Table 4 Consumer segments based on... | Emerald Publishing

Table 4

Consumer segments based on self-evaluation of food risk

Variables	Segment 1	Segment 2	Segment 3	Segment 4
Variables	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
Vegetable risk	5.28^a (1.97)	6.07^b (1.26)	7.73^c (1.38)	9.17^d (0.98)
Fruit risk	4.55^a (1.62)	5.28^b (1.26)	7.57^c (1.49)	9.18^d (1.02)
Meat risk	4.08^a (1.45)	7.01^b (1.54)	6.46^c (1.69)	9.14^d (1.03)
Egg risk	2.50^a (1.11)	4.54^b (1.80)	3.58^c (1.55)	6.70^d (2.21)
Fish risk	2.90^a (1.25)	5.93^b (1.49)	4.24^d (1.34)	7.95^d (1.58)
Food safety worry	5.20^a (1.01)	7.62^b (1.85)	8.08^c (1.69)	8.89^d (1.52)

Variables	Segment 1	Segment 2	Segment 3	Segment 4
Variables	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
Vegetable risk	5.28^a (1.97)	6.07^b (1.26)	7.73^c (1.38)	9.17^d (0.98)
Fruit risk	4.55^a (1.62)	5.28^b (1.26)	7.57^c (1.49)	9.18^d (1.02)
Meat risk	4.08^a (1.45)	7.01^b (1.54)	6.46^c (1.69)	9.14^d (1.03)
Egg risk	2.50^a (1.11)	4.54^b (1.80)	3.58^c (1.55)	6.70^d (2.21)
Fish risk	2.90^a (1.25)	5.93^b (1.49)	4.24^d (1.34)	7.95^d (1.58)
Food safety worry	5.20^a (1.01)	7.62^b (1.85)	8.08^c (1.69)	8.89^d (1.52)

Segment name	Low-risk perception	Moderate-risk perception	High-risk perception	Very-high-risk perception
Number of respondents	104	120	164	110
% of sample	20.88	24.09	32.94	22.09

Note(s): ^{a, b, c, d} Scores in one row with a different superscript are significantly different at p < 0.05 using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test