IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajarec/v49y2005i4p413-427.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • William Kaye‐Blake
  • Kathryn Bicknell
  • Caroline Saunders

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 evaluating GMF, while for others the different potential GMF products are valued according to their enhanced attributes.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:49:y:2005:i:4:p:413-427
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8489.2005.00311.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2005.00311.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2005.00311.x?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. 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.
    2. Rigby, Dan & Burton, Michael P., 2003. "Capturing Preference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Models: A Random Parameter Logit Model of the Demand for GM Food," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 58200, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    4. 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.
    5. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    11. Peter Kennedy, 2003. "A Guide to Econometrics, 5th Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 5, volume 1, number 026261183x, April.
    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. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Novotorova, Nadezhda K. & Mazzocco, Michael A., 2009. "The Impact of Product Attribute Wording on Consumer Acceptance of Biotechnology Applications in Produce," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 40(3), pages 1-14, November.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).

    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. 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.
    2. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    3. 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.
    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. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    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. repec:ags:aare05:139316 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Rhona Barr & Susana Mourato, 2012. "Investigating fishers� preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," GRI Working Papers 101, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    15. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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).
    21. Julia Martin-Ortega & Giacomo Giannoccaro & Julio Berbel, 2011. "Environmental and Resource Costs Under Water Scarcity Conditions: An Estimation in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(6), pages 1615-1633, April.

    More about this item

    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:bla:ajarec:v:49:y:2005:i:4:p:413-427. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (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.