Table 4 Multivariate Logistics models for influential factors of acceptability toward CSLPPa
Variables | Values | β | Std. Error | OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Consumers | ||||
 Gender | Male | −0.3 | 0.2 | 0.8 (0.6–1.0) |
 Native Cantonese | Yes | −0.7 | 0.2 | 0.5 (0.3–0.8) |
 Preference of purchasing live poultry | Yes | −0.5 | 0.2 | 0.6 (0.4–1.0) |
 Which tastes best | Defeathered | −0.1 | 0.3 | 0.9 (0.5–1.6) |
|  | Chilled | −0.3 | 0.6 | 0.8 (0.3–2.5) |
|  | Frozen | −0.4 | 1.3 | 0.7 (0.1–17.1) |
|  | No difference | 1.0 | 0.3 | 2.8 (1.5–5.5) |
 More convenient to buy chilled product | No | −0.8 | 0.2 | 0.5 (0.3–0.7) |
 Media propaganda on purchase | No | −0.6 | 0.2 | 0.6 (0.4–0.8) |
 Nearby live-poultry retail store | Yes | 0.7 | 0.2 | 1.9 (1.3–3.0) |
|  | No | 0.6 | 0.3 | 1.8 (1.1–3.0) |
 Belief in food safety for live-poultry product | No | −0.5 | 0.2 | 0.6 (0.5–0.9) |
 Prevention of avian influenza | No | −1.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 (0.2–0.5) |
 Enhancement of environment | No | −1.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 (0.1–0.4) |
 Frequency of purchasing | Increase | 1.4 | 0.4 | 3.8 (1.7–9.8) |
|  | Decrease | −0.7 | 0.2 | 0.5 (0.4–0.7) |
 Which type purchased most | Defeathered | 0.6 | 0.2 | 1.7 (1.2–2.5) |
|  | Chilled | 0.5 | 0.3 | 1.7 (1.0–2.8) |
|  | Frozen | 1.3 | 1.2 | 3.8 (0.4–82.2) |
 The avian influenza to be a serious disease | Yes | 1.1 | 0.4 | 2.9 (1.3–6.5) |
|  | No | 0.6 | 0.4 | 1.8 (0.8–4.2) |
 Wearing hand-gloves | Yes | 0.3 | 0.2 | 1.4 (1.0–1.9) |
 Handwashing | Yes | 0.7 | 0.4 | 2.1 (1.0–4.2) |
Live-poultry traders | ||||
 Gender | Male | −0.7 | 0.3 | 0.5 (0.3–0.9) |
 Drop in trading volume | Yes | −1.2 | 0.6 | 0.3 (0.1–0.9) |
 Subsidized by the government | Yes | −0.7 | 0.3 | 0.5 (0.3–1.0) |
 Policy explained by market managers | Yes | −1.0 | 0.6 | 0.4 (0.1–1.1) |
 Belief in effectiveness of the CSLPP | For prevention of avian flu | 0.7 | 0.4 | 2.0 (1.0–4.1) |
|  | For enhancement of environment | 0.8 | 0.5 | 2.3 (0.9–5.8) |
 Considered avian flu to be a preventable disease | No idea | −1.7 | 0.5 | 0.2 (0.1–0.5) |
|  | No | 0.2 | 0.6 | 1.2 (0.4–4.3) |
Poultry farm workers | ||||
 Age | ≤30 | −0.3 | 1.1 | 0.8 (0.1–6.7) |
|  | 31 ~ 40 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 7.4 (1.1–62.4) |
|  | 41 ~ 50 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 1.8 (0.3–13.0) |
 Employment status | Employer | 3.0 | 1.1 | 20 (2.9–207.9) |
 Farm scale | Small | −2.4 | 1.0 | 0.1 (0.01–0.6) |
|  | Medium | −2.2 | 0.8 | 0.1 (0.02–0.6) |
 Drop in trading volume | Yes | −2.4 | 1.1 | 0.1 (0.01–0.7) |
 Policy explained by government workers | Yes | 1.3 | 0.7 | 3.6 (1.0–14.7) |
 Belief in effectiveness of the CSLPP | For enhancement of environment | 1.5 | 0.7 | 4.3 (1.1–20.3) |
 Inconvenience to work resulted from the policy | Yes | −2.0 | 0.7 | 0.1 (0.03–0.5) |
 Convenience to work resulted from the policy | No | −1.6 | 0.8 | 0.2 (0.04–1.0) |