IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aareaj/118587.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Process versus product: which determines consumer demand for genetically modified apples?

Author

Listed:
  • Kaye-Blake, William
  • Bicknell, Kathryn
  • Saunders, Caroline M.

Abstract

One debate in the literature regarding consumers’ reactions to genetically modified food (GMF) centres on whether consumers react to the process of gene technology or to the specific GMF products. Results from a choice experiment survey in New Zealand indicate that consumers are heterogeneous with regard to GMF and that some modifications are viewed more positively than others. These findings suggest that for some consumers the process of gene technology is the decisive factor in evaluatingGMF, while for others the different potential GMF products are valued according to their enhanced attributes.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaye-Blake, William & Bicknell, Kathryn & Saunders, Caroline M., 2005. "Process versus product: which determines consumer demand for genetically modified apples?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(4), pages 1-15.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aareaj:118587
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.118587
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/118587/files/j.1467-8489.2005.00311.x.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.118587?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, November.
    2. Michael Burton & Dan Rigby & Trevor Young, 2001. "Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 28(4), pages 479-498, December.
    3. D Rigby & M Burton, 2003. "Capturing Preference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Models: A Random Parameter Logit Model of the Demand for GM Food," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0319, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    4. Matthew Rousu & Wallace E. Huffman & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2004. "Are United States Consumers Tolerant of Genetically Modified Foods?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 19-31.
    5. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Peterson, George L. & Clarke, Andrea & Brown, Thomas C., 2003. "Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: integrating economics, psychology and ethics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 63-76, February.
    6. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    7. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    8. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    9. Sallie James & Michael Burton, 2003. "Consumer preferences for GM food and other attributes of the food system," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 501-518, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Claudia Symmank, 2019. "Extrinsic and intrinsic food product attributes in consumer and sensory research: literature review and quantification of the findings," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 39-74, February.
    2. Mara Thiene & Riccardo Scarpa & Jordan Louviere, 2015. "Addressing Preference Heterogeneity, Multiple Scales and Attribute Attendance with a Correlated Finite Mixing Model of Tap Water Choice," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 637-656, November.
    3. William H. Kaye-Blake & Caroline M. Saunders & Selim Cagatay, 2008. "Genetic Modification Technology and Producer Returns: The Impacts of Productivity, Preferences, and Technology Uptake," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(4), pages 692-710.
    4. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2007. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Produce Consumers," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon 9704, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Traill, W. Bruce & Arnoult, Matthieu H. & Chambers, Stephanie A. & Deaville, E.R. & Gordon, Michael H. & John, P. & Jones, Philip J. & Kliem, K.E. & Mortimer, S.R. & Tiffin, J. Richard, 2008. "Would Functional Agricultural Foods Improve Human Health?," 110th Seminar, February 18-22, 2008, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 49893, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Kaye-Blake, William & Saunders, Caroline M. & Fairweather, John, 2005. "Optimal uptake of second-generation genetically-modified crops," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 137932, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    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. William Kaye‐Blake & Kathryn Bicknell & Caroline Saunders, 2005. "Process versus product: which determines consumer demand for genetically modified apples?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(4), pages 413-427, December.
    2. Camarena-Gomez, Dena M. & Sanjuan, Ana Isabel, 2005. "Walnut Preferences in Spain: Is the Spanish Consumer Ready for New Varieties?," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24749, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    4. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    5. Figini, Paolo & Vici, Laura, 2012. "Off-season tourists and the cultural offer of a mass-tourism destination: The case of Rimini," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 825-839.
    6. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    7. Rogers, Abbie A. & Cleland, Jonelle, 2010. "Comparing Scientist and Public Preferences for Conserving Environmental Systems: A Case of the Kimberley’s Tropical Waterways and Wetlands," Research Reports 107579, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    8. Rinaldo Brau, 2008. "Demand-Driven Sustainable Tourism? A Choice Modelling Analysis," Tourism Economics, , vol. 14(4), pages 691-708, December.
    9. Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Astrid Kiil & Trine Kjær, 2011. "Soccer Attendees’ Preferences for Facilities at the Fionia Park Stadium: An Application of the Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 12(2), pages 179-199, April.
    10. Choi, Andy S. & Ritchie, Brent W. & Papandrea, Franco & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-220.
    11. Choi, Andy Sungnok & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2006. "A Critique of Conventional Non-market Valuation: Attitudes and Action," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 174461, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    12. Amilon, Anna & Ladenburg, Jacob & Siren, Anu & Vernstrøm Østergaard, Stine, 2020. "Willingness to pay for long-term home care services: Evidence from a stated preferences analysis," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    13. repec:ags:aare05:139316 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Choi, Andy S., 2011. "Implicit prices for longer temporary exhibitions in a heritage site and a test of preference heterogeneity: A segmentation-based approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 511-519.
    15. Dannenberg, Astrid, 2009. "The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food -- A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2182-2192, June.
    16. Estifanos, Tafesse & Polyakov, Maksym & Pandit, Ram & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael, 2018. "Protection of the Ethiopian Wolf: What are tourists willing to pay for?," Working Papers 272805, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    17. Andy Choi, 2009. "Willingness to pay: how stable are the estimates?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 33(4), pages 301-310, November.
    18. Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & José Gómez-Limón, 2008. "Reconsidering Heterogeneity and Aggregation Issues in Environmental Valuation: A Multi-attribute Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 551-570, August.
    19. Tafesse Estifanos & Maksym Polyakov & Ram Pandit & Atakelty Hailu & Michael Burton, 2021. "What are tourists willing to pay for securing the survival of a flagship species? The case of protection of the Ethiopian wolf," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(1), pages 45-69, February.
    20. Andy S. Choi & Kelly S. Fielding, 2016. "Cultural Attitudes as WTP Determinants: A Revised Cultural Worldview Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-18, June.
    21. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.

    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:ags:aareaj:118587. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.