IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v27y1998i01p1-14_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting Consumer Preferences for Fresh Salmon: The Influence of Safety Inspection and Production Method Attributes

Author

Listed:
  • Holland, Daniel
  • Wessells, Cathy R.

Abstract

A rank-ordered logit model is estimated using data collected by a mail survey of consumers in the northeastern and mid-Atlantic United States. The methodology, based on conjoint analysis, determines the average relative importance and value of three product attributes for fresh salmon (seafood inspection, production method, and price), and estimates the relative attractiveness of particular products to consumers. When used in combination with demographic data and responses to questions on perceptions, the analysis suggests market segmentations and potential marketing strategies based on the heterogeneity in preferences among consumers.

Suggested Citation

  • Holland, Daniel & Wessells, Cathy R., 1998. "Predicting Consumer Preferences for Fresh Salmon: The Influence of Safety Inspection and Production Method Attributes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:27:y:1998:i:01:p:1-14_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500001659/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manalo, Alberto B., 1990. "Assessing The Importance Of Apple Attributes: An Agricultural Application Of Conjoint Analysis," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-7, October.
    2. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    3. Stephen K. Swallow & Thomas Weaver & James J. Opaluch & Thomas S. Michelman, 1994. "Heterogeneous Preferences and Aggregation in Environmental Policy Analysis: A Landfill Siting Case," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(3), pages 431-443.
    4. MacKenzie, John, 1990. "Conjoint Analysis Of Deer Hunting," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-9, October.
    5. Halbrendt, Catherine K. & Wirth, Ferdinand F. & Vaughn, Gerald F., 1991. "Conjoint Analysis Of The Mid-Atlantic Food-Fish Market For Farm-Raised Hybrid Striped Bass," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(01), pages 1-9, July.
    6. Stoker, Thomas M, 1993. "Empirical Approaches to the Problem of Aggregation Over Individuals," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 31(4), pages 1827-1874, December.
    7. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    8. Vatn Arild & Bromley Daniel W., 1994. "Choices without Prices without Apologies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 129-148, March.
    9. Halbrendt, C.K. & Wirth, F.F. & Vaughn, G.F., 1991. "Conjoint Analysis of the Mid-Atlantic Food-Fish Market for Farm-Raised Hybrid Striped Bass," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 155-163, July.
    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. Eunae Son & Song Soo Lim, 2021. "Consumer Acceptance of Gene-Edited versus Genetically Modified Foods in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Gan, Christopher E.C. & Luzar, E. Jane, 1993. "A Conjoint Analysis Of Waterfowl Hunting In Louisiana," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Fields, Deacue, 2005. "Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 34(2), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Harrison, R. Wes & Sambidi, Pramod R., 2004. "A Conjoint Analysis of the U.S. Broiler Complex Location Decision," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(3), pages 1-17, December.
    5. Sánchez, M. & Gil, José M., 1998. "Comparación de tres métodos de estimación del análisis conjunto: diferencias en las preferencias en el consumo de vino y en la segmentación del mercado," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 10, pages 131-146, Diciembre.
    6. Huang, Chung L. & Fu, Joe, 1993. "Consumer Preferences And Evaluations Of A Processed Meat Product," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 24(01), pages 1-9, February.
    7. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Fields, Deacue, 2001. "Theoretical And Empirical Considerations Of Eliciting Preferences And Model Estimation In Conjoint Analysis," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20680, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Schupp, Alvin R. & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Prinyawiwatkul, Witoon & O'Neil, Carol E., 2003. "Consumer-Preferred Attributes of a Fresh Ground Beef and Turkey Product: A Conjoint Analysis," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(2), pages 1-7, July.
    9. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    10. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    11. Harrison, R. Wes & Mclennon, Everald, 2004. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Biotech Labeling Formats," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(01), pages 1-13, April.
    12. Skreli, Engjell & Imami, Drini, 2012. "Analyzing Consumers’ Preferences for Apple Attributes in Tirana, Albania," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Lihra, Torsten & Buehlmann, Urs & Graf, Raoul, 2012. "Customer preferences for customized household furniture," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 94-112.
    14. Fields, Deacue & Gillespie, Jeffrey M., 2003. "Beef Producer Preferences And Purchase Decisions For Livestock Revenue Insurance Products," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35089, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    15. van Beek, Krijn W. H. & Koopmans, Carl C. & van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1997. "Shopping at the labour market: A real tale of fiction," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 295-317, February.
    16. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Willingness to pay for eco-labelled wood furniture: Choice-based conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valuation," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 29-48, May.
    17. Rodríguez-Míguez, Eva & Herrero, Carmen & Pinto-Prades, José Luis, 2004. "Using a point system in the management of waiting lists: the case of cataracts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 585-594, August.
    18. Matthew Wiswall & Basit Zafar, 2018. "Preference for the Workplace, Investment in Human Capital, and Gender," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(1), pages 457-507.
    19. Wirth, Ferdinand F. & Stanton, John L. & Wiley, James B., 2011. "The Relative Importance of Search versus Credence Product Attributes: Organic and Locally Grown," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(01), pages 1-15, April.
    20. 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).

    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:cup:agrerw:v:27:y:1998:i:01:p:1-14_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/age .

    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.