IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ifaamr/159659.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Acceptance of a New Traceability Technology: A Discrete Choice Application to Ontario Ginseng

Author

Listed:
  • Lilavanichakul, Apichaya
  • Boecker, Andreas

Abstract

New technologies can limit the threat of economic adulteration but consumers may not accept them. A choice experiment was used to elicit consumer preferences for ‘internal tags,’ a new technology for enhanced traceability and quality assurance. Further, two basic branding options and two signals of product origin are investigated. Results suggest consumers are accepting of products with ‘internal tags’ added and prefer a regional over a national brand. Consumer valuation of the branding options was found to be affected by the presence of one product origin signal. Implications for marketing management decisions are discussed with focus on study design.

Suggested Citation

  • 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. 0(Issue 4), pages 1-26, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:159659
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/159659/files/20120103__2_.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Verbeke, Wim & Roosen, Jutta, 2009. "Market Differentiation Potential of Country-of-origin, Quality and Traceability Labeling," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 1-16.
    2. 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.
    3. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    4. Wuyang Hu & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 83-102, March.
    5. Jason F. Shogren & John A. Fox & Dermot J. Hayes & Jutta Roosen, 1999. "Observed Choices for Food Safety in Retail, Survey, and Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1192-1199.
    6. 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.
    7. repec:elg:eechap:801_76 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    9. Teisl, Mario F. & Roe, Brian E., 2010. "Consumer willingness-to-pay to reduce the probability of retail foodborne pathogen contamination," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 521-530, December.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    11. Jayson L. Lusk, 2003. "Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 840-856.
    12. Chris MacDonald & Melissa Whellams, 2007. "Corporate Decisions about Labelling Genetically Modified Foods," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 181-189, October.
    13. 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.
    14. Cicia, Gianni & Colantuoni, Francesca, 2010. "Willingness to Pay for Traceable Meat Attributes: A Meta-analysis," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 1-12, October.
    15. John Rose & Michiel Bliemer, 2013. "Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1021-1041, September.
    16. Rodolfo M. Nayga & Richard Woodward & Wipon Aiew, 2006. "Willingness to Pay for Reduced Risk of Foodborne Illness: A Nonhypothetical Field Experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(4), pages 461-475, December.
    17. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2007. "Structural Equation Modelling of Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food (GM) in the Mediterranean Europe: Spain, Greece and Italy," 103rd Seminar, April 23-25, 2007, Barcelona, Spain 9415, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Baker, Gregory A. & Burnham, Thomas A., 2001. "Consumer Response To Genetically Modified Foods: Market Segment Analysis And Implications For Producers And Policy Makers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 1-17, December.
    19. Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Sharp, Basil M.H., 2010. "Choice experiment adaptive design benefits: a case study," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 0(Issue 4), pages 1-14.
    20. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    21. Fox, John A. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kliebenstein, James B., 1996. "Experimental Methods In Consumer Preference Studies," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 1-7, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:159659. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.