IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaa115/116398.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact Of Health, Environmental And Social Attributes Of Salmon Choice In The United States

Author

Listed:
  • Brett, Daniel F.
  • Melo, Oscar

Abstract

In recent years, U.S. consumers have increasingly sought information about the health implications of their food purchases, as well as the environmental and social impact of the food production process. While this growing consumer demand has helped facilitate the development of several seafood certification programs, no accessible public or private data shows that U.S. shoppers are willing to pay a premium for certified seafood. To estimate whether a price premium exists for current and forthcoming certifications for wild and farmed salmon producers, and to better understand U.S. consumers’ preferences for salmon, we surveyed a representative sample of 955 shoppers from the United States. We then conducted a conjoint analysis on their willingness to pay for different methods of production (wild or farmed), countries or regions of origin, the Marine Stewardship Council’s wild seafood ‘ecolabel’, and hypothetical certifications assuring that the salmon product is associated with fewer health risks, environmental impacts, or negative social issues. Of the factors which affect consumers’ salmon purchasing decisions, the combination of fresh salmon’s method of production and its region of origin is generally a stronger determinant of U.S. salmon shopper’s purchasing decisions than the salmon’s certifications. Consumers strongly favor wild salmon to farmed salmon, prefer salmon from the United States to salmon from other countries, are willing to pay the largest premiums for environmental certifications, and state they are willing to pay the lowest premium for the health and safety certification. Results show that 1) fresh salmon producers and retailers have financial incentives to display social and environmental labels at seafood counters in markets, 2) a price premium for a health and safety certification of farmed salmon would be limited, since salmon consumers are more responsive to negative than positive information related to health issues associated with the salmon that they purchase, and 3) certifying agencies, and all retailers have financial incentives to inform consumers about the benefits and risks of salmon production and consumption, because informed consumers are willing to pay more for certified fresh salmon as well as most types of uncertified fresh salmon.

Suggested Citation

  • Brett, Daniel F. & Melo, Oscar, 2010. "The Impact Of Health, Environmental And Social Attributes Of Salmon Choice In The United States," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116398, European Association of Agricultural Economists;Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaa115:116398
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/116398/files/2B-3_Brett_Melo.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jaffry, Shabbar & Pickering, Helen & Ghulam, Yaseen & Whitmarsh, David & Wattage, Prem, 2004. "Consumer choices for quality and sustainability labelled seafood products in the UK," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 215-228, June.
    2. Cathy R. Wessells & Robert J. Johnston & Holger Donath, 1999. "Assessing Consumer Preferences for Ecolabeled Seafood: The Influence of Species, Certifier, and Household Attributes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1084-1089.
    3. John Rose & Michiel Bliemer, 2013. "Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1021-1041, September.
    4. Johnston, Robert J. & Roheim, Cathy A., 2006. "A Battle of Taste and Environmental Convictions for Ecolabeled Seafood: A Contingent Ranking Experiment," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(02), August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:eaa115:116398. 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/eaaeeea.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.