Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Empirically Evaluating Consumer Characteristics and Satisfaction with Organic Products

Contents:

Author Info

  • Govindasamy, Ramu
  • DeCongelio, Marc
  • Italia, John
  • Barbour, Bruce
  • Anderson, Karen
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Organic production has been practiced in the U.S. since the late 1940s. The distinction between organic and conventional produce is that organic produce is grown with a maximum of five percent synthetic pesticide residues and no prohibited USDA substance can be used on the land three years prior to producing organic produce. No genetic engineering is to be used on the crops, and no antibiotics are to be used on the livestock (USDA, 2001). Organic produce is sold at a premium above the price for conventional produce due to the increased production costs associated with following these rules. Price premiums vary greatly among different organic products and retail facilities. Consumers of these comparatively higher priced items traditionally have been the more affluent, educated members of the younger generation who have felt the need to pay more for organic produce mainly based on the better quality and the absence of pesticide residues. Estimated sales of organic produce in 2001 range between $5.5 and $6.5 billion dollars, as compared with $2.1 billion in 1995 or $3.3 billion in 1998 (Dimitri and Richman, 2000). The organic produce market has grown rapidly since the late 1980s when the media publicized the dangers of pesticide residues. However, the even quicker growth in the late 1990s may be attributed to the relatively stronger economy. The purpose of this study is to document a profile of the typical organic consumer in the northeastern U.S., specifically for the purpose of this study in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Specifically, the objectives are to determine consumer characteristics such as: • The demographic statistics of organic purchasers, including income level, education level, household size, etc. • The perception of organic produce compared to conventional produce in terms of prices, variety, and quality. • Consumer willingness to pay for organic compared to conventional produce. vi The majority of consumers, 64 percent, purchased mostly conventional produce and some organic produce when choosing their fresh produce. Tomatoes were the most commonly purchased vegetables among organic produce, bought by 25% of the respondents. Also, organic farmers in the same area reported growing tomatoes more than any other organic crop (Govindasamy et al., 2000). Organic lettuce was purchased by more than a fifth of respondents. Organic carrots, apples and broccoli were organic products that were purchased by more than 10 percent of respondents. The demographic characteristics of organic produce buyers include the following: • Smaller sized households, • Households with less children, • Households that spend more in general on produce monthly, • Households in the suburbs, as compared to urban or rural areas, • Female shoppers, • Younger shoppers, • More educated shoppers, • Higher income households, and • Non-married households. Five econometric models were formulated to: • Document the characteristics of consumers who bought organic produce at least once in the past. • Document the characteristics of consumers who bought organic produce frequently. • Document the characteristics of consumers who thought that organic produce is of a higher quality than conventional produce. • Document the characteristics of consumers who are willing to pay 10 percent or more for organic produce than conventional produce. • Document the characteristics of consumers who are willing to pay 20 percent or more for organic produce than conventional produce. vii The logit framework is used in this analysis because its asymptotic characteristic constrains the predicted probabilities to a range of zero to one. The estimation method is the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). Hence, given certain organic consumer characteristics, the probability that the consumer has bought organic produce at least once in the past is found. Similar explanations exist for the other four models. The five models are estimated using information obtained from the consumers’ questionnaire located in Appendix I at the end of this report. Almost half of the respondents had purchased organic produce at least once in the past. Consumers who are willing to switch supermarkets to buy organic and who are ready to buy additional organic if it were more readily available had purchased organic produce at least once in the past. They also frequently purchase organic apples, organic carrots or organic spinach, and feel that organic is priced higher than conventional produce. These consumers also live in Pennsylvania (as compared to living in New Jersey or New York), in the suburbs, have attended at least some college, shop according to the availability of fresh produce, are married, are under 50 years of age, and have fewer than four people living in their household. About ten percent of the respondents had purchased organic produce on a frequent basis. These respondents are most likely to be consumers who are willing to switch supermarkets to buy organic produce and are ready to buy additional organic produce if it were more readily available. They also frequently purchase organic apples or organic spinach and believe that organic produce is not priced higher than conventional produce. They have likely heard or read news reports about IPM, visit farmer’s markets less frequently, and are female. Almost one-third of the respondents feel that organic produce is of a higher quality than conventional produce. These respondents are most likely to be consumers that are willing to switch supermarkets to buy organic produce and are ready to buy additional organic produce if it were more readily available. These consumers also frequently purchase organic carrots or organic spinach and feel that organic produce is priced viii higher and has more variety than conventional produce. They are more likely to live in Pennsylvania, grow their own fruits or vegetables and visit farmer’s markets less frequently. They also have fewer than three children, are under 50 years of age, are not married, and are female. Almost one-quarter of the respondents stated that they would be willing to pay a premium of 10 percent or more for organic produce than conventional produce. These respondents are most likely to be consumers that grow their own fruits or vegetables, are willing to switch supermarkets to buy organic produce and are ready to buy additional organic produce if it were more readily available. They also frequently purchase organic carrots and believe that organic produce is priced higher than conventional produce but that it does not have more variety than conventional produce. They also are not greatly affected by price when purchasing fresh produce, feel that residues from pesticides and herbicides are a serious hazard and frequently shop according to the availability of fresh produce. Additionally, these consumers have fewer than three children in their household and are under 50 years of age. Almost ten percent of the respondents stated that they would be willing to pay a premium of 20 percent or more for organic produce than conventional produce. These respondents are most likely to be consumers that are willing to switch supermarkets to buy organic produce and are ready to buy additional organic produce if it were more readily available. They frequently purchase organic produce carrots, are not greatly affected by price when purchasing fresh produce, and shop according to the availability of fresh produce. These consumers are not married and are under 50 years of age.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/36736
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics in its series P Series with number 36736.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: 2001
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ags:rutdps:36736

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Cook Office Building, 55 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
    Phone: (732) 932-9155
    Fax: (732) 932-1100
    Web page: http://www.dafre.rutgers.edu/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Consumer/Household Economics; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Senauer, Benjamin, 1989. "Food Safety: A Growing Concern," Staff Papers 13532, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    2. Groff, Andrew J. & Kreider, Craig Robert & Toensmeyer, Ulrich C., 1993. "Analysis Of The Delaware Market For Organically Grown Produce," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 24(1), February.
    3. Govindasamy, Ramu & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 1997. "Determinants Of Farmer-To-Consumer Direct Market Visits By Type Of Facility: A Logit Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 26(1), April.
    4. Byrne, Patrick J. & Toensmeyer, Ulrich C. & German, Carl L. & Muller, H. Reed, 1991. "Analysis Of Consumer Attitudes Toward Organic Produce Purchase Likelihood," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 22(2), June.
    5. Govindasamy, Ramu & Italia, John & DeCongelio, Marc & Anderson, Karen & Barbour, Bruce, 2000. "Empirically Evaluating Grower Characteristics and Satisfaction with Organic Production," P Series 36738, Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics.
    6. Byrne, Patrick J. & Toensmeyer, Ulrich C. & German, Carl L. & Muller, H. Reed, 1992. "Evaluation Of Consumer Attitudes Towards Organic Produce In Delaware And The Delmarva Region," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 23(1), February.
    7. Ireland, Polly E. & Falk, Constance L., 1990. "Organic Food Adoption Decisions By New Mexico Groceries," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 21(3), 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 in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Wang, Qingbin & Sun, Junjie, 2003. "Consumer Preference And Demand For Organic Food: Evidence From A Vermont Survey," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22080, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Centro de Documentación, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata.
    3. Dettmann, Rachael L., 2008. "Organic Produce: Who's Eating it? A Demographic Profile of Organic Produce Consumers," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6446, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:rutdps:36736. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.