Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T07:36:27.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating consumer knowledge of alternative agricultural commodities: The case of IPM produce

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Ramu Govindasamy  and
John Italia
Ramu Govindasamy*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Rutgers University, Cook College, 55 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901.
John Italia
Affiliation:
Program Associate, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Rutgers University, Cook College, 55 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901.
*
Corresponding author is R. Govindasamy (govindasamy@aesop.rutgers.edu).
Get access

Abstract

Nearly 32% of consumers surveyed at four supermarkets and one private direct market in New Jersey reported having prior awareness of integrated pest management (IPM). However, knowledge of IPM does not appear homogeneous across all demographic segments. This study empirically evaluates which socioeconomic characteristics suggest that a consumer will be more likely to have existing knowledge of IPM. Results indicate that those who had higher levels of education, had visited a farmers' market within the previous five years, had no children, grew fruits and vegetables at home, were female, or had regularly used media reports about food safety were more likely to claim awareness of IPM.

Keywords

demographic characteristicsfood marketingintegrated pest managementlogit model
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 180 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Anderson, M.D., Hollingsworth, C.S., Van Zee, V., Coli, W.M., and Rhodes, M. 6. 1996. Consumer response to integrated pest management and certification. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 60:97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Burgess, R., Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Shelton, A., and Tette, J.. 1994. Results of IPM Marketing Survey, New York State IPM Program. New York Dept. of Agriculture and Markets, New York State Agric. Exper. Sta.; Cornell University, Fingerlakes Research, Geneva, NY.Google Scholar
3.Burrows, T.M. 1983. Pesticide demand and integrated pest management: A limited dependent variable analysis. Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 65:806–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Byrne, P., Gempesaw, C.M. II, and Toensmeyer, U.C.. 1991. An evaluation of consumer pesticide residue concerns and risk perceptions. Southern J. Agric. Econ. 23:167–174.Google Scholar
5.Cate, J.R., and Hinkle, M.K.. 1994. Integrated Pest Management: The Path of a Paradigm. National Audubon Society, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
6.Govindasamy, R., and Italia, J.. 1997. Consumer response to integrated pest management and organic agriculture: An econometric analysis. Bull. P-02137-2-97. New Jersey Agric. Exper. Sta., Rutgers University, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
7.Govindasamy, R., and Italia, J.. 1998. A willingness-to-purchase comparison of integrated pest management and conventional produce. Agribus. 14:403–414.3.0.CO;2-7>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Govindasamy, R., and Italia., J. 1999. Predicting a willingness-to-pay a premium for organically grown fresh produce. J. Food Distrib. Res. 30(2):44–53.Google Scholar
9.Govindasamy, R., Italia, J., and Rabin, J.. 1998. Consumer response and perceptions of integrated pest management produce. Bull. P-02137-5-98. New Jersey Agric. Exper. Sta., Rutgers University, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
10.Greene, C. 1991. Environmental concern sparks renewed interest in IPM. Food Rev. (04–06):8–11.Google Scholar
11.Gujarati, D. 1992. Essentials of Econometrics. McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
12.Hartman, H. 1996. The Hartman Report: Food and the Environment: A Consumer's Perspective. Hartman Group, Bellevue, WA.Google Scholar
13.Hollingsworth, C., Pascall, M.J., Cohen, N.L., and Coli, W.M.. 1993. Support in New England for certification and labeling of produce grown using integrated pest management. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 8:78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Misra, S., Huang, C., and Ott., S. 1991. Consumer preferences for certified pesticide residue—free fresh produce and willingness to pay for testing and certification. Paper presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Meeting, Fort Worth, TX.Google Scholar
15.Underhill, S.E., and Figueroa, E.E.. 1996. Consumer preferences for nonconventionally grown produce. J. Food Distrib. Res. 27:56–66.Google Scholar
16.Weaver, R.D., Evans, D.J., and Luloff, A.E.. 1992. Pesticide use in tomato production: Consumer concerns and willingness-to-pay. Agribus. 8:131–142.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar