Consumers' willingness to pay for organic chicken breast: Evidence from choice experiment

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 22, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 603-613

  Van Loo, Ellen J ^a   Caputo, Vincenzina ^b   Nayga, Rodolfo M ^a   Meullenet, Jean Francois ^a   Ricke, Steven C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Cheap talk; Choice experiment; Consumer preference; MNL; Organic chicken; Organic food; Organic meat; RPL; WTP

Indexed keywords

COLUMBA;

EID: 80955180218     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.02.003     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Aadland D., Caplan A.J. Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2003, 85(2):492-502.
2. American Meat Institute (AMI), Food Marketing Institute (FMI). (2010). The power of meat - An in-depth look at meat through the shoppers' eyes. Joint Report from AMI/FMI, Arlington, VA. 77 p.
3. Barreiro-Hurle J., Colombo S., Cantos-Villar E. Is there a market for functional wines? Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for resveratrol-enriched red wine. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19(4):360-371.
4. Barreiro-Hurle J., Gracia A., De-Magistris T. The effects of multiple health and nutrition labels on consumer food choices. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2010, 61(2):426-443.
5. Bellows A.C., Onyango B., Diamond A., Hallman W.K. Understanding consumer interest in organics: Production values vs. purchasing behavior. Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 2008, 6(1). (Article 2).
6. Bhat C.R. Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 2003, 37(9):837-855.
7. Bonti-Ankomah, S., & Yiridoe, E. K. (2006). Organic and conventional food: a literature review of the economics of consumer perceptions and preferences. Report for Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada, Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada.
8. Bourn D., Prescott J. A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 2002, 42(1):1-34.
9. Brown T.C., Ajzen I., Hrubes D. Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2003, 46(2):353-361.
10. Brummett R.G., Nayga R.M., Wu X. On the use of cheap talk in new product valuation. Economics Bulletin 2007, 2:1-9.
11. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Average retail food and energy prices, U.S. city average and South region. Retrieved 2/19/2010, 2010. http://www.bls.gov/ro3/apso.htm.
12. Canavari M., Nocella G., Scarpa R. Stated willingness-to-pay for organic fruit and pesticide ban: an evaluation using both web-based and face-to-face interviewing. Journal of Food Products Marketing 2005, 11(3):107-134.
13. Caputo, V., Nayga Jr., R. M. & Canavari, M. (2010). Organic consumers' valuation for food miles labels: Do they get more utility from food miles information than organic attribute information? In 119th EAAE Seminar. Sustainability in the Food Sector: Rethinking the Relationship between the Agro-Food System and the Natural, Social, Economic and Institutional Environments. Capri, Italy, June 30-July 2, 2010, 15pp.
14. Carlsson F., Frykblom P., Lagerkvist C.J. Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Economics Letters 2005, 89(2):147-152.
15. Champ P.A., Moore R., Bishop R.C. A comparison of approaches to mitigate hypothetical bias. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 2009, 38(2):166-180.
16. Chang J.B., Lusk J.L., Norwood F.B. How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behavior?. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2009, 91(2):518-534.
17. Cummings R.G., Harrison G.W., Rutström E.E. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible?. American Economic Review 1995, 85(1):260-266.
18. Cummings R.G., Taylor L.O. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. The American Economic Review 1999, 89(3):649-665.
19. Devkota, N., Paudel, K. P., Fannin, J. M., Hall, L. M. & Caffey, R. H. (2007). Calibrating online survey sample for economic impact analysis. In Southern agricultural economics association 2007 annual meeting, February 4-7, Mobile, Alabama, 2007, pp. 1-16.
20. De Wilde E., Cooke A.D.J., Janiszewski C. Attentional contrast during sequential judgements: A source of the number-of-levels effect. Journal of Marketing Research 2008, 45:437-449.
21. Eggers F., Sattler H. Hybrid individualized two-level choice-based conjoint (HIT-CBC): A new method for measuring preference structures with many attribute levels. International Journal of Research in Marketing 2009, 26(2):108-118.
22. Fanatico, A. (2008). Organic poultry production in the United States (ATTRA). Retrieved 2/19/2010, 2010. http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/organicpoultry.pdf.
23. Fleming C.M., Bowden M. Web-based surveys as an alternative to traditional mail methods. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 90(1):284-292.
24. Gao Z., Schroeder T.C. Effects of label information on consumer willingness-to-pay for food attributes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2009, 91(3):795-809.
25. Gifford, K., Bernard, J. C., Toensmeyer, U. C., & Bacon, R. (2005). An experimental investigation of willingness to pay for non-GM and organic food products. American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
26. Gracia A., Loureiro M.L., Nayga R.M. Consumers' valuation of nutritional information: A choice experiment study. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20(7):463-471.
27. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Koop G. Modeling recreation demand using choice experiments: Climbing in Scotland. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 22(3):449-466.
28. Harrison G.W., Rutström E.E. Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. Handbook of experimental economics results 2008, 752-767. Elsevier. C.R. Plott, V.L. Smith (Eds.).
29. Hu W., Veeman M.M., Adamowicz W.L. Labelling genetically modified food: Heterogeneous consumer preferences and the value of information. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 2005, 53(1):83-102.
30. Instructional Assessment Resources (IAR) (2010). Response rates: Guidelines for maximizing response rates. Austin, Texas: Division of Instructional Innovation and Assessment, The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved 3/20/2010. http://www.utexas.edu/academic/diia/assessment/iar/teaching/gather/method/survey-Response.php.
31. James S., Burton M. Consumer preferences for GM food and other attributes of the food system. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2003, 47(4):501-518.
32. Krystallis A., Chryssohoidis G. Consumers' willingness to pay for organic food: Factors that affect it and variation per organic product type. British Food Journal 2005, 107(5):320-343.
33. Krystallis A., Arvanitoyannis I., Chryssohoidis G. Is there a real difference between conventional and organic meat? Investigating consumers' attitudes towards both meat types as an indicator of organic meat's market potential. Journal of Food Products Marketing 2006, 12(2):47-78.
34. Lancaster K. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 1966, 74:132-157.
35. List J.A. Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards. American Economic Review 2001, 91(5):1498-1507.
36. List J.A., Gallet C.A. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 20(3):241-254.
37. Lockshin L., Jarvis W., d'Hauteville F., Perrouty J. Using simulations from discrete choice experiments to measure consumer sensitivity to brand, region, price, and awards in wine choice. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17(3-4):166-178.
38. Loomis J., Brown T., Lucero B., Peterson G. Improving validity experiments of contingent valuation methods: Results of efforts to reduce the disparity of hypothetical and actual willingness to pay'. Land Economics 1996, 72(4):450-461.
39. Loomis J., Brown T., Lucero B., Peterson G. Evaluating the validity of the dichotomous choice question format in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 1997, 10(2):109-123.
40. Lusk J.L. Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2003, 85(4):840-856.
41. Lusk J.L., Roosen J., Fox J.A. Demand for beef from cattle administered growth hormones or fed genetically modified corn: A comparison of consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2003, 85(1):16-29.
42. Lusk J.L., Schroeder T.C. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2004, 86(2):467-482.
43. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
44. Magnusson M.K., Arvola A., Hursti U.K., Aberg L., Sjoden P. Attitudes towards organic foods among Swedish consumers. British Food Journal 2001, 103(3):209-227.
45. Moon, W., Balasubramanian, S. K., & Rimal, A. (2006). WTP and WTA for Non-GM and GM Food: UK consumers. In American Agricultural Economics Association 2006 annual meeting, Long Beach, CA, July 23-26.
46. Morrison M., Bennett J., Blamey R., Louviere J. Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2002, 84(1):161-170.
47. Murphy J., Allen P., Stevens T., Weatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 30(3):313-325.
48. Murphy J., Stevens T., Weatherhead D. Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 30(3):327-343.
49. Neill H.R., Cummings R.G., Ganderton P.T., Harrison G.W., McGuckin T. Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Economics 1994, 70(2):145-154.
50. Nielsen J.S. Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: A comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews. Resource and Energy Economics 2011, 33(1):119-129.
51. Oberholtzer, L., Greene, C., & Lopez, E. (2006). Organic poultry and eggs capture high price premiums and growing share of specialty markets. Outlook Report. December 2006U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (ERS), Washington, DC. Retrieved 2/20/2010. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ldp/2006/12dec/ldpm15001/.
52. O'Donovan P., McCarthy M. Irish consumer preference for organic meat. British Food Journal 2002, 104(3/4/5):353-370.
53. Olsen S. Choosing between internet and mail survey modes for choice experiment surveys considering non-market goods. Environmental and Resource Economics 2009, 44(4):591-610.
54. Olynk N.J., Tonsor G.T., Wolf C.A. Consumer willingness to pay for livestock credence attribute claim verification. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2010, 35(2):261-280.
55. Özdemir S., Johnson F.R., Hauber A.B. Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care. Journal of Health Economics 2009, 28(4):894-901.
56. Phanikumar C.V., Maitra B. Willingness-to-pay and preference heterogeneity for rural bus attributes. Journal of Transportation Engineering 2007, 133(1):62-69.
57. Poe G.L., Clark J.E., Rondeau D., Schulze W.D. Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 23(1):105-131.
58. Revelt D., Train K.E. Mixed logit with repeated choices: Households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics and Statistics 1998, 80(4):647-657.
59. Silva A., Nayga R.M., Campbell B.L., Park J. On the use of valuation mechanisms to measure consumers' willingness to pay for novel products: A comparison of hypothetical and non-hypothetical values. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 2007, 10(2):165-180.
60. Silva, A., Nayga, R. M., Campbell, B. L., & Park, J. (2009). Revisiting cheap talk with new evidence from field experiment. Working Paper, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of Arkansas, 25pp.
61. Tonsor G.T., Schroeder T.C., Fox J.A., Biere A.W. European preferences for beef steak attributes. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2005, 30(2):367-380.
62. Train K. Discrete choice methods with simulation 2009, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 2nd ed.
63. Train, K. (2000). Halton sequences for mixed logit. Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
64. Train K. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics 1998, 74(2):230-239.
65. Turco, G. (2002). Organic food - An opportunity at who's expense? Industry Note, Food and Agribusiness Research. Rabobank International, Sydney, Australia.
66. Tsakiridou E., Boutsouki C., Zotos Y., Mattas K. Attitudes and behaviour towards organic products: An exploratory study. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 2008, 36(2):158-175.
67. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) & Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). (2003). Organic feed for poultry and livestock: Availability and prices.
68. Ureña F., Bernabéu R., Olmeda M. Women, men and organic food: Differences in their attitudes and willingness to pay A Spanish case study. International Journal of Consumer Studies 2008, 32(1):18-26.
69. USDA National Organic Program (2008). Background information about USDA Organic. Retrieved 2/20/2010. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004443.
70. Van Loo E.J., Caputo V., Nayga R.M., Meullenet J., Crandall P.G., Ricke S.C. The effect of organic poultry purchase frequency on consumer attitudes toward organic poultry meat. Journal of Food Science 2010, 75(5):S384-S397.
71. Verlegh P.W.J., Schifferstein H.N.J., Wittink D.R. Range and number-of-levels in derived and stated measures of attribute importance. Marketing Letters 2002, 13(1):41-52.
72. Yiridoe E.K., Bonti-Ankomah S., Martin R.C. Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: A review and update of the literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 2005, 20(4):193-205.