IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ifaamr/320214.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The interaction relationships among agricultural certification labels or brands: evidence from Chinese consumer preference for fresh produce

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Yiqin
  • Wang, Jingbin
  • Han, Dan
  • Lv, Shanshan
  • Chen, Mo
  • Yin, Shijiu

Abstract

China uses a multilevel agricultural certification system; however, its implications are not well understood. In this study, we used tomatoes as an example in a series of Becker-DeGroot-Marschak auction experiments to determine consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) toward three safety certification labels and two kinds of brands. Then, based on the auction experiment results, we designed a menu-based choice experiment to assess the interaction relationships between the safety certification labels and brands. The results showed that consumers were generally willing to pay a premium for tomatoes with safety-certified labels (especially for organic labels) and brands (especially for the enterprise brand). Providing consumers with additional information regarding the certification remarkably improved their WTP for tomatoes with organic and green labels. The menu-based choice experiment suggested that the organic and green labels were found to be substitutes. In addition, organic and green labels could not substitute the enterprise brand, whereas the converse of this relationship was true. Finally, a mutual substitution relationship was observed between hazard-free label and enterprise brand. Our research enables producers to consider the interaction between certification strategies and brand strategies. Therefore, marketers and policymakers should take steps to promote and expand consumers’ knowledge on certification, as it could benefit the development of certified food.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Yiqin & Wang, Jingbin & Han, Dan & Lv, Shanshan & Chen, Mo & Yin, Shijiu, 2022. "The interaction relationships among agricultural certification labels or brands: evidence from Chinese consumer preference for fresh produce," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 25(2), March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:320214
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.320214
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/320214/files/ifamr2021.0048.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.320214?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    2. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    3. Waseem Ahmad & Sven Anders, 2012. "The Value of Brand and Convenience Attributes in Highly Processed Food Products," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 60(1), pages 113-133, March.
    4. Ubilava, David & Foster, Kenneth, 2009. "Quality certification vs. product traceability: Consumer preferences for informational attributes of pork in Georgia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 305-310, June.
    5. Wu, Linhai & Wang, Shuxian & Zhu, Dian & Hu, Wuyang & Wang, Hongsha, 2015. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food quality and safety attributes: The case of pork," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 121-136.
    6. Yang, Xiaoke & Chen, Qiuhua & Lin, Nenmei & Han, Mengzhu & Chen, Qian & Zheng, Qiuqin & Gao, Bin & Liu, Fengbo & Xu, Zhongyue, 2021. "Chinese consumer preferences for organic labels on Oolong tea: evidence from a choice experiment," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(3), February.
    7. Jing Xie & Zhifeng Gao & Marilyn Swisher & Xin Zhao, 2016. "Consumers’ preferences for fresh broccolis: interactive effects between country of origin and organic labels," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 181-191, March.
    8. Linhai Wu & Hongsha Wang & Dian Zhu & Wuyang Hu & Shuxian Wang, 2016. "Chinese consumers’ willingness to pay for pork traceability information—the case of Wuxi," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 71-79, January.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    10. Karen E. Lewis & Carola Grebitus & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr, 2016. "The Impact of Brand and Attention on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay: Evidence from an Eye Tracking Experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(4), pages 753-777, December.
    11. Shijiu Yin & Mo Chen & Yingjun Xu & Yusheng Chen, 2017. "Chinese consumers’ willingness-to-pay for safety label on tomato: evidence from choice experiments," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 9(1), pages 141-155, February.
    12. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    13. Allenby, Greg M. & Rossi, Peter E., 1998. "Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 57-78, November.
    14. Kar H. Lim & Wuyang Hu & Leigh J. Maynard & Ellen Goddard, 2014. "A Taste for Safer Beef? How Much Does Consumers’ Perceived Risk Influence Willingness to Pay for Country‐of‐Origin Labeled Beef," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 17-30, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shi, Longzhong & Chen, Xuan & Qiu, Jingran & Li, Li, 2022. "Consumers Preferences for Eco-Labels and the Impact of Information: A Choice Experiment on Aquatic Food Products in China," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322209, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Haolong Liu, 2022. "The Tripartite Evolutionary Game of Green Agro-Product Supply in an Agricultural Industrialization Consortium," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-19, September.
    3. Qiao Liang & Kangwei Ma & Wenhao Liu, 2023. "The role of farmer cooperatives in promoting environmentally sustainable agricultural development in China: A review," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(3), pages 741-759, September.
    4. Marzia Ingrassia & Stefania Chironi & Giuseppe Lo Grasso & Luciano Gristina & Nicola Francesca & Simona Bacarella & Pietro Columba & Luca Altamore, 2022. "Is Environmental Sustainability Also “Economically Efficient”? The Case of the “SOStain” Certification for Sicilian Sparkling Wines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-26, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liu, Ruifeng & ,, 2021. "What We Can Learn from the Interactions of Food Traceable Attributes? a Case Study of Fuji Apple in China," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315916, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Lamonaca, Emilia, 2020. "Objective risk and subjective risk: The role of information in food supply chains," MPRA Paper 104515, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    4. Bo Hou & Jing Hou & Linhai Wu, 2019. "Consumer Preferences for Traceable Food with Different Functions of Safety Information Attributes: Evidence from a Menu-Based Choice Experiment in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-18, December.
    5. Lingling Xu & Xixi Yang & Linhai Wu & Xiujuan Chen & Lu Chen & Fu-Sheng Tsai, 2019. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Food with Information on Animal Welfare, Lean Meat Essence Detection, and Traceability," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-22, September.
    6. Shijiu Yin & Shanshan Lv & Yusheng Chen & Linhai Wu & Mo Chen & Jiang Yan, 2018. "Consumer preference for infant milk‐based formula with select food safety information attributes: Evidence from a choice experiment in China," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(4), pages 557-569, December.
    7. Linhai Wu & Xiaolin Liu & Dian Zhu & Hongsha Wang & Shuxian Wang & Lingling Xu, 2015. "Simulation of Market Demand for Traceable Pork with Different Levels of Safety Information: A Case Study in Chinese Consumers," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 63(4), pages 513-537, December.
    8. Wang, Shuxian & Wu, Linhai & Zhu, Dian & Wang, Hongsha & Xu, Lingling, 2014. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food attributes: The case of pork," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 165639, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Wu, Linhai & Wang, Shuxian & Zhu, Dian & Hu, Wuyang & Wang, Hongsha, 2015. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food quality and safety attributes: The case of pork," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 121-136.
    10. Shi, Longzhong & Chen, Xuan & Chen, Bo & Qiu, Jingran & Li, Li, 2021. "Assessing Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Covid-19-tested Food Labels," 2021 ASAE 10th International Conference (Virtual), January 11-13, Beijing, China 329403, Asian Society of Agricultural Economists (ASAE).
    11. Wenjing Nie & David Abler & Liqun Zhu & Taiping Li & Guanghua Lin, 2018. "Consumer Preferences and Welfare Evaluation under Current Food Inspection Measures in China: Evidence from Real Experiment Choice of Rice Labels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, November.
    12. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    13. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    16. Ding, Ye & Nayga Jr, Rodolfo M. & Zeng, Yinchu & Yang, Wei & Arielle Snell, Heather, 2022. "Consumers’ valuation of a live video feed in restaurant kitchens for online food delivery service," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    17. Ward, Patrick S. & Ortega, David L. & Spielman, David J. & Singh, Vartika, 2013. "Farmer preferences for drought tolerance in hybrid versus inbred rice: Evidence from Bihar, India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1307, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    18. Linhai Wu & Hongsha Wang & Dian Zhu & Wuyang Hu & Shuxian Wang, 2016. "Chinese consumers’ willingness to pay for pork traceability information—the case of Wuxi," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 71-79, January.
    19. Lilavanichakul, Apichaya & Boecker, Andreas, 2013. "Consumer Acceptance of a New Traceability Technology: A Discrete Choice Application to Ontario Ginseng," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 16(4), pages 1-26, November.
    20. My, Nguyen H.D. & Demont, Matty & Van Loo, Ellen J. & de Guia, Annalyn & Rutsaert, Pieter & Tuan, Tran Huu & Verbeke, Wim, 2018. "What is the value of sustainably-produced rice? Consumer evidence from experimental auctions in Vietnam," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 283-296.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:320214. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifamaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.