IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare03/57862.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumer demands for organic and genetically modified foods

Author

Listed:
  • Donaghy, Peter
  • Rolfe, John
  • Bennett, Jeffrey W.

Abstract

Issues concerning consumer demands for genetically modified and organic food remain topical. It is unclear how consumers perceive issues associated with food production such as food safety, environmental impacts or animal welfare. It is also unclear how consumers might value potential changes in those issues in regional and metropolitan centres. This paper reports on research using the choice modelling technique to estimate and compare consumer demand for genetically modified and organic foods in Australia. The case study considers tomatoes, milk and beef commodities. The results draw comparisons between the contribution of associated factors influencing consumer purchasing decisions in a regional and metropolitan city. The results are relevant to the current policy debate regarding the introduction of GM foods.

Suggested Citation

  • Donaghy, Peter & Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2003. "Consumer demands for organic and genetically modified foods," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57862, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare03:57862
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.57862
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/57862/files/2003_donaghy.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.57862?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, November.
    2. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    3. James, Sallie & Burton, Michael P., 2001. "Consumer attitudes to GM foods: some preliminary results from Western Australia," 2001 Conference (45th), January 23-25, 2001, Adelaide, Australia 125670, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2003. "WTP and WTA in relation to irrigation development in the Fitzroy Basin, Queensland," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 58204, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Blamey, Russell K. & Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Morrison, Mark, 2000. "Valuing remnant vegetation in Central Queensland using choice modelling," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(3), pages 1-18.
    6. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C. & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1995. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments versus Contingent Valuation," Staff Paper Series 24126, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    7. Baker, Gregory A. & Burnham, Thomas A., 2001. "The Market For Genetically Modified Foods: Consumer Characteristics And Policy Implications," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 4(4), pages 1-10.
    8. Gregory L. Poe & Eric K. Severance-Lossin & Michael P. Welsh, 1994. "Measuring the Difference (X — Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 904-915.
    9. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    10. Rolfe, John, 1999. "Ethical Rules and the Demand for Free Range Eggs," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 187-206, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. D Rigby & M Burton, 2003. "Modeling Indifference and Dislike: A Bounded Bayesian Mixed Logit Model of the UK Market for GM Food," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0327, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    2. Zepeda, Lydia & Chang, Hui-Shung (Christie), 2004. "Demand for Organic Food: Focus Group Discussions in Armidale, NSW," Working Papers 12926, University of New England, School of Economics.
    3. Chang, Hui-Shung (Christie), 2004. "Labelling Issues of Organic and GM Foods in Australia," Working Papers 12934, University of New England, School of Economics.
    4. Straub, Matthew O. & Thomassin, Paul J., 2006. "Product Attributes and Consumer Willingness to Pay for Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture: Using the Choice Modeling Technique," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21051, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Chang, Hui-Shung (Christie), 2004. "Labelling issues of organic and GM foods in Australia," 2004 Conference (48th), February 11-13, 2004, Melbourne, Australia 58392, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    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. Donaghy, Peter & Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2002. "Disaggregating consumer demands for organic and genetically modified foods using the Choice Modelling technique," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 179524, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    3. Mathews, Leah Greden & Kask, Susan B. & Stewart, Steve, 2004. "The Value Of The View: Valuing Scenic Quality Using Choice And Contingent Valuation Models," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20049, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Daniel Lew & Kristy Wallmo, 2011. "External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
    5. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    6. Andy Choi, 2009. "Willingness to pay: how stable are the estimates?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 33(4), pages 301-310, November.
    7. Ole Bonnichsen & Jacob Ladenburg, 2010. "Reducing Status Quo Bias in Choice Experiments – An Application of a Protest Reduction Entreaty," IFRO Working Paper 2010/7, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    8. Adam Finn & Stuart McFadyen & Colin Hoskins, 2003. "Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 177-192, November.
    9. Burton, Michael P. & Rigby, Dan, 2006. "Non-Participation in Choice Models: Hurdle and Latent Class Models," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25312, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Onyango, Benjamin M. & Govindasamy, Ramu & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2004. "Measuring U.S. Consumer Preferences For Genetically Modified Foods Using Choice Modeling Experiments: The Role Of Price, Product Benefits And Technology," Research Reports 18181, Rutgers University, Food Policy Institute.
    11. Hu, Wuyang, 2008. "Modeling Yeah- and Nay-Saying to Alternatives in Conjoint Experiments," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6346, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Tran Huu Tuan, 2007. "Valuing the Economic Benefits of Preserving Cultural Heritage: The My Son Sanctuary World Heritage Site in Vietnam," EEPSEA Research Report rr2007072, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jul 2007.
    13. Boever, Brian P. & Harrison, R. Wes & Tiersch, Terrence R., 2006. "Willingness-to-Pay for Genetic Attributes in Aquaculture Industries," 2006 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2006, Orlando, Florida 35337, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    14. repec:ags:aare02:125080 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Rolfe, John & Loch, Adam & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2002. "Framing effects and benefit transfer in the Fitzroy basin," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 174038, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    16. Eisen-Hecht, Jonathan I. & Kramer, Randall A. & Huber, Joel, 2004. "A Hierarchical Bayes Approach To Modeling Choice Data: A Study Of Wetland Restoration Programs," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20253, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Nordén, Anna & Coria, Jessica & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Lagergren, Fredrik & Lehsten, Veiko, 2017. "Divergence in stakeholders' preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 179-195.
    18. Rinaldo Brau & D. Cao, 2005. "Uncovering the macrostructure of tourists' preferences. A choice experiment analysis of tourism demand to Sardinia," Working Paper CRENoS 200514, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    19. Shapansky, Bradford & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C., 2002. "Measuring Forest Resource Values: An Assessment Of Choice Experiments And Preference Construction Methods As Public Involvement Tools," Project Report Series 24036, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    20. Chuan-zhong Li & Jari Kuuluvainen & Eija Pouta & Mika Rekola & Olli Tahvonen, 2004. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Natura 2000 Nature Conservation Programs in Finland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 361-374, November.
    21. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2008. "How to ‘Sell’ an Environmental Good: Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects," Working Papers 2008-03, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.

    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:ags:aare03:57862. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.