Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:40:43.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is there a promising market ‘in between’ organic and conventional food? Analysis of consumer preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Meike Janssen ,
Astrid Heid  and
Ulrich Hamm
Meike Janssen*
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Food Marketing, Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel, Steinstr. 19, D-37213 Witzenhausen, Germany.
Astrid Heid
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Food Marketing, Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel, Steinstr. 19, D-37213 Witzenhausen, Germany.
Ulrich Hamm
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Food Marketing, Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel, Steinstr. 19, D-37213 Witzenhausen, Germany.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Various products incorporating single aspects of organic production systems such as lower inputs of pesticides, food additives or concentrated animal feed are found on the food market (referred to as low-input products hereafter). In our study, we analyzed how consumers react to low-input products in a purchase simulation with certified organic, conventional and low-input products. In the purchase simulations, each participant was asked to make three consecutive purchase decisions, one each for milk, yogurt and apples. The results of a cluster analysis revealed one cluster with a high preference for organic products and three clusters that featured considerable shares of low-input purchases. The latter clusters, however, were not characterized by a clear preference for low-input products. Rather, they bought mixed baskets of goods, i.e., low-input products in combination with either organic or conventional products. The low-input products in the categories milk, yogurt and apples did thus not necessarily attract the same groups of people. Interestingly, we found that most consumers who chose low-input products in the simulations usually buy those particular products in conventional quality. We conclude that in our study, we found a heterogeneous group of low-input buyers. For the organic sector, communicating the various aspects of organic production might be a promising strategy for gaining new customers. The low-input products in the purchase simulation only featured one special attribute, whereas organic products incorporate several.

Keywords

buying simulationconsumer preferencesorganic foodlow-input food
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 205 - 213
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

1Willer, H., Yussefi-Menzler, M.N., and Sorensen, N. (eds). 2008. The World of Organic Agriculture—Statistics and Emerging Trends 2008. International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), Bonn and Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick. Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
2Hamm, U. and Rippin, M. 2008. Öko-Lebensmittelumsatz in Deutschland 2007. Available at Web site: http://www.oekolandbau.de/haendler/marktinformationen/bio-markt-deutschland/aktuelle-marktdaten/oeko-lebensmittelumsatz-in-deutschland-2007-august-2008/ (verified 13 October 2008).Google Scholar
3Gesellschaft für Konsumforschung. 2007. Hat der Naturkosthandel noch Umsatzpotenzial? Und wo liegt es? Biohandel 2007(5):37–44.Google Scholar
4CEC. 1991. Council Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs. Official Journal of the European Communities L198:1–15.Google Scholar
5Stolz, H. 2005. Analysis of consumer attitudes towards single components of organic agriculture compared to the system of organic agriculture—an explorative study. In Hess, J. and Rahmann, G. (eds). Ende der Nische, Beiträge zur 8. Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau, Kassel, 1–4 März 2005. Kassel University Press, Kassel. Available at Web site http://orgprints.org/3381/01/3381.pdf (verified 22 July 2008).Google Scholar
6Kuhnert, H., Feindt, P.H., Wragge, S., and Beusmann, V. 2002. Datensammlung zur Repräsentativbefragung zur Nachfrage nach Lebensmitteln und zur Wahrnehmung der ‘Agrarwende’. In: BIOGUM Forschungsbericht 2, Universität Hamburg. Available at Web site http://www.uni-hamburg.de/onTEAM/grafik/1107511876/biogum_fb_2002_02.pdf (verified 22 July 2008).Google Scholar
7Hoogland, C.T., de Boer, J., and Boersema, J.J. 2007. Food and sustainability: do consumers recognize, understand and value on-package information on production standards? Appetite 49:47–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Hughner, R.S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C.J. II, and Stanton, J. 2007. Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6:94–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Aarset, B., Beckmann, S., Bigne, E., Beveridge, M., Bjorndal, T., Bunting, J., McDonagh, P., Mariojouls, C., Muir, J., Prothero, A., Reisch, L., Smith, A., Tveteras, R., and Young, J. 2004. The European consumers' understanding and perceptions of the ‘organic’ food regime: the case of aquaculture. British Food Journal 106(2):93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Conner, D.S., Campbell-Arvai, V., and Hamm, M.W. 2008. Value in the values: pasture raised livestock products offer opportunities for reconnecting producers and consumers. Journal of Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(1):62–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Lusk, J.L. and Schroeder, T.C. 2004. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2):467–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Lockshin, L., Jarvis, W., d'Hauteville, F., and Perrouty, J.-P. 2006. Using simulations from discrete choice experiments to measure consumer sensitivity to brand, region, price, and awards in wine choice. Food Quality and Preference 17:166–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Mtimet, N. and Albisu, L.M. 2006. Spanish wine consumer behavior: a choice experiment approach. Agribusiness 22(3):343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Loureiro, M.L., and Umberger, W.J. 2007. A choice experiment model for beef: what US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labelling and traceability. Food Policy 32:496–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Barreiro-Hurlé, J., Colombo, S., and Cantos-Villar, E. 2008. Is there a market for functional wines? Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for resveratol-enriched wine. Food Quality and Preference 19:360–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Enneking, U. 2004. Willingness-to-pay for safety improvements in the German meat sector: the case of the Q&S label. European Review of Agricultural Economics 31(2):205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Hu, W., Hünnemeyer, A., Veeman, M., Adamowicz, W., and Srivastava, L. 2004. Trading off health, environmental and genetic modification attributes in food. European Review of Agricultural Economics 31(3):389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Zanoli, R., and Naspetti, S. 2002. Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food: a means-end approach. British Food Journal 104(8):643–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Loureiro, M.L., McCluskey, J.J., and Mittelhammer, R.C. 2001. Assessing consumer preferences for organic, eco-labeled, and regular apples. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26(2):404–416.Google Scholar
20Wier, M., Andersen, L.M., and Millock, K. 2005. Information provision, consumer perceptions and values—the case of organic foods. In Russell, C. and Krarup, S. (eds). Environment, Information and Consumer Behaviour. New Horizons in Environmental Economics Series. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. p. 161–178.Google Scholar
21Hill, H. and Lynchehaun, F. 2002. Organic milk: attitudes and consumption patterns. British Food Journal 104(7):526–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22MB Research. 2008. Kaufkraft 2008 in Deutschland. Available at Web site http://www.mb-research.de/_mbr/kk08/MBR-Kaufkraft-2008-Kreise.pdf (verified 22 July 2008).Google Scholar
23Aaker, D.A., Kumar, V., and Day, G.S. 2004. Marketing Research. 8th ed.John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.Google Scholar
24Müller, M. and Hamm, U. 2001. Verbrauchereinstellungen beim Einkauf von Lebensmitteln in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Schriftenreihe A, Vol. 14. Fachhochschule Neubrandenburg, Neubrandenburg.Google Scholar
25Spiller, A., Lüth, M., and Enneking, U. 2004. Analyse des Kaufverhaltens von Selten-und Gelegenheitskäufern und ihrer Bestimmungsgründe für/gegen den Kauf von Öko-Produkten. Available at Web site http://orgprints.org/4201 (verified 22 July 2008).Google Scholar
26Statistisches Bundesamt. 2007. Statistisches Jahrbuch 2007 für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
27Wier, M., O'Doherty Jensen, K., Andersen, L.M., and Millock, K. 2008. The character of demand in mature organic food markets: Great Britain and Denmark compared. Food Policy 33(5):406–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Niessen, J. 2008. Öko-Lebensmittel in Deutschland. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Tracking-Forschung auf dem Markt für Öko-Lebensmittel. Verlag Dr. Kovač, Hamburg.Google Scholar
29Lin, B.-H., Smith, T.A., and Huang, C.L. 2008. Organic premiums of US fresh produce. Journal of Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(3):208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., and Greene, W.H. 2005. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., and Swait, J.D. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar