IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v23y1996i3p331-42.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Preferences and Attitudes towards Organically Grown Produce

Author

Listed:
  • Huang, Chung L

Abstract

A two-equation bivariate probit model was formulated to analyse simultaneously consumers' preferences and attitudes toward organically grown produce (OGP). Results suggest that consumers who are nutritionally conscious, concerned about the use of pesticides, and wanting produce tested for freedom from residues would have a higher propensity to prefer OGP. Among the potential buyers, consumers who are white, better educated, and have large families are more likely than others to tolerate sensory defects. The study suggests that testing and certification, sensory qualities, and competitive pricing are the most important factors that would enhance the marketing potential of OGP. Copyright 1996 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Huang, Chung L, 1996. "Consumer Preferences and Attitudes towards Organically Grown Produce," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 23(3), pages 331-342.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:23:y:1996:i:3:p:331-42
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Lechner, 2002. "Program Heterogeneity And Propensity Score Matching: An Application To The Evaluation Of Active Labor Market Policies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, pages 205-220.
    2. James J. Heckman & Jeffrey A. Smith, 2004. "The Determinants of Participation in a Social Program: Evidence from a Prototypical Job Training Program," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(2), pages 243-298, April.
    3. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra E. Todd, 1997. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 605-654.
    4. Ashok K. Mishra & Barry K. Goodwin, 1997. "Farm Income Variability and the Supply of Off-Farm Labor," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 880-887.
    5. A. Smith, Jeffrey & E. Todd, Petra, 2005. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 305-353.
    6. Lori Lynch & Wayne Gray & Jacqueline Geoghegan, 2007. "Are Farmland Preservation Program Easement Restrictions Capitalized into Farmland Prices? What Can a Propensity Score Matching Analysis Tell Us?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 502-509.
    7. Thilo Glebe & Klaus Salhofer, 2007. "EU agri-environmental programs and the "restaurant table effect"," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 37(2-3), pages 211-218, September.
    8. Nigel Key & Michael J. Roberts, 2006. "Government Payments and Farm Business Survival," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(2), pages 382-392.
    9. Barbara Sianesi, 2001. "Propensity score matching," United Kingdom Stata Users' Group Meetings 2001 12, Stata Users Group, revised 23 Aug 2001.
    10. C. S. Kim & G. Schluter & G. Schaible & A. Mishra & C. Hallahan, 2005. "A Decomposed Negative Binomial Model of Structural Change: A Theoretical and Empirical Application to U.S. Agriculture," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(2-3), pages 161-176, June.
    11. Joe Dewbre, 2006. "The Impact of Coupled and Decoupled Government Subsidies on Off-Farm Labor Participation of U.S. Farm Operators," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(2), pages 393-408.
    12. Rajeev H. Dehejia & Sadek Wahba, 1998. "Causal Effects in Non-Experimental Studies: Re-Evaluating the Evaluation of Training Programs," NBER Working Papers 6586, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Nigel Key & Ruben N. Lubowski & Michael J. Roberts, 2005. "Farm-Level Production Effects from Participation in Government Commodity Programs: Did the 1996 Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act Make a Difference?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1211-1219.
    14. Marco Caliendo & Sabine Kopeinig, 2008. "Some Practical Guidance For The Implementation Of Propensity Score Matching," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 31-72, February.
    15. Mary Clare Ahearn & Jet Yee & Penni Korb, 2005. "Effects of Differing Farm Policies on Farm Structure and Dynamics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1182-1189.
    16. Teresa Serra & Barry K. Goodwin & Allen M. Featherstone, 2005. "Agricultural Policy Reform and Off-farm Labour Decisions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 271-285.
    17. Shaik, Saleem & Helmers, Glenn A., 2006. "An Examination Of Farm Program Payments On Farm Economic Structure," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21215, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Heckman, James J. & Lalonde, Robert J. & Smith, Jeffrey A., 1999. "The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs," Handbook of Labor Economics,in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 31, pages 1865-2097 Elsevier.
    19. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra Todd, 1998. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 65(2), pages 261-294.
    20. Howard D. Leathers, 1992. "The Market for Land and the Impact of Farm Programs on Farm Numbers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(2), pages 291-298.
    21. Sascha O. Becker & Andrea Ichino, 2002. "Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 2(4), pages 358-377, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:oup:erevae:v:23:y:1996:i:3:p:331-42. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.