## 3 Results
Healthier than industrial: only for permanent residency (x\({}^{2}\) = 5.193, \(p\) = 0.023); 4.2. Local production: only for job situation (x\({}^{2}\) = 7.533, \(p\) = 0.023) and permanent residency (x\({}^{2}\) = 19.019, \(p\) = 0.000); 4.3. High quality: only for age (x\({}^{2}\) = 13.296, \(p\) = 0.010); 4.4. Impact on local community: for sex (x\({}^{2}\) = 6.142, \(p\) = 0.013), age (x\({}^{2}\) = 24.750, \(p\) = 0.000), civil state (x\({}^{2}\) = 12.578, \(p\) = 0.006), job situation (x\({}^{2}\) = 14.855, \(p\) = 0.001), and permanent residency (x\({}^{2}\) = 14.332, \(p\) = 0.000); 4.5. Economic impact locally: for job situation (x\({}^{2}\) = 13.090, \(p\) = 0.001), and permanent residency (x\({}^{2}\) = 10.444, \(p\) = 0.001). 5. Purchase by residents outside Epirus: for level of education (x\({}^{2}\) = 65.942, \(p\) = 0.000), civil state (x\({}^{2}\) = 26.943, \(p\) = 0.000), job situation (x\({}^{2}\) = 11.560, \(p\) = 0.021), and permanent residency (x\({}^{2}\) = 21.112, \(p\) = 0.000);
6. Promotion of the Epirus region: only for level of education (x\({}^{2}\) = 37.452, \(p\) = 0.000);
7. Recommendation of TFs to others: for sex (x\({}^{2}\) = 6.731, \(p\) = 0.035), age (x\({}^{2}\) = 20.048, \(p\) = 0.010), civil state (x\({}^{2}\) = 14.593, \(p\) = 0.024), job situation (x\({}^{2}\) = 20.189, \(p\) = 0.000), and permanent residency (x\({}^{2}\) = 21.112, \(p\) = 0.000). Table 5 presents the participants' perception of the marketing of Epirus' TFs. They do not consider the marketing of the products satisfactory (only 7.1% positive answers), and they are not convinced that the local companies are able to promote their products outside the region (54.4% returned \"maybe\" as an answer). Finally, they believe that there is a great opportunity for the TFs marketing using modern Internet advertisement (50.8%), followed by the TV spots (31.5%), leaflets (15.9%) and only by 1.9% via radio spots. The results of the chi-square test, presented in Table 6, showed that there were significant differences between participants' perception of the marketing of TFs in terms of:  
1. Promotion by local companies of the TFs: only for sex (x\({}^{2}\) = 11.555, \(p\) = 0.003), and permanent residency (x\({}^{2}\) = 6.939, \(p\) = 0.031);
2. Satisfactory promotion of Epirus' TFs: only for level of education (x\({}^{2}\) = 39.224, \(p\) = 0.000), and permanent residency (x\({}^{2}\) = 9.392, \(p\) = 0.009). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Questions**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Answers (\%)**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **No** & **Yes** & **I Don’t Know** \\ \hline
1. Do you know the traditional foods of Epirus? & 15.2 & 84.8 & \\
2. Epirus produces many traditional foods (foods produced with local raw materials) & 1.4 & 86.2 & 12.4 \\
3. The traditional products of Epirus offer nutritional benefits & 1.4 & 78.8 & 19.8 \\
4. Reasons to buy traditional products of Epirus (possible multiple choice) & & \\
4.1. They are healthier than industrialized ones & 58.4 & 41.6 & \\
4.2. They are free of chemical additives & 56.4 & 43.6 & \\
4.3. They have superior organoleptic properties (taste. aroma etc.) & 53.1 & 46.9 & \\
4.4. They are made with local raw materials & 31.8 & 68.2 & \\
4.5. They are produced by local companies and producers & 36.9 & 63.1 & \\
4.6. They are high quality foods & 58.4 & 41.6 & \\
4.7. They have a social impact on the local communities & 63.9 & 36.1 & \\
4.8. They have an economic impact on the local communities & 38.7 & 61.3 & \\
5. Do you think that consumers outside Epirus would prefer Epirus’ products if they are & 0.8 & 82.5 & 0.8 \\ reachable in their area? & 1.4 & 95.9 & 2.8 \\
6. Do you consider that the purchase and consumption of traditional products of Epirus & & \\ contributes to the promotion of the region? & 1.4 & 95.9 & 2.8 \\ \hline  & No & Yes & Maybe \\ \hline
7. Would you recommend to someone you know to consume traditional products of Epirus? & 0.8 & 82.8 & 16.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}