Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:46:53.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer Preferences for Sustainable Wine Attributes: A Conjoint Analysis*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2018

Kathleen M. Kelley ,
Jennifer Zelinskie ,
Michela Centinari ,
Denise M. Gardner ,
Ramu Govindasamy ,
Jeffrey Hyde ,
Bradley Rickard  and
Karl Storchmann
Kathleen M. Kelley*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, Pennsylvania State University, 6 Tyson Building, University Park, PA 16802
Jennifer Zelinskie
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, Pennsylvania State University, 6 Tyson Building, University Park, PA 16802; e-mail: [email protected].
Michela Centinari
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, Pennsylvania State University, 218 Tyson Building, University Park, PA 16802; e-mail: [email protected].
Denise M. Gardner
Affiliation:
Denise Gardner Winemaking, 518 Kimberton Rd. #332, Phoenixville, PA 19460; e-mail: [email protected].
Ramu Govindasamy
Affiliation:
Dept. of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Rutgers University, 55 Dudley Rd., New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520; e-mail: [email protected].
Jeffrey Hyde
Affiliation:
Penn State Extension, Pennsylvania State University, 323 Agricultural Administration Bldg., University Park, PA 16802; e-mail: [email protected].
Bradley Rickard
Affiliation:
School of Applied Economics and Management,Cornell University, 450C Warren Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853; e-mail: [email protected].
Karl Storchmann
Affiliation:
Economics Department, New York University, 19 W. 4th St., New York, NY 10012; e-mail: [email protected].
*
e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mid-Atlantic wine consumers participated in an Internet survey to determine which of three attributes (retail base prices, Botrytis cinerea [bunch rot] control measure, or weed-control strategy) and attribute levels (e.g., a retail base price of $12, $16, $22, or $26) were the most important factors in their decisions to purchase 750mL glass bottles of wine. Conjoint analysis was used to calculate average importance for the three attributes. Based on these calculations, the base retail price attribute had the greatest impact on participants’ decision to purchase the wine (57.40%), followed by bunch rot control measure (20.76%) and weed control strategy (21.49%). Participants were also asked to indicate how interested (not at all interested to extremely interested) they were in purchasing wines produced from grapes grown using minimal pesticides or with cover crops to control weeds. Separate conjoint analyses were then performed based on participants’ level of interest in the two sustainable production methods. In both instances, the average importance values for retail base price were still higher than the values for either bunch rot or weed control strategies. Average importance values for price were lower for participants who responded that they were “very” or “extremely interested” in purchasing wine produced with minimal pesticides or with cover crops than for participants who were “not all interested” in purchasing such wines. (JEL Classifications: Q18, Q11, M31)

Keywords

Botrytis cinereabunch rotMid-Atlantic regionpesticidespricesegmentationsurveyweed control
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Wine Economics , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , November 2017 , pp. 416 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © American Association of Wine Economists 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

*

We thank an anonymous referee and participants at the AAWE conference in Padua for helpful comments. The project “Developing Wine Marketing Strategies for the Mid-Atlantic Region” (GRANT 11091317) was funded by a USDA Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program grant, whose goal is “to assist in exploring new market opportunities for U.S. food and agricultural products and to encourage research and innovation aimed at improving the efficiency and performance of the marketing system.” For more information about the program, visit http://www.ams.usda.gov.

References

Centinari, M. (2016). Impacts of under-trellis cover crops. Wines and Vines, 97(10), 76–80.Google Scholar
Costanigro, M., and Lusk, J. L. (2014). The signaling effect of mandatory labels on genetically engineered food. Food Policy, 49, 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delmas, M. A., and Grant, L. E. (2014). Eco-labeling strategies and price-premium: The wine industry puzzle. Business and Society, 53(1), 6–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabler, F. M., Smilanick, J. L., Mansour, M., Raming, D. W., and Mackey, B. E. (2003). Correlations of morphological, anatomical, and chemical features of grape berries with resistance to botrytis cinerea . Phytopathology, 93(1), 1263–1273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karl, A. (2015). Impact of under-vine management in a Finger Lakes Cabernet Franc vineyard. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Levy, D. S. (1995). Modern marketing research techniques and the property professional. Property Management, 13(3), 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liaukonyte, J., Streletskaya, N. A., Kaiser, H. M., and Rickard, B. J. (2013). Consumer response to “contains” and “free of” labeling: Evidence from lab experiments. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 35(3), 476–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskowitz, D., and Moskowitz, H. (2012). Conjoint analysis plus (cross category, emotions, pricing and beyond). In Beckley, J., Paredes, D., and Lopetcharat, K. (eds.), Product innovation toolbox: A field guide to consumer understating and research, 192–223 . Ames, IA: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Orme, B. (2010). Getting started with conjoint analysis: Strategies for product design and pricing research. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: Research Publishers.Google Scholar
Pomarici, E., and Vecchio, R. (2014). Millennial generation attitudes to sustainable wine: An exploratory study on Italian consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66, 537–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmit, T. M., Rickard, B. J., and Taber, J. (2013). Environmentally friendly production practices in wines, considering asymmetric information and sensory effects. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(2), 483–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers-Rubio, R., and Nicolau-Gonzalbez, J. N. (2016). Estimating the willingness to pay for a sustainable wine using a Heckit model. Wine Economics and Policy, 5(2), 96–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, W. (2007). Understanding and controlling botrytis. Practical Winery and Vineyard, 28(6), 30–38.Google Scholar
Yeh, A. D., Gómez, M. I., and White, G. B. (2014). “Cost of establishment and production of vinifera grapes in the Finger Lakes region of New York – 2013.” Cornell Cooperative Extension Bulletin 01 . Ithaca, NY: Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management.Google Scholar