## 4 Discussion  
This is the first research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic period studying consumers' attitudes and perceptions toward TFs in Greece. The study focuses on the long-run attitudes and perceptions of the customers. The region of Epirus in Greece was chosen for the study since it is a region with increased production and consumption of TFs. As shown in Table 1, the participants in the study, who were asked for their opinion about Epirus' TFs, were mainly permanent residents of the region (56.6%). The participants in the study were classified into age groups according to: 18 years \(\leq\) age \(\leq\) 25 years accounting \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Questions**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Answers (\%)**} \\ \hline
1. What types of products of Epirus do you consume? & No & Yes \\ (possible multiple choice) & & 5.7 & 94.3 \\
1.2. Wine & 60.9 & 39.1 \\
1.3. Pasta & 80.4 & 19.6 \\
1.4. Honey & 61.5 & 38.5 \\
1.5. Dairy products & 30.6 & 69.4 \\
1.6. Oil & 85.4 & 14.6 \\
1.7. Herbs & 72.7 & 27.3 \\
1.8. Legumes & 81.6 & 18.4 \\
1.9. Other & 87.4 & 12.6 \\ \hline  & Not at all & Not much & Very & Very much \\ \hline
2. How satisfied are you with the packaging of the traditional products of Epirus? & 0.6 & 10.2 & 73.1 & 14.5 \\ \hline
3. How satisfied are you with the quality of the traditional products of Epirus? & 0.6 & 1.8 & 64.1 & 32.9 \\ \hline  & Low & Average & High \\ \hline
4. What do you think about the price of traditional products of Epirus? & 1.0 & 80.6 & 16.7 \\ \hline  & No & Yes & \\ \hline
5. I have increased the consumption of local and traditional foods within the pandemic & 40.8 & 59.2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Participant’s evaluation of Epirus’ TFs. for 25.3%, 26 years \(\leq\) age \(\leq\) 35 years accounting for 21.1%, 36 years \(\leq\) age \(\leq\) 45 years accounting for 18.4%, 46 years \(\leq\) age \(\leq\) 55 years accounting for 23.1%, and \(\geq\) 55 years accounting for 12.1%. As for the level of education, the majority of participants, 88.9% had a university degree. Regarding the civil state of the participants, 50.1% were single, and 43% were married. Regarding their job situation so far, 72.4% of the participants were employed, and 22% were students at the time of the study. Overall, the sociodemographic characteristics of the presenters showed a suitable distribution between the different categories, similar to other recent reports [35]. The participants' food choices are mainly driven by good quality to price ratio (78.6%), followed by the convenience to obtain it (34.6%), and easiness in the preparation (14.8%). Previous studies have shown that in 2015 the price was the most important food choice motivation in Portugal and Greece [46], while in 2019, the health and environmental issues were the main drivers in the Mediterranean countries [37]. It is worth mention that because of the current economic and health crisis, factors such as quality, easy access, and preparation of food may overcome from now on the other motivations. The results of the chi-square test, presented in Table 3, indicated that there were significant differences between: (a) \"sex\" regarding the quality to price ratio, with weak association (V = 0.167); (b) \"age\" regarding convenience, preparation, and on sale foods, with weak association (V = 0.151/0.129/0.213, respectively); (c) \"civil state\" regarding convenience, preparation, and on sale foods with weak association (V = 0.147/0.144/0.144); (d) \"employment\" regarding easiness in preparation and foods with a reduced price, with weak association (V = 0.106/0.191); and (e) \"permanent residency\" regarding preparation, and running campaigns of foods, with weak association (V = 0.170/0.132). Overall, as shown in Table 4, the participants are well aware of the TFs, their nutritional benefits, and their significant kinds.