IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxxviiy2024i4p295-311.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions for Antibiotic-Free Pork in Poland: An Empirical Study

Author

Listed:
  • Magdalena Kozera-Kowalska
  • Jaroslaw Uglis

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to present the research findings on consumer preferences for purchasing pork labelled “raised without antibiotics.” Therefore, a study was conducted in order to: (1) investigate the way consumers view pork labelled “raised without antibiotics,” (2) explore the differences in socio-demographic factors which affect the way it is perceived, (3) determine the consumers’ willingness to purchase pork labelled “raised without antibiotics” and the factors affecting their purchasing decisions, (4) make an attempt to determine the profile of consumers who prefer pork labelled “raised without antibiotics.” Design/Methodology/Approach: The factual material covered by the study was collected through a survey questionnaire administered to a sample of 1177 Polish residents. The analysis included the consumers’ socio-demographic characteristics and preference for pork labelled “raised without antibiotics.” The study relied on the classification tree method, including the CHAID modeling technique. Findings: The study found that the consumer group who prefer meat labelled “raised without antibiotics” consists of women and people aged over 45. More than three-quarters of consumers would willingly buy it despite realizing that it costs more than available unlabelled pork products. Also, the respondents are inclined to pay more for pork raised without antibiotics, as more than half of them would accept a 10% to 20% surcharge over products not labelled this way. Practical implications: Faced with a growing number of health risks, including the presence of antibiotic residues in pork, both its consumers and its producers look for solutions to adequately address these issues. This includes producing pork in a non-antibiotic approach, on the one hand, and selling pork labelled “raised without antibiotics,” on the other. For many increasingly informed consumers, the above is an important driver of their purchasing preferences for pork. Originality/value: The results of research presented in this paper come to bridge a cognitive gap in understanding what drives the Polish population’s preferences for buying and consuming pork labelled “raised without antibiotics.” They also emphasize the importance of sustainable pork production, especially including the no-antibiotic farming systems used in making food safer and more health-beneficial.

Suggested Citation

  • Magdalena Kozera-Kowalska & Jaroslaw Uglis, 2024. "Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions for Antibiotic-Free Pork in Poland: An Empirical Study," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4), pages 295-311.
  • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxvii:y:2024:i:4:p:295-311
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ersj.eu/journal/3518/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Milanović Marina & Stamenković Milan, 2016. "CHAID Decision Tree: Methodological Frame and Application," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 54(4), pages 563-586, December.
    2. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood & J. Ross Pruitt, 2006. "Consumer Demand for a Ban on Antibiotic Drug Use in Pork Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1015-1033.
    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. Kozera-Kowalska, Magdalena & Uglis, Jarosław, 2024. "Wieprzowina z Chowu bez Antybiotyków w Opinii Konsumentów: Znaczenie Jakości i Bezpieczeństwa Żywności," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2024(4).

    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. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    2. Cheng, Haotian & Zhang, Tong & Lambert, Dayton M. & Feuz, Ryan, 2023. "An empirical comparison of conjoint and best-worst scaling case III methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    3. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Adalja, Aaron & Hanson, James & Towe, Charles & Tselepidakis, Elina, 2015. "An Examination of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local Products," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 253-274, December.
    5. Savchenko, Olesya M. & Kecinski, Maik & Li, Tongzhe & Messer, Kent D. & Xu, Huidong, 2018. "Fresh foods irrigated with recycled water: A framed field experiment on consumer responses," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 103-112.
    6. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    7. Francisco Javier Rondán-Cataluña & Patricio E. Ramírez-Correa & Jorge Arenas-Gaitán & Muriel Ramírez-Santana & Elizabeth E. Grandón & Jorge Alfaro-Pérez, 2020. "Social Network Communications in Chilean Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-17, August.
    8. Rike Stotten & Michaela Maurer & Hannes Herrmann & Markus Schermer, 2019. "Different Forms of Accommodation in Agritourism: The Role of Decoupled Farmer-Based Accommodation in the Ötztal Valley (Austria)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-27, May.
    9. Aleksandar Đukić & Milorad K. Banjanin & Mirko Stojčić & Tihomir Đurić & Radenka Đekić & Dejan Anđelković, 2024. "An Ensemble of Machine Learning Models for the Classification and Selection of Categorical Variables in Traffic Inspection Work of Importance for the Sustainable Execution of Events," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-38, November.
    10. Ortega, David L. & Singh, Vartika & Spielman, David J. & Ward, Patrick S., 2013. "Farmer preferences for drought tolerance in hybrid versus inbred rice: Evidence from Bihar, India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1307, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    11. Kwideok Han & Jeffrey Vitale & Yong-Geon Lee & Inbae Ji, 2022. "Measuring the Economic Value of the Negative Externality of Livestock Malodor in South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-13, August.
    12. Áine Regan & Sharon Sweeney & Claire McKernan & Tony Benson & Moira Dean, 2023. "Consumer perception and understanding of the risks of antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance in farming," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 989-1001, September.
    13. Apurba Shee & Calum G. Turvey & Ana Marr, 2021. "Heterogeneous Demand and Supply for an Insurance‐linked Credit Product in Kenya: A Stated Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 244-267, February.
    14. Carlier, Alexis & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Directly Valuing Animal Welfare in (Environmental) Economics," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 14(1), pages 113-152, April.
    15. Anne-Célia Disdier & Stéphan Marette, 2010. "The Combination of Gravity and Welfare Approaches for Evaluating Nontariff Measures," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(3), pages 713-726.
    16. 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.
    17. Blemings, Benjamin & Zhang, Peilu & Neill, Clinton L., 2023. "Where is the value? The impacts of sow gestation crate laws on pork supply and consumer value perceptions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    18. Syed Imran Ali Meerza & Sabrina Gulab & Kathleen R. Brooks & Christopher R. Gustafson & Amalia Yiannaka, 2022. "U.S. Consumer Attitudes toward Antibiotic Use in Livestock Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, June.
    19. H. Holly Wang & Lu Liu & David L. Ortega & Yu Jiang & Qiujie Zheng, 2020. "Are smallholder farmers willing to pay for different types of crop insurance? An application of labelled choice experiments to Chinese corn growers," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 45(1), pages 86-110, January.
    20. Brenna Ellison & Kathleen Brooks & Taro Mieno, 2017. "Which livestock production claims matter most to consumers?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 819-831, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Pork market; “raised without antibiotics”; RWA; pork raised without antibiotics; PRWA; consumer perceptions; sustainable pork production.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    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:ers:journl:v:xxvii:y:2024:i:4:p:295-311. 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: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    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.