IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/agecon/v56y2025i6p940-960.html

A Diamond in the Rough: Identifying Heritage Crop Niche Markets in the United States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Yefan Nian
  • R. David Lamie
  • Michael Vassalos
  • Daniel Tregeagle
  • Ben Boyles
  • Diana Vossbrinck

Abstract

Heritage crops are grown from open‐pollinated old cultivars and are considered significant in their connection to human culture and food systems. Although developing market opportunities and promoting their production can be an effective strategy to conserve them, little is known about US consumers' awareness, interest, and preferences for them. In this study, we conducted a national survey and used a discrete choice experiment with five different crops (i.e., apple, cabbage, rice, squash, and tomato) to systematically investigate US consumers' preferences for heritage crops. We found that US consumers' awareness of heritage crops is limited. Their willingness‐to‐pays (WTPs) for these crops are relatively modest and vary between heirloom crops, which emphasize the legacy and time aspects of the crops, and heritage crops, which demonstrate the cultural and historical aspects of the crops. However, consumers' WTPs for heritage crops appear consistent across US regions and consumers' residency areas (i.e., cities, suburbs, and rural areas). Only a few consumers' lifestyle variables tend to be correlated to their WTPs. The findings of this study provide substantial empirical evidence to help farmers identify marketing opportunities for heritage crops and examine the feasibility of using a market‐driven approach to conserve heritage crops in the United States.

Suggested Citation

  • Yefan Nian & R. David Lamie & Michael Vassalos & Daniel Tregeagle & Ben Boyles & Diana Vossbrinck, 2025. "A Diamond in the Rough: Identifying Heritage Crop Niche Markets in the United States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 56(6), pages 940-960, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:56:y:2025:i:6:p:940-960
    DOI: 10.1111/agec.70043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.70043
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/agec.70043?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. Dauro Mattia Zocchi & Michele Filippo Fontefrancesco & Paolo Corvo & Andrea Pieroni, 2021. "Recognising, Safeguarding, and Promoting Food Heritage: Challenges and Prospects for the Future of Sustainable Food Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-21, August.
    2. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    3. Sarah Besky, 2014. "The labor of terroir and the terroir of labor: Geographical Indication and Darjeeling tea plantations," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(1), pages 83-96, March.
    4. Riccardo Scarpa & Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson, 2007. "Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 617-634.
    5. Yang, Yang & Hobbs, Jill E. & Natcher, David C., 2020. "Assessing consumer willingness to pay for Arctic food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    6. Van Asselt, Joanna & Nian, Yefan & Soh, Moonwon & Morgan, Stephen & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "Do plastic warning labels reduce consumers' willingness to pay for plastic egg packaging? – Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    7. Suzanne Kapelari & Georgios Alexopoulos & Theano Moussouri & Konstantin J. Sagmeister & Florian Stampfer, 2020. "Food Heritage Makes a Difference: The Importance of Cultural Knowledge for Improving Education for Sustainable Food Choices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-23, February.
    8. Smith, Chris, 2024. "Climate resilient food systems and community reconnection through radical seed diversity," Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, Center for Transformative Action, Cornell University, vol. 13(2).
    9. Yefan Nian & Zhifeng Gao & Ruojin Zhao, 2023. "Are people's daily life habits consistent with their preference for food sustainability labels?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 589-622, July.
    10. Katherine L. Turner & Iain J. Davidson-Hunt & Annette Aurélie Desmarais & Ian Hudson, 2016. "Creole Hens and Ranga-Ranga: Campesino Foodways and Biocultural Resource-Based Development in the Central Valley of Tarija, Bolivia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-33, August.
    11. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Seo, Han-Seok & Zhang, Baoyue & Verbeke, Wim, 2015. "Sustainability labels on coffee: Consumer preferences, willingness-to-pay and visual attention to attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 215-225.
    12. Fan, Xiaoli & Gómez, Miguel I. & Coles, Phillip S., 2019. "Willingness to Pay, Quality Perception, and Local Foods: The Case of Broccoli," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 414-432, December.
    13. Balogh, Péter & Békési, Dániel & Gorton, Matthew & Popp, József & Lengyel, Péter, 2016. "Consumer willingness to pay for traditional food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 176-184.
    14. Carlos E. Carpio & Olga Isengildina-Massa, 2009. "Consumer willingness to pay for locally grown products: the case of South Carolina," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(3), pages 412-426.
    15. Subir Bairagi & Marie Claire Custodio & Alvaro Durand-Morat & Matty Demont, 2021. "Preserving cultural heritage through the valorization of Cordillera heirloom rice in the Philippines," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 257-270, February.
    16. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    17. Jayson L. Lusk, 2003. "Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 840-856.
    18. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo, 2017. "Multinomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual Heterogeneity in R: The gmnl Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i02).
    19. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2012. "Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1225-1239, November.
    20. Valerie Kilders & Vincenzina Caputo, 2024. "A reference‐price‐informed experiment to assess consumer demand for beef with a reduced carbon footprint," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(1), pages 3-20, January.
    21. William Greene & David Hensher, 2010. "Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 413-428, May.
    22. Nurcan Helicke, 2015. "Seed exchange networks and food system resilience in the United States," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(4), pages 636-649, December.
    23. Vincenzina Caputo & Riccardo Scarpa, 2022. "Methodological Advances in Food Choice Experiments and Modeling: Current Practices, Challenges, and Future Research Directions," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 63-90, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yefan Nian & Zhifeng Gao & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Yuning Zhao & Joanna Van Asselt, 2026. "Trade‐Off Between Accuracy and Cognitive Burden: Influence of Stated Attribute Non‐Attendance Questions on Participants' Choice Behaviors," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 57(1), January.
    2. Jeff Luckstead & Heather A. Snell & Lawton Lanier Nalley & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Joshua Sarpaning, 2022. "A multi‐country study on consumers' valuation for child‐labor‐free chocolate: Implications for child labor in cocoa production," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 1021-1048, June.
    3. Kei Kabaya & Kayo Tajima & Daisuke Ichinose & Michiko Asano, 2025. "Do different visual presentation formats encourage different choice behaviors? discrete choice experiment on urban park landscapes," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 27(1), pages 23-41, January.
    4. Shr, Yau-Huo & Ready, Richard C. & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, "undated". "Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258397, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. John C. Whitehead & Daniel K. Lew, 2020. "Estimating recreation benefits through joint estimation of revealed and stated preference discrete choice data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 2009-2029, April.
    6. Thiene, Mara & Scarpa, Riccardo & Longo, Alberto & Hutchinson, William George, 2018. "Types of front of pack food labels: Do obese consumers care? Evidence from Northern Ireland," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 84-102.
    7. Akshay Vij & Rico Krueger, 2018. "Random taste heterogeneity in discrete choice models: Flexible nonparametric finite mixture distributions," Papers 1802.02299, arXiv.org.
    8. Pilar Uldemolins & M. Teresa Maza & Tiziana de-Magistris, 2025. "Landscape presentation formats influence consumer’s preferences for origin and botanical variety of Spanish honey," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, December.
    9. Vij, Akshay & Krueger, Rico, 2017. "Random taste heterogeneity in discrete choice models: Flexible nonparametric finite mixture distributions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 76-101.
    10. Taro Ohdoko & Satoru Komatsu, 2023. "Integrating a Pareto-Distributed Scale into the Mixed Logit Model: A Mathematical Concept," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.
    11. Maaya, Leonard & Meulders, Michel & Vandebroek, Martina, 2021. "Joint analysis of preferences and drop out data in discrete choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    12. Seojeong Oh & Benjamin M. Gramig, 2023. "Valuing Ecosystem Services and Downstream Water Quality Improvement in the U.S. Corn Belt," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 823-872, August.
    13. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Ready, Richard & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, 2019. "How Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 375-386.
    14. Tinessa, Fiore, 2021. "Closed-form random utility models with mixture distributions of random utilities: Exploring finite mixtures of qGEV models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 262-288.
    15. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    16. Ge, Ge & Godager, Geir, 2021. "Predicting strategic medical choices: An application of a quantal response equilibrium choice model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    17. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Schüle, Christopher & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2023. "The motivational drivers behind consumer preferences for regional electricity – Results of a choice experiment in Southern Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    18. Holte, Jon Helgheim & Kjaer, Trine & Abelsen, Birgit & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2015. "The impact of pecuniary and non-pecuniary incentives for attracting young doctors to rural general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    19. Fecke, Wilm & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "E-commerce in agriculture: The case of crop protection product purchases in a discrete choice experiment," DARE Discussion Papers 1803, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    20. Ahtiainen, Heini & Tienhaara, Annika & Pouta, Eija & Czajkowski, Mikolaj, "undated". "Role of information in the valuation of unfamiliar goods – the case of genetic resources in agriculture," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261423, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:bla:agecon:v:56:y:2025:i:6:p:940-960. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.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.