IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i9p3932-d1643768.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market Opportunities for Differentiated Locally Grown Fresh Produce: Understanding Consumer Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Azucena Gracia

    (Unidad de Economía Agroalimentaria, Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA), 50059 Zaragoza, Spain
    Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón—IA2, CITA-Universidad de Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain)

  • Miguel I. Gómez

    (Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, 137, Reservoir Ave, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA)

  • Petjon Ballco

    (Unidad de Economía Agroalimentaria, Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA), 50059 Zaragoza, Spain
    Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón—IA2, CITA-Universidad de Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain)

Abstract

The intensification of agricultural practices, such as the extensive use of synthetic fertilizers, the expansion of irrigation systems, and land use conversion, has led to substantial biodiversity loss and the disruption of ecosystem functions. Traditional washing procedures for fresh produce involve substantial water usage and can generate wastewater, which requires proper management to prevent environmental contamination. By skipping the washing stage, these reduced water and energy inputs contribute to more sustainable agricultural practices. Although this approach may benefit sustainability and the environment, the market success of a product with a sustainable attribute ultimately depends on consumer acceptance and their willingness to pay (WTP) for it. This study investigates consumer preferences and WTP for a local potato variety called “Agria”, with a specific focus on the sustainability attribute concerning the sale of washed versus unwashed potatoes. We conducted an experimental study with consumers in northeastern Spain, where this potato variety is grown, and simulated market shares under varying price scenarios. The methodology involved a choice experiment that evaluated three characteristics: price, local origin, and presentation (washed versus unwashed). The methodology also incorporated attribute non-attendance (ANA) to capture all aspects of the decision-making process. The findings reveal that consumers preferred the locally grown variety over those from other origins and were willing to pay a premium. Although consumers preferred washed potatoes, they would purchase unwashed potatoes at a discount price of EUR 0.2/kg. The results provide marketing and pricing strategies for local producers and retailers and market share projections aligned with consumer preferences for local food. Empirically, the study contributes to the literature on consumer preferences and sustainable food systems by (i) integrating the “washed versus unwashed” attribute with local origin to inform more effective marketing strategies; and (ii) supporting local potato growers through the identification of viable lunch strategies for a differentiated, unwashed product that extends shelf life, reduces food waste, and promotes sustainability by lowering water and energy use in post-harvest processing. For methodologically, it applies ANA in the context of potato choice experiments—an approach rarely used in this domain—to enhance the understanding of consumer decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Azucena Gracia & Miguel I. Gómez & Petjon Ballco, 2025. "Market Opportunities for Differentiated Locally Grown Fresh Produce: Understanding Consumer Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-25, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:9:p:3932-:d:1643768
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/9/3932/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/9/3932/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter C. Verhoef, 2005. "Explaining purchases of organic meat by Dutch consumers," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(2), pages 245-267, June.
    2. Jelena Vapa-Tankosić & Svetlana Ignjatijević & Jelena Kiurski & Jovana Milenković & Irena Milojević, 2020. "Analysis of Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic and Local Honey in Serbia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-23, June.
    3. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, Enero.
    5. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    6. Francesca Colantuoni & Gianni Cicia & Teresa Del Giudice & Daniel Lass & Francesco Caracciolo & Pasquale Lombardi, 2016. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Domestic Fresh Produce: Evidence from German and Italian Early Potato Markets," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 512-530, November.
    7. Luis Pérez y Pérez & Azucena Gracia, 2023. "Consumer Preferences for Olive Oil in Spain: A Best-Worst Scaling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-14, July.
    8. Petjon Ballco & Fatma Jaafer & Tiziana de Magistris, 2022. "Investigating the price effects of honey quality attributes in a European country: Evidence from a hedonic price approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(4), pages 885-904, October.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    10. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    11. Stephane Hess & David Hensher, 2013. "Making use of respondent reported processing information to understand attribute importance: a latent variable scaling approach," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 397-412, February.
    12. Konrád Kiss & Csaba Ruszkai & Antónia Szűcs & Gábor Koncz, 2020. "Examining the Role of Local Products in Rural Development in the Light of Consumer Preferences—Results of a Consumer Survey from Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-24, July.
    13. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & David A. Hensher, 2010. "Monitoring Choice Task Attribute Attendance in Nonmarket Valuation of Multiple Park Management Services: Does It Matter?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(4), pages 817-839.
    14. David Hensher & John Rose & William Greene, 2012. "Inferring attribute non-attendance from stated choice data: implications for willingness to pay estimates and a warning for stated choice experiment design," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 235-245, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Hughes, David W. & Isengildina-Massa, Olga, 2015. "The economic impact of farmers’ markets and a state level locally grown campaign," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 78-84.
    17. Garnett, Tara, 2011. "Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(S1), pages 23-32.
    18. Vincenzina Caputo & Ellen J. Van Loo & Riccardo Scarpa & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Wim Verbeke, 2018. "Comparing Serial, and Choice Task Stated and Inferred Attribute Non†Attendance Methods in Food Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 35-57, February.
    19. Birch, Dawn & Memery, Juliet & De Silva Kanakaratne, Maheshan, 2018. "The mindful consumer: Balancing egoistic and altruistic motivations to purchase local food," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 221-228.
    20. Riccardo Scarpa & Raffaele Zanoli & Viola Bruschi & Simona Naspetti, 2013. "Inferred and Stated Attribute Non-attendance in Food Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(1), pages 165-180.
    21. Riccardo Scarpa & Timothy J. Gilbride & Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher, 2009. "Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(2), pages 151-174, June.
    22. Garnett, Tara, 2011. "Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(Supplemen), pages 23-32, January.
    23. Hans Jensen & Ignacio Pérez Domínguez & Thomas Fellmann & Paul Lirette & Jordan Hristov & George Philippidis, 2019. "Economic Impacts of a Low Carbon Economy on Global Agriculture: The Bumpy Road to Paris," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-17, April.
    24. Printezis, Iryna & Grebitus, Carola, 2018. "Marketing Channels for Local Food," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 161-171.
    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. Gonçalves, Tânia & Lourenço-Gomes, Lina & Pinto, Lígia M. Costa, 2022. "The role of attribute non-attendance on consumer decision-making: Theoretical insights and empirical evidence," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 788-805.
    2. Dudinskaya, Emilia Cubero & Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2020. "Using eye-tracking as an aid to design on-screen choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    3. Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Does attribute order influence attribute-information processing in discrete choice experiments?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    4. Sandra Notaro & Maria De Salvo & Roberta Raffaelli, 2022. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for Alpine Pastures: A Discrete Choice Experiment Accounting for Attribute Non-Attendance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.
    5. Chiara Paffarini & Biancamaria Torquati & Tiziano Tempesta & Sonia Venanzi & Daniel Vecchiato, 2021. "Rural sustainability and food choice: the effect of territorial characteristics on the consumers’ preferences for organic lentils," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-23, December.
    6. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    7. DeLong, Karen L. & Syrengelas, Konstantinos G. & Grebitus, Carola & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2021. "Visual versus Text Attribute Representation in Choice Experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Klaus Glenk & Julia Martin-Ortega & Manuel Pulido-Velazquez & Jacqueline Potts, 2015. "Inferring Attribute Non-attendance from Discrete Choice Experiments: Implications for Benefit Transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(4), pages 497-520, April.
    10. Kelvin Balcombe & Michail Bitzios & Iain Fraser & Janet Haddock-Fraser, 2014. "Using Attribute Importance Rankings Within Discrete Choice Experiments: An Application to Valuing Bread Attributes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(2), pages 446-462, June.
    11. Caputo, Vincenzina & Loo, Ellen J. Van & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "“Using Experiments to Address Attribute Non-attendance in Consumer Food Choices”," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 177173, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2022. "Testing for saliency-led choice behavior in discrete choice modeling: An application in the context of preferences towards nuclear energy in Italy," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    13. Jourdain, Damien & Lairez, Juliette & Striffler, Bruno & Lundhede, Thomas, 2022. "A choice experiment approach to evaluate maize farmers’ decision-making processes in Lao PDR," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    14. Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Campbell, Danny, 2014. "Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 102-116.
    15. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.
    16. Lew, Daniel K., 2018. "Discounting future payments in stated preference choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 150-164.
    17. Kemper, Nathan & Popp, Jennie & Nayga, Jr., Rodolfo M. & Bazzani, Claudia, . "A Query Approach to Modeling Attendance to Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 49(2).
    18. Oyakhilomen Oyinbo & Jordan Chamberlin & Miet Maertens, 2020. "Design of Digital Agricultural Extension Tools: Perspectives from Extension Agents in Nigeria," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 798-815, September.
    19. De Marchi, E. & Cavaliere, A. & Banterle, A., 2018. "Consumer choice behavior for cisgenic food: exploring attribute processing strategies and the role of time preference," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277393, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Espinosa-Goded, María & Rodriguez-Entrena, Macario & Salazar-Ordóñez, Melania, 2021. "A straightforward diagnostic tool to identify attribute non-attendance in discrete choice experiments," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 211-226.

    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:17:y:2025:i:9:p:3932-:d:1643768. 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.