IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/revi24/341050.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Segmentos de preferências na aquisição da carne bovina

Author

Listed:
  • Groot, Etiénne

Abstract

The objective of this work was to investigate the consumer preferences of the main attributes involved on beef purchase process, in Dracena - Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Thus, it was carried out 116 interviews in the city’s public thoroughfares, in July and August 2017. A structured questionnaire was used for interviews. Average preferences were determined by multinomial logistic regression and market segments were estimated through the latent class analysis. Results show that the most important attribute of beef purchase process is its appearance and it is followed by the expiration data on the packaging and meat freshness. It was found that there are five market segments. The largest, which comprises 31.3% of consumers, is characterized by the importance given to those attributes related to organoleptic quality. The second segment represents the preference of 18.9% of consumers, and they were defined as “concerned with health”, for giving priority to beef’s smell and freshness. The smallest segment is only 8.6% of consumers. To increase beef acceptance, it is necessary to take care of its aspect at selling point, and it must be in a good conservation state and with a recent slaughter date.

Suggested Citation

  • Groot, Etiénne, 2021. "Segmentos de preferências na aquisição da carne bovina," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 59(2), January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:revi24:341050
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.341050
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/341050/files/Etie%CC%81nne%20Groot.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.341050?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. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan, 2011. "Using Best Worst Scaling To Investigate Perceptions Of Control & Concern Over Food And Non-Food Risks," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108790, Agricultural Economics Society.
    2. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1011-1027.
    3. Francine da Silveira Espinoza & Adriana Shizue Hirano, 2003. "As dimensões de avaliação dos atributos importantes na compra de condicionadores de ar: um estudo aplicado," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 7(4), pages 97-117.
    4. T.N. Flynn & A.A.J. Marley, 2014. "Best-worst scaling: theory and methods," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 8, pages 178-201, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Hoppe, Alexia & Vieira, Luciana Marques & Barcellos, Marcia Dutra de, 2013. "Consumer Behaviour Towards Organic Food in Porto Alegre: an application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour," Brazilian Journal of Rural Economy and Sociology (Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural-RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 51(1), pages 1-22, March.
    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. Nagaraj, Samala, 2021. "Role of consumer health consciousness, food safety & attitude on organic food purchase in emerging market: A serial mediation model," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    2. De Valck, Jeremy & Broekx, Steven & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "Testing the influence of substitutes in nature valuation by using spatial discounting factors," Working Papers 182808, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    3. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    4. Deely, John & Hynes, Stephen, 2020. "Preferences for Blue-Green or Grey Infrastructure to Reduce Flood Risk: A Choice Experiment," Working Papers 309506, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    5. repec:sss:wpaper:201407 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Speelman, Stijn & Veettil, Prakashan Chellattan, 2013. "Heterogeneous preferences for water rights reforms among smallholder irrigators in South Africa," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 2(2), pages 1-19, August.
    7. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    8. Teferi, Ermias Tesfaye & Kassie, Girma T. & Pe, Mario Enrico & Fadda, Carlo, 2020. "Are farmers willing to pay for climate related traits of wheat? Evidence from rural parts of Ethiopia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    9. Jesús Barreiro‐Hurle & Azucena Gracia & Tiziana De‐Magistris, 2010. "The Effects of Multiple Health and Nutrition Labels on Consumer Food Choices," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 426-443, June.
    10. Cathal O'Donoghue & Thia Hennessy, 2015. "Policy and Economic Change in the Agri-Food Sector in Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 46(2), pages 315-337.
    11. David Bürgin & Robert Wilken, 2022. "Increasing Consumers’ Purchase Intentions Toward Fair-Trade Products Through Partitioned Pricing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(4), pages 1015-1040, December.
    12. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Hess, Stephane & Kjær, Trine, 2016. "Asymmetric information and user orientation in general practice: Exploring the agency relationship in a best–worst scaling study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 115-130.
    13. Ainhoa Vega-Bayo & Petr Mariel, 2023. "Parents’ Willingness to Pay for Bilingualism: Evidence from Spain," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 727-742, September.
    14. Taglioni, Chiara & Cavicchi, Alessio & Torquati, Biancamaria & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2011. "Influence of Brand Equity on Milk Choice: A Choice Experiment Survey," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2(3), pages 1-21, December.
    15. H. Allen Klaiber & Roger H. von Haefen, 2019. "Do Random Coefficients and Alternative Specific Constants Improve Policy Analysis? An Empirical Investigation of Model Fit and Prediction," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(1), pages 75-91, May.
    16. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny & Hynes, Stephen, 2012. "Exploring cost heterogeneity in recreational demand," Working Papers 148832, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    17. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    18. Doherty, Edel & Murphy, Geraldine & Hynes, Stephen & Buckley, Cathal, 2013. "Are similar ecosystem services valued differently across different water body types: A discrete choice analysis of rivers, lakes and sea attributes?," Working Papers 160055, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    19. Domanski, Adam, 2009. "Estimating Mixed Logit Recreation Demand Models With Large Choice Sets," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49413, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Doherty, Edel & Murphy, Geraldine & Hynes, Stephen & Buckley, Cathal, 2014. "Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 89-97.
    21. Yasushi Shoji & Takahiro Tsuge, 2015. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Winter Nature-Based Tours in Sub-Frigid Climate Zones: A Latent Class Approach," Tourism Economics, , vol. 21(2), pages 387-407, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics;

    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:revi24:341050. 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/inrapfr.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.