IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iefi09/59209.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuing Consumer Preferences with the CUB Model: A Case Study of Fairtrade Coffee

Author

Listed:
  • Cicia, Gianni
  • Corduas, Marcella
  • Del Giudice, Teresa
  • Piccolo, Domenico

Abstract

In recent years, in the field of consumer behaviour, a large number of new models and instruments for preference analysis have been proposed. This strand of the literature has developed along two different lines. The first has produced approaches that have a more solid economic basis, but which at the same time require increasingly complex econometric analysis. Moreover, in this research field, based on stochastic utility theory and choice experiments, less weight is given to the socio-economic and psychometric characteristics of the individual in determining preferences. By contrast, the second strand has given rise to many methods to analyse consumer behaviour based on quality approaches such as laddering or focus groups where behavioural characteristics and lifestyles have regained primary importance in explaining the choices and “tastes” of individuals.

Suggested Citation

  • Cicia, Gianni & Corduas, Marcella & Del Giudice, Teresa & Piccolo, Domenico, 2009. "Valuing Consumer Preferences with the CUB Model: A Case Study of Fairtrade Coffee," 2009 International European Forum, February 15-20, 2009, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 59209, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iefi09:59209
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.59209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/59209/files/Cicia.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.59209?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    2. D'Elia, Angela & Piccolo, Domenico, 2005. "A mixture model for preferences data analysis," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 917-934, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gaëlle BALINEAU, 2017. "Fair Trade? Yes, but not at Christmas! Evidence from scanner data on real French Fairtrade purchases," Working Paper ab9a0fd1-6ad5-441b-879b-3, Agence française de développement.
    2. Marcella Corduas & Alfonso Piscitelli, 2017. "Modeling university student satisfaction: the case of the humanities and social studies degree programs," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 617-628, March.
    3. Federica Cugnata & Silvia Salini, 2014. "Model-based approach for importance–performance analysis," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3053-3064, November.
    4. Rotaris Lucia & Danielis Romeo, 2011. "Willingness to Pay for Fair Trade Coffee: A Conjoint Analysis Experiment with Italian Consumers," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-22, June.
    5. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Seo, Han-Seok & Zhang, Baoyue & Verbeke, Wim, 2015. "Sustainability labels on coffee: Consumer preferences, willingness-to-pay and visual attention to attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 215-225.
    6. Volker Lingnau & Florian Fuchs & Florian Beham, 2019. "The impact of sustainability in coffee production on consumers’ willingness to pay–new evidence from the field of ethical consumption," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 65-93, April.
    7. Corduas, Marcella, 2015. "A statistical model for consumer preferences: the case of Italian extra virgin olive oil," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202701, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Maria Iannario & Marica Manisera & Domenico Piccolo & Paola Zuccolotto, 2012. "Sensory analysis in the food industry as a tool for marketing decisions," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 6(4), pages 303-321, December.
    9. Hellberg-Bahr, Anneke & Pfeuffer, Martin & Spiller, Achim & Brümmer, Bernhard, 2011. "Using Price Rigidities to Explain Pricing Strategies in the Organic Milk Chain," 2011 International European Forum, February 14-18, 2011, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 122003, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    10. Arboretti Giancristofaro, Rosa & Bordignon, Paolo, 2015. "Consumer preferences in food packaging: cub models and conjoint analysis," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202707, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Francesca Colantuoni & Gianni Cicia & Teresa Del Giudice & Daniel Lass & Francesco Caracciolo & Pasquale Lombardi, 2016. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Domestic Fresh Produce: Evidence from German and Italian Early Potato Markets," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 512-530, November.
    12. Fitzsimmons, Jill & Cicia, Gianni, 2018. "Different Tubers for Different Consumers: Heterogeneity in Human Values and Willingness to Pay for Social Outcomes of Potato Credence Attributes," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(4), August.
    13. Panico, Teresa & Verneau, Fabio & Capone, Vincenza & La Barbera, Francesco & Del Giudice, Teresa, 2017. "Antecedents of Intention and Behavior Towards Fair Trade Products: A Study on Values and Attitudes in Italy," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 8(2), March.
    14. Takahashi, R. & Todo, Y., 2018. "When do consumers stand up for the environment? Evidence from a large-scale social experiment to promote environmentally friendly coffee," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277507, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Takahashi, Ryo & Todo, Yasuyuki & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2018. "How Can We Motivate Consumers to Purchase Certified Forest Coffee? Evidence From a Laboratory Randomized Experiment Using Eye-trackers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 107-121.

    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. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    2. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    3. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Bliemer, Michiel C.J., 2019. "Information theoretic-based sampling of observations," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 181-197.
    4. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    6. Gennaro Punzo & Rosalia Castellano & Mirko Buonocore, 2018. "Job Satisfaction in the “Big Four” of Europe: Reasoning Between Feeling and Uncertainty Through CUB Models," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(1), pages 205-236, August.
    7. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    8. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    9. Howard, Gregory E. & Zhang, Wendong & Valcu-Lisman, Adriana M., 2021. "Evaluating the Efficiency-Participation Tradeoff in Agricultural Conservation Programs: The Effect of Reverse Auctions, Spatial Targeting, and Higher Offered Payments," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313926, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Stefania Capecchi & Maria Iannario & Rosaria Simone, 2018. "Well-Being and Relational Goods: A Model-Based Approach to Detect Significant Relationships," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 729-750, January.
    11. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2011/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    12. Scheufele, Gabriela & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2010. "Ordering effects and strategic response in discrete choice experiments," Research Reports 107743, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    13. Donata Marasini & Piero Quatto & Enrico Ripamonti, 2017. "Inferential confidence intervals for fuzzy analysis of teaching satisfaction," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(4), pages 1513-1529, July.
    14. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & David A. Hensher, 2010. "Monitoring Choice Task Attribute Attendance in Nonmarket Valuation of Multiple Park Management Services: Does It Matter?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(4), pages 817-839.
    15. Torres, Cati & Hanley, Nick & Riera, Antoni, 2011. "How wrong can you be? Implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 111-121, July.
    16. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    17. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    18. Sobolewski, Maciej & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2018. "Receiver benefits and strategic use of call externalities in mobile telephony markets," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 16-27.
    19. Choi, Andy S. & Ritchie, Brent W. & Papandrea, Franco & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-220.
    20. Manisera, Marica & Zuccolotto, Paola, 2014. "Modeling rating data with Nonlinear CUB models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 100-118.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Agricultural and Food Policy; Farm Management; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iefi09:59209. 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/ilbonde.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.