IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agfoec/v11y2023i1d10.1186_s40100-023-00277-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumers' preferences for processed meat: a best–worst scaling approach in three European countries

Author

Listed:
  • Áron Török

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Ching-Hua Yeh

    (University of Bonn)

  • Davide Menozzi

    (University of Parma)

  • Péter Balogh

    (University of Debrecen
    University of Debrecen)

  • Péter Czine

    (University of Debrecen)

Abstract

Processed meat products are a staple part of the typical European diet. Product packaging can include a considerable amount of information and, with other intrinsic and extrinsic attributes, substantially influence consumers' preferences and purchasing decisions. This study investigates 14 product attributes of processed meat products using a cross-country analysis. Based on an online survey conducted in Hungary (n = 410), Italy (n = 268), and Serbia (n = 402), an object-case best–worst scaling approach was applied. Results reveal both international and country-specific characteristics of preferences. Best-Worst scores reveal that taste and best-before date are among the most significant considerations in all three countries, while brand is among the attributes considered least important. Comparisons indicate significant differences according to country and socioeconomic characteristics. The study provides managerial implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Áron Török & Ching-Hua Yeh & Davide Menozzi & Péter Balogh & Péter Czine, 2023. "Consumers' preferences for processed meat: a best–worst scaling approach in three European countries," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agfoec:v:11:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1186_s40100-023-00277-4
    DOI: 10.1186/s40100-023-00277-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s40100-023-00277-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s40100-023-00277-4?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. Xinyi Hong & Chenguang Li & Liming Wang & Mansi Wang & Simona Grasso & Frank J. Monahan, 2023. "Consumer Preferences for Processed Meat Reformulation Strategies: A Prototype for Sensory Evaluation Combined with a Choice-Based Conjoint Experiment," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    3. Jordan Louviere & Terry Flynn, 2010. "Using Best-Worst Scaling Choice Experiments to Measure Public Perceptions and Preferences for Healthcare Reform in Australia," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 275-283, December.
    4. Luca Secondi, 2019. "Expiry Dates, Consumer Behavior, and Food Waste: How Would Italian Consumers React If There Were No Longer “Best Before” Labels?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Ching-Hua Yeh & Monika Hartmann, 2021. "To Purchase or Not to Purchase? Drivers of Consumers’ Preferences for Animal Welfare in Their Meat Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    6. Malone, Trey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2017. "Taste Trumps Health And Safety: Incorporating Consumer Perceptions Into A Discrete Choice Experiment For Meat," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 139-157, February.
    7. Verbeke, Wim & Pieniak, Zuzanna & Guerrero, Luis & Hersleth, Margrethe, 2012. "Consumers’ Awareness and Attitudinal Determinants of European Union Quality Label Use on Traditional Foods," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(2), pages 1-17, August.
    8. Áron Török & Lili Jantyik & Zalán Márk Maró & Hazel V. J. Moir, 2020. "Understanding the Real-World Impact of Geographical Indications: A Critical Review of the Empirical Economic Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-24, November.
    9. Clare, Kathryn & Maani, Nason & Milner, James, 2022. "Meat, money and messaging: How the environmental and health harms of red and processed meat consumption are framed by the meat industry," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    10. Grebitus, Carola & Jensen, Helen H. & Roosen, Jutta, 2013. "US and German consumer preferences for ground beef packaged under a modified atmosphere – Different regulations, different behaviour?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 109-118.
    11. Marco Lerro & Giuseppe Marotta & Concetta Nazzaro, 2020. "Measuring consumers’ preferences for craft beer attributes through Best-Worst Scaling," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Balogh, Péter & Békési, Dániel & Gorton, Matthew & Popp, József & Lengyel, Péter, 2016. "Consumer willingness to pay for traditional food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 176-184.
    14. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2023. "R packages and tutorial for case 1 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    15. Sanjay K. Dhar & Stephen J. Hoch, 1997. "Why Store Brand Penetration Varies by Retailer," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(3), pages 208-227.
    16. Lili Jantyik & Áron Török, 2020. "Estimating the Market Share and Price Premium of GI Foods—The Case of the Hungarian Food Discounters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, February.
    17. W. A. Lombard & J. H. Van Zyl & T. R. Beelders, 2020. "Eye-tracking consumers’ awareness of beef brands," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(2), pages 156-168, April.
    18. Mohamud Hussein & Iain Fraser, 2018. "Hedonic Analysis of Consumers' Valuation of Country of Origin of Meat in the United Kingdom," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 182-198, February.
    19. Daria Loginova & Judith Irek, 2022. "Russian meat price transmission and policy interventions in 2014," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 10(1), pages 1-28, December.
    20. Giuseppe Di Vita & Simone Blanc & Teresina Mancuso & Stefano Massaglia & Giovanni La Via & Mario D’Amico, 2019. "Harmful Compounds and Willingness to Buy for Reduced-Additives Salami. An Outlook on Italian Consumers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-9, July.
    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. Marco Costanigro & Yuko Onozaka, 2020. "A Belief‐Preference Model of Choice for Experience and Credence Goods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 70-95, February.
    2. Claudio Acciani & Annalisa De Boni & Francesco Bozzo & Rocco Roma, 2020. "Pulses for Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems: The Effect of Origin on Market Price," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Longzhong Shi & Xuan Chen & Bo Chen, 2023. "Covid‐19‐tested food labels," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 71(2), pages 203-230, June.
    4. Julia Hoffmann & Julia Bronnmann, 2019. "Bottle size matters: Heterogeneity in the German carbonated soft drink market," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(4), pages 556-573, October.
    5. Ryan Feuz & F. Bailey Norwood & Ranjith Ramanathan, 2020. "Do consumers have an appetite for discolored beef?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 631-652, October.
    6. Dubravka Užar & Jelena Filipović, 2023. "Determinants of Consumer Purchase Intention Towards Cheeses with Geographical Indication in a Developing Country: Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 35(2), pages 183-204.
    7. Chloe S McCallum & Simone Cerroni & Daniel Derbyshire & W George Hutchinson & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2022. "Consumers’ responses to food fraud risks: an economic experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(4), pages 942-969.
    8. Dominika Jakubowska & Tomasz Wierzejski & Wojciech Lewicki, 2021. "Perception of Food Quality Labels: An Empirical Analysis Among Traditional Food Producers in Poland," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 3), pages 243-259.
    9. Caputo, Vincenzina & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Are preferences for food quality attributes really normally distributed? An analysis using flexible mixing distributions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 10-27.
    10. Elizabeth S. Byrd & Nicole J. Olynk Widmar & Benjamin M. Gramig, 2018. "Presentation matters: Number of attributes presented impacts estimated preferences," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 377-389, March.
    11. Wuyang Hu & Shan Sun & Jerrod Penn & Ping Qing, 2022. "Dummy and effects coding variables in discrete choice analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(5), pages 1770-1788, October.
    12. Putsis, William Jr. & Dhar, Ravi, 2001. "An empirical analysis of the determinants of category expenditure," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 277-291, June.
    13. David R. Bell & Jeongwen Chiang & V. Padmanabhan, 1999. "The Decomposition of Promotional Response: An Empirical Generalization," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 504-526.
    14. Gauri, Dinesh Kumar & Trivedi, Minakshi & Grewal, Dhruv, 2008. "Understanding the Determinants of Retail Strategy: An Empirical Analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 256-267.
    15. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    16. Karel Týra & Miroslav Karlíček, 2012. "Private-Label Share during the Current Economic Slowdown: Investigation from the Czech, Slovak, Hungarian and Polish Markets," Central European Business Review, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2012(1), pages 27-32.
    17. ter Braak, Anne & Geyskens, Inge & Dekimpe, Marnik G., 2014. "Taking private labels upmarket: Empirical generalizations on category drivers of premium private label introductions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 125-140.
    18. Nenycz-Thiel, Magda & Romaniuk, Jenni, 2011. "The nature and incidence of private label rejection," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 93-99.
    19. Minha Hwang & Bart J. Bronnenberg & Raphael Thomadsen, 2010. "An Empirical Analysis of Assortment Similarities Across U.S. Supermarkets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 858-879, 09-10.
    20. Chan Choi, S., 2017. "Defensive strategy against a private label: Building brand premium for retailer cooperation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 335-339.

    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:spr:agfoec:v:11:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1186_s40100-023-00277-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.