<%BANNER%>

Fresh Squeezed Orange Juice by the Glass

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042637/00001

Material Information

Title: Fresh Squeezed Orange Juice by the Glass
Physical Description: 1 online resource (73 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Kadjo, Abena
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: orange
Food and Resource Economics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food and Resource Economics thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to determine consumers? willingness to pay (WTP) for fresh squeezed orange juice. Also, this study was done to observe consumers?taste preferences for three types of orange juice (fresh squeezed, from-concentrate, and not-from-concentrate orange juice) and factors that influence consumers? decision to purchase those juices. To collect the data, a survey was conducted on a total of 200 participants evenly divided between Tampa and Orlando using a mall intercept strategy. A taste test and a conjoint analysis were instruments used in the survey. Results have shown that it is important to use a taste test to observe consumers? willingness to pay. Also, using a conjoint analysis allows us to determine which attributes are more influential on the willingness to pay. Both attributes-price and types of orange juice- influence the decision to purchase orange juice. This study is limited to Florida interpretation only. In fact, the findings obtained can be useful to the Florida orange juice markets.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Abena Kadjo.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: House, Lisa O.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042637:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042637/00001

Material Information

Title: Fresh Squeezed Orange Juice by the Glass
Physical Description: 1 online resource (73 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Kadjo, Abena
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: orange
Food and Resource Economics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food and Resource Economics thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to determine consumers? willingness to pay (WTP) for fresh squeezed orange juice. Also, this study was done to observe consumers?taste preferences for three types of orange juice (fresh squeezed, from-concentrate, and not-from-concentrate orange juice) and factors that influence consumers? decision to purchase those juices. To collect the data, a survey was conducted on a total of 200 participants evenly divided between Tampa and Orlando using a mall intercept strategy. A taste test and a conjoint analysis were instruments used in the survey. Results have shown that it is important to use a taste test to observe consumers? willingness to pay. Also, using a conjoint analysis allows us to determine which attributes are more influential on the willingness to pay. Both attributes-price and types of orange juice- influence the decision to purchase orange juice. This study is limited to Florida interpretation only. In fact, the findings obtained can be useful to the Florida orange juice markets.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Abena Kadjo.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: House, Lisa O.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042637:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 FRES H SQUEEZED ORANGE JUICE BY THE GLASS By LUCIE ABENA KADJO A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TH E DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Lucie Abena Kadjo

PAGE 3

3 To God and my f amily

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First of all, I would like to thank my committee, especially Dr. Lisa House, my committee chair, for her concern about the progression of my work, her effective guidance and advice. Also, I would like to thank Dr. Zhifeng Gao for his tremendous effort in helping me with the model specification of the study, and the use of the software SAS and Limdep. My thanks also to Dr. Carlos Jauregui for his hel pful comments. Additionally, thanks to God for the spiritual support he provided me throughout my research. I am very grateful to my parents for the moral, emotional and financial support they gave me. I am also thankful to my husband Lazare for his everyd ay concerns about my research and for his encouragement. Other thanks to Akwasi, a good friend of mine who helped me with the edits of my paper. I would like to express my appreciation to the department of Food and Resource Economics of the University of F lorida for accepting me into the program.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TA BLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 10 Consumption of Fruit Juices (1970 2008) ................................ ............................... 10 Orange Juice Demand ................................ ................................ ............................ 11 Prices of Orange Juice ................................ ................................ ............................ 13 Nutritional Benefits of Orange Juice and Vitamin C Content ................................ ... 13 Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 14 Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 15 Thesis Outline ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 15 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 18 3 DATA ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 24 Definition of Sensory Analysis ................................ ................................ ................ 24 Survey Methodology ................................ ................................ ............................... 25 Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 26 Sensory Test Results ................................ ................................ .............................. 27 Attributes Ratings of Orange Juices ................................ ................................ 27 Overall Rank Order of the Orange Juices ................................ ......................... 28 Demographic Profile ................................ ................................ ............................... 29 Summary of Willingness to Pay Questions ................................ ............................. 30 4 THEORETICAL MODEL ................................ ................................ ......................... 39 Conjoint Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 39 Random Uti lity Theory (RUT) ................................ ................................ .................. 39 Logit Model ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 40 Model Specification ................................ ................................ ................................ 41

PAGE 6

6 5 EMPIRICAL MODEL ................................ ................................ ............................... 44 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 44 Analysis of the Model ................................ ................................ .............................. 44 Willingness To Pay (WTP) for Fresh Squeezed Orange Juice ............................... 46 6 CONLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 50 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 50 Hypotheses Summary ................................ ................................ ............................. 51 Marketing Message ................................ ................................ ................................ 51 Further Research ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 52 Study Limita tions ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 53 APPENDIX A PURCHASE AND USAGE, TASTE TEST SURVEY ................................ .............. 54 B CONJOINT ANALYSIS SURVEY AND DEMOGRAPHICS ................................ .... 64 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 71 BIO GRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 73

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Ascorbic acid content and ORAC (oxygen radical absorbance capacity) score of oranges and several varieties of orange juice ................................ ................ 17 3 1 Number of glasses of orange juice consumed per week ................................ .... 32 3 2 Scales of the attributes color, sweetness, acidity, and amount of pulp ............. 34 3 3 Results from the choice scenarios ................................ ................................ ...... 38 4 1 Definition of the variables ................................ ................................ ................... 43 5 1 Results of the logit model with and ** indicating that the variable is signifi cant at 95% and 90% confidence level respectively based on the P value ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 48 5 2 Price premium for fresh squeezed juice based on different demographic characteristics. ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 49

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Per capita consumption of citrus and non citrus juices. USDA/ Economic Research, 2010. ................................ ................................ ................................ 16 1 2 Per capita consumption of the fo ur major juices consumed by Americans (orange, grapefruit, apple, and grape). USDA/ Economic Research, 2010. ....... 16 3 1 Percentage o f respondents that consumed a type of orange juice the last four weeks ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 31 3 2 Orange juices consumed most often the last six months ................................ .... 31 3 3 Locations where orange juices were purchased ................................ ................. 32 3 4 Average ratings of the attributes overall appearance, aroma, overall flavor, and texture ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 33 3 5 Average ratings of the attributes color, sweetness, acidity, and amount of pulp ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 33 3 6 Age range of respondents ................................ ................................ .................. 34 3 7 Level of education of respondents ................................ ................................ ...... 35 3 8 Employment status of respondents ................................ ................................ ... 35 3 9 Household size of respondents ................................ ................................ .......... 36 3 10 Marital status of respondents ................................ ................................ .............. 36 3 11 Income range of respondents ................................ ................................ ............. 37 3 12 Race of respondents ................................ ................................ .......................... 37

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science FRESH SQUEEZED ORANGE JUICE BY THE GLASS By Lucie Abena Kadjo D ecember 2010 Chair: Lisa House Major: Food and Resource Economics fresh squeezed orange juice. Also, this study was done preferences for three types of orange juice (fresh squeezed, from concentrate, and not from purchase those juices. To collect the data, a survey was conducted on a total of 200 participants evenly divided between Tampa and Orlando using a mall intercept strategy. A taste test and a conjoint analysis were instruments used in the survey. Results have Also, using a conjoint analysis allows us to determine which attributes are more influ ential on the willingness to pay. Both attributes price and types of orange juice influence the decision to purchase orange juice. This study is limited to Florida interpretation only. In fact, the findings obtained can be useful to the Florida orange jui ce markets.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Consumption of Fruit Juices (1970 2008) s eat some type of fruit or drink fruit juice nearly 2010).The consumption of citrus juices such as orange, grapefruit, lemon and lime juices are consumed at higher per capita levels than non citrus juices (apple, grape, pineapple, cranberry, and prune juices). Statistics from the USDA (2010) indicate that from 1970 to 2008, the average consumption per capita of citrus juices was 5.4 gallons compared to 2.2 gallons for non citrus juices. However, as shown in figure 1 1 the consumption of non citrus juice s increa sed by almost 190% over the past 38 years, while the consumption of citrus juices dropped by 15% over the same period .The increase in the consumption of non citrus juices consists largely of apple and grape juices. The trend in the consump tion of citrus juices is highly influenced by the consumption of orange juice. Per capita consumption of orange juice increased from 3.7 gallons in 1970 to 4.7 gallons in 1975 (Figure 1 2). The late 1970s and 1980s were periods of relative stability, with per capita con s umption averaging 4.6 gallons. The p er capita consumption of orange juice in 1990 was 36% less than that of the previous year The consumption of orange juice experienced a comeback during the late 1990s, with an average per capita of 4.7 gallons. However per capita consumption ha s continuously decreased by 43% from 5.8 gallons in 1998 to 3.3 gallons in 2008. Although there have been more downward trends than upward trends in its consumption, orange juice remains the number one juice consumed by Americans ( USDA, 2010).

PAGE 11

11 The second most consumed juice in the U.S is apple juice, with an average per capita consumption of 1.4 gallons over the past 38 years The per capita consumption of apple juice increased by 320% from 0.5 gallons in 1970 to 2.1 gallons in 2008 (Figure 1 2). In fact, the late 1970s and 1980s were periods of tremendous growth in the per capita consumption of apple juice which increased from 0.5 to 1.5 gallons. Then, per capita consumption stayed steady between 1.5 gallons and 2.1 gallons from 1984 to 2008 Per capita consumption of grapefruit juice has consistently been lower compared with those of orange and apple juices. Consumption decreased 46% between 1970 and 2008, an average of 0.6 gallons over that period (Figure 1 2). Per capita consumption in the late 1970s and 1990s experienced ups and downs, with an average of 0.6 gallons and a peak of 0.9 gallons in 1990. From 2000 to 2008 per capita consumption of grapefruit juice continuously decreased by 40% (from 0.5 to 0.3 gallons). Although grape juice is the least consumed juice among the four juices been considered in the study, its consumption rose by 100% from 0.2 gallons in 1970 to 0.4 gallons in 2008, with an average of 0.3 gallons per capita consumption (Figure1 2). Orange J uice Demand Citrus fruits are believed to have originated in the ancient orient. The first writings about citron, a large lemon like fruit were attributed t o Confucius, a Chinese philosopher who died in 479 BC The fruit was brought to Europe and the Mediterranean area by Arab traders ( Florida C itrus 1974). In the United States, citrus cultivation began in Florida in the early 1800s and later spread to Texas Arizona, and California. It is believed that Ponce de Leon brought citrus to Florida in 1513 while he was searching for the fountain of youth. The earliest groves were grown near St

PAGE 12

12 Augustine and Tampa (Florida C itrus, 1974). For centuries, oranges, t he most popular fruit among citrus fruits, were consumed as a fresh fruit, not storable for long period of juice was perishable once produced and had a very limited she (NYBOT, 2004) In the late 1930s, the orange fruit production surpassed the demand for fresh fruits leading to the emergence of an overproduction of oranges. Since the fresh orange juice has a limited shelf life, th ree scientists, MacDowell, Moore, and Adkins, developed a process to produce frozen concentrate orange juice (FCOJ) which can be stored for As a result of this invention, consumers quickly demonstrated a c lear preference for FCOJ taste and convenience, substituting FCOJ for fresh oranges. The last decade has seen a large swing in consumer demand from frozen concentrate orange juice toward refrigerated orange juice especially not from concentrate juice. Th e 1990 season was the first year in which chilled orange juice outsold frozen concentrate, and the gap has consistently widened since that time. For instance, the production of chilled orange juice in the 2007/2008 season was 552,263,000 gallons, while the production of frozen concentrate orange was 135,196,000 gallons in the same season (USDA 2009). Currently, the three major types of orange juice purchased in the United States are frozen concentrate d orange juice (FCOJ), not from concentrate (NFC) orange juice, and refrigerated orange juice from concentrate (RECON) (Davis, 2008). N ot from concentrate (NFC) juice is flash heated to pasteurize immediately after the fruit is squeezed. NFC is never concentrated. Refrigerated from concentrate (RECON) is

PAGE 13

13 manufactured as a frozen concentrate, and then reconstituted by adding back the amount of water originally removed. RECON is sold as a ready to drink product. Frozen concentrate (FCOJ) is a freshly squeezed juice that has been concentrated and f rozen. Consumers reconstitute the juice by adding back the amount of water originally removed. P rices of Orange J uice Retail orange juice prices vary according to many factors such as the form or type of juice (FCOJ, NFC and RECON), the brand and private label, the season, the region of production, the average hous ehold income in the market area, etc. ( Pollack 2010). For instance, prices of orange juices averaged $5.09 a gallon at the end of October 2009 compared with $4.45 per gallon a year earlier ( Pol lack 2010). The price of NFC, which is the most consumed form of orange juice, averaged $6.8 a gallon in the season 2007 2008 ( Pollack 2010). However, in 2008/09 season, the price of NFC decreased to $ 6.66 per gallon. Nutritional Benefits of Orange Jui ce and Vitamin C C ontent There are different juices which are believed to offer health benefits to the body. Temple ( 2004), show that orange juice may help lower both ch olesterol levels and blood pressure levels, which are two very common problems among middle aged men and women. Orange juice is thought to be very high in antioxidants thus it may help prevent various forms of cancer, including breast cancer and prostate c ancer ( Wilson and Temple, 2004 ) The fruit is also renowned for its folic acid content, an important nutrient for pregnant woman to help pr event birth defects ( Polla ck, 2003). Orange juice contains a high percentage of Vitamin C, which is helpful in boosti ng the immune system. So,

PAGE 14

14 orange juice lessens the odds of catching var ious illnesses, such as colds and the flu ( Wilson and Temple, 2004 ). Each type of orange juice has a different level of vitamin C and antioxidant. The vi tamin C content of orange juic e can be compared using food composition tables (Table 1 1) P ublished ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity) values illustrate the antioxidant benefit of orange juice. Fresh orange juice (8 fl oz or 248 ml) is a concentrated source of vitamin C, conta ining 50% more vitamin C than a single orange of 131 g ram without peel (Wilson and Temple 2004) Similarly, the antioxidant capacity of fresh orange juice is higher than that of a single orange. Orange juice processing (pasteurization and storage), howeve r, reduces its vitamin C content. An 8 fl uid ounce bottle of frozen reconstituted juice has higher vitamin C content than the same amount of chilled juice in plastic jugs. J uice chilled in plastic jugs (8 fl oz) has more vitamin C content than a chilled ju ice in cartons of the same size ( Wilson and Temple, 2004 ) Objectives This study seeks to: Identify the past consumption patterns of consumers. Determine taste preferences for the three types of orange juice : fresh squeezed, from concentrate and not from concentrate orange juices. Find out the consumer willingness to pay for a type of orange juice particularly fresh squeezed orange juice. Identify which of the two attributes (price and types of juice) influence the decision to purchase an orange ju ice product. Identify if demographic background affects the decision to purchase. Determine if seeing a machine squeeze oranges to produce fresh juice immediately prior to consumption impacts consumer willingness to pay

PAGE 15

15 Hypotheses The following are the Participants that saw the juicing process will like fresh squeezed juice more than participants who did not see the juicing process. Price will have a negative effect on the participants orange juices. T he hig her the income the higher the decision to purchase the orange juice The h igh er the education levels the higher the decision to purchase the orange juice. Thesis Outline Chapter 2 discusses relevant researches about the demand for orange juice particularl y the impact of price and demographics on the demand for orange juice. Chapter 2 also gives a review of research that has been conducted using sensory test erence for orange juice Finally, Chapter 2 brings up research conducted on the demand for orange juice using conjoint analysis Chapter 3 begins with a definition of the sensory analysis, followed by the discussion of the survey methodology and the data collected. Chapter 4 discusses conjoint analysis and random ut ility theory. Logit model and model specification for this study are conferred as well in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 discusses the analysis of the results obtained from the logit model test and the price premium s that participants are willing to pay for orange j uice. Finally, Cha pter 6 draws the summary of th is study, the marketing message behind it further research that can be conducted on orange juice particu larly fresh squeezed juice and the study limitation.

PAGE 16

16 Figure 1 1. P er capita consumption of citrus and non citrus juices USDA/ Economic Research 2010. Figure 1 2. Per capita consumption of the four major juices consumed in the United States ( orange, grapefruit, apple, and grape ). USDA/ Economic Research, 2010 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Gallons per capita consumption Years Total citrus 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Gallons per capita consumption Years Orange Grapefruit Apple Grape

PAGE 17

17 Table 1 1 Ascorbic acid c ontent and ORAC (oxygen radical absorbance capacity) score of o r anges and several varieties of orange j uice Oranges and varieties of orange juice Ascorbic acid ORAC score Orange,navel,131 g without peel 80 983 Orange juice,fresh,8fl oz 124 1637 Reconstituted from frozen concentrate,8fl oz 97 Chilled, packaged in plastic, 8 fl oz 86 720 Chilled, packaged in carton, 8 fl oz 44

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Demand for orange j uice Orange juice has been the most popular juice consumed by Americans for many decades. Because orange juice is highly consumed, one area of focus has been identifying factors that impact the demand for orange juice. Davis et al (2008) examined the effect of demographics on the demand for orange juice. In this study, a regression analysis was conducted using weekly data over a two year period. Explanatory variables such as ora nge juice price, price of substitute products, and demographics were used to estimate total orange juice gallons sold. Results indicated that income and price of substitutes had a positive effect on the demand for orange juice. Davis et al. calculated inco me elasticity for orange juice of 0.17 and a cross price elasticity of 0.85. However, orange juice price had a negative effect on orange juice gallons sold, with a coefficient of 0.99. Besides income, other demographic variables were also found to be sign ificant. The cities with the highest percentage of Black and Hispanic populations had a lower demand for orange juice. Demand for orange juice decreased by 0.58% and 0.32% for each percent increase in the percent age of the population that was Black or Hisp anic, respectively. The opposite was true for the cities with a large percentage of Asians. For each percent increase in the Asian population in a city, the demand for orange juice increased by 0.40%. Love et al (2006) investigated the impact of disposabl e per capita income, price and purchase habits on the purchase for orange juice in the Southern region. The data used for their study was in the form of scanner data. The data was collected for orange juice purchases in the Southern region on a four week b asis from October 1995 through

PAGE 19

19 December 2004. These purchase estimates represent volume sales in all ACNielsen retail outlets in the Southern region, including U.S grocery store chains, Wal Mart stores disers and dru g stores. Love et al found that the relationship between purchases of orange juice and price was negative and significant, with a coefficient of 0.02. This indicated that the expected inverse relationship between price and demand existed. Also Love et a l contrary to Davis et al found that the relationship between purchases of orange juice and disposable per capita income was insignificant. Therefore, per capita discretionary income had no effect on per capita purchases of orange juice in the Southern r egion. Finally, they found that the relationship between purchases in the current time period and purchases from the previous time period, a measurement of habit persistence, was positive and significant, with a coefficient of 0.845. This result indicated that purchases of orange juice were based on habit. In addition to ethnicity and income, Blisard (2003) found other demographics that impact the demand for fruits and juices. This study found that people above the age of 74 spent the most money on cereal, bakery goods, and fruits. He also established that households with children age nine or under spend more money on fruit and fruit juices than households with older children. Chern, Kaneko and Tarakcioglu (2003) used experimental auctions to elicit the wi llingness to pay for a new orange juice produced with the PEF (Pulsed Electric Field) processing technology. PEF process is a nonthermal process used to inactivate enzymes and microorganisms in liquid food (Chern, Kaneko and Tarakcioglu, 2003)

PAGE 20

20 This process was built up in 1960 by a German scientist can be caused by a thermal processing The experimental auction was designed for participants to bid on four alternative prod ucts: unproces sed fresh juice, PEF juice, not f rom concentrate juice, and from concentrate juice. One important feature of the experiment was that the products for auction were all real products and the attributes of the PEF orange juice were either visibl e or detectable with tasting. One of the research objectives was to investigate whether or not product tasting would alter the WTP (willingness to pay) estimation. There were six trials conducted with the first three trials being conducted prior to product tasting and the other three after tasting. Chern, Kaneko and Tarakcioglu (2003) found that the bid prices for unprocessed and PEF juice were consistently hig her than the prices for the not from concentrate and the from concentrate orange juices. Furthermo re, the bid prices were higher for PEF than unprocessed orange juice for the first three trials prior to product tasting. However, the mean bid price for the PEF juice declined substantially after the product tasting, from $2.71 to $2.25, a 17% drop in the willingness to pay for this new orange juice. Some participants said that they did not like the taste of PEF juice, but many others said that it tasted like fresh juice. Also, after tasting, the bid price for unprocessed fresh juice increased from $2.65 t o $2.72. As for the not from concentrate and from concentrate juice, the bid prices did not change much after product tasting. The results of the overall mean bid prices from all six trials indicated that consumers are willing to pay $0.53 more for the PEF orange juice than for from concentrate and not from concentrate orange juices. The sample mean of the individual premium for the PEF orange juice with respect to its freshness suggested that

PAGE 21

21 the new product is likely to be competitive in the marketplace s ince the cost of PEF processing should be lower than the mean premium once the PEF technology is adopted on a commercial basis In summary, Chern, K aneko and Tarakcioglu found in their study th at product tasting truly impacted pay. Lee, Brown and Seale (1992) used a conditional demand system for fresh fruits and juices to investigate on the demand relationships among fresh fruit and juices in Canada. This strategy was useful as it restricted the number of estimated parameters a nd provided more precise parameter estimates when the restrictions can be accepted. the Rotterdam model. Then, weak separability and strong separability concepts were used to derive consumer demand restrictions to test for separability among fresh fruits and juices. Results obtained from the Rotterdam model (with strong separability imposed) indicated that if Canadian consumers were to allocate larger portions of their budgets to the consumption of fresh fruit s and juices, expenditure shares on oranges, apples, orange juice, and apple juice would increase, with apple juice benefiting the most. Furthermore, the results indicated that the own price elasticities for apples and for apple juice are smaller than unity. Hence, an increase in price through supply management (either by restricting production, imports, or both) would increase revenue to the Canadian apple industry. The study results also indicated that oranges and grapefruits were substitutes for apples. Therefore, an increase in the price of fresh apples would increase the consumption of citrus such as oranges and grapefruits, thus increasing citrus imports.

PAGE 22

22 Thomas (2009) conducted research using conjoint analysi s to investigate In this study, consumers were first presented with products to taste (either organic and conventional baby carrots or organic and conventional orange juic e). The goal of the research was to test if there was a taste difference or explicit preference for an organic product versus a conventional produced product (Thomas, 2009).Following the taste test, consumers answered a set of questions designed to conduct the conjoint analysis. The conjoint analysis had two attributes: price and type of products. For each question, the participant had to select between three choices: a conventional product, an organic product, or neither. Results indicated that price and production methods both significantly influenced willingness to pay for orange juice. The price variable was negative, indicating that as price increased, likelihood to purchase the product decreased. The variable representing production method was positiv e, indicating that if the product was organic, the consumer would be more willing to purchase the juice. Interaction variables between the rating from the taste test and price and production method were both significant. In the case of price and the organi c attribute ratings, findings showed that as the ratings of the attributes increased and price was kept constant, the respondent was more likely to purchase the orange juice. Race, ethnicity, and income were also significantly related to willingness to pur chase organic products, with Whites and Hispanics less likely to purchase the organic juice and those with incomes over $30,000 more likely to purchase organic juice. Interaction variables between price and age, race, and income were also significant. Resp ondents older than thirty years, White respondents, and

PAGE 23

23 those with income less than $30,000 were more likely to purchase if the price was kept constant. The earlier research conducted on the demand for orange juice give insights into some factors, among m any others, that impact this demand. For in sta nce, Davis et al. and Love et al found that price had a negative effect on the demand for orange juice. In addition, Davis et al and Blis ard proved in their studies that demographics background (e.g. income, ethnicity, age, and household size ) are influential on the demand for orange juice. However, Love et al contrary to Davis et al found that income had no effect on the purchase for orange juice. Hence, this current study investigate s further the effect of demographics on the decision to pu rchase the orange juice product Furthermore, Chern, Kaneko and Tarakcioglu disc overed that using a taste test wa s survey was also conducted to see the impact of product tasting on the decision to purchase. Finally, the literature discussed the use of conjoint analysis to investigate which attributes are influential on the decision to purchase. Thomas found that price and product ion methods both significantly influenced willingness to pay for orange juice This current study uses a conjoint analysis as well to determine if different attributes such as price and types of products impact on the purchase for orange juice.

PAGE 24

24 CHAPTER 3 DATA This chapter opens with the definition of sensory analysis and its relevance to this study. Then, the chapter gives an overview of the survey methodology. Finally, the data collected is presented and summarized. Definition of Sensory Analysis The use of sensory evaluation has developed quickly in the second half of the 20 th century. Product developers, food scientists, and managers use sensory evaluation to get informed about the sensory characteristics of their products. Sensory evaluation is com posed of a set of techniques for precise measurement of human responses to foods and reduces the possibility of biasing effects of brand ident ity and other information effect s on consumer perception ( Lawless and Heymann, 1997) been defined as a scientific method used to evoke measure, analyze and interpret those responses to products as perceived through the senses of sight, smell, touch, Lawless and Heymann, 1997 ). It is important in a sensory evaluation that th e test method be appropriate to answer the questions being asked about the product in the test. Therefore, three types of sensory testing are mainly used, each with a different objective and using participants of different characteristics. The discriminati is to find out if there is a difference between two types of products. The second class of is aimed to identify how products differ in specific sensory characteristics. The third class of sensory test is used to quantify the degree of liking or disliking of a product, called hedonic or affective test (Lawless and Heymann, 1997).

PAGE 25

25 This current st udy uses for the orange juice products, and also untrained participants are screened for product use. Therefore, the affective test (hedonic test) is the test method used for this study. Survey Met hodology To determine willingness to pay for fresh squeezed orange juice, a survey was conducted June 2009. A total of 200 participants, evenly divided between Tampa and Orlando, Florida were surveyed using a mall intercept strategy. The survey consisted o f questions regarding their consumption habits, a sensory evaluation of three juices, questions related to willingness to pay, and demographics. The three juices used for the sensory analysis included fresh squeezed juice (FS), not from concentr ate orange juice (NFC) and from concentrate (FC) orange juice. For the Fresh squeezed orange juice, there were two approaches used. Half of the participants tasted freshly squeezed juice after watching the oranges be squeezed by a machine while the other half taste d fresh juice without seeing the squeezing process. Each participant evaluated each juice on overall appearance, overall flavor, texture, aroma, sweetness, color, acidity and amount of pulp. Following the sensory evaluation, a series of questions gatherin g willingness to pay were asked. Each participant selected which of four options they would choose in ten choice scenarios. Each scenario presented information on price and type of orange juice, with fresh squeezed, not from concentrate, and from concentra te as three options, and no juice as the fourth option. Finally, demographic data was collected from each participant.

PAGE 26

26 Data Past consumption h abits Participants were asked if they have consumed any of five different types of or ange juice (fresh squeezed, not from concentrate, fro m concentrate branded juice, from concentrate private label juice and other) in the past four weeks (Figure 3 1). About seventy three percent (72.5 %) of participants consumed not from concentrate (NFC ) followed by 42.5% who consumed fresh squeezed juice ( FS) and 34.5% who consumed from concentrate branded Also, 21% of participants consumed from concentrate juice from the store and another 21% consumed other type of orange juice. Furthermore, participants were asked which type of orange juice they consume most often. A little more than half of participants (56%) indicated they consume NFC most often. Nineteen percent of participants consume fresh squeezed juice most often followe d by 14% who consume from concentrate branded juice, and 4% who consume concentrate juice from the store (Figure 3 2). Also, participants were questioned about the number of glasses they drink in an average week. Half of participants reported drinking 3 to 6 glasses of orange juice. A little more than a quarter (29%) of participants drink 7 or more glasses, while 17% of participants drink 1 to 2 glasses. Very few participants (4.5%) drink less than one glass per week (Table 3 1). Participants were asked w here they have purchased orange juice in the last six months. The majority of participants (149) have purchased orange juice at the grocery store (Figure 3 3) in the last six months. The second most common place to purchase orange juice is a large merchand ise store (such as Wal Mart or Costco), followed by restaurants, and convenience stores.

PAGE 27

27 Sensory Test Results The sensory results are divided into two parts: first, the attributes ratings of the juices on their overall appearance, aroma, overall flavor, t exture, color, sweetness, juices. Attributes Ratings of Orange Juices For the taste test survey, each respondent tasted three types of orange juice: fresh squeezed j uice where the juicing process was observed (FSM) or fresh squeezed juice where the process was not observed (FS), from concentrate juice (FC) and not from concentrate juice (NFC). Participants rated each juice on overall appearance, aroma, overall flavor and texture using a 9 point scale with 1 being dislike extremely, 9 being like extremely (5 was neutral). The four attributes (overall appearance, aroma, overall flavor, and texture) for the juices were rated between 5 and 7 on average which represented n eutral to like moderately. For the overall appearance attribute, fresh squeezed juice where the juicing process (FSM) was observed was rated 6.52, while fresh squeezed juice where the process was not observed (FS) w as rated 5 98 From concentrate (FC) and not from concentrate juices (NFC) were rated 6.45 and 6.31 respectively (Figure 3 4). With regards to the aroma, FSM and FS were rated 6.91 and 6.72 respectively. Then, FC was rated 6.17, while NFC w as rated 6.04 (Figure 3 4). The overall flavor s for FSM and FS were rated 7.1 and 6.48 respectively. NFC was rated 6.11 for its overall flavor and FC was rated 5.86. (Figure 3 4). Relative to the ir texture, FSM and FS were rated 6.76 and 6.43 respectively. NFC and FC were rated 6.26 and 6.11 respectively (Figu re 3 4).

PAGE 28

28 Furthermore, participants rated the attributes color, sweetness, acidity and amount of pulp on a 5 point scale. For the 5 sweet or too dark) and 1 and 2 being too little of an attribute (i.e. not acidic enough or not enough pulp). The meaning of the scales for each attribute is given in Table 3 2. On average, based on the attribute color, FSM was rated 3.24, fo llowed by a sc ore of 3.45 for FS. NFC was rated 2.75, while FC was rated 2.65. (Figure 3 5). Also, t he three juices were rated on their sweetness. FSM was rated 3.04, FS was rated 3.1 NFC was rated 2.76 and FC was rated 2.69. (Figure 3 5).Furthermore, with regards to th e acidity, FSM was rated 3, while FS was rated 3.07. NFC and FC were rated 2.69 and 2.76 respectively. (Figure 3 5) For their amount of pulp, FSM and FS were rated 3.05 and 3.21 respectively, while NFC and FC were rated 2.93 and 3.59 respectively (Figure 3 5). Finally, participants rated the three juices on their likelihood to purchase the juices at one of their favorite restaurants on a 6 point scale (with 1 being extremely likely, 2 being very likely, 3 being somewhat likely, 4 being not very likely, 5 be ing not at all purchase FSM and FS res pectively. They also rated 3.01 and 3.15 for their likelihood to purchase NFC and FC. Overall Rank Order of the Orange Juices Participants were asked to rank the three types of orange juice tasted. Of the 100 participants that saw the juicing process, most (52%) preferred the fresh squeezed juice, 18.75% liked second not from concentrate juice (NFC) and 23.25 % liked least from c oncent rate juice (FC). For those that did not observe the juicing process, fresh

PAGE 29

29 squeezed was still preferred, but by less participants (46%). Then NFC was second liked by 18.7 5% of participants and FC was the least liked by 23.25 % of participants. Demogr aphic Profile Of the 200 respondents that participated in the survey, 52% were men and 48% were female (Table 3 3). Also, 37% of respondents were 30 years old or under, with 13.5 % of respondents between the ages of 18 and 20 years (Figure 3 6). More than half of respondents (63%) were older than 30 years. Additionally, the highest level of education for 72 participants was a high school degree or equivalent while 15 participants went to grade or high school but did not finish (Figure 3 7). Forty two par ticipants had some type of college diploma or degree. Thirty percent of participants (29.5%) were employed full time (Figure 3 8). Also, 18% of them were employed part time, 15% were currently unemployed, 14.5% were self employed or homemaker and 12% were retired. There were very fe w students (5.5% of respondents ). Again, 5.5% of respondents did not response or had other choice than the ones proposed. Less than half participants (93 participants) had 2 or fewer people in their households, with 51 of them t hat have 2 persons in their households. In addition, 81 participa nts had 3 or 4 persons in their households, and only 26 participants had 5 to 12 persons in their households (Figure 3 9). Additionally, the majority of respondents were single (41.5% of re spondents), followed by married couples (32% of respondents) and divorced pers ons (13% of respondents). Other marital status recorded included domestic partnership, widowed and separated as well as people with no response, with all of them a ccount ing for 13.5 % of respondents (Figure 3 10).

PAGE 30

30 Most participants (117 participants) earn $49,999 or less at work, with many (87 participants) earn ing $30,000 to $49,999. A significant number of respondents, 24 respondents, did not respond to the question (Figure 3 1 1). Finally, over two third of the participants (138 participants) were W hite s / Caucasian s followed by B lack/African Americans that accounted for 15.5% of the participants. The minority of participants was Hispanic/ Latinos with 23 participants and Asians with 2 participants (Figure 3 12). Summary of Willingness to Pay Questions Results of the choice s cenarios Ten scenarios, including two attributes (price and type of orange juice), were presented to the participants. In each scenario, there were four alternatives to choose from: option 1 is fresh squeezed juice (FS), option 2 is not from conc entrate (NFC), option 3 is from concentrate juice (FC) and option 4 is no purchase. Participant to the choice of orange juice product based on prices a re shown in Table 3 4. The majority of participants choose to purchase fresh squeezed juice (FS) in scenarios F, I and J where the price of fresh squeezed j uice is $3.49, $ 2.49 and $2.49 respectively. Fresh squeezed juice was the second choice of the pane lists when it costs $4.49 in scenario C. In scenario G, while majority of the panelists (44.5%) chose not to purchase any of the products, 41.5% of participants preferred to purchase FS at a cost $3.49. Additionally, in scenarios B, E and H, most of the pa rticipants chose to purchase NFC at the price of $2.49. FC was the first choice for the majority of panelists at a price of $1.99 in scenario A. A significant perc entage of respondents: 61%, 42% and 44.5% chose not to purchas e any product in scenarios C, D and G respectively.

PAGE 31

31 Figure 3 1. Percentage of respondents that consumed a type of orange juice the last four weeks Figure 3 2. Orange j uice s consumed most often the last six months 42.50% 72.50% 34.50% 21% 21% fresh squeezed orange juice not from concentrate juice from concentrate major juice from concentrate from store juice other type of orange juice percentage of respondents not from concentrate 56% fresh squeezed juice 19% from concentrate from store 4% from concentrate major 14% other type 7%

PAGE 32

32 Table 3 1. Number of glasses of orange juice consumed per week Figure 3 3. Locations where orange juice s were purchased 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Frequency Locations Frequency Percent 7 or more glasses per week 58 29.0 3 to 6 glasses per week 99 49.5 1 to 2 glasses per week 34 17.0 Less than one glass 9 4.5 Total 200 100.0

PAGE 33

33 Figure 3 4 Average r atings of the attributes overall appearance aroma, overall flavor, and texture Figure 3 5 Average r atings of the attributes color, sweetness, acidity, and amount of pulp 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Overall appearance Aroma Overall flavor Texture Average Socres Attributes Fresh squeezed juice where the juicing process was observed Fresh squeezed juice where the juicing process was not observed Not from concentrate juice 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Color Sweetness Acidity Pulp Average Scores Attributes Fresh squeezed juice where the juicing process was observed Fresh squeezed juice where the juicing process was not observed Not from concentrate juice

PAGE 34

34 Table 3 2 S cale s of the attributes color, sweetness, acidity, and am ount of pulp 1 2 3 4 5 Color Much too pale A little too pale Just Right A little too dark Much too dark S weetness Not at all sweet enough A little not sweet enough Just Right A little too sweet Much too sweet Acidity Not at all sour enough A little not sour enough Just Right A little too sour Much too sour Amount of pulp Much too much pulp A little too much pulp Just Right A little not enough pulp Much too little pulp Figure 3 6. Age range of respondents 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 under 18 18-20 21-24 25-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 over 65 Frequency Age Range

PAGE 35

35 Figure 3 7.Level of education of respondents Figure 3 8. Employment status of respondents 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Frequency Level of Education 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency Employment Status

PAGE 36

36 Figure 3 9. Household size of respondents Figure 3 10. Marital status of respondents 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 Frequency Persons per House 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Single (never married) Married Domestic partnership Widowed Divorced Separated No response Frequency Marital Status

PAGE 37

37 Figure 3 11. Income range of respondents Figure 3 12. Race of respondents 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Under $30,000 $30,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,000 $100,000 or more No response Frequency Income Range 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Frequency Race

PAGE 38

38 Table 3 3. Results from the choice scenarios Scenario Fresh Squeezed Fresh chilled, Not From Concentrate From Concentrate None A $5.49 $3.49 $1.99 $0 Choice percent 8% 18% 37% 36.5% B $5.49 $2.49 $1.99 $0 Choice percent 7.5% 41% 29% 22.5% C $4.49 $4.49 $3.49 $0 Choice percent 17% 7.5% 14.5% 61% D $4.49 $3.49 $2.49 $0 Choice percent 12% 19% 27% 42% E $4.49 $2.49 $1.99 $0 Choice percent 10% 43.5% 28.5% 18% F $3.49 $4.49 $1.99 $0 Choice percent 33.5% 4.5% 31% 31% G $3.49 $3.49 $3.49 $0 Choice percent 41.5% 9% 5% 44.5% H $3.49 $2.49 $2.49 $0 Choice percent 19.5% 37.5% 16% 27% I $2.49 $4.49 $2.49 $0 Choice percent 64.5% 5.5% 10% 20% J $2.49 $3.49 $1.99 $0 Choice percent 55.5% 8.0% 24% 12.5%

PAGE 39

39 C HAPTER 4 THEORETICAL MODEL C onjoint A nalysis Conjoint analysis is a statistical technique used mainly to measure the price effects in market research ( Gustafsson, Herrmann and Huber, 2001p 47 ) Price is used ( Gusta fsson, Herrmann and Huber, 2001p 47). Hence, price has two roles: an informational role when it is used as a signal and an allocative role when it is used as a monetary constraint. Furthermore the purpose of using conjoint analysis is to find out which a ttributes including price, given a number of product alternatives, have the greatest impact on the (Gustafsson, Herrmann and Huber, 2001p 47). preference over the past two decades. Random Utility Theory (RUT) Gustafsson, Herrmann and Huber, 2001 p167 ). Indeed the term conjoint analysis should be restructured with more specific terms such as r andom utility to help understand and model human decision making and choice ( Gustafsson, Herrmann and Huber, 2001 p167 ) R esearchers, scientists or analysts use primarily RUT to ha ve insights into consumer preferences. Randomness develops because analysts (or researchers or scientists) cannot directly detect the consumer s true perception of observe indicators of true attra ctiveness by designing elicitation procedures (preference

PAGE 40

40 sson, Herrmann and Huber, 2001p explained. Random utility (4 1) errmann and Huber, 2001p 311). Additionally, the consumer is supposed to choose the alternative that gives him the highest utility or satisfaction. Therefore, the probability that alternative a is chosen by decision maker j within choice set C is (a) =P (4 2) In this study, we use RUT to observe how the respondent make s his decision to purchase and which attrib utes impact the most his choice and decision. T wo attributes a re considered to impact the s decision to purchase: price and type s of orange juice. In this situation, the respondent faces four options: choose to purchase any of the three types of orange juice or choose not to purc hase at all. Logit Model differs from an ordinary linear regression by its dependen t variable which is not a

PAGE 41

41 continuous variable but a state which may hold or may not hold The logit model can be distinguished in two models: ordered model, when the outcomes of the model can be ranked and non ordered model, when the outcomes cannot be ranked. In this research the model used is a non ordered model with the depen d e nt variable taking four choices ( decide to purchase fresh squeezed juice, not from concentrate, from concentrate or not to purchase any juice ) Model S p ecification The logit model in this study contains thirty (30 ) independent variables including three basic variables: price, fresh squeezed ( FS) and from concentrate juice ( FC). These basic variables show the effect s of price and the types of product on the decision to purchase a product Fresh squeezed and f rom concentrate orange juice s are dummy variable s There are other dummy variables such as gender, race age, education, employment, household size, income a machine process the j uice The depend ent variable U represents the decision to purchase e ither fresh squeezed juice (A), from concentrate juice (B), not from concentrate (C) or not to purchase any juice (D). The logit model equation is: U ( A B, C) = 1 *price + 2 *fs + 3 *fc + 4 *ge n price + 5 *ge nf s + 6 *ge n fc + 7 *ageprice + 8 *agefs + 9 agefc + 10 educprice + 1 1 educfs + 1 2 educfc + 13 emprice + 1 4 emfs + 1 5 emfc + 1 6 hsprice + 1 7 hsfs + 1 8 hsfc + 1 9 incprice + 20 *incfs + 21 *infc + 22 raceprice + 23 racefs + 24 racefc + 2 6 *fsovfprice + 2 7 *nfcovfprice + 2 8 *fcovfprice + 2 9 See_Mprice + 30 See_Mfs + 31 See_Mfc (4 3)

PAGE 42

42 U ( D ) = 0 + 1 2 3 4 5 6 *genfc + 7 8 9 *agefc + 10 11 12 *educfc + 13 14 15 16 17 18 *hsfc + 19 20 21 22 23 24 *racefc + 26 27 28 29 *See_Mpr 30 *See_Mfs 31 *See_Mfc (4 4 ) The variables in the logit model are explained in T able 4 1. The dummy variables are also explained in the same table. D emographic variables are built in the model to interact with the basic variables ( price, FS and FC ). Th o se interaction variables allow observing the effect of demographics on the decision to purchase when holding the basic variables constant. Th e ratings of the overall flavor attribute for fresh squeezed, not from concentrat e and from concentrate interact each with price to give the variables FSovfprice, NFCovfprice and FC ovfprice respectively. Those variables were included because there was a significant difference in the ratings of the overall flavor attribute for the thre e juices was created to interact with the basic variables to help investigate the effect of viewing the squeezing process on the

PAGE 43

43 Table 4 1 Definition of the variables Variable Definition Price FS FC Ge n price Ge n fs Ge n fc Ageprice Age fs Age fc Educprice Educfs E ducfc E mprice E mfs E mfc H sprice Hsfs Hsfc Incprice Incfs Infc Raceprice Racefs Racefc FSovf price NFCovf price FCovf price See_Mprice See_Mfs See_M fc P rice of product I f product is fresh sque ezed (equals 1) or not from concentrate orange juice (equals 0) I f product is from concentrate (equals 1) or not from c oncentrate orange juice (equals 0) The following are interaction variables of: Gender(1if female and 0 if male) times price Gender times if product is FS Gender times if product is FC A ge ( 1 if less than 30 and 0 otherwise ) times price A ge times if product is FS A ge times i f product is FC E ducation ( 1 if college or university degree and 0 otherwise) times price E ducation times if product is FS E ducation times if product is FC E mployment ( 1 if employed full time and 0 otherwise ) times price E mployment times if product is FS E mployment times if product is FC H ousehold ( 1 if one or two persons and 0 otherwise) tim es price H ousehold times if product is FS H ousehold times if product is FC I ncome ( 1 if less than $49,999 and 0 otherwise) t imes price I ncome times if product is FS I ncome times if product is FC Race (1 if white and 0 otherwise) times price Race times if product is FS Race times if product is FC Rating of the overall flavor attribute for FS times price Rating of the overall flavor attribute for NFC times price Rating of the overall flavor attribute for FC times price If participants watch the squeezing process ( equals 1) or watch (equals 0) times price If participants times FS If times FC

PAGE 44

44 CHA PTER 5 EMPIRICAL MODEL Introduction This chapter interprets the results obtained from the test of the logit model by analyzing the model. The logit model includes data from the sensory test questions on willingness to pay (WTP) and demographic profile. The results obtained inform us about the factors that influence the purchase of orange juice, and also the price premium that the consumer is willing to pay for fresh squeezed juice above the WTP for not from concentrate (NFC) Analysis of the Model A log it model composed of variables obtained from the taste test attributes and the conjoint analysis was used to predict the probability of choosing to purchase a type of orange juice. The results of the logit model are shown in table 5 1. The coefficients of the variables obtained in the results of the test indicate whether the variables have a positive or negative effect on the decision to purchase (the dependent variable) Only variables that are significant at 90% and 95% confidence level were considered. A positive coefficient of a significant variable means a positive effect on the decision to purchase and a negative coefficient means negative effect on the decision to purchase The variables price, types of product (fresh squeezed and from concentrate), and the ratings of the overall flavor attribute for FS and NFC times price ( FSovfprice and NFCovf price) are significant at 95% confidence level. F resh squeezed (FS) variable and FSovfprice ha ve positive coefficient s of 1.1 19 and 0. 015 respectively. This is interpreted as consumers are more willing to purchase if the product is fresh squeezed juice than if it is not from concentrate juice. Also, a s the rating of the overall flavor attribute for FS

PAGE 45

45 increases consumer s are more willing to purchase when price is kept constant. P rice FC and NFC ovf price variables have negative coefficients of 1. 191 1.303 and 0. 014 r espectively Consequently as the p rice of orange juice increases the consumers are less likely to purchase a type of orange juice. Furthermore, c onsumers are less willing to purchase if the product is from concentrate orange juice than if it is not from concentrate juice. As the rating of the overall flavor attribute for NFC increases, consumers are less willing to purchase T he are statistically insignificant suggesting it did not matter whether or not the consumers watched the juice squeezing process. Five interaction variables of demographics and basic variabl es (emfc, raceprice, educfc, emprice and hsfc) are significant at 95% and 90% confidence level. Emfc and raceprice have positive coefficients of 0.093 and 0.033 respectively Hence, a person employed full time is more likely to purchase if the product is a from concentrate juice than a person not employed full time (part time, self employed, student, homemaker currently unemployed and retired ). As price is held constant a White is more willing to purchase a type of juice than a non White (Asian, Black or Hispanic) However; e ducfc, emprice, and hsfc have negative coefficients of 0.115, 0.023 and 0.063 respectively A highly educated consumer (completed college or university ) is less willing to purchase if the product is a from concentrate juice than a less educated consumer (completed grade, high or post secondary technical school). A consumer employed full time is less likely to purchase a product than a part time, se lf employed, student or homemaker consumer when price is kept constant. A person with a househ old size of one or two

PAGE 46

46 persons is less willing to purchase if the product is a from concentrate juice than a person with a household size of more than two persons. Willingness To Pay (WTP) for Fresh Squeezed O range J uice The equation of the WTP for fresh squeezed orange juice is: ( 2 5 gen 8 11 14 17 20 incfs + 23 race fs + 2 9 see_m fs ) 1 4 ge n 7 10 educprice + 13 16 hsprice 19 22 race price + 2 8 see_mprice ) (5 1) The base demographic characteristics (BC) for the dummy v ariables are: male; other race such as Black, Asian and Hispanic; age 30 or more; completed grade, high or PS ( post secondary ) technical school; not employed full time ( par t time, self employed, student and homemaker ); household size of more than two persons; and income greater than $49,999. T he price premium that a consumer is willing to pay for fresh squeezed product is shown in Table 5 2 That price premium was comp ( 5 1 ) and the variables in the logit model ( 4 3 ). A woman with the base characteristics is willing to pay a price premium of $ 0.99 above the price of NFC for fresh squeezed orange juice However, a woman wit h different characteristics than the base characteristics (a woman that is non White, is 30 years or older, has completed grade, high or PS school, is not employed full time, has a household size of more than two persons and earns more than $49,999) is lik ely to pay $0.04 more than the price premium the woman with base characteristics will pay or a premium of $1.03 for FS.

PAGE 47

47 A man with the base characteristics is willing to pay a price premium of $ 0.94, which equals to $0.05 less than the price premium a woman with the same characteristics will pay for FS above the price of NFC. Holding the other variables constant except race allows us to d etermine the effect A White male is likely to pay a price premium of $1.00 for FS w hile a Black, Hispanic or Asian male will pay $0.94 As all variables are kept fixed but educati on indicates that a consumer who completed college or university is likely to pay a price premium of $0.97 for FS while a consumer who completed only grade, hig h or PS technical school is willing to pay $0.94 Also, a full time employed consumer is willing to pay a price premium of $0.9 2 while a part time, self employed, student or homemaker consumer will pay $0.94 as all the variables are held fixed except emplo yment. To observe the effect of age on the WTP for fresh juice when the consumer is a female, all variables are kep t constant except age and gender A female 30 years old or more is willing to p ay the same price premium ($0.99 ) as a female younger than 30 years A consumer who lives with one or two persons is willing t o pay a price premium of $0.89 when all variables are held constant but household size He will pay $0.05 less than the price premium a consumer with more than two persons in the house will pay Everything is kept constant except income to see the impact of income on consumer with an income greater than $49,999 is willing to pay

PAGE 48

48 $0.93 as price premium while a consumer with an income lower than $49,999 will pay $0.94 Table 5 1 Results of the logit model with and ** indicating that the variable is significant at 95% and 90% confidence level respectively based on the P value Variable Coefficient Standard Error |b/St.Er.| P[|Z|>z]| Price* 1.191 0.169 7.031 0.000 FS* 1.119 0.534 2.097 0.036 FC* 1.303 0.442 2.949 0.003 Genprice 0.049 0.040 1.211 0.226 Genfs 0.012 0.155 0.081 0.936 Genfc 0.073 0.128 0.572 0.568 Ageprice 0.002 0.001 1.163 0.245 Agefs 0.006 0.005 1.055 0.292 Agefc 0.005 0.004 1.155 0.248 Educprice 0.005 0.013 0.394 0.693 Educfs 0.046 0.049 0.939 0.348 Educfc* 0.115 0.041 2.794 0.005 Emprice* 0.023 0.008 2.728 0.006 Emfs 0.007 0.032 0.226 0.821 Emfc* 0.093 0.026 3.607 0.000 Hsprice 0.001 0.011 0.107 0.914 Hsfs 0.062 0.045 1.364 0.173 Hsfc** 0.063 0.037 1.694 0.090 Incprice 0.020 0.014 1.439 0.150 Incfs 0.006 0.053 0.113 0.910 Incfc 0.031 0.042 0.752 0.452 Raceprice** 0.033 0.019 1.766 0.078 Racefs 0.036 0.070 0.522 0.602 Racefc 0.059 0.057 1.040 0.299 FSovfprice* 0.015 0.007 2.200 0.028 NFCovfprice* 0.014 0.007 1.895 0.058 FCovfprice 0.004 0.007 0.636 0.525 See_Mprice 0.001 0.041 0.016 0.988 See_Mfs 0.042 0.157 0.270 0.787 See_Mfc 0.027 0.130 0.211 0.833 Intercept* 3.193 0.169 18.921 0.000

PAGE 49

49 Table 5 2 Price premium for fresh squeezed juice bas ed on different demographic characteristics. Demographic characteristics Price premium Price premium Difference of price premiums A woman with the base characteristics ( BC ) $0.99 A woman with different characteristics $1.03 $0.04 A male with the BC $0.94 A woman with the BC $0.99 $0.05 A White male $1.00 A non White male $0.94 $0.06 A more educated person $0.97 A less educated person $0.94 $0.03 A person employed full time $0.92 A person not employed full time $0.94 $0.02 A female, less than 30 years old $0.99 A female, 30 years or older $0.99 $0 A person with a household size of 2 persons or less $0.89 A person with a household size of more than 2 persons $0.94 $0.05 A person with an income of $49,999 or lower $0.93 A person with an income greater than $49,999 $0.94 $0.01

PAGE 50

50 C HAPTER 6 CONLUSION Summary A sensory test and a conjoint analysis survey w ere conducted to assess the and willingness to pay for the three types of orange juice (fresh squeezed, not from concentrate and from concentrate). O n the overall taste preference fresh squeezed juice was preferred best. Fi f ty two percent of the participants that saw the juicing process preferred fresh squeezed juice and 46% o f those that did not observe the juicing process still preferred the fresh juice. N ot from concentrate juice was the next preferred juice and from concentr ate was liked least by both groups of participants. Furthermore a conjoint analysis was used to determine the facto rs that influence decision to purchase the orange juice product. The results indicate c onsumer s are more likely to purchase fresh squeezed juice than not from concentrate juice and they are less likely to purchase from concentrate juice than not from concentrate juice. The overall flavor rating for FS has a positive impact on the rice and the overall flavor rating for NFC negative ly influence the decision to purchase. Some demographic interaction variables also impact the decision to purchase. T he interactions between employment and FC race and price positively influence the willingness to pay, while the interactions between education and FC, employment and price, and household size and FC have negative effect s W atching the oranges be squeezed by a machine has no imp act on the decision to purchase.

PAGE 51

51 F urthermore price premiums were calculated. Whatever their demographi c characteristics, consumers ar e willing to pay more for fresh squee z ed juice above the WTP for not from concentrate juice. However, some consumers are willing to pay more price premium t han others The highest pric e premium they will pay is $1.03 and t he lowest price premium is $0.89 Women are willing to pay a higher price premium than men for fresh squeezed juice consumers with higher education, white consumers, consumers with househol d sizes greater than two, and consumers with higher incomes were also willing to pay higher prices Age has no effect on the WTP for fresh squeezed juice Consumers employed full time are less likely to pay a high price premium than persons not employed full time. Hypotheses Summary The following are the hypotheses tested in this research. The first hypothesis stated that p articipants t hat saw the juicing process would like fresh squeezed juice (FS) more than participants who did not see the juicing proc ess We reject this hypothesis because results from the logit model showed that watching the oranges be squeezed by a machine had no impact on the willingness to pay. We fail to reject the hypothesis that stated the price wou l d have a negative effect on th ion. We also fail to reject the hypothesis which stated that the higher the income the higher the de cision to purchase the orange juice. Finally, we fail to reject the hypothesi s that stated that the higher the education level the higher the deci sion to purchase. Marketing Message This study is l imited to Florida interpretation only In fact, the findings obtained can be useful to the Florida orange juice markets. This resear ch has shown that it is

PAGE 52

52 important to use a taste test conjoint analysis allows us to determine which attributes are more influential on the willingness to pay. Both attributes price and types of orange juice influence the decision to purchase orange ju ice. Consumers are willing to pay a price premium for fresh squeezed juice above the price of NFC ( at least $0.89 ) ; therefore it is necessary to find out the cost of production of fresh squeezed juice. In case the cost of pr oduction and distribution is lo wer than the mean price premium for FS, then fresh squeezed juice can be a competitive product in the orange juice market. In this situation, resources can be spent on market develo p ment to attract more consumers. In case the opposite happens (cost is high er than price premium) then it will not be a good idea to develop the market for fresh squeezed juice There is no need to implement the squeezing process of oranges into the market places in Florida since watching the machine sque eze oranges has no impact on the willingness to pay Further Research The consumption of orange juice has been decreasing since 1998, and research has shown that the drop in the consumption of orange is partially due to the low carbohydrate diet trends (Love, 2005). In 1972 and 1992, Dr. Robert Atkins published a book detailing the benefits and guidelines for a low carbohydrate lifestyle These diet trends reduce the consumption of fresh fruit and fruit juices by diet adherents and even normal consumers. Love (2005) also fou nd that diet media coverage has a negative and significant effect upon purchases of orange juice in both the United States and within the Southern region. F urther research can be done on how advertising and media co verage on the h ealth benefits of orange j uice can affect the demand for orange juice.

PAGE 53

53 Ad ditionally, further research can be conducted on how fresh squeezed juice can be supplied throughout the year since the pr oduction of oranges is seasonal and fresh squeezed juice is not storable for a long pe riod of time Study Limitations The main limitation of this study was the fact that fresh squeezed juice was presented in to two different forms: fresh juice (FSM) where half of the 200 panelists saw the machine squeezed the juice and fresh juice (FS) wher e the other half did not see the squeezing process However, not from concentrate and from concentrate juices were presented in the same form to the 200 panelists This brought up some confusion when reporting the taste test statistics and when running the logit model

PAGE 54

54 APPENDIX A PURCHASE AND USAGE, TASTE TEST SURVEY DRAFT June 4 INTERVIEWER: ENTER YOUR NAME AND INTERVIEWER NUMBER INTO THE COMPUTER NAME: _______________________________________ INTERVIEWER #: ____________________________(OPEN ENDED) INTERVIEWER CHECKS YOUR MARKET LOCATION: ORLANDO Altamonte Mall JACKSONVILLE Avenues Mall OR: ALTANTA Mall of Georgia INTRODUCTION INTERVIEWER READ: Thank you for agreeing to participate in our taste test and survey today. I am going to ask you to en ter your responses to the questions I have for you today on a computer. In a few minutes you are going to taste some orange juice samples and I will ask you to enter your responses to some questions about the products you will taste. Before we ike to ask you a few questions about your orange juice purchasing and consumption habits. SECTION A. PURCHASE AND USAGE In this survey, we are interested in your shopping and consumption habits for orange juice.

PAGE 55

55 A1a. Which of the following types of orange juice have you consumed the past 4 weeks ? ( Please select all that apply) A1b. And which one type of orange juice do consume most often? ( Please select one response only) [SHOW ONLY THOSE SELECTED AT A1a] Fresh s queezed orange juice (from a home juicer, restaurant or elsewhere) Fresh chilled brands, not from concentrate orange juice, typically bought in the Simply Orange) From conc entrate brands of orange juice in gallon or half gallon containers From concentrate store brands in gallon or half gallon containers Other types (including frozen concentrate, single serving or blended (e.g. Sunny Delight) A2. In an average week how many g lasses of orange juice do you drink? ( Please select one response only) 7 or more glasses per week 3 to 6 glasses per week 1 to 2 glasses per week Less than on glass per week A3. At which of the following locations have you consumed orange juice in the pas t 6 months? ( Please select all that apply) Home Restaurant Fresh juice bar

PAGE 56

56 Coffee shop Major Chain grocery store Large merchandise store (such as Wal Mart COSTCO) Convenience stores (like small corner stores, 7 Eleven and gas station convenience store s) Natural, health or organic food stores Vending machines Other locations A4. How often do you drink orange juice somewhere else other than at home? ( Please select one response) Once a day or more often Once a week or more often Once every two or three weeks Once a month/every four weeks Once every 2 to 3 months Once every 4 to 6 months Once or twice a year Less than once a year A5. Typically, of 10 glasses of orange juice that you drink, how many of these of orange juice. MUST TOTAL 10. Enter 0 IF YOU HAVE NOT CONSUMED ANY OF THIS TYPE OF JUICE.

PAGE 57

57 SECTION B TASTE TEST SECTION INTERVIEWER READ: I am now going to ask you to try three different orange juice samples. I will present the samples to you one at a time, ask you to rate the sample on several attributes and cleanse your palate before tasting the next sample. INTERVIEWER: HAVE RESPONDENT LO OK AT SAMPLE AND SMELL EACH ONE BEFORE TASTING. RESPONDENTS WILL EVALUATE EACH SAMPLE FOR APPEARANCE, AROMA AND COLOR BEFORE TASTING, THEN TASTE EACH SAMPLE AND CONTINUE EVALUATING OTHER ATTRIBUTES. PROVIDE SAMPLE NUMBER FOR RESPONDENT TO SELECT CODE. ROTA TE ORDER OF PRESENTING SAMPLES. [PROGRAMMER: SET UP A SEPARATE SCREEN AND REPEAT FOR EACH SAMPLE NUMBER. THERE WILL BE A TOTAL OF THREE SAMPLES SERVED PER Type of Juice Consumed Number of Glasses Fresh squeezed orange juice Fresh chilled brands, not from concentrate orange juice From concentrate brands of orange juice From concentrate store brands Other types of orange juice TOTAL 10

PAGE 58

58 RESPO N FOR EACH SAMPLE] SAMPLE NUMBERS: (TO B E PROVIDED BY FDOC) XXX (Fresh Squeezed, See Machine Squeezing) XXX XXX Fresh chilled XXX From concentrate BEFORE TASTING this sample please look at the juice and rate it for its overall appearance and color. B1. OVERALL APPEARANCE (Select one) B2. COLOR OF JUICE Dislike extremel y Dislike very much Dislike moderat ely Dislike slightly Neither like or dislike Like slightly Like moderate ly Like very much Like extremel y Much too pale A little too pale Just Right A little too dark Much too dark

PAGE 59

59 B3. AROMA (Select one) Dislike extrem ely Dislike very much Dislike moderately Dislike slightly Neither like or dislike Like slightly Like M oderately Like very much Like extremel y PLEASE TASTE THE JUICE THEN CONTINUE RATING B4. OVERALL FLAVOR (Select one) B5. MOUTHFEEL/TEXTURE (Select one) FDOC: ARE THERE PARTICULAR MOUTHFEEL ATTRIBUTES YOU WANT HERE SUCH AS SMOOTHNESS/VISCOSITY?? B6. SWEETNESS Dislike extremely Dislike very much Dislike moderately Dislike slightly Neither like or dislike Like slightly Like moderately Like very much Like extrem ely Dislike extremely Dislike very much Dislike moderately Dislike slightly Neither like or dislike Like slightly Like moderately Like very much Like extremely Not at all sweet enough A little not sweet enough Just Right A little too sweet Much too sweet

PAGE 60

60 B7. ACIDITY B8. AMOUNT OF PULP B9. If this juice were available today, how likely are you to buy it? FDOC: Do you Extremely likely Very likely Somewhat likely Not very likely Not at all likely DK B10. Overall, taking everything into consideration, please rank order which juice you liked best, second best and least. Not at all sweet enough A little not sweet enough Just Right A little too sweet Much too sweet Much too much pulp A little too much pulp Just Right A little not enough pulp Much too little pulp

PAGE 61

61 [PR OGRAMMER: INSERT ACTUAL NUMBER OF SAMPLES TRIED] FDOC: Do you want to rank order or simply get an overall preference and reason why?? Liked Best Liked Second Best Liked Least Sample # 1 Sample # 2 Sample # 3 OR Optional: Overall, taking everything into consideration, which of the three samples would you say you liked the best? Sample #1 Sample # 2 Sample # 3 No preference SECTION C PRICING & PURCHASE OPTIONS OPTION 1: VAN WESTENDORP Thinking about fresh squeezed orange C1. At what price would you consider a 10 ounce glass of fresh squeezed orange juice to be getting expensive, but you would still consider buying it? __________________ [INSERT TEXT BOX] C2. At what price would you consider a 10 ounce glass of fresh squeezed orange juice to be getting too expensive and you would not consider buying it? __________________ [INSERT TEXT BOX] C3. At what price would you consider a 10 ounce glass of fresh sque ezed orange juice to be getting inexpensive, and you would not consider it to be a bargain? __________________ [INSERT TEXT BOX]

PAGE 62

62 C4. At what price would you consider a 10 ounce glass of fresh squeezed orange juice to be so inexpensive that you would doubt its quality and would not consider buying it? __________________ [INSERT TEXT BOX] C5. At [INSERT EXPENSIVE PRICE FROM QC1] how likely are you to purchase a fresh squeezed 10 ounce glass of orange juice in the next six months? Extremely likely Very likel y Somewhat likely Not very likely Not at all likely DK C6. At [INSERT THE BARGAIN PRICE FROM QC3] how likely are you to purchase a fresh squeezed 10 ounce glass of orange juice in the next six months? Extremely likely Very likely Somewhat likely Not very l ikely Not at all likely DK NOTE TO FDOC: THE ADVANTAGE OF THIS APPROACH IS THAT IT DOES NOT RESTRICT THE RANGE RESPONDENTS CAN ENTER WHATEVER THEY

PAGE 63

63 WISH AND THE RESULTS INDICATE THE PRICE THAT WILL STIMULATE MAXIMUM VOLUME.

PAGE 64

64 APPENDIX B CONJOINT ANALYSIS S URVEY AND DEMOGRAPHI CS PLEASE READ CAREFULLY In the next part of the survey, imagine that you are planning to purchase a glass of orange juice at your favorite restaurant and you have to make a choice between different options available to you. On the following screens you will be presented with a number of different options to choose from. Please choose ONLY ONE option on EACH screen Assume that the options on EACH screen are the only ones available DO NOT compare options on different screens When deci ding on options, consider only the features that are important to you in your purchase decision. For example, if price is not a consideration then you might wish to ignore the price in deciding which product to choose. If you do not care about the type of juice, then ignore the juice type. On the other hand, if several features are important to you, then consider all of them when making your choice. In the purchase choices you will see on the following screens there are some terms you may encounter. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWIING GLOSSARY OF TERMS BEFORE PROCEEDING. [NOTE: INSERT PAGE BREAK]

PAGE 65

6 5 GLOSSARY OF TERMS: FDOC TO CONFIRM AND EDIT DEFINITIONS AS NECESSARY AS THEY APPLY TO ORANGE JUICE TYPES Fresh Squeezed: The juice is freshly squeezed from fresh oranges just before serving at the location where you are buying it Fresh chilled, not from concentrate: Fresh orange juice that has been previously prepared and refrigerated to keep it fresh From concentrate: The juice has been constituted from concentrate [INSE RT PAGE BREAK] CHECK ONLY ONE CHOICE ON EACH SCREEN Now suppose you are ordering a 10 ounce glass of juice at a restaurant The following choices are the ONLY ONES AVAILABLE to you. [INSERT CHOICE SCENARIOS. ROTATE ORDER]

PAGE 66

66 A. Features Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Type of ORANGE JUICE Fresh Squeezed Fresh chilled, not from concentrate From concentrate SIZE 10 oz. glass 10 oz. glass 10 oz. glass PRICE $5.49 $3.49 $1.99 PURCHASE Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 No purchase [PROGRAMMER: ALL SCENARIOS APPEAR AS ABOVE FORMAT BUT PRICES CHANGE FOR OTHER OPTIONS B THROUGH J AS FOLLOWS] Fresh Squeezed Fresh chilled, Not From Concentrate From Concentrate B $5.49 $2.49 $1.99 C $4.49 $4.49 $3.49 D $4.49 $3.49 $2.49 E $4.49 $2.49 $1.99 F $3.49 $4.49 $1.99 G $3.49 $3.49 $3.49 H $3.49 $2.49 $2.49 I $2.49 $4.49 $2.49 J $2.49 $3.49 $1.99 NOTE TO FDOC: THIS APPROACH OBVIOULSY SETS PRICES WITHIN A RANGE OF $1.99 to $5.49. THE RESULTS WILL MODEL WITHIN THIS PRICE RANGE I DO NOT RECOMMEND ASKING TWO DIFFERENT PRICING QUESTIONS IN THE SAME SURVEY.

PAGE 67

67 SECTION D: DEMOGRAPHICS We just have a few questions so that we can classify your responses with those of others. D1. What is your marital status? (Select one) Single (never married) Married Domestic partnership Widowed Divorced Separated No response D2. What is your year of birth? [INSERT DROP DOWN] Range = 1900 1989, No response D3. What is the highest level of education you have achieved? (Selec t one only) Grade school or some high school Completed high school Post secondary technical school Some university or college Completed college diploma Completed university undergraduate degree Completed post graduate degree (Masters or Ph.D.) No response

PAGE 68

68 D4. Which of the following best describes your current employment status? (Select one only) Employed, full time Employed, part time Self employed Homemaker Student Retired Currently unemployed Other No response D5. Including yourself, how many people live in your household? [INSERT DROP DOWN] (Select one only) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

PAGE 69

69 11 or more No response IF 2 OR MORE CONTINUE, OTHERS SKIP TO D7 D6. Do you have any children living in your household that fall into these age categories? (Select all that apply) Under age 2 2 to 5 years 6 to 12 years 13 to 18 years No children in household No response D7. Which of the following broad categories best represents your total household income before taxes? (Select one) Under $30,000 $30,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,000 $100,000 or more No response D8. Which of the following describes your ra cial background? (Select one) White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian

PAGE 70

70 Hispanic/Latino Other D9. Gender (Select one) Male Female D10. May I please have your name and 10 digit phone number? This information will be used for verification purposes only. A supervisor may call you back in a few days to confirm that you participated in this study. [RECORD RESPONDENT FIRST AND LAST NAME AND PHONE NUMBER] FIRST NAME ________________________________ LAST NAME __________________________________ PHONE NUMBER RECORD AS (###)### #### _______________________ [PROGRAMMER, THIS INFO IS NOT REQUIRED TO CONTINUE] D11. And finally, what is your zip code? RECORD RESPONDENT ZIP CODE ________________________ [PROGRAMMER, THIS INFO IS NOT REQUIRED TO COUNT AS A COMPLETE]

PAGE 71

71 LIST OF REFERENCES Blisard Noel, J N. Variyam, and J Cromartie (2003) Food Expenditures by U.S Households: Looking Ahead to 2020. Washington DC: U.S Depa rtment of Agriculture, for Agricultural Economics Report, February 2003 Cramer, J.S. (2003) Logit Models: from Economics and Other Fields Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ERS, US Department of Agriculture. (2010). Retrieved from USDA: www.ers.usda.gov/data/foodconsumption/spreadsheets/fruitju.xl on May 23,2010. Florida Citrus. (1974) Showcase 50th Anniversary Program Book. February 1974. (1977) lossary of Common Citrus Terms Production of Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice Lakeland, Florida: Florida Department of Citrus Gustafsson, A., A. Herrmann. and F. Huber. (2001) Conjoint Measurement: Methods And Applications 2 nd .ed. Heidelberg: Springe r. Lawless, H. T., and H. Heymann (1997) Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. New York: International Thompson Publishing (ITP). Lee Jonq Ying Mark G. Brown and J. L. Seale, Jr. (1992) Demand Relationships Among Fresh Fruit and Juices in Canada Review of Agricultural Economics 14, 2 (July 1992): 255 262 The Diet Culture P henomenon and its E ffect on the United States Unpublished MS Thesis, University of Florida, Department of Food and Resource Economics Love, L.A. J. Sterns, T. Spreen, and A. Wysocki ( 2006 ) Changing Patterns of Orange Juice Consumption in the Southern United States Paper presented at the Southern Agri cultural Economics Association A nnual M eeting, Orlando, Fl, February 5 8 2006

PAGE 72

72 Pollack, Susan, Agnes Perez and Kristy Plattner. (2010). U.S. Citrus and Strawberry Pro duction Forecast Down This Season, Avocados Up U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook Report from Economic Research Service. March 26, 2010. Thomas, S Danielle. ( 2009 ) W hat I nfluences the M S Thesis, University of Florida, Department of Food and Resource Economics.

PAGE 73

73 BIO GRAPHICAL SKETCH Lucie Kadjo was born in Ghana and raised in Ivory Coast. She attended the University Hassan I of Settat in Morocco in 2002 where she received her Bachelor of Science degree in e conomics in 2006, with a minor in e nterprise m anagement Lucie started in August 2008 her Maste r of Science program in f ood and r esource e conomics at the University of Florida and specialized in trade and policy