IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea26/404463.html

Valuing Sustainability in China's Pork Market: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Mengyu
  • Jin, Yana
  • Hu, Wuyang

Abstract

This paper studies how information and framing shape consumers’ preferences of sustainability attributes in China’s pork market, and whether information-induced preference shifts persist over time. We implement a discrete choice experiment with pork consumers in Beijing and Shanghai (N = 887), varying price and three attributes, carbon footprint, water pollution, and animal welfare. The experiment embeds three randomized interventions designed to map onto distinct behavioral channels: child-related framing, health warning-style tips displayed within choice sets, and a two-stage design that introduces a time gap between information exposure and the choice tasks. Mixed logit estimates show targeted preference shifts consistent with these channels. Child-related framing reduces price sensitivity and strengthens aversion to high water pollution. Health tips increase aversion to low animal welfare, with effects concentrated among respondents with weaker baseline healthy-eating habits. By contrast, carbon-footprint valuations decay as the information-to-choice gap lengthens, suggesting limited durability for more abstract attributes. WTP estimates imply economically meaningful premia for sustainability improvements, particularly for reducing water pollution. Overall, the results provide experimentally identified evidence on when information interventions shift multi-attribute sustainability valuations, for whom, and how durable those shifts are, with implications for the timing and design of sustainability labeling and nudging policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Mengyu & Jin, Yana & Hu, Wuyang, 2026. "Valuing Sustainability in China's Pork Market: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2026 Annual Meeting, July 26 - 28, 2026, Kansas City, Missouri 404463, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea26:404463
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.404463
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/404463/files/177522_193955_115232_Manuscript_V2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.404463?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. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2010. "The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design Is Taking the Con out of Econometrics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(2), pages 3-30, Spring.
    2. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    3. Kar Ho Lim & Wuyang Hu, 2023. "Contextual reference price in choice experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(4), pages 1288-1306, August.
    4. Michela Faccioli & Klaus Glenk, 2022. "More in Good Condition or Less in Bad Condition? Valence-Based Framing Effects in Environmental Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 98(2), pages 314-336.
    5. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth E. & Polak, John W., 2006. "On the use of a Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a Mixed Logit Model for vehicle choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 147-163, February.
    6. Bhat, Chandra R., 2003. "Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 837-855, November.
    7. Helena Fornwagner & Oliver P. Hauser, 2022. "Climate Action for (My) Children," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(1), pages 95-130, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Wuyang Hu & Shan Sun & Jerrod Penn & Ping Qing, 2022. "Dummy and effects coding variables in discrete choice analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(5), pages 1770-1788, October.
    10. Lisa Zaval & Elizabeth A. Keenan & Eric J. Johnson & Elke U. Weber, 2014. "How warm days increase belief in global warming," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(2), pages 143-147, February.
    11. Tiziana Luisetti & Ian J. Bateman & R. Kerry Turner, 2011. "Testing the Fundamental Assumption of Choice Experiments: Are Values Absolute or Relative?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 284-296.
    12. Jin, Yana & Andersson, Henrik & Zhang, Shiqiu, 2020. "Do preferences to reduce health risks related to air pollution depend on illness type? Evidence from a choice experiment in Beijing, China," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Nyantara Wickramasekera & An Thu Ta & Becky Field & Aki Tsuchiya, 2026. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) to Compare Social and Personal Preferences for Health and Well-Being Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 46(2), pages 238-249, February.
    15. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    16. Gregory, Robin & Lichtenstein, Sarah & Slovic, Paul, 1993. "Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 177-197, October.
    17. Lindsey Smith Taillie & Maxime Bercholz & Carmen E Prestemon & Isabella C A Higgins & Anna H Grummon & Marissa G Hall & Lindsay M Jaacks, 2023. "Impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases among US consumers: A randomized controlled trial," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(9), pages 1-20, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    20. Dan Rigby & Michael Burton & Jo Pluske, 2016. "Preference Stability and Choice Consistency in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 441-461, October.
    21. Hunt Allcott & Daniel Cohen & William Morrison & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2025. "When Do "Nudges" Increase Welfare?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 115(5), pages 1555-1596, May.
    22. Fredrik Carlsson, 2010. "Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 167-177, June.
    23. Lea S. Svenningsen & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2020. "Preferences for Distributional Impacts of Climate Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(1), pages 1-24, January.
    24. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    25. Allenby, Greg M. & Rossi, Peter E., 1998. "Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 57-78, November.
    26. Trisha R. Shrum, 2021. "The salience of future impacts and the willingness to pay for climate change mitigation: an experiment in intergenerational framing," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-20, March.
    27. DeLong, Karen L. & Syrengelas, Konstantinos G. & Grebitus, Carola & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2021. "Visual versus Text Attribute Representation in Choice Experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    28. Matthews, Yvonne & Scarpa, Riccardo & Marsh, Dan, 2017. "Stability of Willingness-to-Pay for Coastal Management: A Choice Experiment Across Three Time Periods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 64-73.
    29. Birchenall, Javier A. & Soares, Rodrigo R., 2009. "Altruism, fertility, and the value of children: Health policy evaluation and intergenerational welfare," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1-2), pages 280-295, February.
    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. Helga Fehr-Duda & Robin Schimmelpfennig, 2018. "Wider die Zahlengläubigkeit: Sind Befragungsergebnisse eine gute Grundlage für wirtschaftspolitische Entscheidungen?," ECON - Working Papers 297, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Dec 2018.
    2. Uggeldahl, Kennet Christian & Lundhede, Thomas & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2026. "The effects of spatial framing and attribute range on the measurement of nonuse values of biodiversity improvements," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    3. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2014. "Putting One's Money Where One's Mouth is: Increasing Saliency in the Field," Monash Economics Working Papers 43-14, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    4. Jin, Yana & Andersson, Henrik & Zhang, Shiqiu, 2020. "Do preferences to reduce health risks related to air pollution depend on illness type? Evidence from a choice experiment in Beijing, China," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    5. Carroll, James & Aravena, Claudia & Denny, Eleanor, 2016. "Low energy efficiency in rental properties: Asymmetric information or low willingness-to-pay?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 617-629.
    6. Brent, Daniel A. & Gangadharan, Lata & Leroux, Anke & Raschky, Paul, 2016. "Putting Your Money Where Your Month Is," 2016 Conference (60th), February 2-5, 2016, Canberra, Australia 235377, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(01), pages 1-13, April.
    8. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    9. Xie, Lusi & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Kecinski, Maik & Fooks, Jacob R., 2022. "Using economic experiments to assess the validity of stated preference contingent behavior responses," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    10. Schläpfer, Felix & Getzner, Michael, 2020. "Beyond Current Guidelines: A Proposal for Bringing Behavioral Economics to the Design and Analysis of Stated Preference Surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    11. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    12. Hou, Lingling & Liu, Na & Liu, Pengfei & Lv, Xinxin & Li, Saiwei, 2026. "Information and consequentiality: Evidence from willingness to pay for eco-labelling products based on Becker-Degroot-Marschak mechanism," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    13. Andersson, Henrik & Ouvrard, Benjamin, 2023. "Priming and the value of a statistical life: A cross country comparison," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    14. Andersson, Henrik & Ouvrard, Benjamin, 2023. "Priming and the Value of a Statistical Life: A Cross Country Comparison," TSE Working Papers 23-1439, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    15. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Tomasz Gajderowicz & Marek Giergiczny & Gabriela Grotkowska & Urszula Sztandar-Sztanderska, 2020. "Choosing the Future: Economic Preferences for Higher Education Using Discrete Choice Experiment Method," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 61(4), pages 510-539, June.
    16. Tobias-Mamina, Rejoice & Jordaan, Yolanda & Lin, Lin & Ortega, David L., 2025. "The Effects of Information and Naming Restriction on South African Consumer Preferences for Farm-raised Meat and Meat Alternatives," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 360835, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Brent, Daniel A. & Gangadharan, Lata & Leroux, Anke D. & Raschky, Paul A., 2022. "Reducing bias in preference elicitation for environmental public goods," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(02), January.
    18. Erlend Dancke Sandorf & Margrethe Aanesen & Jannike Falk-Andersson & Ingvild Skumlien Furuseth & Nick Hanley & Brooks A. Kaiser & Melina Kourantidou & Ståle Navrud & Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Bui Bich Xu, 2025. "Exploring Information and Embedding Effects on Willingness-to-Pay to Control the Invasive Red King Crab in Norway," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 88(9), pages 2529-2556, September.
    19. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimaging," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    20. Akshay Vij & Rico Krueger, 2018. "Random taste heterogeneity in discrete choice models: Flexible nonparametric finite mixture distributions," Papers 1802.02299, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:aaea26:404463. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.