|Appears in Collections:||Economics Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Consumers’ preferences for nanotechnology in food packaging: a discrete choice experiment|
discrete choice experiments
random parameter logit
|Citation:||Erdem S (2015) Consumers’ preferences for nanotechnology in food packaging: a discrete choice experiment. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66 (2), pp. 259-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12088|
|Abstract:||We examine consumers' preferences for chickens under different levels of foodborne health risk, animal welfare and pric attributes. We analyse how their preferences vary according to the risk reduction method. Our comparison is between risk reductions achieved by conventional improvements in the meat supply chain system (e.g. more stringent regulations and inspection regimes), and risk reductions achieved by food packaging nanosensors. Our comparison uses a two-treatment discrete choice experiment in which each treatment sample is only presented with one of the risk reductions: either nanotechnology or conventional methods. We also investigate heterogeneity in preferences for two consumer groups: (i) consumers who usually buy conventional raw, whole chickens, and (ii) consumers who usually buy niche, welfare-improved chickens, such as free-range and organic. Our results show evidence of heterogeneity in preferences and willingness- to-pay values of the both consumer groups. We find that consumers, on average, prefer raw, whole chicken with a lower risk of food poisoning, better animal welfare, and lower costs, regardless of the presence of nanosensors. Although consumers in general showed no strong preferences towards or resistance to nanotechnology, those who buy chickens with better animal welfare, on average, showed higher WTP for food risk reduction and animal welfare relative to conventional chicken consumers.|
|Rights:||© 2014 University of Stirling, UIC. Journal of Agricultural Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Agricultural Economics Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.|
|Erdem-2015-Journal_of_Agricultural_Economics.pdf||Fulltext - Published Version||640.82 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
This item is protected by original copyright
A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.