IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/rutdps/36739.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Quality of Agricultural Produce: Consumer Preferences and Perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Govindasamy, Ramu
  • Italia, John
  • Liptak, Clare

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to gain a greater insight into the characteristics and beliefs consumers draw upon while selecting the produce they purchase. Health and environmental risk perceptions of many agricultural inputs and products were also collected as well as demographic information. Nineteen produce characteristics were ranked by consumers. Locally grown produce and the country of origin were among the least important characteristics while freshness, taste/flavor, cleanliness, health value and absence of pesticides were among the most important characteristics. The survey also showed that most consumers made use of nutritional information and labeling while shopping for food and those who did, felt it aided them in making better purchase decisions. Consumers exhibited a clear preference for low-input methods of agricultural production which minimize the use of pesticides. They believed that there were health benefits to organic produce and that they would purchase more organic produce if it were more readily available. Respondents also indicated that they believed pesticides in general, herbicides, fungicides and insecticides all had significant health and environmental risks. Consumers believed on average that the use of pesticides positively contributes to the cosmetic appearance, quality, and supply of produce. Conversely, they believed that a reduction in pesticide usage would increase both the healthfulness and prices of produce. The results show where consensus and discord exist among consumers beliefs. Issues which have been the result of media campaigns and advertising such as oils used in cooking, tobacco products and alcoholic beverages show a greater degree of consensus than issues which are not often in the public spotlight. There were also areas in which consumers believed that there were inadequacies in the current produce market. Participants did not believe government food safeguards were sufficient to 2 protect public health nor did they believe the experts know enough about the long term effects of pesticide residues. The goal of this research was to provide food marketing agents with a better understanding of consumer purchase behavior, preferences and beliefs. The results are especially encouraging to those developing marketing endeavors for low input produce such as organic and IPM produce.

Suggested Citation

  • Govindasamy, Ramu & Italia, John & Liptak, Clare, 1997. "Quality of Agricultural Produce: Consumer Preferences and Perceptions," P Series 36739, Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:rutdps:36739
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.36739
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/36739/files/pa970197.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.36739?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. Fred C. White & Michael E. Wetzstein, 1995. "Market Effects of Cotton Integrated Pest Management," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(3), pages 602-612.
    2. Baker, Gregory A. & Crosbie, Peter J., 1993. "Measuring Food Safety Preferences: Identifying Consumer Segments," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 18(2), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Young Sook Eom, 1994. "Pesticide Residue Risk and Food Safety Valuation: A Random Utility Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 760-771.
    4. Robert D. Weaver & David J. Evans & A. E. Luloff, 1992. "Pesticide use in tomato production: Consumer concerns and willingness-to-pay," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(2), pages 131-142.
    5. Buschena, David E. & Zilberman, David, 1994. "What Do We Know About Decision Making Under Risk And Where Do We Go From Here?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-14, December.
    6. John Horowitz, 1994. "Preferences for Pesticide Regulation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(3), pages 396-406.
    7. Byrne, Patrick J. & Gempesaw, Conrado M. & Toensmeyer, Ulrich C., 1991. "Appropriate Channels For Communication Of The Pesticide Residue Risk: An Ordered Logit Model," 1991 Annual Meeting, August 4-7, Manhattan, Kansas 271273, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    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. Armah, Paul W., 2002. "Setting Eco-Label Standards In The Fresh Organic Vegetable Market Of Northeast Arkansas," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 33(1), pages 1-11, March.
    2. Govindasamy, Ramu & Italia, John & Thatch, Daymon W., 1998. "Consumer Awareness Of State-Sponsored Marketing Programs: An Evaluation Of The Jersey Fresh Program," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 29(3), pages 1-9, November.
    3. Govindasamy, Ramu & Italia, John, 1999. "Predicting Willingness-To-Pay A Premium For Organically Grown Fresh Produce," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 30(2), pages 1-10, July.
    4. Govindasamy, Ramu & Hossain, Ferdaus & Adelaja, Adesoji, 1999. "Income of Farmers Who Use Direct Marketing," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 76-83, April.
    5. Ramu Govindasamy & John Italia, 1998. "Predicting consumer risk perceptions towards pesticide residue: a logistic analysis," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(12), pages 793-796.
    6. Govindasamy, Ramu & Italia, John & Adelaja, Adesoji O., 2001. "Predicting Willingness-To-Pay A Premium For Integrated Pest Management Produce: A Logistic Approach," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 1-9, October.
    7. Govindasamy, Ramu & Italia, John & Adelaja, Adesoji O., 1998. "Predicting Consumer Risk Aversions to Synthetic Pesticide Residues: A Logistic Analysis," P Series 36740, Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics.
    8. Thapaliya, Sudha & Interis, Matthew G. & Collart, Alba J. & Walters, Lurleen & Morgan, Kimberly L., 2014. "Health Motivation for Purchasing Local Foods in the Southeastern United States," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196803, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    9. Armah, Paul W., 2001. "The Determinants Of Eco-Label Usage In The Organic Produce Market Of Northeast Arkansas," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20694, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Ramu Govindasamy & John Italia, 1998. "A willingness-to-purchase comparison of integrated pest management and conventional produce," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 403-414.

    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. Govindasamy, Ramu & Italia, John, 1997. "Consumer Response to Integrated Pest Management and Organic Agriculture: An Econometric Analysis," P Series 36727, Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics.
    2. Stenger, Anne, 2000. "Experimental valuation of food safety: Application to sewage sludge," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 211-218, April.
    3. Maria Travisi, Chiara & Nijkamp, Peter & Vindigni, Gabriella, 2006. "Pesticide risk valuation in empirical economics: a comparative approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 455-474, April.
    4. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    5. Antonovitz, Frances & Liu, Donald J., 1996. "A HEDONIC PRICE STUDY OF PESTICIDES IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES; Proceedings of the Fifth Joint Conference on Agriculture, Food, and the Environment, June 17-18, 1996, Padova, Italy," Working Papers 14389, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
    6. Raymond J. G. M. Florax & Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2005. "A meta-analysis of the willingness to pay for reductions in pesticide risk exposure," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(4), pages 441-467, December.
    7. Travisi, Chiara M. & Nijkamp, Peter, 2004. "Are Italians Willing to Pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety? A Stated Choice Approach," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24988, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Zhang, Ruojin, 2016. "The Effects of Residue Tolerance on Pesticide Use, Hop Marketing and Social Welfare," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235155, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Eric Giraud-Héraud & Maria Aguiar Fontes & Alexandra Seabra Pinto, 2014. "Crise sanitaires de l'alimentation et analyses comportementales," Working Papers hal-00949126, HAL.
    10. Maria Aguiar Fontes & Eric Giraud-Héraud & Alexandra Seabra Pinto, 2013. "Consumers' behaviour towards food safety: A litterature review," Working Papers hal-00912476, HAL.
    11. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety: Evidence from a Survey of Milan, Italy, Residents," Working Papers 2004.100, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    12. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2004. "Willingness to pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-070/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    13. Jau-Rong Li & Dawn D. Thilmany, 1998. "Branded pork consumption in Taiwan: Analysis of market and product choice," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 127-138.
    14. Anderson, Kim B. & Mapp, Harry P., Jr., 1996. "Risk Management Programs In Extension," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(1), pages 1-8, July.
    15. Serrao, Amilcar & Coelho, Luis, 2004. "Cumulative Prospect Theory: A Study Of The Farmers' Decision Behavior In The Alentejo Dryland Region Of Portugal," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20245, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Bo Xiong & John Beghin, 2017. "Disentangling Demand-Enhancing And Trade-Cost Effects Of Maximum Residue Regulations," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 6, pages 105-108, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Kevin Boyle & Sapna Kaul & Ali Hashemi & Xiaoshu Li, 2015. "Applicability of benefit transfers for evaluation of homeland security counterterrorism measures," Chapters, in: Carol Mansfield & V. K. Smith (ed.), Benefit–Cost Analyses for Security Policies, chapter 10, pages 225-253, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Ronald B. Larson, 1998. "Regionality of food consumption," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 213-226.
    19. David J. Pannell & Getu Hailu & Alfons Weersink & Amanda Burt, 2008. "More reasons why farmers have so little interest in futures markets," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(1), pages 41-50, July.
    20. Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van & McGuirk, Anya, 1992. "Consumer Perspectives on Crop Protection Technology Choice," Staff Paper Series 201158, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics;

    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:rutdps:36739. 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/darutus.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.