IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/97206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Präferenzen für unterschiedliche Produktionsverfahren und Herkunftsbezeichnungen – dargestellt am Beispiel eines Lebensmittels aus der Direktvermarktung

Author

Listed:
  • Zenner, Silvia
  • Wirthgen, Bernd
  • Altmann, Marianne

Abstract

Because consumers’ preferences are relevant determinants in the purchase decision, their measurement seems to be extremely important. Therefore, the article presents selected results of preference measurement (conjoint-analysis) with special regard to different food production modes (organic production, conventional production and production reflecting animal welfare aspects) and labelling of food origin (out of the region, from farm-gate and without labelling of the food origin). The empirical research shows surprising results: the organic produce is not as strongly preferred as the product alternative reflecting the animal welfare aspect. As a consequence, marketing-strategies should pay much more attention to animal welfare aspects, whereas organic production seems to be a less persuasive promotion argument. The contribution ends with implications for further research.

Suggested Citation

  • Zenner, Silvia & Wirthgen, Bernd & Altmann, Marianne, 2005. "Präferenzen für unterschiedliche Produktionsverfahren und Herkunftsbezeichnungen – dargestellt am Beispiel eines Lebensmittels aus der Direktvermarktung," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 54(02), pages 1-7.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:97206
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.97206
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/97206/files/3_Zenner.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.97206?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. Roe, Brian & Boyle, Kevin J. & Teisl, Mario F., 1996. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159, 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. Schulze-Ehlers, Birgit & Purwins, Nina, 2016. "Does having a Choice make a Difference? Market Potential of the Animal Welfare Label in Germany," 2016 International European Forum (151st EAAE Seminar), February 15-19, 2016, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 244531, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.

    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. Atallah, Shadi S. & Huang, Ju-Chin & Leahy, Jessica & Bennett, Karen, 2020. "Preference Heterogeneity and Neighborhood Effect in Invasive Species Control: The Case of Glossy Buckthorn in New Hampshire and Maine Forests," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304623, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    4. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    5. Chunhua Wang & Changdong Zhang & Yong Wang, 2020. "Environmental satisfaction among residents in Chinese cities," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 2283-2301, November.
    6. Stevens, T. & Porras, I. & Halstead, J. & Harper, W. & Hill, B. & Willis, C., 2000. "Valuing Visbility in Northeastern Wilderness Areas," Western Region Archives 321667, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    7. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    8. Harrison, R. Wes & Mclennon, Everald, 2004. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Biotech Labeling Formats," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(01), pages 1-13, April.
    9. Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.
    10. Mueller, Milton L. & Park, Yuri & Lee, Jongsu & Kim, Tai-Yoo, 2006. "Digital identity: How users value the attributes of online identifiers," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 405-422, November.
    11. Bernard van den Berg & Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 2007. "Monetary valuation of informal care: the well-being valuation method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1227-1244.
    12. Alberto Zanni & Alastair Bailey & Sophia Davidova, 2008. "Analysis of the Vocational and Residential Preferences of a Rural Population: Application of an Experimental Technique to Rural Slovenia," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 89-114.
    13. Roe, Brian & Teisl, Mario F. & Levy, Alan & Russell, Matthew, 2001. "US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 917-925, September.
    14. Milena Pavlova & Wim Groot & Godefridus Merode, 2005. "An Application of Rating Conjoint Analysis to Study the Importance of Quality-, Access- and Price-attributes to Health Care Consumers," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 267-286, September.
    15. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey & Fields, Deacue, 2005. "Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 238-252, October.
    16. Lüthi, Sonja & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2012. "The price of policy risk — Empirical insights from choice experiments with European photovoltaic project developers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 1001-1011.
    17. Lynd Bacon & Peter Lenk, 2012. "Augmenting discrete-choice data to identify common preference scales for inter-subject analyses," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 453-474, December.
    18. Banerjee, Swagata (Ban) & Martin, Steven W. & Hudson, Darren, 2006. "A Choice-Based Conjoint Experiment with Genetically Engineered Cotton in the Mississippi Delta," 2006 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2006, Orlando, Florida 35389, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    19. Andrew Lloyd & Scott Doyle & Sarah Dewilde & Florian Turk, 2008. "Preferences and utilities for the symptoms of moderate to severe allergic asthma," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 275-284, August.
    20. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.

    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:gjagec:97206. 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/iahubde.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.