IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v71y2023i1p49-68.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The influence of African swine fever information on consumers’ preference of pork attributes and pork purchase

Author

Listed:
  • Qianfeng Luo
  • Pengfei Liu
  • Zhi Li

Abstract

This paper uses a randomized survey instrument to study the impact of African Swine Fever (ASF) information on Chinese consumers’ preference for pork attributes and purchases during the recent peak of the ASF pandemic in 2019. We study consumers’ preference for pork attributes including brand, meat texture and taste, quality safety assurance, and traceability under different information treatments. Results show that the willingness to pay (WTP) for quality safety assurance is the highest, followed by brands and traceability systems, and the WTP is lowest for good taste. We show that providing detailed ASF information substantially changes consumer preference by altering the relative importance of pork attributes and price sensitivity, which enables consumers to focus more on safety‐related attributes while paying less attention to price and taste attributes. Furthermore, we find that a higher belief in the future of ASF occurrence reduces the frequency of purchases marginally but does not significantly influence for amount per purchase and the total purchase amount. Cet article utilise un instrument d'enquête aléatoire pour étudier l'impact des informations sur la peste porcine africaine (PPA) sur la préférence des consommateurs chinois pour les attributs et les achats de porc lors du récent pic de la pandémie de PPA en 2019. Nous étudions la préférence des consommateurs pour les attributs du porc, y compris la marque, la texture et le goût de la viande, l'assurance d'innocuité et la traçabilité sous différents traitements d'information. Les résultats montrent que le consentement à payer (CAP) pour l'assurance d'innocuité est le plus élevé, suivi par les marques et les systèmes de traçabilité, et que le CAP est le plus bas pour le bon goût. Nous montrons qu'une information détaillée sur la PPA affecte considérablement les préférences des consommateurs en modifiant l'importance relative des attributs de la viande de porc et la sensibilité au prix, ce qui permet aux consommateurs de se concentrer davantage sur les attributs liés à l'innocuité tout en accordant moins d'attention aux attributs de prix et de goût. En outre, nous constatons qu'une croyance plus élevée de l'apparition dans l'avenir de la PPA réduit légèrement la fréquence des achats, mais n'influence pas de manière significative le montant par achat et le montant total des achats.

Suggested Citation

  • Qianfeng Luo & Pengfei Liu & Zhi Li, 2023. "The influence of African swine fever information on consumers’ preference of pork attributes and pork purchase," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 71(1), pages 49-68, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:71:y:2023:i:1:p:49-68
    DOI: 10.1111/cjag.12324
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12324
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/cjag.12324?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. Yang, Yang & Hobbs, Jill E. & Natcher, David C., 2020. "Assessing consumer willingness to pay for Arctic food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    2. Thong Meas & Wuyang Hu & Marvin T. Batte & Timothy A. Woods & Stan Ernst, 2015. "Substitutes or Complements? Consumer Preference for Local and Organic Food Attributes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1044-1071.
    3. Melton, Brian & Huffman, Wallace & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Consumer Preferences for Fresh Food with Multiple Attributes: Evidence from an Experimental Auction of Pork Chops," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5042, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. 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.
    5. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    6. Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Wiktor Adamowicz & Diane Dupont, 2019. "Incorporating Stated Consequentiality Questions in Stated Preference Research," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(3), pages 293-306.
    7. Loureiro, Maria L. & Rahmani, Djamel, 2016. "The incidence of calorie labeling on fast food choices: A comparison between stated preferences and actual choices," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 82-93.
    8. Beach, Robert H. & Kuchler, Fred & Leibtag, Ephraim S. & Zhen, Chen, 2008. "The Effects of Avian Influenza News on Consumer Purchasing Behavior: A Case Study of Italian Consumers' Retail Purchases," Economic Research Report 56477, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. Petrolia, Daniel R., 2016. "Risk preferences, risk perceptions, and risky food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 37-48.
    10. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    11. Eppink, Florian V. & Hanley, Nick & Tucker, Steven, 2019. "How Best to Present Complex Ecosystem Information in Stated Preference Studies?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 20-25.
    12. Jason F. Shogren & John A. Fox, 1996. "Consumer Preferences for Fresh Food Items with Multiple Quality Attributes: Evidence from an Experimental Auction of Pork Chops," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(4), pages 916-923.
    13. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    14. Peng, Yala & Li, Jiajie & Xia, Hui & Qi, Siyuan & Li, Jianhong, 2015. "The effects of food safety issues released by we media on consumers’ awareness and purchasing behavior: A case study in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 44-52.
    15. Chen, Kevin & Ali, Murad & Veeman, Michele & Unterschultz, Jim & Le, Theresa, 2002. "Relative Importance Rankings for Pork Attributes by Asian-Origin Consumers in California: Applying an Ordered Probit Model to a Choice-Based Sample," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 67-79, April.
    16. Daniel K. Lew & John C. Whitehead, 2020. "Attribute Non-attendance as an Information Processing Strategy in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: Origins, Current Practices, and Future Directions," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(3), pages 285-317.
    17. Li, Tongzhe & Bernard, John C. & Johnston, Zachary A. & Messer, Kent D. & Kaiser, Harry M., 2017. "Consumer preferences before and after a food safety scare: An experimental analysis of the 2010 egg recall," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 25-34.
    18. 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.
    19. Pengfei Liu & Stephen K. Swallow, 2021. "Incentive Compatibility and the Consequences When It Is Missing: Experiments with Water Quality Credits Purchase," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(4), pages 893-910.
    20. Anne Kejser Jensen & Robert J. Johnston & Søren B. Olsen, 2019. "Does One Size Really Fit All? Ecological Endpoint Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Welfare Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(3), pages 307-332.
    21. Azucena Gracia & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & Belinda López- Galán, 2014. "Are Local and Organic Claims Complements or Substitutes? A Consumer Preferences Study for Eggs," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 49-67, January.
    22. Bryan E. Melton & Wallace E. Huffman & Jason F. Shogren, 1996. "Economic Values of Pork Attributes: Hedonic Price Analysis of Experimental Auction Data," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 18(4), pages 613-627.
    23. H. Holly Wang & Paul Gardner de Beville, 2017. "The media impact of animal disease on the US meat demand," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(4), pages 493-504, September.
    24. David Aadland & Arthur J. Caplan, 2003. "Willingness to Pay for Curbside Recycling with Detection and Mitigation of Hypothetical Bias," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 492-502.
    25. Silva, Andres & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Campbell, Benjamin L. & Park, John L., 2011. "Revisiting Cheap Talk with New Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-12, August.
    26. Klaus G. Grunert, 2005. "Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(3), pages 369-391, September.
    27. Vlaeminck, Pieter & Jiang, Ting & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "Food labeling and eco-friendly consumption: Experimental evidence from a Belgian supermarket," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 180-190.
    28. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Willingness-to-pay for natural, organic, and conventional foods: The effects of information and meaningful labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 214-232.
    29. Linhai Wu & Xiaoru Gong & Shasha Qin & Xiujuan Chen & Dian Zhu & Wuyang Hu & Qingguang Li, 2017. "Consumer preferences for pork attributes related to traceability, information certification, and origin labeling: Based on China's Jiangsu Province," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(3), pages 424-442, June.
    30. Anna K. Edenbrandt & Christian Gamborg & Bo J. Thorsen, 2018. "Consumers’ Preferences for Bread: Transgenic, Cisgenic, Organic or Pesticide†free?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 121-141, February.
    31. Wolfe, Elijah & Popp, Michael & Bazzani, Claudia & Nayga Jr, Rudolfo & Danforth, Diana & Popp, Jennie & Chen, Pengyin & Seo, Han-Seok, 2016. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Genetically Engineered Edamame," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 230016, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    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. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Liu, Ruifeng & ,, 2021. "What We Can Learn from the Interactions of Food Traceable Attributes? a Case Study of Fuji Apple in China," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315916, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Zack Dorner & Daniel A. Brent & Anke Leroux, 2019. "Preferences for Intrinsically Risky Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(4), pages 494-514.
    5. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2022. "The relative performance of ex‐ante and ex‐post measures to mitigate hypothetical and strategic bias in a stated preference study," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 845-873, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Stephane Bergeron & Maurice Doyon & Laurent Muller, 2019. "Strategic response: A key to understand how cheap talk works," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 67(1), pages 75-83, March.
    8. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    9. Djamel Rahmani & Zein Kallas & Maria Pappa & José Maria Gil, 2019. "Are Consumers’ Egg Preferences Influenced by Animal-Welfare Conditions and Environmental Impacts?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-23, November.
    10. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2020. "Ex-ante and ex-post measures to mitigate hypothetical bias. Are they alternative or complementary tools to increase the reliability and validity of DCE estimates?," Working Papers 2020-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    11. Yanghao Wang & Metin Çakır, 2020. "Welfare impacts of new demand‐enhancing agricultural products: The case of Honeycrisp apples," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 445-457, May.
    12. Aaron M. Shew & Heather A. Snell & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Mary C. Lacity, 2022. "Consumer valuation of blockchain traceability for beef in the United States," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(1), pages 299-323, March.
    13. Yu-Hui Chen & Kai-Han Qiu & Kang Ernest Liu & Chun-Yuan Chiang, 2020. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay a Premium for Pure Rice Noodles? A Study of Discrete Choice Experiments in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, July.
    14. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    15. Wendy J. Umberger & Peter C. Boxall & R. Curt Lacy, 2009. "Role of credence and health information in determining US consumers' willingness-to-pay for grass-finished beef," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 603-623, October.
    16. Maurice Doyon & Laure Saulais & Bernard Ruffieux & Denise Bweli, 2015. "Hypothetical bias for private goods: does cheap talk make a difference?," Post-Print hal-01254936, HAL.
    17. Combris, Pierre & Pinto, Alexandra Seabra & Fragata, Antonio & Giraud-Heraud, Eric, 2007. "Does taste beat food safety? Evidence from the "Pera Rocha" case in Portugal," 105th Seminar, March 8-10, 2007, Bologna, Italy 7879, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. John A. List & Michael K. Price, 2013. "Using Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," NBER Working Papers 19289, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Lamonaca, Emilia, 2020. "Objective risk and subjective risk: The role of information in food supply chains," MPRA Paper 104515, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Lusk, Jayson L. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Schroeder, Ted C. & Hayes, Dermot J., 2018. "Effect of government quality grade labels on consumer demand for pork chops in the short and long run," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 91-102.

    More about this item

    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:bla:canjag:v:71:y:2023:i:1:p:49-68. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.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.