IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v40y2024i3p661-679.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneous preferences and consumer willingness to pay for vitamin D fortification of eggs

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco J. Areal
  • Daniele Asioli

Abstract

Food reformulation can contribute to achieve public health objectives by facilitating access to healthy and sustainable food choices to consumers. Vitamin D is an important micronutrient that contributes to calcium absorption and bone health. Low vitamin D levels may lead to having a higher risk of poor bone and muscle for human health. In this manuscript we investigated, for the first time, United Kingdom consumer willingness to pay (WTP), and heterogeneity preferences for vitamin D fortification of eggs. We used a choice experiment (CE) involving several hypothetical egg products (i.e., pack of 10 eggs) that vary across three attributes levels such as production method (i.e., Cage, Barn, Free‐range, and Organic), vitamin (i.e., no information or by reporting on the pack the claim “Vitamin D added”), and price (i.e., £0.80/pack, £1.90/pack, £3.00/pack, and £4.10/pack). Results suggest that, although on average consumers prefer low‐price eggs produced using the free‐range production method and the information about vitamin D fortification does not affect their valuation, there is a significant preference heterogeneity in consumer preferences associated with animal welfare, environment, health, and price attributes. Particularly, there is a significant preference heterogeneity towards the purchasing of eggs produced using the barn production method. Furthermore, we found that consumer preferences for vitamin D fortification of eggs is affected by consumer's age and the price of eggs. These findings provide useful insights into the psychology of consumer acceptance and attitudes that can be used in communicating the nature of the fortified vitamin D eggs to the public. They also have important implications for future labeling policies and marketing strategies of egg industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco J. Areal & Daniele Asioli, 2024. "Heterogeneous preferences and consumer willingness to pay for vitamin D fortification of eggs," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(3), pages 661-679, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:40:y:2024:i:3:p:661-679
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.21919
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21919
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/agr.21919?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. Daniele Asioli & Adriana Mignani & Frode Alfnes, 2021. "Quick and easy? Respondent evaluations of the Becker–DeGroot–Marschak and multiple price list valuation mechanisms," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(2), pages 215-234, April.
    2. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    3. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    4. Daniele Asioli & Jessica Aschemann-Witzel & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2020. "Sustainability-Related Food Labels," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 171-185, October.
    5. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2011. "Animal Welfare Economics," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 463-483.
    6. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    7. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "A calibrated auction-conjoint valuation method: Valuing pork and eggs produced under differing animal welfare conditions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 80-94, July.
    8. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Sckokai, Paolo & Veneziani, Mario & Moro, Daniele & Castellari, Elena, 2014. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety: the case of mycotoxins in milk," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(01), pages 1-19, April.
    10. Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "lclogit2: An enhanced command to fit latent class conditional logit models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 20(2), pages 405-425, June.
    11. Bennett, R. M., 1997. "Farm animal welfare and food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 281-288, August.
    12. Luca Panzone & Guy Garrod & Felice Adinolfi & Jorgelina Di Pasquale, 2022. "Molecular marketing, personalised information and willingness‐to‐pay for functional foods: Vitamin D enriched eggs," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 666-689, September.
    13. Edenbrandt, Anna Kristina & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan, 2021. "Is food labelling effective in reducing climate impact by encouraging the substitution of protein sources?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    14. Chandra R. Bhat, 1997. "An Endogenous Segmentation Mode Choice Model with an Application to Intercity Travel," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 34-48, February.
    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. Liu, Zhenzhen & Geng, Xianhui & Gao, Zhifeng & Zhang, Jingqiu, 2025. "Consumer preference for fresh produce: Does the biological control influence their choices?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 2030-2042.

    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. Asioli, Daniele & Fuentes-Pila, Joaquìn & Alarcón, Silverio & Han, Jia & Liu, Jingjing & Hocquette, Jean-Francois & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Consumers’ valuation of cultured beef Burger: A Multi-Country investigation using choice experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    2. Jacob Ladenburg & Mette Andersen Nexø & Bryan Cleal & Frederik Thuesen, 2023. "Willingness to pay heterogeneity for accommodating job attributes among people with diabetes," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 37(4), pages 626-654, December.
    3. Eleonora Sofia Rossi & Luca Cacchiarelli & Simone Severini & Alessandro Sorrentino, 2024. "Consumers preferences and social sustainability: a discrete choice experiment on ‘Quality Agricultural Work’ ethical label in the Italian fruit sector," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Patterson, Jacinta & Mugera, Amin & Burton, Michael, 2015. "Consumer Preferences for Welfare Friendly Production Methods: The Case of Chicken Production in Western Australia," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202567, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Rachel S E Peden & Faical Akaichi & Irene Camerlink & Laura A Boyle & Simon P Turner, 2019. "Pig farmers’ willingness to pay for management strategies to reduce aggression between pigs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-22, November.
    6. 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.
    7. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    8. Wårell, Linda & Ek, Kristina, 2024. "Male lone wolves and sociable females – Preferences for shared and AV transport services," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    9. Richartz, P. Christoph & Abdulai, Awudu & Kornher, Lukas, . "Attribute Non Attendance and Consumer Preferences for Online Food Products in Germany," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(01).
    10. Lin, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Green identity labeling, environmental information, and pro-environmental food choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    11. S. Ceolotto & E. Denny, 2024. "Putting a New ‘Spin’ on Energy Information: Measuring the Impact of Reframing Energy Efficiency Information on Tumble Dryer Choices in a Multi-country Experiment," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 51-108, March.
    12. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    13. Azucena Gracia & Ana María Sánchez & Francesc Jurado & Cristina Mallor, 2020. "Making Use of Sustainable Local Plant Genetic Resources: Would Consumers Support the Recovery of a Traditional Purple Carrot?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-17, August.
    14. Julia Blasch & Robert W. Turner, 2016. "Environmental art, prior knowledge about climate change, and carbon offsets," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(4), pages 691-705, December.
    15. Marescotti, Maria Elena & Caputo, Vincenzina & Demartini, Eugenio & Gaviglio, Anna, 2020. "Consumer preferences for wild game cured meat label: do attitudes towards animal welfare matter?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(4), June.
    16. Cordula Hinkes & Inken Christoph-Schulz, 2020. "No Palm Oil or Certified Sustainable Palm Oil? Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Role of Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-26, September.
    17. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376, March.
    18. Yuan, Rao & Asioli, Daniele & Jin, Shaosheng & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2021. "Consumers’ Valuation for Cultured Chicken Meat: A Multi-city Choice Experiment in China," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313957, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Annkathrin Wahbi & Oliver Musshoff, 2024. "Unlocking rural resilience: Exploring innovative digital saving solutions for farming households in Mali," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(3), pages 931-954, September.
    20. Asindu, Marsy & Abdulai, Awudu & Bett, Bernard & Roesel, Kristina & Ouma, Emily, 2024. "Choice heuristics and livestock farmers' preference heterogeneity for Rift Valley fever vaccines in Uganda," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 111(C).

    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:wly:agribz:v:40:y:2024:i:3:p:661-679. 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: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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.