IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v23y2007i2p263-278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of consumer risk perceptions on the propensity to purchase genetically modified foods in Romania

Author

Listed:
  • Kynda R. Curtis

    (Department of Resource Economics, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV 89557)

  • Klaus Moeltner

    (Department of Resource Economics, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV 89557)

Abstract

This study evaluates consumer purchase propensity for genetically modified (GM) food products in Romania, shedding light on consumer preferences in developing Eastern European nations. Results based on a bivariate probit model of purchase propensity for GM sunflower oil and table potatoes show that consumers in Romania are generally opposed to GM food consumption, similar to consumers in Western Europe, but contrary to consumers in many developing nations. Purchase probabilities carry across GM foods, indicating homogeneity in consumer risk perceptions. Additionally, income levels and risk perceptions are the primary drivers of purchase decisions, whereas positive or beneficiary product attributes (e.g., health, environmental, economic) are currently not considered by consumers. Negative consumer risk perceptions of GM goods in Romania will likely make the implementation of these crops for economic development purposes difficult. [EconLit Citations: Q18, D12, O12] © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Agribusiness 23: 263-278, 2007.

Suggested Citation

  • Kynda R. Curtis & Klaus Moeltner, 2007. "The effect of consumer risk perceptions on the propensity to purchase genetically modified foods in Romania," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(2), pages 263-278.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:23:y:2007:i:2:p:263-278
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.20116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/agr.20116
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/agr.20116?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. Julie A. Caswell, 2000. "An evaluation of risk analysis as applied to agricultural biotechnology (with a case study of gmo labeling)," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 115-123.
    2. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    3. Grimsrud, Kristine M. & McCluskey, Jill J. & Loureiro, Maria L. & Wahl, Thomas I., 2002. "Consumer Attitudes Towards Genetically Modified Foods In Norway," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Alok Bohara & Joe Kerkvliet & Robert Berrens, 2001. "Addressing Negative Willingness to Pay in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 173-195, November.
    5. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    6. Berrens, Robert P. & Brookshire, David & Ganderton, Philip & McKee, Mike, 1998. "Exploring nonmarket values for the social impacts of environmental policy change," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 117-137, June.
    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. Liu, Pengcheng, 2009. "Consumers’ WTA for GM rice cookie: an experiment study in China," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51771, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Mirzobobo Yormirzoev & Ramona Teuber & Daniil Baranov, 2018. "Is Tajikistan a Potential Market for Genetically Modified Potatoes?," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(1), pages 216-226.
    3. Arita, Shawn & Mitchell, Lorraine & Beckman, Jayson, 2015. "Estimating the Effects of Selected Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical Barriers to Trade on U.S.-EU Agricultural Trade," Economic Research Report 212887, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Arita, Shawn & Beckman, Jayson & Mitchell, Lorraine, 2017. "Reducing transatlantic barriers on U.S.-EU agri-food trade: What are the possible gains?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 233-247.
    5. Daniela Covino & Flavio Boccia, 2016. "Potentialities of new agri-biotechnology for sustainable nutrition," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(2), pages 97-106.
    6. Beckman, Jayson & Arita, Shawn & Mitchell, Lorraine & Burfisher, Mary, 2015. "Agriculture in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Tariffs, Tariff-Rate Quotas, and Non-Tariff Measures," Economic Research Report 212886, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu & Carl Pray & Yanhong Jin, 2019. "Perception and Attitude toward GM Technology among Agribusiness Managers in China as Producers and as Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, March.
    8. Beckman, Jayson & Arita, Shawn & Mitchell, Lorraine, 2015. "The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and Agriculture: A Quantitative Analysis," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205056, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Jae Kim & Seung-Nam Kim & Soogwan Doh, 2015. "The distance decay of willingness to pay and the spatial distribution of benefits and costs for the ecological restoration of an urban branch stream in Ulsan, South Korea," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 54(3), pages 835-853, May.
    2. Carmelo León & Francisco Vázquez-Polo & Roberto González, 2003. "Elicitation of Expert Opinion in Benefit Transfer of Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 199-210, October.
    3. Kwak, So-Yoon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2015. "The public’s value for developing ocean energy technology in the Republic of Korea: A contingent valuation study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 432-439.
    4. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Measuring the Benefits of Groundwater Protection from Agricultural Contamination: Results from a Two-Stage Contingent Valuation Study," Staff Papers 200549, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    5. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    6. Delmond, Anthony R. & McCluskey, Jill J. & Yormirzoev, Mirzobobo & Rogova, Maria A., 2018. "Russian consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 91-100.
    7. Carmelo Javier León, 1995. "El método dicotómico de valoración contingente: una aplicación a los espacios naturales en Gran Canaria," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 19(1), pages 83-106, January.
    8. Ana Faria Lopes & Gorm Kipperberg, 2020. "Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 191-216, September.
    9. Corsi, Alessandro, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay in terms of price: an application to organic beef during and after the “mad cow” crisis," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 92(01), pages 25-46, October.
    10. Petter Gudding & Gorm Kipperberg & Craig Bond & Kelly Cullen & Eric Steltzer, 2018. "When a Good Is a Bad (or a Bad Is a Good)—Analysis of Data from an Ambiguous Nonmarket Valuation Setting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, January.
    11. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method [Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    12. Chhandita Das & Christopher M. Anderson & Stephen K. Swallow, 2009. "Estimating Distributions of Willingness to Pay for Heterogeneous Populations," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(3), pages 593-610, January.
    13. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Vásquez, William F., 2012. "The viability of local payments for watershed services: Empirical evidence from Matiguás, Nicaragua," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 169-176.
    14. Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Weaver, Thomas F., 1999. "Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 97-120, July.
    15. Charles Sims, 2013. "Hypothetical Market Familiarity and the Disconnect Between Stated and Observed Values for Green Energy," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 3(1), pages 10-19.
    16. José L. Oviedo & Alejandro Caparrós, 2014. "Comparing contingent valuation and choice modeling using field and eye-tracking lab data," Working Papers 1401, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    17. Wang, Hua, 1997. "Treatment of "Don't-Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 219-232, February.
    18. Franceschi, Dina & Vásquez, William F., 2011. "Do Supervisors Affect the Valuation of Public Goods?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 1-17, August.
    19. Arthur J. Caplan, 2014. "Measuring the surplus of superficiality: the case of dented bumper repair," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(14), pages 992-996, September.
    20. John C. Whitehead & O. Ashton Morgan & William L. Huth, 2018. "Convergent validity of stated preference methods to estimate willingness-to-pay for seafood traceability: The case of Gulf of Mexico oysters," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 326-335.

    More about this item

    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:wly:agribz:v:23:y:2007:i:2:p:263-278. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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.