IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0294576.html

What drives researcher preferences for chemical compounds? Evidence from conjoint analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Bongsuk Sung
  • Kang-Min Park
  • Chun Gun Park
  • Yong-Hee Kim
  • Jaeyong Lee
  • Tae-Eun Jin

Abstract

We investigated the attributes and attribute levels that affect researcher preferences for chemical compounds. We conducted a conjoint analysis on survey data of Korean researchers using chemical compounds from the Korean Chemical Bank (KCB). The analysis estimated the part-worth utility for each attribute’s level, calculated relative importance of attributes, and classified user segmentation with different patterns. The results show that the structure database offers the highest part-worth utility to researchers, followed by high new functionality, price, screening service, and drug action data provided only by the KCB. Notably, researchers view the offer of a structured database and high new functionality as more important than other attributes in decision-making about research and development of chemical compounds. Furthermore, the results of segmentation analysis demonstrated that researchers have distinct usage patterns of chemical compounds: researchers consider structure database and high new functionality in cluster 1; and high new functionality and price in cluster 2, to be the most appealing. We discussed some policy and strategic implications based on the findings of this study and proposed some limitations.

Suggested Citation

  • Bongsuk Sung & Kang-Min Park & Chun Gun Park & Yong-Hee Kim & Jaeyong Lee & Tae-Eun Jin, 2023. "What drives researcher preferences for chemical compounds? Evidence from conjoint analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(11), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0294576
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294576
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294576&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0294576?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. Bansak, Kirk & Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2021. "Beyond the breaking point? Survey satisficing in conjoint experiments," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 53-71, January.
    2. C. Raz & D. Piper & R. Haller & H. Nicod & N. Dusart & A. Giboreau, 2008. "From sensory marketing to sensory design : how to drive formulation using consumers' input ?," Post-Print halshs-00348081, HAL.
    3. Harrison, R. Wes & Ozayan, Aylin & Meyers, Samuel P., 1998. "A Conjoint Analysis Of New Food Products Processed From Underutilized Small Crawfish," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Halbrendt, Catherine K. & Wirth, Ferdinand F. & Vaughn, Gerald F., 1991. "Conjoint Analysis Of The Mid-Atlantic Food-Fish Market For Farm-Raised Hybrid Striped Bass," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(01), pages 1-9, July.
    5. Sayadi, Samir & Gonzalez Roa, M. Carmen & Calatrava Requena, Javier, 2005. "Ranking versus scale rating in conjoint analysis: Evaluating landscapes in mountainous regions in southeastern Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 539-550, December.
    6. Andrus Kotri, 2006. "Analyzing Customer Value Using Conjoint Analysis: The Example Of A Packaging Company," University of Tartu - Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Working Paper Series 46, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu (Estonia).
    7. repec:cup:jagaec:v:23:y:1991:i:01:p:155-163_01 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Plottu, Eric & Plottu, Beatrice, 2007. "The concept of Total Economic Value of environment: A reconsideration within a hierarchical rationality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 52-61, February.
    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. Harrison, R. Wes & Mclennon, Everald, 2004. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Biotech Labeling Formats," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 159-171, April.
    2. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey & Fields, Deacue, 2005. "Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 238-252, October.
    3. Fields, Deacue & Gillespie, Jeffrey M., 2003. "Beef Producer Preferences And Purchase Decisions For Livestock Revenue Insurance Products," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35089, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    4. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Fields, Deacue, 2001. "Theoretical And Empirical Considerations Of Eliciting Preferences And Model Estimation In Conjoint Analysis," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20680, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Schupp, Alvin R. & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Prinyawiwatkul, Witoon & O'Neil, Carol E., 2003. "Consumer-Preferred Attributes of a Fresh Ground Beef and Turkey Product: A Conjoint Analysis," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(2), pages 1-7, July.
    6. Walisinghe, B.R & Gunaratne, L.H.P., 2008. "Consumer Preferences for Quality Attributes of Rice: A Conjoint Analysis," Sri Lankan Journal of Agricultural Economics, Sri Lanka Agricultural Economics Association (SAEA), vol. 10, pages 1-13.
    7. Harrison, R. Wes & Sambidi, Pramod R., 2004. "A Conjoint Analysis of the U.S. Broiler Complex Location Decision," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 639-655, December.
    8. Katarzyna Pactwa & Justyna Woźniak & Michał Dudek, 2020. "Sustainable Social and Environmental Evaluation of Post-Industrial Facilities in a Closed Loop Perspective in Coal-Mining Areas in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Emmanuel Olateju Oyatoye & Sulaimon Olanrewaju Adebiyi & Bilqis Bolanle Amole, 2013. "An Application of Conjoint Analysis to Consumer Preference for Beverage Products in Nigeria," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 9(6), pages 43-56, December.
    10. Chun-Chu Yeh & Cheng-Shen Lin & Chin-Huang Huang, 2018. "The Total Economic Value of Sport Tourism in Belt and Road Development—An Environmental Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    11. Chunhua Wang & Changdong Zhang & Yong Wang, 2020. "Environmental satisfaction among residents in Chinese cities," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 2283-2301, November.
    12. Wittmer, Andreas & Rowley, Edward, 2014. "Customer value of purchasable supplementary services: The case of a European full network carrier's economy class," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 17-23.
    13. Ashok K. Mishra & Jeffrey M. Gillespie, 2016. "Hiring Preferences for Nonimmigrant Labor: The Case of the Seafood Processing Industry," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 83-99.
    14. George Ekonomou & Dimitris Kallioras & Angeliki N. Menegaki & Sergio Alvarez, 2023. "Tourist Preferences for Revitalizing Wellness Products and Reversing Depopulation in Rural Destinations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-31, December.
    15. Chiodo, Emilio & Casolani, Nicola & Fantini, Andrea, 2011. "Regulatory Policies and Consumers Perception of Wines with Protected Designation of Origin: A Conjoint Experiment," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114297, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Sánchez, M. & Gil, José M., 1998. "Comparación de tres métodos de estimación del análisis conjunto: diferencias en las preferencias en el consumo de vino y en la segmentación del mercado," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 10, pages 131-146, Diciembre.
    17. Vita, G. Di & Salvo, G. De & Bracco, S. & Gulisano, G. & D'Amico, M., . "Future Market of Pizza: Which Attributes Do They Matter?," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 8(4), pages 1-13.
    18. William L. Allen & Matthew D. Bird & Luisa Feline Freier & Isabel Ruiz & Carlos Vargas-Silva, 2024. "Migration policy preferences and forms of trust in contexts of limited state capacity," Discussion Papers 2024-09, Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP).
    19. Enrico Gabriele, 2023. "How did Environmental Awareness Work? Cross-Country Evidence About Sustainability-Oriented Behaviors," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 9(3), pages 1365-1411, November.
    20. Cavalletti, B. & Di Fabio, C. & Lagomarsino, E. & Ramassa, P., 2020. "Ecosystem accounting for marine protected areas: A proposed framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).

    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:pone00:0294576. 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.