IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jagaec/v41y2009i01p47-60_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Acceptance and Willingness to Pay for Blueberry Products with Nonconventional Attributes

Author

Listed:
  • Hu, Wuyang
  • Woods, Timothy
  • Bastin, Sandra

Abstract

Consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for three nonconventional attributes associated with six processed blueberry products was examined through an in-store conjoint experiment survey. Both credence and experience attributes were considered, including whether the products were produced locally, and whether they were organic or sugar-free. The results indicate heterogeneity in consumer preference and willingness to pay for different attributes across product categories. Local products and organic formulations generally received positive willingness to pay across all products. This information has implications for blueberry growers and retailers who are trying to create and position value-added products for maximum revenue.

Suggested Citation

  • Hu, Wuyang & Woods, Timothy & Bastin, Sandra, 2009. "Consumer Acceptance and Willingness to Pay for Blueberry Products with Nonconventional Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 47-60, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jagaec:v:41:y:2009:i:01:p:47-60_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1074070800002546/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1098-1115.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jin, Jianjun & He, Rui & Wang, Wenyu & Gong, Haozhou, 2018. "Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 214-219.
    2. Smith, Craig M. & Peterson, Jeffrey M. & Leatherman, John C. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2012. "A Simulation of Factors Impeding Water Quality Trading," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 42(2), pages 1-15.
    3. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    4. Anastasija Novikova & Lucia Rocchi & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2019. "Valuing Agricultural Landscape: Lithuanian Case Study Using a Contingent Valuation Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, May.
    5. Johnston, Robert J. & Duke, Joshua M., 2010. "Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: Evaluating the common wisdom," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 421-438, August.
    6. Johnston, Robert J. & Ramachandran, Mahesh & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y., 2011. "Characterizing Spatial Pattern in Ecosystem Service Values when Distance Decay Doesn’t Apply: Choice Experiments and Local Indicators of Spatial Association," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103374, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Soto, José R., 2016. "Does policy process influence public values for forest-water resource protection in Florida?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 122-131.
    8. Carroll, Kathryn A. & Bernard, John C. & Pesek, John D. Jr., 2013. "Consumer Preferences for Tomatoes: The Influence of Local, Organic, and State Program Promotions by Purchasing Venue," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-18.
    9. Kim, Taeyoung & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Larson, Eric R. & Armsworth, Paul R., 2014. "Protected area acquisition costs show economies of scale with area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 122-132.
    10. Johnston, Robert J. & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2013. "Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 98-118, April.
    11. Andor, Mark A. & Lange, Andreas & Sommer, Stephan, 2022. "Fairness and the support of redistributive environmental policies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    12. Black, Katie Jo, 2018. "Wide open spaces: Estimating the willingness to pay for adjacent preserved open space," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 110-121.
    13. Kristina Ek & Lars Persson, 2020. "Priorities and Preferences in Water Quality Management - a Case Study of the Alsterån River Basin," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(1), pages 155-173, January.
    14. Morkbak, Morten Raun & Jensen, Jorgen Dejgaard, 2012. "Do consumers’ preferences change when on vacation? A willingness to pay study on apples and honey," 2012 AAEA/EAAE Food Environment Symposium 123525, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Gramig, Benjamin M. & Widmar, Nicole J.O., 2015. "Estimating Farmers' Willingness to Change Tillage Practices to Supply Carbon Emissions Offsets," 89th Annual Conference, April 13-15, 2015, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 204203, Agricultural Economics Society.
    16. Subroy, Vandana & Rogers, Abbie A. & Kragt, Marit E., 2018. "To Bait or Not to Bait: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Public Preferences for Native Wildlife and Conservation Management in Western Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 114-122.
    17. Rob Fraser, 2009. "Land Heterogeneity, Agricultural Income Forgone and Environmental Benefit: An Assessment of Incentive Compatibility Problems in Environmental Stewardship Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 190-201, February.
    18. Boyd, James & Krupnick, Alan, 2009. "The Definition and Choice of Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-35, Resources for the Future.
    19. Floress, Kristin & Reimer, Adam & Thompson, Aaron & Burbach, Mark & Knutson, Cody & Prokopy, Linda & Ribaudo, Marc & Ulrich-Schad, Jessica, 2018. "Measuring farmer conservation behaviors: Challenges and best practices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 414-418.
    20. Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jagaec:v:41:y:2009:i:01:p:47-60_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/aae .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.