Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
FrancoAngeli Journals

Regular Articles

Early View

High-Altitude, High Value? Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Mountain Wines

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/ecag2026oa21367
Submitted
ottobre 31, 2025
Published
2026-04-17

Abstract

This study examines consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) for mountain wines and assesses the potential impact of extending the EU quality term "mountain product" to the wine sector. A discrete choice experiment was conducted with 256 wine consumers from the Veneto region (Italy). In the experiment, participants were presented with various wine options with different attributes, including a mountain designation, organic certification and price. The multinomial logit model was used to analyse consumer preferences and estimate WTP. The results show that consumers have a positive WTP for mountain wines, especially in combination with organic certification. Price, mountain designation and organic certification were the most influential factors in the decision-making process. In addition, environmental awareness and the perception of mountain wines had a significant impact on consumer choice. These findings provide actionable insights for policymakers and producers, highlighting the potential of the “Mountain product” label as a tool for sustainable rural development.

References

  1. Anagnostou, E., Tsiakis, T., & Zervas, I. (2025). Highlighting Wine Labels: A Systematic Literature Review of Dominant Informational Parameters as Communicative Elements. Beverages, 11, 12. doi: 10.3390/beverages11010012.
  2. Baritaux, V., Tebby, C., & Revoredo-Giha, C. (2011). How well do food retailers know their customers? the case of mountain food products in Europe. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 11(3), 223-234. Doi: 10.3920/JCNS2011.x198.
  3. Bazzani, C., Maesano, G., Begalli, D., & Capitello, R. (2024). Exploring the effect of naturalness on consumer wine choices: Evidence from a survey in Italy. Food Quality and Preference, 113, 105062.
  4. Bentivoglio, D., Savini, S., Finco, A., Bucci G., & Boselli E. (2019). Quality and origin of mountain food products: the new European label as a strategy for sustainable development. Journal of Mountain Science, 16, 428-440. -- https://doiorg.ezproxy.unibo.it/10.1007/s11629-018-4962-x.
  5. Bonadonna, A., Duglio, S., Bollani, L., & Peira, G. (2022). Mountain Food Products: A Cluster Analysis Based on Young Consumers’ Perceptions. Sustainability, 14, 12511. Doi: 10.3390/su141912511.
  6. Capitello, R., Agnoli, L., Charters, S., Begalli, D. (2021). Labelling environmental and terroir attributes: Young Italian consumers’ wine preferences. Journal of Cleaner Production, 304, 1-15. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126991.
  7. Cei, L., Defrancesco, E., Gatto, P., & Pagliacci, F. (2023). Pay more for me, I’m from the mountains! The role of the EU Mountain Product term and other credence attributes in consumers’ valuation of lamb meat. Agricultural and Food Economics, 11(1), 12.
  8. Chandra, R., Moscini G., & Lande G. (2025). Geographical indications and welfare: Evidence from US wine demand. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 107, 670-695.
  9. Costanigro, M., Appleby, C., & Menke, S. D. (2014). The wine: Consumer perceptions of sulfites and willingness to pay for non-sulfited wines. Food Quality and Preference, 31, 81-89. Doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.08.002.
  10. Croissant, Y. (2020). Mlogit: Random utility models in r. Journal of Statistical Software, 95(11), 1-41. Doi: 10.18637/jss.v095.i11.
  11. Cummings, R. G., & Taylor, L. O. (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review, 89(3), 649-665.
  12. de-Magistris, T., & Gracia, A. (2016). Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for sustainable food products: the case of organically and locally grown almonds in Spain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 118, 97-104.
  13. Design, E. (2009). USER MANUAL & REFERENCE GUIDE The Cutting Edge in.
  14. Dominici, A., Boncinelli, F., Marone, E., & Casini, L. (2025). Territorial brand equity in the wine market and the role of the organic label: A consumer perspective. Food Quality and Preference, 126, 105419.
  15. Endrizzi, I., Cliceri, D., Menghi, L., Aprea, E., & Gasperi, F. (2021). Does the ‘Mountain Pasture Product’ claim affect local cheese acceptability? Foods, 10(3), 682.
  16. Finco, A., Bentivoglio, D., & Bucci, G. (2017). A label for mountain products? Let’s turn it over to producers and retailers. Quality - Access to Success, 18(March), 198-205.
  17. Fondazione Edmund Much (2022). -- https://fmach.it/Comunicazione/Comunicatistampa/Ma1-4ller-Thurgau-sono-i-tioli-varietali-che-rendono-unico-l-aroma-diquesto-vino.
  18. Galati, A., Schifani, G., Crescimanno, M., & Migliore, G. (2019). “Natural wine” consumers and interest in label information: An analysis of willingness to pay in a new Italian wine market segment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 227, 405-413. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.219.
  19. Hammervoll T., Mora P., Toften K., (2014). The financial crisis and the wine industry: The performance of niche firms versus mass-market firms. Wine Economics and Policy, 3(2), 108-114, doi: 10.1016/j.wep.2014.11.001.
  20. Haws, K. L., Winterich, K. P., & Naylor, R. W. (2014). Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 336-354. Doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2013.11.002.
  21. Hensher, D., Rose, J., & Greene, W. (2015). Experimental design and choice experiments. In Applied choice analysis, pp. 189-319. Cambridge University Press. Doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316136232.008.
  22. Hole, A. R. (2007). A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Economics, 16(8), 827-840.
  23. ISTAT (2020). -- https://www.istat.it/produzione-editoriale/rapporto-annuale-2020-la-situazione-del-paese/.
  24. Jaeger, S. R., & Rose, J. M. (2008). Stated choice experimentation, contextual influences and food choice: a case study. Food Quality and Preference, 19(6), 539-64.
  25. Laca, A., Gancedo, S., Laca, A., & Díaz, M. (2020). Assessment of the environmental impacts associated with vineyards and winemaking. A case study in mountain areas. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(1). Doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-10567-9.
  26. Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132-157.
  27. Linder, M. O., Sidali, K. L., Fischer, C., Fedrigotti, V. B., Begalli, D., & Busch, G. (2022). Assessing preferences for mountain wine and viticulture by using a bestworst scaling approach: do mountains really matter for Italians? Wine Economics and Policy, 15-29.
  28. Loose, S. M., & Lockshin, L. (2013). Testing the robustness of best worst scaling for cross-national segmentation with different numbers of choice sets. Food Quality and Preference, 27(2), 230-242.
  29. Mancini, M. C., Menozzi, D., Donati, M., Biasini, B., Veneziani, M., & Arfini, F. (2019). Producers’ and consumers’ perception of the sustainability of short food supply chains: The case of Parmigiano Reggiano PDO. Sustainability, 11(3), 721.
  30. MASAF (2025). Decreto Ministeriale recante disposizioni nazionali sull’utilizzo dell’indicazione facoltativa di qualità “prodotto di montagna” - Allegati 2 -- https://www.masaf.gov.it.
  31. Mauracher, C., Procidano, I., & Valentini, M. (2019). How product attributes and consumer characteristics influence the WTP, resulting in a higher price premium for organic wine. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(5). Doi: 10.3390/su11051428.
  32. Mazzocchi, C., & Sali, G. (2022). Supporting mountain agriculture through “mountain product” label: A choice experiment approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(1), 701-723.
  33. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis and subjective probability. In P. Zarembda (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics, pp. 105-142. Academic Press.
  34. Migliore, G., Thrassou, A., Crescimanno, M., Schifani, G., & Galati, A. (2020). Factors affecting consumer preferences for “natural wine”: An exploratory study in the Italian market. British Food Journal, 122(8), 2463-2479. Doi: 10.1108/BFJ-07-2019-0474.
  35. OIV (2024). World Wine Production Outlook - OIV First Estimates. International Organisation of Vine and Wine November, 1-9.
  36. Oliveira, M., Sidali, K.L., & Busch G. (2021). Mountain beef and wine: Italian consumers’ definitions and opinions on the mountain labelling-scheme. Economia agroalimentare/Food Economy, 23(1), 5. Doi: 10.3280/ecag1-2021oa11549.
  37. Pagliacci, F., & Salpina, D. (2022). Territorial hotspots of exposure to climate disaster risk. The case of agri-food geographical indications in the Veneto Region. Land Use Policy, 123, 106404.
  38. Sanjuan Lopez, A. & Khliji, S. (2016) Urban consumers’ response to the EU food mountain labelling: An empirical application in Southern Europe. New Medit, 15(1), 72-80.
  39. Santini, F., Guri, F., & Gomez, S. (2013). Labelling of agricultural and food products of mountain farming: Executive Summary. EUR 25768 EN. Luxembourg (Luxembourg): Publications Office of the European Union. Doi: 10.2791/679.
  40. Schäufele I., Hamm U. (2017), Consumers’ perceptions, preferences and willingness-to-pay for wine with sustainability characteristics: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 379-394. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.118.
  41. Schäufele-Elbers, I., Ricci, E. C., & Sidali, K. L. (2024). A European Quality Term for Mountain Wines? An Online Experimental Auction with Italian Consumers. Mountain Research and Development, 44(2), R1-R9.
  42. Schjøll, A., Amilien, V., Arne Tufte, P., Revoredo-Giha, C., Leat, P., Kupiec, B., & Lamprinopoulou, C. (2010). Promotion of mountain food: An explorative a study about consumers’ and retailers’ perception in six European countries. 9th European IFSA Symposium, (July), pp. 1558-1567.
  43. Staffolani, G., Rahmani, D., Bentivoglio, D., Finco, A., & Gil, J. M. (2023). The mountain product label: Choice drivers and price premium. Future Foods, 8, 100270.
  44. Stanco, M., Lerro, M., & Marotta, G. (2020). Consumers’ Preferences for Wine Attributes: A Best-Worst Scaling Analysis. Sustainability, 12(7), pp. 2819. Doi: 10.3390/su12072819.
  45. Stiletto, A., Trestini, S. (2022). When less isn’t more and more isn’t less: Is there an overlap between “protected designation of origin”, “mountain product” and “organic” in Italy? British Food Journal 125, 45-60. Doi: 10.1108/BFJ-02-2022-0107.
  46. Street, D. J., Burgess, L., & Louviere, J. J. (2005). Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(4), 459-470. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2005.09.003.
  47. Tait, P., Saunders, C., Guenther, M. & Rutherford, P. (2016). Emerging versus developed economy consumer willingness to pay for environmentally sustainable food production: a choice experiment approach comparing Indian, Chinese and United Kingdom lamb consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 65-72. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.088.
  48. Vecchio, R., Annunziata, A., Parga Dans, E., & Alonso González, P. (2023). Drivers of consumer willingness to pay for sustainable wines: Natural, biodynamic, and organic. Organic Agriculture, 13(2), 247-260.
  49. Zanchini, R., Di Vita, G., Panzone, L., & Brun, F. (2023). What Is the Value of a “Mountain Product” Claim?A Ranking Conjoint Experiment on Goat’s Milk Yoghurt. Foods, 12, 2059. Doi: 10.3390/foods12102059.
  50. Zuliani, A., Esbjerg, L., Grunert, K. G., & Bovolenta, S. (2018). Animal welfare and mountain products from traditional dairy farms: How do consumers perceive complexity? Animals, 8(11), 207. Doi: 10.3390/ani8110207.