The Heterogeneity of Consumer Preferences for Meat Safety Attributes in Traditional Markets
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Empirical Model and Theoretical Framework
2.2. Experiment Design and Choice Set
2.3. Attribute and Level Settings
2.4. Questionnaire Design
3. Results
3.1. Sample Distribution
3.2. Heterogeneity in Consumer Preferences
3.3. The Standard Deviation of the Random Parameter
3.4. The WTP
3.5. The Estimated Results of the LCM
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Käferstein, F.K.; Motarjemi, Y.; Bettcher, D.W. Foodborne Disease Control: A Transnational Challenge. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 1997, 3, 503–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.G.; Bredahl, L.; Brunsø, K. Consumer perception of meat quality and implications for product development in the meat sector—A review. Meat Sci. 2004, 66, 259–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.G. Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2005, 32, 369–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.C.; Wang, Y.C.; Chiou, J.R.; Huang, H.W. CEO characteristics and internal control quality. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev. 2014, 22, 24–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brissette, C. This Is Your Body on Fast Food—The Washington Post. 2018. Available online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/sneaking-a-little-junk-food-doesnt-mean-all-is-lost/2018/02/26/828b75fa-1b36-11e8-9de1-147dd2df3829_story.html (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- World Health Organization. Food-Borne Diseases. 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/health-topics/foodborne-diseases#tab=tab_1 (accessed on 3 October 2020).
- Mergenthaler, M.; Weinberger, K.; Qaim, M. The role of consumers’ perceptions in the valuation of food safety and convenience attributes of vegetables in Vietnam. In Proceedings of the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Beijing, China, 16–22 August 2009; pp. 1–20. Available online: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/51629/files/321_IAAE_Mergenthaler_et_al_wtp_mediation_VN.pdf (accessed on 7 October 2020).
- Bandara, B.E.S.; DeSilva, D.A.M.; Maduwanthi, B.C.H.; Warunasinghe, W.A.A.I. Impact of Food Labeling Information on Consumer Purchasing Decision: With Special Reference to Faculty of Agricultural Sciences. Procedia Food Sci. 2016, 6, 309–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kumar, N.; Kapoor, S. Do labels influence purchase decisions of food products? Study of young consumers of an emerging market. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 218–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latiff, Z.A.A.; Rezai, G.; Mohamed, Z.; Ayob, M.A. Food Labels’ Impact Assessment on Consumer Purchasing Behavior in Malaysia. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2016, 22, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Britwum, K.; Yiannaka, A. Labeling food safety attributes: To inform or not to inform? Agric. Food Econ. 2019, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balasubramanian, S.K.; Cole, C. Consumers’ search and use of nutrition information: The challenge and promise of the nutrition labeling and education act. J. Mark. 2002, 66, 112–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schipmann, C.; Qaim, M. Modern food retailers and traditional markets in developing countries: Comparing quality, prices, and competition strategies in Thailand. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2011, 33, 345–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hawley, K.L.; Roberto, C.A.; Bragg, M.A.; Liu, P.J.; Schwartz, M.B.; Brownell, K.D. The science on front-of-package food labels. Public Health Nutr. 2013, 16, 430–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helgi Library. Meat Consumption Per Capita in Taiwan. 2013. Available online: https://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/meat-consumption-per-capita/taiwan/#:~:text=Meat%20consumption%20per%20capita%20reached,of%2021.1%20kg%20in%201962 (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- Wu, D. The Pork Meat Market in Taiwan; Taiwan, Flanders Investment & Trade: Taipei, Taiwan; Available online: https://www.flandersinvestmentandtrade.com/export/sites/trade/files/market_studies/TaiwanPorkReport_1.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2020).
- News Desk, Video Records Showed Issues at Diner Linked to Salmonella Outbreak_Food Safety News. 2020. Available online: https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/06/video-records-showed-issues-at-diner-linked-to-salmonella-outbreak/#more-195302 (accessed on 3 October 2020).
- Dong, T.T.M.; Ching, G.S. A case study on the food safety issues of college students in Taiwan. Int. J. Res. Stud. Manag. 2015, 4, 37–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheng, W.C.; Kuo, C.W.; Chi, T.Y.; Lin, L.C.; Lee, C.H.; Feng, R.L.; Tsai, S.T. Investigation on the trend of food-borne disease outbreaks in Taiwan (1991–2010). J. Food Drug Anal. 2013, 21, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hsiao, C.; Chong, C. Food Scandals of Taiwan. 2017. Available online: http://shuj.shu.edu.tw/blog/2017/10/11/food-scandals-of-taiwan/ (accessed on 2 October 2020).
- Zhong, V.W.; VanHorn, L.; Cornelis, M.C.; Wilkins, J.T.; Ning, H.; Carnethon, M.R.; Greenland, P.; Mentz, R.J.; Tucker, K.L.; Zhao, L.; et al. Associations of Dietary Cholesterol or Egg Consumption with Incident Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2019, 321, 1081–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Feidberg, S. Fresh: A Perishable History; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Losasso, C.; Cibin, V.; Cappa, V.; Roccato, A.; Vanzo, A.; Andrighetto, I.; Ricci, A. Food safety and nutrition: Improving consumer behaviour. Food Control 2012, 26, 252–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meziane. Consumers and Health Claims for Functional Foods. 2007. Available online: https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=cXlwAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=Functional+Foods:+Concept+to+Product+Meziane.+2007&source=bl&ots=ZvhdDeiyqR&sig=ACfU3U0C9FX0Mrow4WwToyWYUVY86L1zQA&hl=id&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE0JKt_sjuAhUBHqYKHZL-A0cQ6AEwFnoECBkQAg#v=onepage&q=Functional%20Foods%3A%20Concept%20to%20Product%20Meziane.%202007&f=false (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- Ortega, D.L.; Wang, H.H.; Wu, L.; Olynk, N.J. Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China. Food Policy 2011, 36, 318–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haryotejo, B. Dampak Ekspansi Hypermarket terhadap Pasar Tradisional di Daerah. J. Home Aff. Gov. 2014, 6, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shacklett, M. Track and Trace in the Food Supply Chain. 2019. Available online: https://www.foodlogistics.com/transportation/3pl-4pl/article/21047634/track-and-trace-in-the-food-supply-chain (accessed on 10 October 2020).
- Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 25, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klopčič, M.; Slokan, P.; Erjavec, K. Consumer preference for nutrition and health claims: A multi-methodological approach. Food Qual. 2020, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoek, A.C.; Pearson, D.; James, S.W.; Lawrence, M.A.; Friel, S. Healthy and environmentally sustainable food choices: Consumer responses to point-of-purchase actions. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 58, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wier, M.; O’Doherty Jensen, K.; Andersen, L.M.; Millock, K. The character of demand in mature organic food markets: Great Britain and Denmark compared. Food Policy 2008, 33, 406–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gao, Z.; Schroeder, T.C. Effects of label information on consumer willingness-to-pay for food attributes. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2009, 91, 795–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, M.F.; Huang, C.H. The impacts of the food traceability system and consumer involvement on consumers’ purchase intentions toward fast foods. Food Control 2013, 33, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jan, M.S.; Fu, T.T.; Liao, D.S. Willingness to pay for HACCP on seafood in Taiwan. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2006, 10, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chern, W.S.; Chang, C.Y. Benefit evaluation of the country of origin labeling in Taiwan: Results from an auction experiment. Food Policy 2012, 37, 511–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.C.; Hong, C.Y. Taiwanese consumers’ willingness to pay for broiler welfare improvement. Animals 2019, 9, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, Y.C. Factors affecting consumers’ willingness to pay for animal welfare eggs in Taiwan. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2018, 21, 741–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, C.L.; Kan, K.; Fu, T.T. Consumer willingness-to-pay for food safety in Taiwan: A binary-ordinal probit model of analysis. J. Consum. Aff. 1999, 33, 76–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.H. Do traditional market consumers care about the halal meat label? A case study in Taiwan. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2019, 22, 781–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarma, P.; Raha, S. Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic beef: Evidence from Dhaka City. J. Bangladesh. Agric. Univ. 2016, 14, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lancaster, K.J. A new approach to consumer theory author. Current 1996, 74, 132–157. [Google Scholar]
- McFadden, D. The measurement of urban travel demand. J. Public Econ. 1974, 3, 303–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFadden, D.; Train, K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econom. 2000, 15, 447–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Train, K. Goods_Leisure. Transp. Res. 1978, 12, 349–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Train, K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hensher, D.A.; Greene, W.H. The mixed logit model: The state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30, 133–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alfnes, F.; Guttormsen, A.G.; Steine, G.; Kolstad, K. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for the Color of Salmon: A Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2006, 88, 1050–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lusk, J.L.; Hudson, D. Willingness-to-pay estimates and their relevance to agribusiness decision making. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2014, 26, 152–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, R.C.Y.; Lee, M.S.; Chang, Y.H.; Wahlqvist, M.L. Cooking frequency may enhance survival in Taiwanese elderly. Public Health Nutr. 2012, 15, 1142–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Thurstone, L.L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 1994, 101, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoek, A.C.; Pearson, D.; James, S.W.; Lawrence, M.A.; Friel, S. What nutrition label to use in a catering environment? A discrete choice experiment. Food Policy 2012, 37, 741–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanley, N.; Robert, E.W.V.A. Costs of secondary parasitism in the facultative hyperparasitoid Pachycrepoideus dubius: Does host size matter? Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1998, 103, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kroes, E.P.; Sheldon, R.J. Stated Preference Methods: An Introduction. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 1998, 22, 11–25. [Google Scholar]
- Mtimet, N.; Albisu, L.M. Spanish wine consumer behavior: A choice experiment approach. Agribusiness 2006, 22, 343–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OnedayKorea. Korea Traditional Markets: Unique Places. 2016. Available online: https://blog.onedaykorea.com/korea-traditional-markets/ (accessed on 6 October 2020).
- Discover Taipei. Roaming Traditional Markets, Exploring Taipei’s Many Lifestyles; Taipei City Government Press: Taipei, Taiwan, 2013. Available online: http://www-ws.gov.taipei/001/Upload/public/MMO/ENGTPEDOIT/Dt94%20English.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- VanLoo, E.J.; Diem, M.N.H.; Pieniak, Z.; Verbeke, W. Consumer attitudes, knowledge, and consumption of organic yogurt. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 2118–2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Higgins, J.P.T.; Thompson, S.G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 2002, 21, 1539–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yue, F.; Arbiol, J.; Nomura, H.; Yabe, M. Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Organic Milk among Urban Consumers in Dalian China. J. Fac. Agric. Kyushu Univ. 2015, 60, 501–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Empen, J.; Hamilton, S.F. How do supermarkets respond to brand-level demand shocks? Evidence from the German beer market. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2013, 95, 1223–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tempesta, T.; Vecchiato, D. An analysis of the territorial factors affecting milk purchase in Italy. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 27, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, L.; Yang, X.; Wu, L. Consumers’ willingness to pay for imported milk: Based on Shanghai, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Attributes | Levels |
---|---|
TFP | Provide TFP label in Taiwan’s traditional markets |
No TFP | |
QR code | Provide QR code in Taiwan’s traditional markets |
No QR code | |
Cold storage | Provide Cold storage in Taiwan’s traditional markets |
No Cold storage | |
Price | 65 NTD/600 g |
70 NTD/600 g | |
75 NTD/600 g | |
80 NTD/600 g |
Variables | Descriptions | Mean | Standard Deviations |
---|---|---|---|
Female | DV = 1 if the respondent is female | 0.78 | 0.41 |
Age | CV; the respondent’s age | 53.14 | 9.33 |
Education | DV = 1 if the respondent has education above senior high school | 0.68 | 0.46 |
Atheist | DV = 1 if the respondent does not identify with a religion | 0.42 | 0.49 |
Manufacture | DV = 1 if the respondent’s job is in manufacturing | 0.14 | 0.35 |
Service | DV = 1 if the respondent’s job is in service | 0.24 | 0.43 |
Housewife | DV = 1 if the respondent’s job is housewife | 0.25 | 0.43 |
Traditional market | CV; the frequency of the respondent going to traditional markets | 43.10 | 34.53 |
Supermarket | CV; the frequency of the respondent going to supermarkets | 28.57 | 28.34 |
Demand buy meat | DV = 1 if the demand of the respondent’s buying meat will increase in the future | 0.11 | 0.59 |
Attributes | CLM | MLM | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coef. Estimation | Coef. Estimation | Standard Deviation | ||||
Price | −0.038 | *** | −0.037 | ** | ||
Buy no | −3.829 | *** | −4.670 | *** | 2.507 | *** |
TFP | 0.999 | ** | 1.171 | * | 0.774 | *** |
QR code | 0.456 | 1.066 | * | 0.992 | *** | |
Cold storage | 1.732 | *** | 2.668 | *** | 1.700 | *** |
Interaction Term | ||||||
TFP × Age | −0.017 | ** | −0.018 | * | ||
TFP × Female | 0.202 | 0.127 | ||||
TFP × Education | −0.150 | −0.241 | ||||
TFP × Atheist | 0.420 | *** | 0.581 | *** | ||
TFP × Service | 0.294 | 0.573 | ** | |||
TFP × Manufacture | 0.611 | ** | 0.736 | ** | ||
TFP × Housekeeper | −0.021 | −0.075 | ||||
TFP × Traditional Market | −0.001 | 0.000 | ||||
TFP × Supermarket | −0.001 | −0.002 | ||||
TFP × Demand buy meat | −0.195 | −0.344 | ||||
Cold storage × Age | −0.009 | * | −0.012 | ** | ||
Cold storage × Female | 0.045 | −0.022 | ||||
Cold storage × Education | −0.140 | −0.181 | ||||
Cold storage × Atheist | 0.265 | *** | 0.439 | *** | ||
Cold storage × Service | −0.083 | −0.084 | ||||
Cold storage × Manufacture | 0.135 | 0.141 | ||||
Cold storage × Housekeeper | −0.122 | −0.202 | ||||
Cold storage × Traditional Market | −0.003 | * | −0.004 | ** | ||
Cold storage × Supermarket | 0.001 | 0.001 | ||||
Cold storage × Demand buy meat | 0.324 | ** | 0.526 | *** | ||
QR code × Age | 0.002 | 0.001 | ||||
QR code × Female | −0.120 | −0.149 | ||||
QR code × Education | 0.038 | 0.039 | ||||
QR code × Atheist | −0.297 | ** | −0.324 | * | ||
QR code × Service | −0.059 | −0.167 | ||||
QR code × Manufacture | −0.068 | −0.084 | ||||
QR code × Housekeeper | 0.020 | 0.005 | ||||
QR code × Traditional Market | −0.001 | −0.003 | ||||
QR code × Supermarket | 0.001 | 0.002 | ||||
QR code × Demand buy meat | 0.244 | 0.515 | * | |||
Log Likelihood: | −2432.8 | −2187.2 | ||||
AIC: | 4935.627 | 4464.315 | ||||
BIC: | 5152.386 | 4743.005 | ||||
Number of observations: | 10,848 |
Attributes | Coef. Estimate | Std. Error | |
---|---|---|---|
Buy no × Buy no | 6.283 | *** | 1.368 |
Buy no × Cold storage | −0.925 | ** | 0.446 |
Buy no × QR code | 1.449 | *** | 0.487 |
Buy no × TFP | 1.477 | *** | 0.430 |
Cold storage × Cold storage | 0.599 | * | 0.357 |
Cold storage × QR code | −0.527 | * | 0.273 |
Cold storage × TFP | −0.497 | *** | 0.191 |
QR code × QR code | 0.984 | *** | 0.335 |
QR code × TFP | 1.548 | *** | 0.301 |
TFP × TFP | 2.890 | *** | 0.410 |
Main Effect | Mean (NTD/600 g) | Standard Deviation | Standard Error | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Buy no | −127.800 | *** | 67.757 | 25.327 |
TFP | 32.039 | 20.919 | 25.236 | |
QR code | 29.169 | * | 26.811 | 17.308 |
Cold storage | 73.006 | ** | 45.946 | 33.821 |
Interaction Term | ||||
TFP × Age | −0.491 | - | 0.351 | |
TFP × Female | 3.485 | - | 6.454 | |
TFP × Education | −6.600 | - | 7.503 | |
TFP × Atheist | 15.910 | * | - | 8.810 |
TFP × Service | 15.677 | - | 9.588 | |
TFP × Manufacture | 20.141 | - | 12.635 | |
TFP × Housekeeper | −2.048 | - | 6.880 | |
TFP × Traditional Market | −0.002 | - | 0.080 | |
TFP × Supermarket | −0.058 | - | 0.098 | |
TFP X Demand buy meat | −9.400 | - | 9.358 | |
Cold storage × Age | −0.327 | - | 0.217 | |
Cold storage × Female | −0.589 | - | 3.761 | |
Cold storage × Education | −4.960 | - | 4.575 | |
Cold storage × Atheist | 12.003 | ** | - | 6.026 |
Cold storage × Service | −2.302 | - | 4.247 | |
Cold storage × Manufacture | 3.847 | - | 5.349 | |
Cold storage × Housekeeper | −5.539 | - | 4.802 | |
Cold storage × Traditional Market | −0.103 | - | 0.066 | |
Cold storage × Supermarket | 0.022 | - | 0.058 | |
Cold storage × Demand buy meat | 14.380 | * | - | 8.035 |
QR code × Age | 0.020 | - | 0.236 | |
QR code × Female | −4.064 | - | 5.721 | |
QR code × Education | 1.064 | - | 5.518 | |
QR code × Atheist | −8.875 | - | 6.130 | |
QR code × Service | −4.568 | - | 6.233 | |
QR code × Manufacture | −2.294 | - | 7.261 | |
QR code × Housekeeper | 0.127 | - | 5.841 | |
QR code × Traditional Market | −0.089 | - | 0.078 | |
QR code × Supermarket | 0.054 | - | 0.084 | |
QR code × Demand buy meat | 14.100 | - | 9.649 |
Variable | Estimates | ||
---|---|---|---|
Class 1 “Food Safety Conscious” | Class 2 “QR Code Fans” | Class 3 “Price Conscious” | |
Price | −0.019 | −0.034 | −0.088 ** |
Buy No | −2.179 | −0.864 | −9.439 *** |
TFP | 0.365 | −0.043 | 0.275 |
QR code | 0.880 *** | 0.813 ** | 0.104 |
Cold storage | 2.259 *** | 0.479 | −0.443 ** |
Probability Class | 0.705 | 0.061 | 0.234 |
/Share1 | 1116 *** | ||
/Share2 | −1335 *** | ||
Log Likelihood: | −2211.353 | ||
AIC: | 4456.706 | ||
BIC: | 4555.422 | ||
Number of Obs: | 10,848 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nugraha, W.S.; Yang, S.-H.; Ujiie, K. The Heterogeneity of Consumer Preferences for Meat Safety Attributes in Traditional Markets. Foods 2021, 10, 624. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10030624
Nugraha WS, Yang S-H, Ujiie K. The Heterogeneity of Consumer Preferences for Meat Safety Attributes in Traditional Markets. Foods. 2021; 10(3):624. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10030624
Chicago/Turabian StyleNugraha, Widya Satya, Shang-Ho Yang, and Kiyokazu Ujiie. 2021. "The Heterogeneity of Consumer Preferences for Meat Safety Attributes in Traditional Markets" Foods 10, no. 3: 624. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10030624
APA StyleNugraha, W. S., Yang, S. -H., & Ujiie, K. (2021). The Heterogeneity of Consumer Preferences for Meat Safety Attributes in Traditional Markets. Foods, 10(3), 624. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10030624