IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i4p1438-d320923.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainable Value Creation in the Food Chain: A Consumer Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • József Tóth

    (Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Corvinus University of Budapest, 1093 Budapest, Hungary
    Faculty of Economics, Socio-Human Sciences and Engineering, Sapientia Hungarian University of Transylvania, 530104 Miercurea Ciuc, Piaţa Libertăţii nr. 1, Romania)

  • Giuseppina Migliore

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Forest Sciences, University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy)

  • Giorgio Schifani

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Forest Sciences, University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy)

  • Giuseppina Rizzo

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Forest Sciences, University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy)

Abstract

The growth of diet-related diseases is becoming an important societal concern and a challenge for a more sustainable society. This has developed important trends in food consumption, including the increasing demand for food with a natural attribute and with health claims (e.g., enriched food). Consumers tend to evaluate these two attributes as superior ones and tend to pay a premium price for them. Accordingly, the value added by producers also will upturn if they take into consideration the consumers’ preferences. However, to the best of our knowledge, consumer preference over the two types of products (natural and enriched) is not yet completely clear. The present study tries to contribute to reducing this gap by analyzing Hungarian consumer preferences for natural fruit juices over enriched ones and exploring the drivers which guide consumer choices for the two attributes. For this purpose, we analyze young consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for natural and enriched fruit juices using a seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) to derive the two value-added activities. Our results show that the fruit juice with the natural attribute is preferred over the enriched one, and that there is a common feature behind the perception of the two attributes, namely the healthiness. Based on the natural fruit juice characteristic, these results open space for local production in gardens or in small-medium sized farms. This could have beneficial effects, both for sustainable development of rural areas and for the promotion of healthy food systems towards sustainability in food consumption.

Suggested Citation

  • József Tóth & Giuseppina Migliore & Giorgio Schifani & Giuseppina Rizzo, 2020. "Sustainable Value Creation in the Food Chain: A Consumer Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:4:p:1438-:d:320923
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1438/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1438/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lusk Jayson L & Alexander Corinne & Rousu Matthew C., 2007. "Designing Experimental Auctions for Marketing Research: The Effect of Values, Distributions, and Mechanisms on Incentives for Truthful Bidding," Review of Marketing Science, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-32, October.
    2. Kinga Nagy-Pércsi & Csaba Fogarassy, 2019. "Important Influencing and Decision Factors in Organic Food Purchasing in Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-21, November.
    3. Lähteenmäki, Liisa & Lampila, Piritta & Grunert, Klaus & Boztug, Yasemin & Ueland, Øydis & Aström, Annika & Martinsdóttir, Emilia, 2010. "Impact of health-related claims on the perception of other product attributes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 230-239, June.
    4. Giuseppina Migliore & Massimiliano Borrello & Alessia Lombardi & Giorgio Schifani, 2018. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for natural food: evidence from an artefactual field experiment," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 6(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    6. Nocella, Giuseppe & Kennedy, Orla, 2012. "Food health claims – What consumers understand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 571-580.
    7. Shogren, Jason F. & Seung Y. Shin & Dermot J. Hayes & James B. Kliebenstein, 1994. "Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 255-270, March.
    8. Tania Bucic & Jennifer Harris & Denni Arli, 2012. "Ethical Consumers Among the Millennials: A Cross-National Study," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 113-131, September.
    9. Giuseppina Rizzo & Massimiliano Borrello & Giovanni Dara Guccione & Giorgio Schifani & Luigi Cembalo, 2020. "Organic Food Consumption: The Relevance of the Health Attribute," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-12, January.
    10. Johannes Kahl & Aneta Załęcka & Angelika Ploeger & Susanne Bügel & Machteld Huber, 2012. "Functional Food and Organic Food are Competing Rather than Supporting Concepts in Europe," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-9, October.
    11. Judit Oláh & Zuzana Virglerova & József Popp & Jana Kliestikova & Sándor Kovács, 2019. "The Assessment of Non-Financial Risk Sources of SMES in the V4 Countries and Serbia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-19, September.
    12. Zoltán Lakner & Anna Kiss & Ivan Merlet & Judit Oláh & Domicián Máté & Janusz Grabara & József Popp, 2018. "Building Coalitions for a Diversified and Sustainable Tourism: Two Case Studies from Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    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. Vera Sadovska & Lena Ekelund Axelson & Cecilia Mark-Herbert, 2020. "Reviewing Value Creation in Agriculture—A Conceptual Analysis and a New Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-22, 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. Dragicevic, Arnaud Z. & Ettinger, David, 2011. "Private Valuation of a Public Good in Three Auction Mechanisms," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 1-29, April.
    2. Jay R. Corrigan & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Matthew C. Rousu, 2012. "Repeated Rounds with Price Feedback in Experimental Auction Valuation: An Adversarial Collaboration," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 97-115.
    3. repec:ken:wpaper:0602 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:dau:papers:123456789/6445 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Palma, Marco A. & Ness, Meghan L. & Anderson, David P., 2015. "Buying More than Taste? A Latent Class Analysis of Health and Prestige Determinants of Healthy Food," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202566, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. John List & Jason Shogren, 1998. "The Deadweight Loss from Christmas: Comment," Artefactual Field Experiments 00531, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. Chavez, Daniel & Palma, Marco, 2015. "Off the reservation: Pushing the bounds of rationality in experimental auctions," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202164, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Meyer, Andrew G., 2015. "The impacts of elicitation mechanism and reward size on estimated rates of time preference," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 132-148.
    9. Levan Elbakidze & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. & Hao Li & Chris McIntosh, 2014. "Value elicitation for multiple quantities of a quasi-public good using open ended choice experiments and uniform price auctions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 253-265, March.
    10. Demont, Matty & Rutsaert, Pieter & Ndour, Maimouna & Verbeke, Wim & Seck, Papa Abdoulaye & Tollens, Eric, 2012. "Experimental auctions, collective induction and choice shift: Willingness-to-pay for rice quality in Senegal," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126861, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Shogren, Jason F. & Margolis, Michael & Koo, Cannon & List, John A., 2001. "A random nth-price auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 409-421, December.
    12. Shogren, Jason F. & Cho, Sungwon & Koo, Cannon & List, John & Park, Changwon & Polo, Pablo & Wilhelmi, Robert, 2001. "Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 97-109, April.
    13. Clark, Jeremy & Friesen, Lana, 2008. "The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 195-206, September.
    14. repec:ken:wpaper:0601 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Joule, Robert-Vincent & Luchini, Stéphane & Shogren, Jason F., 2013. "Preference elicitation under oath," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 110-132.
    16. Hayes, D. J. & Fox, J. A. & Shogren, J. F., 2002. "Experts and activists: how information affects the demand for food irradiation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 185-193, April.
    17. Chern, Wen S. & Chang, Chun-Yu, 2012. "Benefit evaluation of the country of origin labeling in Taiwan: Results from an auction experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 511-519.
    18. Colson, Gregory, 2009. "Improving nutrient content through genetic modification: Evidence from experimental auctions on consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for intragenic foods," ISU General Staff Papers 200901010800001872, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    19. Demont, Matty & Zossou, Esperance & Rutsaert, Pieter & Ndour, Maimouna & Mele, Paul Van & Verbeke, Wim, 2011. "Willingness to Pay for Enhanced Food Quality: Rice Parboiling in Benin," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114443, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Alfnes, Frode & Rickertsen, Kyrre & Ueland, Oydis, 2005. "Experimental Evidence of Risk Aversion in Consumer Markets: The Case of Beef Tenderness," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19285, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    21. Andrea Isoni, 2011. "The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: loss aversion or ‘bad-deal’ aversion?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 409-430, September.
    22. Brown, Jennifer & Cranfield, John A.L. & Henson, Spencer J., 2003. "Misassessed Risk In Consumer Valuation Of Food Safety: An Experimental Approach," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22194, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    23. Huffman, Wallace E. & Shogren, Jason F. & Rousu, Matthew C. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2003. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Food Labels in a Market with Diverse Information: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(3), pages 1-22, 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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:4:p:1438-:d:320923. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.