Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:21:41.345Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Conjoint Analysis of Paper Demand by Commercial Graphic Designers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

J. McDermott ,
J.R. Bacon ,
J. Pesek ,
C.M. Gempesaw II  and
H.D. Tilmon
J. McDermott
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Delaware
J.R. Bacon
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Delaware
J. Pesek
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Delaware
C.M. Gempesaw II
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Delaware
H.D. Tilmon
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Delaware
Get access

Abstract

Conjoint analysis was used to evaluate the preferences of graphic designers toward kenaf paper. Results indicate that price is of overwhelming importance to designers in their purchasing decisions regarding paper stock. If priced competitively with existing wood and recycled papers, kenaf products should gain market share among designers.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , October 1999 , pp. 182 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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.)

References

Alwin, D.F. 1997. “Feeling Thermometers Versus 7-Point Scales.” Sociological Methods and Research 25, 3: 318–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J.L., and Bettencourt, S.U. 1993. “A Conjoint Approach to Model Product Preferences: The New England Market for Fresh and Frozen Salmon.” Marine Resource Economics 8: 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, E. 1993. “Making Paper Without Trees.” World Watch 6, 5: 5–8.Google Scholar
Bacon, J.R., Gempesaw, C.M. II, Michel, K., Jenkins, M.R., and Hankins, J.A. 1998. “Producer Acceptance of Alternative Extension Services in the Appalachian Region.” Journal of Applied Aquaculture 8, 1: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling Techniques 3rd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Cochran, W.G., and Cox, G.M. 1957. Experimental Designs, 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Fuwape, J.A. 1993. “Paper from Kenaf Fiber.” Bioresource Technology 43: 113–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gempesaw, C.M. II, Bacon, J.R., Jenkins, M.R., and Hankins, J.A. 1995. Freshwater Aquaculture in Appalachia: Infrastructure Development for an Emerging Industry. The Conservation Fund's Freshwater Institute, Sheperdstown, WV.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. 1997. Econometric Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
Hugo Dunhill Mailing Lists, Inc. The 1996 Mailing List Catalog. 630 3rd Ave., New York, NY 10017-6705.Google Scholar
Kaldor, A.F. 1989. “Preparation of Kenaf Bark and Core Fibers for Pulping by the Ankal Method.” Tappi Journal 72, 9: 137–140.Google Scholar
Lewis, R.C., Ding, S., and Geschke, U. 1991. “Using Trade-Off Analysis to Measure Consumers Choices: The Full Profile Method.” Hospitality Research Journal 15, 1: 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMillen, D.P., and McDonald, J.F. 1990. “A Two-Limit Tobit Model of Suburban Land-Use Zoning.” Land Economics 66: 272–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddala, G.S. 1983. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Null, D. 1996. “Risks of Recycled Fiber Projects make Virgin Fiber more Attractive.” Pulp & Paper 70, 7: 115–119.Google Scholar
Pulp & Paper. 1993. “U.S. Printing and Writing Papers Demand to Grow Substantially in Next Decade.” 67, 1: 95–98.Google Scholar
Taylor, C.S. 1984. A Systems Approach to the Commercialization of Kenaf. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. 202 pp.Google Scholar
Tobin, J. 1958. “Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables.” Econometrica 26: 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touzinsky, G.F., Cunningham, R.L., and Bagby, M.O. 1980a. “Papermaking Properties of Kenaf Thermochemical Pulp.” Tappi 63, 1: 53–55.Google Scholar
Touzinsky, G.F., Cunningham, R.L., and Bagby, M.O. 1980b. “Laboratory Paper Machine Runs with Kenaf Thermochemical Pulp.” Tappi 63, 3: 109–110.Google Scholar
Triplett, T. 1994. “Economics Meets Ecology as Recycled Paper Matures.” Marketing News 28, 5:2.Google Scholar
Young, J. 1987. “Kenaf Newsprint is a Proven Commodity.” Tappi Journal 70, 11: 81–83.Google Scholar
Webber, C.L. 1996. “Introduction to Kenaf.” Pamphlet prepared by the International Kenaf Association, Ladonia, Texas. Google Scholar
Zhang, J., and Dicks, M.R. 1994. An Economic Evaluation of U.S. Kenaf Markets. Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK. 37 pp.Google Scholar