Desktop version

Home arrow Marketing

Segmentation Analysis

Factor analysis via Principle Component Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation (Hair et al. 2010) was implemented in order to decrease the number of items and make them manageable for further analysis. The important variables in factor formation that were considered were those with factor loadings > 0.50 (Sharma 1996), and in this way, no item was discharged. Factor analysis (Eigenvalues > 1.0) produced 3 factors (Table 14.2) accounting for 69.6 % of total variance (TV). The PCA revealed the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy

Table 14.2 Factors derived based on deeper motives for food security actions




  • 1st: “ Food security for economic-derived negative situations
  • 36.8 % of the total variance (T.V.); a = 0.908; Mean Factor Score (MFS) = 3.2
  • (Std. = 1.0)

In case of the event of state bankruptcy Prevention in case of war or other extreme situations To have to eat in the future if something goes amiss (e.g., hunger) Prevention in case I cannot produce the raw material needed for the household in order to process food In case of future exchange economy

Prevention in the absence of food suppliers/imports of agricultural products/ raw material for food processing In case someone in the family gets fired or is unemployed

  • 0.806
  • 0.783
  • 0.779
  • 0.757
  • 0.742
  • 0.741
  • 0.740
  • 2nd: "Out-of-season food access, food safety";
  • 17.2 % of T.V.; a = 0.737; MFS = 3.9 (Std. = 0.9)

To cover household needs on out-of-season products, which I will have stored/frozen/processed, and in this way I won't have to buy imported products or out-of-season ones Control the quality of food that my family has access to Self- sufficiency of household from external forces or third parties, and simultaneously save money

  • 0.829
  • 0.795
  • 0.739
  • 3rd: "Protection from price increase and economic gain":
  • 15.6 % of T.V.; a = 0.822; MFS = 2.0 (Std. = 1.0)

Protect household from continuous price increase of agricultural products, food or beverages In order to sell the food if and when needed

  • 0.886
  • 0.841

Source: The Authors has a value of 0.879 > 0.7 and thus is suitable for the implementation of factor analysis (Kinnear and Gray 1995). Moreover, the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (BTS) also showed that factor analysis was suitable (Chi- Square = 7026.891; df = 66, and p = 0.000).

The above three factors indicating the deeper motives that dictate the way households engage in food security actions were used to segment the households.

First, a hierarchical cluster analysis was performed in order to explore the initial number of clusters that will arise, and subsequently a K-means cluster analysis was performed (Hair et al. 2010). The analysis resulted in a three-cluster solution. Multivariate statistics indicated statistically significant differences between the three clusters, where all factors contributed to differentiate the three segments. Each segment’s Final Cluster Center (FCC), sample size, and the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test are presented in Table 14.3.

Subsequently, chi-square tests with cross tabulation were performed in order to observe whether there were any statistically significant differences between the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the households and the three derived clusters. Analysis showed that six out of nine chi-square tests were statistically significantly different, while “gender of participants” (x22 = 2.563; p = 0.279), “region” (x22 = 3.191; p = 0.203), and “ownership of house” (x24 = 1.505; p = 0.828) did not produce

Table 14.3 Segmentation based on underlined motives regarding actions of food security

Factors of underlined motives for food protection actions engaged by households


cluster, n = 309


cluster, n = 292


cluster, n = 519

ANOVA Statistics (p)

F1: Food security for economic-derived negative situations




  • 780.683
  • (0.000)

F2: Out-of-season food access, food safety, and self-sufficiency




  • 448.273
  • (0.000)

F3: Protection from price increase and economic gain




  • 1152.425
  • (0.000)

Source: The Authors significant differences. On the other hand, “age” (x210 = 21.618; p = 0.016), “marital status” (x26 = 13.161; p = 0.041), “area (rural or urban) of residence” (x22 = 15.193; p = 0.001), “income” (x210 = 64.097; p = 0.000), “education” (x26 = 31.088; p = 0.000), and “profession” (x214 = 38.839; p = 0.001) did produce statistically significant differences, indicating that there is a relationship between these socioeconomic and demographic variables and the three clusters’ behavior.

Cluster I: “Survivors”, representing 27.6 % of the total sample, have the highest FCC for the 1st factor, i.e., “Food security for economic-derived negative situations” (FCC = 4.41), which is the main motive for taking food security actions. Thus, this cluster prepares its household, and wants to be ready, in the event that the country or one of the family members is found in extreme situations. Hence, the households want to be prepared for situations such as bankruptcy or war, where a barter economy might arise, or where there might be lack of agricultural produce or food. Lastly, they also produce, store, freeze, salt, cure, or pickle agricultural products or food, in case someone in the household loses their job and there is not enough family income to purchase food, hence causing food insecurity to the household. This segment is the segment that tries to prevent situations rather than “cure” them. They are indifferent to achieving out-of-season food access, food safety, and/or out-of-season self-sufficiency of the household (FCC = 3.16), while they do not engage in food security actions because they want to protect the family from continuous increases in agricultural or food product prices and/or in order to sell the food, if needed in the future (FCC = 1.30). This cluster, relative to the other two segments, is the most educated one; it represents the highest percentage of households living in urban areas; single or widowed subjects, public employees, and those with a net household income ranging from 2000 to 2500 €/month. This cluster is the most pessimistic of the sample; members of the cluster do not seem to “see light at the end of the tunnel”. This segment, probably because it is the most highly educated, believe that after a great economic depression a war can be triggered. This segment is possibly being continuously updated about the economic situation in the country, as well as the difficult conditions in the Mediterranean Sea and the instability in the area. This group is taking precautionary measures to prepare for extreme situations and does not seem to trust the government and/or those jour?nalists who argue that Greece will come out of the crisis. This segment is getting ready for the worst and prepares itself with food survival strategies.

Cluster II: “Economic focused households” representing 26.0 % of the total sample have the highest FCC for the 3rd factor “Protection from price increase and economic gain” (FCC = 3.98). These are the economically motivated households, trying to save money, or earn money in the future, if possible. Their main motive is to protect the household from the continuous food price increases. This segment consists of urban residents who have a secondary level education and are married; they fall into two age categories: 36-45 (30.8 %) and 46-55 (29.6 %), and are freelancers/busi- nessman and have a net household monthly income up to 1000.00 € (68.0 %). Compared to the other segments, this one has the highest percentage of men and the lowest percentage of homeowners. This segment is the economically insecure segment. This is quite understandable since according to V Korkidis, the president of the Hellenic Confederation of Trade and Entrepreneurship (HCCE), from the year that the crisis began until 2015, more than 250,000 businesses closed down or filed for bankruptcy (Huffington Post 2015). This segment has a relatively high FCC (FCC = 3.69) for the 2nd factor “Out-of-season food access, food safety and selfsufficiency”, which is probably due to the item “Self-sufficiency of household from external forces or third parties and simultaneously save money”. This item is one of the variables consisting of the factor, and has to do indirectly with economic decisions. This group of households is the one that, when compared to the other two, has the lowest FCC for the 1st factor (FCC = 2.17). This segment either does not believe that the country will get into unpleasant or extreme situations and, thus, does not feel the need to protect the household from these, or does not care if things go worse, since “the wet person does not fear the rain”, as a Greek saying states.

Cluster III: “Food safety orientated households” is the largest of the three segments. It consists of 46.3 % of the households and has the highest FCC toward the 2nd factor “Out-of-season food access, food safety, and self-sufficiency” (FCC = 4.25), which is the main motive for producing, storing, freezing, salting, curing, or pickling food. Moreover, this segment is indifferent toward the 1st factor “Food security for economic-derived negative situations” (FCC = 2.99), and does not engage in food security actions in order to protect the household from price increases or in order to have direct economic gain (FCC = 1.64). This segment, when compared to the other two, has the following participant characteristics: the segment consists of married or divorced women with children, participants are aged mainly 26-35 (28.1 %) and 36-45 (30.3 %) with an income ranging between 600.01 and 1500.00 €, they have a secondary level education, and are private employees and residents of rural areas. This group, comprising young mothers, is focused on the nutritional aspect of food, and engages in producing, storing, freezing, salting, curing, or pickling food mainly for food safety issues in terms of seasonality and quality control. This could be due to their belief that out-of-season agricultural produce is of lower quality than in-season produce, or that, in order for retailers to suppress prices and be competitive, the marketplace offers lower-quality agricultural and food products. Thus, this segment does not trust the quality of marketed products and/or the governments’ quality control actions. Therefore, it considers that consumers/households should engage in actions to protect themselves for food safety reasons, one of the main pillars of food security.

< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >

Related topics