Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-b5cpw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-08T18:24:14.097Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer's Specie Knowledge and the Values of Natural Christmas Tree Characteristics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

George C. Davis
George C. Davis*
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Consumers' willingness to pay for natural Christmas tree characteristics are estimated. Differences in willingness to pay for characteristics by specie knowledge and lack of specie knowledge are tested. Differences in willingness to pay for characteristics by specie are also tested. The results suggests that willingness to pay measures differ by these separations of the sample and, ceteris paribus, sellers of natural Christmas trees could benefit by altering characteristics in accordance with the results of these sample separation tests.

Keywords

Christmas treeshedonicsample separation

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , July 1993 , pp. 266 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1993

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

American Christmas Tree Journal. Various Issues.Google Scholar
Belsley, David A., Kuh, Edwin and Welsch, Roy E.. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, R.V. “Cross-Sectional Variation in the Hedonic Relationship for Urban Housing Markets.” J. of Regional Science 20(1982): 439–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia, 15th ed., s.v. “colour.”Google Scholar
Cropper, Maureen L., Deck, Leland B. and McConnell, Kenneth E.. “On the Choice of Functional Form for Hedonic Price Functions.” Rev. Econ. and Stat. (1988): 668–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmonds, R.G. Jr. “Some Evidence on Intertemporal Stability of Hedonic Price Functions.” Land Econ. 61(1985): 445–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamlett, C.A., Herrmann, R.O., Warland, R.H. and Zhao, F.. “Christmas Tree Consumption Behavior: Natural vs Artificial.” N. E. J. Agr. and Res. Econ. 18(1989): 135–39.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica 47(1979): 153–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hildebrandt, Reinee. “Marketing Christmas Trees: Implications of a Kansas Study.” J. of Forestry July (1991): 33–37.Google Scholar
Ishler, A.S. and Herrmann, R.O.. “Marketing Pennsylvania Grown Christmas Trees.” Christmas Trees 16(1988): 22–30.Google Scholar
Kmenta, Jan.Elements of Econometrics. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1986.Google Scholar
Lancaster, Kelvin J. “A New Approach to Consumer Theory.” J. Polit. Econ. 74(1966): 132–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Sherwin. “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product differentiation in Pure Competition.” J. Polit. Econ. 82(1976): 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theil, Henri. Linear Aggregation of Economic Relations. Amsterdam. North Holland. 1954.Google Scholar