Advertisement

An exploratory analysis of US consumer preferences for North American pawpaw

  • Zhen Cai
  • Michael Gold
  • Robert Brannan
Article

Abstract

The North American pawpaw (Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal) is a high-value native specialty fruit crop that offers multiple opportunities for commercial value-added products. A survey was conducted to obtain a better understanding of consumer preferences for pawpaws as fresh and value-added food products. The survey was distributed to 524 individuals who were members of the North American Pawpaw Growers Association, attendees of the 2016 International Pawpaw Conference at Frankfurt, Kentucky, and participants at the 2017 Ohio Pawpaw Festival, Albany, Ohio. Respondents were asked to self-identify their positions (consumers or producers) in the pawpaw market. Those who self-identified as consumers were asked to take the survey. A total of 192 responses were collected. Survey results indicated that the majority of the respondents consume fresh or value-added pawpaw products at least once a year. They reported strong preferences for the flavor and texture of fresh pawpaws. Price, origin, and type of production process had statistically significant impacts on consumers’ purchase preferences. The characteristic that most influenced demand was local production—consumers were willing to pay a premium of $5.20/kg for locally produced pawpaws compared to pawpaws of unknown region of origin. Consumers also preferred certified organic and pesticide-free pawpaws to fruit produced using chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. The average price premiums consumers were willing to pay for certified organic and pesticide-free fruits were $4.19 and $3.28/kg, respectively. Providing information about the region of origin, organic and pesticide-free production processes can potentially increase consumer demand for pawpaws and their share of the fresh and value-added fruit market.

Keywords

Organic Pesticide-free Locally produced Price premium Value-added food products Market shares Discrete choice experiment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the MU Center for Agroforestry and the US Department of Agriculture: Agriculture Research Service (Agreement No. 00054685).

References

  1. Agricultural Marketing Resource Center (2016) Pawpaw. http://www.agmrc.org/commodities-products/fruits/pawpaw/. Accessed 5 Sept 2017
  2. Aguilar FX, Cernusca MM, Gold MA (2009) Exploratory assessment of consumer preferences for chestnut attributes in Missouri. Horttechnology 19(1):216–223Google Scholar
  3. Aguilar FX, Cernusca MM, Gold MA, Barbieri CE (2010) Frequency of consumption, familiarity and preferences for chestnuts in Missouri. Agrofor Syst 79(1):19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aguilar FX, Cai Z, Mohebalian P, Thompson W (2015) Exploring the drivers’ side of the “blend wall”: US consumer preferences for ethanol blend fuels. Energy Econ 49:217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baruch Y, Holtom BC (2008) Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Hum Relat 61(8):1139–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batte MT, Hooker NH, Haab TC, Beaverson J (2007) Putting their money where their mouths are: Consumer willingness to pay for multi-ingredient, processed organic food products. Food Policy 32(2):145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braithwaite D, Emery J, De Lusignan S, Sutton S (2003) Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative? Fam Pract 20(5):545–551CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Brannan RG, Salabak DE, Holben DE (2012) Sensory analysis of pawpaw (Asimina triloba) pulp puree: consumer appraisal and descriptive lexicon. J Food Res 1(1):179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown C (2003) Consumers’ preferences for locally produced food: a study in southeast Missouri. Am J Altern Agric 18(4):213–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cai Z, Xie Y, Aguilar FX (2017) Eco-label credibility and retailer effects on green product purchasing intention. For Policy Econ 80:200–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callaway MB (1993) Pawpaw (Asimina triloba): a “Tropical” fruit for temperate climates. In: Janick J, Simon JE (eds) New crops. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Cernusca M, Hunt K, Gold M (2009) Pawpaw: production trial and after purchase survey findings. http://www.centerforagroforestry.org/pubs/pawpaws.pdf. Accessed 5 Sept 2017
  13. Cunningham CT, Quan H, Hemmelgarn B, Noseworth T, Beck CA, Dixon E, Samuel S, Ghali WA, Sykes LL, Jetté N (2015) Exploring physician specialist response rates to web-based surveys. BMC Med Res Methodol 15(1):32CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, vol 2. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Duffrin MW, Pomper KW (2006) Development of flavor descriptors for pawpaw fruit puree: a step toward the establishment of a native tree fruit industry. Family Consum Sci Res J 35(2):118–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duffrin MW, Holben DH, Bremner MJ (2001) Consumer acceptance of pawpaw (Asimina triloba) fruit puree as a fat-reducing agent in muffins, compared to muffins made with applesauce and fat. Family Consum Sci Res J 29(3):281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fang CD (2007) Characterization of polyphenol oxidase and antioxidants from pawpaw (Asimina tribola) fruit. University of Kentucky master’s thesesGoogle Scholar
  18. Galli F, Archbold DD, Pomper KW (2008) Loss of ripening capacity of pawpaw fruit with extended cold storage. J Agric Food Chem 56(22):10683–10688CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Gracia A, de-Magistris T (2016) Consumer preferences for food labeling: what ranks first? Food Control 61:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greene WH (2003) Econometric analysis. Pearson Education, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall P, Wilson SR (1991) Two guidelines for bootstrap hypothesis testing. Biometrics 47:757–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrison RW, Stringer T, Prinyawiwatkul W (2002) An analysis of consumer preferences for value-added seafood products derived from crawfish. Agric Resour Econ Rev 31:157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hole AR (2011) A discrete choice model with endogenous attribute attendance. Econ Lett 110(3):203–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hormaza JI (2014) The Pawpaw, a forgotten North American fruit tree. Arnoldia 72(1):13–23Google Scholar
  25. Huber J, Train K (2001) On the similarity of classical and Bayesian estimates of individual mean partworths. Mark Lett 12(3):257–267.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011120928698 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hutchins RK, Greenhalgh LA (1997) Organic confusion: sustaining competitive advantage. Br Food J 99(9):336–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kentucky State University (2016) Fourth international pawpaw conference. http://www.pawpaw.kysu.edu/Fourth%20International%20Pawpaw%20Conference.htm. Accessed 30 May 2017
  28. Kentucky State University (2017) KSU pawpaw program. http://www.pawpaw.kysu.edu/. Accessed 30 May 2017
  29. Klaiber HA, von Haefen RH (2011) Do random coefficients and alternative specific constants improve policy analysis? An empirical investigation of model fit and prediction. Working paper. Ohio State University, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  30. Kobayashi H, Wang C, Pomper KW (2008) Phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of pawpaw fruit (Asimina triloba L.) at different ripening stages. Hortscience 43(1):268–270Google Scholar
  31. Kuhfeld W, Tobias R, Garratt M (1994) Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J Mark Res 31(4):545–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Layne DR (1996) The pawpaw [Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal]: a new fruit crop for Kentucky and the United States. Hortscience 31(5):777–784Google Scholar
  33. Loureiro ML, Hine S (2002) Discovering niche markets: a comparison of consumer willingness to pay for local (Colorado grown), organic, and GMO-free products. J Agric Appl Econ 34(3):477–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York, pp 105–142Google Scholar
  36. Mohebalian PM, Aguilar FX, Cernusca MM (2013) Conjoint analysis of US consumers’ preference for elderberry jelly and juice products. HortScience 48(3):338–346Google Scholar
  37. Moore A (2015) Pawpaw: in search of America’s forgotten fruit. Chelsea Green Publishing, HartfordGoogle Scholar
  38. National Gardening Association (2017) Edible landscaping—edible of the month: pawpaw. https://garden.org/learn/articles/view/4125/. Accessed 22 Aug 2017
  39. Nazarko OM, Van Acker RC, Entz MH, Schoofs A, Martens G (2003) Pesticide free production of field crops. Agron J 95(5):1262–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ohio Pawpaw Festival (2017) About the festival. https://www.ohiopawpawfest.com/. Accessed 5 Sept 2017
  41. Ohio Pawpaw Growers Association (2007) OPGA membership. https://ohiopawpaw.com/. Accessed 5 Sept 2017
  42. Onozaka Y, McFadden DT (2011) Does local labeling complement or compete with other sustainable labels? A conjoint analysis of direct and joint values for fresh produce claim. Am J Agric Econ 93(3):693–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ott SL (1990) Supermarket shoppers’ pesticide concerns and willingness to purchase certified pesticide residue-free fresh produce. Agribusiness 6(6):593–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peterson RN, Cherry JP, Simmons JG (1982) Composition of pawpaw fruit. No Nut Growers Assoc Ann Rep 73:97–108Google Scholar
  45. Pomper KW, Crabtree SB, Lowe JD (2010) Organic production of pawpaw. Kentucky State University Cooperative Extension Program, PBI-004Google Scholar
  46. Revelt D, Train K (1998) Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev Econ Stat 80(4):647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Riahi A, Hdider C, Sanaa M, Tarchoun N, Kheder MB, Guezal I (2009) Effect of conventional and organic production systems on the yield and quality of field tomato cultivars grown in Tunisia. J Sci Food Agric 89(13):2275–2282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Saleh A, Bista K (2017) Examining factors impacting online survey response rates in educational research: perceptions of graduate students. J Multidiscipl Eval 13(29):63–74Google Scholar
  49. Templeton SB, Marlette M, Pomper KW, Jones SC (2003) Favorable taste ratings for several pawpaw products. HortTechnology 13(3):445–448Google Scholar
  50. Thurstone LL (1927) The method of paired comparisons for social values. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 21:384–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Train KE (1999) Mixed logit models for recreation demand. Valuing recreation and the environment. Edward Elgar, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  52. Train KE (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Trobe HL (2001) Farmers’ markets: consuming local rural produce. Int J Consum Stud 25(3):181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. University of Kentucky (2009) Pawpaw. https://www.uky.edu/Ag/CCD/introsheets/pawpaw.pdf. Accessed 11 Apr 2016
  55. Wang Q, Sun J (2003) Consumer preference and demand for organic food: evidence from a Vermont survey. Paper prepared for American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, July 2003, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  56. Wolf MM (2002) An analysis of the impact of price on consumer purchase interest in organic grapes and a profile of organic purchasers. In 2002 Annual meeting, July 28–31, Long Beach, CA (No. 19663). American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association)Google Scholar
  57. Yiridoe EK, Bonti-Ankomah S, Martin RC (2005) Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: a review and update of the literature. Renew Agric Food Syst 20(4):193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yue C, Tong C (2009) Organic or local? Investigating consumer preference for fresh produce using a choice experiment with real economic incentives. HortScience 44(2):366–371Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Center for AgroforestryUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.College of Health Sciences and ProfessionsOhio UniversityAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations