IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae08/44401.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Importance of Apple attributes: A Comparison of Self-explicated and Conjoint Analysis Results

Author

Listed:
  • Markovina, Jerko
  • Kovacic, Damir

Abstract

the goal of this article was to determine the importance of apple attributes using two research techniques – self-explicated procedure and conjoint analysis. Research was conducted on a sample of 426 consumers of apples in Zagreb, Croatia. The results of self-explicated and conjoint analysis procedures revealed differences in ranking of apple attributes regarding their importance. It is demonstrated that conjoint analysis gives more detailed results and that it is not influenced by respondents’ tendency to give socially acceptable answers. The results of conjoint analysis also give more information for the producers of apples who can use them to create a product that matches consumers’ wishes.

Suggested Citation

  • Markovina, Jerko & Kovacic, Damir, 2008. "The Importance of Apple attributes: A Comparison of Self-explicated and Conjoint Analysis Results," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44401, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae08:44401
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.44401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/44401/files/098.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.44401?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. Manalo, Alberto B., 1990. "Assessing The Importance Of Apple Attributes: An Agricultural Application Of Conjoint Analysis," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-7, October.
    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. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    2. Gallardo, R. Karina & Li, Huixin & Yue, Chengyan & Luby, James & McFerson, James R. & McCracken, Vicki, 2015. "Market Intermediaries’ Ratings of Importance for Rosaceous Fruits’ Quality Attributes," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 18(4), pages 1-34, November.
    3. Valeeva, Natasha I. & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M. & Bergevoet, Ron H.M. & Huirne, Ruud B.M., 2004. "Assessing Food Safety Concepts on the Dairy Farm: The Case of Chemical Hazards," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24979, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. 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.
    5. Eunae Son & Song Soo Lim, 2021. "Consumer Acceptance of Gene-Edited versus Genetically Modified Foods in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, April.
    6. Holland, Daniel & Wessells, Cathy R., 1998. "Predicting Consumer Preferences for Fresh Salmon: The Influence of Safety Inspection and Production Method Attributes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 1-14, April.
    7. 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, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(1), pages 1-15, April.
    8. Huang, Chung L. & Fu, Joe, 1993. "Consumer Preferences And Evaluations Of A Processed Meat Product," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 24(1), pages 1-9, February.
    9. R. Karina Gallardo & Ines Hanrahan & Chengyan Yue & Vicki A. McCracken & James Luby & James R. McFerson & Carolyn Ross & Lilian Carrillo†Rodriguez, 2018. "Combining sensory evaluations and experimental auctions to assess consumers’ preferences for fresh fruit quality characteristics," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 407-425, March.
    10. 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.
    11. R. Karina Gallardo & Huixin Li & Vicki McCracken & Chengyan Yue & James Luby & James R. McFerson, 2015. "Market Intermediaries’ Willingness to Pay for Apple, Peach, Cherry, and Strawberry Quality Attributes," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 259-280, April.
    12. Abdul-Basit Tampuli Abukari & Suad Morro & Munkaila Lambongang, 2022. "Modeling rice consumption preferences: an improved approach," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(12), pages 1-26, December.
    13. Michał Pietrzak & Aleksandra Chlebicka & Paweł Kraciński & Agata Malak-Rawlikowska, 2020. "Information Asymmetry as a Barrier in Upgrading the Position of Local Producers in the Global Value Chain—Evidence from the Apple Sector in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-21, September.
    14. Ismail Tamer Toklu, 2017. "Consumer Preferences for the Attributes of Sunflower Oil: An Exploratory Study with Conjoint Analysis," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 7(1), pages 39-60, January.
    15. Anne Normann & Magnus Röding & Karin Wendin, 2019. "Sustainable Fruit Consumption: The Influence of Color, Shape and Damage on Consumer Sensory Perception and Liking of Different Apples," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-9, August.
    16. Chakrabarti, Anwesha & Shonkwiler, Vanessa & Campbell, Julie, 2023. "VIDALIA Branding and Co-labeling Strategy: A Cluster Analysis of Sweet Onion Buyers and Potential Buyers," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 54(2), July.
    17. Benjamin L. Campbell & Saneliso Mhlanga & Isabelle Lesschaeve, 2016. "Market Dynamics Associated with Canadian Ethnic Vegetable Production," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(1), pages 64-78, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Demand and Price Analysis;

    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:ags:eaae08:44401. 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/eaaeeea.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.