IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ifaamr/114706.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choice Experiments’ Findings: A Tool for Fruit Agribusiness Managers’ Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Gallardo, Rosa Karina

Abstract

Choice experiment studies eliciting values for quality attributes provide relevant information to fruit agribusiness managers in various ways. First, it helps orchard managers to know if novel cultivars possess the attributes most valued by consumers. Second, it benefits warehouse and re-tail store managers to apply appropriate techniques to enhance fruit quality characteristics most appealing to consumers. Third, it is valuable for marketing managers to base their strategies on research-based information on consumers’ preferences. Results from a choice experiment showed that consumers were willing to pay $0.19, $0.16, $0.16, and $0.06 for a one unit increase in Anjou pears’ sweetness, texture, juiciness, and firmness liking scores, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Gallardo, Rosa Karina, 2011. "Choice Experiments’ Findings: A Tool for Fruit Agribusiness Managers’ Decision Making," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:114706
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.114706
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/114706/files/20100085_Formatted.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.114706?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. Zhang, Huifang & Gallardo, Rosa Karina & McCluskey, Jill J. & Kupferman, Eugene M., 2010. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Treatment-Induced Quality Attributes in Anjou Pears," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(1), pages 1-13.
    2. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    3. Bhat, Chandra R., 1995. "A heteroscedastic extreme value model of intercity travel mode choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 471-483, December.
    4. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    5. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    6. M. K. Haener & P. C. Boxall & W. L. Adamowicz, 2001. "Modeling Recreation Site Choice: Do Hypothetical Choices Reflect Actual Behavior?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 629-642.
    7. Combris, Pierre & Pinto, Alexandra Seabra & Fragata, Antonio & Giraud-Heraud, Eric, 2007. "Does taste beat food safety? Evidence from the "Pera Rocha" case in Portugal," 105th Seminar, March 8-10, 2007, Bologna, Italy 7879, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    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. Dila Ikiz & R. Karina Gallardo & Amit Dhingra & Seanna Hewitt, 2018. "Assessing consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for novel sliced packed fresh pears: A latent class approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 321-337, March.
    2. Lilavanichakul, Apichaya & Boecker, Andreas, 2013. "Consumer Acceptance of a New Traceability Technology: A Discrete Choice Application to Ontario Ginseng," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 16(4), pages 1-26, November.
    3. Valenciano, Jaime de Pablo & Manso, José Ramos Pires & Battistuzzi, Miguel Ángel Giacinti, 2017. "Drivers of the International Pear Market: A Panel data Approach," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 0(Issue 1), January.

    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. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    2. Darren Hudson & Karina Gallardo & Terry Hanson, 2005. "Hypothetical (Non)Bias In Choice Experiments: Evidence From Freshwater Prawns," Experimental 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    4. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    5. Jayson Lusk & Tomas Nilsson & Ken Foster, 2007. "Public Preferences and Private Choices: Effect of Altruism and Free Riding on Demand for Environmentally Certified Pork," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 499-521, April.
    6. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    7. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    8. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    9. Frode Alfnes & Chengyan Yue & Helen H. Jensen, 2010. "Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 37(2), pages 147-163, June.
    10. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    11. Watson, Jonathan Adam & Wysocki, Allen F. & Gunderson, Michael A. & Brecht, Jeffrey K. & Sims, Charles A., 2012. "Fresh Hammock-Packed Bartlett Pears: Implications For Marketing Based On Consumers’ Willingness To Pay For Sensory Attributes And Return On Invesment Potential," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 125068, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Dmitriy Volinskiy & Wiktor Adamowicz & Michele Veeman, 2011. "Predicting versus testing: a conditional cross‐forecasting accuracy measure for hypothetical bias," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(3), pages 429-450, July.
    13. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-39, January.
    14. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2006. "A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 507-519, May.
    15. Mozumder, Pallab & Vásquez, William F. & Marathe, Achla, 2011. "Consumers' preference for renewable energy in the southwest USA," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1119-1126.
    16. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    17. Carnegie, Rachel & Wang, Holly & Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David, 2014. "Consumer Preferences for Quality and Safety Attributes of Duck in Restaurant Entrees: Is China A Viable Market for The U.S. Duck Industry?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Alfnes, Frode & Steine, Gro, 2005. "None-of-These Bias in Stated Choice Experiments," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24761, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    20. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.

    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:ifaamr:114706. 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/ifamaea.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.