IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea09/49444.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuation of Safety-Branded and Traceable Free Range Chicken in Ha Noi: Results from a Field Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Ifft, Jennifer
  • Roland-Holst, David W.
  • Zilberman, David

Abstract

The valuation of traceable or safety-branded food by consumers in developing countries affected by diseases such as avian influenza, or with food safety issues in general, is very difficult to identify. Products that have safety-branding are not common, and food is usually purchased by bargaining at informal markets. However, valuation of traceability has important implications for livestock disease policies as well as agricultural sector development. Through developing a short-term certified supply chain for free range chicken in Hanoi, we were able to conduct a combined field experiment and detailed household survey to measure the valuation of this type of poultry. We find that consumers in urban Hanoi on average have a welfare gain of about $1 per whole chicken purchase for safety-branding and traceability, which translates into a potential annual consumer welfare gain of $66 million for such characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Ifft, Jennifer & Roland-Holst, David W. & Zilberman, David, 2009. "Valuation of Safety-Branded and Traceable Free Range Chicken in Ha Noi: Results from a Field Experiment," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49444, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea09:49444
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/49444
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William A. Masters & Diakalia Sanogo, 2002. "Welfare Gains from Quality Certification of Infant Foods: Results from a Market Experiment in Mali," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 974-989.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    3. Dickinson, David L. & Bailey, DeeVon, 2002. "Meat Traceability: Are U.S. Consumers Willing To Pay For It?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(02), December.
    4. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    5. List, John A., 2009. "An introduction to field experiments in economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 439-442, June.
    6. Mdafri, Abdellah & Wade Brorsen, B., 1993. "Demand for red meat, poultry, and fish in Morocco: an almost ideal demand system," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 9(2), pages 155-163, August.
    7. Jayson L. Lusk & W. Bruce Traill & Lisa O. House & Carlotta Valli & Sara R. Jaeger & Melissa Moore & Bert Morrow, 2006. "Comparative Advantage in Demand: Experimental Evidence of Preferences for Genetically Modified Food in the United States and European Union," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 1-21, March.
    8. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2002. "Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 47-53, March.
    9. Masayoshi Maruyama & Le Viet Trung, 2007. "Supermarkets in Vietnam: Opportunities and Obstacles," Asian Economic Journal, East Asian Economic Association, vol. 21(1), pages 19-46, March.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, April.
    11. Pingali, Prabhu, 2007. "Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems: Implications for research and policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 281-298, June.
    12. J. Barkley Rosser, 2009. "Introduction," Chapters,in: Handbook of Research on Complexity, chapter 1 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. 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.
    14. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    15. Maria L. Loureiro & Jill J. McCluskey & Ron C. Mittelhammer, 2003. "Are Stated Preferences Good Predictors of Market Behavior?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(1), pages 44-45.
    16. Jill E. Hobbs, 2004. "Information asymmetry and the role of traceability systems," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 397-415.
    17. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    field experiments; avian influenza; Vietnam; food safety; Demand and Price Analysis; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; C93; D12; Q13; Q18;

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • 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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea09:49444. 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/aaeaaea.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.