Comparison of the age structure of the survey respondents and the urban population of Tirana, 2011Tabelle 5_ Altersstruktur der Stichprobe und der gesamten Stadtbevölkerung von Tirana, 2011
| Age Category (Years) | Frequency | Sample Structure (%) | Tirana Population Structure (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18–30 | 58 | 23.2 | 19.2 |
| 30–40 | 49 | 19.6 | 18.2 |
| 40–50 | 49 | 19.6 | 18.9 |
| 50–60 | 59 | 23.6 | 21.8 |
| More than 60 | 35 | 14.0 | 22.7 |
| Total | 250 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Example of a choice taskTabelle 4_ Beispiel einer Auswahlaufgabe
| If these were your only options, which would you choose? Choose by putting an X under the preferred alternative. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Origin | Labëria | Tropojë | Korçë | |
| Floral Type | Multi-flower honey | Chestnut honey | Multi-flower honey | |
| Location/Landscape | Close to residential areas | Close to residential areas | In mountainous forest and pastures | |
| None | ||||
| Price (ALL/kg) | 1600 | 1000 | 1300 | |
Honey attributes and their levels in AlbaniaTabelle 3_ Eigenschaften von Honig und deren Level in Albanien
| Attributes | Levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Origin | Tropojë | Korçë | Labëria |
| Type | Chestnuts type | Multi-flower type | Multi-flower type |
| Location-landscape | Close to residential areas | In mountainous forests and pastures | Close to residential areas |
| Price (ALL3/kg ) | 1000 | 1300 | 1600 |
Market segmentation for honeyTabelle 7_ Marktsegmentierung für Honig
| Segment size (%) | Class 1 | Class 2 | Class 3 | Class 4 |
| Multi-flower | Quality | Mountainous Tropojë fans | Economic | |
| 26.7 | 19.2 | 15.7 | 38.4 | |
| Importance of attributes (%) | ||||
| Origin | 23.1 | 7.8 | 77.2 | 44.2 |
| Type | 6.7 | 36.2 | 4.8 | 12.3 |
| Location | 66.8 | 5.2 | 12.9 | 3.5 |
| Price | 3.4 | 50.8 | 5.1 | 40.0 |
| Part Worth Utility | ||||
| Origin | ||||
| Tropojë | 0.56349*** | 0.14887** | 3.13669*** | −0.34951*** |
| Korçë | −0.04972 | 0.08934 | −1.83438*** | 0.44005*** |
| Labëria | −0.51377*** | −0.23821*** | −1.30231*** | −0.09054** |
| Type | ||||
| Chestnuts type | −0.15603** | −0.89917*** | 0.15208 | 0.11046*** |
| Multi-flower type | 0.15603** | 0.89917*** | −0.15208 | −0.11046*** |
| Location-landscape | ||||
| Near to residential areas | −1.55979*** | −0.12875** | −0.41545** | −0.03107 |
| In mountainous forests and pastures | 1.55979*** | 0.12875** | 0.41545** | 0.03107 |
| Price | 0.0801 | 1.26277*** | 0.16705 | −0.35738 |
| None of the Options | −37.3058*** | −4.76935*** | −1.29179*** | −5.11288*** |
Main indicators for honey production sector in 2001–2015Tabelle 1_ Hauptindikatoren des Sektors der Honigproduktion in den Jahren 2001–2005
| Category | 2001 | 2005 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Production (t) | 1,183 | 1,816 | 2,886 | 2,898 | 3,000 | 3,000 | 3,000 | 3,200 |
| Import (t) | 16 | 42 | 24 | 21 | 34 | 28 | 32 | 33 |
| Export (t) | 0 | 0 | 10 | 20 | 10 | 13 | 0 | 0 |
| Domestic supply (t) | 1,199 | 1,858 | 2,900 | 2,899 | 3,024 | 3,015 | 3,032 | 3,233 |
| Import/supply (%) | 1.3 | 2.3 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Export/production (%) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Class composition of respondentsTabelle 8_ Klassenaufbau der Befragten
| Consumer Class | Gender | Age (Years) | Education | Employment Status | Family Monthly Income (000 ALL) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | Women | Up to 30 | 30–40 | 40–50 | 50–60 | Above 60 | Elementary | High school | University | Unemployed | Student | Self-employed | Employed | Retired | 0–300 | 301–600 | 601–900 | 901–1,200 | 1,201–1,600 | 1,601–2,000 | |
| Multi-flower honey fans | −4.2** | 4.2* | 2.5 | 1.9 | −4.1 | −1.8 | 1.6 | 1.2 | −5.0** | 3.8* | 2.7 | 0.6 | −0.4 | −5.0 | 2.1 | 2.6 | −3.8** | 2.6 | −3.9** | 1.8 | 0.7 |
| Quality oriented class | −2.3 | 2.3 | 0.1 | 1.8 | 4.8* | −2.1 | −4.6** | −2.5 | −0.1 | 2.5 | −5.5** | 2.2 | 0.5 | 5.9* | −3.1** | −1.7 | −2.0 | −4.1** | 6.0* | 0.7 | 1.1 |
| Mountainous Tropojë fans | 3.7* | −3.7** | 1.0 | −2.6 | −1.6 | 2.8 | 0.5 | −1.5 | −0.5 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 2.3 | −2.2 | −1.4 | −0.4 | −4.3** | 6.8* | −0.5 | −0.9 | −0.8 |
| Chestnuts Korçë fans | 2.9* | −2.9** | −3.5** | −1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 2.4 | 2.7 | 5.5* | −8.3** | 2.3 | −3.8** | −2.3 | 1.3 | 2.5 | −0.5 | 10.0* | −5.3** | −1.6 | −1.7 | −0.9 |
| p | 0.006 | p | 0.003 | p | 0.004 | p | 0.003 | p | 0.002 | ||||||||||||
| z | −2.73 | z | −3.02 | z | −2.87 | z | −3.02 | z | −3.08 | ||||||||||||
Stages of a conjoint choice experiment and analysis carried for honeyTabelle 2_ Phasen eines diskretes Auswahlexperiments und einer Analyse für Honig
| Stage | Description |
|---|---|
| Selection of attributes | Attributes were selected based on a focus group with stakeholders in the honey sector and an extensive literature review. |
| Assignment of attribute levels | Attribute levels were determined based on the literature review and a (second) focus group comprised of stakeholders in the honey sector. |
| Construction of choice sets | The SSI Web program using the random method that incorporated orthogonal array was used to create the profiles in the survey. |
| Data collection | The survey was conducted via face-to-face interviews. |
| Data analysis | Data is analyzed with a latent class approach using Latent Gold 4.0 software. |
Summary statistics of latent class analysis of honey preferences of respondents by groupTabelle 6_ Zusammenfassende Statistik der Befragten nach Gruppen
| Groups | Replication | Pct Cert | CAIC | Chi Square | Rel Chi Sq |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 4 | 31.82 | 5788.18 | 2646.67 | 203.59 |
| 3 | 1 | 37.98 | 5338.84 | 3159.05 | 157.95 |
| 4 | 4 | 42.76 | 5003.86 | 3557.08 | 131.74 |
| 5 | 4 | 45.95 | 4801.66 | 3822.32 | 112.42 |