IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v40y2011i01p48-62_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Relative Importance of Search versus Credence Product Attributes: Organic and Locally Grown

Author

Listed:
  • Wirth, Ferdinand F.
  • Stanton, John L.
  • Wiley, James B.

Abstract

Organic foods and local foods have come to the forefront of consumer issues, due to concerns about nutrition, health, sustainability, and food safety. A conjoint analysis experiment quantified the relative importance of, and trade-offs between, apple search and experience attributes (quality/blemishes, size, flavor), credence attributes (conventional vs. organic production method, local origin vs. product of USA vs. imported), and purchase price when buying apples. Quality is the most important apple attribute. Production method—organic versus conventional—had no significant impact on preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • 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, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 48-62, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:40:y:2011:i:01:p:48-62_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500004512/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. John Stanton & Ferdinand F Wirth & Yingdao Dao, 2018. "An Analysis of Consumers’ Preferences between Locally Grown/Processed Food and Organic Food," Current Investigations in Agriculture and Current Research, Lupine Publishers, LLC, vol. 4(1), pages 480-490, August.
    2. McCaffrey Sara Jane & Kurland Nancy, 2014. "Who defines “local”? Resistance to harmonizing standards in ethical markets," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 191-219, April.
    3. Mingjun Deng & Guocheng Xiang & Shuntian Yao, 2018. "The Effectiveness of the Multilateral Coalition to Develop a Green Agricultural Products Market in China Based on a TU Cooperative Game Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.
    4. Badar, Hammad & Ariyawardana, Anoma & Collins, Ray, 2015. "Capturing Consumer Preferences for Value Chain Improvements in the Mango Industry of Pakistan," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, September.
    5. Kliem, Lea & Sagebiel, Julian, 2023. "Consumers' preferences for commons-based and open-source produce: A discrete choice experiment with directional information manipulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    6. Vincent Hoang & Takao Iida & Shigeru Matsumoto & Natsuki Watanabe & Clevo Wilson, 2016. "Consumer’s comparison between local and imported organic products: a hedonic analysis of the Japanese table wine market," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 6(3), pages 405-415, December.
    7. Biancamaria Torquati & Sergio Pedini & Fabio Maria Santucci & Riccardo Da Re, 2021. "Participatory Guarantee System and Social Capital for Sustainable Development in Brazil: The Case Study of OPAC Orgânicos Sul de Minas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-18, October.
    8. Campbell, Benjamin L. & Mhlanga, Saneliso & Lesschaeve, Isabelle, 2013. "Consumer Preferences for Peach Attributes: Market Segmentation Analysis and Implications for New Marketing Strategies," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(3), pages 1-24, December.
    9. Roosen, Jutta & Kottl, Barbara & Hasselbach, Johanna, 2012. "Can local be the new organic? Food choice motives and willingness to pay," 2012 AAEA/EAAE Food Environment Symposium 123512, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Teresa Madureira & Fernando Nunes & José Veiga & Pablo Saralegui-Diez, 2021. "Choices in Sustainable Food Consumption: How Spanish Low Intake Organic Consumers Behave," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-18, November.
    11. Eija Pouta & Eero Liski & Annika Tienhaara & Kauko Koikkalainen & Antti Miettinen, 2021. "Ecosystem-Based Food Production: Consumers′ Preferred Practices and Willingness to Buy and Pay," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, 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. Ying, Jiahui & Shonkwiler, Vanessa P. & Campbell, Benjamin L., 2018. "Willingness to Pay or Not to Pay: Valuing Foods Some Respondents Find Distasteful," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274065, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Vukasovič, Tina, 2015. "Attitudes towards organic fruits and vegetables," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(1), pages 1-15.
    15. Vincent Hoang & Takao Iida & Shigeru Matsumoto & Natsuki Watanabe & Clevo Wilson, 2014. "Market penetration of imported agricultural products: A hedonic analysis of the Japanese table wine market," Working Papers e083, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.
    16. Claudia Gabriela Baicu & Olimpia State, & Daniel Adrian Gardan & Iuliana Petronela Gardan & Iulia Ruxandra Ticau, 2022. "Financial and Competitive Implications of the European Green Deal – Perceptions of Retail Managers," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 24(61), pages 683-683, August.

    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:40:y:2011:i:01:p:48-62_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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.