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

Research Articles

Early Access

Estimation of consumer’s willingness to pay for GI-tagged agricultural commodities: A conjoint analysis approach

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.7206
Submitted
13 January 2025
Published
30-04-2025

Abstract

Consumer preferences for food products are evolving due to various factors, promoting producers to differentiate their products through unique production methods and adhere to quality standards. Certifications, such as Geographical indications (GI), assist consumers in identifying distinct product attributes while safeguarding producers against unfair competition. Geographical indications products linked to specific regions are recognized for their unique qualities, with certifications like protected designation of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indication (PGI) ensuring quality and market distinction. However, using PGI labels on low-quality products can harm their reputation and diminish their ability to command a premium price. This study explores consumer preferences for GI-certified products, specifically Vripakshi Hill banana, Kodaikanal Hill garlic and Madurai Malli jasmine, in Dindigul and Madurai districts, India. This study surveyed 90 households to identify key attributes influencing consumer preferences. These include production method, quality and price premium for bananas and garlic. For jasmine, the significant factors are price, fragrance, flower size and shelf life. Findings show that GI certifications enhance product quality perception, with variations in attribute importance across commodities. Consumer awareness mainly comes from traditional sources, with consumption patterns differing by product. The study highlights how GI products can support sustainable agriculture, regional growth and market differentiation. It also stresses the importance of educating consumers to raise awareness and improve the competitiveness of these products.

References

  1. 1. Dias C, Mendes L. Protected designation of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication (PGI) and traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG): A bibliometric analysis. Food Res Int. 2018;103:492–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.09.059
  2. 2. Rupprecht T. Global varieties of neoliberalism: ideas on free markets and strong states in Late Twentieth-Century Chile and Russia. Glob Perspect. 2020;1(1):13278. https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2020.13278
  3. 3. Osei C. Nation branding for FDI attraction: the case of Ghana. In: Dinnie K, editor. Nation branding: concepts, issues, practice. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2016. p. 105.
  4. 4. 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 %3C309::AID-AGR4 %3E3.0.CO;2-G
  5. 5. Ilbert H, Petit M. Are geographical indications a valid property right? Global trends and challenges. Dev Policy Rev. 2009;27(5):503–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2009.00457.x
  6. 6. Ashwathi TM. Geographical indications in India: major issues and challenges [dissertation]. Kochi (IN): The National University of Advanced Legal Studies; 2020.
  7. 7. Rangnekar D. The socio-economics of geographical indications. UNCTAD-ICTSD project on IPRs and sustainable development, Issue Paper. 2004 May 8;8:13–15. https://doi.org/10.7215/IP_IP_20040501B
  8. 8. Aguilar FX, Vlosky RP. Spatial analysis of forest products manufacturer clusters in Louisiana. Wood Fiber Sci. 2006:121–31.
  9. 9. Pecotich A, Pressley M, Roth D. The impact of country of origin in the retail service context. J Retail Consum Serv. 1996;3(4):213–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0969-6989(95)00080-1
  10. 10. Lagerkvist CJ, Berthelsen T, Sundstrom K ,Johansson H. Country of origin or EU/non-EU labelling of beef? Comparing structural reliability and validity of discrete choice experiments for measurement of consumer preferences for origin and extrinsic quality cues. Food Qual Prefer. 2014;34:50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.12.009
  11. 11. Rezai G, Kit Teng P, Mohamed Z, Shamsudin MN. Consumer willingness to pay for green food in Malaysia. J Int Food Agribus. 2013;25(sup1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2013.798754
  12. 12. Ridley W, Shook S, Devadoss S. Evaluations of consumers’ preference structure for locally-produced beef. J Food Prod Mark. 2015;21(4):413–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2014.885871
  13. 13. Jantyik L, Torok A. Estimating the market share and price premium of GI foods-the case of the Hungarian food discounters. Sustain. 2020;12(3):1094. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031094
  14. 14. Bramley C. A review of the socio-economic impact of geographical indications: considerations for the developing world. In: WIPO worldwide symposium on geographical indications 2011 Jun 22; 22. p. 1-22.
  15. 15. Dhamotharan PG, Devadoss S, Selvaraj KN. Estimation of consumers’ willingness to pay for geographic indications bananas using conjoint analysis. J Int Food Agribus Mark. 2015;27(2):65–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2013.833574
  16. 16. Ngigi MW, Okello JJ, Lagerkvist CL, Karanja NK, Mburu J. Urban consumers’ willingness to pay for quality of leafy vegetables along the value chain: The case of Nairobi Kale consumers, Kenya. Int J Bus Soc Sci. 2011;2(7):208–16.
  17. 17. Guuroh RT, Uibrig H, Acheampong E. Homegardens as a source of income for rural households: A case study of Bieha district, southern Burkina Faso. J Agric Sci Technol B. 2012;2(7):798–813.
  18. 18. Owusu V, Owusu Anifori M. Consumer willingness to pay a premium for organic fruit and vegetable in Ghana. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev. 2013;16(1):67–86.
  19. 19. Natarajan V. Indian perspective of GI registration. In: Proceedings of the Regional Conference on IPR Protection through Geographical Indication; 2008 Jun; Hyderabad, India. UNCTAD India Programme and the Textiles Committee; p. 3–4.
  20. 20. Green PE, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J Consum Res. 1978;5(2):103–23. https://doi.org/10.1086/208721
  21. 21. Jansen SJ, Coolen HC, Goetgeluk RW. The measurement and analysis of housing preference and choice. Cham: Springer Nature; 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8894-9
  22. 22. Krabbe P. The measurement of health and health status: concepts, methods and applications from a multidisciplinary perspective. London: Academic Press 2016.
  23. 23. Halbrendt CK, Wirth FF, Vaughn GF. Conjoint analysis of the Mid-Atlantic food-fish market for farm-raised hybrid striped bass. J Agric Appl Econ. 1991;23(1):155–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0081305200017933
  24. 24. Frank CA, Nelson RG, Simonne EH, Behe BK, Simonne AH. Consumer preferences for color, price and vitamin C content of bell peppers. HortSci. 2001;36(4):795–800. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.36.4.795
  25. 25. Campbell BL, Nelson RG, Ebel RC, Dozier WA, Adrian JL, Hockema BR. Fruit quality characteristics that affect consumer preferences for satsuma mandarins. HortSci. 2004;39(7):1664–69. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.39.7.1664
  26. 26. Puspasari ED, Ningrum VR. Consumer preferences on cut rose purchases in Malang Raya. Jambura Sci Manag. 2023;5(2):106–14. https://doi.org/10.37479/jsm.v5i2.20850
  27. 27. Intellectual Property India. Geographical Indications of goods (Registration and Protection) Act. 2023. Available from: https://ipindia.gov.in

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.