Context dependency and consumer acceptance of risk reducing strategies - A choice experiment study on Salmonella risks in pork

Food Research International

Volumn 45, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 1149-1157

  Mørkbak, Morten Raun ^a   Christensen, Tove ^a   Gyrd Hansen, Dorte ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Context dependence; Decontamination; Economic valuation; Salmonella; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE; CONSUMER PREFERENCES; CONTEXT DEPENDENCES; CONTEXT DEPENDENCY; ECONOMIC VALUATION; FOOD RISKS; IN-LINE; RISK REDUCING STRATEGIES; RISK-REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY; SAFETY TECHNOLOGY; WATER DECONTAMINATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EXPERIMENTS; FARMS; LACTIC ACID; MEATS; SALMONELLA; TECHNOLOGY;

DECONTAMINATION;

SALMONELLA;

EID: 84857378112     PISSN: 09639969     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.02.020     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Adamowicz W.L., Boxall P., Williams M., Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 80:64-75.
2. Andersson F., Holm H.J. Transparency preference and economic behaviour. Journal of economic Behavior & Organization 1998, 37:349-356.
3. Anonymous Annual report on zoonoses in Denmark 2009. Danish Zoonosis Centre, The Danish Institute for Food and Veterinary Research, Ministry of Family and Consumers Affairs 2009.
4. Barcellos M.D., Kügler J.O., Grunert K.G., Van Wezemael L., Pérez-Cueto F.J.A., Ueland Ø. European consumers' acceptance of beef processing technologies: A focus group study. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 2010, 11(4):721-732.
5. Borger B., Fosgerau M. The trade-off between money and time: A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Journal of Urban Economics 2008, 64(1):101-115.
6. Bosworth R., Cameron T.A., DeShazo J.R. Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? Comparing demand for public prevention and treatment policies. Medical Decision Making 2010, 30(4):40-56.
7. Bulte E., Gerking S., List J.A., Zeeuw A. The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: Evidence from a field study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2005, 49:330-342.
8. Cao K., Gibson J., Scrimgeour F.G. An experimental approach to estimating willingness-to-pay for improvements in food safety. 2005. 49th AARES Conference, Coffs Harbour, Australia; 9-11 February 2005.
9. Christensen T., Denver S., Jensen J.D., Rosenquist H., Wingstrand A., Aabo S., et al. Consumptions patterns and consumer risks - An overview of the Danish markets for pork, chicken, and eggs and the consumer risk associated with Salmonella and Campylobacter 2009, No. 202 Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen.
10. Christensen T., Mørkbak M., Hasler B., Lundhede T., Porsbo L.J., Christoffersen L.B. Information, risk perception and consumer bahaviour - A choice experiment on food safety and animal welfare 2006, No. 180. Institute of Food and Resource Economics, KVL, Copenhagen.
11. EFSA The Community Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents and Food-borne Outbreaks in the European Union in 2008. EFSA Journal 2010, 8(1):1496. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/1496.pdf.
12. Fetherstonhaugh D., Slovic P., Johnson S.M., Friedrich J. Insensitivity to the value of human life: A study of psychophysical numbing. Journal of Risk Uncertainty 1997, 14:283-300.
13. Fox J., Hayes D.J., Shogren J.F. Consumer preferences for food irradiation: How favorable and unfavorable descriptions affect preferences for irradiated pork in experimental auction. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2002, 24(1):75-95.
14. Giamalva J.N., Redfern M., Bailey W.C. Dietitians employed by health care facilities preferred a HACCP system over irradiation or chemical rinses for reducing risk of foodborne disease. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1998, 98(8):885-888.
15. Goldberg I., Roosen J. Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2007, 34:123-144.
16. Gravelle H., Rees R. Microeconomics 1992, Pearson Education Ltd., Harlow, England.
17. Grunert K. What's in a steak? A cross-cultural study on the quality perception of beef. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8:548-560.
18. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Koop G. Modelling recreation demand using choice experiments: Climbing in Scotland. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 22:449-466.
19. Hayes D.J., Fox J., Shogren J.F. Experts and activists: How information affects the demand for food irradiation. Food Policy 2002, 27:185-193.
20. Hayes D.J., Shogren J.F., Shin S.Y., Kliebenstein J.B. Valuing food safety in experimental auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1995, 77(1):40-53.
21. Holmes T., Adamowicz W.L. Attribute based methods. A Primer on the Economic Valuation of the Environment 2003, Kluwer.
22. Hu W., Adamowicz W.L., Veeman M. Labelling context and reference point effects in models of food attribute demand. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2006, 88(4):1034-1049.
23. ICROFS Development, growth, and integrity in the Danish organic sector - A knowledge synthesis on the opportunities and barriers for a continued development and market-based growth in production, processing, and sale of organic products. October 2008, International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems (ICROFS) 2008.
24. Johnston R.J., Duke J.M. Willingness to pay for agricultural land preservation and policy process attributes: Does the method matter?. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2007, 89(4):1098-1115.
25. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47(2):263-292.
26. Kontoleon A., Yabe M. Assessing the impacts of alternative 'opt-out' formats in choice experiment studies: Consumer preferences for genetically modified content and production information in food. Journal of Agricultural Policy Research 2003, 5:1-43.
27. Korsgaard H., Wegner H.C., Helms M. Samfundsomkostninger forbundet med zoonotiske Salmonella- og andre fødevarebårne bakterielle infektioner i Danmark. Ugeskrift for læger 2005, February, 760-763.
28. Korzen S., Lassen J. Meat in context. On the relation between perceptions and contexts. Appetite 2010, 54:274-281.
29. Korzen S., Sandøe P., Lassen J. Pure meat -- Public perceptions of risk reduction strategies in meat production. Food Policy 2011, 36(2):158-165.
30. Krinsky I., Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1986, 68(4):715-719.
31. Lancaster K.J. A new approach to consumer theory. The Journal of Political Economy 1966, 74(2):132-157.
32. Lanscar E., Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Economics Letters 2004, 13:901-907.
33. Latvala T., Kola J. Impact of information on the demand for credence characteristics. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 2003, 5(2).
34. Levy J.S. Applications of prospect theory to political science. Synthese 2003, 135:215-241.
35. Lloyd A.J. Threats to the estimation of benefit: Are preference elicitation methods accurate?. Health Economics 2003, 12:393-402.
36. Louviere J., Hensher D.A., Swait J. Stated choice methods. Analysis and applications 2000, University Press, Cambridge, UK.
37. Luce R.D. Individual choice behaviour 1959, Wiley, New York.
38. McCarthy M., Henson S. Perceived risk and risk reduction strategies in the choice of beef by Irish consumers. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:435-445.
39. McCluskey J.J., Grimsrud K.M., Ouchi H., Wahl T.I. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Japan: Consumers' food safety perceptions and willingness to pay for tested beef. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2005, 49:197-209.
40. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
41. McFadden D. Rationality for economists?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999, 19(1):73-105.
42. Meuwissen M.P.M., van der Lans I.A. Trade-offs between consumer concerns: An application for pork supply chains. Food Economics 2005, 2:27-34.
43. Miller G.Y., Unneverhr L.J. Characteristics of consumers demanding and their willingness to pay for certified safer pork. Journal of Agribusiness 2001, 19(2):101-119.
44. Mitchell V.-W., McGoldrick P.J. Consumers' risk reduction strategies: A preview and synthesis. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 1996, 6(1):1-33.
45. Mørkbak M., Christensen T., Gyrd-Hansen D. Valuation of Food safety in meat - A review of stated preference studies. Food Economics 2009, 5(2):63-74.
46. Mørkbak M.R., Christensen T., Gyrd-Hansen D. The importance of food safety as a quality characteristic - A choice experiment. British Food Journal 2010, 112(7):775-791.
47. Mørkbak M., Christensen T., Gyrd-Hansen D. Consumers' willingness to pay for safer meat depends on the risk reduction methods - A Danish case study on Salmonella risk in minced pork. Food Control 2011, 22:445-451.
48. Munro A., Hanley N. Information, uncertainty, and contingent valuation. Valuing Environmental Preferences 1999, 258-279. Oxford University Press, New York. I. Bateman, K. Willis (Eds.).
49. Nakayachi K. So people actually pursue risk elimination in environmental risk management?. Risk Analysis 2000, 20:705-711.
50. Nayga R.M.J., Woodward R., Aiew W. Willingness to pay for reduced risk of foodborne illness: A nonhypothetical field experiment. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 2006, 54:461-475.
51. Nelson C.H. Risk perception, behavior, and consumer response to genetically modified organisms. American Behavioral Scientist 2001, 44(8):1371-1388.
52. Norinder A., Hjalte K., Persson U. Scope and scale insensitivities in a contingent valuation study of risk reductions. Health Policy 2001, 57:141-153.
53. Rose J.M., Bliemer M.C.J., Hensher D.A., Collins A.T. Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transportation Research Part B 2008, 42:395-406.
54. Ruby M.C., Johnson F.R., Mathews K.E. Just say no: Opt-out alternatives and anglers' stated preferences. TER General Working Paper No.T-9801R 1998.
55. Shogren J.F., Fox J.A., Hayes D.J., Roosen J. Observed choices for food safety in retail, survey, and auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1999, 81(5):1192-1199.
56. Siegrist M. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2008, 19:603-608.
57. Swait J., Adamowicz W.L., Hanemann M., Diederich A., Krosnick J., Layton D., et al. Context dependence and aggregation in disaggregate choice analysis. Marketing Letters 2002, 13(3):195-205.
58. Teisl M.F., Roe B.E. Consumer willingness-to-pay to reduce the probability of retail foodborne pathogen contamination. Food Policy 2010, 35(6):521-530.
59. Thaler R. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic behavior and Organization 1980, 1:39-60.
60. Train K. Discrete choice methods with simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
61. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 1991, November, 1039-1061.
62. Von Neumann J., Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behaviour 1944, Princeton University Press.
63. Williams P.R.D., Hammitt J.K. A comparison of organic and conventional fresh produce buyers in the Boston area. Risk Analysis 2000, 20(5):735-746.
64. Wittink D.R., Krishnarnurthi L., Reibstein D.J. The effect of differences in the number of attribute levels on conjoint results. Marketing Letters 1990, 1(2):113-123.