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. Voltaire, Louinord & Pirrone, Claudio & Bailly, Denis, 2013. "Dealing with preference uncertainty in contingent willingness to pay for a nature protection program: A new approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 76-85.
    3. Gorm Kipperberg & Douglas Larson, 2012. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Community Recycling Programs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(4), pages 577-604, December.
    4. Yiling Deng & Ian A. Munn & Haibo Yao, 2021. "Attributes‐based conjoint analysis of landowner preferences for standing timber insurance," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 24(4), pages 421-444, December.
    5. Kim, Yeonbae, 2005. "Estimation of consumer preferences on new telecommunications services: IMT-2000 service in Korea," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 73-84, January.
    6. Botta, Enrico, 2019. "An experimental approach to climate finance: the impact of auction design and policy uncertainty on renewable energy equity costs in Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    7. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Fields, Deacue, 2001. "Theoretical And Empirical Considerations Of Eliciting Preferences And Model Estimation In Conjoint Analysis," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20680, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. 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.
    10. Uggeldahl, Kennet & Jacobsen, Catrine & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2016. "Choice certainty in Discrete Choice Experiments: Will eye tracking provide useful measures?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 35-48.
    11. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick, 2002. "Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 107-116, January.
    12. Robert W. Turner & Laura Noddin & Alita Giuda, 2005. "Estimating nonuse values using conjoint analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 17(7), pages 1-15.
    13. Hudson Darren & Lusk Jayson, 2004. "Risk and Transactions Cost in Contracting: Results from a Choice-Based Experiment," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-19, February.
    14. 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).
    15. Strand.J., 2001. "Public- and private-good values of statistical lives : results from a combined choice-experiment and contingent-valuation survey," Memorandum 31/2001, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    16. Kjartan Sælensminde, 2002. "The Impact of Choice Inconsistencies in Stated Choice Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 403-420, December.
    17. Blamey, Russell K. & Gordon, Jenny & Chapman, Ross, 1999. "Choice modelling: assessing the environmental values of water supply options," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 43(3), pages 1-21, September.
    18. Levy, Alan S. & Teisl, Mario F. & Roe, Brian E. & Russell, Matthew & Moskovitz, Dave & Austin, Tom, 1998. "Electricity Deregulation: What'S In Store For The Environment?," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20990, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. John C. Whitehead & George Van Houtven, "undated". "Methods for Valuing the Benefits of the Safe Drinking Water Act: Review and Assessment," Working Papers 9705, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    20. Nikita Lyssenko & Roberto Mart󹑺-Espiñeira, 2012. "Respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: the case of whale conservation in Newfoundland and Labrador," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(15), pages 1911-1930, May.
    21. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2020. "Ex-ante and ex-post measures to mitigate hypothetical bias. Are they alternative or complementary tools to increase the reliability and validity of DCE estimates?," Working Papers 2020-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.

    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.