Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Review Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp2 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Understanding consumer preferences and willingness to pay for geographical indication-tagged products: A systematic review

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.13297
Submitted
21 December 2025
Published
20-06-2026

Abstract

Geographical indications (GIs) tags are types of certifications that identify products with unique characteristics and qualities linked to their geographical origin. This review article investigates consumer preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for GI products in India, which is gaining importance with the rapid growth of GI registration in the country. Through an extensive review of the literature, this study aims to explore complex interrelations among factors that are relevant in forming behaviour- and decision-making about GI products. The review also highlights the significance of consumer-related factors, product-related factors and place-of-purchase factors in determining WTP for GI products. This study underlines the importance of effective marketing and policies for the development of the GI products market, along with its associated economic benefits, while ensuring rural development and the preservation of traditional knowledge. Overcoming challenges in promoting consumer awareness and understanding of GIs, as well as cultivating a supportive legal and policy environment, is critical for leveraging the potential of GIs as a catalyst for rural development. The results provide evidence that illustrates GI products of higher quality and authenticity can positively influence consumers’ WTP. The factors that influence consumer preference are quality and distinctiveness of their product, promotion tools with a good product differentiation by GI labelling and certification, traditional and sustainable production methods and personal attitude. Willingness to pay is influenced by quality perception, consumer knowledge and awareness of GIs, self-attitude and sociodemographic factors. Geographical indications products enhance consumer trust and enable premium pricing through perceived quality and authenticity. They support rural development, preserve traditional knowledge and strengthen market differentiation in emerging and competitive economies. This study is significant because it provides a comprehensive synthesis of the determinants influencing consumer behaviour towards GI products and offers policy-relevant insights for strengthening GI-based rural development.

References

  1. 1. Radhika A, Thomas KJ, Kuruvila A, Raju RK. Assessing the impact of geographical indications on well-being of rice farmers in Kerala. International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights. 2018;9(2):1–11.
  2. 2. Patel R, Zala L. Geographical indications in India: present scenario. Library Philosophy and Practice. 2021;(5078).
  3. 3. Priyanka U, Vimala V. Consumer preference towards geographical indication (GI) products–A conjoint analysis. South India Journal of Social Sciences. 2022;20(2):8–18.
  4. 4. ITC. Standards Map: Sustainability Standards Database. Geneva, Switzerland: International Trade Centre (ITC); 2021. https://www.standardsmap.org/en/home
  5. 5. Piva Hartmann P, Caputo V, Canavari M. Consumer preferences for mangoes with geographical indication labels in Brazil. Ecological Economics and Rio. 2012;20:16–9. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2294.9768
  6. 6. Ozkan G, Gurbuz IB. Consumers' willingness to pay for geographical origin labels: evidence from the Turkish table olive. Progress in Nutrition. 2023;25(2):e2023022.
  7. 7. Carlini B, Velázquez J, Gülçin D, Lucini C, Rincón V. Evaluation of sustainable development objectives in the production of protected geographical indication legumes. Land. 2025;14(3):636. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14030636
  8. 8. Mesić Ž, Božić M, Cerjak M. Utjecaj zemljopisnih oznaka na konkurentnost tradicijskih poljoprivredno-prehrambenih proizvoda. Journal of Central European Agriculture. 2017;18(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/18.1.1859
  9. 9. Anggoro T, Fadillah S, Prayoga K, editors. Farming performance and evaluation of the adoption of robusta coffee cultivation based on geographical indication in Candiroto District Temanggung Regency. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2024;1364(1):012041. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1364/1/012041
  10. 10. Mariana I, Sofilda E, Harris F. Geographical indication commercialisation policy through tourism sector on economic prosperity. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development. 2025;18(3):51–64.
  11. 11. Sitepu FY, editor. The potential of geographical indications and its legal protection. E3S Web of Conferences. 2018;52:00017. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20185200017
  12. 12. Garcia DL, Silva G, Souza A, Bisneto JPM, Silva E. The effect of geographical indications on economic development. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research. 2019;7(11):1248–63. https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol7.iss11.1997
  13. 13. Aslan E. Market access for local geographical indications and marketing GI products: the metro example. Industrial Policy. 2024;4(1). https://doi.org/10.61192/indpol.1489696
  14. 14. Zhan X, Bai J. Impact of geographical indications on consumers' online purchase of fresh agricultural products. Transactions on Economics, Business and Management Research. 2024;7:303–12. https://doi.org/10.62051/j2q3cc29
  15. 15. Deselnicu OC, Costanigro M, Souza–Monteiro DM, McFadden DT. A meta-analysis of geographical indication food valuation studies: what drives the premium for origin-based labels? Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 2013;38:204–19.
  16. 16. Cardoso VA, Lourenzani AEBS, Caldas MM, Bernardo CHC, Bernardo R. The benefits and barriers of geographical indications to producers: a review. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 2022;37(6):707–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S174217052200031X
  17. 17. Li C, Gao J, Ge L, Hu W, Ban Q. Do geographical indication products promote the growth of the agricultural economy? An empirical study based on meta-analysis. Sustainability. 2023;15(19):14428. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914428
  18. 18. Li C, Ban Q, Gao J, Ge L, Xu R. The role of geographical indication products in promoting agricultural development - a meta-analysis based on global data. Agriculture. 2024;14(10):1831. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14101831
  19. 19. Kimura J, Rigolot C. The potential of geographical indications (GI) to enhance sustainable development goals (SDGs) in Japan: overview and insights from Japan GI Mishima potato. Sustainability. 2021;13(2):961. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020961
  20. 20. Shahzad S, Wang B. Geographical indications and sustainable development: bridging policy gaps in Pakistan's GI framework for socio-economic growth. Sustainability. 2025;17(11):5114. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115114
  21. 21. Jamal M. Morphological characterization and yield performance of indigenous banana cultivars (Musa sp.) in Bangladesh in reference to geographical indicator (GI). Journal of Agriculture, Food and Environment. 2024;5(3):14–23. https://doi.org/10.47440/JAFE.2024.5303
  22. 22. Sudeepthi K, Vidhyavathi A, Prahadeeswaran M, Parasuraman B, Vasanthi R, Rani SP, et al. Assessing the dynamics of agricultural and price trends of geographical indication (GI) tagged Guntur Sannam chilli in Andhra Pradesh, India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2025;95(1):112–5. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v95i1.153076
  23. 23. Chernukha T, Hovorovska A. Development prospects and benefits of production of goods with the geographical indication “Melitopol cherry”. Economics Business Law. 2021:250730164.
  24. 24. Dogan B, Gokovali U. Geographical indications: the aspects of rural development and marketing through the traditional products. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012;62:761–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.128
  25. 25. Bianchini IME, Russo SL, Pinto NN. Income and embroidery with geographical indication in the northeast of Brazil: associations for income generation and valuation of culture. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Research in Management, Business and Economics; Spain: ICARBME; 2019.
  26. 26. Zhang S, Sun Y, Yu X, Zhang Y. Geographical indication, agricultural products export and urban-rural income gap. Agriculture. 2023;13(2):378. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020378
  27. 27. Li C, Ban Q, Ge L, Qi L, Fan C. The relationship between geographical indication products and farmers' incomes based on meta-analysis. Agriculture. 2024;14(6):798. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14060798
  28. 28. Li C, Ge L, Ban Q, Song X. Protection of geographical indication products and sustainable agricultural development: the role of public policies. Agricultural Economics/Zemědělská Ekonomika. 2025;71(2):59–70. https://doi.org/10.17221/82/2024-AGRICECON
  29. 29. Zhao T, Yu X, Liu S. Research on the co-creation mechanism of geographical indication industry value based on evolutionary game analysis. Sustainability. 2024;16(5):2075. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052075
  30. 30. Fernández-Zarza M, Amaya-Corchuelo S, Belletti G, Aguilar-Criado E. Trust and food quality in the valorisation of geographical indication initiatives. Sustainability. 2021;13(6):3168. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063168
  31. 31. Setiyono R, Sukartiko A, Supartono W, editors. Consumers' and producers' perceptions of Wonogiri cashews, a potential geographical indication snack. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2021;662(1):012011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/662/1/012011
  32. 32. Rukmanti S. Protection of geographical indication of cashew nut products in Wonogiri. Eduvest-Journal of Universal Studies. 2024;4(11):10003–14. https://doi.org/10.59188/eduvest.v4i11.44790
  33. 33. Cei L, Defrancesco E, Stefani G. From geographical indications to rural development: a review of the economic effects of European Union policy. Sustainability. 2018;10(10):3745. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103745
  34. 34. Yin X, Li J, Wu J, Cao R, Xin S, Liu J. Impacts of geographical indications on agricultural growth and farmers' income in rural China. Agriculture. 2024;14(1):113. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010113
  35. 35. Teuber R. Consumers' and producers' expectations towards geographical indications: empirical evidence for a German case study. British Food Journal. 2011;113(7):900–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701111148423
  36. 36. Sorgho Z, Larue B. Do geographical indications really increase trade? A conceptual framework and empirics. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization. 2018;16(1):20170010. https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2017-0010
  37. 37. Katt F, Meixner O. A systematic review of drivers influencing consumer willingness to pay for organic food. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2020;100:374–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.04.029
  38. 38. Baliga V, Shetty SG, Gil MT, Shenoy R, Rao K. Analysing purchase preference towards geographical indications (GIs) using consumer segmentation approach. AGRIS On-line Papers in Economics and Informatics. 2024;16(2):3–24. https://doi.org/10.7160/aol.2024.160201
  39. 39. Ji Q, Li C, Fu X, Liao J, Hong X, Yu X, et al. Protected geographical indication discrimination of Zhejiang and non-Zhejiang Ophiopogonis japonicus by near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy combined with chemometrics: the influence of different stoichiometric and spectrogram pretreatment methods. Molecules. 2023;28(6):2803.
  40. 40. Belhaj K, Mansouri F, Tikent A, Ouchatbi A, Boukharta M, Serghini CH, et al. Quality characteristics of the carcass of Beni-Guil sheep, a protected geographical indication certified product of eastern Morocco: preliminary study. Revue d'élevage et de Médecine Vétérinaire des pays Tropicaux. 2020;73(1):21–6. https://doi.org/10.19182/remvt.31843
  41. 41. Kokthi E, Kruja D, Guri F, Zoto O. Are the consumers willing to pay more for local fruits and vegetables? An empirical research on Albanian consumers. Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences. 2021;17(S1):19–27. https://doi.org/10.1556/446.2021.30003
  42. 42. Uluçay D, Özbük RMY. Analyzing willingness to pay for geographically indicated products: a study using binary logistic regression. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. 2025;20(3):765–88. https://doi.org/10.17153/oguiibf.1595485
  43. 43. Slade P, Michler JD, Josephson A. Foreign geographical indications, consumer preferences, and the domestic market for cheese. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. 2019;41(3):370–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppz010
  44. 44. Yang Y, Hobbs JE, Natcher DC. Assessing consumer willingness to pay for Arctic food products. Food Policy. 2020;92:101846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101846
  45. 45. Zhan H, Liu S, Yu J. Research on factors influencing consumers' loyalty towards geographical indication products based on grey incidence analysis. Grey Systems: Theory and Application. 2017;7(3):397–407. https://doi.org/10.1108/GS-10-2016-0037
  46. 46. Jarma Arroyo SE, Hogan V, Ahrent Wisdom D, Moldenhauer KA, Seo H-S. Effect of geographical indication information on consumer acceptability of cooked aromatic rice. Foods. 2020;9(12):1843. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9121843
  47. 47. Seetisarn P, Chiaravutthi Y. Thai consumers willingness to pay for food products with geographical indications. International Business Research. 2011;4(3):161. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v4n3p161
  48. 48. Sgroi F. Food traditions and consumer preferences for cured meats: role of information in geographical indications. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science. 2021;25:100386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100386
  49. 49. Prathap SK, CC S. Determinants of purchase intention of traditional handloom apparels with geographical indication among Indian consumers. Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences. 2022;4(1):21–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHASS-04-2020-0055
  50. 50. Dhamotharan P, Devadoss S, Selvaraj K. Estimation of consumers' willingness to pay for geographic indications bananas using conjoint analysis. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing. 2015;27(2):65–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2013.833574
  51. 51. Dhamotharan P, Selvaraj K. Determining consumer preference and willingness to pay for GI registered bananas. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights. 2013;18:1–10.
  52. 52. Latino ME, De Devitiis B, Corallo A, Viscecchia R, Bimbo F. Consumer acceptance and preference for olive oil attributes-a review. Foods. 2022;11(23):3805. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11233805
  53. 53. Massaglia S, Borra D, Peano C, Sottile F, Merlino VM. Consumer preference heterogeneity evaluation in fruit and vegetable purchasing decisions using the best-worst approach. Foods. 2019;8(7):266. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8070266
  54. 54. Dewi HN, Sukartiko AC, Pamungkas AP. Consumer behavior in their buying decision process of agro-geographical indication products in Yogyakarta. Agroindustrial Journal. 2017;4(1):203. https://doi.org/10.22146/aij.v4i1.27396
  55. 55. Menozzi D, Nguyen TT, Sogari G, Taskov D, Lucas S, Castro-Rial JLS, et al. Consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for fish products with health and environmental labels: evidence from five European countries. Nutrients. 2020;12(9):2650. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12092650
  56. 56. Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ. Consumer preferences for food product quality attributes from Swedish agriculture. Ambio. 2005;34(4):366–70. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-34.4.366
  57. 57. Rabadán A, Martínez-Carrasco L, Brugarolas M, Bernabéu R. Perceptions of geographical indication labels as quality indicators inside and outside the labels' area of influence: the case of spring fruits. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 2021;36(6):569–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170521000181
  58. 58. Peulić T, Marić A, Maravić N, Novaković A, Kalenjuk Pivarski B, Čabarkapa I, et al. Consumer attitudes and preferences towards traditional food products in Vojvodina. Sustainability. 2023;15(16):12420. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612420
  59. 59. Grunert KG, Aachmann K. Consumer reactions to the use of EU quality labels on food products: a review of the literature. Food Control. 2016;59:178–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.05.021
  60. 60. Dogan N, Adanacioglu H. Consumers' willingness to pay for traditional products with geographical indication: a case study on pestil from Gümüşhane, Turkey. Food Science and Technology. 2021;42:e41621. https://doi.org/10.1590/fst.41621
  61. 61. Muça E, Pomianek I, Peneva M. The role of GI products or local products in the environment-consumer awareness and preferences in Albania, Bulgaria and Poland. Sustainability. 2021;14(1):4. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010004
  62. 62. Charity NEJ. Economic analysis of consumers' awareness and willingness to pay for geographical indicators and other quality attributes of honey in Kenya. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nairobi; 2016.
  63. 63. Fu R, Li C, Wang L, Gao Z. Chinese consumer preference for beef with geographical indications and other attributes. Meat Science. 2024;212:109475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2024.109475
  64. 64. Panzone L, Di Vita G, Borla S, D'Amico M. When consumers and products come from the same place: preferences and WTP for geographical indication differ across regional identity groups. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing. 2016;28(3):286–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2016.1145611
  65. 65. Santeramo FG, Lamonaca E. Evaluation of geographical label in consumers' decision-making process: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Food Research International. 2020;131:108995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.108995
  66. 66. John I. Consumer perceptions, preferences and awareness towards potential geographical indication of products in Tanzania. UDSM Online Journal Testing. 2022;12(2):43–56. https://doi.org/10.56279/ter.v12i2.121
  67. 67. Thirumarudhan L, Anjugam M, Suresh KD, Indu RC, Nirmala DM, Vasanthi R. Estimation of consumer's willingness to pay for GI-tagged agricultural commodities: a conjoint analysis approach. Plant Science Today. 2025;13(sp1). https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.7206
  68. 68. Török Á, Jantyik L, Maró ZM, Moir HV. Understanding the real-world impact of geographical indications: a critical review of the empirical economic literature. Sustainability. 2020;12(22):9434. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229434
  69. 69. Lee E, Zhao L. Understanding purchase intention of fair trade handicrafts through the lens of geographical indication and fair trade knowledge in a brand equity model. Sustainability. 2023;16(1):49. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010049
  70. 70. Kokthi E, Kruja D. Consumer expectations for geographical origin: eliciting willingness to pay (WTP) using the disconfirmation of expectation theory (EDT). Journal of Food Products Marketing. 2017;23(8):873–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2017.1244794
  71. 71. Güler T, Topcu Y. Determining consumers' willingness to pay in view of extrinsic attributes of Erzurum stuffed-kadayif with protected geographical indication. Anadolu Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2024;39:163–82. https://doi.org/10.7161/omuanajas.1402221
  72. 72. Stampa E, Schipmann-Schwarze C, Hamm U. Consumer perceptions, preferences, and behavior regarding pasture-raised livestock products: a review. Food Quality and Preference. 2020;82:103872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103872
  73. 73. Aprile MC, Caputo V, Nayga RM Jr. Consumers' valuation of food quality labels: the case of the European geographic indication and organic farming labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2012;36(2):158–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01092.x
  74. 74. Ortez M, Thompson T, Kilders V, Widmar NO. Quantifying demand and willingness to pay for local food production. Q Open. 2024;4(1):qoae006. https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoae006
  75. 75. Atta-Delgado MX, Velazquez G, Welti-Chanes J, Torres JA. Assessing consumer perceptions of sustainable packaging solutions. CyTA-Journal of Food. 2024;22(1):2425403. https://doi.org/10.1080/19476337.2024.2425403
  76. 76. Nawi N, Basri H, Kamarulzaman N, Shamsudin M. Consumers' preferences and willingness-to-pay for traceability systems in purchasing meat and meat products. Food Research. 2023;7(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.26656/fr.2017.7(1).646
  77. 77. Aytop Y, Çankaya D. Do consumers intend to purchase the food with geographical indication? New Medit. 2022;21(4). https://doi.org/10.30682/nm2204d
  78. 78. Dafni MF, Likudis Z. Consumer willingness to buy products with geographical origin (PGO) and protected designation of origin (PDO): a review. Brazilian Journal of Science. 2024;3(10):1–6. https://doi.org/10.14295/bjs.v3i10.620
  79. 79. Thangaraja A. The consumer experience on geographical indicators and its impact on purchase decision: an empirical study. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics. 2020;118(20):2625–9.
  80. 80. Alsubhi M, Blake M, Nguyen T, Majmudar I, Moodie M, Ananthapavan J. Consumer willingness to pay for healthier food products: a systematic review. Obesity Reviews. 2023;24(1):e13525. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13525
  81. 81. Aubin ANA, Athanase YBB, Daouda D, Charlemagne N, Benal KK, Philipps K, et al. Willingness to pay for geographical indication product on the internal market: case of attiéké in Ivory Coast. In: Proceedings of the IX International Agricultural Symposium Agrosym 2018. Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 2018.
  82. 82. Migliore G, Thrassou A, Crescimanno M, Schifani G, Galati A. Factors affecting consumer preferences for “natural wine”: an exploratory study in the Italian market. British Food Journal. 2020;122(8):2463–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2019-0474
  83. 83. Singh P, Baral SK. Unraveling the impact of geographical indication on consumer preferences for handloom products. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting. 2024;24(5):546–56. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2024/v24i51329
  84. 84. Biswas A, Roy M. A study of consumers' willingness to pay for green products. Journal of Advanced Management Science. 2016;4(3):211–5. https://doi.org/10.12720/joams.4.3.211-215
  85. 85. Menapace L, Colson G, Grebitus C, Facendola M. Consumers' preferences for geographical origin labels: evidence from the Canadian olive oil market. European Review of Agricultural Economics. 2011;38(2):193–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbq051
  86. 86. Loureiro ML, McCluskey JJ. Assessing consumer response to protected geographical identification labeling. Agribusiness. 2000;16(3):309–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6297(200022)16:3<309::AID-AGR4>3.0.CO;2-G
  87. 87. Saïdi M, Ay J-S, Marette S, Martin C. Willingness-to-pay for reshuffling geographical indications. Journal of Wine Economics. 2020;15(1):95–111. https://doi.org/10.1017/jwe.2020.5
  88. 88. Li C, Bai J, Gao Z, Fu J. Willingness to pay for “taste of Europe”: geographical origin labeling controversy in China. British Food Journal. 2017;119(8):1897–914. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-11-2016-0580
  89. 89. Bruce L, Majewski E. Protected geographical indication recognition and willingness to pay: a case of Grojec apple. APSTRACT: Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce. 2017;11:73–80. https://doi.org/10.19041/APSTRACT/2017/3-4/11
  90. 90. Campbell J, DiPietro RB, Remar D. Local foods in a university setting: price consciousness, product involvement, price/quality inference and consumer's willingness-to-pay. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2014;42:39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.05.014
  91. 91. Dong W. A case study on Chinese consumers' willingness to pay for geographical indication products. The Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology. 2019;1(7):95–103. https://doi.org/10.25236/FSST.2019.010712
  92. 92. Eyinade GA, Mushunje A, Yusuf SFG. The willingness to consume organic food: a review. Food and Agricultural Immunology. 2021;32(1):78–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540105.2021.1874885
  93. 93. Çukur T, Kızılaslan N, Çukur F, Kızılaslan H. Factors affecting consumers' willingness to pay for geographically indicated products: the case of Niksar walnut. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology. 2020;8(11):2476–81. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v8i11.2476-2481.3898
  94. 94. Laksono P, Mulyo JH, Suryantini A. Farmers’ willingness to adopt geographical indication practice in Indonesia: a psycho behavioral analysis. Heliyon. 2022;8(8):e10178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10178
  95. 95. Wägeli S, Janssen M, Hamm U. Organic consumers’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for locally produced animal products. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2016;40(3):357–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12262
  96. 96. Lu Y-H, Sajiki T. An analysis of consumer evaluations of the “Tagonoura Shirasu” certification under the Japan geographical indication protection system. Journal of Marine Science and Technology. 2021;29(4):10. https://doi.org/10.51400/2709-6998.1590
  97. 97. Aron T, Moir H. The market size for GI food products-evidence from the empirical economic literature. Studies in Agricultural Economics. 2018;120:134–42. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.280975
  98. 98. Steigenberger C, Flatscher-Thoeni M, Siebert U, Leiter AM. Determinants of willingness to pay for health services: a systematic review of contingent valuation studies. The European Journal of Health Economics. 2022;23(9):1455–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-022-01437-x

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.