IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlage/v68y2022i5id429-2021-agricecon.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The application of choice experiments in a study on consumer preference for agri-food products: A literature review

Author

Listed:
  • Arif Yustian Maulana Noor

    (Agriculture Socio-Economic Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia)

  • Hery Toiba

    (Agriculture Socio-Economic Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia)

  • Budi Setiawan

    (Agriculture Socio-Economic Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia)

  • Abdul Wahib Muhaimin

    (Agriculture Socio-Economic Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia)

  • Adhitya Marendra Kiloes

    (Indonesian Centre for Horticultural Research and Development, Bogor, Indonesia)

Abstract

A choice experiment (CE) is a stated preference method to elicit the respondent's preference. The CE can predict consumer valuation for a hypothetical product's attributes. Many scholars have discussed the CE's design, analysis, reliability, and validity. Still, no scientific papers reviewed its application in agri-food studies in a broad spectrum, particularly in investigating food product categories and their attributes. Additionally, this review emphasises the technical aspects of CEs, such as the sample size, software, data analysis, and research implications. The result discovered that most CE studies are relevant to developed countries. Most reviewed studies observed wine and meat as objects in the CE studies, in the theme of health, food safety, origin, and sustainability. The future research trend was related to health benefits and natural ingredients. Thus, this review provides recommendations for future studies to explore consumer preference using CE in agri-food research.

Suggested Citation

  • Arif Yustian Maulana Noor & Hery Toiba & Budi Setiawan & Abdul Wahib Muhaimin & Adhitya Marendra Kiloes, 2022. "The application of choice experiments in a study on consumer preference for agri-food products: A literature review," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(5), pages 189-197.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlage:v:68:y:2022:i:5:id:429-2021-agricecon
    DOI: 10.17221/429/2021-AGRICECON
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/429/2021-AGRICECON.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/429/2021-AGRICECON.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/429/2021-AGRICECON?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.
    2. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo, 2017. "Multinomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual Heterogeneity in R: The gmnl Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i02).
    3. Esther Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk, 2015. "Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 373-384, October.
    4. Snyder, Hannah, 2019. "Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 333-339.
    5. McPhedran, Robert & Toombs, Ben, 2021. "Efficacy or delivery? An online Discrete Choice Experiment to explore preferences for COVID-19 vaccines in the UK," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    6. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    7. 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.
    8. Christian Schlereth & Bernd Skiera, 2017. "Two New Features in Discrete Choice Experiments to Improve Willingness-to-Pay Estimation That Result in SDR and SADR: Separated (Adaptive) Dual Response," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 829-842, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Louviere, Jordan J & Hensher, David A, 1983. "Using Discrete Choice Models with Experimental Design Data to Forecast Consumer Demand for a Unique Cultural Event," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(3), pages 348-361, December.
    11. Lu, Jiao & Wu, Linhai & Wang, Shuxian & Xu, Lingling, 2016. "Consumer Preference and Demand for Traceable Food Attributes: A Choice-based Conjoint Analysis," 90th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2016, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 236346, Agricultural Economics Society.
    12. Zhu, Yaozhou & Shen, Meng & Sims, Charles A. & Marshall, Maurice R. & House, Lisa A. & Sarnoski, Paul j., 2018. "Consumer preference and willingness to pay for tomato juice," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(8), September.
    13. Fabio Boncinelli & Andrea Dominici & Francesca Gerini & Enrico Marone, 2021. "Insights into organic wine consumption: behaviour, segmentation and attribute non-attendance," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    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. Elena Hošková & Iveta Zentková, 2024. "Determinants of the demand for fruits and vegetables: Preferences by age and gender in Europe," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 70(8), pages 414-423.

    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. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "The limited potential of regional electricity marketing – Results from two discrete choice experiments in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    2. Lingling Xu & Xixi Yang & Linhai Wu & Xiujuan Chen & Lu Chen & Fu-Sheng Tsai, 2019. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Food with Information on Animal Welfare, Lean Meat Essence Detection, and Traceability," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-22, September.
    3. Nguyen, Manh-Hung & Nguyen, Thi Lan Anh & Nguyen, Tuan & Reynaud, Arnaud & Simioni, Michel & Hoang, Viet-Ngu, 2021. "Economic analysis of choices among differing measures to manage coastal erosion in Hoi An (a UNESCO World Heritage Site)," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 529-543.
    4. Na-na Wang & Liang-guo Luo & Ya-ru Pan & Xue-mei Ni, 2019. "Use of discrete choice experiments to facilitate design of effective environmentally friendly agricultural policies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1543-1559, August.
    5. 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).
    6. Will, Christian & Lehmann, Nico & Baumgartner, Nora & Feurer, Sven & Jochem, Patrick & Fichtner, Wolf, 2022. "Consumer understanding and evaluation of carbon-neutral electric vehicle charging services," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    7. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    10. Lan Anh Nguyen & Manh-Hung Nguyen & Viet-Ngu Hoang & Arnaud Reynaud & Michel Simioni & Clevo Wilson, 2024. "Tourists’ preferences and willingness to pay for protecting a World Heritage site from coastal erosion in Vietnam," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 27607-27628, November.
    11. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    12. Jeff Luckstead & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Heather A. Snell, 2023. "US domestic workers' willingness to accept agricultural field jobs," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1693-1715, September.
    13. Lukas Kornher & Martin Schellhorn & Saskia Vetter, 2019. "Disgusting or Innovative-Consumer Willingness to Pay for Insect Based Burger Patties in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, March.
    14. Meressa, Abrha Megos & Navrud, Stale, 2020. "Not my cup of coffee: Farmers’ preferences for coffee variety traits – Lessons for crop breeding in the age of climate change," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(3), December.
    15. K. Valerie Carl & Cristina Mihale-Wilson & Jan Zibuschka & Oliver Hinz, 2024. "A consumer perspective on Corporate Digital Responsibility: an empirical evaluation of consumer preferences," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 94(7), pages 979-1024, October.
    16. Solomon Zena Walelign & Martin Reinhardt Nielsen & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2019. "Roads and livelihood activity choices in the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem, Tanzania," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-21, March.
    17. 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.
    18. Bo Hou & Linhai Wu & Xiujuan Chen & Dian Zhu & Ruiyao Ying & Fu-Sheng Tsai, 2019. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Foods with Traceability Information: Ex-Ante Quality Assurance or Ex-Post Traceability?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-14, March.
    19. Hensher, David & Louviere, Jordan & Swait, Joffre, 1998. "Combining sources of preference data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 197-221, November.
    20. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).

    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:caa:jnlage:v:68:y:2022:i:5:id:429-2021-agricecon. 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: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    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.