Choice-based conjoint survey reveals strong consumer preference for pesticide- and gene-editing-free produce in New Zealand adults, suggesting barriers to adopting indoor farming technologies.
Recent challenges to modern fresh produce supply, such as climate change, require the development of new, sustainable, resource efficient, and weather-independent production technologies. These include the use of controlled environment agriculture (CEA) such as indoor farming, and its related technologies of genetic editing (GE) and robotics and automation systems (RAS). However, consumers remain sceptical and uncertain about the safety and quality of the resulting produce which utilises newer technologies. This study aimed to identify the relative importance of six product features (i.e. the technology-related features of indoor farming, GE, and RAS, alongside price, appearance and pesticide use), when choosing four different types of fresh produce (apples, broccoli, carrots, lettuces). It also aimed to further understand attitudes toward indoor farming vs outdoor farming. An online survey of New Zealand consumers (n = 1,000) was conducted using a choice-based conjoint (CBC) experiment followed by attitudinal Likert questions. Results from the CBC experiment show the most important feature was being free of pesticide sprays, followed by the absence of GE. Being grown using outdoor farming was the third most important attribute for apples and broccoli, while price ranked third for carrots and lettuce. Comparing preferences between the four different produce types showed significantly different preferences depending on the type of produce. Younger and more educated urban consumers appeared to be the most open to indoor farming methods. These insights reveal consumer concerns and needs regarding new horticultural technologies and can inform technology development and effective marketing communication to improve social licence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schnack et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: