See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351637750

Determinants of Consumer Patronage of Food Vendors in Nigeria

Article · May 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 1,608

4 authors, including:

Anyasor Marcus John Chidume Anetoh

Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University
25 PUBLICATIONS 66 CITATIONS 53 PUBLICATIONS 77 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Anyasor Marcus on 17 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Research E-ISSN 2545-5303 P-ISSN 2695-2203
Vol 7. No. 3 2021 www.iiardpub.org

Determinants of Consumer Patronage of Food Vendors in Nigeria

Edwin Okey Umeanyika,

Department of Marketing,
Federal Polytechnic Oko,
Anambra State of Nigeria.

Peace Azuka Eze (Ph.D), Okwuchukwu Marcus Anyasor (Ph.D) & John Chidume
Anetoh (Ph.D)
Department of Marketing,
Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University,
Igbariam Campus, Anambra State of Nigeria.
E-mail: jc.anetoh@coou.edu.ng.
Phone no: +2348035008735

Abstract
This research work investigated the determinants of consumer patronage of food vendors in
Nigeria with reference to south eastern part of Nigeria. The specific objectives of the study
were to investigate the influence of food familiarity, price and vendor’s physical environment
on consumer patronage of food vendors. The study adopted a descriptive survey research
design. The population size was unknown while the sample size was 384. Primary source of
data was used while the instrument of data collection was the questionnaire. The validity and
reliability of the research instrument were checked and established. The study used a
convenient sampling technique in reaching the respondents. Multiple regression statistical
technique was used to test the formulated hypotheses at 5% level of significance. The finding
showed that menu familiarity and price had positive significant influences on consumer
patronage. The finding also showed that vendor’s physical environment had no significant
influence on consumer patronage. The findings of the study have many implications to the
stakeholders, policy makers, marketers, consumers, potential vendors and future researchers.
The study recommended that street food vendors should continue to provide familiar menu
options in order to boost consumer’s patronage. It was also recommended that food vendors
should continue to provide menu at affordable price in order to increase consumer patronage.
The study also recommended that the physical environment of the vendor’s sales outlets should
be more clean, appealing, neat and modern as these will help to increase consumer patronage
of food vendors in south-eastern part of Nigeria.

Key words: Determinants, Familiarity, Price, Vendor’s Physical Environment, Patronage

Introduction
With the present geometric growth of Nigerian population, there has been an increase in street
food businesses. The tremendous rise is necessitated due to the fact that Nigeria is one of the
fastest growing countries in the world; expected to be the fourth by 2050; surpassing countries
like Japan, Brazil and Pakistan (Shoyemi, 2014). Thus, the increase in population is a good
market opportunity for food business. Furthermore, Shoyemi, (2014) maintained that increased
urbanization and changing work roles contribute significantly to the growth of restaurants and
fast food in Nigeria. As the demand for food outside from home increases, there is opportunity
for growth in the eatery and restaurant industry (Olise, Okoli & Ekeke, 2015). Pertinently,
south eastern part of Nigeria, especially Igbo ethnic group formed the economic stronghold of

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 26

 International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Research E-ISSN 2545-5303 P-ISSN 2695-2203
Vol 7. No. 3 2021 www.iiardpub.org

Nigeria since they have tight trade schedule (Orugun & Nafiu, 2014). Some people do
businesses outside their house and may not have enough time to eat food from their
house. Pertinently, the south eastern part of Nigeria represents an admirable target market
where street food vendors can proactively take the initiative in a highly competitive dining
world. Food choice is not only influenced by food quality but also by price, being familiar with
the type of food served as well as vendor’s physical environment.

Street food is very important in Nigeria because of relative low nature of earnings by Nigerian
consumers. Contributing, Olise, Okoli & Ekeke (2015) maintained that food businesses can be
seen in every part of Nigeria especially in South-East. Regrettably, the rate at which food
vendor businesses shut down operations has increased (Olise, Okoli & Ekeke, 2015).
Furthermore, Knutson et al. (2016) revealed that the food industry has a high failure rate of
over sixty percent within the first three years of opening. The reason for this is that some food
vendors were unable to retain and attract more customers which have led to low sales and
profitability. The type of food offered varies according to the buyers’ socioeconomic status and
their environment. Apparently, street vendors not only play a major role in providing food for
the population but also serve as a source of livelihood for the vendors. Importantly, street foods
contribute significantly to the diets of many people in the developing world (Suneetha, Manjula
& Depur, 2011). In addition, the sale of street foods supports the livelihoods of millions of
people and it make a sizeable contribution to the economies of developing countries
(FAO, 2013). Undoubtedly, a good food vendor must be conversant with what consumers need
and desired when dining out. Undoubtedly,, price of food, also, influence, the, choice, of,
restaurant, among, the, low, income, earners., Furthermore,, price, was, shown, to, be,
important, in, the, selection, of, a, food, service, in, the, majority, of, the, studies, that,
investigated, it (for instance, Baek,, Ham,,Yang, 2006). Interestingly, the, physical,
environment, itself, may, produce, feelings, of, excitement, pleasure and,
relaxation.,Consequently,, different, aspects, of, atmospherics cues, can be, used, by,
customers, as, tangible,indicators to, assess, the, quality, of, services, provided., Furthermore,
being familiar, with, a product, is, strongly, and, positively, associated, with, a consumer
attitude, toward, it (Pieniak,, Verbeke,, Vanhonacker,, Guerrero, &, Hersleth,,2009).

Nevertheless, there are scanty empirical studies on factors that influence consumer patronage
of street food vendors. Extant literature has indicated that only few studies exist on propellers
of consumer patronage of food vendors (Knutson, 2010; Ehsan, 2012; Adam, Hiamey &
Afenyo, 2014; Deliens, Clarys, De Bourdeaudhuij and Deforche, 2014). Although Blešić,
Popov-Raljić, Pivac and Ivkov (2018) studied college students’ dining motives, expectations
and perceptions; Ukenna and Ayodele (2019) analyzed sustainable street food consumption
domain while Ayodele and Panama (2016) conducted a research on street food
vendors’ patronage but these studies had varying findings. Notwithstanding that a few
empirical literature on street food consumption exist but only hygienic factors and other issues
were addressed (Singh, Dudeja, Kaushal & Mukherji, 2016). Most studies did not capture the
influence of price, menu familiarity and ambience on street food vendor patronage in south east
of Nigeria For instance, Soriano (2002), concentrated his study on food quality and quality of
service delivery of restaurant busin-esses.,Furthermore, Namkung, and,Jang (2007),study
concentrated on food quality and consumer satisfaction. Based on these imbalances in the
literature, there is need for further empirical studies concerning motives that influence
consumer patronage of street food vendors. Therefore, this study sought to investigate the
determining motives and their influences on consumer patronage of street food vendors in south
east of Nigeria. Specifically, the researcher sought to ascertain the extent menu familiarity,

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 27

 International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Research E-ISSN 2545-5303 P-ISSN 2695-2203
Vol 7. No. 3 2021 www.iiardpub.org

price and vendor’s physical environment influence consumer patronage of street food vendors
in South East of Nigeria.

Objective of the study

The main objective of this study is to investigate the determinants of consumer patronage of
food vendors in Nigeria. The specific objectives of this study are to;
1. Investigate the influence of menu familiarity on consumer patronage of street food
vendors in South-East Nigeria.
2. Determine the influence of price on consumer patronage of street food vendors in
South-East Nigeria.
3. Assess the influence of vendor’s physical environment on consumer patronage of street
food vendors in South-East Nigeria.

Research questions
Based on the objectives of this study, the following research questions were raised;
1) To what level does menu familiarity influence consumer patronage of street food
vendors in South-East Nigeria?
2) To what extent does price influence consumer patronage of street food vendors in
South-East Nigeria?
3) To what dimension does vendor’s physical environment influence consumer patronage
of street food vendors in South-East Nigeria?

Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were formulated to guide this study.
H1: Menu familiarity does not have a significant influence on consumer patronage of street
food vendors in South-East Nigeria.
H2: Price has no significant influence on consumer patronage of street food vendors in South-
East Nigeria.
H3: Vendor’s physical environment does not have a significant influence on consumer
patronage of street food vendors in South-East Nigeria.

Literature Review
Menu Familiarity
Menu familiarity is seemed to be one of unique constructs that has not been given adequate
attention in the literature. Pieniak, Verbeke, Vanhonacker, Guerrero and Hersleth (2009)
studied the effect of familiarity on attitude of consumer towards traditional food. They found
that familiarity with product is strongly and positively associated with attitude toward
traditional food. In addition, Pieniak, Verbeke, Vanhonacker, Guerrero & Hersleth (2015)
reported that menu or meal familiarity plays significant role in influencing consumer patronage
of street food. Also Tian (2011) stated that food consumption habits and patterns are
components of culture that make an important contribution to the food decision consumers
make. In a similar vein, foods of other cultures are accepted if they have familiar ingredients
and preparation styles (Trafialek, Drosinos & Kolanowski, 2017). This seems to suggest that
being familiar with a particular food or menu is strongly and positively associated with
consumer patronage intentions. Therefore, menu familiarity is seen as a significant factor that
influences consumer patronage of street food.

Price
Price is the attribute that influences the choice of street food vendors or restaurant among the
low income earners. Thus, price was shown to be important in the selection of a food service
IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 28
 International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Research E-ISSN 2545-5303 P-ISSN 2695-2203
Vol 7. No. 3 2021 www.iiardpub.org

in the majority of the studies that investigated it. For instance, Baek, Ham, Yang, (2006)
showed that Korean and Filipino consumers alleged price to be the most relevant factor in the
choice of a restaurant. Mill (2017) observed that price is another factor restaurant patrons take
into account when selecting a restaurant. If they perceive that the value is less than the price
paid, they are likely to evaluate the dining experience negatively. In the same vein, Mulles and
Woods (2004) asserted that restaurant consumers use price as a measure for the quality of the
restaurant, assuming that an expensive restaurant serves better food and offers between quality.
Also, Sweeny et al. (2012) commented that a low price may increase the probability of
choosing a particular restaurant, while a low price may also decrease consumer perceptions of
restaurants quality. In addition, Knutson, (2010) found that price is the third most important
factor in the selection of fast-food restaurants. However, in other studies, (Liu and Jang, 2009;
Mattila, 2001; Park, 2004), price was considered to be an attribute of major importance when
compared to other factors. Furthermore, price is one of the attribute that positively influence
the patronage of vendor’s sales outlets especially among the low income earners. Menu price
is very important in the selection of a food selling outlets in many studies that investigated it
(Atinkut et al., 2018).

Vendor’s physical environment

Scholars have expressed interest in the role of physical environment, or “atmospherics” on
customer patronage (Kotler & Armstrong, 2012). The physical environment itself may produce
feelings of excitement, pleasure, or relaxation. Consequently, various aspects of atmospherics
may be used by customers as tangible cues to assess the quality of services provided. A range
of atmospheric elements within a service setting include visual and auditory cues such as
function, space, design, color, and music. The atmosphere of an establishment is shown to be
a relevant factor that influences the choice of eatery outlet (Laroche, Takahashi, Kalamas and
Teng, 2005). However, Jang, Kim and Bonn (2011) only found moderate importance of
atmospheric condition. In a comparative study, Stewart, Blisard, Jolliffe and SanjibBhuyan,
(2005) found that the significance of the vendor’s physical environment is positively related to
fine-dining restaurant, and also significantly related to fast-food restaurants. Also, dining
atmospherics has significant effects on customers’ positive emotions, negative emotions, and
perceived value (Liu & Jang, 2009). Furthermore, Tan and Yeap (2012) observed that this
attribute was highly perceived by consumers in selecting family and fine-dining type
restaurants, but not in the choice of quick service ones. Kim, Raab and Bergman, (2010) also
found that this factor was more important in the choice of fine-dining and casual-dining
restaurants than in those of the buffet type. Blešić, Popov-Raljić, Pivac and Ivkov (2018) found
that vendor’s physical environment is positively related to street food vending patronage
intention as well as patronage behaviour. Importantly, physical environment is seemed to drive
street food vendors’ consumer patronage.

Consumer Patronage
Consumer patronage is a predilection to be purchasing a particular brand of a product or to
purchase at a particular sales outlet (Yuen & Chen, 2010). It is a repurchase decision that a
consumer is unwavering to buy from a particular food vendor or a specific menu even at a
higher price than it is worth. Menu familiarity and price appear to have major influences on
consumer patronage. Consumer patronage is the after effects of choice according to some
dependable criteria (Resnik, 2000). Paswan et al. (2010) capture that consumer patronage
behavior can be measured in many ways such as; loyalty intention, amount of money spent,
repeat purchase, number of visits, satisfaction level, duration taken, time and quantity of goods
bought. In addition, food vendors benefit by understanding the various factors that influence
consumer patronage behavior by getting more sales, repeat purchase and customer loyalty.
IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 29
 International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Research E-ISSN 2545-5303 P-ISSN 2695-2203
Vol 7. No. 3 2021 www.iiardpub.org

Yeun and Chen (2010) found that consumer patronage behavior can be influenced by location,
atmosphere, meal familiarity, price, and food quality. Thang and Tan (2003) maintained that
consumers patronize street food outlet based on positive and acceptable factors and
experiences.

Proposed Conceptual Model for the Study

Menu
familiarity

Price Consumer
patronage

Vendor’s
physical
environment

Figure 1: Proposed Conceptual Model for the Study.

Source: Researchers’ Schematics (2021).

METHODOLOGY
The study adopted a survey research design. The target population of the study comprised the
consumers of food vendors in south-east of Nigeria while the population is unknown. The
sample size of 384 was statistically determined using Yamane formula for known population
size. The study utilized a convenience sampling technique. The source of data collection was
the use of primary source using self-administered copies of the questionnaire. The
questionnaire items were developed from the literature and the measurement scale adapted
from the previous studies and modified to suit the context of this research work. The
questionnaire items for each construct were pilot tested and revalidated due to alterations made
to the measurement instrument. The Likert’s scale style of structured questionnaire was
adopted. The data collection lasted for 68 days at different times of the day as suggested by
(Kok & Fon, 2014). The average reliability alpha coefficient value of 0.724 proved the internal
consistency of the instrument which made it reliable for the main survey. In addition, the face
validity of the instrument was done by three research experts who ensured the soundness of the
research instrument. Three hundred and eight four copies of the questionnaire were distributed
to consumers of food vendors of thirty selected outlets across the state capitals of five south-
eastern states (Abakaliki, Awka, Enugu, Owerri and Umuahia). A multiple regression analysis
statistical tool was used to test the hypotheses formulated for the study which was facilitated
using SPSS software package. In addition, three hypotheses were tested and decision made
based on 5% level of significance. The decision rule benchmark for the acceptance or rejection

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 30

 International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Research E-ISSN 2545-5303 P-ISSN 2695-2203
Vol 7. No. 3 2021 www.iiardpub.org

of the hypothesis is to accept the alternative hypothesis if the p-value is ≤ 0.05; otherwise,
reject the alternative hypothesis and accept the null hypothesis if the p-value is > 0.05.

RESULTS
Data Presentation and Analyses
Table 1: Menu Familiarity
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(5)
Items Strongly, Strongly
Neutral Disagree Disagree Agree agree
1 Street, food, vendor, cooks 6 29 33 176 91
familiar meals.
2 Street, food, vendor, 8 6 39 177 105
produces, what, I, usually,
eat.
3 Street, food, vendor, cook, the 4 52 55 145 79
type of food, I, like when, I,
was, young.
Source: Field Survey (2021).

Table 1 demonstrates that 91 respondents strongly agreed that street food vendors cook familiar
meals;176 respondents agreed that street food vendors cooks familiar meals. 33 respondents
did not agree that street food vendors cook familiar meals; 29 respondents strongly disagreed
while 6 respondents were neutral. This implies that majority of the respondents agreed that
street food vendors cook familiar meals. Table 1 also shows that 105 respondents strongly
agreed that street food vendors produce what consumers usually eat.177 respondents agreed
that street food vendors produce what consumers usually eat. 39 did not agree that street food
vendors produce what consumers usually eat; 6 respondents strongly disagreed while 8
respondents were neutral. The implication is that a good number of the respondents agreed that
street food vendors produce what consumers usually eat. Furthermore, table 1 field survey
findings show that 79 respondents strongly agreed that street food vendors cook the type of
food,consumers,like when, they were young.145 respondents agreed that street food vendors
cook the type of food,consumers,like when, they were young.,55 respondents did not agree that
street food vendors cook the type of food,consumers, like when, they were young. 52
respondents strongly disagreed while 4 respondents were did not take sides. This implies that
majority of the respondents have established that street food vendors cook the type of
food,they,like when,they were young.

Table 2 demonstrates that 116 respondents strongly agreed that the price of food is not
expensive;160 respondents agreed that the price of food is not expensive. 19 respondents did
not agree that the price of food is not expensive; 37 respondents strongly disagreed while 3
respondents were neutral. This implies that majority of the respondents testified that menu price
is not too expensive. Furthermore, 101 respondents strongly agreed that menu or meal price is
very affordable;163 respondents agreed that menu price is affordable. 24 respondents did not
agree that menu price is affordable; 34 respondents strongly disagreed while 13 respondents
were neutral. This implies that majority of the respondents agreed that menu price is affordable.
Table 2 also signals that 128 respondents strongly agreed that meal is competitively priced.175
respondents agreed that meal is competitively priced.

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 31

 International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Research E-ISSN 2545-5303 P-ISSN 2695-2203
Vol 7. No. 3 2021 www.iiardpub.org

Table 2: Menu Price

(2) (5)
(1) (3) (4)
Items Strongly, Strongly
Neutral Disagree Agree
Disagree agree
1 The price of food is, not, 3 37 19 160 116
expensive.
2 Menu price is affordable. 13 34 24 163 101
3 Meal is, competitively, 2 18 12 175 128
priced.
4 The menu prices are, 9 36 18 173 99
reasonable.
5 The fee charged is 5 28 22 143 137
commensurate with food
quality.
Source: Field Survey (2021).

In addition, 12 respondents did not agree that meal is competitively priced; 18 respondents
strongly disagreed while 2 respondents were neutral. This implies that majority of the
respondents confirmed that meal is competitively priced. Table 2 also shows that 99
respondents strongly agreed that the menu prices charged by the vendor are, reasonable.173
respondents agreed that the menu prices charged by the vendor are, reasonable. 18 respondents
did not agree that the menu prices charged by the vendor are, reasonable; 36 respondents
strongly disagreed while 9 respondents were neutral. This implies that majority of the
respondents concurred that the menu prices charged by the vendor are, reasonable. In addition,
table 2 also shows that 137 respondents strongly agreed that the fee charged is commensurate
with food quality. 143 respondents agreed that the fee charged is commensurate with food
quality. 22 respondents did not agree that the fee charged is commensurate with food quality;
28 respondents strongly disagreed while 5 respondents were neutral. The implication is that a
good number of respondents approved that the fee charged is commensurate with food quality.
Table 3 indicates that 73 respondents strongly agreed that vendor’s dining area is not dirty. 189
respondents agreed that vendor’s dining area is not dirty. 29 respondents did not agree that
vendor’s dining area is not dirty. 40 respondents disagreed while 4 respondents were
indifferent. This implies that a good number of respondents confirmed that food dining vicinity
is clean. In addition, table 3 shows that 88 respondents strongly agreed that
the,interior,design is, visually,appealing,158 agreed while 46 respondents disagreed. 36
respondents strongly disagreed whereas 7 respondents were neutral. Table 3 also shows that 94
respondents strongly agreed that interior colours used create pleasant atmosphere. 150
respondents agreed that interior colours used create pleasant atmosphere. 52 respondents did
not agree that interior colours used create pleasant atmosphere. 30 respondents strongly
disagreed that interior colours used create pleasant atmosphere while 9 respondents were
neutral. Table 3 indicates that 93 respondents strongly agreed that utensils used by food vendors
are clean. 158 respondents agreed while 51 respondents disagreed that utensils used by food
vendors are clean. 31 respondents strongly disagree while 2 respondents were indifferent.
Furthermore, still on table 4.2.5, 111 respondents strongly agreed that the tables used by food
vendors are neat. 102 respondents agreed while 25 respondents disagreed that tables used by
food vendors are neat. 89 respondents strongly disagree while 8 respondents were neutral.

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 32

 International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Research E-ISSN 2545-5303 P-ISSN 2695-2203
Vol 7. No. 3 2021 www.iiardpub.org

Table 3: Vendor’s Physical Environment

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Strongly, Strongly
Items Neutral Disagree Disagree Agree agree
1 The vendor’s dining area is not 4 40 29 189 73
dirty.
2 The interior design is visually 7 36 46 158 88
appealing
3 Interior colors used, create pleasant 9 30 52 150 94
atmosphere
4 The utensils used appear clean. 2 31 51 158 93
5 The tables are neat. 8 89 25 102 111
6 The plates are always clean. 4 12 40 189 90
7 The vendor’s surroundings are tidy 6 22 31 175 101
Source: Field Survey (2021).

Table 3 also signals that 90 respondents strongly agreed that the plates used by food vendors
are always clean.189 respondents agreed while 40 respondents did not agree that plates used
by food vendors are always clean. 12 respondents strongly disagree while 4 respondents were
indifferent. In addition, 101 respondents strongly agreed that the vendors’ surroundings are
tidy. 175 respondents agreed while 31 disagreed that vendors’ surroundings are tidy. 22
respondents strongly disagree while 6 respondents were neutral. This implies that vendor’s
physical environment is an important factor.
A cursory look at table 4 shows that 128 respondents strongly agreed that they will encourage
their relatives to dine at street food vendor because the type of menu options offered are familiar
to us.175 respondents agreed that they will encourage their relatives to dine at street food
vendor because the type of menu options offered are familiar to us. 12 respondents disagreed
that they will encourage their relatives to dine at street food vendor because the type of menu
options offered are familiar to us.14 respondents strongly disagreed that they will encourage
their relatives to dine at street food vendor because the type of menu options offered are familiar
to us while 6 respondents were neutral. The implication of the survey findings is that menu
familiarity is a major factor that influences consumer patronage of street food vendors in South
East.

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 33

 International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Research E-ISSN 2545-5303 P-ISSN 2695-2203
Vol 7. No. 3 2021 www.iiardpub.org

Table 4: Consumer Patronage

(2) (5)
(1) (3) (4)
Items Strongly, Strongly
Neutral Disagree Agree
Disagree agree
1 I will encourage my relatives 6 14 12 175 128
to dine at a particular vendor
because she offers the type of
menu we are familiar with.
2 I will continue to buy from a 9 36 18 133 139
particular vendor because she
sells food at affordable price.
3 I will continue to purchase 4 28 22 144 137
from a particular vendor due
to clean environment she
maintains.
Source: Field Survey (2021).

Moreso, table 4 shows that 139 respondents strongly agreed that they will continue to buy from
a particular vendor because she sells at affordable prices.133 respondents agreed that they will
continue to buy from a particular vendor because she sells at affordable prices.18 respondents
disagreed that they will continue to buy from a particular vendor because she sells at affordable
prices. 36 respondents strongly disagreed that they will continue to buy from a particular
vendor because she sells at affordable prices while 9 respondents were neutral. This implies
that menu price is a significant factor that influences consumer patronage of street food vendors
in south east, Nigeria. In addition, table 4 indicates that 137 respondents strongly agreed that
they will continue to purchase from street food vendors due to clean environment they
maintain. 144 respondents agreed that they will continue to purchase from street food vendors
due to clean environment they maintain. 22 respondents disagreed that they will continue to
purchase from street food vendors due to clean environment they maintain. 28 respondents
strongly disagreed that they will continue to purchase from street food vendors due to clean
environment they maintain while 4 respondents were indifferent. The implication of the field
survey findings is that vendor’s physical environment is an essential factor that influences
consumer patronage of street food vendors in South East.

Table 5: Regression Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Durbin-Watson

1 .713a 0.552 .547 .13242 2.002

a. Predictors: (Constant) = Menu Familiarity, Price, Vendor’s Physical Environment

b. Dependent variable: Consumer Patronage

Table 6: Multiple Regression Anova

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 98.022 5 13.112 65.234 .000b
1 Residual 54.113 178 .432
Total 152.135 183
a. Dependent Variable: Consumer Patronage

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 34

 International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Research E-ISSN 2545-5303 P-ISSN 2695-2203
Vol 7. No. 3 2021 www.iiardpub.org

Table 7: Multiple Regression Coefficients

Model Unstandardized Standardized T Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) .902 .327 7.075 .000
Menu Familiarity .142 .050 .149 2.864 .004
1
Menu Price .212 .051 .230 4.142 .000
Vendor’s Physical Environment .050 .052 .049 .966 .335
Dependent variable: Consumer Patronage
Source: SPSS Computation Output, 2021.

Test of Hypothesis One

HO1: Familiarity does not have a significant influence on consumer patronage of street food
vendors in South-East Nigeria.
HA1: Familiarity has a significant influence on consumer patronage of street food vendors in
South-East Nigeria.
Based on result on table 7: for menu familiarity; the t-value is 2.864, p-value = .004 and β value
= 0.149. The decision is that the null hypothesis three is rejected and alternative hypothesis
three accepted. The conclusion is that menu familiarity has a positive significant influence on
consumer patronage of street food vendors in South-East, Nigeria.

Test of Hypothesis Two

HO2: Price has no significant influence on consumer patronage of street food vendors in
South-East Nigeria.
HA2: Price has a significant influence on consumer patronage of street food vendors in South-
East Nigeria.
Based on result as shown on table 7: for menu price; the t-value is 4.142, p-value = .000 and β
value = 0.230. The decision is that the null hypothesis four is rejected and alternative hypothesis
four accepted. The conclusion is that menu price has a positive significant influence on
consumer patronage of street food vendors in South-East, Nigeria.

Test of Hypothesis Three

HO3: Vendor’s physical environment does not have a significant influence on consumer
patronage of street food vendors in South-East Nigeria.
HA3: Vendor’s physical environment has a significant influence on consumer patronage of
street food vendors in South-East Nigeria.
Based on result on table 7: for vendor’s physical environment; the t-value is 0.996, p-value =
.335 and β value = 0.049. The decision is that the null hypothesis five is accepted and alternative
hypothesis five rejected. The conclusion is that vendor’s physical environment has no
significant influence on consumer patronage of street food vendors in South-East, Nigeria.

Discussion of Findings
The study has discovered that menu familiarity has a positive significant influence on consumer
patronage of street food vendors in South-East, Nigeria. The finding of this, study, is, in, line,
with,Pieniak,,Verbeke,,Vanhonacker,,Guerrero,and,Hersleth (2015),who, found, that,
familiarity, influence, the, attitude, of, consumer, towards, traditional, food., They, found, that,
Importance, attached, to, familiarity, with, a, product, is, found, to, be, strongly, and, positively,
associated, with, general, attitude, toward, traditional, food, as, well, as, traditional, food,
consumption. In addition, menu price has a positive significant influence on consumer

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 35

 International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Research E-ISSN 2545-5303 P-ISSN 2695-2203
Vol 7. No. 3 2021 www.iiardpub.org

patronage of street food vendors in South-East, Nigeria. Importantly, the finding of this, study
is, in, agreement with the findings of Baek, Ham and Yang (2013) who found that Korean and
Filipino consumers consider menu price as one of the, significant factors, in, the, selection or
choice, of, a, restaurant or fast food outlets. However, research work, work, contradicted the
findings of, Liu, and, Jang (2009) and that of Mattila (2010) who, found, that, price plays less
significant function when, compared, to other factors. Our study found that vendor’s physical
environment has no statistical significant influence on consumer patronage of street food
vendors in South-East, Nigeria. Moreover, the finding of this research contradicted the findings
of Laroche, Takahashi, Kalamas and Teng (2005),who found that physical or atmosphe-ric,
environment is a relevant, factor, that, influences, the, choice, of, eatery, outlets. In addition,
the finding of this, study, is, in, line, with the findings of Kim, Raab and Bergman (2010), who
found that atmosphere is very important in the choice of food restaurants. In addition the
physical environment was found to create feelings of excitement pleasure and, relaxation to
consumers. Furthermore, it was discovered that vendor’s physical environment are tangible,
cues, which are, used to assess, the quality of services provided by food vendors. Contrary, this
study found that consumers of street food are not greatly influenced by vendor’s physical
environment. In addition, Jang, Kim and Bonni (2011), found that vendor’s physical
surroundings plays a critical role in influencing consumer patronage. Also, Stewart, Bli-sard,
Jolliffe and Bhuyan (2005), found that vendor’s physical environment positively associated to,
high-profiled restaurants or eatery outlets but, negatively, related, to, fast-food, restaurants.

Conclusion
The study has provided a comprehensive knowledge that,menu familiarity, meal/menu price
and vendor’s physical environment,have significant influences on,consumer,patronage,of,foo
d,vendors,in,south-eastern part,of,Nigeria.,The,findings,of this study have demonstrated,that,
positive and significant, influences exist between menu familiarity and price on,consumer
patronage of, street,food.,Vendor’s physical environment was found to have not significantly
influenced consumer patronage of food vendors in South East of Nigeria. Conclusively, menu
familiarity and price are strong predictors that drive consumer patronage as demonstrated by
the findings of this study. In conclusion, street food vendors should continue to provide food
or menu options that,are,familiar, to consumers at affordable prices and also put more efforts
in maintaining conducive environment of the sales outlets. This study recommended that street,
food, vendors, should, continue to provide, familiar, menu in order to increase consumer
patronage that will enhance profitability in return. Consequently, street food vendors should
continue to provide menu varieties at affordable price in order to increase consumer patronage.
In addition, proper pricing strategies should be encouraged for overall improvement and
sustainability of street food vendors businesses in south eastern part of Nigeria. The study also
recommended that the physical environment of the vendor’s sales outlets should always be
clean, appealing, neat and modern as these will enhance more consumer patronage of street
food vendors in Nigeria.

References
Adam, I., Hiamey, S.E. & Afenyo, E.A. (2014). Students’ food safety concerns and choice of
eating place in Ghana. Food Control, 43(1),135-141, doi org/10.1016/j.foodcont./
2014.03.005.
Atinkut, H.B., Tingwu, Y., Gebisa, B., Qin, S., Assefa, K., Yazie, B., Melese, T., Tadesse, S.
& Mirie, T. (2018). Factors influencing consumers’ choice of street-foods and fast-
foods in
China. African Journal of Marketing Management,10(4), 28-39, DOI:10.5897/AJMM
2018.0572.
IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 36
 International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Research E-ISSN 2545-5303 P-ISSN 2695-2203
Vol 7. No. 3 2021 www.iiardpub.org

Ayodele, A.A. & Panama, A.E. (2016). Predictors of consumer patronage of street food
vendors in a typical developing economy context. Developing Country Studies, 6(11),
24-35.
Baek, S-H., Ham, S., & Yang, I.S. (2006). A cross-cultural comparison of fast food restaurant
selection criteria between Korean and Filipino college students. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 25, (4), 683-698, doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2005.07.001.
Blešić, I., Popov Raljić, J., Pivac, T. & Ivkov, M. (2018). Factors influencing students’choice of
fast food restaurants. Economics of Agriculture, 65(1), 257-268.
Deliens, T., Clarys, P., De Bourdeaudhuij, I. & Deforche B. (2014). Determinants of eating
behaviour in university students: a qualitative study using focus group discussions.
BMC Public Health 14(53),1-12, doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-53.
Ehsan, U. (2012). Factors important for the selection of fast food restaurants: an empirical
study across three cities of Pakistan. British Food Journal, 114(9),1251-1264,
DOI 10.1108/00070701211258808.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations)(2007). School kids and street
food. URL http://www.fao.org/AG/magazine/0702sp1.htm.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations). (2013). Food for the cities:
Street foods. URL http://www.fao.org/fcit/food-processing/street-foods/ en/.
Gremler, D.D. & Brown, W.B. (1999). The loyalty riffle effects. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 10(3), 271-293.
Jang, Y.J., Kim, W.G., & Bonn, M.A. (2011). Generation Y consumers’ selection attributes
and behavioral intentions concerning green restaurants. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 30(4), 803-811.
Kim, Y., Raab, C., & Bergman, C. (2010). Restaurant selection preferences of mature tourists
in
Las vegas: a pilot study. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administrat
ion, 11(2), 157–170, DOI: 10.1080/15256481003732816.
Kim, Y.H., Goh, B.K., & Yuan, J. (2010). Development of a multi-dimensional scale for
measuring food tourist motivations. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and
Tourism, 11(1), 56–71, DOI: 10.1080/15280080903520568.
Knutson, B.J. (2010). College students and fast-food: how students perceive restaurant brands.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41 (3), 68-74.
Knutson, B., Beck, J., & Elsworth, J. (2016). The two dimensions of restaurant selection
important to the mature market. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 14
(3), 35–47. DOI: 10.1300/J150v14n03_04.
Kok, W.K., & Fon, S.O. (2014). Shopper perception and loyalty: a stochastic approach to
modeling shopping mall behaviour. International Journal of Retail Distribution Ma
nagement, 42(7), 626-642.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K.L. (2009), Marketing Management, 15th edition Pearson Education
Limited, England.
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (2012). Principles of Marketing, 14th ed., Pearson Education, Inc.,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Laroche, M., Takahashi, I., Kalamas, M. & Teng, L. (2005). Modeling the selection of fast-
food franchises among Japanese consumers. Journal of Business Research, 58(8),
1121-1131.
Liu, Y., & Jang, S.S. (2009). The effects of dining atmospherics: An extended mehrabian–
russell model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 494-503,
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.01.002.
Mattila, A.S. (2001). Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty.Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 42 (6), 73-79.
IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 37
 International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Research E-ISSN 2545-5303 P-ISSN 2695-2203
Vol 7. No. 3 2021 www.iiardpub.org

Mill, R.C. (2017). Restaurant Management: Customers, operations and employees (3rd ed).
Uppers Saddkle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Namkung, Y. & Jang, S. (2007). Does food quality really matter in restaurants? its impact on
customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, 31 (3), 387-410, DOI: 10.1177/1096348007299924.
Olise, M.C., Okoli, M.I. & Ekeke, J.N. (2015). Factors influencing customers patronage of fast
food restaurants, a study of selected customers of fast food in Anambra State, Nigeria.
International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, III (11), 686-701.
Orugun, J.J, & Nafiu, A.T. (2014). An exploratory study of Igbo entrepreneurial activity and
business success in Nigeria as the panacea for economic growth and development.
International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 3 (9), 20-28.
Park, C. (2004). Efficient or enjoyable? consumer values of eating-out and fast-food restaurant
consumption in Korea. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(1), 87-94.
Paswan, A.M., Pineda, D.S., & Ramirez, F.C.S. (2010). Small versus large retail stores in an
emerging market in Mexico. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 667-672.
Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Guerrero, L. & Hersleth, M. (2009). Association
between traditional food consumption and motives for food choice in six European
countries. Appetite, 53, 101–108.
Resnik, M.D. (2000). Choices: an introduction to decision theory, University of Minnesota
Press United States of America.
Singh, A.K., Dudeja, P., Kaushal, N., & Mukherji, S. (2016). Impact of health education
intervention on food safety and hygiene of street vendors: A pilot study. Medical
Journal, 72 (3), 265-269.
Shoyemi, A.O. (2014). Consumers' perception of international quick service restaurants in
Nigeria: a case study of Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). Doctoral Dissertation, Dublin
Business School.
Soriano, D.R. (2002).Customers’ expectations factors in restaurants. International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, 19(8/9),1055 –1067,
doi.org/10.1108/02656710210438122.
Stewart, H., Blisard, N., Jolliffe, D., & SanjibBhuyan, (2005). The demand for food away from
home: do other preferences compete with our desire to eat healthfully? Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, 30 (3), 520-536.
Suneetha, C., Manjula, K., & Depur, B. (2011). Quality assessment of street foods in Tirumala.
Asian Journal of Experimental Biological Sciences, 2(1), 207-211.
Sweeney, J.C, Johnson, L.W & Armstrong, R.W. (2012). The effect of cues on service quality
expectations and service selection in a restaurant setting. The Journal of Services
Marketing, 6(4),15-22.
Tan, B. & Yeap, P. (2012). What drives green restaurant patronage intention? International
Journal of Business and Management, 7(2), 215-223.
Thang, D. & Tan, B. (2003). Linking consumer perception to preference of retail stores: an
empirical assessment of the multi-attributes of store image. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 10(1), 193-200. Htpps://doi.org/10.1016/so969-6989(02)00006-1.
Tian, R.G. (2011). Cultural awareness of the consumers at a Chinese restaurant: An autropolo
gi-cal descriptive analysis. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 7(/2),111-130.
Trafialek, J., Drosinos, E.H. & Kolanowski, W. (2017). Evaluation of street food vendors’
hygienic practices using fast observation questionnaire. Food Control, 80(1),350-359.
Ukenna, S. I. & Ayodele, A.A. (2019). Applying the extended theory of planned behavior to
predict sustainable street food patronage in a Developing Economy. Journal of Food
Products Marketing. DOI:10.1080/10454446.2019.1572561.

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 38

 International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Research E-ISSN 2545-5303 P-ISSN 2695-2203
Vol 7. No. 3 2021 www.iiardpub.org

Yuen, E.F.T. & Chan, S.S.L. (2010). The effect of retail service quality and product quality on
customer loyalty. Database Marketing and Customer Strategy Management, 17(3/4),
222-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/dbm.2010.13.

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 39

View publication stats