IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/joaaec/48753.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Hu, Wuyang
  • Woods, Timothy A.
  • 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 A. & Bastin, Sandra, 2009. "Consumer Acceptance and Willingness to Pay for Blueberry Products with Nonconventional Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(01), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:48753
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.48753
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/48753/files/jaae154.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.48753?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
    ---><---

    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. Duke, Joshua M. & Dundas, Steven J. & Johnston, Robert J. & Messer, Kent D., 2014. "Prioritizing payment for environmental services: Using nonmarket benefits and costs for optimal selection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 319-329.
    2. 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.
    3. Maria A Cunha-e-Sa & Livia Madureira & Luis Catela Nunes & Vladimir Otrachshenko, 2010. "Protesting or justifying? A latent class model for contingent valuation with attitudinal data," Nova SBE Working Paper Series wp547, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. John C. Bergstrom & Richard C. Ready, 2009. "What Have We Learned from Over 20 Years of Farmland Amenity Valuation Research in North America?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages 21-49.
    8. Rogers, Abbie A., 2012. "Conservation values and management preferences for the Ningaloo Marine Park: a discrete choice experiment," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124431, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Kan, Iddo & Haim, David & Rapaport-Rom, Mickey & Shechter, Mordechai, 2009. "Environmental amenities and optimal agricultural land use: The case of Israel," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1893-1898, April.
    10. Yuan, Yuan & Boyle, Kevin J. & You, Wen & Fuller, Harry M., 2012. "A Nationwide Comparison of Farmland Conservation Easement Valuation," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124836, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Durham Catherine A. & Roheim Cathy A. & Pardoe Iain, 2012. "Picking Apples: Can Multi-Attribute Ecolabels Compete?," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-28, October.
    14. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2017. "Optimized quantity-within-distance models of spatial welfare heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 110-129.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2009. "Economics at the Fringe: Non-Market Valuation Studies and their Role in Land Use Plans in the United States," MPRA Paper 101193, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. 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.
    19. Minjuan Zhao & Robert Johnston & Eric Schultz, 2013. "What to Value and How? Ecological Indicator Choices in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 3-25, September.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Demand and Price Analysis; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;
    All these keywords.

    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:ags:joaaec:48753. 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/saeaaea.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.