Consumers' willingness to pay for geographical origin labels: Evidence from the Turkish table olive

Main Article Content

Gulay Ozkan
Ismail Bulent Gurbuz


consumer choice, geographical indication, knowledge, protected designation of origin, table olive, willingness to pay


Background and aim: A geographical indication (GI) conveys local identity and culture to consumers and has qualities that lead to high purchasing tendencies. Olive producers can reach a high-profit margin by producing GI-labelled products that create added value. However, the low consumption shows that consumers do not fully understand GI. This research aims to reveal geographical indication knowledge, willingness to pay (WTP) for the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) labelled Gemlik table olive, and how the knowledge of GI effect consumers' consumption and WTP.

Methods: Data was collected from 648 residents in Bursa, Turkey using a public-intercept survey. The study used descriptive analysis. SPSS 22 software package was employed to analyse the data.

Results: The result showed that 59.6% of participants were knowledgeable about GIs, and 56.3% were knowledgeable about PDO labelled Gemlik olive. Only 37.5% of respondents consumed PDO labelled food products, and 32.7% consumed PDO labelled Gemlik olive. Over half (51.4%) of the participants see themselves as average, 31.8% moderately, and 16.8% very knowledgeable about olives. While 79% of the consumers indicated WTP for the PDO label, half could pay 10% or less. The proportion of those who said they could spend more than 25% remained at 11%.

Conclusion: Consumers are willing to pay more for PDO labelled Gemlik olives as their knowledge increases.

Abstract 158 | PDF Downloads 203


1. Gürbüz İB, Macabangin M. Factors affecting consumer's behaviour on purchasing and consumption of food products. Sci Papers Ser Manag Econom Eng Agric Rural Dev 2019; 19(1): 215-222.
2. Gürbüz, İB. Economical Aspects of Adulteration in Table Olive and Olive Oil, III. International Balkan & Near Eastern SocialSciences Congress Series – Edirne, Turkey, 4 - 05 March 2017, pp. 573-576.
3. Baran D, Topçu Y. Marketing tactic and strategies based on consumer preferences of Erzurum moldy cheese with protected geographical indication (PGI). KSU J Agric Nat 2018; 21(2): 192-202.
4. Darby K, Batte MT, Roe B. Willingness to pay for locally produced foods: a customer intercept study of direct market and grocery store shoppers. American Agricultural Economics Association, Annual Meeting, California, June 2006, pp. 23-26.
5. Magistris T, Gracia A. Consumers’ willingness to pay for light, organic and PDO Cheese. Br Food J 2016; 118(3): 560-571. doi:10.1108/BFJ-09-2015-0322
6. Sriwaranun Y, Gan C, Lee M, Cohen DA. Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic products in Thailand. Int J Soc Econ 2015; 42(5): 480- 510. doi:10.1108/IJSE-09-2013-0204
7. Folkeson C. Geographical indications and rural development in the EU. Master Thesis, 2005; Lund University, Sweden.
8. Hassan D, Monier-Dilhan S. National brands and store brands: competition through public quality labels. Agribusiness 2006; 22(1): 21-30. doi:10.1002/agr.20070
9. Ilbert, H. Produits du terroir Mediterraneen Conditions d’Emergence, d’Efficacite et Modes de Gouvernance (PTM: CEE et MG), Rapport Final pour Programme Femise, Institut Agronomique Mediterraneen, Montpellier, France, 2005.
10. Čačić J, Tratnik M, Gajdoš Kljusurić J, Čačić D, Kovačević D. 2011. Wine with geographical indication – awareness of Croatian consumers. Br Food J 2011; 113(1): 66-77.
11. Krystallis A, Fotopoulos C, Zotos Y. Organic consumers’ profile and their willingness to pay (WTP) for selected organic food products in Greece. J Int Consum Mark 2006; 19(1): 81–106.
12. Menapace L, Colson G, Grebitus C, Facendola M. Consumers’ preferences for geographical origin labels: evidence from the Canadian olive oil market. Eur Rev Agric Econ 2011; 38(2): 193-212. doi:10.1093/erae/jbq051
13. Krystallis A, Ness M. Consumer preferences for quality foods from a South European perspective: A conjoint analysis implementation on Greek olive oil. Int Food Agribusiness Manag Rev 2005; 8(2): 62-91. doi:10.22004/ag.econ.8161
14. Chrysochou P, Krystallis A, Giraud G. Quality assurance labels as drivers of customer loyalty in the case of traditional food products. Food Qual Prefer 2012; 25(2): 156-162. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.013
15. Toklu IT, Ustaahmetoglu E, Kucuk HO. Consumers' perception of product with geographical indication and willingness to pay more: A structural equation modelling approach. Management and Economics: Celal Bayar Univ J Fac Econ Admin Sci 2016; 23(1): 145-161. doi:10.18657/yecbu.06210
16. Ghali ZZ. Effect of utilitarian and hedonic values on consumer willingness to buy and to pay for organic olive oil in Tunisia. Br Food J 2020; 122(44): 1013-1026. doi:10.1108/BFJ-06-2019-0414
17. Liberatore L, Casolani N, Murmura F. What’s behind organic certification of extra-virgin olive oil? A response from Italian consumers. J Food Prod Mark 2018; 24: 946-959. doi:10.1080/10454446.2018.1426513
18. Giannoccaro G, Carlucci D, Sardaro R, Luigi Roselli L, De Gennaro BC. Assessing consumer preferences for organic vs eco-labelled olive oils. Org Agric 2019; 9: 483–494. doi:10.1007/s13165-019-00245-7
19. Turkey Harvest Report. 2019-2020 Production season table olives and olive oil harvest, National Official Determination Committee Report. National Olive and Olive Oil Council, Izmir, 2019. Available from
20. Teuber R. Consumers' and producers' expectations towards geographical indications: Empirical evidence for a German case study. Br Food J 2011; 113(7): 900-918. doi:10.1108/00070701111148423
21. Bardají I, Iráizoz B, Rapún M.Protected geographical indications and integration into the agribusiness system. Agribusiness 2009; 25(2): 198-214. doi:10.1002/agr.20198
22. Onurlubaş E, Taşdan K. A research on factors affecting traditional product consumption. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal Univ J Inst Soc Sci 2017; 17(1): 115-132.
23. Aytop Y, Şahin A. Determination of consumers' perception to Gemlik olive with geographical indication: the case study of Kahramanmaraş Province centre. XI. National Agricultural Economy Congress, 3-5 Sept 2014, Samsun. pp. 1301-1308.
24. Toprak, L. Oğuz, Z. Geographical indicagtions and example of Siirt province, 18. National Tourism Congress, 18-21 October 2017, Mardin Artuklu University, pp. 956-965.
25. Meral Y, Şahin A. Consumers' perceptions of product with geographical indication: the case of Gemlik olives. KSU J Agric Nat (2013; 16(4): 16-24.
26. Sancak, K. Consumer perception of products with geographical indication in Ankara province Çankaya District (The case of Beypazarı Cookie, Çubuk Pickle Kalecik Karası Grape. Master Thesis, 2019; Ankara University, Turkey.
27. Keskin, H. Effects of local foods wit geographical signs to touristic destination Marketing. An Example of Balıkesir. Master Thesis, 2019; Ankara University, Turkey.
28. Atalay Oral M, Kılıç, R. (2018). Investigation of consumer guarantees against geographically industrial agricultural products in Turkey. 2nd International Conference on Food and Agricultural Economics, Alanya, 2018. pp. 24–46.
29. Zuluğ A, Miran B, Tsakiridou E. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for country of origin labelled products in Istanbul. Agric Econ Rev 2015; 16(2): 5-14. doi:10.22004/ag.econ.253695
30. Tregear A, Török Á, Gorton M. Geographical indications and upgrading of small-scale producers in global agro-food chains: A case study of the Makó Onion protected designation of origin. Environ Plan A 2016; 48(2): 433–451. doi:10.1177/0308518X15607467
31. Yılmaz, M. Information levels, attitudes and consumption behaviour s of consumers regarding geographically indicated and organic products: Case of Samsun province, Turkey. Master Thesis, 2020; Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun.
32. Loureiro ML, Umberger WJ. Assessing consumer preferences for country of origin labeling. J Agric Appl Econ 2005; 37(1): 49-63. doi:10.1017/S1074070800007094
33. Çakaloğlu M, Çağatay S. Consumer perception towards geographical indications and products that ave brand value: Finike Orange and Antalya Tavşan Yüreği Olive cases. TEAD 2017; 3(1); 52-65.
34. Çam AV, Ayaydın H. Evaluation of tourists geographical indication perception in terms of tourism revenues. J Soc Sci Inst 2018; Iwact’18: 69-84.
35. Turpie, JK. The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: How interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay. Ecol Econ 2003; 46: 199-216. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00122-8
36. Mesías Díaz FJ, Martínez‐Carrasco Pleite F, Miguel Martínez Paz J, Gaspar García P. Consumer knowledge, consumption, and willingness to pay for organic tomatoes. Br Food J 2012; 114(3): 318-334. doi:10.1108/00070701211213447
37. Tong Q, Anders S, Zhang J, Zhang L. The roles of pollution concerns and environmental knowledge in making green food choices: evidence from Chinese consumers. Food Res. Int. 2020; 130: 108881. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108881
38. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 1988; Routledge Academic, New York.
39. Yangui A, Costa-Font M, Gil JM. The effect of personality traits on consumers’ preferences for extra virgin olive oil. Food Qual Prefer 2016; 51: 27-38. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.02.012