## 3 Results  
Table 2 presents the frequency of food purchase according to participants' motives and shows that the participants by far (78.6%) prefer to buy food with a good quality to price ratio. However, it was observed that only sometimes they choose food because of its convenience (49.5%), because it is on sale (58.9%), because it is easy to prepare (52%), or it is properly advertised (47.9%). The results of the chi-square test, presented in Table 3, showed that there were significant differences between motives for food purchase in terms of:  
1. Good quality to price ratio food: only between sex (x\({}^{2}\) = 14.220, \(p\) = 0.001);
2. Purchasing convenience: only between age (x\({}^{2}\) = 23.351, \(p\) = 0.003), and civil state (x\({}^{2}\) = 21.971, \(p\) = 0.001);
3. Easily prepared food: only between age (x\({}^{2}\) = 16.753, \(p\) = 0.033), civil state (x\({}^{2}\) = 20.806, \(p\) = 0.002), job situation (x\({}^{2}\) = 11.202, \(p\) = 0.024), and permanent residency (x\({}^{2}\) = 14.655, \(p\) = 0.001);
4. Discount food: only between age (x\({}^{2}\) = 45.970, \(p\) = 0.000), civil state (x\({}^{2}\) = 20.997, \(p\) = 0.002), and job situation (x\({}^{2}\) = 36.755, \(p\) = 0.000);
5. Running advertising campaigns: only between permanent residency (x\({}^{2}\) = 8.893, \(p\) = 0.012). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Answers (\%)**} \\
**Questions** & **No** & **Yes** & **Sometimes** \\ \hline
1. I usually choose foods with a good quality/price ratio & 1.2 & 78.6 & 20.2 \\
2. I choose the food I eat because it is convenient to get it & 15.9 & 34.6 & 49.5 \\
3. I usually buy food that is easy to prepare & 26.9 & 21.1 & 52 \\
4. I usually buy food that is on sale & 26.4 & 14.8 & 58.9 \\
5. Running advertising campaigns increases my desire to consume certain foods & 41.8 & 10.2 & 47.9 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Participants’ motivations for food purchase. Table 4 presents the participants' perception for the TFs of Epirus and indicates that by far they can identify these products (84.8%), they know that the Epirus region produces a variety of TFs (86.2%), and they also are aware of their nutritional benefits (78.8%). As for the reasons why they purchase them, their first choice was the production with local raw materials (68.2%), followed by the production by local companies (63.1%), and the impact on the local economy (61.3%). Reasons such as being healthier than the industrialized foods (41.6%), free of chemicals (43.6%), or presenting superior organoleptic properties (46.9%) or quality (41.6%), and the social impact to local communities (36.1%) represented less than 50% of the responses. Furthermore, the participants expressed a strong opinion for the promotion of the region via the TFs (95.9%), the recommendation of Epirus' TFs to others (82.8%), and the potential for use by residents outside the region if they could easily access them (82.5%). The results of the chi-square test, presented in Table 3, showed that there were significant differences between participants' perception for the TFs of Epirus in terms of:  
1. Knowledge of TFs: for age (x\({}^{2}\) = 29.214, \(p\) = 0.000), level of education (x\({}^{2}\) = 11.672, \(p\) = 0.009), civil state (x\({}^{2}\) = 18.875, \(p\) = 0.000), job situation (x\({}^{2}\) = 15.397, \(p\) = 0.000), and permanent residency (x\({}^{2}\) = 40.228, \(p\) = 0.000);
2. Local production of TFs: for age (x\({}^{2}\) = 17.867 \(p\) = 0.022), Civil state (x\({}^{2}\) = 14.796, \(p\) = 0.022), job situation (x\({}^{2}\) = 13.557, \(p\) = 0.009), permanent residency (x\({}^{2}\) = 26.453, \(p\) = 0.228);
3. Nutritional benefits of TFs: for sex (x\({}^{2}\) = 12.754, \(p\) = 0.002), age (x\({}^{2}\) = 25.783, \(p\) = 0.001), level of education (x\({}^{2}\) = 71.781, \(p\) = 0.000), job description (x\({}^{2}\) = 13.028, \(p\) = 0.011), and permanent residency (x\({}^{2}\) = 22.601, \(p\) = 0.000);
4. Reasons to buy TFs: 4.1.