Using best-worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety

Food Policy

Volumn 37, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 661-670

  Erdem, Seda ^a   Rigby, Dan ^b   Wossink, Ada ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Best worst scaling; Food safety; Maximum Difference Scaling; Perceptions; Responsibility

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FOOD SAFETY; FOOD SUPPLY; LOGIT ANALYSIS; MEAT; NUMERICAL MODEL; PERCEPTION; POLICY MAKING; RISK ASSESSMENT; STAKEHOLDER;

EID: 84865438661     PISSN: 03069192     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.010     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Adamowicz W., 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(1):64-75.
2. Auger P., Devinney T.M., Louviere J.J. Using best-worst scaling methodology to investigate consumer ethical beliefs across countries. Journal of Business Ethics 2007, 70(3):299-326.
3. Baumgartner H., Steenkamp J.-B.E.M. Response styles in marketing research: a cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research 2001, 38(May):143-156.
4. Bergeaud-Blackler F., Ferretti M.P. More politics, stronger consumers? A new division of responsibility for food in the European Union. Appetite 2006, 47(2):134-142.
5. Brownstone D., Train K. Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. Journal of Econometrics 1998, 89(1-2):109-129.
6. Cohen S.H., Orme B. What's your preference? Asking survey respondents about their preferences creates new scaling decisions. Marketing Research Magazine 2004, 16:33-37.
7. Cope S., Frewer L.J., Houghton J., Rowe G., Fischer A.R.H., de Jonge J. Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: implications for risk analysis policy. Food Policy 2010, 35(4):349-357.
8. FAO/WHO, 2003. Assuring Food Safety and Quality: Guidelines for Strengthening National Food Control Systems. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper, 76.
9. Finn A., Louviere J.J. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 1992, 11(2):12-25.
10. Fisher A.R.H., De Jong A.E.I., de Jonge R., Frewer L.J., Nauta M.J. Improving food safety in the domestic environment: the need for a transdisciplinary approach. Risk Analysis 2005, 25(3):503-517.
11. Flynn T.N., Louviere J.J., Peters T.J., Coast J. Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. Journal of Health Economics 2007, 26(1):171-189.
12. Flynn T.N., Louviere J.J., Peters T.J., Coast J. Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using best-worst scaling: comparison of various methods of analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2008, 8(76).
13. Food Standards Agency, 2011. E. coli O157: Control of Cross Contamination. http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/guidancenotes/hygguid/ecoliguide.
14. Frewer L.J., Scholderer J., Bredahl L. Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: the mediating role of trust. Risk Analysis 2003, 23(6):1117-1133.
15. Garcia M., Fearne A., Caswell J.A., Henson S. Co-regulation as a possible model for food safety governance. Opportunities for public-private partnerships. Food Policy 2007, 32(3):99-314.
16. Gormley F.J., Little C.L., Rawall I.A., Gillesoie I.A., LeBaigue S., Adak G.K. A 17-year review of foodborn outbreaks: describing the continuing decline in England and Wales (1992-2008). Epidemiology and Infections 2011, 139:688-699.
17. Halkier B., Holm B. Shifting responsibilities for food safety in Europe: an introduction. Appetite 2006, 47(2):127-133.
18. Hein K.A., Jaeger S.R., Carr B.T., Delahunty C.M. Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methods. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19(7):651-661.
19. Henson S., Caswell J. Food safety regulation: an overview of contemporary issue. Food Policy 1999, 24:589-603.
20. Holm B., Halkier B. EU food safety policy, localising contested governance. European Societies 2009, 11(4):473-493.
21. Houghton J.R., Rowe G., Frewer L.J., van Kleef E., Chryssochoidis G., Kehagia O., Korzen-Bohr S., Lassen J., Pfenning U., Strada A. The quality of food risk management in Europe: perspectives and priorities. Food Policy 2008, 33:13-26.
22. Kjaernes U., Harvey M., Warde A. Trust in Food: A Comparative and Institutional Analysis 2007, Palgrave Macmillan.
23. Knowles T., Moody R. European food scares and their impact on EU food policy. British Food Journal 2007, 109(1):43-67.
24. Krystallis A., Frewer L., Rowe G., Houghton J., Kehagia O., Perrea T. A perceptual divide? Consumer and expert attitude to food risk management in Europe. Health Risk & Society 2007, 9(4):407-424.
25. Leikas S., Lindeman M., Roininen K., Lahteenmaki L. Who is responsible for food risks? The influence of risk type and risk characteristics. Appetite 2009, 53(1):123-126.
26. Loureiro M.L., Umberger W.J. A choice experiment model for beef. What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability. Food Policy 2007, 32(4):496-514.
27. Louviere, J.J., 1993. The Best-Worst or Maximum Difference Measurement Model: Applications to Behavioral Research in Marketing. Phoenix, Arizona.
28. Louviere J.J., Flynn T.N. Using best-worst scaling choice experiments to measure public perceptions and preferences for healthcare reform in Australia. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2010, 3:275-283.
29. Lusk J.L., Briggeman B.C. Food values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2009, 91:184-196.
30. 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, 8:16-29.
31. Magnusson M.K., Hurti U.-K.K. Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Appetite 2002, 39(1):9-24.
32. Marette S., Roosen J., Blanchemanche S., Feinblatt-Meleze E. Functional food, uncertainty and consumers' choices: a lab experiment with enriched yoghurts for lowering cholesterol. Food Policy 2010, 35(5):419-428.
33. Marley A., Louviere J. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2005, 49:464-480.
34. Mazzocchi M., Lobb A., Trail W.B., Cavicchi A. Food scares and trust. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2008, 59(1):2-24.
35. McFadden, D., 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Frontiers in Econometrics. New York.
36. McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2000, 15(5):447-470.
37. Mensah L.D., Julien D. Implementation of food safety management systems in the UK. Food Control 2011, 22:1216-1225.
38. Mueller S., Francis I.L., Lockshin L. Comparison of best-worst and hedonic scaling for the measurement of consumer wine preferences. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 2009, 15(3):205-215.
39. Pennington, H., 2009. The Public Inquiry into the September 2005 Outbreak of E. coli O157 in South Wales. http://wales.gov.uk/ecolidocs/3008707/reporten.pdf?lang=en.
40. Redmond E.C., Griffith C.J. Consumer perceptions of food safety risk, control and responsibility. Appetite 2004, 43(3):309-313.
41. Revelt D., Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics and Statistics 1998, 80(4):647-657.
42. Sawtooth Software, 2003. The CBC/HB System for Hierarchical Bayes Estimation Version 4.0 Technical Paper. Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software.
43. Sawtooth Software, 2007. The MaxDiff/Web v6.0 Technical Paper.
44. Siegrist M., Stampfli N., Kastenholz H. Acceptance of nanotechnology foods: a conjoint study examining consumers' willingness to buy. British Food Journal 2009, 111(6-7):660-668.
45. Sawtooth Software The CBC System for Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Technical Paper 2008, Sawtooth Software, Sequim, WA.
46. The Pennington Group, 1998. Report on the Circumstances Leading to the 1996 Outbreak of Infection with E. coli O157 in Central Scotland, the Implications for Food Safety and the Lessons to be Learned: The Scottish Office.
47. Thurstone L.L. A law of comparative judgement. Psychological Review 1927, 34:278-286.
48. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
49. van Kleef E., Frewer L.J., Chryssochoidis G.M., Houghton J.R., Korzen-Bohr S., Krystallis T., Lassen J., Pfenning U., Rowe G. Perceptions of food risk management among key stakeholders: results from a cross-European study. Appetite 2006, 47:46-63.
50. van Wezemael L., Verbeke W., Kugler J.O., de Barcellos M.D., Grunert K.G. European consumers and beef safety: perceptions, expectations and uncertainty reduction strategies. Food Control 2010, 21(6):835-844.
51. van Wezemael L., Verbeke W., Kugler J.O., Scholderer J. European consumer acceptance of safety-improving interventions in the beef chain. Food Control 2011, 22(11):1776-1784.
52. Webster K., Jardine C., Cash S.B., McMullen L.M. Risk ranking: investigating expert and public differences in evaluating food safety hazards. Journal of Food Protection 2010, 73(10):1875-1885.
53. Williams P.R.D., Hammitt J.K. Perceived risks of conventional and organic produce. Pesticides, pathogens and natural toxins. Risk Analysis 2001, 21(2):319-330.