IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i11p4521-d1402448.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Green Tea Products: A Randomized Conjoint Analysis in Thai Nguyen, Vietnam

Author

Listed:
  • Bui Xuan Hong

    (Graduate School of Innovation and Practice for Smart Society, Hiroshima University, Higashihiroshima 739-8529, Japan
    Faculty of Economics and Rural Development, Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry, Thai Nguyen City 250000, Vietnam)

  • Masaru Ichihashi

    (Graduate School of Innovation and Practice for Smart Society, Hiroshima University, Higashihiroshima 739-8529, Japan
    The IDEC Institute, Hiroshima University, 1-5-1 Kagamiyama, Higahsihiroshima 739-8529, Japan
    Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hiroshima University, Higashihiroshima 739-8529, Japan
    Network for Education and Research on Peace & Sustainability (NERPS), Hiroshima University, Higashihiroshima 739-8529, Japan)

  • Nguyen Thi Bich Ngoc

    (Faculty of Economics and Rural Development, Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry, Thai Nguyen City 250000, Vietnam
    The IDEC Institute, Hiroshima University, 1-5-1 Kagamiyama, Higahsihiroshima 739-8529, Japan)

Abstract

How local economies can successfully develop remains an important issue for any developing country. One mechanism for promotion of economic development is government-driven policy. The problem is that it is not clear whether public-led economic promotion attracts consumers and which promotion factors are relatively significant for boosting particular goods. This paper examines attributes of green tea products likely influencing consumer preferences, focusing on the Thai Nguyen area in Vietnam as an example. In this area, the “One Commune, One Product” (OCOP) project has been implemented by the local government. This study employs randomized conjoint analysis based on data collected from 450 randomly selected consumers in several local supermarkets. Interestingly, the results show that online style sales have a negative preference for the purchase of green tea products, while transparency, such as the traceability of the product and product information, and reliability, such as certification, enhance the purchase of these products by consumers. However, this finding is not necessarily robust because our results indicate that approximately 90% of consumers tend to choose the default pair, which means that they do not actively prefer the product, possibly implying that this kind of public-led promotion is not yet broadly familiar to all people.

Suggested Citation

  • Bui Xuan Hong & Masaru Ichihashi & Nguyen Thi Bich Ngoc, 2024. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Green Tea Products: A Randomized Conjoint Analysis in Thai Nguyen, Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-17, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:11:p:4521-:d:1402448
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/11/4521/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/11/4521/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hong, Ilyoo B., 2015. "Understanding the consumer's online merchant selection process: The roles of product involvement, perceived risk, and trust expectation," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 322-336.
    2. Narangerel Ganbold & Shah Fahad & Hua Li & Tumendemberel Gungaa, 2022. "An evaluation of subsidy policy impacts, transient and persistent technical efficiency: A case of Mongolia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(7), pages 9223-9242, July.
    3. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    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. Lisanne de Blok & Max Heermann & Julian Schuessler & Dirk Leuffen & Catherine E. de Vries, 2024. "All on board? The role of institutional design for public support for differentiated integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(3), pages 593-604, September.
    2. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    3. Wu Li & Pengya Ai & Annette Ding, 2023. "More Than Just Numbers: How Engagement Metrics Influence User Intention to Pay for Online Knowledge Products," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440221, January.
    4. Trinh Le Tan & Khanh Nguyen Chau Ngoc & Hien Le Thi Thanh & Hoai Nguyen Thi Thu & Uyen Vo Truong Hoang, 2024. "Enhancing Repurchase Intention on Digital Platforms Based on Shopping Well-Being Through Shopping Value, Trust and Impulsive Buying," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(3), pages 21582440241, September.
    5. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    6. Wietzke, Frank-Borge, 2024. "Perceptions of social class in Africa. Results from a conjoint experiment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    7. Robert Kubinec, 2018. "Patrons or Clients? Measuring and Experimentally Evaluating Political Connections of Firms in Morocco and Jordan," Working Papers 1280, Economic Research Forum, revised 26 Dec 2018.
    8. Heap, Shaun P. Hargreaves & Koop, Christel & Matakos, Konstantinos & Unan, Asli & Weber, Nina Sophie, 2021. "We Cannot Disagree Forever! Reality Polarization and Citizens’ Post-Pandemic Fiscal Adjustment Preferences," SocArXiv 69tup, Center for Open Science.
    9. E. Keith Smith & Dennis Kolcava & Thomas Bernauer, 2024. "Stringent sustainability regulations for global supply chains are supported across middle-income democracies," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Vrânceanu, Alina & Dinas, Elias & Heidland, Tobias & Ruhs, Martin, 2023. "The European refugee crisis and public support for the externalisation of migration management," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 279441, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    11. Beber, Bernd & Ebert, Cara & Sievert, Maximiliane, 2024. "Is intent to migrate irregularly responsive to recent German asylum policy adjustments?," Ruhr Economic Papers 1071, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    12. Athey, Susan & Karlan, Dean & Palikot, Emil & Yuan, Yuan, 2022. "Smiles in Profiles: Improving Fairness and Efficiency Using Estimates of User Preferences in Online Marketplaces," Research Papers 4071, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    13. Saparova, Gulkaiyr & Khan, Ghulam Dastgir & Joshi, Niraj Prakash, 2024. "Linking farmers to markets: Assessing small-scale farmers' preferences for an official phytosanitary regime in the Kyrgyz Republic," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 696-708.
    14. Arntz, Melanie & Brüll, Eduard & Lipowski, Cäcilia, 2021. "Do preferences for urban amenities really differ by skill?," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-045, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Joshua Alley, 2023. "Elite Cues and Public Attitudes Towards Military Alliances," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(7-8), pages 1537-1563, August.
    16. Tukiainen, Janne & Blesse, Sebastian & Bohne, Albrecht & Giuffrida, Leonardo M. & Jääskeläinen, Jan & Luukinen, Ari & Sieppi, Antti, 2024. "What are the priorities of bureaucrats? Evidence from conjoint experiments with procurement officials," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    17. Alrawad, Mahmaod & Lutfi, Abdalwali & Alyatama, Sundus & Al Khattab, Adel & Alsoboa, Sliman S. & Almaiah, Mohammed Amin & Ramadan, Mujtaba Hashim & Arafa, Hussin Mostafa & Ahmed, Nazar Ali & Alsyouf, , 2023. "Assessing customers perception of online shopping risks: A structural equation modeling–based multigroup analysis," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    18. Tulsi Ram Aryal & Masaru Ichihashi & Shinji Kaneko, 2022. "How strong is demand for public transport service in Nepal? A case study of Kathmandu using a choice-based conjoint experiment," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    19. Poulissen, Davey & de Grip, Andries & Fouarge, Didier & Künn-Nelen, Annemarie, 2021. "Employers' Willingness to Invest in the Training of Temporary Workers: A Discrete Choice Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 14395, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Heinzel, Mirko & Weaver, Catherine & Jorgensen, Samantha, 2024. "Bureaucratic representation and gender mainstreaming in international organizations: evidence from the World Bank," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 122464, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:11:p:4521-:d:1402448. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.