Skip to main content

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
Cancel
×
×
Home
  • Home
Article
  • Cited by 31
  • Cited by
    Crossref Citations
    Crossref logo
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.
    My, Nguyen H.D. Van Loo, Ellen J. Rutsaert, Pieter Tuan, Tran Huu and Verbeke, Wim 2018. Consumer valuation of quality rice attributes in a developing economy. British Food Journal, Vol. 120, Issue. 5, p. 1059.
    Hamilton, Kelsey and Hekmat, Sharareh 2018. Organic food and university students: a pilot study. Nutrition & Food Science, Vol. 48, Issue. 2, p. 218.
    Ardeshiri, Ali and Rose, John Matthew 2018. How Australian consumers value intrinsic and extrinsic attributes of beef products. Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 65, Issue. , p. 146.
    Miller, Sini Tait, Peter Saunders, Caroline Dalziel, Paul Rutherford, Paul and Abell, Walter 2017. Estimation of consumer willingness-to-pay for social responsibility in fruit and vegetable products: A cross-country comparison using a choice experiment. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 16, Issue. 6, p. e13.
    Liu, Qing Yan, Zhen and Zhou, Jiehong 2017. Consumer Choices and Motives for Eco-Labeled Products in China: An Empirical Analysis Based on the Choice Experiment. Sustainability, Vol. 9, Issue. 3, p. 331.
    Asioli, Daniele Aschemann-Witzel, Jessica Caputo, Vincenzina Vecchio, Riccardo Annunziata, Azzurra Næs, Tormod and Varela, Paula 2017. Making sense of the “clean label” trends: A review of consumer food choice behavior and discussion of industry implications. Food Research International, Vol. 99, Issue. , p. 58.
    Ay, Jean-Sauveur Chakir, Raja and Marette, Stephan 2017. Distance Decay in the Willingness to Pay for Wine: Disentangling Local and Organic Attributes. Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 68, Issue. 4, p. 997.
    Tisselli, Farid Wongprawmas, Rungsaran and Canavari, Maurizio 2017. Customers’ Preferences for Different Processed Tomato Categories in Food Service. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, Vol. 29, Issue. 2, p. 158.
    Liu, Yong Yang, Dewei and Xu, Hengzhou 2017. Factors Influencing Consumer Willingness to Pay for Low-Carbon Products: A Simulation Study in China. Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 26, Issue. 7, p. 972.
    Khachatryan, Hayk Suh, Dong Hee Zhou, Guzhen and Dukes, Michael 2017. Sustainable Urban Landscaping: Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Turfgrass Fertilizers. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Vol. 65, Issue. 3, p. 385.
    Mishra, Nishikant Singh, Akshit Rana, Nripendra P. and Dwivedi, Yogesh K. 2017. Interpretive structural modelling and fuzzy MICMAC approaches for customer centric beef supply chain: application of a big data technique. Production Planning & Control, Vol. 28, Issue. 11-12, p. 945.
    Wang, Erpeng and Gao, Zhifeng 2017. Chinese Consumer Quality Perception and Preference of Traditional Sustainable Rice Produced by the Integrated Rice–Fish System. Sustainability, Vol. 9, Issue. 12, p. 2282.
    Risius, Antje and Hamm, Ulrich 2017. The effect of information on beef husbandry systems on consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay. Meat Science, Vol. 124, Issue. , p. 9.
    Dawei, Zhao and Mengdi, Wu 2016. Research on the influencing factors of consumer purchase behavior of green food in harbin. p. 4479.
    Beriain, M. J. Sánchez, M. Insausti, K. Sarries, M. V. and Soret, B. 2016. A comparison of sensory acceptance, purchase intention, and willingness to pay for Pirenaica beef from two different slaughter weight groups, under different consumer information scenarios. Journal of Sensory Studies, Vol. 31, Issue. 6, p. 453.
    Wägeli, Salome Janssen, Meike and Hamm, Ulrich 2016. Organic consumers’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for locally produced animal products. International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 40, Issue. 3, p. 357.
    García-Torres, S. López-Gajardo, A. and Mesías, F.J. 2016. Intensive vs. free-range organic beef. A preference study through consumer liking and conjoint analysis. Meat Science, Vol. 114, Issue. , p. 114.
    Hempel, Corinna and Hamm, Ulrich 2016. Local and/or organic: a study on consumer preferences for organic food and food from different origins. International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 40, Issue. 6, p. 732.
    Balogh, Péter Békési, Dániel Gorton, Matthew Popp, József and Lengyel, Péter 2016. Consumer willingness to pay for traditional food products. Food Policy, Vol. 61, Issue. , p. 176.
    Gaspar, P. Escribano, M. and Mesias, F.J. 2016. A qualitative approach to study social perceptions and public policies in dehesa agroforestry systems. Land Use Policy, Vol. 58, Issue. , p. 427.
    Download full list
    ×
  • Get access
    Add to cart USD35.00
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
    Log in Register Recommend to librarian

Organic label as an identifier of environmentally related quality: A consumer choice experiment on beef in Italy

  • R. Zanoli (a1), R. Scarpa (a2), F. Napolitano (a3), E. Piasentier (a4), S. Naspetti (a1) and V. Bruschi (a1)...
Abstract

This paper uses a hypothetical choice experiment to investigate Italian consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for organic, conventional and genetically modified (GM)-fed beef, utilizing intrinsic, search cues (price, color and visible fat) and extrinsic, credence cues. Data are gathered from three different locations in northern, central and southern Italy using a sequential Bayesian approach. Results showed that consumers attach higher value to organic meat. WTP for GM-fed beef, which is not yet sold in Italy, is well below current conventional beef prices. Organic beef is attractive to consumers because it is associated with higher animal welfare standards and environment-related issues (food miles and biodiversity preservation). No differences are found in marginal WTP estimates by gender, age, education, being a parent or having a higher level of knowledge about organic production. Ethical/environmental issues (credence cues) appear to be more relevant in explaining variation in WTP for organic beef than ordinary product characteristics (search cues).

Copyright
COPYRIGHT: © Cambridge University Press 2012
Corresponding author
*Corresponding author: zanoli@agrecon.univpm.it
References
Hide All
1Napolitano, F., Girolami, F., and Braghieri, A. 2009. Organic meat: Market development and consumer willingness to pay. In Nelson, M. and Artamova, I. (eds). Organic Farming: Methods, Economics and Structure. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, NY, USA. p. 113–126.
2Loureiro, M.L. and Umberger, W.J. 2007. 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 32(4):496–514.
3Tranter, R.B., Bennett, R.M., Costa, L., Cowan, C., Holt, G.C., Jones, P.J., Miele, M., Sottomayor, M., and Vestergaard, J. 2009. Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for organic conversion-grade food: Evidence from five EU countries. Food Policy 34:287–294.
4Grunert, K.G., Brendhal, L., and Brunsø, K. 2004. Consumer perception of meat quality and implication for product development in the meat sector—a review. Meat Science 66:259–272.
5Harper, G. and Makatouni, A. 2002. Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Journal of Food 104:287–299.
6Zanoli, R. and Naspetti, S. 2002. Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food: A means-end approach. British Food Journal 104(8):643–653.
7Baker, S., Thompson, K., and Engelken, J. 2004. Mapping the values driving organic food choice: Germany vs. the UK. European Journal of Marketing 38(8):995–1012.
8Gambelli, D., Naspetti, S., and Vairo, D. 2003. Why are consumers buying organic meat and milk? A qualitative study of the Italian market. In Proceeding of the First SAFO Workshop, ‘Socio-Economic Aspects of Animal Health and Food Safety in Organic Farming Systems’, Florence, Italy, September 2003. p. 125–142.
9Zanoli, R. (ed.). 2004. The European consumer and organic food. Organic Marketing Initiatives and Rural Development Series: Volume 4. University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Wales.
10ACNielsen 2005. Organic and functional foods have plenty of room to grow according to new ACNielsen global study. Available at Web site: http://usacnielsencom/news/
11Padel, S. and Foster, C. 2005. Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour: Understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food. British Food Journal 107(8):606–625.
12Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Van Trijp, H.C.M. 1996. Quality guidance: A consumer-based approach to food quality improvement using partial least squares. European Review of Agricultural Economics 23(2):195–215.
13Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. 1990. Conceptual model of the quality perception process. Journal of Business Research 21:309–333.
14Gracia, A. and Magistris, T. 2008. The demand for organic foods in the South of Italy: A discrete choice model. Food Policy 33:386–396.
15Bernuès, A., Olaizola, A., and Corcoran, K. 2003. Extrinsic attributes of red meat as indicators of quality in Europe: An application for market segmentation. Food Quality and Preference 14:265–276.
16Padel, S. and Gössinger, K. 2008. Farmer Consumer Partnerships Communicating Ethical Values: A Conceptual Framework. CORE Organic Project Report, No. 1897. Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth and University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna.
17Tonsor, G.T., Schroeder, T.C., Fox, J.A., and Biere, A. 2005. European preferences for beef steak attributes. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 30(2):367–380.
18Lusk, J., Roosen, J., and Fox, J. 2003. 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 85:16–29.
19Schmidt, H. 2008. Some Legal Aspects of the Regulations (EC) No. 834/2007 and 889/2008 on Organic Food Product, Available from Web site http://www.hpslex.com/ (accessed January 24, 2012).
20Caracciolo, F., Cembalo, L., Cicia, G., and Del Giudice, T. 2010. European preferences for pork product and process attributes: A generalized random utility model for ranked out come. Paper presented at 4th International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks, February 8–12, 2010, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria.
21Cicia, G. and Colantuoni, F. 2010. WTP for traceable meat attributes: A meta-analysis. International Journal on Food System Dynamics 1(3):252–263.
22Hocquette, J.F., Richardson, I.R., Prache, S., Medale, F., Duffy, G., and Scollan, N.D. 2005. The future trends for research on quality and safety of animal products. Italian Journal of Animal Science 4(3):49–72.
23Schnettler, B., Vidal, R., Silva, R., Vallejos, L., and Sepúlveda, N. 2009. Consumer willingness to pay for beef meat in a developing country: The effect of information regarding country of origin, price and animal handling prior to slaughter. Food Quality and Preference 20:156–165.
24Villalobos, P., Padilla, C., Ponce, C., and Rojas, A. 2010. Beef consumer preferences in Chile: Importance of quality attribute differentiators on the purchase decision. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 70:85–94.
25Acebron, L.B. and Dopico, D.C. 2000. The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues to expected and experienced quality: An empirical application for beef. Food Quality and Preference 11:229–238.
26Lancaster, K. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74:132–157.
27McFadden, D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Zarembka, P. (ed.). Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York, p. 105–142.
28Scarpa, R., Campbell, D., and Hutchinson, W.G. 2007. Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: Sequential Bayesian design and respondents’ rationality in a choice experiment study. Land Economics 83(4):617–634.
29Scarpa, R. and Rose, J.M. 2008. Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: How to measure it, what to report and why. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 52:253–282.
30Vermeulen, B., Goos, P., Scarpa, R., and Vandebroek, M. 2009. Efficient and robust evidence from simulations of willingness-to-pay designs for choice experiments. Unpublished manuscript.
31Ngene v1.0, 2009. User Manual and Reference Guide. Choice Metrics Ltd.
32Hensher, D.A. and Bradley, M. 1993. Using stated response choice data to enrich revealed preference discrete choice models. Marketing Letters 4:139–151.
33Haaijer, R., Kamakura, W., and Wedel, M. 2001. The ‘no-choice’ alternative in conjoint choice experiments. International Journal of Market Research 43:93–106.
34Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., and Lagerkvist, C.J. 2004. Using cheap-talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Working Papers in Economics No. 128. Department of Economics, Gothenburg University.
35Boyd, J.H. and Mellman, R.E. 1980. The effect of fuel economy standards on the U.S. automotive market: An hedonic demand analysis. Transportation Research Part A 14(5–6):367–378.
36Train, K.E. 1998. Recreation demand models with taste variation. Land Economics 74:230–239.
37Train, K. and Weeks, M. 2005. Discrete choice models in preference space and willing-to-pay space. In Scarpa, R. and Alberini, A. (eds). Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, Chapter 1. Springer, Dordrecht. p. 1–16.
38Sonnier, G., Ainslie, A., and Otter, T. 2007. Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 5(3):313–331.
39Balcombe, K., Chalak, A., and Fraser, I. 2009. Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 57(2):226–237.
40Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., and Greene, W.H. (eds). 2005. Applied Choice Analysis. A Primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
41Greene, W.H., Hensher, D.A. and Rose, J.M. 2005. Using classical simulation-based estimators to estimate individual WTP values. In Scarpa, R. and Alberini, A. (eds). Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics. Springer, Dordrecht. p. 17–33.
42Bech, M. and Gyrd-Hansen, D. 2005. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Economics 14:1079–1083.
43Lusk, J.L. and Schroeder, T.C. 2004. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2):467–482.
44Osservatorio Prezzi e Tariffe 2008. Ministero dello sviluppo Economico, Direzione Generale per il mercato, la concorrenza, il consumatore, la vigilanza e la normativa tecnica. Available at Web site http://www.osservaprezzi.it
45Organic Monitor 2010. The Global Market for Organic Food and Drink: Business Opportunities and Future Outlook. Organic Monitor, London, UK.
46Naspetti, S. and Zanoli, R. 2012. Organic meat production inEurope: Market and regulation. In Ricke, S. (ed.). Organic Meat Production and Processing. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. p. 53–66.
47Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., and Lagerkvist, C.J. 2007. Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: Mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter. European Review of Agricultural Economics 34(3):321–344.
48Lagerkvist, C.J., Carlsson, F., and Viske, D. 2006. Swedish consumer preferences for animal welfare and biotech: A choice experiment. AgBioForum 9(1):51–58.
49Verbeke, W. and Viaene, J. 1999. Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat consumption in Belgium: Empirical evidence from a consumer survey. Food Quality and Preference 10(6):437–445.
50Pouta, E., Heikkilä, J., Forsman-Hugg, S., Isoniemi, M., and Mäkelä, J. 2010. Consumer choice of broiler meat: The effects of country of origin and production methods. Food Quality and Preference 21(5):539–546.
51Dransfield, E., Ngapo, T.M., Nielsen, N.A., Bredahl, L., Sjödén, P.O., Magnusson, M., Campo, M.M., and Nute, G.R. 2005. Consumer choice and suggested price for pork as influenced by its appearance, taste and information concerning country of origin and organic pig production. Meat Science 69(1):61–70.
52Napolitano, F., Girolami, A., and Braghieri, A. 2010. Consumer liking and willingness to pay for high welfare animal-based products. Trends in Food Science and Technology 21(11):537–543.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems
  • ISSN: 1742-1705
  • EISSN: 1742-1713
  • URL: /core/journals/renewable-agriculture-and-food-systems
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *

CAPTCHA *

Skip to the audio challenge
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 4
Total number of PDF views: 168 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 809 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 12th June 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Cancel
Confirm
×