IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i2p565-d1565786.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Organic and Locally Produced Walnuts: A Choice Experiment Approach

Author

Listed:
  • José Luis Jaramillo-Villanueva

    (Colegio de Posgraduados, Campus Puebla, Boulevard Forjadores, 205, Puebla C.P 72775, Mexico)

  • Djamel Rahmani

    (The Center for Agro-Food Economy and Development (CREDA-UPC-IRTA), 08860 Castelldefel, Barcelona, Spain)

  • José Gil-Roig

    (The Center for Agro-Food Economy and Development (CREDA-UPC-IRTA), 08860 Castelldefel, Barcelona, Spain)

  • Ignacio Carranza-Cerda

    (Colegio de Posgraduados, Campus Puebla, Boulevard Forjadores, 205, Puebla C.P 72775, Mexico)

Abstract

Consumers’ increasing concern for their health, the environment, and ethical aspects of food production has generated a growing demand for organic and local produce. Specific information on consumer preferences, at the regional and product level, is necessary for producers to make better decisions. To investigate consumer preferences and their willingness to pay a premium for locally produced and organic walnut systems, we used a discrete choice experiment. Data were collected using face-to-face questionnaires from a representative sample of 501 walnut consumers from the main cities of Puebla, Mexico. The results showed heterogeneous preferences for different types of walnuts, with higher marginal utility and willingness to pay a premium for locally produced and organic nuts. However, lower preference was identified for the latter, with respect to locally produced nuts. Potential buyers of nuts were people under 40 years of age, with a monthly income of more than EUR 1500, and environmental advocates. Our findings provide producers, sellers, and policy makers with useful information that can guide them in developing successful market segmentation, communication, and pricing strategies for the walnut production and marketing.

Suggested Citation

  • José Luis Jaramillo-Villanueva & Djamel Rahmani & José Gil-Roig & Ignacio Carranza-Cerda, 2025. "Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Organic and Locally Produced Walnuts: A Choice Experiment Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:2:p:565-:d:1565786
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/2/565/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/2/565/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marco A. Palma & Alba J. Collart & Christopher J. Chammoun, 2015. "Information Asymmetry in Consumer Perceptions of Quality-Differentiated Food Products," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 596-612, November.
    2. Glynn T. Tonsor & Robert S. Shupp, 2011. "Cheap Talk Scripts and Online Choice Experiments: "Looking Beyond the Mean"," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1015-1031.
    3. Adelina Gschwandtner, 2018. "The Organic Food Premium: A Local Assessment in the UK," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 313-338, May.
    4. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    5. Fan, Xiaoli & Gómez, Miguel I. & Coles, Phillip S., 2019. "Willingness to Pay, Quality Perception, and Local Foods: The Case of Broccoli," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 414-432, December.
    6. Lucio Cappelli & Fabrizio D’Ascenzo & Roberto Ruggieri & Irina Gorelova, 2022. "Is Buying Local Food a Sustainable Practice? A Scoping Review of Consumers’ Preference for Local Food," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-17, January.
    7. Wang, Erpeng & Gao, Zhifeng & Heng, Yan & Shi, Lijia, 2019. "Chinese consumers’ preferences for food quality test/measurement indicators and cues of milk powder: A case of Zhengzhou, China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    8. Djamel Rahmani & Zein Kallas & Maria Pappa & José Maria Gil, 2019. "Are Consumers’ Egg Preferences Influenced by Animal-Welfare Conditions and Environmental Impacts?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-23, November.
    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. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    2. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    3. Pascucci, Stefano & Magistris, Tiziana de, 2013. "Information Bias Condemning Radical Food Innovators? The Case of Insect-Based Products in the Netherlands," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 16(3), pages 1-16, September.
    4. Shijun Gao & Carola Grebitus & Karen L. DeLong, 2024. "Explaining consumer willingness to pay for country‐of‐origin labeling with ethnocentrism, country image, and product image: Examples from China's beef market," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 72(2), pages 149-166, June.
    5. Mohammed Hussen Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "An analysis of the impacts of tasting experience and peer effects on consumers’ willingness to pay for novel foods," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 653-674, October.
    6. Ryan Feuz & F. Bailey Norwood & Ranjith Ramanathan, 2020. "Do consumers have an appetite for discolored beef?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 631-652, October.
    7. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    8. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Schulz, Lee L., 2021. "Management of Multiple Sources of Risk in Livestock Production," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(1), pages 75-93, February.
    9. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    10. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2020. "Ex-ante and ex-post measures to mitigate hypothetical bias. Are they alternative or complementary tools to increase the reliability and validity of DCE estimates?," Working Papers 2020-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    11. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2022. "The relative performance of ex‐ante and ex‐post measures to mitigate hypothetical and strategic bias in a stated preference study," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 845-873, September.
    12. Kar H. Lim & Wuyang Hu, 2016. "How Local Is Local? A Reflection on Canadian Local Food Labeling Policy from Consumer Preference," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(1), pages 71-88, March.
    13. De Bauw, Michiel & Franssens, Samuel & Vranken, Liesbet, 2022. "Trading off environmental attributes in food consumption choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    14. Lan Tran & Ye Su, 2025. "Consumers’ Health and Environmental Attitudes and Local Food Purchases," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 22(2), pages 1-19, February.
    15. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    16. Lewis, Karen E. & Grebitus, Carola & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2016. "U.S. consumers’ preferences for imported and genetically modified sugar: Examining policy consequentiality in a choice experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 1-8.
    17. Elliott J. Dennis & Glynn T. Tonsor & Jayson L. Lusk, 2021. "Choosing quantities impacts individuals choice, rationality, and willingness to pay estimates," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 945-962, November.
    18. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Schulz, Lee, 2017. "Feedlot operators’ decision making regarding price and animal health risk," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258462, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    20. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).

    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:17:y:2025:i:2:p:565-:d:1565786. 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.