IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/apl/wpaper/13-06.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Split-Sample Revealed and Stated Preference Demand Model to Examine Homogenous Subgroup Consumer Behavior Responses to Information and Food Safety Technology Treatments

Author

Listed:
  • O. Ashton Morgan
  • John C. Whitehead
  • William L. Huth
  • Gregory S. Martin
  • Richard Sjolander

Abstract

The combination and joint estimation of revealed and stated preference (RP/SP) data approach to examining consumer preferences to relevant policy-based measures typically fail to account for heterogeneity in the data by considering behavior of the average individual. However, in policy-based analyses, where the research is often driven by understanding how different individuals react to different or similar scenarios, a preferred approach would be to analyze preferences of homogenous population subgroups. We accomplish this by developing a split-sample RP/SP analysis that examines whether homogenous subgroups of the population, based on individual health and behavioral characteristics, respond differently to health-risk information and new food safety technology. The ongoing efforts by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reduce illness and death associated with consuming raw Gulf of Mexico oysters provide an ideal platform for the analysis as the health risks only relate to a very specific consumer subgroup. Results from split-sample demand models indicate that educational information treatments cause vulnerable at-risk consumers to reduce their oyster demand, implying that a more structured approach to disseminating the brochures to the at-risk population could have the desired result of reducing annual illness levels. Also, findings across all subgroups provide strong empirical evidence that the new FDA policy requiring processing technology to be used in oyster production will have a detrimental effect on the oyster industry. Key Words: Food safety technology; health-risk information; homogenous subgroups; revealed preference; stated preference

Suggested Citation

  • O. Ashton Morgan & John C. Whitehead & William L. Huth & Gregory S. Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2013. "A Split-Sample Revealed and Stated Preference Demand Model to Examine Homogenous Subgroup Consumer Behavior Responses to Information and Food Safety Technology Treatments," Working Papers 13-06, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
  • Handle: RePEc:apl:wpaper:13-06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp1306.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. von Haefen, Roger H. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2008. "Identifying demand parameters in the presence of unobservables: A combined revealed and stated preference approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 19-32, July.
    2. Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C. & Parsons, George R. & Price, Jammie, 2010. "Effects of information about invasive species on risk perception and seafood demand by gender and race," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 586-599, November.
    3. Wallace E. Huffman & Matthew Rousu & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2004. "Who Do Consumers Trust for Information: The Case of Genetically Modified Foods?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1222-1229.
    4. Johnston, Robert J. & Roheim, Cathy A. & Donath, Holger & Asche, Frank, 2001. "Measuring Consumer Preferences For Ecolabeled Seafood: An International Comparison," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(01), July.
    5. Fox, John A & Hayes, Dermot J & Shogren, Jason F, 2002. "Consumer Preferences for Food Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 75-95, January.
    6. Egan, Kevin & Herriges, Joseph, 2006. "Multivariate count data regression models with individual panel data from an on-site sample," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 567-581, September.
    7. Paul Milgrom & John Roberts, 1986. "Relying on the Information of Interested Parties," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(1), pages 18-32, Spring.
    8. Jason F. Shogren & John A. Fox & Dermot J. Hayes & Jutta Roosen, 1999. "Observed Choices for Food Safety in Retail, Survey, and Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1192-1199.
    9. Carol Mansfield & Daniel J. Phaneuf & F. Reed Johnson & Jui-Chen Yang & Robert Beach, 2008. "Preferences for Public Lands Management under Competing Uses: The Case of Yellowstone National Park," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 282-305.
    10. David G. Swartz & Ivar E. Strand, Jr., 1981. "Avoidance Costs Associated with Imperfect Information: The Case of Kepone," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(2), pages 139-150.
    11. Nancy E. Bockstael & Ivar E. Strand, Jr., 1987. "The Effect of Common Sources of Regression Error on Benefit Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(1), pages 11-20.
    12. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Tiziano Tempesta, 2007. "Latent class count models of total visitation demand: days out hiking in the eastern Alps," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(4), pages 447-460, December.
    13. Whitehead, John C. & Haab, Timothy C. & Huang, Ju-Chin, 2000. "Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 339-354, October.
    14. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    15. Morgan, O. Ashton & Huth, William L., 2011. "Using revealed and stated preference data to estimate the scope and access benefits associated with cave diving," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 107-118, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. New Appstate working paper
      by John Whitehead in Environmental Economics on 2013-05-01 16:29:20

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katsuhito Nohara, 2014. "Economic Valuation of the Damage to Tourism Benefits by Eastern Japan Great Earthquake Disaster," ERSA conference papers ersa14p1017, European Regional Science Association.
    2. Petrolia, Daniel R. & Walton, William C. & Yehouenou, Lauriane, 2017. "Is There A Market For Branded Gulf Of Mexico Oysters?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(01), pages 45-65, February.
    3. Katsuhito Nohara & Masaki Narukawa, 2015. "Measuring lost recreational benefits in Fukushima due to harmful rumors using a Poisson-inverse Gaussian regression?," ERSA conference papers ersa15p344, European Regional Science Association.
    4. Petrolia, Daniel R., 2016. "Risk preferences, risk perceptions, and risky food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 37-48.
    5. repec:ebl:ecbull:eb-16-00642 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. William L. Huth & O. Ashton Morgan & John C. Whitehead, 2016. "Measuring the Impact of Improved Traceability Information in Seafood Markets Following a Large Scale Contamination Event," Working Papers 16-17, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.

    More about this item

    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:apl:wpaper:13-06. 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: (O. Ashton Morgan). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/deappus.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.