IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/agecon/v39y2008i3p339-348.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing the influence of underlying attitudes and the demand for organic milk in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Shunsuke Managi
  • Yasutaka Yamamoto
  • Hiroyuki Iwamoto
  • Kiyotaka Masuda

Abstract

Subjective perceptions about a product affect consumer choice. Accordingly, acquiring the underlying demand characteristics that consumers find desirable is vital for firms planning future marketing strategies. However, the extent to which product‐specific perceptions affect consumer choice is poorly understood. New agricultural standards for organic livestock were introduced in Japan in November 2005 and are expected to influence the market significantly. Choice modeling (CM) is used to explore how consumers evaluate the latent demands and conventional attributes (or tangible values) of organic milk. The results suggest that latent demands, along with socioeconomic characteristics and conventional attributes, provide strong incentives for consumers to move from the purchase of conventional milk to organic milk. The analysis indicates that latent demands reflecting the safeness of organic milk, the better taste of organic milk, the image of environmental friendliness in the production process, and the image of the health and comfort of the cows are important factors that influence consumers' purchasing decisions. However, each specific factor has a corresponding conventional tangible attribute that needs to be targeted in marketing strategy.

Suggested Citation

  • Shunsuke Managi & Yasutaka Yamamoto & Hiroyuki Iwamoto & Kiyotaka Masuda, 2008. "Valuing the influence of underlying attitudes and the demand for organic milk in Japan," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 339-348, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:39:y:2008:i:3:p:339-348
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00337.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00337.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00337.x?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. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    2. Batte, Marvin T. & Hooker, Neal H. & Haab, Timothy C. & Beaverson, Jeremy, 2007. "Putting their money where their mouths are: Consumer willingness to pay for multi-ingredient, processed organic food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 145-159, April.
    3. Huang, Chung L, 1996. "Consumer Preferences and Attitudes towards Organically Grown Produce," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 23(3), pages 331-342.
    4. Sullivan, Mary, 1990. "Measuring Image Spillovers in Umbrella-Branded Products," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63(3), pages 309-329, July.
    5. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    6. Blamey, Russell K. & Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Morrison, Mark, 2000. "Valuing remnant vegetation in Central Queensland using choice modelling," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(3), pages 1-18.
    7. Wang, Qingbin & Sun, Junjie, 2003. "Consumer Preference And Demand For Organic Food: Evidence From A Vermont Survey," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22080, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. McCluskey, Jill J. & Grimsrud, Kristine M. & Ouchi, Hiromi & Wahl, Thomas I., 2005. "Bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Japan: consumers’ food safety perceptions and willingness to pay for tested beef," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(2), pages 1-13.
    9. P. A. Kuperis & M. M. Veeman & W. L. Adamowicz, 1999. "Consumer's Responses to the Potential Use of Bovine Somatotrophin in Canadian Dairy Production," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 47(2), pages 151-163, July.
    10. Sallie James & Michael Burton, 2003. "Consumer preferences for GM food and other attributes of the food system," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 501-518, December.
    11. Steven Stern, 1997. "Simulation-Based Estimation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(4), pages 2006-2039, December.
    12. Kwamena K. Quagrainie & James Unterschultz & Michele Veeman, 1998. "Effects of Product Origin and Selected Demographics on Consumer Choice of Red Meats," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 46(2), pages 201-219, July.
    13. James Unterschultz & Kwamena K. Quagrainie & Michele Veeman & Renee B. Kim, 1998. "South Korean Hotel Meat Buyers' Perceptions of Australian, Canadian and U.S. Beef," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 46(1), pages 53-68, March.
    14. Birger Wernerfelt, 1988. "Umbrella Branding as a Signal of New Product Quality: An Example of Signalling by Posting a Bond," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(3), pages 458-466, Autumn.
    15. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 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, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    16. Underhill, Sheila E. & Figueroa, Enrique E., 1996. "Consumer Preferences For Non-Conventionally Grown Produce," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 1-11, July.
    17. Jill Windle & John Rolfe, 2005. "Diversification choices in agriculture: a Choice Modelling case study of sugarcane growers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(1), pages 63-74, March.
    18. Grunert, Suzanne C. & Juhl, Hans Jorn, 1995. "Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 39-62, March.
    19. Randolph E. Bucklin & Sunil Gupta, 1999. "Commercial Use of UPC Scanner Data: Industry and Academic Perspectives," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 247-273.
    20. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2005. "Diversification choices in agriculture: a Choice Modelling case study of sugarcane growers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(1), pages 1-12.
    21. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    22. Tirtha Dhar & Jeremy D. Foltz, 2005. "Milk by Any Other Name … Consumer Benefits from Labeled Milk," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(1), pages 214-228.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Derstappen, Rebecca & Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Banse, Martin, 2022. "An empirical analysis of the export potential of pork produced under higher animal welfare standards," Thünen Working Paper 319352, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI), Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    3. Yuji Hara & Yuki Sampei & Hirotaka Tanaka, 2018. "The Minabe-Tanabe Ume System: Linkage of Landscape Units by Locals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, April.
    4. Oluwagbenga Akinwehinmi & Kolawole Ogundari & Taye Timothy Amos, 2022. "Consumers’ food control risk perception and preference for food safety certification in emerging food markets," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 690-708, September.
    5. Xiang Wu & Bin Hu & Jie Xiong, 2020. "Understanding Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences in Chinese Milk Markets: A Latent Class Approach," Post-Print hal-02489646, HAL.
    6. Kentaka Aruga, 2017. "Consumer responses to food produced near the Fukushima nuclear plant," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(4), pages 677-690, October.
    7. Akinwehinmi, Oluwagbenga & Ogundari, Kolawole & Amos, Taiwo, 2021. "Consumers' Food Control Risk Perception and Preference for Government-Controlled Safety Certification in Emerging Food Markets," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315312, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Kitano, Shinichi & Mitsunari, Yuka & Yoshino, Akira, 2022. "The impact of information asymmetry on animal welfare-friendly consumption: Evidence from milk market in Japan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    9. Johanna Lena Dahlhausen & Cam Rungie & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "Value of labeling credence attributes—common structures and individual preferences," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 741-751, November.
    10. Derstappen, Rebecca & Christoph-Schulz, Inken Birte & Banse, Martin, 2021. "An empirical analysis of the export potential of pork produced under higher animal welfare standards," Thünen Working Papers 184, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    11. Schroeter, Christiane & Nicholson, Charles F. & Meloy, Margaret G., 2016. "Consumer Valuation of Organic and Conventional Milk: Does Shelf Life Matter?," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 47(3), pages 1-19, November.
    12. Kiyotaka Masuda & Shohei Kushiro, 2018. "Influence of brand equity on the price premium for private labels in fresh produce: A contingent valuation survey," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 338-350, March.
    13. Yanghao Wang & Metin Çakır, 2020. "Welfare impacts of new demand‐enhancing agricultural products: The case of Honeycrisp apples," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 445-457, May.

    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. Daniele Moro & Mario Veneziani & Paolo Sckokai & Elena Castellari, 2015. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Catechin‐enriched Yogurt: Evidence from a Stated Choice Experiment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 243-258, April.
    2. Sckokai, Paolo & Veneziani, Mario & Moro, Daniele & Castellari, Elena, 2014. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety: the case of mycotoxins in milk," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-19, April.
    3. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    4. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    5. Darren Hudson & Karina Gallardo & Terry Hanson, 2005. "Hypothetical (Non)Bias In Choice Experiments: Evidence From Freshwater Prawns," Experimental 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Alfnes, Frode & Steine, Gro, 2005. "None-of-These Bias in Stated Choice Experiments," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24761, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    8. Apurba Shee & Calum G. Turvey & Ana Marr, 2021. "Heterogeneous Demand and Supply for an Insurance‐linked Credit Product in Kenya: A Stated Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 244-267, February.
    9. Banerjee, Swagata (Ban) & Martin, Steven W. & Hudson, Darren, 2006. "A Choice-Based Conjoint Experiment with Genetically Engineered Cotton in the Mississippi Delta," 2006 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2006, Orlando, Florida 35389, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. Seidu, Ayuba & Seale, James, 2015. "Estimating Danish Consumers’ Preference for Organic Foods: Application of a Generalized Differential Demand System," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196809, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    11. Aizaki, Hideo & Sawada, Manabu & Sato, Kazuo & Kikkawa, Toshiko, 2009. "A non-compensatory choice modeling analysis of Japanese consumers’ preferences for beef: A choice experiment approach," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51656, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Iwamoto, Hiroyuki & Yamamoto, Yasutaka & Sato, Kazuo & Sawada, Manabu, 2003. "Effects of HACCP and Eco Labels on Japanese Consumers’ Choice of Milk," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57896, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Djamel Rahmani & Zein Kallas & Maria Pappa & José Maria Gil, 2019. "Are Consumers’ Egg Preferences Influenced by Animal-Welfare Conditions and Environmental Impacts?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-23, November.
    14. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    15. Kuhar, Ales & Juvancic, L., 2012. "Determinants of purchasing behaviour for organic and integrated fruits and vegetables in Slovenia," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14.
    16. Veeman, Michele M. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Hu, Wuyang, 2005. "Risk Perceptions, Social Interactions and the Influence of Information on Social Attitudes to Agricultural Biotechnology," Project Report Series 24052, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    17. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy 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, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.
    18. Wu, Linhai & Wang, Shuxian & Zhu, Dian & Hu, Wuyang & Wang, Hongsha, 2015. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food quality and safety attributes: The case of pork," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 121-136.
    19. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    20. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.

    More about this item

    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:bla:agecon:v:39:y:2008:i:3:p:339-348. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.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.