Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Where I Shop Influences What I Buy: The Importance of the Retail Format in Sustainable Tomato Consumption

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Demand, Complexity, and Long-Run Economic Evolution

Part of the book series: Economic Complexity and Evolution ((ECAE))

Abstract

Although interest in sustainable food has increased substantially in recent years, the actual demand for such products has often risen quite unevenly across people. Making sense of the variable pace of behavioral change thus requires us to explore the foundations of sustainable consumption more closely, especially the importance assigned to specific attributes and the types of tradeoffs that prevail. Accordingly, this study utilizes a type of discrete choice experiment (DCE) to explore the influence of retail formats on decision-making processes. Stated-preference methods such as DCEs have proven useful to explain how and why individual willingness to pay (WTP) for qualities such as organic, fair trade, and locality can differ. By mostly focusing on product qualities, however, the importance of the retail format where products are purchased, and their impact on the valuation of attributes, is left unexplored. Framing this DCE in relation to tomato consumption, we find that type of retail format is a significant determinant of purchasing behavior, both on its own and via its interaction with the other qualities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    One limitation of this approach is that it is unable to account for interaction effects between attributes. We turn our attention to this in the following section.

  2. 2.

    The choice-driven nature of DCEs is one of their primary advantages, i.e. due to greater correspondence with real-world decision-making. In this vein, a contrast with experimental auctions is useful, especially given the potential for preference reversals when engaging in bidding rather than choice (Lichtenstein and Slovic 1971; Slovic and Lichtenstein 1983). As bidding is motivated by winning, it is not analogous to choice and can therefore lead to distinct outcomes.

  3. 3.

    Interestingly, some studies fail to recognize their method as a DCE. On this point, Louviere et al. (2010) argue that DCEs, in contrast to other multi-attribute valuation methods, are marked by their specific behavioral theoretical foundation (i.e. random utility theory) and superior flexibility and (external) validity for the modeling of decision-making processes.

  4. 4.

    Two distinct rows for the price attribute are needed to ensure that no two products in a choice task are completely identical. This modification is required by the introduction of an individual-specified status quo.

  5. 5.

    Usage of labels is eschewed in favor of the phrases ‘organic’ and ‘fair’ in the experiment. Labels are avoided in view of a tendency for value to be placed on the logo, irrespective of its link to quality (Lotz et al. 2013). For instance, Janssen and Hamm (2012) observe that a ‘fake’ logo in Switzerland was assigned higher WTP than generic organic labeling. Our interest in underlying processes of decision-making therefore justifies this approach.

  6. 6.

    The corresponding German translation of ‘independent organic retailer’ is the more familiar ‘Biomarkt’. Hereafter, the shorter form of ‘organic retailer’ is thus used with no intended change in meaning.

  7. 7.

    Full results for the individual-specified status quo are available upon request.

  8. 8.

    This approach is operationalized in Stata via the mixlogit command.

  9. 9.

    Although generally advisable (Hoyos 2010), a constant term is not included as this term became insignificant once the random effects were included. Further, the use of effects coding for the categorical independent variables limits the potential for correlation with the intercept, even if interactions are included (ibid.).

  10. 10.

    We are thankful to an anonymous reviewer for raising this possibility.

References

  • Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Learne EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58:4601–4614

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayres N, Midmore P (2009) Consumption of organic foods from a life history perspective: an exploratory study of British consumers. School of Management and Business, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Wales. http://orgprints.org/15609/1/Exploring_the_development_of_organic_consumption_in_the_UK.pdf. Accessed 24 July 2013

  • Bamberg S, Möser G (2007) Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. J Environ Psychol 27:14–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum CM, Gross C (2017) Sustainability policy as if people mattered: developing a framework for environmentally significant behavioral change. J Bioecon 19:53–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D (2005) Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 14:1079–1083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi M (2002) Novelty, preferences and fashion: when new goods are unsettling. J Econ Behav Organ 47:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond CA, Thilmany D, Keeling-Bond J (2008a) Understanding consumer interest in product and process-based attributes for fresh produce. Agribusiness 24:231–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond CA, Thilmany D, Keeling-Bond J (2008b) What to choose? The value of label claims to fresh produce consumers. J Agric Resour Econ 33:402–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Bougherara D, Grolleau G, Mzoughi N (2009) Buy local, pollute less: what drives households to join a community supported farm? Ecol Econ 68:1488–1495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourn D, Prescott J (2002) A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 42:1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL, Swait J, Williams M, Louviere JJ (1996) A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 18:243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown A (2002) Farmers’ market research 1940–2000: an inventory and review. Am J Altern Agric 17:167–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown C, Miller S (2008) The impacts of local markets: a review of research on farmers markets and community supported agriculture (CSA). Am J Agric Econ 90:1296–1302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson RT (2000) Contingent valuation: a user’s guide. Environ Sci Technol 34:1413–1418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson RT, Louviere JJ, DA A et al (1994) Experimental analysis of choice. Mark Lett 5:351–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chai A (2012) Consumer specialization and the demand for novelty: a reconsideration of the links and implications for studying fashion cycles in tourism. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 232:678–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie M, Gibbons J (2011) The effect of individual ‘ability to choose’ (scale heterogeneity) on the valuation of environmental goods. Ecol Econ 70:2250–2257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coley D, Howard M, Winter M (2009) Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: a comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches. Food Policy 34:150–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa AI, Jongen WMF (2006) New insights into consumer-led food product development. Trends Food Sci Technol 17:457–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings RG, Taylor LO (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89:649–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuthbertson B, Marks N (2008) Beyond credence? Emerging consumer trends in international markets. Presented at the 52nd Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Canberra, Australia, 5–8 February 2008. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/5980/2/cp08cu01.pdf. Accessed 23 July 2013

  • Darby MR, Karni E (1973) Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. J Law Econ 16:67–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darby K, Batte MT, Ernst S, Roe B (2008) Decomposing local: a conjoint analysis of locally produced foods. Am J Agric Econ 90:476–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci EL, Ryan RM (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq (4):227–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentoni D, Tonsor GT, Calantone RJ, Peterson HC (2009) The direct and indirect effects of ‘locally grown’ on consumers’ attitudes towards agri-food products. Agric Resour Econ Rev 38:384–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earl PE, Potts J (2000) Latent demand and the browsing shopper. Manag Decis Econ 21:111–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earle MD (1997) Innovation in the food industry. Trends Food Sci Technol 8:166–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fair Trade (2014) Strong producers, strong future: annual report 2013–14. Fairtrade International, Bonn. https://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/resources/2013-14_AnnualReport_FairtradeIntl_web.pdf. Accessed 16 Sep 2014

  • Garcia-Yi J (2015) Willingness to pay for organic and fairtrade certified yellow chili peppers. Br Food J 117:929–942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Getz C, Shreck A (2006) What organic and Fair Trade labels do not tell us: towards a place-based understanding of certification. Int J Consum Stud 30:490–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gifford R (2011) The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol 66:290–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govindasamy R, Italia J (1999) Predicting willingness-to-pay a premium for organically grown fresh produce. J Food Distrib Res 30:44–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Grebitus C, Lusk JL, Nayga RM Jr (2013) Effect of distance of transportation on willingness to pay for food. Ecol Econ 88:67–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene WH, Hensher DA (2003) A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transp Res B Methodol 37:681–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths P (2012) Ethical objections to Fairtrade. J Bus Ethics 105:357–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GS1 (2006) Exposium-GS1: Europeans and Traceability. GS1, Brussels. http://www.gs1.org/docs/traceability/GS1_traceability_survey_2006_results.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2014

  • Harvey M, Quilley S, Beynon H (2002) Exploring the tomato: transformations in nature, economy and society. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Henseleit M, Kubitzki S, Teuber R (2007) Determinants of consumer preferences for regional food. Paper prepared for presentation at the 105th EAAE Seminar ‘International Marketing and International Trade of Quality Food Products’, Bologna, Italy, 8–10 March 2007. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/7871/1/cp070004.pdf. Accessed 17 Sep 2014

  • Herrmann R, Möser A, Weber SA (2009) Grocery retailing in Germany: situation, development and pricing strategies. Diskussionsbeiträge // Zentrum für internationale Entwicklungs- und Umweltforschung, No. 41. http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/39806/1/593466845.pdf. Accessed 9 Nov 2014

  • Hinrichs CC (2000) Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural market. J Rural Stud 16:295–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hole AR (2007) Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood. Stata J 7:388–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyos D (2010) The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol Econ 69:1595–1603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh M-F, Stiegert KW (2012) Store format choice in organic food consumption. Am J Agric Econ 94:307–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu W, Woods T, Bastin S (2009) Consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for blueberry products with nonconventional attributes. J Agric Appl Econ 41:47–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughner RS, McDonagh P, Prothero A, Schultz CJ II, Stanton J (2007) Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. J Consum Behav 6:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahn G, Schramm M, Spiller A (2005) The reliability of certification: quality labels as a consumer policy tool. J Consum Policy 28:53–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen M, Hamm U (2012) Product labelling in the market for organic food: consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Qual Prefer 25:9–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Knetsch JL (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manag 22:57–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasser T (2017) Living both well and sustainably: a review of the literature, with some reflections on future research, interventions and policy. Phil Trans Royal Soc A 375(2095):20160369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoblauch WA, Brown R, Braster M (1990) Organic field crop production: a review of the economic literature. Research Bulletin 90-10. Agriculture Experimental Research, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. http://dyson.cornell.edu/research/researchpdf/rb/1990/Cornell-Dyson-rb9010.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2015

  • Kontoleon A, Yabe M (2003) Assessing the impacts of alternative ‘opt-out’ formats in choice experiment studies: consumer preferences for genetically modified content and production information in food. J Agric Policy Resour 5:1–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagarde M (2012) Investigating attribute non-attendance and its consequences in choice experiments with latent class models. Health Econ 22:554–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster K (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Political Econ 74:132–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (1971) Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. J Exp Psychol 89:46–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotz S, Christandl F, Fetchenhauer D (2013) What is fair is good: evidence of consumers’ taste for fairness. Food Qual Prefer 30:139–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loureiro ML, Lotade J (2005) Do Fair Trade and eco–labels in coffee wake up the consumer conscience? Ecol Econ 53:129–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Carson RT (2010) Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. J Choice Model 3:57–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk JL (2003) Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness to pay for golden rice. Am J Agric Econ 85:840–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk JL, Roosen J, Fox J (2003) Demand for beef from cattle administered growth hormones or fed genetically modified corn: a comparison of consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Am J Agric Econ 85:16–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayo E, Fielder A (2006) I will if you will. Consum Policy Rev 16:148–155

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York, pp 105–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Meas T, Hu W, Batte MT, Woods TA, Ernst S (2015) Substitutes or complements? Consumer preference for local and organic food attributes. Am J Agric Econ 97:1044–1071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menrad K (2004) Innovations in the food industry in Germany. Res Policy 33:845–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer R, Sauter A (2004) Regionalität von Nahrungsmitteln in Zeiten der Globalisierung. Deutscher Fachverlag, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Minhoff C, Lehmann S (2015) BVE Jahresbericht 2015. Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Ernährungsindustrie (BVE), Berlin. http://www.bve-online.de/presse/infothek/publikationen-jahresbericht/bve-statistikbroschuere2015-1. Accessed 3 June 2015

  • Moser R, Raffaelli R, Thilmany McFadden D (2011) Consumer preferences for fruit and vegetables with credence-based attributes: a review. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev 14:121–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Nurse Rainbolt G, Onozaka Y, Thilmany McFadden D (2012) Consumer motivations and buying behavior: the case of the local food system movement. J Food Prod Mark 18:385–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olynk NJ, Tonsor GT, Wolf CA (2010) Consumer willingness to pay for livestock credence attribute claim verification. J Agric Resour Econ 35:261–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Onozaka Y, Thilmany McFadden D (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 93:693–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onozaka Y, Nurse G, Thilmany McFadden D (2011) Defining sustainable food market segments: do motivations and values vary by shopping locale? Am J Agric Econ 93:583–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organic Trade Association (OTA) (2013) 2013 U.S. families’ organic attitudes and beliefs study. OTA. http://www.organicnewsroom.com/2013/04/eight_in_ten_us_parents_report.html. Accessed 25 June 2015

  • Organic Trade Association (OTA) (2015) 2015 Organic industry survey. OTA. https://www.ota.com/news/press-releases/18061. Accessed 25 June 2015

  • Padel S, Foster C (2005) Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour: understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food. Brit Food J 107:606–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson D, Henryks J, Jones H (2011) Organic food: what we know (and do not know) about consumers. Renew Agric Food Syst 26:171–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pieper JR, Barrett DM (2008) Effects of organic and conventional production systems on quality and nutritional parameters of processing tomatoes. J Sci Food Agric 89:177–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rödiger M, Hamm U (2015) How are organic food prices affecting consumer behavior? A review. Food Qual Prefer 43:10–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau S (2015) The role of organic and fair trade labels when choosing chocolate. Food Qual Prefer 44:92–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau S, Vranken L (2013) Green market expansion by reducing information asymmetries: evidence for labeled organic food products. Food Policy 40:31–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell W, Zepeda L (2008) The adaptive consumer: shifting attitudes, behavior change and CSA membership renewal. Renew Agric Food Syst 23:136–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan R, Deci E (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 55:68–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahota A (2014) The global market for organic food and drink. In: Willer H, Lernoud J (eds) The world of organic agriculture: statistics and emerging trends. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Frick, Switzerland and Bonn, Germany, pp 127–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage SJ, Waldman DM (2008) Learning and fatigue during choice experiments: a comparison of online and mail survey modes. J Appl Econ 23:351–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaack D, Lernoud J, Schlatter B, Willer H (2014) The organic market in Europe 2012. In: Willer H, Lernoud J (eds) The world of organic agriculture: statistics and emerging trends. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Frick, Switzerland and Bonn, Germany, pp 207–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Schifferstein H, Oude Ophuis P (1998) Health-related determinants of organic food consumption in the Netherlands. Food Qual Prefer 9:119–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schläpfer F (2008) Contingent valuation: a new perspective. Ecol Econ 64:729–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schläpfer F, Fischhoff B (2012) Task familiarity and contextual cues predict hypothetical bias in a meta-analysis of stated preference studies. Ecol Econ 81:44–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Lichtenstein S (1983) Preference reversals: a broader perspective. Am Econ Rev 73:596–605

    Google Scholar 

  • Thilmany D, Bond CA, Keeling-Bond J (2008) Going local: exploring consumer behavior and motivations for direct food purchases. Am J Agric Econ 90:1303–1309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen J (2005) How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustainable lifestyles? J Consum Policy 28:143–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson GD, Kidwell J (1998) Explaining the choice of organic produce: cosmetic defects, prices, and consumer preferences. Am J Agric Econ 80:277–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone LL (1927) A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 34:273–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Train KE (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK, Paavola J, Cooper P, Farber S, Jessamy V, Georgiou S (2002) Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol Econ 46:493–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umberger WJ, Thilmany McFadden D, Smith AR (2009) Does altruism play a role in determining U.S. consumer preferences and willingness to pay for natural and regionally produced beef? Agribusiness 25:268–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA (2014) Table 43 – selected practices: 2012. In: 2012 Census of agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC, p 558

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Loo EJ, Caputo V, Nayga RM Jr, Meullenet J-F, Ricke SC (2011) Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic chicken breast: evidence from choice experiment. Food Qual Prefer 22:603–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rompay TJL, Deterink F, Fenko A (2016) Healthy package, healthy product? Effects of packaging design as a function of purchase setting. Food Qual Prefer 53:84–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeir I, Verbeke W (2008) Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecol Econ 64:542–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volz P, Weckenbrock P, Cressot N, Parot J (2016) Overview of community supported agriculture in Europe. European CSA Research Group and Urgenci. Aubagne, France. http://urgenci.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Overview-of-Community-Supported-Agriculture-in-Europe-F.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2017

  • Witt U (2001) Learning to consume – A theory of wants and the growth of demand. J Evol Econ 11:23–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wortmann M (2004) Aldi and the German model: structural change in German grocery retailing and the success of grocery discounters. Compet Change 8:425–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yue C, Tong C (2009) Organic or local? Investigating consumer preference for fresh produce using a choice experiment with real economic incentives. Hort Sci 44:366–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanoli R, Naspetti S (2004) Do consumers care about where they buy organic products? A means-end study with evidence from Italian data. In: Baourakis G (ed) Marketing trends for organic food in the 21st century. World Scientific, London, pp 239–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Zepeda L, Li J (2007) Characteristics of organic food shoppers. J Agric Appl Econ 39:17–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Chad M. Baum and Robert Weigelt are grateful for the support of Federal Programme “ProExzellenz” of the Free State of Thuringia. We would like to thank Anna-Lena Brede for outstanding research assistance and Dr. Thomas Baumann for graciously lending both his technical expertise and valuable time throughout the process, and to an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments. In addition, our special thanks go to Sophia Buchner for copy-editing the document and helping prepare the tables. Finally, we wish to give thanks for the many thought-provoking comments from participants at the 2014 International Conference on Applied Psychology in Paris, as well as Andreas Chai and Ulrich Witt for their insightful input. Any errors are ours alone. We are unaware of any conflicts of interest that have influenced the study in any way.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Food and Resource Economics, Rheinish-Friedrich-Wilhelms University Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Chad M. Baum

  2. Thüringer ClusterManagement, Landesentwicklungsgesellschaft Thüringen mbH, Erfurt, Germany

    Robert Weigelt

Authors
  1. Chad M. Baum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Weigelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chad M. Baum .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia

    Andreas Chai

  2. Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Chad M. Baum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Baum, C.M., Weigelt, R. (2019). How Where I Shop Influences What I Buy: The Importance of the Retail Format in Sustainable Tomato Consumption. In: Chai, A., Baum, C. (eds) Demand, Complexity, and Long-Run Economic Evolution. Economic Complexity and Evolution. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02423-9_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation