Skip to main content
. 2022 May 31;12(11):1421. doi: 10.3390/ani12111421

Table 4.

Effect of age on the principal components’ definition.

Principal Component Age Range * n Mean Rank Kruskal–Wallis H p-Value
PC1-Responsive to quality attributes 18–25 a 68 216.11 20.346 0.000
26–35 a,b 146 254.96
36–45 b 99 268.96
46–55 c 133 311.65
56–65 b,c 73 293.41
>65 a,b,c 24 261.73
Total 543
PC2-Local is better 18–25 a 68 329.14 34.411 0.006
26–35 a 146 297.90
36–45 a 99 293.27
46–55 b 133 236.03
56–65 b 73 234.05
>65 b 24 179.56
Total 543
PC3-Local is sustainable 18–25 a 68 233.98 14.318 0.003
26–35 a,b 146 247.12
36–45 c 99 290.54
46–55 b,c 133 282.76
56–65 c 73 311.55
>65 a,c 24 274.69
Total 543
PC4-Availability request 18–25 a 68 326.40 16.663 0.007
26–35 b 146 280.72
36–45 a,b 99 279.06
46–55 b,c 133 258.21
56–65 c 73 225.14
>65 a,b,c 24 254.60
Total 543

* For each component, age groups with the same superscript letter (a,b,c) are not significantly different (α = 0.05, Mann–Whitney test, pairwise comparison).