Partnerships for Sustainable Development.” In Partnerships for the Goals, edited by Walter Leal Filho, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana Brandli, Amanda Lange Salvia, and Tony Wall, 477–89. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95963-4_15. 335 [6] Dragomir, Nela, Carmen Georgeta Nicolae, and V. Dragomir. “Romanian Traditional Products between Local and Global.” Analele IBNA 31 (2017): 103–11. [7] Arenas-Gaitán, Jorge, Begoña Peral-Peral, and Jesús Reina-Arroyo. “Food-Related Lifestyles across Generations.” British Food Journal. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2021-0393. [8] Kamenidou, Irene, Aikaterini Stavrianea, and Evangelia-Zoi Bara. “Generational Differences toward Organic Food Behavior: Insights from Five Generational Cohorts.” Sustainability 12.6 (2020): 2299. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062299. [9] Williams, Kaylene, and Robert Page. “Marketing to the Generations.” Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business 3 (2011): 1–17. [10] Mamalis, Spyridon, Irene (Eirini) Kamenidou, Evangelia-Zoi Bara, Stavros Pavlidis, and Ifigeneia Mylona. “Segmenting Consumers Based on Reasons for Purchasing Local Traditional Food Products.” In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the EUROMED Academy of Business, 22-23 September 2021 – Virtual, “Contemporary Business Concepts and Strategies in the New Era” (2021), pp. 480-490. 336