IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v42y2026i1p3-28.html

Who is willing to pay a premium for leafy greens produced by indoor agriculture? A comparative choice experiment with US consumers

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph Seong
  • Simone Valle De Souza
  • April Athnos
  • H. Christopher Peterson

Abstract

Indoor agriculture (IA) presents a pathway to producing leafy greens more sustainably by strictly controlling the growing environment, increasing the efficiency of water and land resources use, reducing pesticide application, and enhancing quality characteristics. However, the commercial success of adopting this production method depends on the technology's widespread consumer acceptance paired with a price premium for the improved quality it provides. This paper characterizes American consumer preferences for leafy greens, reports a positive WTP for leafy green attributes, and estimates how consumer attitudes toward IA affect their leafy green choices. The findings are drawn from an online survey of over 2000 US leafy green consumers conducted in 2021. The respondents faced a hypothetical discrete choice experiment (DCE) designed to simulate purchasing leafy green produce. The alternatives presented in the DCE varied over production systems (IA, field farming, or greenhouses) and quality levels (taste, freshness, nutrient level, and food safety). Estimates identify significant preference heterogeneity for leafy green attributes and facilitate classifying consumers into three preference‐based groups: “Quality Seekers,” “Price Conscious,” and “Focused Practicals.” Preference variation is significantly greater for production methods than quality characteristics, indicating nascent production method preferences. Results suggest most US consumers view IA positively; however, WTP estimates vary significantly between consumer segments [EconLit Citations: D12, D13].

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph Seong & Simone Valle De Souza & April Athnos & H. Christopher Peterson, 2026. "Who is willing to pay a premium for leafy greens produced by indoor agriculture? A comparative choice experiment with US consumers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(1), pages 3-28, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:42:y:2026:i:1:p:3-28
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.21931
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21931
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/agr.21931?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. Chengyan Yue & Shuoli Zhao & Jennifer Kuzma, 2015. "Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences for Nanotechnology and Genetic-modification Technology in Food Products," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 308-328, June.
    2. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & Andrea Bieberstein, 2014. "Consumer Acceptance of New Food Technologies: Causes and Roots of Controversies," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 381-405, October.
    3. Christie, Mike & Gibbons, James, 2011. "The effect of individual ‘ability to choose’ (scale heterogeneity) on the valuation of environmental goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2250-2257.
    4. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey & Jordan Louviere, 2002. "Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 161-170.
    5. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    6. 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.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, Enero-Abr.
    8. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    9. Gilmour, Daniel N. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Bazzani, Claudia & Price, Heather, "undated". "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Hydroponic Lettuce: A Non-hypothetical Choice Experiment," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266668, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole J. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-17, December.
    11. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    12. Sebastián Araya & Andrés Elberg & Carlos Noton & Daniel Schwartz, 2022. "Identifying Food Labeling Effects on Consumer Behavior," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(5), pages 982-1003, September.
    13. Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mariel, Petr & Weller, Priska, 2017. "Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 59-73.
    14. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "Food values and heterogeneous consumer responses to nanotechnology," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 289-313, September.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Graamans, Luuk & Baeza, Esteban & van den Dobbelsteen, Andy & Tsafaras, Ilias & Stanghellini, Cecilia, 2018. "Plant factories versus greenhouses: Comparison of resource use efficiency," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 31-43.
    18. Joan Costa-Font & Elias Mossialos, 2005. "Is dread of Genetically Modified food associated with the consumers' demand for information?," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(14), pages 859-863.
    19. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    20. Louviere, Jordan J., 1991. "Experimental choice analysis: Introduction and overview," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 291-297, December.
    21. 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.
    22. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    23. Gianna Short & Chengyan Yue & Marie Abbey & Neil Anderson & Nicholas Phelps & Paul Venturelli & Zata Vickers, 2018. "Consumer preferences for aquaponic produce: Implications from an experimental auction," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 742-755, October.
    24. Joseph Seong & Simone Valle de Souza & H. Christopher Peterson, 2023. "Seeds of Industry Sustainability: Consumer Attitudes towards Indoor Agriculture Benefits versus Its Advanced Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, January.
    25. Ellen J Van Loo & Rodolfo M NaygaJr & Danny Campbell & Han-Seok Seo & Wim Verbeke, 2018. "Using eye tracking to account for attribute non-attendance in choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(3), pages 333-365.
    26. 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.
    27. Sean T. Tarr & Simone Valle de Souza & Roberto G. Lopez, 2023. "Influence of Day and Night Temperature and Radiation Intensity on Growth, Quality, and Economics of Indoor Green Butterhead and Red Oakleaf Lettuce Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.
    28. Jae Eun You & Jong Woo Choi, 2022. "An analysis of food culture and technology acceptance for youth: Using a choice experiment and a latent class model," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(2), pages 510-522, March.
    29. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1990. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Correction," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(1), pages 189-190, February.
    30. Coyle, Bradford D. & Ellison, Brenna, 2017. "Will Consumers Find Vertically Farmed Produce "Out of Reach"?," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(01), pages 1-8.
    31. Di Fang & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Grant H. West & Claudia Bazzani & Wei Yang & Benjamin C. Lok & Charles E. Levy & Heather A. Snell, 2021. "On the Use of Virtual Reality in Mitigating Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 142-161, January.
    32. Petr Mariel & Simona Demel & Alberto Longo, 2021. "Modelling welfare estimates in discrete choice experiments for seaweed-based renewable energy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-22, November.
    33. Mariel, Petr & Artabe, Alaitz, 2020. "Interpreting correlated random parameters in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    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. 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.
    2. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    4. Tavárez, Héctor & Álamo, Carmen & Cortés,Mildred, . "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).
    5. 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).
    6. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    7. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    8. Bujosa, Angel & Torres, Cati & Riera, Antoni, 2018. "Framing Decisions in Uncertain Scenarios: An Analysis of Tourist Preferences in the Face of Global Warming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 36-42.
    9. Shijiu Yin & Shanshan Lv & Yusheng Chen & Linhai Wu & Mo Chen & Jiang Yan, 2018. "Consumer preference for infant milk‐based formula with select food safety information attributes: Evidence from a choice experiment in China," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(4), pages 557-569, December.
    10. Wang, Shuxian & Wu, Linhai & Zhu, Dian & Wang, Hongsha & Xu, Lingling, 2014. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food attributes: The case of pork," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 165639, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    12. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    13. Lew, Daniel K., 2018. "Discounting future payments in stated preference choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 150-164.
    14. Wolf, Christopher A. & Tonsor, Glynn T., . "Cow Welfare in the U.S. Dairy Industry: Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Supply," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(2).
    15. Djamel Rahmani & Zein Kallas & Maria Pappa & José Maria Gil, 2019. "Are Consumers’ Egg Preferences Influenced by Animal-Welfare Conditions and Environmental Impacts?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-23, November.
    16. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2020. "Ex-ante and ex-post measures to mitigate hypothetical bias. Are they alternative or complementary tools to increase the reliability and validity of DCE estimates?," Working Papers 2020-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    17. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    18. Britwum, Kofi & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2019. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety interventions: The role of message framing and issue involvement," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Carnegie, Rachel & Wang, Holly & Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David, 2014. "Consumer Preferences for Quality and Safety Attributes of Duck in Restaurant Entrees: Is China A Viable Market for The U.S. Duck Industry?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:wly:agribz:v:42:y:2026:i:1:p:3-28. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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.