IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i22p10099-d1524634.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shaping Rice Preferences: Effects of Farming Information, Package Design and Consumer Attributes

Author

Listed:
  • Nobuhito Sekiya

    (Graduate School of Bioresources, Mie University, Tsu 514-8507, Mie, Japan)

  • Toru Nakajima

    (Department of Data Science for Food Systems, Faculty of Food and Nutritional Sciences, Toyo University, Asaka 351-8510, Saitama, Japan)

  • Takeshi Tsuji

    (Graduate School of Regional Innovation Studies, Mie University, Tsu 514-8507, Mie, Japan
    Tsuji Farm Co., Ltd., Tsu 514-0126, Mie, Japan)

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of information disclosure on consumer acceptance of organic and conventional rice, focusing on sensory experiences and repurchase intentions. Two randomized controlled trials were conducted with 211 university staff members to examine how farming practice information, package design, and producer information influence taste perception and willingness to eat rice again. In the first trial, disclosure of organic farming information significantly improved both taste perception and willingness to eat organic rice again. The proportion of participants preferring organic rice taste increased from 31.8% to 44.8%, while willingness to eat organic rice again rose from 16.4% to 34.4% with information disclosure. The second trial, focusing on conventional rice, revealed that while package design and producer information did not significantly affect taste perception, they positively influenced repurchase intentions. Willingness to eat rice in a designed package again increased from 17.3% to 29.4% when producer information was disclosed. Across both trials, a strong relationship between taste evaluation and willingness to eat again was observed. Individual attributes, such as being particular about food, showed complex relationships with rice evaluation. Notably, environmental awareness, despite being prevalent among respondents, had limited effect on organic rice evaluation. These findings have important implications for organic rice marketing strategies and the promotion of sustainable agricultural practices. They suggest that providing clear information about organic farming practices could enhance consumer acceptance and potentially increase market share for organic rice. For conventional rice producers, results highlight the importance of package design and producer information in influencing repurchase intentions.

Suggested Citation

  • Nobuhito Sekiya & Toru Nakajima & Takeshi Tsuji, 2024. "Shaping Rice Preferences: Effects of Farming Information, Package Design and Consumer Attributes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-19, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:22:p:10099-:d:1524634
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/22/10099/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/22/10099/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Fairweather, 1999. "Understanding how farmers choose between organic and conventional production: Results from New Zealand and policy implications," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 16(1), pages 51-63, March.
    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. Bouali Guesmi & Teresa Serra & Amr Radwan & José María Gil, 2018. "Efficiency of Egyptian organic agriculture: A local maximum likelihood approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 441-455, March.
    2. Marie-Louise Risgaard & Pia Frederiksen & Pernille Kaltoft, 2007. "Socio-cultural processes behind the differential distribution of organic farming in Denmark: a case study," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(4), pages 445-459, December.
    3. John M. Polimeni & Raluca I. Iorgulescu & Lucian Liviu Albu & Andrei Ionica, 2022. "Romanian Farmers’ Markets: Understanding the Environmental Attitudes of Farmers as an Instrument for Bioeconomy Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    4. Garini, C.S. & Vanwindekens, F. & Scholberg, J.M.S. & Wezel, A. & Groot, J.C.J., 2017. "Drivers of adoption of agroecological practices for winegrowers and influence from policies in the province of Trento, Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 200-211.
    5. Teresa Serra & David Zilberman & José M. Gil, 2008. "Differential uncertainties and risk attitudes between conventional and organic producers: the case of Spanish arable crop farmers," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(2), pages 219-229, September.
    6. Nguyen Cong Dinh & Takeshi Mizunoya & Vo Hoang Ha & Pham Xuan Hung & Nguyen Quang Tan & Le Thanh An, 2023. "Factors influencing farmer intentions to scale up organic rice farming: preliminary findings from the context of agricultural production in Central Vietnam," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 749-774, September.
    7. Luczka, Wladyslawa, 2023. "Problemy Rozwoju Rolnictwa Ekologicznego w Opinii Rolników," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2023(4).
    8. John Cranfield & Spencer Henson & James Holliday, 2010. "The motives, benefits, and problems of conversion to organic production," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(3), pages 291-306, September.
    9. Araba, Narjiss, 2022. "Organic markets: a safe haven from volatility," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321209, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    10. Guesmi, Bouali & Serra, Teresa & Radwan, Amr & Gil, José María, 2014. "Efficiency of Egyptian Organic Agriculture: a Local Maximum Likelihood Approach," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183023, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Erin Nelson & Steffanie Scott & Judie Cukier & Ángel Galán, 2009. "Institutionalizing agroecology: successes and challenges in Cuba," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 26(3), pages 233-243, September.
    12. Dinis, Isabel & Ortolani, Livia & Bocci, Riccardo & Brites, Cláudia, 2015. "Organic agriculture values and practices in Portugal and Italy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 39-45.
    13. Wladyslawa Luczka & Joanna Smoluk-Sikorska & Julia Wojciechowska-Solis, 2024. "Opportunities and Barriers to the Development of Organic Farming from the Perspective of Conventional Farms," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 607-619.
    14. José Luis Aleixandre & José Luis Aleixandre-Tudó & Máxima Bolaños-Pizarro & Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent, 2015. "Mapping the scientific research in organic farming: a bibliometric review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 295-309, October.
    15. Chowdhury, Ashiqul Haq & Priyo, Asad Karim Khan, 2019. "How Do Bangladeshi Investors Take Decisions? An Ethnographic Decision Tree Model of Stock Selection," MPRA Paper 118105, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Andow, D.A. & Resende Filho, M.A. & Carneiro, R.G. & Lorena, D.R. & Sujii, E.R. & Alves, R.T., 2017. "Heterogeneity in Intention to Adopt Organic Strawberry Production Practices Among Producers in the Federal District, Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 177-189.
    17. Sulemana, Iddisah & James, Harvey S., 2014. "Farmer identity, ethical attitudes and environmental practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 49-61.
    18. Laure Latruffe & Douadia Bougherara & Jasmin Sainte-Beuve, 2012. "Economic performance in organic farming in France: incentive or disincentive to convert?," Post-Print hal-01190622, HAL.
    19. Papadopoulos, Sotirios & Markopoulos, Theodoros & Chousou, Charoula & Natos, Dimitrios & Mattas, Konstadinos, 2019. "Highlighting a Key Question for the Common Agricultural Policy: Adoption of Agriculture System Types," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 10(03), July.
    20. Jennifer Blesh & Steven Wolf, 2014. "Transitions to agroecological farming systems in the Mississippi River Basin: toward an integrated socioecological analysis," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(4), pages 621-635, December.

    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:22:p:10099-:d:1524634. 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.