IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/nejare/28968.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Conjoint/Logit Analysis Of Nursery Stock Purchases

Author

Listed:
  • Gineo, Wayne M.

Abstract

Product attributes that determine nursery-stock sales from wholesalers to retail garden centers and landscapers were studied. Conjoint analysis was used to obtain data on buyer preferences. The data were analyzed using ordinary least squares and logit procedures to determine the attributes that are preferred by buyers. It was determined that good- to excellent-quality stock, offerings with a full line of additional plants, taller plants, and cash discounts are desirable attributes. Quality is the dominant attribute affecting preferences. Packaging the preferred attributes together significantly increases the probability of a plant being purchased by buyers.

Suggested Citation

  • Gineo, Wayne M., 1990. "A Conjoint/Logit Analysis Of Nursery Stock Purchases," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-10, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:nejare:28968
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.28968
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/28968/files/19010049.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.28968?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. Green, Paul E & Helsen, Kristiaan & Shandler, Bruce, 1988. "Conjoint Internal Validity under Alternative Profile Presentations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(3), pages 392-397, December.
    2. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    3. Green, Paul E, 1974. "On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 1(2), pages 61-68, Se.
    4. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    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. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Fields, Deacue, 2005. "Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 34(2), pages 1-15, October.

    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. Manalo, Alberto B., 1989. "Benefits Sought by Apple Consumers," Working Papers 115908, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
    2. Vetschera, Rudolf & Weitzl, Wolfgang & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth, 2014. "Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 221-230.
    3. Kassie, Girma T. & Abdulai, Awudu & Haile, Aynalem & Yitayih, Mulugeta & Asnake, Woinishet & Rischkowsky, Barbara, 2023. "Understanding pastoralists’ preferences for goat traits: Application of all-levels and end-point choice experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    4. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    5. Horna, J. Daniela & Smale, Melinda & Oppen, Matthias Von, 2007. "Farmer willingness to pay for seed-related information: rice varieties in Nigeria and Benin," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(6), pages 799-825, December.
    6. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    7. Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Gil, José M. & Howard, B.J., 2009. "Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 787-797, January.
    8. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Aguilar, Francisco X., 2009. "Investment preferences for wood-based energy initiatives in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2292-2299, June.
    11. Hensher, David & Louviere, Jordan & Swait, Joffre, 1998. "Combining sources of preference data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 197-221, November.
    12. Dong Soo Kim & Roger A. Bailey & Nino Hardt & Greg M. Allenby, 2017. "Benefit-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 54-69, January.
    13. Skreli, Engjell & Imami, Drini, 2012. "Analyzing Consumers’ Preferences for Apple Attributes in Tirana, Albania," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, November.
    14. Wirth, Ferdinand F. & Davis, Kathy J., 2003. "Shrimp Purchasing Behavior And Preferences Of Seafood Dealers," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35151, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    15. Eunae Son & Song Soo Lim, 2021. "Consumer Acceptance of Gene-Edited versus Genetically Modified Foods in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, April.
    16. van Beek, Krijn W. H. & Koopmans, Carl C. & van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1997. "Shopping at the labour market: A real tale of fiction," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 295-317, February.
    17. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    18. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Willingness to pay for eco-labelled wood furniture: Choice-based conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valuation," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 29-48, May.
    19. Mahadevan, Renuka & Asafu-Adjaye, John, 2015. "Exploring the potential for green revolution: a choice experiment on maize farmers in Northern Ghana," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 1-15.
    20. Hou, Bo & Wu, Linhai & Chen, Xiujuan, 2019. "Market simulation of traceable food in China based on conjoint-value analysis: a traceable case of pork," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(5), 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:ags:nejare:28968. 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/nareaea.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.