Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:10:11.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Organic label as an identifier of environmentally related quality: A consumer choice experiment on beef in Italy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2012

R. Zanoli ,
R. Scarpa ,
F. Napolitano ,
E. Piasentier ,
S. Naspetti  and
V. Bruschi
R. Zanoli*
Affiliation:
Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
R. Scarpa
Affiliation:
University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
F. Napolitano
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi della Basilicata, Potenza, Italy.
E. Piasentier
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Udine, Udine, Italy.
S. Naspetti
Affiliation:
Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
V. Bruschi
Affiliation:
Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
*
*Corresponding author: zanoli@agrecon.univpm.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper uses a hypothetical choice experiment to investigate Italian consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for organic, conventional and genetically modified (GM)-fed beef, utilizing intrinsic, search cues (price, color and visible fat) and extrinsic, credence cues. Data are gathered from three different locations in northern, central and southern Italy using a sequential Bayesian approach. Results showed that consumers attach higher value to organic meat. WTP for GM-fed beef, which is not yet sold in Italy, is well below current conventional beef prices. Organic beef is attractive to consumers because it is associated with higher animal welfare standards and environment-related issues (food miles and biodiversity preservation). No differences are found in marginal WTP estimates by gender, age, education, being a parent or having a higher level of knowledge about organic production. Ethical/environmental issues (credence cues) appear to be more relevant in explaining variation in WTP for organic beef than ordinary product characteristics (search cues).

Keywords

consumer choice experimentwillingness-to-payanimal welfarecountry of originlocal breedsethical and environmental valuesorganic beefmarketing
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 70 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Napolitano, F., Girolami, F., and Braghieri, A. 2009. Organic meat: Market development and consumer willingness to pay. In Nelson, M. and Artamova, I. (eds). Organic Farming: Methods, Economics and Structure. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, NY, USA. p. 113–126.Google Scholar
2Loureiro, M.L. and Umberger, W.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 32(4):496–514.Google Scholar
3Tranter, R.B., Bennett, R.M., Costa, L., Cowan, C., Holt, G.C., Jones, P.J., Miele, M., Sottomayor, M., and Vestergaard, J. 2009. Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for organic conversion-grade food: Evidence from five EU countries. Food Policy 34:287–294.Google Scholar
4Grunert, K.G., Brendhal, L., and Brunsø, K. 2004. Consumer perception of meat quality and implication for product development in the meat sector—a review. Meat Science 66:259–272.Google Scholar
5Harper, G. and Makatouni, A. 2002. Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Journal of Food 104:287–299.Google Scholar
6Zanoli, R. and Naspetti, S. 2002. Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food: A means-end approach. British Food Journal 104(8):643–653.Google Scholar
7Baker, S., Thompson, K., and Engelken, J. 2004. Mapping the values driving organic food choice: Germany vs. the UK. European Journal of Marketing 38(8):995–1012.Google Scholar
8Gambelli, D., Naspetti, S., and Vairo, D. 2003. Why are consumers buying organic meat and milk? A qualitative study of the Italian market. In Proceeding of the First SAFO Workshop, ‘Socio-Economic Aspects of Animal Health and Food Safety in Organic Farming Systems’, Florence, Italy, September 2003. p. 125–142.Google Scholar
9Zanoli, R. (ed.). 2004. The European consumer and organic food. Organic Marketing Initiatives and Rural Development Series: Volume 4. University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Wales.Google Scholar
10ACNielsen 2005. Organic and functional foods have plenty of room to grow according to new ACNielsen global study. Available at Web site: http://usacnielsencom/news/Google Scholar
11Padel, S. and Foster, C. 2005. Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour: Understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food. British Food Journal 107(8):606–625.Google Scholar
12Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Van Trijp, H.C.M. 1996. Quality guidance: A consumer-based approach to food quality improvement using partial least squares. European Review of Agricultural Economics 23(2):195–215.Google Scholar
13Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. 1990. Conceptual model of the quality perception process. Journal of Business Research 21:309–333.Google Scholar
14Gracia, A. and Magistris, T. 2008. The demand for organic foods in the South of Italy: A discrete choice model. Food Policy 33:386–396.Google Scholar
15Bernuès, A., Olaizola, A., and Corcoran, K. 2003. Extrinsic attributes of red meat as indicators of quality in Europe: An application for market segmentation. Food Quality and Preference 14:265–276.Google Scholar
16Padel, S. and Gössinger, K. 2008. Farmer Consumer Partnerships Communicating Ethical Values: A Conceptual Framework. CORE Organic Project Report, No. 1897. Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth and University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna.Google Scholar
17Tonsor, G.T., Schroeder, T.C., Fox, J.A., and Biere, A. 2005. European preferences for beef steak attributes. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 30(2):367–380.Google Scholar
18Lusk, J., Roosen, J., and Fox, J. 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 85:16–29.Google Scholar
19Schmidt, H. 2008. Some Legal Aspects of the Regulations (EC) No. 834/2007 and 889/2008 on Organic Food Product, Available from Web site http://www.hpslex.com/ (accessed January 24, 2012).Google Scholar
20Caracciolo, F., Cembalo, L., Cicia, G., and Del Giudice, T. 2010. European preferences for pork product and process attributes: A generalized random utility model for ranked out come. Paper presented at 4th International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks, February 8–12, 2010, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria.Google Scholar
21Cicia, G. and Colantuoni, F. 2010. WTP for traceable meat attributes: A meta-analysis. International Journal on Food System Dynamics 1(3):252–263.Google Scholar
22Hocquette, J.F., Richardson, I.R., Prache, S., Medale, F., Duffy, G., and Scollan, N.D. 2005. The future trends for research on quality and safety of animal products. Italian Journal of Animal Science 4(3):49–72.Google Scholar
23Schnettler, B., Vidal, R., Silva, R., Vallejos, L., and Sepúlveda, N. 2009. Consumer willingness to pay for beef meat in a developing country: The effect of information regarding country of origin, price and animal handling prior to slaughter. Food Quality and Preference 20:156–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Villalobos, P., Padilla, C., Ponce, C., and Rojas, A. 2010. Beef consumer preferences in Chile: Importance of quality attribute differentiators on the purchase decision. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 70:85–94.Google Scholar
25Acebron, L.B. and Dopico, D.C. 2000. The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues to expected and experienced quality: An empirical application for beef. Food Quality and Preference 11:229–238.Google Scholar
26Lancaster, K. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74:132–157.Google Scholar
27McFadden, D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Zarembka, P. (ed.). Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York, p. 105–142.Google Scholar
28Scarpa, R., Campbell, D., and Hutchinson, W.G. 2007. Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: Sequential Bayesian design and respondents’ rationality in a choice experiment study. Land Economics 83(4):617–634.Google Scholar
29Scarpa, R. and Rose, J.M. 2008. Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: How to measure it, what to report and why. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 52:253–282.Google Scholar
30Vermeulen, B., Goos, P., Scarpa, R., and Vandebroek, M. 2009. Efficient and robust evidence from simulations of willingness-to-pay designs for choice experiments. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
31Ngene v1.0, 2009. User Manual and Reference Guide. Choice Metrics Ltd.Google Scholar
32Hensher, D.A. and Bradley, M. 1993. Using stated response choice data to enrich revealed preference discrete choice models. Marketing Letters 4:139–151.Google Scholar
33Haaijer, R., Kamakura, W., and Wedel, M. 2001. The ‘no-choice’ alternative in conjoint choice experiments. International Journal of Market Research 43:93–106.Google Scholar
34Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., and Lagerkvist, C.J. 2004. Using cheap-talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Working Papers in Economics No. 128. Department of Economics, Gothenburg University.Google Scholar
35Boyd, J.H. and Mellman, R.E. 1980. The effect of fuel economy standards on the U.S. automotive market: An hedonic demand analysis. Transportation Research Part A 14(5–6):367–378.Google Scholar
36Train, K.E. 1998. Recreation demand models with taste variation. Land Economics 74:230–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37Train, K. and Weeks, M. 2005. Discrete choice models in preference space and willing-to-pay space. In Scarpa, R. and Alberini, A. (eds). Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, Chapter 1. Springer, Dordrecht. p. 1–16.Google Scholar
38Sonnier, G., Ainslie, A., and Otter, T. 2007. Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 5(3):313–331.Google Scholar
39Balcombe, K., Chalak, A., and Fraser, I. 2009. Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 57(2):226–237.Google Scholar
40Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., and Greene, W.H. (eds). 2005. Applied Choice Analysis. A Primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
41Greene, W.H., Hensher, D.A. and Rose, J.M. 2005. Using classical simulation-based estimators to estimate individual WTP values. In Scarpa, R. and Alberini, A. (eds). Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics. Springer, Dordrecht. p. 17–33.Google Scholar
42Bech, M. and Gyrd-Hansen, D. 2005. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Economics 14:1079–1083.Google Scholar
43Lusk, J.L. and Schroeder, T.C. 2004. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2):467–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44Osservatorio Prezzi e Tariffe 2008. Ministero dello sviluppo Economico, Direzione Generale per il mercato, la concorrenza, il consumatore, la vigilanza e la normativa tecnica. Available at Web site http://www.osservaprezzi.itGoogle Scholar
45Organic Monitor 2010. The Global Market for Organic Food and Drink: Business Opportunities and Future Outlook. Organic Monitor, London, UK.Google Scholar
46Naspetti, S. and Zanoli, R. 2012. Organic meat production inEurope: Market and regulation. In Ricke, S. (ed.). Organic Meat Production and Processing. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. p. 53–66.Google Scholar
47Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., and Lagerkvist, C.J. 2007. Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: Mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter. European Review of Agricultural Economics 34(3):321–344.Google Scholar
48Lagerkvist, C.J., Carlsson, F., and Viske, D. 2006. Swedish consumer preferences for animal welfare and biotech: A choice experiment. AgBioForum 9(1):51–58.Google Scholar
49Verbeke, W. and Viaene, J. 1999. Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat consumption in Belgium: Empirical evidence from a consumer survey. Food Quality and Preference 10(6):437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50Pouta, E., Heikkilä, J., Forsman-Hugg, S., Isoniemi, M., and Mäkelä, J. 2010. Consumer choice of broiler meat: The effects of country of origin and production methods. Food Quality and Preference 21(5):539–546.Google Scholar
51Dransfield, E., Ngapo, T.M., Nielsen, N.A., Bredahl, L., Sjödén, P.O., Magnusson, M., Campo, M.M., and Nute, G.R. 2005. Consumer choice and suggested price for pork as influenced by its appearance, taste and information concerning country of origin and organic pig production. Meat Science 69(1):61–70.Google Scholar
52Napolitano, F., Girolami, A., and Braghieri, A. 2010. Consumer liking and willingness to pay for high welfare animal-based products. Trends in Food Science and Technology 21(11):537–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar