IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ualbpr/7708.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing the Consumer Acceptance and Market Potential of Alternative Meats

Author

Listed:
  • Steiner, Bodo E.
  • Srivastava, Lorie
  • Gao, Fei

Abstract

Introduction, project objectives and project background: This initiative to this project, including the original project proposal, goes back to Professor Kevin Chen (he is no longer with the Department of Rural Economy). The project was initially scheduled to begin on 2004/05/01. When I took over this project and started to work as Principal Investigator on January 1, 2005, the following objectives were to be fulfilled (taken from Professor Kevin Chen's initial proposal): 1) Documentation of consumer awareness, attitude, and choice regarding alternative meats "At what level and to what extent are consumers aware of alternative meats?" What is consumer interest level in alternative meats and their willingness to change consumption behavior (i.e. how much are they willing to pay for alternative meats)? "What kinds of alternative meats are consumers eating?" What kinds of alternative meats are consumers most likely to try in the future? "Where are consumers buying and eating alternative meats (meat specialty store, direct market, supermarket, restaurant, and others)?" What attributes do consumers find desirable in alternative meats (leanness, nutrition, adventure, taste, and others)?" What are the main barriers affecting purchase of alternative meats (price, awareness of availability, exotic nature, cooking instructions, nutrition labeling, and others)? 2) Compilation of a consumer profile related to purchase of alternative meats "How do various socioeconomic and demographic factors affect consumer awareness, attitude, and acceptance of alternative meats?" What are the distinct consumer market segments that Alberta's alternative livestock and meat producers might target? 3) Development of marketing strategies and implications for the Alberta alternative livestock industry "What are the implications of the findings in 1) and 2) for developing effective advertising and promotion strategies to support the further development of Alberta's alternative livestock industry?"What are the implications of the finding in 1) and 2) for producing alternative meat products that are consumer friendly? "What are the implications of the findings in 1) and 2) for selecting the main marketing and distribution channels for alternative meat products? 1 A decision was made together with the DLFOA to focus our research efforts on three species: bison, elk and lamb. The overall purpose of our research was to improve the understanding of consumer perceptions towards the consumption of alternative meats, notably the above three species. More specifically, the objectives were to: 1) Document the attitude and purchasing choices for three alternative meats which are strategically important to Alberta's alternative livestock industry. 2) Analyze the effects of socio-economic factors of Alberta consumers in purchasing the above alternative meats. 3) Explore possibilities for market segmentation and marketing implications, also for other alternative meats (other than bison, elk and lamb). In order to achieve these objectives, this study has taken the following steps: 1) A preliminary survey was developed and received feedback from Professor Robert Hudson, University of Alberta. 2) This preliminary survey was revised by using four focus groups with Alberta consumers. 3) Three separate web-based surveys were constructed for bison, elk and lamb. In each of these surveys, a switching model was developed that employs revealed preference data in stated preference experiments. As consumers indicate their (un)willingness to switch away from beef, towards alternative meats, we addressed many issues; among them were: How important are which information sources in the purchasing decisions of alternative meats? 2 What role does farm origin traceability play in consumers' choice? To what extent do consumers care about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) in producing those meats?

Suggested Citation

  • Steiner, Bodo E. & Srivastava, Lorie & Gao, Fei, 2007. "Assessing the Consumer Acceptance and Market Potential of Alternative Meats," Project Report Series 7708, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ualbpr:7708
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.7708
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/7708/files/pp070001.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.7708?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. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    2. Oral Capps & Daniel S. Moen & Robert E. Branson, 1988. "Consumer characteristics associated with the selection of lean meat products," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(6), pages 549-557.
    3. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    4. Jill E. Hobbs & DeeVon Bailey & David L. Dickinson & Morteza Haghiri, 2005. "Traceability in the Canadian Red Meat Sector: Do Consumers Care?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 47-65, March.
    5. Jeffrey Gillespie & Gary Taylor & Alvin Schupp & Ferdinand Wirth, 1998. "Opinions of professional buyers toward a new, alternative red meat: Ostrich," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 247-256.
    6. Jeffrey M. Gillespie & Alvin R. Schupp, 2002. "The Role of Speculation and Information in the Early Evolution of the United States Ostrich Industry: An Industry Case Study," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(1), pages 278-292.
    7. P. A. Kuperis & M. M. Veeman & W. L. Adamowicz, 1999. "Consumer's Responses to the Potential Use of Bovine Somatotrophin in Canadian Dairy Production," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 47(2), pages 151-163, July.
    8. Louviere, Jordan J., 1992. "Experimental choice analysis: Introduction and overview," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 89-95, March.
    9. Boxall, Peter C. & Murray, Gordon & Unterschultz, James R. & Boxall, Pete C., 2003. "Non-timber forest products from the Canadian boreal forest: an exploration of aboriginal opportunities," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 75-96.
    10. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C. & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1995. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments versus Contingent Valuation," Staff Paper Series 24126, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    11. McFadden, Daniel, 1987. "Regression-based specification tests for the multinomial logit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 63-82.
    12. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, September.
    13. T.S. Jayne & Lawrence Rubey & Frank Lupi & David Tschirley & Michael T. Weber, 1996. "Estimating Consumer Response to Food Market Reform Using Stated Preference Data: Evidence from Eastern and Southern Africa," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(3), pages 820-824.
    14. Jill E. Hobbs & Kim Sanderson & Morteza Haghiri, 2006. "Evaluating Willingness‐to‐Pay for Bison Attributes: An Experimental Auction Approach," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(2), pages 269-287, June.
    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. Andy Choi, 2009. "Willingness to pay: how stable are the estimates?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 33(4), pages 301-310, November.
    2. Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nick, 2007. "What Determines Prediction Errors In "Benefits Transfer" Models?," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7967, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Asgary, Ali & Rezvani, Mohammad Reza & Mehregan, Nader, 2011. "Local Residents’ Preferences for Second Home Tourism Development Policies: A Choice Experiment nalysis," MPRA Paper 29703, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    5. Ole Bonnichsen & Jacob Ladenburg, 2010. "Reducing Status Quo Bias in Choice Experiments – An Application of a Protest Reduction Entreaty," IFRO Working Paper 2010/7, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    6. Birol, Ekin & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," MPRA Paper 38232, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Adam Finn & Stuart McFadyen & Colin Hoskins, 2003. "Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 177-192, November.
    8. Burton, Michael P. & Rigby, Dan, 2006. "Non-Participation in Choice Models: Hurdle and Latent Class Models," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25312, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Onyango, Benjamin M. & Govindasamy, Ramu & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2004. "Measuring U.S. Consumer Preferences For Genetically Modified Foods Using Choice Modeling Experiments: The Role Of Price, Product Benefits And Technology," Research Reports 18181, Rutgers University, Food Policy Institute.
    10. Hu, Wuyang, 2008. "Modeling Yeah- and Nay-Saying to Alternatives in Conjoint Experiments," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6346, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Boever, Brian P. & Harrison, R. Wes & Tiersch, Terrence R., 2006. "Willingness-to-Pay for Genetic Attributes in Aquaculture Industries," 2006 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2006, Orlando, Florida 35337, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    12. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    13. Mathews, Leah Greden & Kask, Susan B. & Stewart, Steve, 2004. "The Value Of The View: Valuing Scenic Quality Using Choice And Contingent Valuation Models," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20049, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Eisen-Hecht, Jonathan I. & Kramer, Randall A. & Huber, Joel, 2004. "A Hierarchical Bayes Approach To Modeling Choice Data: A Study Of Wetland Restoration Programs," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20253, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Darren Hudson & Karina Gallardo & Terry Hanson, 2005. "Hypothetical (Non)Bias In Choice Experiments: Evidence From Freshwater Prawns," Experimental 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Daniel Lew & Kristy Wallmo, 2011. "External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
    17. Nthambi, Mary & Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2021. "Quantifying Loss of Benefits from Poor Governance of Climate Change Adaptation Projects: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Farmers in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    18. Rinaldo Brau & D. Cao, 2005. "Uncovering the macrostructure of tourists' preferences. A choice experiment analysis of tourism demand to Sardinia," Working Paper CRENoS 200514, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    19. Shapansky, Bradford & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C., 2002. "Measuring Forest Resource Values: An Assessment Of Choice Experiments And Preference Construction Methods As Public Involvement Tools," Project Report Series 24036, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    20. Chuan-zhong Li & Jari Kuuluvainen & Eija Pouta & Mika Rekola & Olli Tahvonen, 2004. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Natura 2000 Nature Conservation Programs in Finland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 361-374, November.

    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:ualbpr:7708. 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/drualca.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.