Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:00:22.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State-Branded Programs and Consumer Preference for Locally Grown Produce

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

William E. Nganje ,
Renée Shaw Hughner  and
Nicholas E. Lee
William E. Nganje
Affiliation:
Morrison School of Agribusiness and Resource Management at Arizona State University in Mesa, Arizona
Renée Shaw Hughner
Affiliation:
Morrison School of Agribusiness and Resource Management at Arizona State University in Mesa, Arizona
Nicholas E. Lee
Affiliation:
Pacific Technologies, Inc., in Bellevue, Washington
Get access

Abstract

Revitalization of state brands is deemed important to several constituencies. Stated preference with choice experiment methods were used to elicit consumer preferences for two locally grown products: spinach, which has had a well-publicized food safety incidence, and carrots, which have had no such incidence in recent history. A full factorial design was used to implement the choice experiment, with each commodity having four identical attributes varying at different levels. Findings reveal that consumers are willing to pay a premium for locally grown spinach marked with the Arizona Grown label over locally grown spinach that was not labeled. This premium was higher than the premium that would be paid for state-branded carrots. This difference highlights consumers’ perceptions of “locally grown” as an indicator of safety in their food supply. Findings have important implications with respect to providing consumer value and point to differentiated positioning strategies for state-branded produce.

Keywords

state-branded producecertificationfood safetytraceabilitydiscrete choice models
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , April 2011 , pp. 20 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adelaja, A.O., Brumfield, R.G., and Lininger, K. 1990. “Product Differentiation and State Promotion of Farm Produce: An Analysis of the Jersey Fresh Tomato.” Journal of Food 21(3): 73–85.Google Scholar
Amemiya, T., and Nold, F. 1975. “A Modified Logit Model.” Review of Economics and Statistics 57(2): 255–257.Google Scholar
Boyle, K.J., Holmes, T.P., Teisl, M.F., and Roe, B. 2001. “A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(2): 441–454.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2006. “Questions and Answers about E. Coli O157:H7 Outbreak from Fresh Spinach.” Available at http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2006/september/qa.htm (accessed September 9, 2009).Google Scholar
Darby, K., Batte, M.T., Ernst, S., and Roe, B. 2008. “Decomposing Local: A Conjoint Analysis of Locally Produced Foods.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(2): 476–486.Google Scholar
Domencich, T., and McFadden, D. 1975. Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioral Analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. 2003. Econometric Analysis (5th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Google Scholar
Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., and Huber, F. (eds.). 2001. Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Halloran, J.M., and Martin, M.V. 1989. “Should States Be in the Agricultural Promotion Business?” Agribusiness 5(1): 65–75.Google Scholar
Howard, P., and Allen, P. 2006. “Beyond Organic: Consumer Interest in New Labeling Schemes in the Central Coast of California.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 30(5): 439–451.Google Scholar
Huber, J., and Zwerina, K. 1996. “The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs.” Journal of Marketing Research 33(3): 307–317.Google Scholar
Lancaster, K. 1966. “A New Approach to Consumer Theory.” Journal of Political Economy 74(2): 132–157.Google Scholar
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., and Swait, J.D. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Patterson, P.M. 2006. “State-Grown Promotion Programs: Fresher, Better?” Choices 21(1): 41–46.Google Scholar
Patterson, P.M., Olofsson, H., Richards, T.J., and Sass, S. 1999. “An Empirical Analysis of State Agricultural Product Promotions: A Case Study on Arizona Grown.” Agribusiness 15(2): 179–196.Google Scholar
SAS Institute. 2006. SAS Procedure for Experimental Design (SAS 8.0). Available at http://support.sas.com/rnd/app/qc/qc/qcdesign.html (accessed January 30, 2011).Google Scholar
Train, K. 2002. Discrete Choice Models with Simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Velasquez, C., Eastman, C., and Masiunas, J. 2005. “An Assessment of Illinois Farmers’ Market Patrons’ Perceptions of Locally-Grown Vegetables.” Journal of Vegetable Science 11(1): 17–26.Google Scholar