IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ijofsd/198961.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stated Preferences for Consumption of Sea Urchin: A Choice Experiment in Sardinia (Italy)

Author

Listed:
  • Furesi, Roberto
  • Madau, Fabio A.
  • Palomba, Andrea
  • Pulina, Pietro

Abstract

In Sardinia sea urchin (Paracentrotus lividus) roe is a basic ingredient for several dishes (e.g. pasta, pizza, croutons) and its demand is constantly increasing. However marketable value of local sea urchin appears to be potentially higher than the current value. This paper aims to estimate the value of a based sea urchin dish according to the stated preference of consumers. A Choice Experiment (CE) analysis on 475 consumers was carried out in order to estimate their willingness to pay (WTP) for consuming sea urchin. Seafood was proposed as alternative to sea urchin. CE concerned two attributes: certification of local origin and place where dishes are consumed. Findings suggest that WTP for a generic dish is significantly higher for sea urchin (11.65 Euros) than for seafood (7.94 Euros) based dish. Furthermore, we found that WTP is higher when both foods are consumed with spaghetti and as raw fresh product, whereas an opposite effect is associated to pizza. Finally, the influence of some socio‐economic characteristics of responders on their preferences was estimated.

Suggested Citation

  • Furesi, Roberto & Madau, Fabio A. & Palomba, Andrea & Pulina, Pietro, 2014. "Stated Preferences for Consumption of Sea Urchin: A Choice Experiment in Sardinia (Italy)," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 5(3), pages 1-9, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ijofsd:198961
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.198961
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/198961/files/Roberto%20Furesi_%20Fabio%20A.%20Madau_%20Andrea%20Palomba_%20Pietro%20Pulina_111%20-%20119.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.198961?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    2. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    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. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    2. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    3. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    4. Kallas, Z. & Gómez-Limón, J.A., 2007. "Valoración De La Multifuncionalidad Agraria: Una Aplicación A Través Del Método De Los Experimentos De Elección/Agricultural Multifunctionality Valuation: A Case Study Using The Choice Experiment," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 107-144, Abril.
    5. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    6. Girma T. Kassie & Awudu Abdulai & Clemens Wollny, 2009. "Valuing Traits of Indigenous Cows in Central Ethiopia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 386-401, June.
    7. Ahmad Adeel & Bruno Notteboom & Ansar Yasar & Kris Scheerlinck & Jeroen Stevens, 2021. "Sustainable Streetscape and Built Environment Designs around BRT Stations: A Stated Choice Experiment Using 3D Visualizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.
    8. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    9. Liesivaara, Petri & Myyrä, Sami, 2014. "Government policies in changing climate and the demand for crop insurance," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170520, Agricultural Economics Society.
    10. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    11. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Goffe & Qods Lefnatsa, 2021. "Does catch-and-release increase the recreational value of rivers? The case of salmon fishing," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 393-424, December.
    12. Yosr Abid Fourati & Cathal O'Donoghue, 2009. "Eliciting Individual Preferences for Pension Reform," Working Papers 0150, National University of Ireland Galway, Department of Economics, revised 2009.
    13. Daniel McFadden, 2001. "Economic Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 351-378, June.
    14. Djiby Racine Thiam & Ariel Dinar & Hebert Ntuli, 2021. "Promotion of residential water conservation measures in South Africa: the role of water-saving equipment," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(1), pages 173-210, January.
    15. Randrianarison, Henintsoa & Ramiaramanana, Jeannot & Wätzold, Frank, 2017. "When to Pay? Adjusting the Timing of Payments in PES Design to the Needs of Poor Land-users," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 168-177.
    16. Bui Bich Xuan & Erlend Dancke Sandorf, 2020. "Potential for Sustainable Aquaculture: Insights from Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(2), pages 401-421, October.
    17. Marva Stithou & Yiannis Kountouris & Phoebe Koundouri, 2011. "A Choice Experiments Application in Transport Infrastructure: A case study on travel time savings, accidents and pollution reduction," DEOS Working Papers 1116, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    18. Anastassiadis, Friederike & Liebe, Ulf & Musshoff, Oliver, 2012. "Finanzielle Flexibilität In Landwirtschaftlichen Investitionsentscheidungen: Ein Discrete Choice Experiment," 52nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 26-28, 2012 137142, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    19. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2005. "Using A Choice Experiment To Estimate The Non-Use Values Of Wetlands: The Case Of Cheimaditida Wetland In Greece," Environmental Economy and Policy Research Discussion Papers 31934, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economy.
    20. Dimitris Damigos & Christina Kaliampakou & Anastasios Balaskas & Lefkothea Papada, 2021. "Does Energy Poverty Affect Energy Efficiency Investment Decisions? First Evidence from a Stated Choice Experiment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-17, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Consumer/Household Economics; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • Q22 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Fishery

    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:ijofsd:198961. 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/centmde.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.