IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ifaamr/338641.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of information heterogeneity in blockchain-based traceability systems: evidence from fresh fruits buyers in China

Author

Listed:
  • Zhai, Qianqian
  • Li, Qian
  • Sher, Ali
  • Chen, Chao

Abstract

Blockchain technology is now being piloted to agri-food traceability systems to restore consumers’ confidence for food quality and safety. It is important for the industry to understand what information to be recorded and tracked in blockchain-based fresh produce traceability systems to meet consumers’ preferences for information. Yet little research has focused specifically on consumers’ preferences concerning information attributes traced by this new blockchain technology. This study conducts a best-worst scaling experiment with fresh fruit buyers in China to investigate consumers’ preference and perceived value regarding sixteen information attributes about blockchain-based fresh fruit traceability systems. The results from the analysis of a random parameter logit model reveal that consumers consistently rank testing information as the first-most valuable attribute, followed by production inputs (pesticides and fertilizers), quality certification and grades information attributes, while supplier and logistics information are considered to be the least valuable traceability one. Furthermore, there exist significant heterogeneity in relative value placed on traceable information attributes. The findings identify four different consumer segments by using a latent class modelling approach: (1) sensitivity for authoritative information, (2) preferences for comprehensive information, (3) information preferences equally, and (4) preferences for production inputs information. Preference heterogeneity is mainly explained by risk attitude, risk perception, information concern, traceability cognition, gender and other factors. The findings from this study can provide stakeholders and policymakers with certain insights as well as strategies on information provision and disclosure for fresh produce blockchain-based traceability.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhai, Qianqian & Li, Qian & Sher, Ali & Chen, Chao, 2023. "The role of information heterogeneity in blockchain-based traceability systems: evidence from fresh fruits buyers in China," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 26(3), February.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:338641
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.338641
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/338641/files/zhai-et-al-2023-the-role-of-information-heterogeneity-in-blockchain-based-traceability-systems-evidence-from-fresh.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.338641?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. Kouhizadeh, Mahtab & Saberi, Sara & Sarkis, Joseph, 2021. "Blockchain technology and the sustainable supply chain: Theoretically exploring adoption barriers," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    2. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lai, Kee-hung & Feng, Yunting & Zhu, Qinghua, 2023. "Digital transformation for green supply chain innovation in manufacturing operations," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    2. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    3. Kruse, Tobias & Atkinson, Giles, 2022. "Understanding public support for international climate adaptation payments: Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    4. Kontoleon Andreas & Yabe Mitsuyasu, 2006. "Market Segmentation Analysis of Preferences for GM Derived Animal Foods in the UK," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-38, December.
    5. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    6. Lai, John & Olynk Widmar, Nicole J. & Gunderson, Michael A. & Widmar, David A. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Prioritization of farm success factors by commercial farm managers," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(6), July.
    7. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2006. "Using Continuous and Finite Mixture Models to Account for Preference Heterogeneity in a group of Outdoor Recreationalists," Working Papers 0602, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    8. Christoph, Inken B. & Roosen, Jutta & Bruhn, Maike, 2006. "Willingness to pay for genetically modified food and non-food products," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21303, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    10. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    11. D Rigby & M Burton, 2003. "Capturing Preference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Models: A Random Parameter Logit Model of the Demand for GM Food," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0319, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    12. Andy Choi & Franco Papandrea & Jeff Bennett, 2007. "Assessing cultural values: developing an attitudinal scale," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 31(4), pages 311-335, December.
    13. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Alexandros Dimitropoulos, 2014. "The Influence of Environmental Concerns on Drivers’ Preferences for Electric Cars," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-128/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    15. Govindan, Kannan & Kannan, Devika & Jørgensen, Thomas Ballegård & Nielsen, Tim Straarup, 2022. "Supply Chain 4.0 performance measurement: A systematic literature review, framework development, and empirical evidence," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    16. Charity, Nabwire Ephamia Juma, 2016. "Economic Analysis Of Consumers’ Awareness And Willingness To Pay For Geographical Indicators And Other Quality Attributes Of Honey In Kenya," Research Theses 265574, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    17. 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.
    18. Dhakal, Bhubaneswor & Yao, Richard T. & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim, 2012. "Recreational users' willingness to pay and preferences for changes in planted forest features," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 34-44.
    19. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    20. Salehnia, Mina & Hayati, Baballah & Ghahremanzadeh, Mohammad & Molaei, Morteza, 2015. "Estimating the Value of Improvement in Lake Urmia’s Environmental Situation Using Choice Experiment," International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development (IJAMAD), Iranian Association of Agricultural Economics, vol. 5(4), December.

    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:338641. 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.