IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/saea12/119811.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Comparison of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Four Types of Sweeteners

Author

Listed:
  • Deng, Xueting
  • Saghaian, Sayed H.
  • Woods, Timothy A.

Abstract

As the U.S. consumption of sweeteners has increased, analysis of the demand for sweeteners has become more important. In this paper, consumer willingness-to-pay (WTP) for selected four types of sweeteners is evaluated. The four types of sweeteners are Kentucky grown pure maple syrup, artificially maple flavored syrup, sorghum syrup and molasses. Results suggest that consumers who are at high household income level (above $80,000) and with a smaller household size are likely to pay more for Kentucky grown maple syrup. Results show that there is no statistic difference for the annual household consumption among the four types of sweeteners.

Suggested Citation

  • Deng, Xueting & Saghaian, Sayed H. & Woods, Timothy A., 2012. "A Comparison of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Four Types of Sweeteners," 2012 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2012, Birmingham, Alabama 119811, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:saea12:119811
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/119811
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wuyang Hu & Linda J. Cox & Quincy A. Edwards, 2007. "The market potential for gift baskets of Hawaiian food products in China," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 553-565.
    2. Steven F. Edwards & Glen D. Anderson, 1987. "Overlooked Biases in Contingent Valuation Surveys: Some Considerations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(2), pages 168-178.
    3. Mark L. Messonnier & John C. Bergstrom & Christopher M. Cornwell & R. Jeff Teasley & H. Ken Cordell, 2000. "Survey Response-Related Biases in Contingent Valuation: Concepts, Remedies, and Empirical Application to Valuing Aquatic Plant Management," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 438-450.
    4. Loureiro, Maria L. & Hine, Susan E., 2001. "Discovering Niche Markets: A Comparison Of Consumer Willingness To Pay For A Local (Colorado Grown), Organic, And Gmo-Free Product," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20630, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Ani L. Katchova & Mario J. Miranda, 2004. "Two-Step Econometric Estimation of Farm Characteristics Affecting Marketing Contract Decisions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 88-102.
    6. Baker, Gregory A., 1999. "Consumer Preferences For Food Safety Attributes In Fresh Apples: Market Segments, Consumer Characteristics, And Marketing Opportunities," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(01), July.
    7. Bernard, John C. & Zhang, Chao & Gifford, Katie, 2006. "An Experimental Investigation of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Foods When an Organic Option Is Present," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 35(2), October.
    8. Misra, Sukant K. & Huang, Chung L. & Ott, Stephen L., 1991. "Consumer Willingness To Pay For Pesticide-Free Fresh Produce," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 16(02), December.
    9. Bernard, John C. & Zhang, Chao & Gifford, Katie, 2006. "An Experimental Investigation of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Foods When an Organic Option Is Present," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(02), pages 374-385, October.
    10. Lin, Tsai-Fen & Schmidt, Peter, 1984. "A Test of the Tobit Specification against an Alternative Suggested by Cragg," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 66(1), pages 174-177, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    artificial sweeteners; Kentucky; maple syrup; molasses; sorghum; willingness to pay; Agribusiness; Consumer/Household Economics; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;

    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:saea12:119811. 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: http://edirc.repec.org/data/saeaaea.html .

    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 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.

    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.