IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wsu/wpaper/gallardo-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Use of Wireless Capability at Farmers Markets: Results from a Choice Experiment Study

Author

Listed:
  • R. Karina Gallardo
  • Aaron Olanie
  • Rita Ordonez
  • Marcia Ostrom

    (School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University)

Abstract

One alternative for farmers’ markets to increase sales and expand the customer base is to implement wireless capability (credit and debit card, and electronic benefits transfer readers) at the markets. We estimate the value farmers’ markets managers and vendors posit on wireless machines attributes, and the values customers posit on markets’ features. The quality of the wireless machine technology and the machine provider customer service are the most important attributes for, respectively, managers and vendors. Consumers are willing to pay premium prices at farmers’ markets where this technology is available. This information is useful to policy makers and wireless machine providers to implement wireless capability at farmers markets.

Suggested Citation

  • R. Karina Gallardo & Aaron Olanie & Rita Ordonez & Marcia Ostrom, 2013. "The Use of Wireless Capability at Farmers Markets: Results from a Choice Experiment Study," Working Papers 2013-07, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsu:wpaper:gallardo-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://faculty.ses.wsu.edu/WorkingPapers/Gallardo/WP2013-7.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2013
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cheryl Brown & Stacy Miller, 2008. "The Impacts of Local Markets: A Review of Research on Farmers Markets and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1298-1302.
    2. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    3. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, January.
    4. Margaret Andrews & Rhea Bhatta & Michele Ver Ploeg, 2013. "An Alternative to Developing Stores in Food Deserts: Can Changes in SNAP Benefits Make a Difference?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(1), pages 150-170.
    5. Carlos E. Carpio & Olga Isengildina-Massa, 2009. "Consumer willingness to pay for locally grown products: the case of South Carolina," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(3), pages 412-426.
    6. Jonathan Murdoch & Terry Marsden & Jo Banks, 2000. "Quality, Nature, and Embeddedness: Some Theoretical Considerations in the Context of the Food Sector," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(2), pages 107-125, April.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    8. Joshua D. Detre & Tyler B. Mark & Ashok K. Mishra & Arun Adhikari, 2011. "Linkage between direct marketing and farm income: a double‐hurdle approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 19-33, Winter.
    9. Wasserman, Wendy & Tropp, Debra & Lakins, Velma & Foley, Caroline & DeNinno, Marga & Thompson, Jezra & Owens, Nora & Williams, Kelly, 2010. "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) at Farmers Markets: A How-To Handbook," Technical Resources 146994, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Transportation and Marketing Program.
    10. 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.
    11. Gregory, Christian & Ver Ploeg, Michele & Andrews, Margaret & Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, 2013. "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Participation Leads to Modest Changes in Diet Quality," Economic Research Report 262225, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Gallardo, R. Karina & Olanie, Aaron & Ordóñez, Rita & Ostrom, Ostrom, 2015. "The Use of Electronic Payment Machines at Farmers Markets: Results from a Choice Experiment Study," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 18(1), pages 1-26, February.
    2. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    3. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    4. Choi, Andy S. & Ritchie, Brent W. & Papandrea, Franco & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-220.
    5. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    6. 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).
    7. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    8. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    9. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    10. Reynolds-Allie, Kenesha & Fields, Deacue, 2011. "Alabama Restaurant Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Local Food: A Choice Based Approach," 2011 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2011, Corpus Christi, Texas 98822, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    11. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    12. 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.
    13. Rinaldo Brau, 2008. "Demand-Driven Sustainable Tourism? A Choice Modelling Analysis," Tourism Economics, , vol. 14(4), pages 691-708, December.
    14. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    15. Wille, Stefan Clemens & Barklage, Britta & Spiller, Achim & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie, 2018. "Challenging factors of farmer-to-consumer direct marketing: An empirical analysis of German livestock owners," DARE Discussion Papers 1807, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    16. 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.
    17. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    18. 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.
    19. Vincent,Jeffrey R. & Carson,Richard T. & Navrud,Stale & Ortiz Bobea,Ariel & Strand,Jon & Vincent,Jeffrey R. & Carson,Richard T. & Navrud,Stale & Ortiz Bobea,Ariel & Strand,Jon, 2014. "A"Delphi exercise"as a tool in Amazon rainforest valuation," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7143, The World Bank.
    20. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    farmers markets; sales; wireless capability;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    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:wsu:wpaper:gallardo-8. 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: Danielle Engelhardt (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecwsuus.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.