IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i3p2369-d1049105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Seeds of Industry Sustainability: Consumer Attitudes towards Indoor Agriculture Benefits versus Its Advanced Technology

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph Seong

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA)

  • Simone Valle de Souza

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA)

  • H. Christopher Peterson

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA)

Abstract

Indoor agriculture (IA) mitigates, to some extent, global problems such as increasing demand for food and limited natural resources. Though the potential benefits of IA as a sustainable agricultural production method are widely discussed, the success of the industry depends on consumer acceptance of IA innovative technology and their willingness to consume leafy greens produced under this technology. Using cluster analysis, four distinct groups of U.S. leafy green consumers were identified: “IA Skeptics”, “IA Open”, “IA Supportive”, and “IA Engaged”. A strong positive consumer cluster emerged with no evidence of an existing cluster of consumers who could be referred as “Knowledgeable Rejectors”, often found from the studies of consumer acceptance for novel food technologies. We concluded that, overall, U.S. leafy green consumers are ready to accept IA produce, but a significant number of consumers are yet to clearly decide on their attitude towards IA technology. Based on the evidence found from this study, we identified market opportunities for the IA industry with consumers of leafy greens given their broad willingness to consume IA produce and suggest marketing strategies to expand consumer awareness and acceptance of IA produce.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph Seong & Simone Valle de Souza & H. Christopher Peterson, 2023. "Seeds of Industry Sustainability: Consumer Attitudes towards Indoor Agriculture Benefits versus Its Advanced Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2369-:d:1049105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2369/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2369/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yue, Chengyan & Alfnes, Frode & Jensen, Helen H., 2009. "Discounting Spotted Apples: Investigating Consumers' Willingness to Accept Cosmetic Damage in an Organic Product," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 29-46, April.
    2. Li-Chun Huang, 2019. "Consumer Attitude, Concerns, and Brand Acceptance for the Vegetables Cultivated with Sustainable Plant Factory Production Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-14, September.
    3. Veeman, Michele M. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Hu, Wuyang, 2005. "Risk Perceptions, Social Interactions and the Influence of Information on Social Attitudes to Agricultural Biotechnology," Project Report Series 24052, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    4. Hossain, Ferdaus & Onyango, Benjamin M. & Adelaja, Adesoji O. & Schilling, Brian J. & Hallman, William K., 2002. "Uncovering Factors Influencing Public Perceptions Of Food Biotechnology," Research Reports 18178, Rutgers University, Food Policy Institute.
    5. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    6. Gifford, Katie & Bernard, John C. & Toensmeyer, Ulrich C. & Bacon, J. Richard, 2005. "An Experimental Investigation of Willingness to Pay for Non-GM and Organic Food Products," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19385, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Seon-Woong Kim & B. Wade Brorsen & Jayson Lusk, 2018. "Not everybody prefers organic food: unobserved heterogeneity in U.S. consumers’ preference for organic apple and milk," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 9-14, January.
    8. Shahida Anusha Siddiqui & Oscar Zannou & Ikawati Karim & Kasmiati & Nour M. H. Awad & Janusz Gołaszewski & Volker Heinz & Sergiy Smetana, 2022. "Avoiding Food Neophobia and Increasing Consumer Acceptance of New Food Trends—A Decade of Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-25, August.
    9. House, Lisa & Lusk, Jayson L. & Jaeger, Sara & Traill, W. Bruce & Moore, Melissa & Valli, Carlotta & Morrow, Bert & Yee, Wallace M.S., 2004. "Objective And Subjective Knowledge: Impacts On Consumer Demand For Genetically Modified Foods In The United States And The European Union," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20125, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Henry Kaiser, 1958. "The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 23(3), pages 187-200, September.
    11. Darren Hudson & Lee-Hong Seah & Diane Hite & Tim Haab, 2004. "Telephone presurveys, self-selection, and non-response bias to mail and Internet surveys in economic research," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 237-240.
    12. Yue, Chengyan & Alfnes, Frode & Jensen, Helen H., 2009. "Discounting Spotted Apples: Investigating Consumersï¾’ Willingness to Accept Cosmetic Damage in an Organic Product," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12693, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    13. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    14. James O. Bukenya & Natasha R. Wright, 2007. "Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified tomatoes," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(1), pages 117-130.
    15. Darby, Michael R & Karni, Edi, 1973. "Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 67-88, April.
    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. Tommaso Gallo & Francesco Pacchera & Chiara Cagnetti & Cecilia Silvestri, 2023. "Do Sustainable Consumers Have Sustainable Behaviors? An Empirical Study to Understand the Purchase of Food Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-21, March.

    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. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    2. M. Lefebvre & C. Biguzzi & E. Ginon & S. Gomez-y-Paloma & S. R. H. Langrell & S. Marette & G. Mateu & A. Sutan, 2017. "Mandatory integrated pest management in the European Union: experimental insights on consumers’ reactions," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(1), pages 25-54, July.
    3. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    4. Hu, Yang & House, Lisa A. & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "How do consumers respond to labels for crispr (gene-editing)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    5. Ozge Dinc‐Cavlak & Ozlem Ozdemir, 2021. "Comparing the willingness to pay through three elicitation mechanisms: An experimental evidence for organic egg product," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 782-803, October.
    6. Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Salazar-Ordóñez, Melania & Sayadi, Samir, 2013. "Applying partial least squares to model genetically modified food purchase intentions in southern Spain consumers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 44-53.
    7. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    8. Edward Royzman & Corey Cusimano & Robert F. Leeman, 2017. "What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 466-480, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Charity, Nabwire Ephamia Juma, 2016. "Economic Analysis Of Consumers’ Awareness And Willingness To Pay For Geographical Indicators And Other Quality Attributes Of Honey In Kenya," Research Theses 265574, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    11. Earl, Peter E., 2012. "Experiential analysis of automotive consumption," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(7), pages 1067-1072.
    12. Khachatryan, Hayk & Behe, Bridget K. & Campbell, Benjamin L. & Hall, Charles R. & Dennis, Jennifer H., 2013. "Does Eye Tracking Reveal More About the Effects of Buying Impulsiveness on the Green Industry Consumer Choice Behavior?," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150333, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Jan-Peter Kucklick & Jennifer Priefer & Daniel Beverungen & Oliver Müller, 2023. "Elucidating the Predictive Power of Search and Experience Qualities for Pricing of Complex Goods – A Machine Learning-based Study on Real Estate Appraisal," Working Papers Dissertations 112, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    14. Onozaka, Yuko & Saue, Vegar Veseth & Costanigro, Marco, 2018. "The Moderating Effect of Heterogeneous Beliefs on Consumer Preferences for a New Food Technology: The Case of Modified Atmospheric Packaging," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274068, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Louis Jaeck, 2006. "Consumer Behaviour and Environmental Preservation: The Contribution of Informational Cascades Theory," CAE Working Papers 43, Aix-Marseille Université, CERGAM, revised Dec 2006.
    16. Erjon Nexhipi, 2022. "The difference in consumer attitudes of locally grown apples with imported apples. the case of Korca Region, Albania:," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 37(1), pages 250-264, November.
    17. Chengyan Yue & Ben Campbell & Charles Hall & Bridget Behe & Jennifer Dennis & Hayk Khachatryan, 2016. "Consumer Preference for Sustainable Attributes in Plants: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(2), pages 222-235, April.
    18. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.
    19. Darren Hudson & Karina Gallardo & Terry Hanson, 2005. "Hypothetical (Non)Bias In Choice Experiments: Evidence From Freshwater Prawns," Experimental 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Grolleau, Gilles & Caswell, Julie A., 2006. "Interaction Between Food Attributes in Markets: The Case of Environmental Labeling," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 1-14, December.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2369-:d:1049105. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.