An Economic Evaluation on Organic Cherry Production: A Case of Turkey

Olgun, A.; Adanacıoğlu, Hakan; Saner, Gamze

doi:10.1300/j064v28n02_09

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The implication of consumers' WTP for fruit certifications is market support for fruit farmers in producing fresh fruits following strict regulations in the usage of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer. Olgun et al (2006) mention that organic cherry production was more profitable when it was compared with conventional cherry production in the market. Consumers tended to pay higher prices for fruit certifications when the retail prices of the fruits were relatively high.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability of Fresh Fruit Certifications: Willingness to Pay Measures

Hsu

Chen

et al. 2009

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analyzes sustainability of fresh fruit certifications using consumers' willingness-to-pay measures of 12 different kinds of fruits. Consumers tended to pay higher prices for fruit certifications when retail prices of fruits were relatively high. If certified fruits were purchased for gifts, purchasing quantities tended to be larger for fruits of high retail prices like wax apples, Indian jujubes, and grapes. If certified fruits were purchased for household consumption, low-priced fruits like guava, honeydew, cantaloupe, pineapples, grapefruits, and papaya tended to be purchased in large quantities. Fresh fruit certifications can be sustainable if marketing strategies are well targeted to customers

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability of Fresh Fruit Certifications: Willingness to Pay Measures

Hsu

Chen

et al. 2009

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The marketing benefits listed included: access to niche markets; access to overseas markets; growing demand for organic products; and increased credibility. These sentiments were also expressed by authors such as Lotter (2003), Mendoza (2004) and Pearson (2007) -namely, that organic agriculture had lower input cost; Nierenberg (2005), who attributed the financial benefits to the elimination of the cost of pesticides and synthetic fertilisers; and Pimental et al (2005), Olgun et al (2006), Pearson (2007) and Källander & Rundgren (2008), who attributed the financial benefits of organic production to higher income due to the favourable price premiums of organic products.…”

Section: The Perceived Benefits Of Using Organic Methodsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Although Nierenberg (2005) argued that organic agriculture is associated with lower yields, various other studies have shown that it is equally profitable as conventional agriculture, if not more so (Cobb et al, 1999;Sean, Klonsky, Livingston & Temple, 1999;Padel, 2001;Pimentel, Hepperly, Hanson, Douds & Seidel, 2005;Williamson, et al, 2005;Olgun, Adanacioglu & Saner, 2006;Philpott, Bichier, Rice & Greenberg, 2007). Furthermore, Mendoza (2004) noted that the financial benefits of organic agriculture are the following: cash expenses are lower, net revenue is higher (despite slightly lower yields) and the breakeven point is lower.…”

Section: Financial Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These are attributed to a reduction in input costs such as those associated with pesticides, synthetic fertilisers and fossil fuel energy per unit-of-yield as well as favourable price premiums (Lotter, 2003;Nierenberg, 2005;Pearson, 2007). Organic farmers, in general, get a premium price for organic products mainly due to lower yields compared with conventional agriculture (Pimentel et al, 2005;Olgun et al, 2006;Pearson, 2007;Källander & Rundgren, 2008). Because organic products contribute to human health and the environment, and are of high quality, consumers are also prepared to pay a higher price for these products because they believe that it is value for money (Pearson & Henryks, 2008).…”

Section: Financial Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Organic agriculture: the trade-off between financial and non-financial benefits

Jordaan-Marais

Eiselen

2015

J. econ. financ. sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The threats of climate change have compelled humans to consider the environmental impact of their decisions, including those relating to agricultural practices. Organic agriculture is believed to be a mitigating factor when it comes to climate change. This article explores the perceptions of organic farmers regarding the benefits of organic agriculture, from a financial and nonfinancial perspective. It also highlights the trade-off between the perceived non-financial and financial benefits of organic agriculture. A convenience sample of 26 farmers was obtained. The utility of a convenience sample was necessary due to the unavailability of a complete database of organic farms in South Africa. Results indicated that the perceived non-financial benefits of organic agriculture were considered to be the most important consideration for the decision to farm organically. The results confirmed and augmented those found by other authors, namely that the environmental benefits of organic agriculture were considered to be very important to organic farmers.

show abstract

“…Although Nierenberg (2005) argued that organic agriculture is associated with lower yields, various other studies have shown that it is as profitable as conventional agriculture, if not more so (Cobb et al, 1999;Sean, Klonsky, Livingston and Temple, 1999;Padel, 2001;Pimentel, Hepperly, Hanson, Douds & Seidel, 2005;Williamson et al, 2005;Olgun, Adanacioglu & Saner, 2006;Philpott, Bichier, Rice & Greenberg, 2007). Furthermore, Mendoza (2004) noted that the financial benefits of organic agriculture are the following: cash expenses are lower, net revenue is higher (despite slightly lower yields) and the breakeven point is lower.…”

Section: Financial Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organic agriculture: The trade-off between financial and non-financial benefits

Marais

Eiselen

2017

J. econ. financ. sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The threats of climate change have compelled humans to consider the environmental impact of their decisions, including those relating to agricultural practices. Organic agriculture is believed to be a mitigating factor when it comes to climate change. This paper explores the perceptions of organic farmers regarding the benefits of organic agriculture, from a financial and non-financial perspective. It also highlights the trade-off between the perceived non-financial and financial benefits of organic agriculture. A convenience sample of 26 farmers was obtained. The utility of a convenience sample was necessary due to the unavailability of a complete database of organic farms in South Africa. Results indicated that the perceived non-financial benefits of organic agriculture were considered to be the most important consideration for the decision to farm organically. The results confirmed and augmented those found by other authors, namely that the environmental benefits of organic agriculture were considered to be very important to organic farmers.

show abstract

An Economic Evaluation on Organic Cherry Production: A Case of Turkey

Cited by 7 publications

References 2 publications

Sustainability of Fresh Fruit Certifications: Willingness to Pay Measures

Sustainability of Fresh Fruit Certifications: Willingness to Pay Measures

Organic agriculture: the trade-off between financial and non-financial benefits

Organic agriculture: The trade-off between financial and non-financial benefits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About