Journal List > J Nutr Health > v.48(1) > 1081376

TOOLS
Jeong and Chae: A survey of eco-foodservice perception and satisfaction of elementary school parents in Jeju∗
Research Article

J Nutr Health 2015;48(1):105-112.

Published online: 19 January 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4163/jnh.2015.48.1.105

A survey of eco-foodservice perception and satisfaction of elementary school parents in Jeju∗

Mi-Hui Jeong1, In-Sook Chae2, †

1Pyoseon Middle School, Jeju 699-914, Korea

2Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Jeju National University, Jeju 690-756, Korea

†To whom correspondence should be addressed. tel: +82-64-754-3557, e-mail: ischae@jejunu.ac.kr

∗ This research was supported by the 2014 scientific promotion program funded by Jeju National University.

Received 18 December 2014       Revised 5 January 2015       Accepted 11 January 2015

Copyright © 2015 Korean Nutrition Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose:

This study analyzed the eco-foodservice perception and satisfaction of 344 elementary school parents in Jeju surveyed from February 1~12, 2010, with the aim of providing basic data for quality improvement of eco-foodservice in Jeju.

Methods:

The data were analyzed by descriptive analysis, χ2-test, t-test, ANOVA, and Pearson's correlation coefficients, using the SPSS Win program (version 12.0).

Results:

Regarding awareness of eco-friendly food materials of subjects, average score was 3.52 points (out of 5 scales) and ‘difference between eco-friendly and general agricultural products (3.76)’ showed the highest score whereas ‘assurance standard and label of eco-friendly agricultural products (3.31)’ showed the lowest score. In terms of the recognition of eco-foodservice implementation, 75.0% of parents were aware of it. Regarding the eco-foodservice satisfaction of the subjects, average score was 3.88 points (out of 5 scales) and food safety (3.98 points) showed the highest score whereas food taste (3.70 points) showed the lowest score. The eco-foodservice perception of subjects showed positive correlation with their eco-foodservice satisfaction.

Conclusion:

It is necessary for the government and the local government to provide continuing education for school parents in order to enhance their perception of eco-friendly food materials. In addition, systematic and appropriate government support is needed in order to ensure internal stability of eco-foodservice.

Keywords: eco-foodservice, perception, satisfaction, eco-friendly food materials

REFERENCES

1.Yim KS., Lee TY., Kim CI., Choi KS., Lee JH., Kweoun SJ., Kim MO. Strategies to improve nutritional management in primary school lunch program. J Korean Diet Assoc. 2004. 10(2):235–245.
2.Im JB. Necessity for introducing agricultural production traceability system and policy implications. J Agric Life Sci. 2004. 38(3):1–8.
3.Kim YJ. Operating status and improvement scheme of the environment friendly school lunch program in elementary school of Jeonju city [MA thesis]. Iksan: Wonkwang University;2008.
4.Lee YS. Park MJ. Parental perception and satisfaction with environment-friendly agricultural products used for school foodservice in elementary schools in Daejeon. Korean J Food Cult. 2008. 23(6):737–747.
5.Kwak MJ., Kim KN. Perception and consumption of environment-friendly farm products (EP) among the parents of children in the schools where EP had been used or never been used in their food-service. J Hum Ecol. 2012. 16(1):85–94.
6.Shin MS., Kim BR. An awareness of environment-friendly farm produce in parents and nutrition teachers. J Sci Educ. 2008. 3:67–85.
7.Kim NR., Cho YS., Kim SA. Satisfaction and recognition level of environment-friendly agricultural products in Cheongju area. Korean J Community Nutr. 2011. 16(1):75–85.
crossref
8.Heo SW. Development process and strategies for school lunch program using environmentally friendly agri-products. Korean J Org Agric. 2006. 14:41–53.
9.Jeju Special Self-Governing Provincial Office of Education. Carried into school meals. Jeju: Jeju Special Self-Governing Provincial Office of Education;2010.
10.Jeju Special Self-Governing Provincial Office of Education. 2010 eco-friendly agricultural school lunch briefing. Jeju: Jeju Special Self-Governing Provincial Office of Education;2010.
11.Spread of eco-conscious school meals through the verdant farm experiential learning. Ara Junior Model School Report. Jeju: Ara Junior Model School;2004.
12.Lee HJ. A study on perception and satisfaction of students and parents with school lunch using eco-friendly agricultural products [MA thesis]. Busan: Silla University;2009.
13.Eco-friendly agricultural school meals Jeju Solidarity. Report of survey for students, parents, and nutritionists of school foodservice in Jeju. Jeju: Eco-friendly agricultural school meals Jeju Solidarity;2008.
14.Lee JE., Heo SW. An analysis on the satisfaction and additional cost scale of environmental-friendly agri-product school meal program. Korean J Org Agric. 2005. 13(2):145–159.
15.Kim KA., Kwak TK., Lee KE. Food purchasing and quality management practices in school food service. J Korean Diet Assoc. 2006. 12(4):329–341.

Table 1.
Descriptive characteristics of subjects
  Item Frequency Percentage
Gender Male 77 22.4
Female 267 77.6
Living region Rural 136 39.5
Urban 208 60.5
Age ≤ 39 73 21.3
40-45 194 56.6
46-49 60 17.5
50 ≤ 16 4.7
Education ≤ Middle school 20 5.9
High school 177 52.5
College 58 17.2
Graduate ≤ ≤ 79 23.4
Etc. 3 0.9
Monthly income (10,000 won) <100 93 27.6
100 - <200 105 31.2
200 - <300 83 24.6
300 - <400 36 10.7
400 - <500 12 3.6
500 ≤ 8 2.4
Table 2.
Perception of eco-friendly food materials by subjects Mean ± SD
Item Total Gender Living region
Male Female t-value Rural Urban t-value
Various kinds of eco-friendly agricultural products1) 3.51 ± 0.81 3.61 ± 0.83 3.48 ± 0.75 1.352 3.58 ± 0.76 3.46 ± 0.78 1.462
Assurance standard and label of eco- friendly agricultural products1) 3.31 ± 0.86 3.29 ± 0.94 3.26 ± 0.77 0.256 3.22 ± 0.81 3.29 ± 0.81 -0.774
Check of quality mark or the origin of agri- cultural products2) 3.45 ± 0.88 3.31 ± 0.92 3.49 ± 0.84 -1.641 3.50 ± 0.83 3.42 ± 0.89 0.186
Difference between eco-friendly and general agricultural products1) 3.76 ± 0.67 3.97 ± 0.73 3.86 ± 0.63 1.384 3.79 ± 0.70 3.94 ± 0.61 -2.016∗
Average 3.52 ± 0.81 3.55 ± 0.66 3.52 ± 0.56 0.304 3.52 ± 0.61 3.53 ± 0.57 -0.097

1) 5-point likert scale (1: don't know at all, 5: know very well)

2) 5-point likert scale (1: don't confirm at all, 5: always confirm)

∗ : p < 0.05

Table 3.
Reliability and supply method of eco-friendly food material by subjects N (%)
Item Total Gender Living region
Male Female χ2-value Rural Urban χ2-value
Reliability Not at all 4 (1.2) 1 (1.3) 3 (1.1) 4.988 0 (0.0) 4 (1.9) 4.983
Little 12 (3.5) 3 (3.9) 9 (3.4) 4 (2.9) 8 (3.8)
Not know 54 (15.7) 13 (16.9) 41 (15.4) 19 (14.0) 35 (16.8)
Much 245 (71.2) 49 (63.6) 196 (73.4) 104 (76.5) 141 (67.8)
Firmly 29 (8.4) 11 (14.3) 18 (6.7) 9 (6.6) 20 (9.6)
Sub total 344 (100.0) 77 (100.0) 267 (100.0) 136 (100.0) 208 (100.0)
Supply method Food material distribution company 48 (14.0) 11 (14.3) 37 (13.9) 2.049 17 (12.5) 31 (15.0) 2.263
Farmer's market 264 (77.0) 57 (74.0) 207 (77.8) 103 (75.7) 161 (77.8)
Producers' cooperatives 27 (7.9) 7 (9.1) 20 (7.5) 14 (10.3) 13 (6.3)
Etc. 4 (1.2) 2 (2.6) 2 (0.8) 2 (1.5) 2 (1.0)
Total 343 (100.0) 77 (100.0) 266 (100.0) 136 (100.0) 207 (100.0)

∗: p < 0.05

Table 4.
Perception and channel of eco-foodservice by subjects N (%)
  Item Total Gender Living region
Male Female χ2-value Rural Urban χ2-value
Perception of eco-foodservice implementation Not know 86 (25.0) 25 (32.5) 61 (22.8)   35 (25.7) 51 (24.5)  
Know 258 (75.0) 52 (67.5) 206 (77.2) 2.950 101 (74.3) 157 (75.5) 0.065
Total 344 (100.0) 77 (100.0) 267 (100.0)   136 (100.0) 208 (100.0)  
Perception of eco-foodservice cost support Not know 160 (46.5) 40 (51.9) 120 (44.9)   56 (41.2) 104 (50.0)  
Know 184 (53.5) 37 (48.1) 147 (55.1) 1.179 80 (58.8) 104 (50.0) 2.537
Total 344 (100.0) 77 (100.0) 267 (100.0)   136 (100.0) 208 (100.0)  
Perception channel School announcement 209 (81.3) 45 (86.5) 164 (80.0)   80 (77.7) 129 (83.8)  
Mass media 11 (4.3) 2 (3.8) 9 (4.4)   4 (3.9) 7 (4.5)  
School visit 24 (9.3) 1 (1.9) 23 (11.2) 4.979 12 (11.7) 12 (7.8) 2.355
Etc. 13 (5.1) 4 (7.7) 9 (4.4)   7 (6.8) 6 (3.9)  
Total 257 (100.0) 52 (100.0) 205 (100.0)   103 (100.0) 154 (100.0)  

∗ : p < 0.05

Table 5.
Opinion of eco-foodservice by subjects N (%)
  Item Total Gender χ2-value
Male Female
Agreement of eco-foodservice No 6 (1.7) 2 (2.5) 4 (1.5) 0.898
Yes 339 (98.3) 76 (97.4) 263 (98.5)
Total 345 (100.0) 78 (100.0) 267 (100.0)
Agreement reasons of eco-foodservice Health and safety 295 (87.0) 64 (84.2) 231 (87.8) 2.042
Help of farmers' income 19 (5.6) 4 (5.3) 15 (5.7)
Better quality than imported products 24 (7.1) 8 (10.5) 16 (6.1)
Etc. 1 (0.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.4)
Total 339 (100.0) 76 (100.0) 263 (100.0)
Payment of extra money for eco-foodservice No 44 (12.8) 9 (11.7) 35 (13.1) 3.299
Will think 188 (54.7) 39 (50.6) 149 (55.8)
Yes 106 (30.8) 26 (33.8) 80 (30.0)
Be indifferent 6 (1.7) 3 (3.9) 3 (1.1)
Total 344 (100.0) 77 (100.0) 267 (100.0)

∗ : p < 0.05

Table 6.
Satisfaction with eco-foodservice by subjects Mean ± SD
Item1) Total Gender Living region
Male Female t-value Rural Urban t-value
Food taste 3.70 ± 0.79 3.75 ± 0.83 3.69 ± 0.77 0.641 3.54 ± 0.74 3.81 ± 0.80 -3.109∗∗
Food quality 3.89 ± 0.74 3.91 ± 0.83 3.89 ± 0.71 0.229 3.76 ± 0.70 3.98 ± 0.75 -2.798∗∗
Healthful food materials 3.91 ± 0.79 3.96 ± 0.91 3.89 ± 0.75 0.689 3.74 ± 0.76 4.01 ± 0.78 -3.195∗∗
Food safety 3.98 ± 0.74 4.00 ± 0.86 3.97 ± 0.70 0.276 3.87 ± 0.70 4.05 ± 0.75 -2.153∗
Appropriate nutrition 3.94 ± 0.75 3.83 ± 0.83 3.97 ± 0.72 -1.477 3.79 ± 0.73 4.04 ± 0.74 -3.167∗∗
Average 3.88 ± 0.66 3.89 ± 0.78 3.88 ± 0.63 .096 3.74 ± 0.63 3.98 ± 0.66 -3.327∗

5-point Likert scale (1: not satisfied at all, 5: satisfied very much)

∗ : p < 0.05, ∗∗ : p < 0.01

Table 7.
Change of satisfaction of eco-foodservice by subjects N (%)
Item1) Total Gender Living region
Male Female χ2-value Rural Urban χ2-value
Increase 183 (55.0) 46 (59.7) 143 (54.4) 3.820 67 (50.0) 122 (59.2) 4.767
As it is 141 (42.3) 27 (35.1) 115 (43.7) 65 (48.5) 77 (37.4)
Decrease 9 (2.7) 4 (5.2) 5 (1.9) 2 (1.5) 7 (3.4)
Total 333 (100.0) 77 (100.0) 263 (100.0) 134 (100.0) 206 (100.0)

∗ : p < 0.05

Table 8.
Reasons of satisfaction increase of eco-foodservice by subjects N = 190
Item Frequency Percentage
Quality improvement of foodservice by food materials 50 26.3
Improvement of food taste 5 2.6
Offering safe foods 134 70.5
Etc. 1 0.5
Total 190 100.0
Table 9.
Correlation with satisfaction and perception of eco-foodservice and eco-friendly food materials of subjects
Item Perception of eco-friendly food materials Perception of eco-foodservice Satisfaction of eco-foodservice
Perception of eco-friendly food materials 1    
Perception of eco-foodservice 0.243∗∗ 1  
Satisfaction of eco-foodservice 0.287∗∗ 0.254∗∗ 1

∗ : p < 0.05, ∗∗ : p < 0.01

TOOLS
Similar articles