IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ifaamr/96334.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Preferences for Imported Kona Coffee in South India: A Latent Class Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Krishnakumar, Jyotsna
  • Chan-Halbrendt, Catherine

Abstract

Considering India as a potential export market for 100% Kona coffee, this study explores consumer preferences for imported, specialty, high-end Kona coffee in South India. Conjoint choice experiment with latent class analysis is used and results indicate that India offers an export market potential for Kona coffee, provided it caters to consumer preferences. Results show a significant preference for strong taste. The relative importance of price is lower than taste but majority are also adverse to higher prices. However,15% of the sample population does not care about price but does care about taste, indicating the possibility of a high-end niche market segment. Based on the results, marketing strategies and policy recommendations have been suggested.

Suggested Citation

  • Krishnakumar, Jyotsna & Chan-Halbrendt, Catherine, 2010. "Consumer Preferences for Imported Kona Coffee in South India: A Latent Class Analysis," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:96334
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.96334
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/96334/files/20100007_Formatted.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.96334?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. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    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. Yu, Lili & Niu, Ziheng & Gao, Yang & Tian, Borui, 2019. "Support policy preferences of grain family farms: evidence from Huang-huai-hai plain of China," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(5), October.
    2. Badar, Hammad & Ariyawardana, Anoma & Collins, Ray, 2015. "Capturing Consumer Preferences for Value Chain Improvements in the Mango Industry of Pakistan," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, September.

    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. Kruse, Tobias & Atkinson, Giles, 2022. "Understanding public support for international climate adaptation payments: Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    2. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    3. David Hensher & John Rose & Zheng Li, 2012. "Does the choice model method and/or the data matter?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 351-385, March.
    4. Flores, Alvaro & Berbeglia, Gerardo & Van Hentenryck, Pascal, 2019. "Assortment optimization under the Sequential Multinomial Logit Model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1052-1064.
    5. Domenico Piccolo & Rosaria Simone, 2019. "The class of cub models: statistical foundations, inferential issues and empirical evidence," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 28(3), pages 389-435, September.
    6. An, Wookhyun & Alarcón, Silverio, 2021. "Rural tourism preferences in Spain: Best-worst choices," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    7. Wen, Chieh-Hua & Wang, Wei-Chung & Fu, Chiang, 2012. "Latent class nested logit model for analyzing high-speed rail access mode choice," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 545-554.
    8. Shin, Jungwoo & Hwang, Won-Sik, 2017. "Consumer preference and willingness to pay for a renewable fuel standard (RFS) policy: Focusing on ex-ante market analysis and segmentation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 32-40.
    9. Le Gloux, Fanny & Dupraz, Pierre & Issanchou, Alice & Ropars-Collet, Carole, 2022. "Payments for environmental services with provision thresholds: farmers’ preferences for a conditional bonus," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321177, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    10. D Rigby & M Burton, 2003. "Capturing Preference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Models: A Random Parameter Logit Model of the Demand for GM Food," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0319, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    11. Marco Costanigro & Yuko Onozaka, 2020. "A Belief‐Preference Model of Choice for Experience and Credence Goods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 70-95, February.
    12. 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.
    13. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    14. Oberst, Christian & Harmsen - van Hout, Marjolein J. W., 2017. "Adoption and Cooperation Decisions in Sustainable Energy Infrastructure: Evidence from a Sequential Choice Experiment in Germany," FCN Working Papers 14/2017, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    15. Gonçalves, Tânia & Lourenço-Gomes, Lina & Pinto, Lígia M. Costa, 2020. "Dealing with ignored attributes through an inferred approach in wine choice experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    16. Alexandros Dimitropoulos, 2014. "The Influence of Environmental Concerns on Drivers’ Preferences for Electric Cars," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-128/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    17. Hsin‐Fan Chen & Sheng‐Hung Chen & Jie‐Min Lee & Huei‐Yann Jeng, 2010. "Who Are the Potential Smokers of Smuggled Cigarettes?," Asian Economic Journal, East Asian Economic Association, vol. 24(3), pages 221-234, September.
    18. Martínez-Pardo, Ana & Orro, Alfonso & Garcia-Alonso, Lorena, 2020. "Analysis of port choice: A methodological proposal adjusted with public data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 178-193.
    19. Dhakal, Bhubaneswor & Yao, Richard T. & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim, 2012. "Recreational users' willingness to pay and preferences for changes in planted forest features," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 34-44.
    20. Chen, Gang & Ratcliffe, Julie & Milte, Rachel & Khadka, Jyoti & Kaambwa, Billingsley, 2021. "Quality of care experience in aged care: An Australia-Wide discrete choice experiment to elicit preference weights," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    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:ifaamr:96334. 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/ifamaea.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.