Serviços Personalizados
Journal
Artigo
Indicadores
-
Citado por SciELO
-
Acessos
Links relacionados
-
Similares em SciELO
Compartilhar
Revista mexicana de ciencias pecuarias
versão On-line ISSN 2448-6698versão impressa ISSN 2007-1124
Rev. mex. de cienc. pecuarias vol.13 no.4 Mérida Out./Dez. 2022 Epub 11-Nov-2022
https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v13i4.6005
Articles
Typology of honey consumers with a university education in Mexico
a Universidad de Guanajuato. Departamento de Veterinaria y Zootecnia. Guanajuato, México.
b Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP). Campo Experimental Pabellón, Km. 32.5 carretera Aguascalientes-Zacatecas, Pabellón de Arteaga, Aguascalientes, México.
c INIFAP. Campo Experimental Valle de México. Estado de México, México.
4INIFAP. Campo Experimental Zacatecas. Zacatecas, México.
Mexico is a honey-producing country, paradoxically, its per capita consumption is low compared to European countries. The objective was to make a typology of honey consumers in Mexico with a minimum educational level of bachelor’s degree in ages from 20 to 60 years and to determine their socioeconomic characteristics and aspects that motivate consumption. A questionnaire was applied to a sample of 1,003 honey consumers who met the conditions of age and school level. The information was analyzed using cluster and discriminant analysis. Three types of consumers were identified: 1) educated consumers with average income (34.4 %), they were those who consume honey frequently, have extensive knowledge about beekeeping by-products and honey properties, prefer to buy the product from beekeepers; 2) highly educated consumers with high income (25.8 %), most of them have postgraduate degrees and receive income greater than $5,000 per week, they were people of mature age and with moderate consumption of honey, a third of this group only know honey, have knowledge of its properties and qualities, they are indifferent to the place of purchase; and 3) educated consumers with low income (39.8 %), it grouped young consumers who only have a bachelor’s degree, their consumption is moderate, they prefer to buy the product in markets. The groups of consumers formed provide information on a segment of the honey market in Mexico, it is necessary to continue conducting research on issues related to consumption and preference of honey consumers in Mexico.
Key words Honey consumption; Socioeconomic characteristics; Clusters
México es un país productor de miel, paradójicamente, su consumo per cápita es bajo comparado con los países europeos. El objetivo fue realizar una tipología a consumidores de miel en México con nivel educativo mínimo de licenciatura en edades de 20 a 60 años y determinar sus características socioeconómicas y aspectos que motivan el consumo. Se aplicó un cuestionario a una muestra de 1,003 consumidores de miel que cumplieran con las condiciones de edad y nivel escolar. La información se analizó mediante análisis de conglomerados y discriminante. Se identificaron tres tipos de consumidores: 1) consumidores educados con ingresos promedio (34.4 %), fueron los que consumen miel frecuentemente, tienen un amplio conocimiento sobre los subproductos de la apicultura y propiedades de la miel, prefieren comprar el producto con los apicultores; 2) consumidores altamente educados con ingresos altos (25.8 %), en su mayoría tienen posgrado y reciben ingresos mayores a $5,000 semanales, fueron personas en edad madura y con consumo moderado de miel, una tercera parte de este grupo solo conocen la miel, tienen conocimiento de sus propiedades y cualidades, les es indiferente el lugar de compra; y 3) consumidores educados con ingreso bajo (39.8 %), agrupó a consumidores jóvenes que solo tienen nivel de licenciatura, su consumo es moderado, prefieren comprar el producto en mercados. Los grupos de consumidores conformados brindan información sobre un segmento del mercado de la miel en México, es necesario continuar realizando investigaciones sobre temas referentes a consumo y preferencia de los consumidores de miel en México.
Palabras Clave Consumo de miel; Características socioeconómicas; Conglomerados
Introduction
Honey is the main product obtained from beekeeping; it is defined as a sweet substance made by bees from the nectar of flowers, which they collect, combine with specific substances, transform and store to serve as energy food1. In 2019, Mexico produced 61.9 thousand tonnes of honey and during 2010-2019, the average annual growth rate was 1.2 %2. In 2019, 43.4 % of production went to Germany and the United States, and Mexico ranked among the first exporting countries3.
Currently, there is a tendency in consumers to purchase food products with general (taste, price, safety, organic and certified) and subjective attributes related to environmental, social and ethical issues; in addition, they should promote health, well-being and reduce the risk of developing diseases4,5.
Honey is a product appreciated for its properties and health benefits, as a sweetener and natural remedy; it contains carbohydrates, water, proteins, vitamins, minerals and phenolic compounds. Consequently, its intake is associated with a better antioxidant capacity, modulation of the immune system, antimicrobial activities, influence on lipid values, regulation of glycemic responses, among others5. This has contributed to the growing trend in world consumption, which, during 2008 to 2018, increased 5.3 % and in 2018, consumption was 2.55 million tonnes6.
In contrast, in Mexico honey consumption has decreased; during 2017-2019, an apparent national consumption of 22.3 thousand tonnes was recorded2,3. From 2010, the trend in consumption was downward, with an average annual growth rate of -2.8 %, until 2019. Although the country is one of the main world producers, the Mexican population does not show a culture of honey consumption and it is reflected in the per capita consumption of 170 g, well below some European countries, which exceed 1,000 g per person per year6.
There are studies that have determined the factors that influence honey consumption, among them sociodemographic factors such as age, occupation and education7,8,9. Other influencing factors were color, taste, variety and price9,10. In another study, it was mentioned that consumption is influenced by the income level of households and the purchase decision is determined by consumers’ knowledge of the value of honey11. Attributes such as therapeutic properties have become important in the purchase decision and the product is valued as traditional, healthy and for its use in alternative medicine5,12.
Studies conducted in Croatia, Romania, Italy, Serbia and Brazil13-16 indicate that the educational level of the honey consumer is relevant and influences the purchase decision, because the person may have greater knowledge about the qualities of the product. This aspect should be considered for Mexico, where the studies conducted deal with the production chain, commercialization17,18 and consumer preferences at the regional level19. However, information on the identification of consumer profiles and types for market segments is limited, even though this type of information contributes to the understanding of how consumption decisions are made, reveals information for agri-food chains and provides elements to producers and industrialists for value addition16,20. Knowing the types of consumers supports the design of market strategies that position the product in the market and motivate its consumption. Therefore, the objective of this work was to make a typology of honey consumers in Mexico with a minimum educational level of bachelor’s degree in ages from 20 to 60 years and to determine their socioeconomic characteristics and aspects that motivate consumption.
Material and methods
Sample size
The type of research was exploratory, and the information was obtained through a structured survey. The sampling was directed to the Mexican honey-consuming population with university education, between 20 and 60 years of age. The sample size was obtained using the simple random sampling formula for finite populations21,22:
Where n was the sample size; N represents the population, equal to 57.34 million inhabitants, population between 20 and 60 years of age according to the Census of Population and Housing (INEGI)23; Z was the 90 % confidence level; e was the error of 4.1 %; P was the 50 % probability that the sample is representative, and q was the probability that the sample is not representative (q=1-p). The estimated sample size was 990 surveys, but in practice 1,003 were conducted.
Instrument used and sources of information
The information was collected through a questionnaire of 15 questions on age, gender, schooling, size of the city where they lived, weekly income, monthly consumption of honey, habits in the consumption of honey, place of purchase, consumer knowledge of properties and uses and by-products of honey. The questions were closed with dichotomous, multiple and scale answers24.
The design of the survey was made on the Google Apps server through Drive®, where the name of the survey was first established and each of the questions raised with their respective answers was described. Subsequently, the link that indicates the abbreviation of the URL was generated. Prior to the application, pilot tests were conducted to ensure the clarity of the questions and minimize errors (n= 10). Once validated, the survey was applied via the internet, sharing the link in social networks. With the information obtained, a database was created in Excel 2016 spreadsheets.
Statistical analysis
The typology of honey consumers was made using multivariate techniques, first a hierarchical cluster (CA) and K-mean analysis was applied. The hierarchical CA was based on Ward’s grouping method and was used to identify the number of groups graphically and by means of Mojena’s criterion
To verify and validate the results obtained in the CA of K-means, the classification and assignment of each individual to the group formed was evaluated with a discriminant analysis (DA)22,26; where the independent variables that most discriminated against the groups were determined and it was verified that the conformation of groups of the CA was robust. In the DA, the stepwise variable selection method was used. To select the variables, the Wilk’s statistic Lambda was used, which, for its interpretation, considers that, if its value is close to zero, the total variability will be due to the differences between groups and, therefore, the corresponding set of variables will discriminate against the groups. If its value is close to 1, the groups will be mixed and the set of independent variables will not be suitable for constructing the discriminant functions27,28. The statistical analysis of the data was performed with the SPSS 27.0 software for Windows29 and Minitab 18.1.
Results
Statistical results
The hierarchical CA allowed identifying graphically three types of honey consumers (Figure 1), likewise this result was corroborated by estimating Mojena’s Criterion, where
The groups of honey consumers formed were analyzed by a discriminant analysis to verify the goodness of the classification. With the analysis, it was determined that 97.5 % of the respondents were classified correctly and, therefore, the classification in three clusters was valid. Similarly, the Wilk’s statistic Lamda of 0.115, a value close to zero, means that the groups formed were statistically different (Table 1).
Table 1 Multivariate statistics
Statistic | Value | Fisher distribution value |
Degrees of freedom of the numerator |
Degrees of freedom of the denominator |
Probability greater than F calculated |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wilk’s Lambda | 0.115 | 255.14 | 12 | 1990 | <0.000 |
According to the values obtained, Wilk’s Lamda and the F statistic, six of the nine variables (weekly income, age, monthly consumption, motivation to consume, by-products and place of purchase) contributed to the discrimination of groups by their level of P>0.05 and F value greater than 3.8. The variables that did not contribute to the separation of groups were gender, form of consumption and size of the city (Table 2).
Table 2 Mean test between the differentiated groups
Variable | Wilk’s Lambda | F | Significance |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | 0.994 | 3.242 | 0.059 |
Age | 0.695 | 219.515 | 0.000 |
Weekly income | 0.321 | 1058.353 | 0.000 |
Size of the city | 0.999 | 0.610 | 0.543 |
Monthly consumption | 0.716 | 198.139 | 0.000 |
Form of consumption | 0.991 | 4.471 | 0.062 |
Place of purchase | 0.908 | 50.893 | 0.000 |
By-products | 0.920 | 43.663 | 0.000 |
Motivation to consume | 0.791 | 132.168 | 0.000 |
Characterization of the types of honey consumers
Once the types of consumers were defined, they were characterized based on the variables included in the analysis (Tables 3 and 4) and the particularities of each one were determined. The name assigned to each group was considering the educational level and weekly income.
Table 3 Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the types of honey consumers (%)
Variables | Group 1 (n=345) |
Group 2 (n=259) |
Group 3 (n=399) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | |||
Men | 35.4 | 40.2 | 30.6 |
Women | 64.6 | 59.8 | 69.4 |
Age | |||
From 20 to 25 yr old | 4.9 | 6.6 | 56.4 |
From 26 to 40 yr old | 47.8 | 59.1 | 33.8 |
From 41 to 60 yr old | 47.2 | 34.4 | 9.8 |
Schooling | |||
Bachelor’s degree | 46.4 | 37.8 | 81.2 |
Postgraduate degree | 53.6 | 62.2 | 18.8 |
Weekly income | |||
Less than 1,500 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 54.9 |
From 1,500 to 3,000 | 26.1 | 0.0 | 44.6 |
From 3,000 to 5,000 | 32.2 | 31.7 | 0.5 |
More than 5,000 | 38.6 | 68.3 | 0.0 |
Size of the city | |||
More than 100,000 | 59.4 | 59.1 | 55.4 |
From 30,000 to100,000 | 20.3 | 20.1 | 22.3 |
From 10,000 to 30,000 | 9.6 | 10.4 | 10.0 |
Less than 10,000 | 10.7 | 10.4 | 12.3 |
Table 4 Characteristics in honey consumption by type of consumer (%)
Group 1 (n=345) |
Group 2 (n=259) |
Group 3 (n=399) |
|
---|---|---|---|
Monthly consumption | |||
10 g | 0.9 | 31.7 | 27.6 |
50 g | 11.9 | 32.0 | 33.8 |
100 g | 39.1 | 29.7 | 27.3 |
500 g | 48.1 | 6.6 | 11.3 |
How do you consume honey? | |||
Sugar substitute | 71.0 | 65.6 | 61.7 |
Home remedy | 25.5 | 32.0 | 32.1 |
In cosmetics | 3.5 | 2.3 | 6.2 |
Where do you buy it? | |||
Market | 20.0 | 44.4 | 52.6 |
Self-service store | 12.2 | 23.6 | 8.3 |
Beekeeper | 67.8 | 32.0 | 39.1 |
By-products of beekeeping you know | |||
Honey | 8.1 | 31.3 | 26.6 |
Honey, pollen, royal jelly | 23.5 | 29.3 | 30.3 |
Honey, pollen, royal jelly, apitoxin | 68.4 | 39.4 | 43.1 |
Why do you consume honey? | |||
Because of its properties | 63.8 | 14.7 | 23.6 |
It is a natural product | 25.8 | 32.4 | 34.6 |
It is a healthy product | 9.9 | 35.5 | 24.3 |
Because of family custom | 0.6 | 17.4 | 17.5 |
Group 1: Educated consumers with average income
This group consisted of 345 consumers (34.4 %), of which 64.6 % were women and the rest were men. Most of the people in this group were women aged 26 to 40 and adults aged 41 to 60, and just over half have postgraduate studies. With respect to income, the population was concentrated in the middle categories (more than $3,000 per week) and they live in large cities (Table 3). It was identified that they were the most frequent consumers of honey for sweetener or home remedy. They acquire honey directly from the beekeeper, they know more about the derivatives of the hive and their reasons for purchase are related to the natural properties of honey (Table 4).
Group 2: Highly educated consumers with high income
The second group was made up of 259 consumers, 25.8 % of the respondents. This group is composed mostly of mature consumers between 26 and 40 yr of age, located in large cities. This group was characterized by having the highest school degree and high income (Table 3). They showed a low consumption of honey, and they are indifferent to where to buy it, the motivation they have to acquire it is associated with the idea of consuming a natural and healthy product, but they also do it because it is a family custom.
Group 3: Educated consumers with lower incomes
Group three consisted of 399 consumers, which corresponded to 39.8 % of the sample. The members were young people with a bachelor’s degree and weekly income of less than $3,000. They showed a low consumption of honey and they used it as a sugar substitute. This type of consumers had a preference to buy the product in markets and directly from beekeepers, they have knowledge of the products derived from the hive and their purchase motivations are determined by the fact that it is a natural, healthy product with properties, and by family custom.
Discussion
The results obtained in the characterization were similar to those found in a comparative analysis on honey consumption in Romania, Italy and Serbia, where it was mentioned that the educational level and the amount of income participate in the behavior of honey consumers in those countries13. In several studies on honey, it is mentioned that the sociodemographic factors that positively influence consumption were the age, gender, educational level and income of people30,31. This same condition was reflected in this analysis, where the main variable that segmented the population studied by type of consumers was income. In other European countries, honey is considered an expensive product compared to other sweeteners, so its acquisition is conditioned to the income of the consumer5,9,14, this explanation describes the condition of Mexican consumers.
A second variable that influenced the differentiation of the groups was age; although a sample in ages between 20 and 60 years was considered, the difference between the groups by age ranges was noticeable; in the first group, no predominant range was observed; however, group 2 was made up of mature people and group 3 was made up of the youngest. It is assumed that older generations consume honey more frequently than younger consumers30,32,33; these characteristics of consumption coincided with the Mexican consumers interviewed, since the adult population of group 1 were the ones who consume the most and the young people of group 3 were the ones who consume the least.
On the other hand, a greater trend of honey consumption in women has been identified in other parts of the world9 and that this consumption tends to increase when it comes to health care, both in prevention and treatment of diseases34,35,36. In this regard, it was found that most of the interviewed population were also women, and they consume honey.
In addition to the above, the consumption of honey of groups 1 and 3 is directly related to the age, educational level, gender and income of consumers. However, consumers in group 2 do not meet these conditions, as they are highly educated people, with high income, of middle aged and low consumption. This behavior can be due to several factors, for example, in Slovakia and Romania34, family size and frequency of honey consumption during childhood are determinants in the consumer profile.
With regard to the motivation to consume honey, it was observed that, in the three groups, the properties of the product and its natural origin are appreciated and they conceive it as a healthy product, these results were similar to those reported in studies carried out in European countries5,9, where they mention that the perception that consumers have about honey is usually more important in the purchase decision than the price it can have in the market. The perception of honey has developed in recent years and was the product of a greater knowledge of consumers about its properties and contributions to human health, so it is now recognized as a natural sweetener, healthy food and there is information on the numerous therapeutic properties it has5. In addition to the above, it is assumed that the educational level of the sample influenced the perception of the consumers surveyed, since, as Lucchese and Gerber16 mentioned, at a higher school level, the discourse of the benefits of honey is oriented to the nutritional aspect, associated with the advantages of consuming vitamins, nutrients and medicinal qualities that contribute to having good health and better quality of life.
A difference that was distinguished between groups was consumption due to family tradition, mainly in groups 2 and 3. In a study conducted on young Poles37, it was mentioned that this type of population consumes honey due to family tradition and the eating habits learned from their families; this same situation occurs with young Mexican consumers, who preserve their eating habits until their adulthood.
The most frequent consumers, who were those of Group 1, showed greater knowledge of the by-products of the hive and they buy honey directly from beekeepers, this result coincided with the behavior of consumers in Croatia, where 75 % of them buy honey directly from producers15. However, the place of purchase of honey provides important information about the consumer and the commercialization of the product. Acquiring it directly from the beekeeper indicates that consumers link foods to a concept of natural goods or services produced by companies in rural areas, with an established socioeconomic identity that they tend to prefer38. On the other hand, the predominance of beekeepers as the main points of sale is confirmed, who maintain an important market share in frequent consumers, in addition to pointing out that honey is marketed without a brand and label, which are extrinsic aspects of quality and are not very relevant for consumers. In this regard, Arvanitoyannis and Kristallis14 pointed out that these consumers are traditional and they acquire quality through criteria based on experience and a personal relationship between consumer and beekeeper.
On the other hand, group 3 showed a greater tendency to buy honey in markets and in a smaller percentage from beekeepers; whereas, for Group 2, a preferred place to make the purchase was not observed, which denotes that this type of consumer does not base its decision criteria on this aspect.
The classification made in this study considered only one segment of the honey market, represented by consumers with university education between 20 and 60 yr of age. These particularities of the study were considered relevant because, in the case of Mexico, there are no studies focused on specific market segments, in addition to the fact that, when conducting the survey on line, the level of participation of this segment of the population has been observed to be higher, as indicated by studies carried out in Romania14 and Croatia15, which highlight the greater participation of consumers with a high educational level in the answering of online surveys.
Although numerous studies on profiles and types of honey consumers have been conducted in other countries13,15,30, in Mexico this has been a little explored topic. The importance of this type of studies is highlighted by the way in which it allows producers to target their product and promote a better commercialization of it. One of the limitations of this study was that variables about tastes and preferences, consumer perception of quality, types of honey and extrinsic characteristics that are appreciated in other countries were not included39. The results obtained represent a first approach to the types of honey consumers for the case of Mexico. Likewise, it is important to conduct this type of analysis for other market segments that allows identifying opportunities for the increase in national honey consumption.
Conclusions and implications
The typology obtained showed the differences that exist between honey consumers with university education in an age range of 20-60 yr in Mexico. This type of consumers is grouped into three groups, the first consists of educated consumers with an average income and they differed from others because they consume honey frequently, have extensive knowledge of the by-products of beekeeping and properties, prefer to buy the product directly from beekeepers. A second group is the one made up of highly educated consumers, having mostly postgraduate degrees and receiving high incomes, these are people of mature age and with a moderate consumption of honey, even when they have knowledge of the properties and qualities of the product. A third of this group only know honey and no other by-product and they are indifferent to the place of purchase. Group 3, which consists of educated consumers with low incomes, groups young consumers who only have a bachelor’s degree, their consumption is moderate, and they prefer to buy the product in markets. Those in group 1 were the most frequent and receptive consumers of honey and, therefore, potential consumers. Therefore, it is necessary to define strategies for promoting the product to inform the positive and healing aspects of honey and thus reinforce their knowledge and purchase decision. The strategy for consumers of groups 2 and 3 should focus on publicizing beekeeping as a sustainable activity, showing the different products derived from honey and the benefits of each by-product. Local honey producers should be aware that the reactivation of the beekeeping sector in Mexico could be achieved through the promotion of domestic consumption. Although the results obtained in this study are not definitive, the findings could have repercussions on producers and marketers, in order to potentiate the consumption of honey in Mexico through effective marketing strategies for each consumer profile. It is recommended to study other market segments, deepen in the analysis of consumption preferences and the influence of motivational and subjective aspects on the consumption of honey in Mexico.
Literatura citada
1. Crane E. A book of honey. USA:Oxford Univ Press; 1980. [ Links ]
2. SIAP. Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera. Cierre de la producción pecuaria (1980-2019). https://nube.siap.gob.mx/cierre_pecuario/. Consultado 10 Nov, 2020. [ Links ]
3. SE. Secretaría de Economía. Sistema de Información Arancelaria Vía Internet. http://www.economia-snci.gob.mx/ . Consultado 12 Nov, 2020. [ Links ]
4. Annunziata A, Scarpato D. Factors affecting consumer attitudes towards food products with sustainable attributes. Agric Econ 2014;60(8):353-363. [ Links ]
5. Testa R, Asciuto A, Schifani G, Schimmenti E, Migliore G. Quality determinants and effect of therapeutic properties in honey consumption. An exploratory study on Italian consumers. Agriculture 2019;9(174):1-12. [ Links ]
6. FAO. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura. FAOSTAT: datos. http://www.fao.org/faostat/es/#home . Consultado 15 Nov, 2020. [ Links ]
7. Pocol CB, Bolboacă SD. Perceptions and trends related to the consumption of honey: A case study of North-West Romania. Int J Consum Stud 2013;37(6):642-649. [ Links ]
8. Gyau A, Akalakou C, Degrande A, Biloso A. Determinants of consumer preferences for honey in the democratic republic of Congo. J Food Prod Mark 2014;20(5):476-490. [ Links ]
9. Kowalczuk I, Jezewska-Zychowicz M, Trafiałek J. Conditions of honey consumption in selected regions of Poland. Acta Sci Pol Technol Aliment 2017;16(1):101-112. [ Links ]
10. Šánová P, Svobodová J, Hrubcová B, Šeráková P. Segmentation of honey buyers’ behaviour by conjoint analysis. Sci Agric Bohem 2017;48(1):55-62. [ Links ]
11. Roman A, Popiela-Pleban E, Kozar M. Factors influencing consumer behavior relating to the purchasing of honey. Part 1. The buying process and the level of consumption. J Apic Sci 2013;57(2):159-172. [ Links ]
12. Badolato M, Carullo G, Cione E, Aiello F, Caroleo MC. From the hive: Honey, a novel weapon against cancer. Eur J Med Chem 2017;142:290-299. [ Links ]
13. Ignjatijević SD, Prodanović RV, Bošković JZ, Puvača NM, Tomaš SMJ, Peulić TA, Đuragić OM. Comparative analysis of honey consumption in Romania, Italy and Serbia. Food Feed Res 2019;46(1):125-136. [ Links ]
14. Arvanitoyannis I, Krystallis A. An empirical examination of the determinants of honey consumption in Romania. Int J Food Sci Technol 2006;41:1164-1176. [ Links ]
15. Brščić K, Šugar T, Poljuha D. An empirical examination of consumer preferences for honey in Croatia. Applied Economics 2017;49(58):5877-5889. [ Links ]
16. Lucchese CT, Gerber RM. Consumo de mel de abelhas: análise dos comportamentos de comensais do Estado de Santa Catarina. Informações Econômicas 2009;39(10):22-31. [ Links ]
17. Magaña MMA, Moguel OYB, Sangines GJR, Leyva MCE. Estructura e importancia de la cadena productiva y comercial de la miel en México. Rev Mex Cienc Pecu 2012;3(1):49-64. [ Links ]
18. González RFJ, Rebollar RS, Hernández MJ, Guzmán SE. La comercialización de la miel en el sur del Estado de México. Rev Mex Agronegocios 2014;34(18):806-815. [ Links ]
19. Tapia CE, Castañeda SMC, Ramírez AJP, Macías MJO, Barajas PJS, Tapia GJS, et al. Caracterización fisicoquímica, contenido fenólico y preferencias de los consumidores de miel de Apis mellífera honey en el Sur de Jalisco, México. Interciencia 2017;24(9):603-609. [ Links ]
20. da Silva SCM, Oliveira AA, Ramos SR, Ibiapina A, Dos Santos AL, De Souza MGA. Tipologia do consumidor de frutos do cerrado. Revista Desafíos 2019;6(Especial):134-139. [ Links ]
21. Téllez-Delgado R, Mora-Flores JS, Martínez-Damián MA, García-Mata R, García-Salazar JA. Caracterización del consumidor de carne bovina en la zona metropolitana del Valle de México. Agrociencia 2012;46(1):75-86. [ Links ]
22. Borja BM, Vélez IA, Ramos GJL. Tipología y diferenciación de productores de guayaba (Psidium guajava l.) en Calvillo, Aguascalientes, México. Región y Sociedad 2018;30(71):1-22. [ Links ]
23. INEGI. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Población total por entidad federativa y grupo quinquenal de edad según sexo, 1990 a 2010. https://www.inegi.org.mx/app/tabulados/interactivos/?px=Poblacion_01&bd=Poblacion . Consultado 12 Feb, 2020. [ Links ]
24. Schnettler MB, Mora GM, Millis QN, Miranda VH; Sepúlveda MJ, Denegri CM, et al. Tipologías de consumidores según el estilo de vida en relación a la alimentación: un estudio exploratorio en el sur de Chile. Rev Chil Nutr 2012;39(4):165-172. [ Links ]
25. Martín MMT, Cabero MQ, Santana YRP. Tratamiento estadístico de datos con SPSS. Madrid, España: Paraninfo; 2007. [ Links ]
26. Díaz de Rada IV. Diseño de tipologías de consumidores mediante la utilización conjunta del análisis clúster y otras técnicas multivariantes. Economía Agraria 1998;(182):75-104. [ Links ]
27. Vivanco AM, Martínez CFJ, Taddei BIC. Análisis de la competitividad de cuatro sistemas producto estatales de tilapia en México. Estud Soc 2010;18(35):167-207. [ Links ]
28. Ferrán-Aranaz, M. SPSS para Windows. Análisis estadístico. México: McGraw-Hill; 2001. [ Links ]
29. IBM Corporation. SPSS software. https://www.ibm.com/mx-es/analytics/spss-statistics-software. [ Links ]
30. Pocol CB, Teselios CM. Socio-economic determinants of honey consumption in Romania. J Food Agric Environ 2012;10:18-21. [ Links ]
31. Pocol, CB. Modelling the honey consumption behaviour in Romania by using socio-demographic determinants. Afr J Agric Res 2011;6:4069-4080. [ Links ]
32. Guziy S, Šedík P, Horská E. Comparative study of honey consumption in Slovakia and Russia. Potravin Slovak J Food Sci 2017;11(1):472-479. [ Links ]
33. Ismaiel S, Kahtani S, Adgaba N, Al-Ghamdi A, Zulail A. Factors that affect consumption patterns and market demands for honey in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Food Nutr Sci 2014;5:1725-1737. [ Links ]
34. Šedík P, Pocol CB, Horská E, Fiore M. Honey: ¿food or medicine? A comparative study between Slovakia and Romania. British Food J 2019;121(6):1281-1297. [ Links ]
35. Zhang S, Lu Z, Chunling T, Zhang Q, Liu L, Meng G, Yao Z, et al. Associations between honey consumption and prehypertension in adults aged 40 years and older. Clinical Exper Hyper 2020;42(5):420-427. [ Links ]
36. Münstedt K, Männle H, Riepen T. Survey of reasons why women utilize honey therapeutically, and reasons for not utilizing honey. Heliyon 2020;6(10):1-5. [ Links ]
37. Żak, N. Honey market in the opinion of young consumers. Handel Wewnętrzny 2017;366(1):424-438. [ Links ]
38. Wilkins JL, Bowdish E, Sobal J. Consumer perceptions of seasonal and local foods: A study in a US community. Ecology Food Nutr 2002;41(5):415-439. [ Links ]
39. Cosmina M, Gallenti G, Marangon F, Troiano S. Attitudes towards honey among Italian consumers: A choice experiment approach. Appetite 2016;99:52-58. [ Links ]
Received: June 11, 2021; Accepted: March 07, 2022