IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Demand for Organic and Conventional Fruits


  • Lin, Biing-Hwan
  • Yen, Steven T.
  • Huang, Chung L.


We examine consumer demand for organic and conventional fruits by estimating a censored demand system, using Nielsen's Homescan data. Sociodemographic characteristics and income are found to be significant factors of organic fruit consumption. Consumers are responsive to own-price changes in selected organic fruits, while the own-price elasticities for conventional fruits are much smaller. Asymmetric cross-price effects are found between organic and conventional fruits, suggesting that a change in relative prices will more likely cause consumers of conventional fruits to "cross-over" to organic fruits, while the reverse is less likely to happen such that organic consumers will "revert" to conventional fruits.

Suggested Citation

  • Lin, Biing-Hwan & Yen, Steven T. & Huang, Chung L., 2008. "Demand for Organic and Conventional Fruits," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6440, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea08:6440

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, March.
    2. Mullen, Jeffrey D. & Norton, George W. & Reaves, Dixie Watts, 1997. "Economic Analysis Of Environmental Benefits Of Integrated Pest Management," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(02), December.
    3. Brethour, Cher & Weersink, Alfons, 2001. "An economic evaluation of the environmental benefits from pesticide reduction," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 25(2-3), September.
    4. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    5. Cuyno, Leah C.M. & Norton, George W. & Rola, Agnes, 2001. "Economic analysis of environmental benefits of integrated pest management: a Philippine case study," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 25(2-3), September.
    6. Nick Hanley & Jorunn Grande, & Begoña Álvarez-Farizo & Carol Salt & Mike Wilson, "undated". "Risk perceptions, risk-reducing behaviour and willingness to pay: radioactive contamination in food following a nuclear accident," Working Papers 2001_4, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    7. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    8. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Smith, Vernon L, 1976. "Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 274-279, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    organic fruit; Homescan data; censored demand system; two-step estimation; Demand and Price Analysis; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:ags:aaea08:6440. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: .

    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.