IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i7p2396-d157114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Preferences of Locally Grown Specialty Crop: The Case of Taiwan Coffee

Author

Listed:
  • Jong-Wen Wann

    (Department of Applied Economics, National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung 402, Taiwan)

  • Chia-Yung Kao

    (Department of Applied Economics, National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung 402, Taiwan)

  • Yu-Chen Yang

    (Department of Applied Economics, National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung 402, Taiwan)

Abstract

The role of retailers in the local coffee niche market is to add value with unique characteristics such as creativity, cultural identity, and innovation in order to differentiate their products. Producers/retailers can provide customized services for special products according to different consumer preferences and needs. They can gain the trust and loyalty of consumers in this way. This study aims to understand consumer assessments of the different attributes of local specialty coffee provided by coffee retailers in order to help them develop strategies for increased sales in the niche market. Regarding internal quality, atypically, as the empirical results of conjoint analysis has shown, Taiwanese consumers do not prefer the attributes of coffee such as extra aroma and strong acidic taste. Therefore, they are not willing to pay the premium for these attributes. With regards to external quality, consumers prefer the attributes of specialty café style and product featured packaging.

Suggested Citation

  • Jong-Wen Wann & Chia-Yung Kao & Yu-Chen Yang, 2018. "Consumer Preferences of Locally Grown Specialty Crop: The Case of Taiwan Coffee," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:7:p:2396-:d:157114
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2396/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2396/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Cranfield & Spencer Henson & James Northey & Oliver Masakure, 2010. "An assessment of consumer preference for fair trade coffee in Toronto and Vancouver," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 307-325.
    2. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    3. Rotaris Lucia & Danielis Romeo, 2011. "Willingness to Pay for Fair Trade Coffee: A Conjoint Analysis Experiment with Italian Consumers," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-22, June.
    4. Wongprawmas, Rungsaran & Canavari, Maurizio, 2017. "Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for food safety labels in an emerging market: The case of fresh produce in Thailand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 25-34.
    5. Michael Burton & Dan Rigby & Trevor Young, 2001. "Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 28(4), pages 479-498, December.
    6. Potira Preiss & Flávia Charão-Marques & Johannes S. C. Wiskerke, 2017. "Fostering Sustainable Urban-Rural Linkages through Local Food Supply: A Transnational Analysis of Collaborative Food Alliances," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-30, July.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    8. Basu, Arnab K. & Hicks, Robert L., 2008. "Label Performance and the Willingness to Pay for Fair Trade Coffee: A Cross-National Perspective," Discussion Papers 44336, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    9. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    10. Chris Arnot & Peter C. Boxall & Sean B. Cash, 2006. "Do Ethical Consumers Care About Price? A Revealed Preference Analysis of Fair Trade Coffee Purchases," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(4), pages 555-565, December.
    11. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    12. Jong-Wen Wann & Yu-Chen Yang & Wen-Shing Huang, 2016. "An empirical analysis of consumer willingness to pay for domestically grown product attributes: the case of Taiwan," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 8(2), pages 215-229, May.
    13. repec:feb:natura:0061 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    15. Chan-Halbrendt, Catherine & Zhllima, Edvin & Sisior, Gwendalyn & Imami, Drini & Leonetti, Luciano, 2010. "Consumer Preferences for Olive Oil in Tirana, Albania," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 13(3), pages 1-20, September.
    16. Durham Catherine A. & Roheim Cathy A. & Pardoe Iain, 2012. "Picking Apples: Can Multi-Attribute Ecolabels Compete?," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-28, October.
    17. 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.
    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. Tavárez, Héctor & Álamo, Carmen & Cortés,Mildred, 2020. "Differentiated coffees and their potential markets in Puerto Rico: An economic valuation approach," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    2. Grzegorz Maciejewski & Sylwia Mokrysz & Łukasz Wróblewski, 2019. "Segmentation of Coffee Consumers Using Sustainable Values: Cluster Analysis on the Polish Coffee Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, January.
    3. Mangku Purnomo & Pardamean Daulay & Medea Ramadhani Utomo & Sugeng Riyanto, 2019. "Moderating Role of Connoisseur Consumers on Sustainable Consumption and Dynamics Capabilities of Indonesian Single Origin Coffee Shops," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, March.

    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. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Rotaris Lucia & Danielis Romeo, 2011. "Willingness to Pay for Fair Trade Coffee: A Conjoint Analysis Experiment with Italian Consumers," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-22, June.
    3. Hannes Koppel & Günther Schulze, 2013. "The Importance of the Indirect Transfer Mechanism for Consumer Willingness to Pay for Fair Trade Products—Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 369-387, December.
    4. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
    5. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Fredrik Carlsson & Jorge García & Åsa Löfgren, 2010. "Conformity and the Demand for Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 407-421, November.
    7. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    8. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    9. Grzegorz Maciejewski & Sylwia Mokrysz & Łukasz Wróblewski, 2019. "Segmentation of Coffee Consumers Using Sustainable Values: Cluster Analysis on the Polish Coffee Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, January.
    10. Man-, ZuyiKeunZuyi Wang & Takagi, Chifumi & Kim, Man-Keun & Chung, Anh, 2022. "Uncover Drivers Influencing Consumers' WTP Using Machine Learning: Case of Organic Coffee in Taiwan," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322150, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Veronika Andorfer & Ulf Liebe, 2012. "Research on Fair Trade Consumption—A Review," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 106(4), pages 415-435, April.
    12. Veronika A. Andorfer & Ulf Liebe, 2014. "Do Information, Price, or Morals Influence Ethical Consumption? A Natural Field Experiment and Customer Survey on the Purchase of Fair Trade Coffee," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 6, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences.
    13. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    14. Chang, Jae Bong & Moon, Wanki & Balasubramanian, Siva K., 2012. "Consumer valuation of health attributes for soy-based food: A choice modeling approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 335-342.
    15. Volker Lingnau & Florian Fuchs & Florian Beham, 2019. "The impact of sustainability in coffee production on consumers’ willingness to pay–new evidence from the field of ethical consumption," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 65-93, April.
    16. Kim, Hyerin & Shoji, Yasushi & Tsuge, Takahiro & Aikoh, Tetsuya & Kuriyama, Koichi, 2020. "Understanding services from ecosystem and facilities provided by urban green spaces: A use of partial profile choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    17. Chun-Chu Liu & Chu-Wei Chen & Han-Shen Chen, 2019. "Measuring Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Coffee Certification Labels in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-13, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    20. 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.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:7:p:2396-:d:157114. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.