IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/midasp/11645.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumer Demand For Ecolabeled Apples: Survey Methods And Descriptive Results

Author

Listed:
  • Blend, Jeffrey R.
  • van Ravenswaay, Eileen O.

Abstract

This paper examines potential consumer demand for ecolabeled apples. Since apples are purchased by 90% of U.S. households, we are able to investigate the choices of a large and diverse cross section of consumers. Focusing on a single agricultural product such as apples enables us to investigate more specific and realistic consumer choices. This paper also examines how different types of ecolabel claims might affect consumer demand. Ecolabels may vary in terms of the comprehensiveness of their environmental claims and the amount of proof substantiating claims. Ecolabels might claim to reduce only a single environmental impact or they might claim to reduce multiple environmental impacts. There may be no proof for the claims other than seller reputation or the claims might be documented and verified by a highly reputable third party (e.g. government agency, private firm, non-profit environmental group). Each unique combination of claim comprehensiveness and proof represents a different ecolabel and thus a different good. This paper examines how two levels of claim comprehensiveness and two forms of proof affect consumer demand. Finally, this paper examines factors affecting consumer demand for ecolabels. These factors include prices, income, household size and education. They also include familiarity with the claim and personal motivations such as improved health and environmental concerns. Both the purchase location of apples and whether or not an individual normally buys organic are also examined.

Suggested Citation

  • Blend, Jeffrey R. & van Ravenswaay, Eileen O., 1998. "Consumer Demand For Ecolabeled Apples: Survey Methods And Descriptive Results," Staff Paper Series 11645, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:midasp:11645
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.11645
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/11645/files/sp98-20.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.11645?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. Jolly, Desmond A., 1991. "Differences Between Buyers and Nonbuyers of Organic Produce and Willingness to Pay Organic Price Premiums," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 9(01), pages 1-15.
    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. Jean-Marie Codron & Lucie Siriex & Thomas Reardon, 2006. "Social and environmental attributes of food products in an emerging mass market: Challenges of signaling and consumer perception, with European illustrations," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 23(3), pages 283-297, October.
    2. Rodriguez, Elsa M. & Lacaze, Maria Victoria & Lupin, Beatriz, 2008. "Contingent Valuation of Consumers’ Willingness-to-Pay for Organic Food in Argentina," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43947, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    4. Rowles, Kristin, 2001. "Industry Analysis: Apple Processors in the Northeastern U.S," Staff Papers 121125, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    5. Johan Graafland, 2017. "Religiosity, Attitude, and the Demand for Socially Responsible Products," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 121-138, August.
    6. Codron, Jean-Marie & Sterns, James A. & Reardon, Thomas, 2003. "Strategic Choices In Produce Marketing: Issues Of Compatible Use And Exclusion Costs," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(3), pages 1-12, November.
    7. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M., 2011. "Consumers preferences for bio-based products and market analysis," Nülan. Deposited Documents 2556, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.

    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. Lohr, Luanne & Park, Timothy A., 1992. "Certification And Supply Response In The Organic Lettuce Market," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(2), pages 1-13, December.
    2. repec:zib:zbseps:v:2:y:2022:2:1:p:44-52 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Wong, Jonathan & Raghunathan, Uthra & Escalante, Cesar & Wolfe, Kent, 2010. "Consumer Premiums for Environmentally Friendly Grass-Fed and Organic Milk in the Southeast," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 28(01).
    4. Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van & McGuirk, Anya, 1992. "Consumer Perspectives on Crop Protection Technology Choice," Staff Paper Series 201158, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    5. Aleksandra Kowalska & Julia Wojciechowska-Solis & Milena Bieniek & Monika Ratajczyk & Louise Manning, 2023. "Declared non-buyers of organic food: A study of young British and Polish consumer profiles," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, issue 1, pages 28-50.
    6. Hudson, Darren & Jones, Tom, 2001. "Willingness to Plant Identity Preserved Crops: The Case of Mississippi Soybeans," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 475-485, December.
    7. Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van, 1993. "Research Needs in the Valuation of Food Safety and Nutrition," Staff Paper Series 201172, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    8. Ramona Robinson & Chery Smith, 2003. "Associations between self-reported health conscious consumerism, body-mass index, and attitudes about sustainably produced foods," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 20(2), pages 177-187, June.
    9. Schrock, Rebecca, 2010. "Determinants Of The Demand For Organic And Conventional Fresh Milk In Germany– An Econometric Analysis," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116387, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Feng Zhang & Chung L. Huang & Biing-Hwan Lin & James E. Epperson, 2008. "Modeling fresh organic produce consumption with scanner data: a generalized double hurdle model approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(4), pages 510-522.
    11. Francisco José Torres-Ruiz & Manuela Vega-Zamora & Manuel Parras-Rosa, 2018. "False Barriers in the Purchase of Organic Foods. The Case of Extra Virgin Olive Oil in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-14, February.
    12. Wier, Mette & O'Doherty Jensen, Katherine & Andersen, Laura Mørch & Millock, Katrin, 2008. "The character of demand in mature organic food markets: Great Britain and Denmark compared," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 406-421, October.
    13. Lars Gårn Hansen & Laura Mørch Andersen, 2013. "Does Organic Crowding Out Influence Organic Food Demand? – evidence from a Danish micro panel," IFRO Working Paper 2013/2, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    14. Eric Giraud-Héraud & Maria Aguiar Fontes & Alexandra Seabra Pinto, 2014. "Crise sanitaires de l'alimentation et analyses comportementales," Working Papers hal-00949126, HAL.
    15. Katrin, Millock & Hansen, Lars Gårn, 2002. "Willingness to Pay for Organic Foods: A Comparison between Survey Data and Panel Data from Denmark," MPRA Paper 47588, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Jelena Vapa-Tankosić & Svetlana Ignjatijević & Jelena Kiurski & Jovana Milenković & Irena Milojević, 2020. "Analysis of Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic and Local Honey in Serbia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-23, June.
    17. Erdenetsetseg, Erdenechimeg & Purevjal, Tserendavaa & Gompil, Battur & Odgerel, Batnyam & Tsogtsaikhan, Мunkhtulga & Jargalsaikhan, Munkhdelger, 2020. "Statistical And Multi-Criteria Decision Making Analysis For Consumer Attitude And Behavior: In Case Of Mongolian Organic Food Market," APSTRACT: Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, AGRIMBA, vol. 14(3-4), December.
    18. Viola Bruschi & Ksenia Shershneva & Irina Dolgopolova & Maurizio Canavari & Ramona Teuber, 2015. "Consumer Perception of Organic Food in Emerging Markets: Evidence from Saint Petersburg, Russia," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 414-432, June.
    19. Ozge Dinc‐Cavlak & Ozlem Ozdemir, 2021. "Comparing the willingness to pay through three elicitation mechanisms: An experimental evidence for organic egg product," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 782-803, October.
    20. Ying, Jiahui & Shonkwiler, Vanessa P. & Campbell, Benjamin L., 2018. "Willingness to Pay or Not to Pay: Valuing Foods Some Respondents Find Distasteful," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274065, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    21. Zhuang, Yan & Dimitri, Carolyn & Jaenicke, Edward C., 2010. "Price Reactions And Organic Price Premiums For Private Label And Branded Milk," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116388, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:midasp:11645. 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/damsuus.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.