A Dual Response Choice Experiments (DRCE) design to assess rabbit meat preference in Catalonia: A Heteroescedatistic Extreme-Value Model
Our paper analyzes consumer preferences toward fresh rabbit meat and alternative marketing formats for rabbit meat. The empirical analysis uses consumer-level questionnaires to elicit information regarding consumer attitudes toward rabbit meat in Catalonia (Spain). We use the Dual Response Choice Experiment (DRCE) design which allows for analyzing forced and unforced options in choice experiments using the same sample. The Heteroscedastic Extreme- Value (HEV) model is used due to its relaxation of the restrictive assumption made in the Multinomial Logit Model regarding the identically distributed error term across alternatives. Our results demonstrate a higher preference for rabbit meat from “Catalan” origin followed by higher quality certification information. Convenience and “ready to eat” products made from rabbit meat may help bolster increased consumption. An effective communication campaign is needed to educate individuals regarding the health characteristics of rabbit compared to other types of meat. Furthermore, results demonstrate that the ordering of attributes is not significantly different from forced and non-forced choices obtained from the DRCE design. However, significant differences on the magnitude of the preferences for some attributes’ levels are found.
|Date of creation:||2011|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.eaae.org|
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
- Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2007. "Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 34(3), pages 321-344, September.
- Kevin Boyle & Semra Özdemir, 2009. "Convergent Validity of Attribute-Based, Choice Questions in Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 247-264, February.
- Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083.
- Luce, Mary Frances, 1998. " Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(4), pages 409-433, March.
- Kessels, Roselinde & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2008. "Optimal designs for conjoint experiments," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 2369-2387, January.
- Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005.
"Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments,"
Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
- Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan, 2004. "Using Cheap-Talk as a Test of Validity in Choice Experiments," Working Papers in Economics 128, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
- Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.
- Jeff Brazell & Christopher Diener & Ekaterina Karniouchina & William Moore & Válerie Séverin & Pierre-Francois Uldry, 2006. "The no-choice option and dual response choice designs," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 255-268, December. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eaae11:114779. 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)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.