IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0267198.html

Consumer acceptance of fungus-resistant grape wines: Evidence from Italy, the UK, and the USA

Author

Listed:
  • Riccardo Vecchio
  • Eugenio Pomarici
  • Elisa Giampietri
  • Massimiliano Borrello

Abstract

While there is evidence of consumers’ interest in wine sustainability, acceptance of innovations in wine production is not guaranteed. The current study addresses this issue by analyzing consumers’ acceptance of fungus-resistant grape (FRG) wines, a sustainable innovation that can substantially reduce the need for chemical inputs in viticulture. To do so, by means of an online survey including large samples of regular wine drinkers in Italy (N = 752), the UK (N = 858) and the USA (N = 856), the study compares individuals’ preferences for conventional wines with preferences for FRG wines. The study also explores whether FRG wine acceptance is influenced by informal or formal purchase occasion, by different types of information regarding the product, and by individual attitudinal characteristics. The findings show a general acceptance of FRG wines among consumers. In particular, consumers’ preferences for FRG wines on formal occasions are not significantly different from their preferences for conventional wine, whereas on informal occasions, consumers prefer FRG wines over conventional wines. Regarding the impact of information on participant choice, participants informed about the potential effects of FRG on sensory wine characteristics had lower preferences for FRG wines than those who read an information script regarding crop biodiversity. Last, individuals’ sustainability concerns and food technology neophobia had positive and negative influences on FRG acceptance, respectively. Overall, this research provides wineries, nurseries and policy-makers with important insights concerning the market potential of FRG wines in three key markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Riccardo Vecchio & Eugenio Pomarici & Elisa Giampietri & Massimiliano Borrello, 2022. "Consumer acceptance of fungus-resistant grape wines: Evidence from Italy, the UK, and the USA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0267198
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267198
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267198
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267198&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0267198?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. 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.
    2. Rowe, Robert D. & Schulze, William D. & Breffle, William S., 1996. "A Test for Payment Card Biases," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 178-185, September.
    3. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    4. Grunert, Klaus G. & Hieke, Sophie & Wills, Josephine, 2014. "Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 177-189.
    5. 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.
    6. Eugenio Pomarici & Riccardo Vecchio & Angela Mariani, 2015. "Wineries’ Perception of Sustainability Costs and Benefits: An Exploratory Study in California," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Mittal, Banwari & Lee, Myung-Soo, 1989. "A causal model of consumer involvement," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 363-389, November.
    8. Baldi, Lucia & Trentinaglia, Maria Teresa & Mancuso, Teresina & Peri, Massimo, 2021. "Attitude Toward Environmental Protection and Toward Nature: How Do They Shape Consumer Behaviour for a Sustainable Tomato?," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315181, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Etienne Montaigne & Leila Khefifi & Alfredo Coelho, 2016. "Economic issues and perspectives on innovation in new resistant grapevine varieties," Post-Print hal-01346914, HAL.
    10. Etienne Montaigne & Alfredo Coelho & Leila Khefifi, 2016. "Economic issues and perspectives on innovation in new resistant grapevine varieties in France," Post-Print hal-01405413, HAL.
    11. van Doorn, Jenny & Verhoef, Peter C., 2011. "Willingness to pay for organic products: Differences between virtue and vice foods," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 167-180.
    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. Wuepper, David & Clemm, Alexandra & Wree, Philipp, 2019. "The preference for sustainable coffee and a new approach for dealing with hypothetical bias," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 475-486.
    2. 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.
    3. Frode Alfnes & Chengyan Yue & Helen H. Jensen, 2010. "Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 37(2), pages 147-163, June.
    4. Hofstetter, Reto & Miller, Klaus M. & Krohmer, Harley & Zhang, Z. John, 2021. "A de-biased direct question approach to measuring consumers' willingness to pay," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 70-84.
    5. 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.
    6. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Svedsäter, Henrik, 2011. "Self-Image and Valuation of Moral Goods: Stated versus Real Willingness to Pay," Working Papers in Economics 484, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    7. Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr. & Ximing Wu & Robert G. Brummett, 2007. "On the Use of Cheap Talk in New Product Valuation," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 2(1), pages 1-9.
    8. Cordula Hinkes & Inken Christoph-Schulz, 2020. "No Palm Oil or Certified Sustainable Palm Oil? Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Role of Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-26, September.
    9. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    10. Werbeck, Anna, 2024. "Stated preferences and actual choices in german health insurance," Ruhr Economic Papers 1091, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    11. 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.
    12. Keiko Aoki & Kenju Akai, 2022. "Testing hypothetical bias in a choice experiment: An application to the value of the carbon footprint of mandarin oranges," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-26, January.
    13. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    14. Carroll, James & Aravena, Claudia & Denny, Eleanor, 2016. "Low energy efficiency in rental properties: Asymmetric information or low willingness-to-pay?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 617-629.
    15. Eleonora Sofia Rossi & José A. Zabala & Francesco Caracciolo & Emanuele Blasi, 2023. "The Value of Crop Diversification: Understanding the Factors Influencing Consumers’ WTP for Pasta from Sustainable Agriculture," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, February.
    16. Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(01), pages 1-13, April.
    17. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    18. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., "undated". "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274040, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Prakashan Chellattan Veettil & Yashodha Yashodha & Joseph Vecci, 2025. "Hypothetical bias and cognitive ability: Farmers' preference for crop insurance products†," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 107(3), pages 888-924, May.
    20. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.

    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:plo:pone00:0267198. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.