Potential of geographical Indications towards sustainability: Stakeholder perceptions from the Attapady black goat production system

Introduction

One of the key motivations behind the development of Geographical Indications (GIs) is their potential to support sustainable rural development, which depends on effective stakeholder implementation (Vandecandelaere et al., 2010) [14] . Origin-linked products can generate a cycle of positive impacts by promoting long-term conservation of local resources and traditional knowledge through active community participation. This, in turn, supports indigenous production systems and strengthens social networks, contributing to territorial sustainability (FAO and SINER-GI, 2009) [6] . The Attapady Black goat, native to the Attapady hill tracts of the Western Ghats in northeastern Palakkad district, Kerala, is a potential candidate for GI status due to its unique characteristics and its evolution, development, and nurturing by the region's tribal communities for meat production. The establishment and management of GI systems require a careful balance among the three pillars of sustainability, economic, environmental, and socio-cultural, while considering the diverse perspectives of local stakeholders (FAO, 2012) [8] . Evaluating GI development entails engaging stakeholders to understand their perspectives on its potential impacts, based on expectations or prior experiences. Understanding these perceptions is essential for promoting awareness, guiding collective action, and strengthening territorial governance (Belletti et al., 2017) [1] . This study assessed stakeholder perceptions of how GI implementation could promote sustainability of the Attapady Black goat production system across the three dimensions of sustainability.

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in the Attapady Block Panchayat, located in northern Palakkad district of Kerala, www.extensionjournal.com encompassing Agali, Pudur, and Sholayur Grama Panchayats, where the Attapady Black goat was traditionally developed by indigenous tribal communities (Stephen et al., 2005) [13] . Adopting a case study approach (Yin, 2018) with an exploratory, predominantly inductive research design, respondents were selected using theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2014; Qureshi, 2018) [2,23] . A qualitative system dynamics paradigm (Garcia-Dorado et al., 2021) [7] guided the identification and classification of actors in the prospective GI value chain. Snowball sampling was employed to trace respondents at various value chain nodes, with key informants serving as initial referents. A total of 520 stakeholders identified across four categories constituted the respondent pool which included 200 producers (traditional Attapady Black goat rearers of Attapady), 65 intermediaries (aggregators, traders, processors/ butchers), 37 consumers (end users of the product) and 218 governance actors (facilitators of the prospective GI recognition and implementation). Content validated (Waltz and Bausell, 1981) [24] and reliability tested (Cronbach, 1951) [4] scale was developed to analyse the responses pertaining to perception of stakeholders on potential of GI towards sustainability of the indigenous production system of Attapady goats. The preliminary scale was developed on the premises that the prospective GI would serve as a tool that addressed the three complementary and intrinsically associated pillars of sustainability viz., economic, environmental and sociocultural, in case of an origin-linked product (FAO and SINER-GI, 2009) [6] . The items pertaining to the construct were prepared through extensive literature review and consultation with experts. The inventory comprised of fortytwo statements which were grouped under three domains viz., economic sustainability, environmental sustainability and sociocultural sustainability, with number of items 15, 13 and 14 respectively. The degree of agreement regarding the inventory items was rated by domain experts to indicate the extend of congruence of each statement with the construct measured. The panel comprised of ten judges with expertise in the domain of geographical indications and related governance system. The items were rated against a fourpoint continuum viz., highly relevant, with score 4, relevant with score 3, somewhat relevant with score 2 and not relevant with score 1. Accordingly, Content Validity Index (CVI) devised by Waltz and Bausell (1981) [24] was computed at CVI (I-CVI) and scale-level CVI (S-CVI) to capture interrater agreementExpert responses were analyzed to assess content validity, and items with I-CVI values of 0.80 or above-indicating excellent content validity-were accepted for inclusion in the scale (Polit et al., 2007). The computed S-CVI value was 0.94, meeting the standard threshold for average congruity and confirming the overall content validity of the measurement scale. The reliability of the content validated scale was tested by employing Cronbach's Alpha coefficient (Cronbach, 1951) [4] . The scale was administered among a representative sample of 100 respondents which included diverse stakeholders identified through key informant technique during pilot study. The representative sample included producers, social workers, officials of local institutions and general inhabitants of the region. After administration of the scale and computation of item scores, item analysis was performed by which item scores were correlated with the total scale score. Since all the items had correlation values between 0.2 and 0.8, none were discarded (Di lorio, 2005). Thus, the final scale retained all the 43 items. For the overall scale, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient obtained was 0.804 which could be inferred as 'reliable' (Taber, 2018) [18] . The content validated and reliability tested scale was administered among the diverse stakeholder categories to elicit responses. They were requested to record the extend of agreement to the item statement encompassing the conceptual domains of the variable. The items were scored against a four-point continuum viz., strongly agree with score 4, agree with score 3, disagree with score 2 and strongly disagree with score 1. Focus group discussions and in-depth personal interviews were used to capture the responses.

Results and Discussion

The figure 1 illustrates the importance of various domains of sustainability based on perception of respondents on the potential of GI. The domain of environmental sustainability ranked first with a mean score of 3.68, followed by socio-cultural sustainability (3.66) and economic sustainability (3.63). The overall sustainability score was 3.66. The findings indicated that although environmental sustainability was perceived as the most important domain, socio-cultural and economic sustainability followed closely. Overall, the respondents exhibited a high level of perception across all three domains. Table 1 and Figure 2 describes the perceived importance and level of agreement regarding the items pertaining to the potential of GI towards environmental sustainability. www.extensionjournal.com GI promotes organic production practices 3.79 100 13.

GI promotes conservation and reputation of the breed and associated local production system 4.00 100 14.

Mean score of the domain 3.68 Among the inventoried items related to the potential of GI in promoting environmental sustainability, the highestranked items, based on respondent perceptions included, the role of GI as an awareness-raising tool that signifies the link between product-specific quality and geographical origin, its contribution to maintaining the Attapady Black goat breed within its territorial region, and its role in conserving the breed and the associated production system. Establishing a link between a product and its terroir enhances stakeholder understanding of the need for sustainable use of local resources (FAO, 2009) [6] . GI production systems, often rooted in traditional practices, tend to exert less environmental pressure than modern, input-intensive methods (Vandecandelaere, 2010) [14] . Therefore, the GI process supports conservation of essential local natural resources, such as landscapes, soils, and biodiversity, ensuring their sustainability for future generations. The Code of Practice (CoP) associated with GI certification also serves as a regulatory framework to ensure the long-term sustainable use of these resources. Additionally, GI products often rely on locally adapted, traditionally used plant and animal species, varieties, or breeds, which represent valuable genetic resources (Vandecandelaere, 2010) [14] . The continued use and protection of such production systems not only support environmental sustainability but also play a critical role in conserving agrobiodiversity (Larson, 2007) [11] . Raising awareness among local and external actors about the importance of territorial biodiversity and its conservation (Larson, 2007) [11] , along with effectively communicating the link between GI products, their geographical origin, and associated cultural heritage, is essential for preventing environmental degradation.

Respondents overwhelmingly rated the GI's contribution to the protection of local natural resources, its role in preserving biodiversity and the environment, and its recognition of indigenous producers as custodians of local biodiversity as highly important. Origin-linked products are closely associated with the reproduction of local natural resources, such as vulnerable ecosystem and breeds, with their impact significantly influenced by the role of traditional producers in the region, both in terms of practices and scale of operation (FAO, 2012) [8] . GI producers often demonstrate a stronger connection to their territory and a heightened sense of environmental responsibility (Belletti et al., 2015) [1] . This awareness encourages the adoption of sustainable practices, as producers recognize that product www.extensionjournal.com quality and reputation are closely tied to the preservation of the terroir (Girard, 2022) [10] . A review of empirical studies indicated that negative environmental impacts of GIs were more prevalent in the Global South, where countries faced shared challenges such as improving livelihoods, ensuring food security, and conserving biodiversity (Milano and Cazella, 2021). Larson (2007) [11] also noted that developing countries often experienced more negative or inconsistent environmental outcomes, primarily due to weaker institutional frameworks.

Nevertheless, GIs show significant potential to support local production systems, provided they are adapted to diverse institutional, environmental, and economic contexts, and supported by enabling factors that promote positive outcomes.

Another notable finding was the perceived benefits of GIs in promoting organic production practices, developing green skills, protecting the pure Attapady Black goat germplasm from genetic dilution through crossbreeding, and preventing the loss of local habitats, landscapes, and genetic resources. GIs are built on the unique link between a product and its terroir, shaped by local knowledge, cultural practices, and natural resources. Defined by locally developed standards through participatory processes, GIs reflect the social and environmental context of the area and often promote organic and eco-friendly practices suited to local conditions. Productive intensification is commonly reported as a negative environmental consequence of GI systems, often associated with a decline in genetic diversity due to the replacement of traditional varieties and breeds with highyielding alternatives. For instance, in the case of the Tequila GI, this process led to the erosion of species diversity. In an analysis of prospective GIs in India, Soam reported that GI registration holds significant potential for reducing genetic erosion and promoting the conservation and sustainable use of indigenous livestock breeds-particularly given the limited systems in place for managing animal genetic resources in India. Since many of these breeds are reared by smallholder producers in marginal areas, GI recognition could enhance their livelihoods by attracting commercial interest.

A case study on the Neuquén Criollo goat breed of Argentina further highlighted the role of the CoP in preserving the breed's distinctive traits and traditional production system. By incorporating these characteristics into the CoP, particularly those contributing to the unique flavour of the meat, the system successfully supported both genetic conservation and cultural heritage (Centeno, 2007). Additionally, respondents perceived the GI's contribution to the bio-based economy of agro-ecosystems, landscape conservation through reduced fertilizer use on grazing lands, and the support for species diversity of local plant varieties via GI-based organic herd management as highly important.

The reduced use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, along with the conservation of local varieties and breeds, has been widely recognized in the literature as a positive environmental outcome of GI systems (Conversa et al., 2020; Hoang et al., 2020). Milano and Cazella (2021) concluded that the environmental outcomes of GIs are shaped by key factors such as strong social organization, active participation of local producers, and coherent policy frameworks. Critical elements include a well-defined product-terroir link, the inclusion of environmental objectives in GI specifications, compliance with regulatory standards, promotion of eco-friendly practices, respect for traditional knowledge, and support for small-scale production and related activities like tourism Table 2 and Figure 3 shows the perception of respondents on the importance of items pertaining to the potential of GI towards economic sustainability. Under the domain of economic sustainability, respondents identified the most important items as the role of GI as a legal tool to prevent unfair trade practices and counterfeiting of genuine products, along with their contribution to enhancing local revenue and employment across various stages of production, processing, and distribution. These were closely followed by items such as eco-labelling leading to higher income, facilitation of product localization through GIs, increased consumer acceptance and awareness due to clear definitions and standards associated with ecolabelling, and improved product reputation and visibility.

According to FAO (2012) [8] , economic growth within GI systems is driven by key factors such as legal protection against misuse and unfair competition through GI registration, higher product prices, increased turnover including exports, and improved access to new markets by meeting food safety and logistical standards. GIs serve as protective tools that generate economic benefits by increasing producer incomes and enabling value redistribution to the initial stages of the value chain (Vandecandelaere et al., 2020) [21] . These benefits are particularly evident in products already recognized as GIs, which have demonstrated the capacity to meet consumer expectations regarding authenticity and distinctive characteristics. By adhering to defined codes of good practice, GI producer groups contribute to sustainable territorial development. Despite facing export barriers, producers, often regarded as custodians of traditional practices, remain central to GI value chains. GIs also respond to urban demand for quality-differentiated products, support dietary diversity, and preserve traditional foods (Albayrak and Gunes, 2010). A similar trend was observed in the case of Kadaknath black chicken meat, where the demand for chicks and birds from Jhabua increased in recent years across other districts and states, attributed to their GI status (Tripathy et al., 2022) [19] .

In its report on the successful GI protection of Cabrito de Tete, a locally bred goat from Mozambique, UNCTAD (2023) emphasized the importance of leveraging GIs for rural development and developing sustainable value chains that support both rural livelihoods and ecosystem health. Certain GI products have faced socio-economic and environmental challenges such as poverty, migration, climate change, biodiversity loss, and cultural erosion, all of which threaten their long-term sustainability (Nirosha and Mansing, 2024). For that matter, Vinayan stressed the importance of safeguarding interests of marginalized producers by ensuring their inclusion and empowerment within the GI framework. Consequently, given the role of GIs in poverty alleviation, analyzing and developing propoor value chains, with attention to governance structures, stakeholder roles, and efficiency, can help policymakers improve economic outcomes and generate broader social benefits, including employment and gender equity (Tripathy et al., 2022) [, 19] .

Respondents in the present study perceived GIs not only as economic tools but also as instruments for promoting sustainable consumption and production. Multiple studies have highlighted the benefits of GI labelling, demonstrating its positive effects on product sales, price premiums, differentiation, consumer trust, and improved market access (Chilla et al., 2020; FAO, 2012) [3,8] . Cassago et al. (2021) showed that metabolomics can effectively link food attributes to regional terroir and traditional knowledge, offering a valuable tool for marketing, quality assurance, and legal protection, while also providing a framework for future research and GI promotion strategies.

Positioning GI products around values such as tradition, taste, and sustainability, supported by a national GI logo and collective branding (FAO, 2009; Vandecandelaere, 2010) [6,14] , further enhances consumer recognition and preference. Certifications such as "organic" and "fair-trade" increase product visibility and consumer trust (FAO, 2012) [8] . GIs enable local producers to access niche markets and command fair prices despite competition from lower-cost alternatives, by leveraging origin-linked differentiation (Larson, 2007; Vandecandelaere et al., 2020) [11,21] . GIs also foster consumer confidence through traceability and quality assurance, while promoting the sustainable use of local resources (FAO, 2009) [6] . Respondents recognized the significant economic benefits associated with GIs, particularly their role in fostering rural economic development and enabling local producers to command premium prices through value addition. GIs were noted for localizing economic activity to benefit rural communities and for supporting complementary sectors such as tourism and gastronomy. They were also credited with enhancing market access at local, regional, national, www.extensionjournal.com and international levels, and contributing to consumer welfare by ensuring authenticity and quality. Effective GI marketing has been linked to improved rural livelihoods, promotion of complementary sectors like tourism (FAO, 2018) [8] , prevention of rural out-migration, and preservation of unique local assets such as traditional breeds, plant varieties, and landscapes (FAO, 2012; Falasco et al., 2024) [8, 9] . Moreover, by delimiting the production zone, CoP enhances the bargaining power of primary producers by preventing downstream actors from sourcing raw materials outside the designated region, thereby minimizing delocalization (FAO and SINER-GI, 2009) [6] .

A study by Das and Dileep (2023) [5] among local and foreign tourists in Kerala found that GI-tagged products generated substantial socio-economic benefits in rural areas by offering high-value, differentiated goods with strong consumer purchase intent. Their findings highlighted the potential of GIs to promote local identity and market these products internationally through their unique regional attributes. From an economic perspective, GIs ensure fair value distribution along the supply chain, with actors involved in production, processing, and marketing compensated in accordance with their contributions (FAO, 2009) [6] . Vandecandelaere et al. (2020) [21] examined nine GI cases worldwide and reported positive economic outcomes in all instances, attributing the results to the fact that each product met the legal definition of a GI and satisfied the fundamental conditions required for registration.

The GI "process" describes the progression by which a reputed product is formally linked to its producers-such as farmers and processors, through collaboration with public authorities responsible for registering and safeguarding the geographical name (Vandecandelaere et al., 2020) [21] .

Overall, respondents viewed GI as an effective tool to protect product authenticity while enhancing income, employment, product visibility, and consumer trust through legal safeguards, eco-labelling, and territorial anchoring.

Table 3 and Figure 4 demonstrates the perceived importance and level of agreement of items pertaining to the potential of GI towards socio-cultural sustainability. Mainstreaming small holders into the GI system ensures inclusive development 3.86 100 2.

Delimitation of the area allows local producers to stay and live in the terroir 3.82 100 3.

GI envisages fair and equitable sharing of benefits among the actors 3.25 86.7 4.

Improved access to new information, technologies and skill set 3.51 98.8 5.

Promotes self-esteem among local producers as their role, identity and way of life are recognised 3.83 100 6.

GI system promotes small holder and women entrepreneurship and empowerment 3.73 100 7.

GI system contributes to food, nutritional and livelihood security of the community 3.90 100 8.

Collective rights to the GI product ensure development of the local community 3.94 100 9.

GI tagging of products facilitates maintenance of traditional production and processing systems 4.00 100 10.

GI labelling will help reduce the geographical and cultural distance between producers and consumers 3.30 98.8 11. Horizontal and vertical relations of local actors in the value creation process strengthens social networks 3.23 100 12. GI is a powerful instrument to safeguard traditional know-how and cultural heritage of local stakeholders 4.00 100 13.

GI as a territorial development tool has the potential to increase the reputation of the region as a whole 4.00 100 14.

GI process results in development of managerial and technical skills of local stakeholders 3.18 82.9 Mean score of the domain 3.66 Geographical Indications (GIs) can serve as powerful instruments for preserving social and cultural resources by strengthening regional identity, promoting social equity, safeguarding traditional knowledge and lifestyles, and supporting food diversity and culinary heritage through www.extensionjournal.com strategic regional communication (FAO, 2012) [8] . GIs also offer effective protection for tangible indigenous knowledge by reinforcing its link to place, respecting collective community rights, and restricting use to the designated geographical area. As territorial development tools, GIs have been recognized as public goods that support regional wealth creation and landscape resilience. Sharma et al.

(2022) [15] had reported that the demand for Kadaknath black chicken increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, attributed to its reputed immunity-boosting properties, though scientific validation was limited. The authors argued that validating its nutritional profile could have strengthened branding, market penetration, and conservation efforts. The case of Cotija cheese illustrated the importance of protecting product reputation, as inferior imitations led to its genericisation, compromising authenticity and value (Vandecandelaere, 2010) [14] . Such cases underscore the vital role of GIs in preserving socio-cultural identity and safeguarding origin-linked reputations.

Respondents in the present study also expressed strong agreement on several socio-cultural aspects, including the collective rights associated with GI products supporting local community development; the contribution of GIs to food, nutrition, and livelihood security; and the potential of GI frameworks to integrate smallholders, thereby fostering inclusive development. According to FAO (2009) [6] , the collective nature of origin-linked products strengthens social ties among local actors by encouraging organization at the local level, promoting equity in the production system, and involving external stakeholders such as public institutions, the tourism industry, and educational organizations. Several studies have emphasized the significance of traditional diets, which are typically nutrient-rich and rooted in locally available resources, in enhancing food security and preserving cultural heritage (Swanepoel and Raneri, 2022; Sidiq et al., 2022) [16,17] . Muca et al. (2022) [12] , in their study, observed a shift in consumer preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic, driven by socio-economic and policy factors, including increased demand for eco-friendly products and a marked preference for GIs as sustainable choices. Consistently, the present study found that the demand for Attapady Black goat meat had increased during the pandemic, attributed to its organic, traditional, and ethnic attributes. GIs also have considerable social impact by sustaining livelihoods in remote areas, enhancing producers' self-esteem, and preserving traditional food knowledge and practices (Vandecandelaere et al., 2010) [14] .

The collective organization surrounding a GI product fosters collaboration among producers and expands social networks by involving a broad spectrum of local actors. Societal recognition of the unique value of GI products, grounded in traditional knowledge and local heritage, instils a sense of pride and identity among community members, particularly among small-scale producers and women engaged in production and processing. The intrinsic connection between product, people, and place often transcends mere economic value, making GI products powerful cultural markers and symbols of regional identity. Tables 4 and5 depict the domain-wise mean scores of respondents and the distribution of respondents based on their perceptions. The mean scores were categorized into three evenly distributed classes: 'low' (mean score less than 2), 'medium' (mean score between 2 and 3), and 'high' (mean score greater than 3). A high level of perception was observed across all three domains of sustainability, and the majority of respondents demonstrated a high level of perception in each domain. The Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA followed by Dunn's test (table 6) revealed significant differences in stakeholder perceptions across categories. Economic sustainability perceptions differed significantly at 1 per cent level (p < 0.01), with intermediaries, consumers, and governance actors reporting higher mean scores than producers. For overall sustainability, significant difference was observed at the 5 per cent level (p < 0.05), where consumers and www.extensionjournal.com governance actors exhibited higher perception scores than producers. These results indicate that non-producer stakeholders perceived greater sustainability benefits from GI, particularly in economic terms.

Conclusion

The stakeholders perceived GI as highly beneficial across all three domains of sustainability. In the environmental domain, GI was seen as a key tool for conserving natural resources, protecting biodiversity, and preserving the native Attapady Black goat and its production ecosystem. Economically, GI was recognized for its role in preventing unfair trade practices, enhancing local income, employment, and market visibility through eco-labelling and product differentiation. In the socio-cultural domain, GI was valued for preserving traditional knowledge, strengthening cultural identity, and promoting inclusive development by supporting smallholders and women. These findings highlight the strong perceived potential of GI implementation to promote holistic and sustainable development of the Attapady Black goat production system.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgmentThis article forms a part of the PhD research work of the first author. We sincerely acknowledge Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (KVASU) for supporting the project and providing the necessary research facilities. We also extend our gratitude to the Nodal Officer of Attapady and the Integrated Tribal Development Project (ITDP), Attapady, for granting permission to collect data from tribal respondents in the study area.

References

1. Belletti G, Marescotti A, Touzard JM. Geographical indications, public goods, and sustainable development: the roles of actors' strategies and public policies. World Development. 2017;98:45-57.
2. Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory, 2 nd ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.; 2014. p 416.
3. Chilla T, Fink B, Balling R, Reitmeier S, Schober K. The EU food label 'Protected Geographical Indication': economic implications and their spatial dimension. Sustainability. 2020;12(14):5503-5516.
4. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297-334.
5. Das D, Dileep MR. Geographical indication and tourism: a study on the awareness, factors influencing, and the scope of GI tagging in Kerala as a rural tourism development tool. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Systems. 2023;16(4):[page numbers not provided].
6. FAO and SINER-GI. Linking People, Places and Products: a guide for promoting quality linked to geographical origin and sustainable geographical indications, 2nd ed. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2009. p 52.
7. Garcia-Dorado SC, Queenan K, Shankar B, Hasler B, Mabhaudhi T, Cooper G, et al. Using qualitative system dynamics analysis to promote inclusive livestock value chains: a case study of the South African broiler value chain. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2021;5:670-756.
8. FAO. Identification of origin-linked products and their potential for development: a methodology for participatory inventories. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2012. p 56.
9. Falasco S, Caputo P, Garrone P, Randellini N. Are geographical indication products environmentally sound? The case of Pera Mantovana. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2024;467:142963.
10. Girard S. Can geographical indications promote sustainable shellfish farming? The example of Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel mussels. Marine Policy. 2022;135:104845.
11. Larson J. Relevance of geographical indications and designations of origin for the sustainable use of genetic resources. Rome: Global Facilitation Unit for Underutilized Species; 2007.
12. Muca E, Gergolet M, Fava F, Brunori G. Geographical indications as drivers for sustainable development: evidence from Albania, Bulgaria, and Poland. Sustainability. 2022;14(15):9173.
13. Stephen M, Raja TV, Sosamma I. Survey and characterization of Attappady black goats of Kerala. Animal Genetic Resources Information. 2005;37:43-52.
14. Vandecandelaere E, Arfini F, Belletti G, Marescotti A. Linking people, places and products: a guide for promoting quality linked to geographical origin and sustainable geographical indications, 2nd ed. Rome: FAO-SINERGI; 2010.
15. Sharma R, Sehrawat R, Ahlawat S, Sharma V, Parmar A, Thakur MS, et al. An attempt to valorize the only black meat chicken breed of India by delineating superior functional attributes of its meat. Scientific Reports. 2022;12(1):3555.
16. Swanepoel L, Raneri J. Traditional diets are generally nutrient-rich and utilize locally available resources. In: Editor A, ed. Geographical Indications and Local Food Systems. Cham: Springer; 2022. pp xx-xx.
17. Sidiq FF, Coles D, Hubbard C, Clark B, Frewer LJ. The role of traditional diets in promoting food security for indigenous peoples in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2022;978:012001.
18. Taber KS. The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education. 2018;48:1273-1296.
19. Tripathy A, Bardhan D, Kumar S, Kumar S, Singh SRK, Khan R, Suryam Dora D. Value chain analysis of Kadaknath chicken in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2022;35(2):[page numbers not provided].
20. Vandecandelaere E, Arfini F, Belletti G, Marescotti A. Linking people, places and products: a guide for promoting quality linked to geographical origin and sustainable geographical indications, 2nd ed. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and SINER-GI; 2010.
21. Vandecandelaere E, Teyssier C, Barjolle D, Fournier S, Beucherie O, Jeanneaux P. Strengthening sustainable food systems through geographical indications: evidence from 9 worldwide case studies. Journal of Sustainability Research. 2020;4(3):28.
22. Vandecandelaere E, Samper LF, Rey A, Daza A, Mejía P, Tartanac F, et al. The geographical indication pathway to sustainability: a framework to assess and monitor the contributions of geographical indications to sustainability through a participatory process. Sustainability. 2021;13(14):7535.
23. Qureshi HA. Theoretical sampling in qualitative research: a multi-layered nested sampling scheme. International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review. 2018;9(8):20218-20222.
24. Waltz CF, Bausell BR. Nursing Research: Design, Statistics and Computer Analysis. Davis: FA Davis Company; 1981.