IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/missrr/190586.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A National Survey of Consumer Preferences for Branded Gulf Oysters and Risk Perceptions of Gulf Seafood

Author

Listed:
  • Petrolia, Daniel R.
  • Walton, William C.
  • Sarah, Acquah

Abstract

Three restaurant taste panels and an online consumer survey were conducted during 2012-2013 to assess whether Gulf consumers would be willing to pay a premium for place-name specific (i.e., “branded”) Gulf oysters over typical “generic” Gulf oysters, and whether consumers in other U.S. markets would be willing to pay for branded Gulf oysters compared to other U.S. branded oysters. Panelists in the two Gulf Coast taste panels had strong preferences for local oyster varieties when they were aware of oyster variety names and harvest locations (i.e., during labeled rounds). In the absence this information (i.e., during blind rounds), panelists had no such preferences, and in the case of the Houston taste panel, actually had a significant distaste for the local Galveston Bay variety. Panelists in the Chicago taste panel had strong preferences for the Island Creek oyster, in both the blinded and labeled rounds, although during the labeled rounds, the Point aux Pins oysters fared equally well (statistically) to the Island Creeks. Additionally, during the labeled rounds, the Apalachicola Bay and Point aux Pins oysters were statistically more likely to be chosen over the San Antonio Bay oysters. Respondents to the online survey tended to have higher perceptions of quality and seafood safety regarding their own regionally-produced oysters relative to oysters from other regions. There was limited variation in perceptions from one Gulf Coast variety to another, with the exception of the Apalachicola Bay variety being rated higher in several cases, and the more general “Gulf of Mexico” category being rated lower. Online survey results indicate that, consumers living in eastern Gulf states such as Georgia and Florida may be willing to pay a premium for branded Gulf oysters, particularly oysters from Florida and Louisiana. Gulf consumers living in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, however, did not show any strong preferences for branded oysters relative to cheaper generic ones. Among non-Gulf consumers, survey results indicate that while a price discount may be needed to sell branded Gulf oysters relative to local oysters (i.e., relative to, say, East Coast oysters in East Coast markets), that Gulf oysters generally fared no worse than other non-local oysters (i.e., West Coast oysters in East Coast markets). Of the Gulf oysters tested, Atlantic Coast respondents appear to prefer Louisiana oysters. Pacific Coast respondents appear to be indifferent between most Atlantic Coast and Gulf Coast varieties. Also, it appears that relatively few respondents were concerned about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill when answering questions about oysters, although these concerns did affect preferences for Gulf Coast oysters negatively in some cases. Less than 1% of all respondents indicated any concern regarding Vibrio vulnificus, bacteria, or similar. However, such concerns, though not cited explicitly, may yet be latent in the reported perceptions of oysters from various Gulf Coast locations. These results would indicate that there is some room for opportunity for branded Gulf Coast oysters along these other two coasts in places where other non-local oysters are marketed successfully. The major challenge appears to be whether the price discount necessary to entice consumers in these other markets to buy Gulf Coast oysters relative to local varieties is yet sufficiently high as to remain a profitable enterprise for Gulf Coast producers. The price discounts estimated here in the range of $5-$10 per half-dozen sounds like a steep discount, but given the large differential in retail prices in Atlantic and Pacific markets - where oysters retail anywhere from $15 to $25 per half-dozen-- compared to Gulf Coast markets – where they retail in the neighborhood of $7 to $10 -- it is possible that even with the discounts, the prices received in these alternative markets may remain profitable.

Suggested Citation

  • Petrolia, Daniel R. & Walton, William C. & Sarah, Acquah, 2014. "A National Survey of Consumer Preferences for Branded Gulf Oysters and Risk Perceptions of Gulf Seafood," Research Reports 190586, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:missrr:190586
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.190586
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/190586/files/Oyster_Project_Report.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.190586?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. 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.
    2. Morgan, O. Ashton & Martin, Gregory S. & Huth, William L., 2009. "Oyster Demand Adjustments to Counter-Information and Source Treatments in Response to Vibrio vulnificus," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 683-696, December.
    3. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    4. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    5. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    6. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    7. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    8. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    9. Manalo, Alberto B. & Gempesaw, Conrado M., II, 1997. "Preferences For Oyster Attributes By Consumers In The U.S. Northeast," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 28(2), pages 1-9, July.
    10. Morgan, O. Ashton & Martin, Gregory S. & Huth, William L., 2009. "Oyster Demand Adjustments to Counter-Information and Source Treatments in Response to Vibrio vulnificus," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-14, December.
    11. Office of Health Economics, 2007. "The Economics of Health Care," For School 001490, Office of Health Economics.
    12. 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, October.
    13. Potoglou, Dimitris & Burge, Peter & Flynn, Terry & Netten, Ann & Malley, Juliette & Forder, Julien & Brazier, John E., 2011. "Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: An empirical comparison using social care data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(10), pages 1717-1727, May.
    14. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    15. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown, 2000. "Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(4), pages 616-624, November.
    16. O. Ashton Morgan & Gregory S. Martin & William L. Huth, 2009. "Oyster Demand Adjustments to Counter-Information and Source Treatments in Response to Vibrio vulnificus," Working Papers 09-08, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    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. Tongzhe Li & Kent D. Messer & Alisher Mamadzhanov & Jill J. McCluskey, 2020. "Preferences for local food: Tourists versus local residents," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(4), pages 429-444, December.

    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. Petrolia, Daniel R. & Walton, William C. & Yehouenou, Lauriane, 2017. "Is There A Market For Branded Gulf Of Mexico Oysters?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 45-65, February.
    2. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    4. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    5. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    6. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan & Wossink, Ada, 2012. "Using best–worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 661-670.
    7. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan, 2011. "Using Best Worst Scaling To Investigate Perceptions Of Control & Concern Over Food And Non-Food Risks," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108790, Agricultural Economics Society.
    8. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    9. Otieno, David & Ogutu, Sylvester, 2015. "Consumer willingness to pay for animal welfare attributes in a developing country context: The case of chicken in Nairobi, Kenya," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212602, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    12. Darren Hudson & Karina Gallardo & Terry Hanson, 2005. "Hypothetical (Non)Bias In Choice Experiments: Evidence From Freshwater Prawns," Experimental 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Gunderson, Michael A. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2005. "Getting Something From Nothing: An Investigation of Beef Demand Expansion and Substitution in the Presence of Quality Heterogeneity," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19465, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    15. Soliño, Mario & Farizo, Begoña A. & Vázquez, María X. & Prada, Albino, 2012. "Generating electricity with forest biomass: Consistency and payment timeframe effects in choice experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 798-806.
    16. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Stated preferences over job characteristics: A panel study," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 43-82, February.
    17. Falck-Zepeda, José & Kilkuwe, Enoch & Wesseler, Justus, 2008. "Introducing a genetically modified banana in Uganda: Social benefits, costs, and consumer perceptions," IFPRI discussion papers 767, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    18. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2012. "Does one size fit all? Heterogeneity in the valuation of community forestry programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 85-94.
    19. Jayson Lusk & Tomas Nilsson & Ken Foster, 2007. "Public Preferences and Private Choices: Effect of Altruism and Free Riding on Demand for Environmentally Certified Pork," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 499-521, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics; Demand and Price Analysis; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Marketing;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:missrr:190586. 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/damssus.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.