IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea26/404459.html

Adoption potential of VOC-based pest and pathogen detection technologies by European nurseries: Insights from a discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Kartakis, Stelios
  • Thiermann, Insa
  • Cingiz, Kutay
  • Wesseler, Justus

Abstract

Plant products issued a plant passport upon risk-based border inspections can circulate freely within the European Union. Border control inspections are imperfect, and pests or pathogens may remain undetected. Post-border detection efforts can reduce the risk of further spread and partly rely on voluntary actions by actors involved in plant trade, such as nurseries. Nurseries have a direct interest in healthy plant material, yet investments in early detection technologies remain driven by private incentives. We investigate nursery preferences for volatile organic compound (VOC) “e-nose” sensors using a discrete choice experiment among 343 nursery operators in Italy, Romania, Germany, and France. Respondents evaluated VOC sensor alternatives against the status quo of existing inspection practices. Choice data were analyzed using mixed logit and latent class models. The predicted probability of choosing a VOC sensor alternative was 76%. Adoption decisions were primarily shaped by cost considerations and performance-related attributes, particularly detection speed and reliability. Certification potential and ownership structure of the technology were considered less important. Cross-country differences indicate that nurseries place varying importance on technology attributes, suggesting that technology design and commercialization strategies should account for heterogeneous end-user preferences. Adoption likelihood is higher among nurseries that are members of professional associations, pointing to the role of networks in fostering technology diffusion.

Suggested Citation

  • Kartakis, Stelios & Thiermann, Insa & Cingiz, Kutay & Wesseler, Justus, 2026. "Adoption potential of VOC-based pest and pathogen detection technologies by European nurseries: Insights from a discrete choice experiment," 2026 Annual Meeting, July 26 - 28, 2026, Kansas City, Missouri 404459, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea26:404459
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.404459
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/404459/files/177520_193929_115232_AAEA26_pdf_submission.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.404459?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. Adams, Damian C. & Bwenge, Anafrida N. & Lee, Donna J. & Larkin, Sherry L. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2011. "Public preferences for controlling upland invasive plants in state parks: Application of a choice model," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 465-472, July.
    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. Yao, Richard T. & Wallace, Lisa, 2024. "A systematic review of non-market ecosystem service values for biosecurity protection," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    2. Tzu-Ming Liu & Chia-Mei Tien, 2019. "Assessing Tourists’ Preferences of Negative Externalities of Environmental Management Programs: A Case Study on Invasive Species in Shei-Pa National Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-11, May.
    3. Soto, José & Escobedo, Francisco & Adams, Damian, 2016. "Public and Private Preferences for Urban Forest Ecosystem Services," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236232, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Soto, José R., 2016. "Does policy process influence public values for forest-water resource protection in Florida?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 122-131.
    5. Sydney Oluoch & Pankaj Lal & Andres Susaeta & Meghann Smith & Bernabas Wolde, 2024. "Consumer Preferences for Wood-Pellet-Based Green Pricing Programs in the Eastern United States," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-16, April.
    6. Subroy, Vandana & Rogers, Abbie A. & Kragt, Marit E., 2018. "To Bait or Not to Bait: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Public Preferences for Native Wildlife and Conservation Management in Western Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 114-122.
    7. Richard J. Thomas & Emmanuelle Quillérou & Naomi Stewart, 2013. "The rewards of investing in sustainable land management," Working Papers hal-01954823, HAL.
    8. George E. Halkos & Panagiotis‐Stavros C. Aslanidis, 2026. "The Socio‐Cultural and Spiritual Dimensions on Non‐Marketed Environmental Valuation," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(S1), pages 407-426, January.
    9. Dong-Hyeon Kim & Byeong-Il Ahn & Eui-Gyeong Kim, 2016. "Metropolitan Residents’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for a Life Zone Forest for Mitigating Heat Island Effects during Summer Season in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
    10. Tom Kompas & Long Chu & Pham Van Ha & Daniel Spring, 2019. "Budgeting and portfolio allocation for biosecurity measures," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(3), pages 412-438, July.
    11. Soto, José R. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Khachatryan, Hayk & Adams, Damian C., 2018. "Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: Examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 31-39.
    12. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    13. Tzu-Ming Liu, 2019. "Using RPL Model to Probe Trade-Offs among Negative Externalities of Controlling Invasive Species," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-17, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:aaea26:404459. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.