IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ijofsd/277708.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Youths’ Preferences for Milk Products at School: How Product Attributes and Perceived Body Image Affect Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Christoph-Schulz, Inken
  • Weible, Daniela
  • Salamon, Petra

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Weible, Daniela & Salamon, Petra, 2018. "Youths’ Preferences for Milk Products at School: How Product Attributes and Perceived Body Image Affect Choices," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(2), March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ijofsd:277708
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.277708
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277708/files/751-2546-1-PB.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.277708?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. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    2. Stead, Martine & McDermott, Laura & MacKintosh, Anne Marie & Adamson, Ashley, 2011. "Why healthy eating is bad for young people's health: Identity, belonging and food," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1131-1139, April.
    3. Weible, Daniela & Salamon, Petra & Christoph-Schulz, Inken B. & Peter, Guenter, 2013. "How do political, individual and contextual factors affect school milk demand? Empirical evidence from primary schools in Germany," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 148-158.
    4. Hartmann, Monika & Cash, Sean B. & Yeh, Ching-Hua & Landwehr, Stefanie C. & McAlister, Anna R., 2016. "Children’s purchase behavior in the snack market: Can branding or low price motivate a healthy choice?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235841, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    6. Mandy Ryan & Diane Skåtun, 2004. "Modelling non‐demanders in choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(4), pages 397-402, April.
    7. Just, David R. & Wansink, Brian, 2009. "Smarter Lunchrooms: Using Behavioral Economics to Improve Meal Selection," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(3), pages 1-7.
    8. Kelder, S.H. & Perry, C.L. & Klepp, K.-I. & Lytle, L.L., 1994. "Longitudinal tracking of adolescent smoking, physical activity, and food choice behaviors," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 84(7), pages 1121-1126.
    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. Daniela Weible, 2013. "Gender-Driven Food Choice: Explaining School Milk Consumption of Boys and Girls," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 403-423, December.
    11. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    12. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    13. Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Weible, Daniela & Salamon, Petra, 2016. "Preferences for School Milk - How Juveniles Differ," 2016 International European Forum (151st EAAE Seminar), February 15-19, 2016, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 244518, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    14. John, Deborah Roedder, 1999. "Consumer Socialization of Children: A Retrospective Look at Twenty-Five Years of Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(3), pages 183-213, 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. Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Weible, Daniela & Salamon, Petra, 2016. "Preferences for School Milk - How Juveniles Differ," 2016 International European Forum (151st EAAE Seminar), February 15-19, 2016, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 244518, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    2. Christoph, Inken B. & Peter, Guenter & Rothe, Andrea & Salamon, Petra & Weber, Sascha A. & Weible, Daniela, 2011. "School Milk Consumption in Germany - What are Important Product Attributes for Children and Parents?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114294, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    4. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    5. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    6. 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.
    7. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    8. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    9. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Ran, Shenghong, 2006. "Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 430-441, May.
    10. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    11. José Miguel Sánchez U., 2013. "Contingent valuation and choice experiments applied to the Sierra Nevada National Park in Venezuela," Economía, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales (IIES). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales. Universidad de Los Andes. Mérida, Venezuela, vol. 38(35), pages 57-100, January-J.
    12. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    13. Chuan-zhong Li & Jari Kuuluvainen & Eija Pouta & Mika Rekola & Olli Tahvonen, 2004. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Natura 2000 Nature Conservation Programs in Finland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 361-374, November.
    14. Joan Mogas & Pere Riera & Raul Brey, 2009. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments. A Forestry Application in Spain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 535-551, August.
    15. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2009. "Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2009/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    16. Xuan Thi Dan Huynh & Tien Dung Khong & Adam Loch & Huynh Viet Khai, 2023. "Solid waste management program in developing countries: contingent valuation methodology versus choice experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(11), pages 12395-12417, November.
    17. Niroomand, Naghmeh & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2018. "A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 138-149.
    18. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    19. Rewitzer, Susanne & Huber, Robert & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Barkmann, Jan, 2017. "Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem service changes to a landscape in the Swiss Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 197-208.
    20. Asgary, Ali & Rezvani, Mohammad Reza & Mehregan, Nader, 2011. "Local Residents’ Preferences for Second Home Tourism Development Policies: A Choice Experiment nalysis," MPRA Paper 29703, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ijofsd:277708. 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/centmde.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.