Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Consumer preferences for alternative pest management practices used during production of an edible and a non-edible greenhouse crop

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Pest Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current study aimed to determine how the pest management practice applied during crop production may impact consumer purchase intentions of an edible (tomato) and a non-edible (chrysanthemum) greenhouse crop. The study examined five pest management practices and applied conjoint analysis to evaluate the relative importance of the pest management practice compared to several other product factors (price, benefit claims related to the pest management practice, tomato variety/flower colour, quality) in contributing to consumers’ purchase intentions. Out of the factors examined, price (26–29 % relative importance) and the pest management practice (22–25 % relative importance) were the most important to consumers. In both studies, there were segments of the sampled populations (13.5–24 %) for whom the pest management practice was the most important factor driving purchase decisions. These segments had significantly more consumers with low confidence in science and technology and preferred products grown using organic practices or pests’ natural predators. In the tomatoes study (crop intended for consumption), the proportion of pest management conscious consumers nearly doubled compared to the chrysanthemums study. Findings suggest that making consumers aware that a product has been produced using pests’ natural predators (i.e. using biocontrol strategies) for pest management could convince a significant segment of the population to purchase these products over other similar products. When the crop is edible, a higher proportion of consumers becomes concerned with the production practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akehurst G, Afonso C, Martins Goncalves H (2012) Re-examining green purchase behaviour and the green consumer profile: new evidences. Manag Decis 50:972–988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alphonce R, Alfnes F (2012) Consumer willingness to pay for food safety in Tanzania: an incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. Int J Consum Stud 36:392–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker G, Crosbie P (1993) Measuring food safety preferences: identifying consumer segments. J Agr Resour Econ 18:277–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Behe B, Campbell B, Hall C, Khachatryan H, Dennis J, Yue C (2013) Consumer preferences for local and sustainable plant production characteristics. HortScience 48:200–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell B, Lesschaeve I, Bowen A, Onufrey S, Moskowitz H (2010) Purchase drivers of Canadian consumers of local and organic produce. HortScience 45:1480–1488

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerda A, Garcia L, Ortega-Farias S, Ubilla A (2012) Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for organic apples. Cien Inv Agr 39:47–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Kleijn E, Borgstein M, de Jager A, Hack M (1995) Enlarging the market for horticultural organics in the Netherlands. Acta Hort 391:143–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Deliza R, Rosenthal A, Hedderley D, Jaeger S (2010) Consumer perception of irradiated fruit: a case study using choice-based conjoint analysis. J Sens Stud 24:184–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank C, Nelson R (2001) Consumer preferences for colour, price, and vitamin C content of bell peppers. HortScience 36:795–800

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilder V, Boulter D (1999) Genetic engineering of crop plants for insect resistance: a critical review. Crop Prot 18:177–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill J, Nelson R, Woods K, Weese J, Whitis G (2013) Consumer preferences for attributes of catfish nuggets: price, breading color, cooking method, and country of origin. Aquac Econ Manag 17:123–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann S, Künzel K, Loock M (2013) Customer value of smart metering: explorative evidence from a choice-based conjoint study in Switzerland. Energy Policy 53:229–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin B, Payson S, Wertz J (1996) Opinions of professional buyers toward organic produce: a case study of mid-Atlantic market for fresh tomatoes. Agribusiness 12:89–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loureiro M, McCluskey J, Mittelhammer R (2002) Will consumers pay a premium for eco-labelled apples? J Consum Aff 36:203–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milfont TA, Duckitt J (2010) The environmental attitudes inventory: a valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. J Environ Psychol 30:80–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser R, Raffaelli R (2012) Consumer preferences for sustainable production methods in apple purchasing behaviour: a non-hypothetical choice experiment. Int J Consum Stud 36:141–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onyango B, Nayga R (2004) Consumer acceptance of nutritionally enhanced genetically modified food: relevance of gene transfer technology. J Agr Resour Econ 29:567–583

    Google Scholar 

  • Organic Trade Association (2008) The organic industry. Manufacturer’s survey. http://www.ota.com/pics/documents/Mini%20fact%201-08%20confirming.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2013

  • Pimentel D (2005) Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides primarily in the United States. Environ Dev Sustain 7:229–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posadas B, Coker C, Knight P (2006) Consumer survey of selected garden chrysanthemum cultivars in Mississippi. HortTechnology 16:539–543

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollin F, Kennedy J, Wills J (2011) Consumers and new food technologies. Trends Food Sci Technol 22:99–111

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sungchul C, Alex N, Sang-June P (2011) Purchase decision: sustainability of mountain pine beetle wood concrete products. Forest Prod J 61:333–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenbült P, de Vries N, Dreezens E, Martijn C (2005) Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite 45:47–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tuorila H, Huotilainen A, Lahteenmaki L, Ollila S, Tuomi-Nurmi S, Urala N (2008) Comparison of affective rating scales and their relationship to variables reflecting food consumption. Food Qual Pref 19:51–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Pol M, Ryan M (1996) Using conjoint analysis to establish consumer preferences for fruit and vegetables. Brit Food J 98:5–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke W (2005) Consumer acceptance of functional foods: socio-demographic, cognitive and attitudinal determinants. Food Qual Pref 16:45–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Q, Sun J, Parsons R (2010) Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for locally grown organic apples: evidence from a conjoint study. HortScience 45:376–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner K, McNeil J, Getz C (2007) What every biocontrol researcher should know about the public. In: XIIth International Symposium for the Biological Control of Weeds, Montpellier

  • Font i Furnols M, Realini C, Montossi F, Sañudo C, Campo M, Oliver M, Nute G, Guerrero L (2011) Consumer’s purchasing intention for lamb meat affected by country of origin, feeding system and meat price: a conjoint study in Spain, France and United Kingdom. Food Qual Pref 22:443–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yue C, Dennis J, Behe B, Hall C, Campbell B, Lopez R (2011) Investigating consumer preference for organic, local, or sustainable plants. HortScience 46:610–615

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was generously funded by the Ontario Research Fund Global Leadership Round in Genomics and Life Sciences (GL2-01-035) and by Growing Forward, a Canadian federal-provincial-territorial agreement aimed at supporting a profitable and innovative agriculture sector. The work is not endorsed by the province of Ontario; the opinions, results and conclusions expressed in this work are solely those of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Grygorczyk.

Additional information

Communicated by R.-U. Ehlers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grygorczyk, A., Turecek, J. & Lesschaeve, I. Consumer preferences for alternative pest management practices used during production of an edible and a non-edible greenhouse crop. J Pest Sci 87, 249–258 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-013-0544-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-013-0544-4

Keywords

Navigation