IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jagaec/v49y2017i01p45-65_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is There A Market For Branded Gulf Of Mexico Oysters?

Author

Listed:
  • PETROLIA, DANIEL R.
  • WALTON, WILLIAM C.
  • YEHOUENOU, LAURIANE

Abstract

We administered an online choice experiment to a sample of U.S. raw-oyster consumers to identify factors influencing preferences for Gulf of Mexico oysters, determined the extent of preference heterogeneity, and estimated marginal willingness to pay for specific varieties and other key attributes. Results indicate significant preference heterogeneity among select varieties, with non-Gulf respondents estimated to require a price discount on Gulf oyster varieties on the order of $3–$6/half dozen. Gulf respondents were found to be less sensitive to oyster variety, and estimated to be willing to pay a price premium only for select Gulf varieties on the order of $0–$3/half dozen.

Suggested Citation

  • Petrolia, Daniel R. & Walton, William C. & Yehouenou, Lauriane, 2017. "Is There A Market For Branded Gulf Of Mexico Oysters?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 45-65, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jagaec:v:49:y:2017:i:01:p:45-65_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1074070816000304/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Morgan, O. Ashton & Martin, Gregory S. & Huth, William L., 2009. "Oyster Demand Adjustments to Counter-Information and Source Treatments in Response to Vibrio vulnificus," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 683-696, December.
    2. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    3. Manalo, Alberto B. & Gempesaw, Conrado M., II, 1997. "Preferences For Oyster Attributes By Consumers In The U.S. Northeast," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 28(2), pages 1-9, July.
    4. Morgan, O. Ashton & Martin, Gregory S. & Huth, William L., 2009. "Oyster Demand Adjustments to Counter-Information and Source Treatments in Response to Vibrio vulnificus," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Office of Health Economics, 2007. "The Economics of Health Care," For School 001490, Office of Health Economics.
    6. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    7. O. Morgan & John Whitehead & William Huth & Greg Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2013. "A Split-Sample Revealed and Stated Preference Demand Model to Examine Homogenous Subgroup Consumer Behavior Responses to Information and Food Safety Technology Treatments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(4), pages 593-611, April.
    8. Potoglou, Dimitris & Burge, Peter & Flynn, Terry & Netten, Ann & Malley, Juliette & Forder, Julien & Brazier, John E., 2011. "Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: An empirical comparison using social care data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(10), pages 1717-1727, May.
    9. O. Ashton Morgan & Gregory S. Martin & William L. Huth, 2009. "Oyster Demand Adjustments to Counter-Information and Source Treatments in Response to Vibrio vulnificus," Working Papers 09-08, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    10. John C. Whitehead & O. Ashton Morgan & William L. Huth & Gregory S. Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2012. "Willingness-to-Pay for Oyster Consumption Mortality Risk Reductions," Working Papers 12-07, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    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. John C. Whitehead & O. Ashton Morgan & William L. Huth, 2018. "Convergent validity of stated preference methods to estimate willingness-to-pay for seafood traceability: The case of Gulf of Mexico oysters," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 326-335.

    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. Petrolia, Daniel R. & Walton, William C. & Sarah, Acquah, 2014. "A National Survey of Consumer Preferences for Branded Gulf Oysters and Risk Perceptions of Gulf Seafood," Research Reports 190586, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    2. John C. Whitehead & O. Ashton Morgan & William L. Huth, 2018. "Convergent validity of stated preference methods to estimate willingness-to-pay for seafood traceability: The case of Gulf of Mexico oysters," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 326-335.
    3. O. Ashton Morgan & John C. Whitehead & William L. Huth & Gregory S. Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2013. "Measuring the Impact of the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Working Papers 13-11, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    4. Petrolia, Daniel R., 2016. "Risk preferences, risk perceptions, and risky food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 37-48.
    5. John C. Whitehead & O. Ashton Morgan & William L. Huth & Gregory S. Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2020. "Altruistic and Private Values For Saving Lives With an Oyster Consumption Safety Program," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2413-2426, November.
    6. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    7. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Stated preferences over job characteristics: A panel study," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 43-82, February.
    8. Bruner, David M. & Huth, William L. & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2014. "Consumer Valuation of Food Safety: The Case of Postharvest Processed Oysters," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 300-318, August.
    9. Tatenda T Yemeke & Elizabeth E Kiracho & Aloysius Mutebi & Rebecca R Apolot & Anthony Ssebagereka & Daniel R Evans & Sachiko Ozawa, 2020. "Health versus other sectors: Multisectoral resource allocation preferences in Mukono district, Uganda," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, July.
    10. Marti, Joachim, 2012. "A best–worst scaling survey of adolescents' level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 87-97.
    11. Perolia, Daniel R. & Collart, Alba J. & Yehouenou, Lauriane, 2016. "Consumer Preferences for Delacata Catfish: A Choice Experiment with Tasting," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 47(3), pages 1-17, November.
    12. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    13. David M. Bruner & William L. Huth & David M. McEvoy & O. Ashton Morgan, 2011. "Accounting for Taste: Consumer Valuations for Food-Safety Technologies," Working Papers 11-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    14. Petrolia, Daniel & Interis, Matthew & Hwang, Joonghyun, 2015. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Working Papers 212479, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    15. Acquah, Sarah & Petrolia, Daniel, 2014. "Effect of branding Gulf oysters on consumers willingness to pay," 2014 Annual Meeting, February 1-4, 2014, Dallas, Texas 162449, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.
    17. Yoo, Hong Il & Doiron, Denise, 2013. "The use of alternative preference elicitation methods in complex discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1166-1179.
    18. N. Flynn, Terry & J. Peters, Tim & Coast, Joanna, 2013. "Quantifying response shift or adaptation effects in quality of life by synthesising best-worst scaling and discrete choice data," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 34-43.
    19. Qinxin Guo & Junyi Shen, 2019. "An Empirical Comparison Between Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-worst Scaling: A Case Study of Mobile Payment Choice," Discussion Paper Series DP2019-14, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    20. John C. Whitehead & O. Ashton Morgan & William L. Huth & Gregory S. Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2012. "Willingness-to-Pay for Oyster Consumption Mortality Risk Reductions," Working Papers 12-07, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • Q22 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Fishery

    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:cup:jagaec:v:49:y:2017:i:01:p:45-65_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/aae .

    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.